tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post7361319297290362444..comments2024-03-18T19:09:18.510-04:00Comments on Mike Norman Economics: Ken Moak — China’s Communist rulers not as bad as critics claimmike normanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03296006882513340747noreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-54053382093343074162017-03-20T20:07:45.063-04:002017-03-20T20:07:45.063-04:00Seriously? You're going all sound money on me ...<i>Seriously? You're going all sound money on me now? We have an unlimited supply of money so we can afford anything we want. And we have plenty of real resources to put to use aka we're not dedicating an excessive amount (relatively) towards military spending.</i><br /><br />I am not talking about affordability. We all know that is not an issue.<br /><br />The issue is availability of real resources. Military use of real resources is rivalrous and exclusionary. This commits real resources of a nation — personnel, technology, materials, energy, etc — to use that is non-productive wrt the economy, since the output is not produced for consumption or as capital goods for investment. Those real resources are flushed as far as the domestic economy goes. <br /><br />Jobs are created but the wages do not correspond to anything produced for sale in the economy, so the funds that are spent into the economy are inflationary.<br /><br />This means that the population has fewer real resources and has to contend with inflation as a result, which means that monetary or fiscal policy will be brought to bear to reduce inflation through economic contraction.<br /><br />A military is necessary for defense but a larger military than is needed for defense is wasteful and inefficient economically.<br /><br /><i>Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.</i><br /> — Dwight D. Eisenhower, From a speech before the American Society of Newspaper Editors, April 16, 1953<br />Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-11387206063024954162017-03-20T19:44:02.923-04:002017-03-20T19:44:02.923-04:00The jumbled link above is
A War Between the U.S. ...The jumbled link above is<br /><br /><a href="http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/war-between-the-us-china-would-be-world-war-iii-might-be-19287" rel="nofollow">A War Between the U.S. and China Would Be World War III (And Might Be Hard to Shut Off)</a>Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-17390040386219082892017-03-20T19:41:48.655-04:002017-03-20T19:41:48.655-04:00I cant believe you think its ok for a single natio...<i>I cant believe you think its ok for a single nation to claim exclusive control over huge parts of the ocean. So you would be OK if the US did that in the gulf of mexico then?</i><br /><br />It's not a matter of being "being OK." The question is, are you willing to go to war over this? I am not.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-01-30/nuclear-strike-survival-for-russia-china-get-new-u-s-review" rel="nofollow">U.S. Reviews Nuclear Strike Survival for Russia and China</a><br /><br /><a href="http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/war-between-the-us-china-would-be-world-war-iii-might-be-A War Between the U.S. and China Would Be World War III (And Might Be Hard to Shut Off)http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/war-between-the-us-china-would-be-world-war-iii-might-be-19287</a>Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-19023160589900171712017-03-20T19:11:51.146-04:002017-03-20T19:11:51.146-04:00The US navy has always sailed wherever it wants in...The US navy has always sailed wherever it wants in international waters so your idea of "militarization" is just wrong. The US isnt doing anything different than it ever has, its CHina that is claiming sovereignty over the shole area. And of course they say they only want to deal with the local players because then they can push them all around, which is why the rest of the players appeal to the US because they cant counter China on their own. <br /><br />I cant believe you think its ok for a single nation to claim exclusive control over huge parts of the ocean. So you would be OK if the US did that in the gulf of mexico then?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15433129947896088098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-91223194153879611442017-03-20T19:08:39.871-04:002017-03-20T19:08:39.871-04:00"China is now ahead of the US on a PPP basis ..."China is now ahead of the US on a PPP basis and soon will surpass the US in USD value of GDP. As China pulls ahead and spends 5% of its GDP on military the US will be dwarfed. <br />"<br /><br />No shit thats why its an absolute national security necessity that we grow at 3% + per year as thats the only way we'll be able to maintain our relative position long term. Maybe China continues growing for decades, but thheir demographics look like China will more closely resemble Japan or western europe than the US. By 2100 China is projected to be at like 1.2 \1.3 billion people while the US is projected to be around 500 million, so we can close that relative gap too. IOW in 2100 its more likely than not that the US will be more powerful relative to every other country than it is right now (with the possible exception of maybe China).<br /><br />"Thankfully China doesn't think that way and will only expand its military sufficiently to gain parity with the US. But if the US engages in an arms race, then China will bury the US.<br /><br />Yeah good luck with that belief about CHina. I dont know where you people get your ideas about CHina's pacifism. Ill place my bets on the dynamism of the US model over the authoritarian dictatorship Chinese model so Im more than willing to take that bet.<br /><br />I think its laughable that you think US strategists want to "do" china (if you are using this in a military context), as there is no evdience for that.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15433129947896088098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-72061484724416363852017-03-20T19:04:11.324-04:002017-03-20T19:04:11.324-04:00I didnnt asak you about some fantasy world you hav...<i>I didnnt asak you about some fantasy world you have in your head. I asked you about claiming as your own exclusive sovereign territory enormous swathes of the ocean. This is what China is trying to do, they are not trying to set up some international system like you've described.<br /><br />So once again, we'll you please answer my simple question. Thank you.</i><br /><br />These disputes are more complicated than "sovereignty over the South China Sea."<br /><br /><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_in_the_South_China_Sea" rel="nofollow">Territorial disputes in the South China Sea</a><br /><br />One set of disputes is over who owns territory (various islands, shoals), fishing rights, undersea oil and gas, etc. These are contentious issues, but not so contentious as to go to war over. China is saying that the adjacent countries directly involved that assert claims should negotiate this without US interference. I agree with that view.<br /><br />The other dispute is with the US over militarization of the sea. The red line for China is what China perceives as US attempt to contain China militarily with the US fleet and forward bases. China well remembers the cause of Japan striking Pearl Harbor being the US embargo of Japan<br /><br /><a href="http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1930" rel="nofollow">How U.S. Economic Warfare Provoked Japan's Attack on Pearl Harbor</a> <br /> <br />China is positioning itself to thwart that by building land bases on the periphery and telling the US that it will go to war over this if that is what the US chooses.<br /><br />From what I can determine, China is not disputing the right of navigation for trade through the South China Sea. The dispute is not about right of passage through the South China Sea for ordinary purposes like trade. China uses the South China Sea itself for trade, both imports and exports. <br /><br />China does object to militarization of the area by the US fleet, and it is responding by building out this military there. Normal response, it seems to me.<br /><br />I don't think that there is a legal principle or jurisdiction capable of determining this. The US now has to decide if its is worth going war over. In my view that would be stupid. <br /><br />The reality is that China is drawing red lines and telling the US not to cross them or there will be war. The US is going to have to decide whether it wants to go to war 5000 miles away.<br /><br />The wiser course would be for the US to cease provoking China militarily, as well as other countries like Russia and Iran.<br /><br />It's not like this is an isolated case. There are other parties to disputes like this in the area. Russia and Japan have disputed ownership of some tiny island for some time and now are trying to resolve it.<br />Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-55313501651858960262017-03-20T18:19:22.835-04:002017-03-20T18:19:22.835-04:00Its not my fault thats the first time youve heard ...<i>Its not my fault thats the first time youve heard of something that obvious. Needs and capacities are intrinsically linked. </i><br /><br />China is now ahead of the US on a PPP basis and soon will surpass the US in USD value of GDP. As China pulls ahead and spends 5% of its GDP on military the US will be dwarfed. <br /><br />Thankfully China doesn't think that way and will only expand its military sufficiently to gain parity with the US. But if the US engages in an arms race, then China will bury the US.<br /><br />US strategists know this, of course, which is why they want to "do" China while they think they still can.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-64552555426390121462017-03-20T18:13:09.708-04:002017-03-20T18:13:09.708-04:00Bob-
If I were a Canadian and had the US guarante...Bob-<br /><br />If I were a Canadian and had the US guarantee I too would be pissed as that would be just damn wasteful and unnecessary. Not everyone can be Canada or switzerland. Probably not the best idea to use North Korea as an example of anything you admire, or do you think they invaded Seoul and killed all those people defensively.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15433129947896088098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-59243945437242178352017-03-20T18:06:49.559-04:002017-03-20T18:06:49.559-04:00"The size of a country's military should ..."The size of a country's military should be determined as a % of GDP? Well, that's the first time I have heard that argued. The argument is always in terms of need, not capacity."<br /><br />Its not my fault thats the first time youve heard of something that obvious. Needs and capacities are intrinsically linked. If you define your needs in such away that you need to commit 20% of you national production each year (UK with its navy was about that high for 2 centuries and their domestic people potentially suffered as a result, I say potentially because you'd have to compare it to the GDP that would have happened if they didnt have all those colonies they stole all that wealth from and the monopoly on merchant shipping. You cant do a net analysis by looking at only one side of an issue), its highly likely that you're wasting productive potential that could be used at home. But if your needs only require a modest commitment of your national resources each year like 5%, then Id say thats not unreasonable. Sure some people might prefer 2-3%, but we'd still be spending more then everyone else with that amount.<br /><br />"When the country can't afford infrastructure improvement or even needed repair and is cutting social programs, R&D, etc. to allocate available resources in completion with the private sector for military use that is not only not needed for defense but is resulting in global instability and an extinction threat?"<br /><br />Seriously? You're going all sound money on me now? We have an unlimited supply of money so we can afford anything we want. And we have plenty of real resources to put to use aka we're not dedicating an excessive amount (relatively) towards military spending.<br /><br />"I answered it already. The seas should be demilitarized. Air space, too. There should be no military or intelligence technology in space, including common & control.<br />"<br /><br />I didnnt asak you about some fantasy world you have in your head. I asked you about claiming as your own exclusive sovereign territory enormous swathes of the ocean. This is what China is trying to do, they are not trying to set up some international system like you've described.<br /><br />So once again, we'll you please answer my simple question. Thank you.<br /><br />"But the points of contention are the straits. Now the US strategy is to control the straits in order to control sea traffic. This will have to be decided internationally, but the reality is that it is likely to remain contentious in key areas like the Straits of Malacca and the Strait of Hormuz. But right now, the US reserves the right to dominate there."<br /><br />Im sure what you really meant here is that the US prevents anyone else from controlling the critical leverage points and using it against the world. As the US has deomstrated many decades of honorable stewardship of the world's oceans. Thankfully.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15433129947896088098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-51639165111922066792017-03-20T17:40:38.471-04:002017-03-20T17:40:38.471-04:00Whats funny about that Tom?
The size of a country...<i>Whats funny about that Tom?</i><br /><br />The size of a country's military should be determined as a % of GDP? Well, that's the first time I have heard that argued. The argument is always in terms of need, not capacity.<br /><br /><i>5% of GDP is not an exorbitant amount to spend on a nation's military.</i><br /><br />When the country can't afford infrastructure improvement or even needed repair and is cutting social programs, R&D, etc. to allocate available resources in completion with the private sector for military use that is not only not needed for defense but is resulting in global instability and an extinction threat?<br /><br /><i>And will you please answer the question about whether you think it is OK for countries to cordon off massive bodies of water as their sovereign territory.</i><br /><br />I answered it already. The seas should be demilitarized. Air space, too. There should be no military or intelligence technology in space, including common & control.<br /><br />If countries don't want to go there directly, then the limits should be extended gradually, e.g., the limit for international waters should be greatly extended. 200 miles has been suggested. There should also be a more extended demilitarized zone and no intelligence zone of many more hundreds of miles, say 500 miles.<br /><br />But the points of contention are the straits. Now the US strategy is to control the straits in order to control sea traffic. This will have to be decided internationally, but the reality is that it is likely to remain contentious in key areas like the <a href="http://apjjf.org/-Nazery-Khalid/2042/article.html" rel="nofollow">Straits of Malacca</a> and the <a href="http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/energy/great-energy-challenge/strait-of-hormuz/" rel="nofollow">Strait of Hormuz</a>. But right now, the US reserves the right to dominate there.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-50206191659160190912017-03-20T17:36:20.922-04:002017-03-20T17:36:20.922-04:005% of GDP with a balanced budget may be exorbitant...5% of GDP with a balanced budget may be exorbitant. I'd be upset if Canada spent that much.Peter Panhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09473311771939167712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-85460066448029957982017-03-20T17:34:06.734-04:002017-03-20T17:34:06.734-04:00Auburn,
The Swiss seem to have a clear vision of w...Auburn,<br />The Swiss seem to have a clear vision of what defense of the homeland is about. And the Finns, and probably the Russians. Even North Korea appears to be in a defensive crouch, if only out of practicality.<br /><br />Washington has watered down the distinction to less than worthless.Peter Panhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09473311771939167712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-31688201569535780342017-03-20T17:07:48.835-04:002017-03-20T17:07:48.835-04:00Bob-
When did that distinction go away?
And its...Bob-<br /><br />When did that distinction go away? <br /><br />And its a pretty crappy distinction if you think about as there is a big difference between defense of your homeland and defense of your interests which could be just about anything and waters down the term.<br /><br />Gulf war 1991 was a defensive war for the US under defense of interests doctrine<br />same with Korea and vietnam<br /><br />Hell you could even argue that both afghanistan and Iraq 2 were defensive wars as its in the best interests of the US to not have countries harboring terrorists and its definitely in our interests and the world's interest to perfectly frank for Saddam to be dead and gone.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15433129947896088098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-74622355373416320612017-03-20T17:02:47.062-04:002017-03-20T17:02:47.062-04:00Whats funny about that Tom?
5% of GDP is not an e...Whats funny about that Tom?<br /><br />5% of GDP is not an exorbitant amount to spend on a nation's military.<br /><br />And will you please answer the question about whether you think it is OK for countries to cordon off massive bodies of water as their sovereign territory.<br /><br />Is it ok for the US to do that?<br />China?<br />UK?<br />Everybody?<br />Nobody?<br /><br />Please ansewr this simple question thanks.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15433129947896088098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-14978439826230150552017-03-20T16:48:21.127-04:002017-03-20T16:48:21.127-04:00Its not our fault that a modest amount of defense ...<i>Its not our fault that a modest amount of defense spending of less then 5% of GDP allows us to have a larger military then everyone else solely by the virtue of our economic size.</i><br /><br />ROFLMAO!<br /><br />Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-74116698434829791182017-03-20T16:43:42.051-04:002017-03-20T16:43:42.051-04:00Auburn,
There used to be a distinction between def...Auburn,<br />There used to be a distinction between defensive wars and wars of aggression.Peter Panhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09473311771939167712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-58645516310707279402017-03-20T16:28:30.796-04:002017-03-20T16:28:30.796-04:00Ah yes the glorious naivete of peaceniks tjn belie...Ah yes the glorious naivete of peaceniks tjn believing hat bullies will stop if.you just ask them nicely.<br /><br />If by militarize you mean that the USA has a military then you are correct and so.does everybody else. Its not our fault that a modest<br /> amount of defense spending of less then 5% of GDP allows us to have a larger military then everyone else solely by the virtue of our economic size.<br /><br />Yeah I'll pass on leaving the world to.its own devices as history has shown again and again that vacuums will be filled and we may not like the filler.<br /><br />Thinking about your position very carefully I'm actually sure you're right Isis would go away if we just got rid of our military and they would just give all the land back and respect the religious differences of.others.<br /><br /> Come to think of it North Korea can definitely be trusted. The Rwandan definitely didn't kill and genocide almost a million of those of people. Milosevic would have stopped murdering all those Muslims just asked nicely. Hitler and Stalin were both of great guys and they would have definitely listen if only we didn't have a military.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15433129947896088098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-50095030205687581662017-03-20T13:58:39.560-04:002017-03-20T13:58:39.560-04:00Personally I go with option numeral 4 which one do...<i>Personally I go with option numeral 4 which one do you support tom cuz it's not entirely clear right now which of these options you support</i><br /><br />I subscribe to option 5 — complete demilitarization. <br /><br />he US has militarized the sea and air and now is seeking to control both space and cyberspace, in its effort to dominate the world. This is the underlying problem. <br /><br />The US has to back off global hegemony, end NATO and Asian military alliances and focus on national defense instead. The US should go back to a draft and conscript military and end the policy of a standing army and foreign bases for forward projection of power.<br /><br />The major powers causing global destabilization are the US, UK and France. They need to get over neoliberalism, neo-imperialism, and neocolonialism and focus on their own domestic agendas instead of exporting instability.<br /><br />The militaries need to be downsized, the intelligence services ended, and the military-industrial complex turned to civilian use.<br /><br />Not to do so is the path to instability in which the potential for nuclear conflict is high. The present course is insanity, and it doesn't address the actual problems that the US and world are facing, none of which can be resolved militarily.<br /><br />The first step in this would be the US and allies withdrawing from proximity to other countries red lines and drawing their own red lines in accordance with the need to defend the homeland.<br /><br />Having seen what this behavior led to in Europe, the US founding fathers warned against what the US is now fully engaged in.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-41168376094599538842017-03-20T13:40:46.579-04:002017-03-20T13:40:46.579-04:00I'm interested to know if you have acquaintanc...<i>I'm interested to know if you have acquaintances who have chosen to live in South Korea.</i><br /><br />No. Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-4954081680673285942017-03-20T11:47:26.040-04:002017-03-20T11:47:26.040-04:00These people are not "very wealthy."
I ...<i>These people are not "very wealthy."</i><br /><br />I should clarify. I would consider living in China if I did not have to work - in other words, if I were financially secure. Your friends have adapted culturally and have built family connections, which is an entirely different matter. They could be working in factories and living in poverty, yet still choose to remain.<br /><br />Belize is a country I would move to in order to work. There are other countries on my "list", but China is not one of them. If I were financially secure, cultural and political factors would not concern me as much.<br /><br />I'm interested to know if you have acquaintances who have chosen to live in South Korea.Peter Panhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09473311771939167712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-45630574068232971402017-03-20T11:34:52.428-04:002017-03-20T11:34:52.428-04:00Well personally Tom i certainly don't hate the...Well personally Tom i certainly don't hate the Chinese. IM Just an intellectually honest person by NatuRE So because I would reject United States claiming the Gulf of Mexico as our exclusive Sovereign territory I applied the exact same standards and logic to myself and my country as I do to the Chinese.<br /><br /> So you can either think it's okay if America was to do this exact same thing in the Gulf of Mexico but it's not OK for China. Which would be hypocritical.<br /><br /> You can say that China should be able to claim the South China Sea as their Sovereign territory but you disagree that the Americans should be able to do the same to the Gulf of Mexico. AlSo hypocritical and dishonest.<br /><br /> You can say that both China and the USA deserve to be able to claim these giant water bodies as their Sovereign exclusive territories which would just be a recipe for carving up the oceans and a disaster in my opinion.<br /><br /> Or you can hold the position that neither China United States or any other countries should be able to claim exclusive Sovereign use and control over enormous water bodies.<br /><br /> Personally I go with option numeral 4 which one do you support tom cuz it's not entirely clear right now which of these options you supportAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15433129947896088098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-3717582929030960992017-03-20T11:03:16.590-04:002017-03-20T11:03:16.590-04:00So what Tom, just because something makes a countr...<i>So what Tom, just because something makes a country uncomfortable doesnt mean they get to gobble it up as sovereign territory. What they want in the SCS is a scam and they shouldnt be allowed to get away with it. Just like we shouldnt let Russia or the US or Saddam (1991) conquer\annex territory through intimidation and force we shouldnt let China either.<br /><br />Why bring up the phillippines? We are not talking about 100 years ago were talking about today. They are irrelevant. If I wanted to talk about our pasts, I would bring up the worst possible history that shows just the level of terror the CHinese are willing go to and tolerate aka the cultural revolution. But I didnt bring up what happened in the 50s and 60s because it doesnt matter to the quewstion about the south china sea. Just like phillippines.</i><br /><br />Same type of thinking on the Chinese side for as good or better reasons from their POV. They hate the West as much as the West hates them.This is a recipe for war, which neither side really wants other than the hardliners who want a go at each other. The American hardliners because USA, USA, USA, and the Chinese hardliners to take revenge on the West for a century of humiliation. <br /><br />The good thing is that it would cost both countries dearly and so the more level-heads are restraining the hardliners, as evidence by the generally positive visit of Tillerson and the Chinese reception. <br /><br />But the US approaching the red lines of Russia, China, and Iran simultaneously, which each of those countries views as preparation for attack on all three, is a harbinger of WWIII, a war that would engulf Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. Throw NK in the mix, too. Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-73113319360266207282017-03-20T10:45:27.310-04:002017-03-20T10:45:27.310-04:00If I were very wealthy, choosing to live in China ...<i>If I were very wealthy, choosing to live in China might be an option. But as an ordinary worker/citizen, I would not want to live there. It would not be in my self-interest. How about you?</i><br /><br />Children of several friends of mine took jobs in China in US companies owing to the opportunity to start at a level that would take years to reach in the US. They married there, had (bilingual) kids, and are settled in. My friends, who have visited them in China, say they like living there very much. One guy just came back to the US to check out colleges here for his oldest daughter, who will be starting college in the fall.<br /><br />Another friend of mine decided to teach English as a second language there and in his sixties met the love of his life.<br /><br />So I get positive accounts. <br /><br />Another friend who goes there to teach university level courses on occasion in a six week stretch in Beijing hates the pollution but otherwise likes it.<br /><br />Another friend of mine's sister is a designer that works in Shanghai. She loves it there. She also has a condo in Chiang Mai, Thailand where she vacations.<br /><br />These people are not "very wealthy."Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-10075763564679246922017-03-20T07:42:58.526-04:002017-03-20T07:42:58.526-04:00"China has claimed those boundaries for centu..."China has claimed those boundaries for centuries. What many don't understand is the strategic significance for China of those islands and reefs. They hem China in and make China's coast vulnerable. This is completely unacceptable for China strategically and China has declared that this is a red line for them and they will fight over it now if the US pushes over their red lines."<br /><br />So what Tom, just because something makes a country uncomfortable doesnt mean they get to gobble it up as sovereign territory. What they want in the SCS is a scam and they shouldnt be allowed to get away with it. Just like we shouldnt let Russia or the US or Saddam (1991) conquer\annex territory through intimidation and force we shouldnt let China either.<br /><br />Why bring up the phillippines? We are not talking about 100 years ago were talking about today. They are irrelevant. If I wanted to talk about our pasts, I would bring up the worst possible history that shows just the level of terror the CHinese are willing go to and tolerate aka the cultural revolution. But I didnt bring up what happened in the 50s and 60s because it doesnt matter to the quewstion about the south china sea. Just like phillippines.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15433129947896088098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-80447760827381932352017-03-20T02:59:49.043-04:002017-03-20T02:59:49.043-04:00" I won't touch the NYT or the WA Po with..." I won't touch the NYT or the WA Po with a ten foot pole. They are toxic."<br />Agreed, but don't forget CNN, Fox, ABC, CBS, and NBC. After the lies they told in the election I can't even believe that they are telling the truth about the weather, which to a large extent they are the weather news. I remember the days that the weather was never discussed on the evening news, now that is their main topic.GLHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02791463748430739099noreply@blogger.com