A persistent concern troubling the U.S. is that China is attempting to replace it as leader of the world order. What the U.S. strives to preserve, however, is a U.S.-led world order, which rests upon American values, its global military alliance structure and the network of international institutions centered on the United Nations.
China is excluded from this order in at least two aspects: First, China is ostracized for having a different political system; second, America's collective defense arrangements don't cover China’s security interests. Should China and the U.S. wish to avoid sliding into the so-called Thucydides trap of a head-on clash between a rising and an established power, they'll need to create a new concept of “order” that's more inclusive and can accommodate the interests and concerns of all countries, providing a common roof for all.…Bloomberg View
What Are the U.S. and China Fighting Over?
Fu Ying | chairperson of the Foreign Affairs Committee of China's National People's Congress, and of the Academic Committee of China's Institute of International Strategy at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences
11 comments:
Any country that goes democratic will be taken over by the US. It has happened in Europe. With its enormous wealth the US can corrupt anyone. Then it gets even more wealthy and then it has even more money to buy people, and so on.
Cuba could not become democratic before the slave owners would just have come back again. North Korea can only defended itself by extreme isolation, but the US isolates it anyway as punishment.
But to top it all, the US is not democratic anyway, its an oligarchy. G W Bush stole the election, imagine if this had happened in Russia.
Your can't vote the One Percent out of power. Billionaires need a 95% tax put on them for the common good. That's democracy
I totally agree. All of this is because of the doctrine of free trade. The free traders have caused two world wars and now plan another one in order to control the world. The entire western world is run by Wall Street for the bankers and Russia and China had better fall in line or they will have to be taken down.
Ann Petifor tweeted this: What happens when countries with fiscal space won't use it?. It is sort of remarkable because because Brad Setser has a Harvard/Oxford background. Those types usually don't fall too far from the tree in thinking. The orthodoxy adopted MMT ideas partially while bastardizing it to fit their thinking. By adopting the language and framing but not using the actual knowledge to create policy and institutions to reflect the knowledge, this won't end well for MMT.
this won't end well for MMT.
Disagree. MMT is out of the bag now. It may take a while, but it's not dsiappearing.
Ryan may be right, MMT is not new: Japan and Germany adopted it's principles in the 30's... As I always say Military Monetary Theory is always in use for the elites when they need it.
The idea that you can "print money" to finance economic activity is not new or revolutionary, what is revolutionary is if you put it to good use.
Neolibs and financiers will take MMT and use it to produce the income they are losing due to low growth and decaying environment of productivity and rate of investment.
Contrary to popular sayings, is not the problem of democracy that people finds out they can print money to but stuff "for free" (the discourse of the elites). The real problem is that crooked and entrenched elites in order to maintain the status quo end up printing money instead of investing it.
Expect advocacy of "helicopter money" (to banks) and more retorted ways to maintain the decaying status quo instead of empowering people in the future now that the orthodoxy have found their new toy (central bank independence being an hoax and total control of the printing press, both the media and the bill one).
Any time anyone argues other way they will scream "Zimbabwe" while they prompt CB's to buy equities, corporate debt, real estate or whatever absurdity they want.
The issue here is that it is not the 1930s. The nascent rebellion against globalism failed. The year 1945 marked the beginning of a the world we live in today, a world where there are no truly sovereign nations, and any pretext that such sovereignty exists, causes a misunderstanding of economics and geopolitical affairs.
The goal of the globalist regime has been to implement a UN mediated system of exchange similar to Keynes' Bancor. This was in fact the very first thing the United Nations discussed when formed at the infamous Bretton Woods resort.
The imbalance of payments between China and the US has to be settled, but it is too large to even use the mechanisms Keynes envisioned.
This should be obvious to anyone, as China is already no longer issuing sovereign debt denominated in their own currency, but are issuing it denominated in IMF Special Drawing Rights.
MRW said: "Disagree. MMT is out of the bag now. It may take a while, but it's not dsiappearing."
It's been out of the bag since the Nomisma of Athens, 2300 years ago.
Came out again w John Law, 200+ years ago.
Then w the American Colonies (ergo Ben Franklin's 1729 treatise on money)
A claw burst out of the bag again during the US Civil war, but the cat was stuffed back in ....
.... only to again burst out of a shredded bag, 1929-1933.
For >80 years, wealth lobbies have again been trying - quite successfully - to get people to ignore the obvious, and came darn close to stuffing cats back into bags (most successfully in the euro-zone).
So is the cat permanently out of the bag? Don't count on it. It's not over 'til the FatCats stop singing.
ps: "What Are the U.S. and China Fighting Over?"
Wrong question.
Better question: What are the Upper Looting Classes in both China & USA fighting over?
Answr: Control of us serfs, everywhere.
Don't think some or most of the elites won't turn on us & sell us out, because they will.
Roger, liked your comment: September 2, 2016 at 4:19 PM
Roger: You should add that they are want all of the serf's assets.
Yes, Gary,
They foolishly want control, now, of the Golden Goose's future assets, and are willing to strangle him to enforce compliance.
You couldn't make this up.
I keep coming back to an old, recursive, question: "Just how collectively ignorant can a gaggle of individual geniuses be?"
Don't bother answering, the answer is visible outside our windows, and on our media interfaces.
Less than the sum of the parts ... by far.
Post a Comment