Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Global Economy Max. Danger Warning . . .

Discussions about the economic and financial ramifications of PEAK OIL

Re: Global Economy Max. Danger Warning . . .

Unread postby Snowrunner » Tue 22 Jul 2008, 02:17:04

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Micki', 'S')o no communistic nation has managed to implement proper communism where the elite doesn't take advantage and let the people go poor. How come we now are so optimistic that it will succeed?


I (we?) are not. But my point merely was that just because something has a certain label doesn't mean it actually is.

IMO, Socialism (in the original sense, not in the political sense it is thrown around today) is probably the closest to "ideal" we will ever get.

But even that will only last up to a point. Humans have the tendency to want power structures and as such sooner or later we will trust someone again to "take care of things" for us and before we know it, they'll have robbed the bank again.

If there is one certainity on this planet: As long as humans are around, history will repeat itself.
User avatar
Snowrunner
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 795
Joined: Wed 24 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Screwed

Re: Global Economy Max. Danger Warning . . .

Unread postby Micki » Tue 22 Jul 2008, 02:25:11

I agree.
The problem is however taking something from theory to practice.
Communism has certainly not had any particularly good track reckord in being implemented.

Besides that, people like Byron100 was actually stating things like;
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t's just too darned bad that the USSR isn't still around, demonstrating an alternative way of doing things for when the capitalistic system crashes down.
as if USSR actually had anything positive to show.

So when promoting Communism, given it's poor track record so far, one would almmost demand that the promoter also shows how it can be done successfully this time. (And by successfully i don't mean keeping it from collapsing with the help of guns and re-education camps, but keeping people happy.)
Micki
 

Re: Global Economy Max. Danger Warning . . .

Unread postby Snowrunner » Tue 22 Jul 2008, 02:39:37

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Micki', 'I') agree.
The problem is however taking something from theory to practice.
Communism has certainly not had any particularly good track reckord in being implemented.


That's because it is a danger to established power structures. So they will do whatever they can to undermine it's success.

The Soviet Union didn't fail because of Stalinism, but because of the US forcing it to do something that it couldn't do. The Soviet Union blew it's budget on weapons programs that they though they needed to have in order to stand up to the US, meanwhile, the US used this as an excuse to build their own weapons.

If the Russian Revolution would have made it around the world and it would have happened everywhere, the outcome may have been different. But who knows, maybe not.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')esides that, people like Byron100 was actually stating things like;
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t's just too darned bad that the USSR isn't still around, demonstrating an alternative way of doing things for when the capitalistic system crashes down.
as if USSR actually had anything positive to show.


It did actually. Read up on some of the accomplishments they had, just off the top of my head:

    First Sattelite into orbit
    First Man into orbit
    Large amounts of the population (men and women) being educated, not only in highschool but in University as well.

Also keep in mind that the vast destruction of both people and environmenet the USSR had to endure during WWII (much more so than all others combined) and that they had to dig themselves out of it again.

I have a huge respect for Russia (USSR) and what they have accomplished. It isn't very "en Vogue" in the west to think favourably of the "Reds" but anybody who really looks closer at what was the USSR and is now Russia has to realize just how much they had accomplished and makes you wonder what they could have achieved if history would have been a bit more favourable to them.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o when promoting Communism, given it's poor track record so far, one would almmost demand that the promoter also shows how it can be done successfully this time. (And by successfully i don't mean keeping it from collapsing with the help of guns and re-education camps, but keeping people happy.)


Why don't you tell me how Capitalism will succeed? A lot of people (especially in North America) seem to thnk that Capitalism beat Communism, but even back in '89 I couldn't shake the feeling that this was going to be a short lived Victory.
User avatar
Snowrunner
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 795
Joined: Wed 24 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Screwed
Top

Re: Global Economy Max. Danger Warning . . .

Unread postby Micki » Tue 22 Jul 2008, 02:57:04

One more; Sovjet was first to send a dog to space.

So you are suggesting that if communism had been implemented around the world we would have a happy proletarian utopia with equality and solidarity and no shady elite taking advantage?
And I guess freedom of speech, religion etc would have been restored?

I know USSR suffered great casualties during WW2.
Amongst other the Finns took them out about 10 to 1 in kills when they covardly staged a false flag operation and then attacked Finland.
I just wish our neighbours in the baltic states could have done the same instead of living decades in dictatorship and have citizens sent to siberia for thought crimes.

They also suffered from decreasing population as a result of tens of millions of people being executed or dying in deportation in gulag camps after the war.


And regarding your question capitalism.
First of all, just becasue I think one system won't work, don't make the assumption that I automatically think that another system will.

Secondly, the term capitalism is about as abused and broadly interpretated as anything else.
Are you for instance against private ownership as this is at the core of what capitalism stands for?

In my opinion USA for instance does not operate according to a good model for capitalism as they run it in a more fascist (or socialist) manner than free market.

I am more and more convinced that any form of control inherently tempts abuse by those who are put in the controlling position.
I therefore think that rather than giving governments omnipotent powers they should meddle as little as possible in peoples lifes.
Micki
 

Re: Global Economy Max. Danger Warning . . .

Unread postby Snowrunner » Tue 22 Jul 2008, 03:17:29

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Micki', 'O')ne more; Sovjet was first to send a dog to space.
Right. Laika! How could I have forgotten.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o you are suggesting that if communism had been implemented around the world we would have a happy proletarian utopia with equality and solidarity and no shady elite taking advantage?


For a while. Human Greed would sooner or later have taken root again and challenged the system. But that's something even the Founding Fathers knew (and I am paraphrasing here): "The plant of Freedom has to be fed from time to time with the blood of tyrans and patriots".

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nd I guess freedom of speech, religion etc would have been restored?


You make the mistake to equate Communism (an economic model) with Stalinism (a political model).

There is nothing inhert in the idea of Communism that would prevent freedom of speech or eligion. It would impose limits on personal ownership though.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') know USSR suffered great casualties during WW2.
Amongst other the Finns took them out about 10 to 1 in kills when they covardly staged a false flag operation and then attacked Finland.
I just wish our neighbours in the baltic states could have done the same instead of living decades in dictatorship and have citizens sent to siberia for thought crimes.


Most people look at leaders, not to be leaders. 95%+ of people will follow, 3% will challenge everybody because they think they have to, and 2% (tops) are actually leaders.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hey also suffered from decreasing population as a result of tens of millions of people being executed or dying in deportation in gulag camps after the war.

Popultion numbers in the West have been decreasing too, without Death Squads roaming the street. And once again you equate the ideas of Marx & Engels (and Lenins) with what Stalin created.

But hey, have a look at our society after 9/11, we aren't THAT far away from similar things, so far our leaders are simply just to incompetent or too chicken to actually do it, but don't expect them to not try.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nd regarding your question capitalism.
First of all, just becasue I think one system won't work, don't make the assumption that I automatically think that another system will.

Just returning the favour ;)

i don't think any system can endure without constantly being tested. If Communism would have been implemented and wouldn't have had an adversary in US style capitalism (which was and is very tempting on TV) it may have had a chance to make a difference. Would it have lead to world peace, people holding hands in the street and flowers in the girls hair? Probably not.

But all of this is idle speculation anyway. People who decry Communism because of the way it was twisted and perverted in the 20th century fail to understand under what conditions Marx, Engels and Lenin though of it as a good idea.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')econdly, the term capitalism is about as abused and broadly interpretated as anything else.

Yes :) It hasn't been tried either.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')re you for instance against private ownership as this is at the core of what capitalism stands for?

I am not against private ownership, but I am against corporations. If I'd be the King of the World, I would put all my tax cuts into the smll companies up to 200 people and tax the crap out of the big ones.

I believe Private ownership is a good thing, but I don't think Corporations are. In that case I am in line with Marx et. al. who wrote "Das Kapital" in a scenario not unlike to the current situation, with the difference being that the majority back then realized what was going on, these days, most people don't (yet).

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n my opinion USA for instance does not operate according to a good model for capitalism as they run it in a more fascist (or socialist) manner than free market.

The problems in the US go a lot deeper than that. But that would blow the current topic out of the water, so maybe we leave it for a different time. But in short: Yes, the US system claims to be capitalistic, but has roughly as much in common with Communism as the USSR had.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') am more and more convinced that any form of control inherently tempts abuse by those who are put in the controlling position.
I therefore think that rather than giving governments omnipotent powers they should meddle as little as possible in peoples lifes.

Ah. The old idea again that the Government is the enemy. That was certainly true in the past, but these days I don't think it is true any longer.

One example: Freedom of Speech in the US. Most people think that's a good idea to have. Yet, while the consitution restricts what the Government can and cannot do, it does not apply to private enterprise.

With more and more media outlets owned by only a handful (if that many) companies / people, you have censorship as well, but it is an "invisible one".

Back in the day when the founding fathers wrote this into the constitution it made perfect sense, the Government "licensed" Newspapers etc. and there was a real risk that the Government could just outright revoke a license for a newspaper to publish.

These days? The danger is more in the ones who REALLY control the country.

The Founding Fathers (and I harp on them because the rest of the world modeled quite a bit on them) said it nicely: A Government BY the people FOR the people.

It's too bad that we lost this a long long time ago and these days it's more akin to: A Government by the corporations for the corporations.

As far as free markets are concerned: There is the idea that a free market will regulate itself, that there can be no "abuse" because if someone abuses the system then someone else will open up a competiing business and prevent this from succeeding.

i call this a "theoretical solution" because in reality this isn't very feasable, especially in industries that require huge upfront investments (and which one doesn't these days?).

My ideal solution? A Government that has and enforces strict regulations (pretty much what was brought in under the New Deal after the Depression in the US), activly supports SMALL businesses and is as open to it's citizens as possible.

Will it happen? Nope. Because the ones who currently have all the power want to keep it, and those are, surprise surprise, also the ones with the most money and biggest companies.
User avatar
Snowrunner
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 795
Joined: Wed 24 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Screwed
Top

Re: Global Economy Max. Danger Warning . . .

Unread postby MrBill » Tue 22 Jul 2008, 04:15:20

I think it is telling that Karl Marx at the end of his career felt obliged to say he was not a Marxist! His followers bastardized what he wrote and distorted what he meant. Do not give Lenin too much credit. He was just a bloody and brutal as Stalin.

Having lived and worked in several communist and ex-communist countries I have seen the after-effects of Soviet Union. Certainly, many of the CEE countries annexed by the USSR after WWII did not wish to be under communist rule much less controlled from Moscow. I think it is always a telling tale when you have to hold your Empire together by force. It is not like Hungary, Czechoslovakia and later Poland did not try to leave. I can hardly understand why the GDR wanted to reunite with West Germany?

Saw a great BBC World News documentary on doping in sports in China ahead of the Olympics. Yes, a real workers paradise on earth. No cheating. No breaking the rules. No winning at any cost. No pollution. Who cares about those young kids living in segregated sports camps that learn no other skills other than their sport and are forced to use unsafe steroids. Its not like the IOC's own doping experts have access to them. Just the official Party looking out for every workers best interest! ; - ))
The organized state is a wonderful invention whereby everyone can live at someone else's expense.
User avatar
MrBill
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5630
Joined: Thu 15 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Eurasia

Re: Global Economy Max. Danger Warning . . .

Unread postby skeptik » Tue 22 Jul 2008, 05:01:57

Image
:wink:
And dont even think about buying toilet roll. (according to the relatives of the Zimbabwean wife of a friend of mine) using 'small denomination' (lol!) notes gives better bum wipe value.
User avatar
skeptik
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 418
Joined: Wed 24 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Costa Geriatrica, Spain

Re: Global Economy Max. Danger Warning . . .

Unread postby Snowrunner » Tue 22 Jul 2008, 12:26:39

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', 'I') think it is telling that Karl Marx at the end of his career felt obliged to say he was not a Marxist! His followers bastardized what he wrote and distorted what he meant. Do not give Lenin too much credit. He was just a bloody and brutal as Stalin.


No revolution really ever has been without a lot of bloodshed. It is one thing to sit at your desk at home and write out your ideology, a completely different thing to try and implement it against overhelming odds. As the saying goes: If you want to make an Omlette, you have to break a few eggs.

But yes, the outcome of what Marx envisioned and the reality were two different things, which isn't too surprising really as he wrote it as an ideal solution not counting on the human condition.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')aving lived and worked in several communist and ex-communist countries I have seen the after-effects of Soviet Union. Certainly, many of the CEE countries annexed by the USSR after WWII did not wish to be under communist rule much less controlled from Moscow. I think it is always a telling tale when you have to hold your Empire together by force. It is not like Hungary, Czechoslovakia and later Poland did not try to leave. I can hardly understand why the GDR wanted to reunite with West Germany?


The reunification was a bit more problematic than you make it out to be. They obviously wanted all the bananas and all the other stuff that the west was flaunting around. But the reunification was mainly driven by then Chancellor Helmut Kohl who wanted to get down into the history books as the one who "made it happen".

Honestly? This was BAD news for both former Germanys and shouldn't have done, at least not on the timetable that he pushed it through. Ironically enough the only ones who spoke out against it where the Socialists who saw the problems looming on the Horizon.

As for "held together by Force". What do you make then of the current American Empire? The US has troops in more places these days than the USSR ever had at the height of their empire.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')aw a great BBC World News documentary on doping in sports in China ahead of the Olympics. Yes, a real workers paradise on earth. No cheating. No breaking the rules. No winning at any cost. No pollution. Who cares about those young kids living in segregated sports camps that learn no other skills other than their sport and are forced to use unsafe steroids. Its not like the IOC's own doping experts have access to them. Just the official Party looking out for every workers best interest! ; - ))


Bitter much?
User avatar
Snowrunner
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 795
Joined: Wed 24 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Screwed
Top

Re: Global Economy Max. Danger Warning . . .

Unread postby evilgenius » Tue 22 Jul 2008, 12:31:11

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', 'A') good article. I am probably in the minority in seeing this as a global problem and not just a US or US-dollar problem. I think we are in a rolling, global recession going west to east, and round two starts when it rolls back onto American shores at the end of 2008/start of 2009. Then it starts over again. The global imbalances are simply too large to be unwound in an orderly manner. Thanks for the link.


I don't know, man, your outlook makes a lot of sense to me. We might differ on what the crisis will bring (inflation vs. deflation) or we might not, but I agree with you about this being a global problem. I am looking for Europe to begin descending soon, then Asia.
When it comes down to it, the people will always shout, "Free Barabbas." They love Barabbas. He's one of them. He has the same dreams. He does what they wish they could do. That other guy is more removed, more inscrutable. He makes them think. "Crucify him."
User avatar
evilgenius
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3730
Joined: Tue 06 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Stopped at the Border.
Top

Re: Global Economy Max. Danger Warning . . .

Unread postby CarlosFerreira » Tue 22 Jul 2008, 12:42:48

Can I ask why Europe before Asia? Just curious, no idea which would go down first.
CarlosFerreira
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 734
Joined: Wed 02 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Canterbury, UK

Re: Global Economy Max. Danger Warning . . .

Unread postby Zardoz » Tue 22 Jul 2008, 13:19:48

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Snowrunner', '.')..But yes, the outcome of what Marx envisioned and the reality were two different things, which isn't too surprising really as he wrote it as an ideal solution not counting on the human condition.

Yeah, minor detail that derails all Utopian schemes: Basic human nature.

If it wasn't for people being involved, socialism and communism might have a chance to work!

Oh, wait...
"Thank you for attending the oil age. We're going to scrape what we can out of these tar pits in Alberta and then shut down the machines and turn out the lights. Goodnight." - seldom_seen
User avatar
Zardoz
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6323
Joined: Fri 02 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Oil-addicted Southern Californucopia
Top

Re: Global Economy Max. Danger Warning . . .

Unread postby nobodypanic » Tue 22 Jul 2008, 15:24:28

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Zardoz', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Snowrunner', '.')..But yes, the outcome of what Marx envisioned and the reality were two different things, which isn't too surprising really as he wrote it as an ideal solution not counting on the human condition.

Yeah, minor detail that derails all Utopian schemes: Basic human nature.

If it wasn't for people being involved, socialism and communism might have a chance to work!

Oh, wait...

i have a tiny bone to pick. it isn't necessarily basic human nature; it's the nature of people who have been born and raised within our current western-influenced world-culture. if, for example, you jump back in time to certain native american tribes, you'll find that communal systems CAN operate and that the tragedy of the commons can be avoided.

on the other hand, i completely agree with you that utopian schemes are highly flawed... including adam smith's version.
User avatar
nobodypanic
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1103
Joined: Mon 02 Jun 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Global Economy Max. Danger Warning . . .

Unread postby CarlosFerreira » Tue 22 Jul 2008, 15:55:17

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nobodypanic', '
') i have a tiny bone to pick. it isn't necessarily basic human nature; it's the nature of people who have been born and raised within our current western-influenced world-culture. if, for example, you jump back in time to certain native american tribes, you'll find that communal systems CAN operate and that the tragedy of the commons can be avoided.


Indeed. If you've read Jarod Diamond's Collapse, you'll remember the inhabitants of New Guinea, who kept a stable population and developed their standard of living enough to be around for a long long time - a few thousand years, if I remember - without totalling their environment.
Environmental News and Clippings:
http://www.google.co.uk/reader/shared/1 ... 4898696533
Environmental Economics and Systems
http://enviroecon.wordpress.com/
CarlosFerreira
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 734
Joined: Wed 02 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Canterbury, UK
Top

Re: Global Economy Max. Danger Warning . . .

Unread postby Snowrunner » Tue 22 Jul 2008, 17:06:38

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Zardoz', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Snowrunner', '.')..But yes, the outcome of what Marx envisioned and the reality were two different things, which isn't too surprising really as he wrote it as an ideal solution not counting on the human condition.

Yeah, minor detail that derails all Utopian schemes: Basic human nature.
If it wasn't for people being involved, socialism and communism might have a chance to work! Oh, wait...

Or Capitalism etc. doesn't matter which economic or political system you pick, they all fail on the human condition. What allowed us as a species to claw our way to the top of the food chain will eventually also be our down fall.

EDIT: I should point out here that systems that have grown out of a constraint (e.g. Island Nations) are probably less inclined to destroy their habitat. The "tragedy for the world" is that the Europeans had figured out how to eliminate the "Island Effect" and bring goods and raw materials that they had or were running out of home. This "wisdom" was carried forward into the new world and found it's culmination in "Globalization". The End result of that being that instead of one tribe going bust it now can (and will) affect a much larger portion of the world population.
Last edited by Snowrunner on Tue 22 Jul 2008, 17:11:44, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Snowrunner
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 795
Joined: Wed 24 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Screwed
Top

Re: Global Economy Max. Danger Warning . . .

Unread postby mos6507 » Tue 22 Jul 2008, 17:10:40

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Snowrunner', 'A')s for "held together by Force". What do you make then of the current American Empire? The US has troops in more places these days than the USSR ever had at the height of their empire.

If the US were a true empire then all US allies would be converted into part of the united states and forced to live under the our laws.

The only sense that the US is an empire is through international commerce. And the US is not the only country that has created multinational corporations. A fair amount of the US is being bought up by foreign countries.
mos6507
 
Top

Re: Global Economy Max. Danger Warning . . .

Unread postby Snowrunner » Tue 22 Jul 2008, 17:42:58

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Snowrunner', 'A')s for "held together by Force". What do you make then of the current American Empire? The US has troops in more places these days than the USSR ever had at the height of their empire.

If the US were a true empire then all US allies would be converted into part of the united states and forced to live under the our laws.
That's your definition of an empire.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he only sense that the US is an empire is through international commerce. And the US is not the only country that has created multinational corporations. A fair amount of the US is being bought up by foreign countries.

I am not even factoring Corporations into this one, completely different topic. But let's see about the US Empire:

- Dominant Culture - check (large parts of the world anyway, for now)
- Military bases around the world - check
- control over financial markets in far away places - check (all these jitters whenever the US sneezes....)

You can have an empire either by offering sugar or by offering the whip. The US Empire is (largely) build on sugar, but that doesn't mean it isn't an empire.

Also the way in which the US acts in the Security Council, not to mention the way the US goes to war is pretty much in line with what an Empire does.
User avatar
Snowrunner
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 795
Joined: Wed 24 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Screwed
Top

Re: Global Economy Max. Danger Warning . . .

Unread postby Cloud9 » Tue 22 Jul 2008, 19:23:40

Europe has had sixty years of relative peace under Pax Americana. When we are gone we will be followed by the dark ages.
User avatar
Cloud9
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2961
Joined: Wed 26 Jul 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Global Economy Max. Danger Warning . . .

Unread postby Micki » Tue 22 Jul 2008, 20:42:37

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('CarlosFerreira', 'C')an I ask why Europe before Asia? Just curious, no idea which would go down first.


Simply because much of Asia has better fundamentals.
High savings rates. Not so much property boom.
Room to strengthen currencies which in some cases can boost internal spending.
Micki
 
Top

Re: Global Economy Max. Danger Warning . . .

Unread postby Cloud9 » Tue 22 Jul 2008, 21:17:20

Should the United States turn inward, I suspect China will make short work of the Middle East. Russia and China will lock horns. Russia has the edge in weapon technology China has the edge in people. China may invade Russia much in the same way Mexico has invaded the United States one bracero at a time or it may opt for a military invasion.

China invaded Vietnam after the Americans left and got spanked. That generation has passed and a new more militaristic mind set may take hold. The bad news is Russia, the Middle East and all of Europe is within walking distance of the Red Army
User avatar
Cloud9
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2961
Joined: Wed 26 Jul 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Global Economy Max. Danger Warning . . .

Unread postby Snowrunner » Tue 22 Jul 2008, 23:14:58

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cloud9', 'S')hould the United States turn inward, I suspect China will make short work of the Middle East. Russia and China will lock horns. Russia has the edge in weapon technology China has the edge in people. China may invade Russia much in the same way Mexico has invaded the United States one bracero at a time or it may opt for a military invasion.


Eastern Russia is already rather deserted. There have been several reports of entire stretches of Forest being taken out and brought back to China to feed The Machine(TM).

I don't think China is interested in a war with Russia though, war really is not good in the long term as pacifying a region is hard work (outside of completely wiping out 100% of the former inhabitants) and trading could be a way better strategy,

Then there is the little notion that Russia sits snugely between Europe and China, a fact all three have recognized as the new agreement of building a high-speed freight rail line between China, Russia an Germany has shown.

I think we will see Russia as a "middle power", brokering between China and Europe and selling raw materials to both sides, the investment in new military Hardware lately by the Kremel seems to support the point that they want to be able to make a point.

Even if the US would want to intervene, I cannot see a way in which they could stop either of the three powers doing that.

A "worst case" scenario would be an attempt by China to take eastern Russia, but considering the vast distances even for a country like China this may not be feasble, others have tried and failed miserably.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')hina invaded Vietnam after the Americans left and got spanked. That generation has passed and a new more militaristic mind set may take hold. The bad news is Russia, the Middle East and all of Europe is within walking distance of the Red Army


Yes, but traditionally China hasn't "conquered" other places, and it really makes little sense for them. Siberia may be a lucrative target, but taking over the rest of Russia / Europe? It would not make any sense. Cultural Imperialism (as done by the US of A for the past 50 years) makes way more sense, and the Chinese thinking is a lot longer term than in Western Culture. The Chinese empire (which in a way already exists) will be an invisible one for a long time to come.
User avatar
Snowrunner
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 795
Joined: Wed 24 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Screwed
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Economics & Finance

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron