DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Plane on December 26, 2015, 03:37:17 PM
-
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/china-remains-vexing-campaign-test-for-presidential-candidates/ar-BBnVhe0
An article of candidate comparison that makes JEB look good, you really don't see many of these.
I think our next President will be at war with AlQuieda and Daesh, no matter who we choose, this war is the choice of the opponent and will continue until they are exhausted.
But the relations with China are very complex ,fluid ,fraught and full of potential, both good and bad.
The way our next president treats China might make a lot of difference in how much we fight or co-operate.
-
The fight with China over the Spratley Islands is a waste of time. It would be insanity for even one American to risk his life over the Spratleys.
Trade is and should be the main goal between the US and China.
-
How is trade with China good for the USA?
-
What a question. There you sit, typing on a Chinese keyboard, wearing Chinese made clothes and communicating on a Chinese made computer, asking how this can possibly be good.
The American standard of living has benefited greatly from the affordability and availability of Chinese made goods. More Americans make money from Chinese produsts than Chinese.
There is a small gizmo known as a magic match that I used to take to Santo Domingo to sell. It is a small plastic box filled with cotton wadding one soaks with kerosene with a keychain ring. In the center a match consisting of wick with a metal striker on it screws in. On one side there is a long piece of lighter flint to strike the match on to create a spark.
http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&page=1&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Apermanent%20match%20lighter
The lowest price on Amazon is $2.98 each.
What is the price in China from the factory? 38¢. If you want 100, then shipping via air will cost $38 more. Obviously, shipping by boat would cost far less. probably under 10 cents each. So the factory in China makes these at a profit for 38¢. The person that sells them for $2.98 is making somewhere between $2.22 and $2.50 per item. So the benefit to the American importer is many times what the Chinese factory earns.
So
-
There has been a lot of transfer of wealth.
Mostly to mutual benefit.
But this is specifically why a high minimum wage will not work.
And it relates to why China likes a low exchange rate vs the dollar.
Should a president encourage these trades as did Richard Nixon?
-
It is less than mutual benefit. As I said, the Chinese factory made at most 20¢ on the $2.98 item, but the retailer made over $2.00, A larger profit margin and a greater profit by far.
It don't see any US president shutting down Chinese imports, that is for sure.
-
Benefit does not need to be evenly split to be mutual.
I agree that trade with China is important and beyond a Presidents power to close down .
Good ol Nixon!
China also has a dream and if it turns out to be a manifest destiny that makes them fight us , what sort of president do we want?
-
Nixon's motivation was to get China to agree not to interfere with his efforts to get out of Vietnam.
The only reason why the democrats did not go to China was Nixon would have accused them of being soft on Communism.
That is why they say, "only Nixon could go the China".
The trade with China came much, much later, after Mao has vanished from the scene.
-
Almost anyone other than Nixon would have had the problem of "soft on Communism".
I recall trade being discussed on the occasion, and some Ping-Pong.
Why would Nixon need to worry that the Chinese would not let him withdraw from Vietnam?
That is very counter intuitive.
-
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-18/china-s-selling-tons-of-u-s-debt-americans-couldn-t-care-less-?cmpid=taboola.persfin.msn-msn
China is selling a lot of US bonds.
Perhaps because this is just a good time to convert them.
-
Nixon got assurance that the Chinese would not come to the rescue of Vietnam if the US escalated its bombing. Then he did a lot more bombing.
It was not counter intuitive at all. He was not after any trade policy arrangements with China.
-
Nixon got assurance that the Chinese would not come to the rescue of Vietnam if the US escalated its bombing. Then he did a lot more bombing.
It was not counter intuitive at all. He was not after any trade policy arrangements with China.
That is a strange thing for Mao to promise , unless he got something really good for it.
-
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/jeb-bush-mocks-donald-trump-challenges-him-to-one-on-one-debate/ar-BBnZLDW?li=BBnb7Kz
If Trump walked into the venue, an audience member wondered, what would Bush say.
Bush responded with a challenge: “I’d say, ‘Donald I’ll take you one-on-one in debate. Any time. Any place. You name it, I’ll do it.’”
That would be fun, but DJT does not owe JEB any such large favor.
-
The deal between Nixon and China was that Nixon agreed not to destroy North Vietnam by bombing it in exchange for Mao agreeing not to send the Red Army into Vietnam to defend them. Mao did not want refugees swarming into South China. he also did not want to pay the costs of a war.
No one wins wars anymore.
Mao would have gained little by invading Vietnam. He did not get much for invading Korea. China is not expansionist. Tibet is an exception, because it is an empty country with a lot of resources. Vietnam is heavily populated and would not submit well to Chinese domination.
-
Yes the Chinese discovered that Vietnam was not worth invading , when they invaded in the late seventies.
-
I don't think the goal of the Chinese war with Vietnam was to invade and occupy the country.
It was about the Vietnamese invading Cambodia, which was not as bad as it sounds, since Cambodia was being run by Pol Pot and the Kn=hmer Rouge, that for some reason, were allied with the Societs.
The Sino-Vietnamese War (Vietnamese: Chi?n tranh biên gi?i Vi?t-Trung; simplified Chinese: ????; traditional Chinese: ????; pinyin: Zh?ng-Yuè Zhànzh?ng), also known as the Third Indochina War, was a brief border war fought between the People's Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam in early 1979. China launched the offensive in response to Vietnam's invasion and occupation of Cambodia in 1978 (which ended the rule of the Chinese-backed Khmer Rouge).[14] Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping saw this as a Soviet attempt "to extend its evil tentacles to Southeast Asia and...carry out expansion there", which reflected the long-standing Sino-Soviet split.[15] As the former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger noted that "[w]hatever the shortcomings of its execution, the Chinese campaign reflected a serious, long-term strategic analysis".[16]
The Chinese entered northern Vietnam and captured some of the cities near the border. On March 6, 1979, China declared that the gate to Hanoi was open and that their punitive mission had been achieved. Chinese forces retreated back across the Vietnamese border into China. Both China and Vietnam claimed victory in the last of the Indochina Wars of the 20th century; as Vietnamese troops remained in Cambodia until 1989, it can be said that China failed to achieve the goal of dissuading Vietnam from involvement in Cambodia. Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the Sino-Vietnamese border was finalized.
China demonstrated to its Cold War Communist adversary, the Soviet Union, that they were unable to protect their new Vietnamese ally.[17] Following worsening relations between the Soviet Union and China as a result of the Sino-Soviet split, as many as 1.5 million Chinese troops were stationed along the Soviet-Chinese border, in preparation for a full-scale war.
-
Henry Kissinger noted that "[w]hatever the shortcomings of its execution, the Chinese campaign reflected a serious, long-term strategic analysis".[16]
[][][][][][][][][][][][][]
Hahahahaha
I never heard that one before.
Good ol HK has a really dry sense of humor.
The Chinese had a miserable experience, the Vietnamese declaration of victory really meant something.