The Incoming Rise of China

[Oil exporting People]

The quote speaks about enforcing protectionism against a protectionist country. Comparative advantage is a relative measure, it doesn't only work under an ideal theoretical spherical world of free trade. Countries have thrived from unilateral free trade when surrounded by protectionist giants - namely Hong Kong and Singapore.

And Hong Kong and Singapore are very special cases, as should be obvious by any knowledge of their history.

[Free Arctic Territories]

And yet, you haven't shown any evidence that yours aren't.

So, tell me how I get to the crisis between Turkey and Qatar, and South Korea and Japan, and between Cyprus and Israel.

Apparently, Google searches aren't going to cut it. Shall I look on JSTOR? Or EBSCO? Please, do direct me to the proper "facts", whatever that word means for you.

You could just look up South Korean-Japanese, Turkey-Qatar, Cyprus-Israel relations. They tend to have a list of disputes and disagreements.

For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan%E2% ... s#Disputes

cough cough

I'm no expert on Middle Eastern or East Asian relationships, but I can say that when a BBC poll in 2014 found that 79% of South Koreans viewed Japan negatively, keeping in mind the touchy past between the two, like when they annexed the Korean peninsula, forcefully assimilated Koreans into Japanese culture, and took Korean women into sexual slavery, that's going to cause some lasting damage between any countries' relations. Even though the Japanese have tried their best it apologize, it doesn't help when some of your schools whitewash history and your idiotic PMs visit a shrine for war criminals. So, in my opinion, it's perfectly understandably why Trumptonium might view Japanese and South Korean relations as strained.

[Pearl of Cathay]

The quote speaks about enforcing protectionism against a protectionist country. Comparative advantage is a relative measure, it doesn't only work under an ideal theoretical spherical world of free trade. Countries have thrived from unilateral free trade when surrounded by protectionist giants - namely Hong Kong and Singapore.

And Hong Kong and Singapore are very special cases, as should be obvious by any knowledge of their history.

Congratulations, you have been nominated for Nobel prize for refuting comparative advantage by invoking Chinese city-state blood magic.

But seriously, HK and S'Pore represent the trend of countries who enriched themselves by adopting good government institutions and economic liberalization, as opposed to those who stick with crypto-socialist import substitution. They're special insofar that they reject paternalist development economics advocated by Fabianists who dominated Western academics in 20th Century.

[Vistulange]

You could just look up South Korean-Japanese, Turkey-Qatar, Cyprus-Israel relations. They tend to have a list of disputes and disagreements.

For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan%E2% ... s#Disputes

cough cough

I'm no expert on Middle Eastern or East Asian relationships, but I can say that when a BBC poll in 2014 found that 79% of South Koreans viewed Japan negatively, keeping in mind the touchy past between the two, like when they annexed the Korean peninsula, forcefully assimilated Koreans into Japanese culture, and took Korean women into sexual slavery, that's going to cause some lasting damage between any countries' relations. Even though the Japanese have tried their best it apologize, it doesn't help when some of your schools whitewash history and your idiotic PMs visit a shrine for war criminals. So, in my opinion, it's perfectly understandably why Trumptonium might view Japanese and South Korean relations as strained.

And yet, they still maintain their security links with the United States and strongly co-operate with it. There are disputes, and I never denied that. I denied that the mentioned countries are "very belligerent" towards one another, which was what Trumptonium stated in the first place. Kindly don't shift his words to what he did not say.

My point remains that the United States not only has immense military and economic power, but also a great multitude of allies, whereas China and Russia really don't. His response to this was "lol ok".

[Alosteq Diin Nastja]

I've been looking at this thread at some times and I fail to see how this is supposed to mean anything.
Ok, a country is improving itself. That's a good thing. Neeext.

The issue is how China is improving itself. It has been bolstering its social-imperialist agenda at the expense of both US imperialism and the peripheries that China exploits. The rise of China is becoming a legitimate threat to the United States and its holdings particularly in Asia now that it has turned to exploiting foreign labour-power, which is what I suspect to be the primary thing spooking most people in this forum.

[Heisenveer]

In China, the people in the countryside are still very poor compared to I think some of the city people. Also, China has a water problem where they cannot source enough it due to polluted rivers, a growing population that will peak in the near future.

[Infected Mushroom]

Why should we stop it?

It’s a good thing.

[The Knockout Gun Gals]

cough cough

I'm no expert on Middle Eastern or East Asian relationships, but I can say that when a BBC poll in 2014 found that 79% of South Koreans viewed Japan negatively, keeping in mind the touchy past between the two, like when they annexed the Korean peninsula, forcefully assimilated Koreans into Japanese culture, and took Korean women into sexual slavery, that's going to cause some lasting damage between any countries' relations. Even though the Japanese have tried their best it apologize, it doesn't help when some of your schools whitewash history and your idiotic PMs visit a shrine for war criminals. So, in my opinion, it's perfectly understandably why Trumptonium might view Japanese and South Korean relations as strained.

And yet, they still maintain their security links with the United States and strongly co-operate with it. There are disputes, and I never denied that. I denied that the mentioned countries are "very belligerent" towards one another, which was what Trumptonium stated in the first place. Kindly don't shift his words to what he did not say.

My point remains that the United States not only has immense military and economic power, but also a great multitude of allies, whereas China and Russia really don't. His response to this was "lol ok".

South Korea and Japan maintain their security links with USA and co-operate with each other mainly because China and North Korea possessed a bigger threat than conflict between these two nations. They probably may or may not like working together with one another, but that is the price of maintaining security over their nations.

And while North Korea's threats more or less are not quite...what you expect, they still show some tenacity.

[Vistulange]

And yet, they still maintain their security links with the United States and strongly co-operate with it. There are disputes, and I never denied that. I denied that the mentioned countries are "very belligerent" towards one another, which was what Trumptonium stated in the first place. Kindly don't shift his words to what he did not say.

My point remains that the United States not only has immense military and economic power, but also a great multitude of allies, whereas China and Russia really don't. His response to this was "lol ok".

South Korea and Japan maintain their security links with USA and co-operate with each other mainly because China and North Korea possessed a bigger threat than conflict between these two nations. They probably may or may not like working together with one another, but that is the price of maintaining security over their nations.

And while North Korea's threats more or less are not quite...what you expect, they still show some tenacity.

Yes, that is my point. Despite disputes between one another, they remain steadfast allies of the United States, and certainly are not sowing division within the alliance. South Korea isn't siding with China, it simply happens to have a similar (or perhaps the same) issue as they do regarding Japan if we take the Yasukuni Shrine example. That does not equate to "being closer to China than Japan", it simply means they have a similar issue.

Just as "similar issues" does not necessarily equate to "on the same side", neither does "on the same side" necessarily equate to "similar issues". However, we're apparently expected to have partisan, dogmatic positions regarding everything, and there cannot be grays in between the black and white, and so, even simple, non-normative explanations such as these are thought to be odd. What a world we live in.

[Czeskia]

And yet, they still maintain their security links with the United States and strongly co-operate with it. There are disputes, and I never denied that. I denied that the mentioned countries are "very belligerent" towards one another, which was what Trumptonium stated in the first place. Kindly don't shift his words to what he did not say.

My point remains that the United States not only has immense military and economic power, but also a great multitude of allies, whereas China and Russia really don't. His response to this was "lol ok".

Russia and China do have allies though?

The CSTO is a thing.

[Oil exporting People]

Congratulations, you have been nominated for Nobel prize for refuting comparative advantage by invoking Chinese city-state blood magic.

But seriously, HK and S'Pore represent the trend of countries who enriched themselves by adopting good government institutions and economic liberalization, as opposed to those who stick with crypto-socialist import substitution. They're special insofar that they reject paternalist development economics advocated by Fabianists who dominated Western academics in 20th Century.

They're special in that Singapore sits on a giant SLOC and Hong Kong has a special status within the world's largest country with some other cultural advantages built in; Hong Kong's familiarity with the English-speaking world being useful to the PRC for example. The last part is also rather hilarious, as any basic knowledge of Hong Kong would show.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

Richer countries with a better-educated population have a higher chance of pro-democratic coups and a lower chance of anti-democratic coups. Given China's economic growth, they have a high chance of transitioning to a democracy in the coming decades.

[The East Marches II]

Richer countries with a better-educated population have a higher chance of pro-democratic coups and a lower chance of anti-democratic coups. Given China's economic growth, they have a high chance of transitioning to a democracy in the coming decades.

That argument has been totally discredited within the last 20 years. Why stick to a failed theory?

[Xianina]

and probability of them using the money on the goverment

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

Richer countries with a better-educated population have a higher chance of pro-democratic coups and a lower chance of anti-democratic coups. Given China's economic growth, they have a high chance of transitioning to a democracy in the coming decades.

That argument has been totally discredited within the last 20 years. Why stick to a failed theory?

How?

[Xianina]

thats how socialism works

[The East Marches II]

That argument has been totally discredited within the last 20 years. Why stick to a failed theory?

How?

Fukuyama lost.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

How?

Fukuyama lost.

Any actual evidence?

[Vistulange]

And yet, they still maintain their security links with the United States and strongly co-operate with it. There are disputes, and I never denied that. I denied that the mentioned countries are "very belligerent" towards one another, which was what Trumptonium stated in the first place. Kindly don't shift his words to what he did not say.

My point remains that the United States not only has immense military and economic power, but also a great multitude of allies, whereas China and Russia really don't. His response to this was "lol ok".

Russia and China do have allies though?

The CSTO is a thing.

Composed of, let's see...

Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Tajikistan.

Absolutely terrifying and a sight to behold. Yes, a real counterbalance to NATO and the European Union.

I'd say they've got natural gas, but not even Turkmenistan is in that club. The single member in there with any kind of influence is...Russia. By "ally", I mean states that actually have influence. Such as the United Kingdom, or France. Not...Belarus.

[The East Marches II]

Fukuyama lost.

Any actual evidence?

Sure, see Turkey as a case study.

Thats far apart from all that nonsense that was sold to us about how China would become freer once let into the WTO and brought into the world order. Your point of view has been totally discredited within the last twenty years. It turns out liberal democracy is not a natural anything. The good guys don't always win and the bad guys don't just go away because you ask them nicely.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

Any actual evidence?

Sure, see Turkey as a case study.

Thats far apart from all that nonsense that was sold to us about how China would become freer once let into the WTO and brought into the world order. Your point of view has been totally discredited within the last twenty years. It turns out liberal democracy is not a natural anything. The good guys don't always win and the bad guys don't just go away because you ask them nicely.

At the current rate, a Chinese Spring is going to happen within a few decades.

[The East Marches II]

Sure, see Turkey as a case study.

Thats far apart from all that nonsense that was sold to us about how China would become freer once let into the WTO and brought into the world order. Your point of view has been totally discredited within the last twenty years. It turns out liberal democracy is not a natural anything. The good guys don't always win and the bad guys don't just go away because you ask them nicely.

At the current rate, a Chinese Spring is going to happen within a few decades.

They've been saying that for nearly a few decades now. Let me know when it happens, then that idea might get taken seriously again.

[Vistulange]

Any actual evidence?

Sure, see Turkey as a case study.

Thats far apart from all that nonsense that was sold to us about how China would become freer once let into the WTO and brought into the world order. Your point of view has been totally discredited within the last twenty years. It turns out liberal democracy is not a natural anything. The good guys don't always win and the bad guys don't just go away because you ask them nicely.

Assuming there is even such a thing as "good guys" and "bad guys". The way we look at history, we're incredibly inclined to think that it was destiny that liberal democracy won out of the ideological race, as though it were pre-written and pre-defined by some divine force. It doesn't take a genius to know that no, that wasn't the case, and history could have gone either way, and liberal democracy could very well have been regarded as Nazism is regarded today.

Though, I don't see how Turkey presents a case study. The Turkish case is somewhat complicated, just like every other case, and is nigh impossible to debate over a bloody internet forum. Generally speaking, however, Turkish domestic politics have veered in line with Turkish foreign policy. Getting closer to Europe pushed a locomotive of gradual, if troubled, democratisation; whereas the current push towards Russia is pushing a locomotive of gradual authoritarianism and Putin-like tendencies.

[The East Marches II]

Sure, see Turkey as a case study.

Thats far apart from all that nonsense that was sold to us about how China would become freer once let into the WTO and brought into the world order. Your point of view has been totally discredited within the last twenty years. It turns out liberal democracy is not a natural anything. The good guys don't always win and the bad guys don't just go away because you ask them nicely.

Assuming there is even such a thing as "good guys" and "bad guys". The way we look at history, we're incredibly inclined to think that it was destiny that liberal democracy won out of the ideological race, as though it were pre-written and pre-defined by some divine force. It doesn't take a genius to know that no, that wasn't the case, and history could have gone either way, and liberal democracy could very well have been regarded as Nazism is regarded today.

Though, I don't see how Turkey presents a case study. The Turkish case is somewhat complicated, just like every other case, and is nigh impossible to debate over a bloody internet forum. Generally speaking, however, Turkish domestic politics have veered in line with Turkish foreign policy. Getting closer to Europe pushed a locomotive of gradual, if troubled, democratisation; whereas the current push towards Russia is pushing a locomotive of gradual authoritarianism and Putin-like tendencies.

We are inclined to think that and you are correct it doesn't take a genius to figure out that isn't the case. Unfortunately it appears our intellectuals, if you can call them that, succumbed to that idiotic notion. All the more horrifying is that for quite a number of years, failure after failure after failure did not dissuade them of this notion. The political sorts too were totally blind to that. It has only been with the election of Trump, that some of them have shook off this victory disease. Yet still that stupid idea lingers on.

Turkey is a country that is getting richer yet it hasn't gotten more democratic. We were referring to this nonsense idea that the richer and more educated a country gets, the more likelihood it will become a liberal democracy. Its a trash argument. It was that "democratisation" that got Turkey to where it is today. Which is to say the EU reforms threw the game. Turkey was never going to be a suitable candidate for that sort of Utopian nonsense. You can't take a form of government and then apply to anywhere in the world. Thats not how it works.

Edit: That is not to say the conditions couldn't have been established in Turkey for that to work, I should have added that in.

[Vistulange]

Assuming there is even such a thing as "good guys" and "bad guys". The way we look at history, we're incredibly inclined to think that it was destiny that liberal democracy won out of the ideological race, as though it were pre-written and pre-defined by some divine force. It doesn't take a genius to know that no, that wasn't the case, and history could have gone either way, and liberal democracy could very well have been regarded as Nazism is regarded today.

Though, I don't see how Turkey presents a case study. The Turkish case is somewhat complicated, just like every other case, and is nigh impossible to debate over a bloody internet forum. Generally speaking, however, Turkish domestic politics have veered in line with Turkish foreign policy. Getting closer to Europe pushed a locomotive of gradual, if troubled, democratisation; whereas the current push towards Russia is pushing a locomotive of gradual authoritarianism and Putin-like tendencies.

We are inclined to think that and you are correct it doesn't take a genius to figure out that isn't the case. Unfortunately it appears our intellectuals, if you can call them that, succumbed to that idiotic notion. All the more horrifying is that for quite a number of years, failure after failure after failure did not dissuade them of this notion. The political sorts too were totally blind to that. It has only been with the election of Trump, that some of them have shook off this victory disease. Yet still that stupid idea lingers on.

Turkey is a country that is getting richer yet it hasn't gotten more democratic. We were referring to this nonsense idea that the richer and more educated a country gets, the more likelihood it will become a liberal democracy. Its a trash argument. It was that "democratisation" that got Turkey to where it is today. Which is to say the EU reforms threw the game. Turkey was never going to be a suitable candidate for that sort of Utopian nonsense. You can't take a form of government and then apply to anywhere in the world. Thats not how it works.

Wow, I can't believe I'm actually agreeing with you. I suppose there is a first time for everything. I'm fairly certain we'd disagree on the details of the issue, but yes, I agree with the general idea: You can't take a form of government and then apply it anywhere, everywhere. States ought to develop their own political systems through an evolutionary process, not from a top-down implementation. Sure, I may find democracy to be desirable, but that doesn't mean it should be implemented via "shock therapy".