Trump just pissed off Beijing in a major way

[Skroe]

I suppose that's where you and I part company in our opinions. I do not care for using my taxes and the blood of US servicemen and women in some project to democratize the world. I am primarily concerned with ourselves. W's " The survival and success of freedom at home depends increasingly on the survival and success of freedom abroad" is crap.

I prefer " She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own." --- Pres. John Quincy Adams

This is not inconsistent with how I said we should confront China. Taiwanese independence ( IMO) is of no significance to the US. But the situation is an opportunity to demonstrate that when the US does make a pronouncement on such matters, that is our final word.

Roman emperors would sell their souls to have wielded the power the US possesses. They would be utterly baffled by our unwillingness to use it to establish a reputation.

Roman Emperors also dramatically overstretched the military capabilities of their Empire and, when it ran out of worlds to conquer, threw it into a protracted decline. And a few centuries later, the Byzantine's adventures in Persia left them utterly depleted and unprepared for the coming of the Caliphate, that in time was their end.

I think you misunderstood me. I am not a neocon. I am not advocating sending the US military on global adventures to spread freedom, though I do think it is essential that the United States in general and the President of the United States in particular evangalize human freedom around the world and construct the economic, security and political structures ensure its perpetuation and defend against tyranny. NATO, the WTO, the UN, the World Bank, the IMF... they are all elements of a vast machine. A simple analogy is this: in the President of the United States is the leader of the country because the office is assigned that power, while the Roman Emperor was emperor because accumulated an assortment of offices and titles that in summation, made him emperor.

The world's political organization has no analog for the form. The latter is essentially the US. It's power flows from the privileged position it occupies in various forums, with it's alliances and it's economy... all together, the gestalt, creates and sustains American power as we know, and we have a responsibility to use that power to promote our interests, with often dovetail with sustaining a liberal capitalist free trading international order.

Twice in the twentieth century the United States sought to isolate itself from global affairs, content at minding our own shop. And twice we were dragged into it, because the danger to our interests became so profound. If we were to retreat from our role from the world, it will happen again. And we will get dragged into it, again.

The Founders, frankly, have little to offer us on this topic. They could never have imagined a world like this. "No Entangling Alliances" made sense when the international security situation (modern term) was really, the then current state of the perpetual European war. But in the two centuries hence those wars spiraled into the most destructive wars the world has ever known, and became global in scope. In this world, holding these titles, being surrounded by powerful friends, and having an arsenal of superweapons is a damn better way to ensure the perpetual protection of our interests then retreating into fortress America and telling the rest of the world to fuck off. It didn't work twice before when the world was far less interconnected than it is now. And there is no reason to think it'll work next time.

[Bryntrollian]

I'm sure Trump was only inquiring about establishing a new line of luxurious Trump hotels in the region and has no hopes of altering the " One China " policy.

[Nadiru]

Hurt us economically. Stop buying U.S. cars and Apple products, tell Boeing to take a hike and order from Airbus, close manufacturing factories that are U.S. based, stop any enforcement of U.S. intellectual property claims, etc. etc. etc. Remove half a trillion from our economy and tell me everything will be fine.

Not to the level that the US can retaliate economically against them, and while you may think Trump is daft, I expect you have a higher opinion of the committee which runs China. Removing half a trillion from the US economy could mean everything or very little depending on what sector it's getting pulled from, but China is much more narrowly focused and removing half a trillion from them is more likely to spell disaster for the Chinese economy.

[corebit]

Hurt us economically. Stop buying U.S. cars and Apple products, tell Boeing to take a hike and order from Airbus, close manufacturing factories that are U.S. based, stop any enforcement of U.S. intellectual property claims, etc. etc. etc. Remove half a trillion from our economy and tell me everything will be fine.

And that's how China continues to "grab the U.S. by the pussy" (to borrow Trump's favorite quote). They know U.S. is too afraid to be hurt economically so they continue to up the ante in their Pacific island adventures, and as evidenced with the Senkaku and Spratley isles saga, the U.S. responds with only a whimper.

[May90]

Aside from Trump seeing everything as a business project and being concerned only with profit... I think the West has been acting pretty low, building relations with the biggest totalitarian state in the world, and refusing to even officially recognize one of the several democracies in the region as a sovereign state.

China depends on the US strongly, it isn't going anywhere. Taiwan, however, is weak and needs support, and also has quite a lot to offer on the electronic market. It is a reasonable act, expanding the foreign relations this way.

[Nadiru]

Moreover I'm deeply disturbed by the implications of an America that turns away from the meritocracy we've attempted build over the last 30 years. Nobody should want their child to work a factor just like they did. They should want them to become a software engineer and create the next killer app. Or start a new business that goes public. The America of Bernie Sanders and of the people who voted for Trump because they feel left behind is devoid of ambition and embraces mediocrity (remember Trump's "I Love the uneducated, as if that is something to be proud of"). I get the push back against "elitism", but again, the people feeling that way are dead wrong for thinking like that. What is the essence of the "land of opportunity" with our bootstraps national mythology if in the end, one does not "become" the elite themselves?

It comes down to what kind of country you want. I refuse to accept a mediocre one. One built around the average. We should do whatever it takes to ensure the mediocre, the average, have every avenue for advancement. But locking in "the way things are" and becoming so risk adverse we fear radical technological and economic change is ultimately self defeating, and we'll be alone in the world for doing it. To put it another way, right now a good chunk of the world works for Americans. If we went down the Bernie Sanders route, in a few decades time, we'll be working for them. And they will be living better than us.

People have to be capable of more than mediocrity. While your position is aspirational, it's also aspirational in the very obvious manner of someone with >115 IQ. As lofty a goal as a nation of programmers or other high-skilled labor is to strive for, it's not a viable option for large swathes of the country, regardless of whether you believe intelligence is socioeconomically or genetically inherited. Unskilled labor is a necessary component of the economy. Not a prestigious or even particularly really important part of the economy, but important because it maintains the system for the people who are too stupid or too broke to survive in a postindustrial economy.

Is this sort of policy essentially welfare? Yes, it is, and most insultingly to you, it's welfare built on the backs of intelligent people so dumb people can thrive. But it's welfare without an inflationary pressure and it has considerably fewer negative externalities than an army of underemployed welfare recipients collecting a paycheck with nothing to keep them occupied.

[Lionhearte0]

Exactly and when China decides enough is enough already USA will crash and burn from within due to all those unfunded taxcuts that had to be financed with loans from China

U.S. needs China as much as China needs us. They aren't going to do anything. Their economy is more unstable than ours, by a mile. Set off a spark and their entire economy will implode over night.

[Bullettime]

Not to the level that the US can retaliate economically against them, and while you may think Trump is daft, I expect you have a higher opinion of the committee which runs China. Removing half a trillion from the US economy could mean everything or very little depending on what sector it's getting pulled from, but China is much more narrowly focused and removing half a trillion from them is more likely to spell disaster for the Chinese economy.

The concern is that if the US backs out of the TPP, which is Trump's plan, then China moves forward to not being as dependent on the US. China is setting up to be a massive manufacturing and economic power if we allow them to.

This would mean tensions would be a bit higher as they would then be moving to have more market power to fuck us than vice versa.

If you want to deal with China, you have to man the fuck up and be aggressive about it instead of pussy footing around. You play ball or go all in as shit like being passive aggressive and Trump spitting in their eye ultimately plays out in their favor.

[Nadiru]

The concern is that if the US backs out of the TPP, which is Trump's plan, then China moves forward to not being as dependent on the US. China is setting up to be a massive manufacturing and economic power if we allow them to.

This would mean tensions would be a bit higher as they would then be moving to have more market power to fuck us than vice versa.

If you want to deal with China, you have to man the fuck up and be aggressive about it instead of pussy footing around. You play ball or go all in as shit like being passive aggressive and Trump spitting in their eye ultimately plays out in their favor.

China's been trying to reduce its dependence on the US since the mid-2000s. It's been slow going, because the US consumer market is truly unique in that it has a high level of demand and the ability to pay for its shit on time.

[Skroe]

And that's how China continues to "grab the U.S. by the pussy" (to borrow Trump's favorite quote). They know U.S. is too afraid to be hurt economically so they continue to up the ante in their Pacific island adventures, and as evidenced with the Senkaku and Spratley isles saga, the U.S. responds with only a whimper.

It's worth noting that the Obama Administration responds with a whimper. Because Barack Obama, Susan Rice and Ben Rhodes are delusional people who believe insane, stupid and fundamentally wrong things about America's role in the world.

The US Foreign Policy Establishment, the State Department, the Pentagon, Congress, and the US Navy has been going nuts over the South China Sea situation for years, and have been demanding aggressive counter-action, again, for years. That the Navy was allowed to do Freedom of Navigation Operations this year came after the Navy was basically being insubordinate in Congressional testimony and putting the Obama Administration in a difficult decision. But even then, Susan Rice put in place a gag order as to what the services could say with regards to China being threatening to American ships and allies in the region.

http://www.realcleardefense.com/arti...om_109277.html

It's a crazy situation really. This whole "whimper" thing is yet another instance of Barack Obama acting like a mediator between America and the rest of the world, hamstringing this country from defending its interests in the name of some wider principle, rather than, as he should be, the leading ADVOCATE for America's interests.

Thank God his crap Presidency is at an end. It's a shame though the follow up act is likely to make it look like the height of competence.

[Nadiru]

It's a crazy situation really. This whole "whimper" thing is yet another instance of Barack Obama acting like a mediator between America and the rest of the world, hamstringing this country from defending its interests in the name of some wider principle, rather than, as he should be, the leading ADVOCATE for America's interests.

Thank God his crap Presidency is at an end. It's a shame though the follow up act is likely to make it look like the height of competence.

Out of curiosity, what would Trump actually have to do to...well, accept him isn't a valid option and you've made it very clear that due to the circumstances of his election he'll never be your President. But what would he have to do for you to admit that he's not just a piker?

[Macaquerie]

U.S. needs China as much as China needs us. They aren't going to do anything. Their economy is more unstable than ours, by a mile. Set off a spark and their entire economy will implode over night.

The thing about China is that the gap between rich and poor is so massive that if their entire economy collapsed and living standards returned to what they were under Mao, the vast majority of the population wouldn't even notice.

[Berengil]

The Founders, frankly, have little to offer us on this topic. They could never have imagined a world like this. "No Entangling Alliances" made sense when the international security situation (modern term) was really, the then current state of the perpetual European war. But in the two centuries hence those wars spiraled into the most destructive wars the world has ever known, and became global in scope. In this world, holding these titles, being surrounded by powerful friends, and having an arsenal of superweapons is a damn better way to ensure the perpetual protection of our interests then retreating into fortress America and telling the rest of the world to fuck off. It didn't work twice before when the world was far less interconnected than it is now. And there is no reason to think it'll work next time.

There is 1 reason, thanks to Oppenheimer. Nuclear weapons represent as great a paradigm shift as fire did the first time humans learned to make it on our own.

It wouldn't just be " Fuck off and leave us alone. It would be " Fuck off and leave us alone, or be nuked."

Nuclear weapons are a fundamental game changer. If an inward-focused US threatened to defend itself with nuclear weapons, others would do the math and say "Yeah, not worth it."

[Deleted]

There will come the day when the last bastion of Communism will burn.

[Berengil]

People have to be capable of more than mediocrity. While your position is aspirational, it's also aspirational in the very obvious manner of someone with >115 IQ. As lofty a goal as a nation of programmers or other high-skilled labor is to strive for, it's not a viable option for large swathes of the country, regardless of whether you believe intelligence is socioeconomically or genetically inherited. Unskilled labor is a necessary component of the economy. Not a prestigious or even particularly really important part of the economy, but important because it maintains the system for the people who are too stupid or too broke to survive in a postindustrial economy.

Is this sort of policy essentially welfare? Yes, it is, and most insultingly to you, it's welfare built on the backs of intelligent people so dumb people can thrive. But it's welfare without an inflationary pressure and it has considerably fewer negative externalities than an army of underemployed welfare recipients collecting a paycheck with nothing to keep them occupied.

Very well said. More scholarly than I thought to put it.

/liked

[corebit]

It's worth noting that the Obama Administration responds with a whimper. Because Barack Obama, Susan Rice and Ben Rhodes are delusional people who believe insane, stupid and fundamentally wrong things about America's role in the world.

The US Foreign Policy Establishment, the State Department, the Pentagon, Congress, and the US Navy has been going nuts over the South China Sea situation for years, and have been demanding aggressive counter-action, again, for years. That the Navy was allowed to do Freedom of Navigation Operations this year came after the Navy was basically being insubordinate in Congressional testimony and putting the Obama Administration in a difficult decision. But even then, Susan Rice put in place a gag order as to what the services could say with regards to China being threatening to American ships and allies in the region.

http://www.realcleardefense.com/arti...om_109277.html

It's a crazy situation really. This whole "whimper" thing is yet another instance of Barack Obama acting like a mediator between America and the rest of the world, hamstringing this country from defending its interests in the name of some wider principle, rather than, as he should be, the leading ADVOCATE for America's interests.

Thank God his crap Presidency is at an end. It's a shame though the follow up act is likely to make it look like the height of competence.

I agree with most of your points, however I think electing Hillary would have meant simply a continuation of Obama's spineless foreign policy. I don't like Trump's many positions including getting cozy with Russia, but with regards to China I am at a "wait and see" approach. He doesn't strike me as a Ron Paul-style non-interventionist, and despite his erratic style, it could be the first time the U.S. actually gets off its butt and stand up against China for once after all these decades of kowtowing.

[Skroe]

Out of curiosity, what would Trump actually have to do to...well, accept him isn't a valid option and you've made it very clear that due to the circumstances of his election he'll never be your President. But what would he have to do for you to admit that he's not just a piker?

What do you mean by 'piker'?

[Kaleredar]

I'm pretty sure Trump thought he was congratulating the president of China.

[Nadiru]

I agree with most of your points, however I think electing Hillary would have meant simply a continuation of Obama's spineless foreign policy. I don't like Trump's many positions including getting cozy with Russia, but with regards to China I am at a "wait and see" approach. He doesn't strike me as a Ron Paul-style non-interventionist, and despite his erratic style, it could be the first time the U.S. actually gets off its butt and stand up against China for once after all these decades of kowtowing.

I'm on the other side of it. Clinton would've been a repudiation of the Obama do-nothing policies, but I think Clinton is overly-focused on the junior threat of Russia, a threat that's on a serious downward trend and will be irrelevant by 2040. I feared she would do far too little in Asia, a region of military pygmies and city-states being dominated by two large powers and one medium power, while being far too worried about Europe, a region containing most of the G8 nations and the most robust, largest security alliance on the planet.

- - - Updated - - -

What do you mean by 'piker'?

Small-time, unable to see the big picture, that sort of thing.

[Mormolyce]

There will come the day when the last bastion of Communism will burn.

So you haven't managed to catch up to 1989 yet?

Explains the hair.