These differences are often not understood or appreciated by the US and this leads to disappointment, pressure and even conflict.
There is more than one way to be free, and imposing a particular view of liberalism is illiberal.
An economics, investment, trading and policy blog with a focus on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). We seek the truth, avoid the mainstream and are virulently anti-neoliberalism.
China’s resilient authoritarianism – or at least Beijing’s continued adherence to a distinctively non-Western polity – has for the moment refuted the democratic “end of history.” Still, the first part of Fukuyama’s polarizing thesis, the liberal part in the “liberal democracy” declaration, has been celebrated by political pundits around the world as the irreversible path of humanity.
The term “Chimerica” has been the epitome of the wishful thinking of liberal intellectuals around the world who deterministically infer that U.S. and Chinese economic interdependence ensures a peaceful hegemonic transition. According to this argument, as both Washington and Beijing engage in a positive sum economic relationship and enhance their material position ad infinitum, the Gates of Janus will be sealed by two prosperous societies who prefer commerce to conquest; consumption to cannons; goods to gunboats. Neither American nor China will dominate the 21st century the liberals ardently declare. Instead, Chimerica – a hybrid state – governed by the invisible hand of the market or by the very visible hands of cosmopolitan business elites will create perpetual prosperity and peace.
Realists have long challenged this liberal orthodoxy. China and the U.S. are on a collision course, they argue, and both states engage in comprehensive balancing – economic, military, technological and diplomatic. Chimerica is a phantom that defies reality and fails to observe the unabated securitization trend in Sino-U.S. relations, realists declare.
Testing the validity of the Chimerica thesis demands a thorough investigation of the three liberal indicators, the fertilizers of interdependence between China and the United States; that is, the very forces that annihilate the nation state, turn boundaries obsolete, and dictate policies based on interstate rather than intrastate conditions. What are these indicators? Dependence on the Chinese market, supply chain dependence, and cosmopolitan business elites.
Chuck Spinney writes:
Killing the Hog (II)(reprinted with permission)
"President Obama’s sacking of defense secretary Chuck Hagel began a particularly messy ‘end-of-administration’ kabuki dance in Versailles on the Potomac. This link will take you to a very insightful interview explaining the nature of this spectacle.
Ian Masters (of the excellent radio show Background Briefing) talks to Pierre Sprey* about the third-tier selection of the industry-friendly Ashton Carter to replace Hagel. But there is much more. The discussion quickly spins off into a wider discussion of the dysfunctional politics of the American Empire and the permanent war economy, before it ends with a brilliant discourse on the Air Force’s plan to kill the A-10 Warthog.
Sprey knows what he is talking about. He understands Pentagon politics as well as anyone I ever met. An engineer and mathematician, a highly accomplished bureaucratic infighter, Sprey was a principal member of the design team that over came massive Air Force resistance to create the highly successful F-16 and A-10 jet-fighter bombers in the late 1960s and early 1970s (see Robert Coram’s, Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War).
In the case of the A-10, Sprey was the both the inspiration and guiding force in its conception and design. He was also the key strategist the bureaucratic battles to stop the Air Force from killing the program — battles that began in late 1960s, when the A-10 was a paper airplane, have continued intermittently to this day, including the current efforts by the Air Force to kill the A-10 over the objections of the Congress.
I urge you to take 20 minutes to listen to the discussion between Ian Masters and Pierre Sprey." Chuck Spinney
___________
* "Caveat emptor: Sprey is a long-time associate and close friend of mine. I have had a front row seat in the peanut gallery or been a minor player in the A-10 wars from the time I was a 2nd Lt in the AF in 1968 until I retired from the Office of the Secretary of Defense in 2003. So I freely admit that am proudly biased both with regard to both Sprey’s work and the A-10."
The question of the RMB becoming a reserve currency boils down to this: does Chine export enough RMB via trade deficits to supply the global economy with sufficient RMB to provide reserves in size and be liquid and stable?
Those answering "yes, China does export enough RMB to act as a reserve currency" have to answer how a nation that imports a net $285 billion a year of other nations' currencies can possibly export enough of its currency to act as a reserve currency.
What follows is the extended, English language, version of James Galbraith’s recent interview with Roger Strassburg published in NachDenkSeiten.James Galbraith on Europe, Greece (and Syriza), Germany and America
Read it at The Huffington Post
Ultimately, the current debate about more or less government is a distraction from the real question: What combination of government and industry is most likely to restore Americans' sense of a shared future? And that formula must be wrapped in a narrative that explains why progress isn't what it used to be, even though Americans can't imagine a future without it.