Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not getting crazy here and saying "Independence for Taiwan!" or "China F you!" All I'm saying is that I don't think a phone call or a few is or would or SHOULD be a big deal.
I just think it's funny that it's totally cool if we sell Taiwan weapons, trade with them, and maintain what's essentially an unofficial embassy there with employees from the State Department, but our president can't directly speak with Taiwan's president because at the same time that we do all these other things with Taiwan, we're not supposed to recognize its existence because China is more important and we can't **** off China. And yes this is all to appease China who threatens to invade Taiwan if they dare shoot for true official independence (if they even want to). Simultaneously we arm Taiwan so they have a chance at defending themselves, which is also a move intended to act as somewhat of a warning to China and funny enough is an attempt at keeping the peace. We got ourselves in a complicated mess didn't we? All because these two just can't agree on sovereignty.
I have seen plenty of articles in the past couple days where people who know what they're talking about are claiming this really isn't a big deal. I have also seen ones claiming this is very bad but that just shows that opinions are divided. It's probably far too early to tell what this actually means but I for one don't doubt that Trump knew exactly what he was doing. I'm sure many disagree.
The fact that the Chinese foreign minister has lodged a formal protest with the United States government over the matter makes it a big deal.
You people are proud of the fact that we have a loose cannon about to run the country. The rest of the world and three quarters of the nation are not. But of course with the army of idiots running the asylum the reply will be, "Screw the rest of the world, we don't need them."
I didn't say go to war with China. I responded to some other poster who said a war with China would crush its economy as if there would be no far-reaching effects in global economy. If China's economy goes into a recession, our economy probably goes into recession too.
Who cares? Nobody has yet explained why a trade deficit is inherently a bad thing. Is it because the word "deficit" has a negative connotation while the word "surplus" has a positive one? I think the reason for people thinking trade deficits are just horrible really is that simple-minded.
The U.S. is a service-based economy. Engineers do not produce goods. Medical researchers do not produce goods. Architects do not produce goods. Software engineers do not produce goods. Most people do not do work that involves packing something into a box and sending it to a store. So no, we are not going to run trade surpluses with most nations. But FWIW, we *do* run trade surpluses with Brazil, which has some of the most protectionist trade policies of all our partners.
America has a trade deficit because we are the richest country on the planet and we have all the money and buy a lot of stuff. Our poorest people have more than most country's middle class.
That's not a bad thing, having all the money to buy whatever we want.
The U.S. is a service-based economy. Engineers do not produce goods. Medical researchers do not produce goods. Architects do not produce goods. Software engineers do not produce goods. Most people do not do work that involves packing something into a box and sending it to a store. So no, we are not going to run trade surpluses with most nations. But FWIW, we *do* run trade surpluses with Brazil, which has some of the most protectionist trade policies of all our partners.
LOL. Engineers also don't have jobs once the manufacturing plants are gone.
Such nonsense, and now thoroughly discredited economic theory is why 1 in 5 adults in the USA are on foodstamps. It makes absolutely no sense at all to tax what's left of the economy to pay others not to work.
Thankfully Trump won the election based on getting rid of this idiocy.
Chinese politicians are doing what politicians everywhere do. Performing for their audience. Taiwan has for all practical purposes been an independent country for decades. The Chinese leadership knows that and has done nothing to change that. In practice, there is little they can do TO change that. They lack amphibious capability to take Taiwan. So they perform for their people and put on a good little show about something they are powerless to change. Little different than Hillary Clinton and Jill Stein with their faux recount efforts. It puts on a good show for the ignorant masses, but means nothing. Much like the talking heads on CNN and NBC. Face the Nation this morning was an embarrassing joke.
It is time US leadership quit playing the part of low-level actors in this schrade. It is time we recognize the independent, democratically elected nation of Taiwan as just that. It's time to recognize a free democracy, rather than supporting a Communist bully.
I'm not getting crazy here and saying "Independence for Taiwan!" or "China F you!" All I'm saying is that I don't think a phone call or a few is or would or SHOULD be a big deal.
Well, it's not about what you think is a big deal. China does not want Taiwan to get any ideas that the international community would back Taiwanese sovereignty. And this is an extremely hot button political issue in China. A phone call with Taiwan is obviously not going to provoke WWIII, but growing Taiwanese belligerence presents a real threat to the Chinese internal domestic situation, which in turn presents a real threat to the global economy. I think what's lost in this discussion is that China has its own bevy of bloodthirsty war hawks who would have no problem crushing Taiwan at the first signs of real trouble. And you have a population that could be easily whipped up into a nationalistic fervor that would be OK with that. It would be like a Trump rally to the one billionth power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415
I just think it's funny that it's totally cool if we sell Taiwan weapons, trade with them, and maintain what's essentially an unofficial embassy there with employees from the State Department, but our president can't directly speak with Taiwan's president because at the same time that we do all these other things with Taiwan, we're not supposed to recognize its existence because China is more important and we can't **** off China.
Apparently, your future president had no problem criticizing the same policy, which has its own set of problems. But it's already been explained why weapons sales (and we sell them defensive weapons, btw) angers China but not to the extent that formal recognition would.
And you said before that you don't think the U.S. doesn't formally recognize Taiwan because it is "afraid" of Taiwan, but now you're saying that "we're not supposed to recognize its existence because...we can't **** China off." It seems like you're contradicting yourself.
The U.S. is not worried about offending China like it's some bearded Millennial with an overly sensitive ego. The U.S. is worried about dropping a match into a powder keg. It's the same thing with Kashmir and the dispute between Pakistan and India.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415
I have seen plenty of articles in the past couple days where people who know what they're talking about are claiming this really isn't a big deal. I have also seen ones claiming this is very bad but that just shows that opinions are divided. It's probably far too early to tell what this actually means but I for one don't doubt that Trump knew exactly what he was doing. I'm sure many disagree.
Part of the problem with this forum is that people don't really have much of an interest in policy subject matter and only educate themselves by reading a few articles on the issues du jour. So yeah, Taiwan is in the spotlight now, so people will read the Wiki page on Taiwan along with some other articles, and I'm sure when FARC becomes relevant again, people will read 3 articles on that, and then when the Uighurs become relevant again, people will read a few articles on that. I doubt anyone in this forum was concerned too much about Chen Shui Bian's recall in 2007.
I didn't say go to war with China. I responded to some other poster who said a war with China would crush its economy as if there would be no far-reaching effects in global economy. If China's economy goes into a recession, our economy probably goes into recession too.
It would be bad for the world and both countries economically of course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
Who cares? Nobody has yet explained why a trade deficit is inherently a bad thing. Is it because the word "deficit" has a negative connotation while the word "surplus" has a positive one? I think the reason for people thinking trade deficits are just horrible really is that simple-minded.
The U.S. is a service-based economy. Engineers do not produce goods. Medical researchers do not produce goods. Architects do not produce goods. Software engineers do not produce goods. Most people do not do work that involves packing something into a box and sending it to a store. So no, we are not going to run trade surpluses with most nations. But FWIW, we *do* run trade surpluses with Brazil, which has some of the most protectionist trade policies of all our partners.
To answer this question recall that the trade deficit means that the United States is buying more goods and services than it sells abroad (imports exceed exports). Just like an individual or a firm needs credit to spend more than its income, the trade deficit requires financing by foreigners. Foreigners finance the trade deficit by lending to Americans or by investing in the United States (buying property or businesses).
We still produce goods. We export 1.3 trillion dollars a year, about 10% less than China does. Difference being we import a lot more than they do.
Duh, we still produce goods, but we produce a lot of high tech, sophisticated stuff. We are not producing the trinkets that we buy from the undeveloped world.
A weak currency is not per se bad. I know you don't know what you're talking about when you simply offer an article as your explanation as opposed to using your own words (as I'm doing now). A weaker currency is actually a good thing for your manufacturing sector because the goods you export become more affordable to the rest of the world (which was why China was devaluing the renmimbi). Having a strong dollar, rising exports, and a protectionist set of trade policies are all incompatible with each other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackwinkelman
To answer this question recall that the trade deficit means that the United States is buying more goods and services than it sells abroad (imports exceed exports). Just like an individual or a firm needs credit to spend more than its income, the trade deficit requires financing by foreigners. Foreigners finance the trade deficit by lending to Americans or by investing in the United States (buying property or businesses).
Thank you for that 7th Grade explanation of trade deficits.
Let me ask you a few questions. Were you the smartest person at your high school? Were you a National Merit Finalist? Were you a member of Mu Alpha Theta? Did you score higher than 1520 on the SAT? How did you do on SAT IIs and AP/IB exams? Did you gain admission to a Top 5 college/university? Did you graduate with Latin honors? Have you published in prestigious peer-reviewed journals?
So you have a lot of people working in policy who meet all of the above criteria. Think about that for a second.
Bajan, I did NOT say that the US is afraid of Taiwan (that would be ridiculous) OR China, so I am not contradicting myself. Maybe you're confusing me with someone else? I have not even used the word "afraid" to refer to any country in this conversation, yet you've credited it to me twice now. I have not said any such a thing nor would I because I don't think the US is afraid of either.
And you are AGAIN trying to insult my intelligence just because I disagree with your position. Please, don't try to deny it again.
Bajan, I did NOT say that the US is afraid of Taiwan (that would be ridiculous) OR China, so I am not contradicting myself. Maybe you're confusing me with someone else?
Did you not say that the U.S. does not want to **** China off?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415
And you are AGAIN trying to insult my intelligence just because I disagree with your position. Please, don't try to deny it again.
Being intelligent and being informed are two different things.
Bernie Sanders is an intelligent guy (judging by the fact he gained admission to the University of Chicago). He is, however, generally uninformed as it relates to U.S. foreign policy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have not even used the word "afraid" to refer to any country in this conversation, yet you've credited it to me twice now. I have not said any such a thing nor would I because I don't think the US is afraid of either. 