Geitner wastes no time in PO'ing the Chinese

[Woof]

Originally Posted by harry chickpea

Confronting China is one of those hard decisions that has to be made. Ever since Nixon and Kissy started the sellout of the U.S. to China to reduce the near-term chances of a nuclear scenario .......

....We are at a choice point. Either we stand up now and start to reclaim our production or we continue to bleed body fluids under the Chinese steamroller and Globalization. If you turn it into a snarky political flamefest, you are a bloomin' idiot playing right into the hands of those who would sow divisiveness as a tool for eventual domination of a fragmented society. Remember the original U.S. flags, and the strength in unity slogans? They had those for a reason.

You're scared that China is going to get P---ed off because someone calls them on their attempt to take over the world? You might lose a few more bucks in your market bets? Oh gee, oh heck, oh darn. I'm so sorry <NOT!> Flippin' whiners and fearful Franks. Sounds like China exported the balls from the U.S. Some of the fraidy cats must be the idle rich, descended from the apologists for Stalin and Hitler.

It's one thing to stand up for what's right, it's another thing entirely to jump into a stupidly confrontational posture. To you, apparently, nuclear war is acceptable if we can "stick it to them", implying that the Chinese live only to hate and conquer us, it's impossible to reason with them or effectively use diplomacy ..... exactly the impression that most of the world has of us, and with some good reason.

Countries don't like to be called nasty names or have it implied that they're evil or manipulative, any more than individuals do. It gets them PO'd ..... it does that to China, to the US, and to any other nation. And remember that we are seen as a greater evil than China by probably the great majority of people on this planet, as near as I can tell.

Shouldn't Iraq ..... shouldn't the Bush Administration ..... have taught us not to try to manhandle the rest of the world? Aren't things bad enough, do we have to aggressively screw up even more? Maybe it's time to start trying to get along with other countries as much as possible instead of antagonizing them.

The only reason I can think of for Geitner to be allowed to make those remarks is to signal that Obama is not going to be a pushover or naive concerning international relations (as many around the world are speculating). I suppose there's got to be some posturing and even sabre-rattling at first, until Obama gets some respect from the hardball players.

[harry chickpea]

It's one thing to stand up for what's right, it's another thing entirely to jump into a stupidly confrontational posture. To you, apparently, nuclear war is acceptable if we can "stick it to them", implying that the Chinese live only to hate and conquer us, it's impossible to reason with them or effectively use diplomacy ..... exactly the impression that most of the world has of us, and with some good reason.

Nope, I said nothing along those lines. I said the Nixon and Kissy sold out the U.S. to avoid a nuclear scenario when the issues of Vietnam and Korea were hot on the minds of the Chinese. While I don't think that was a proper response at the time, it did serve a purpose. That purpose is much less served now that China no longer feels threatened in the same way. Kapeesh?

Are the Chinese people evil? No more than the people of the U.S. under Bush. They blindly follow the leaders or risk their careers and lives if they don't. Is the leadership of China bent on world domination? Of course. It is in the best interests of China to get to that position. Looking back at history, China was one storm away from conquering Japan, one giant mountain range from conquering westward in Europe, and still was able to create and maintain the largest empire in the world. I discount the Persians, whose empire consisted of sucking-up to potential enemies rather than consistently maintaining a posture for generations.

Countries don't like to be called nasty names or have it implied that they're evil or manipulative, any more than individuals do. It gets them PO'd ..... it does that to China, to the US, and to any other nation. And remember that we are seen as a greater evil than China by probably the great majority of people on this planet, as near as I can tell.

There are legitimate reasons why a lot of people and countries hate and fear the U.S., and there are legitimate reasons why they hate and fear the Chinese as well. The sporadic riots in our own country are self-limiting. Those in Tibet are anything but. However, that is all a perambulation around the real point, that we do need to stop playing along with the Chinese and their plan for world economic domination. That will upset them. Oh well.

What is painfully obvious about Chinese leadership is that by having a strong central power and the willingness to have policies that might have short term negative effects, while achieving long term goals, the leadership of that country has already beaten the leadership of ours at its own game, and is going into end game mode.

The economic "leadership" in the U.S. hasn't been able to think beyond the next fiscal quarter and the related bonus, and the executive leadership wasn't able to think beyond a peashooter country that was the primary target of a bunch of guys p.o.ed that they weren't allowed to finish off by Bush I. Our system has been set up by bankers and accountants and political representatives for short term gain at the expense of the future. The future is now here, and H-ll wants its paycheck.

Shouldn't Iraq ..... shouldn't the Bush Administration ..... have taught us not to try to manhandle the rest of the world? Aren't things bad enough, do we have to aggressively screw up even more? Maybe it's time to start trying to get along with other countries as much as possible instead of antagonizing them.

Excuse me? This isn't about the U.S meddling with the internal affairs of China as much as it is about the U.S. demanding certain standards for China to meddle with the U.S. The rape victim isn't manhandling a rapist when confronting them.

The only reason I can think of for Geitner to be allowed to make those remarks is to signal that Obama is not going to be a pushover or naive concerning international relations (as many around the world are speculating). I suppose there's got to be some posturing and even sabre-rattling at first, until Obama gets some respect from the hardball players.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that O has more strength than 95% of people realize. I have not seen image crafting and political savvy like his in ages. He has the potential to have the popular power of a Jack Kennedy or even a Hitler. In addition, he has gathered all his important potential political enemies very close to him, and given them some reign over what they feel would be their strong points. I guarantee that this is not a man that anyone is going to want to meddle with once he gets his new machine oiled and running smoothly.

[58robbo]

Originally Posted by Woof

It's one thing to stand up for what's right, it's another thing entirely to jump into a stupidly confrontational posture. To you, apparently, nuclear war is acceptable if we can "stick it to them", implying that the Chinese live only to hate and conquer us, it's impossible to reason with them or effectively use diplomacy ..... exactly the impression that most of the world has of us, and with some good reason.

Countries don't like to be called nasty names or have it implied that they're evil or manipulative, any more than individuals do. It gets them PO'd ..... it does that to China, to the US, and to any other nation. And remember that we are seen as a greater evil than China by probably the great majority of people on this planet, as near as I can tell.

Shouldn't Iraq ..... shouldn't the Bush Administration ..... have taught us not to try to manhandle the rest of the world? Aren't things bad enough, do we have to aggressively screw up even more? Maybe it's time to start trying to get along with other countries as much as possible instead of antagonizing them.

The only reason I can think of for Geitner to be allowed to make those remarks is to signal that Obama is not going to be a pushover or naive concerning international relations (as many around the world are speculating). I suppose there's got to be some posturing and even sabre-rattling at first, until Obama gets some respect from the hardball players.

i seriously doubt nuclear war is on the table here. we question their currency manipulation, they question conditions of bretton woods. ideally we forfeit the right to print the worlds reserve currency and they stop manipulating theirs. make no mistake this will lead to pain for us. rampant inflation for the raw materials we have taken for granted for decades. steep deflation in wages. the positives are higher employment esp informal. fat cats get brought down a notch or two. minimise the threat of terrorism...........


.......in an ideal world of course!

[shiphead]

Originally Posted by RedNC

I enjoy these kind of clueless statements. Back when these items were American made they were affordable to the masses and the workers made not only enough to purchase said items, but they were able to enjoy a living standard that was the envy to the world.

What you seem to not understand is the products aren’t any less expensive the difference is the ones that produce them are making a far greater profit at the expense of our middle class way of life.
Some how we had wonderful Christmases before all the leaded toys came from China. We can either get back to making stuff in America and continue our way of life, or continue this downward rush to a third world way of life just like China.

I can't give you anymore positive points, i love your posts.

[Woof]

Originally Posted by harry chickpea

........However, that is all a perambulation around the real point, that we do need to stop playing along with the Chinese and their plan for world economic domination. That will upset them. Oh well.

What is painfully obvious about Chinese leadership is that by having a strong central power and the willingness to have policies that might have short term negative effects, while achieving long term goals, the leadership of that country has already beaten the leadership of ours at its own game, and is going into end game mode.

The economic "leadership" in the U.S. hasn't been able to think beyond the next fiscal quarter and the related bonus, and the executive leadership wasn't able to think beyond a peashooter country that was the primary target of a bunch of guys p.o.ed that they weren't allowed to finish off by Bush I. Our system has been set up by bankers and accountants and political representatives for short term gain at the expense of the future. The future is now here, and H-ll wants its paycheck.

....Excuse me? This isn't about the U.S meddling with the internal affairs of China as much as it is about the U.S. demanding certain standards for China to meddle with the U.S. The rape victim isn't manhandling a rapist when confronting them.

We're not exactly a rape victim, we were quite enthusiastic about lifting our trade skirts. However we can find solutions that will benefit both countries. That's not likely to happen though if our leaders wag their fingers and cause China to lose face in the international community .... we could say what needs to be said in a careful, diplomatic way, and we can do the rest of it though non-public talks.

Originally Posted by 58robbo

i seriously doubt nuclear war is on the table here. we question their currency manipulation, they question conditions of bretton woods. ideally we forfeit the right to print the worlds reserve currency and they stop manipulating theirs. make no mistake this will lead to pain for us. rampant inflation for the raw materials we have taken for granted for decades. steep deflation in wages. the positives are higher employment esp informal. fat cats get brought down a notch or two. minimise the threat of terrorism...........


.......in an ideal world of course!

Yes, there will have to be change, and it might be almost as painful as if we didn't change.

[58robbo]

Originally Posted by Woof

That's not likely to happen though if our leaders wag their fingers and cause China to lose face in the international community .... we could say what needs to be said in a careful, diplomatic way, and we can do the rest of it though non-public talks.

woof, i'm not sure i'm happy with this non-public approach to solving problems. as far as i am concerned these meetings should be aired to everyone so that everyone can see what's going on. i want to know what my representatives are saying to the representatives of other countries. it would be interesting if the negotiations with saddam were aired on tv. i sincerely doubt we'd be at war today if this was the case. this veil of secrecy is inherently evil and gives those who have access to all this information an unfair advantage

[Woof]

It's an evil, but a necessary one, otherwise there would be a lot of posturing and no exploration of possibilities that would at first anger the public. There wouldn't be much of "what do you think of this possibility, would it anger your Uighurs (or our African Americans)..." if there were cameras and microphones in the faces of the diplomats discussing that stuff.

It's not that we take ACTIONS secretly ..... it's that we do some of the DISCUSSIONS secretly, until options are ready to take to the public view.

[stacy5040]

how many countries joined the central powers