EPTAs soon as any of the poor in China wield any sort of power, there's going to be a revolution. There's just so many of them, and they've been treated like dirt by their government for centuries.
The Rise of China and Fall of America - Page 13
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Rakanishu2
United States475 Posts
As soon as any of the poor in China wield any sort of power, there's going to be a revolution. There's just so many of them, and they've been treated like dirt by their government for centuries. | ||
|
Consolidate
United States829 Posts
On December 08 2010 02:08 Rakanishu2 wrote: China is fueling is economy on the backs of essentially slave-like labor, as soon as the middle class rises to have any sort of power at all, I mean in any way, then there is going to be sympathy for the poor and China will have a revolution. As soon as any of the poor in China wield any sort of power, there's going to be a revolution. There's just so many of them, and they've been treated like dirt by their government for centuries. They haven't even had the current form of government for a single century.... | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
On December 08 2010 02:08 Rakanishu2 wrote: That is exactly what the link in the first line of the OP is talking about. How China plan to make a shift from profiting off cheap labor to profiting off a strong middle class.China is fueling is economy on the backs of essentially slave-like labor, as soon as the middle class rises to have any sort of power at all, I mean in any way, then there is going to be sympathy for the poor and China will have a revolution. As soon as any of the poor in China wield any sort of power, there's going to be a revolution. There's just so many of them, and they've been treated like dirt by their government for centuries. | ||
|
optical630
United Kingdom768 Posts
who should american/UK invade next? | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On December 08 2010 03:08 optical630 wrote: dont worry, i hear invading countries fixes a recession, who should american/UK invade next? It is just that war is the only short-term stimulus conservatives will support. Plenty of other things would work, you just can't convince those right of center that roads do more good than bombs, so you'll have to settle for war! | ||
|
domovoi
United States1478 Posts
Many of America's luxuries and advantages exist only ONLY because they are the supreme economic and military power right now. Such as? If the US loses its position as #1 it will cost dearly. You're very short on specifics. What will it cost besides its ranking in a GDP table? | ||
|
StorkHwaiting
United States3465 Posts
On December 08 2010 03:18 domovoi wrote: Such as? You're very short on specifics. What will it cost besides its ranking in a GDP table? Petrodollar. World Bank. Global reserve currency. Arms trade. Free trade agreements. Control of WTO. Control of UN. Many, many resource trade agreements based on USA's position as global dominant political, economic, and military power. You seem to not understand that political power is inextricably tied to economic and military power. You can't lose one or two of them and not have the third affected. Case in point: USSR. Plenty of military and political power, but it all fell apart when their economic power collapsed. USA's economic power is greatly based on favorable trading statuses, favorable mineral, oil, natural resource rights, and tons and tons of foreign investment/lending based on the US dollar's status as global reserve currency. I was low on specifics in previous posts because these are such basic and obvious aspects of geopolitics that anyone involved in this debate should have understood them from the onset. It would be like someone debating SC2 and not knowing why it'd be bad if a zerg had no queens. You can't honestly believe that the USA's GDP is just some magical number that has no relationship with political or military power, right? | ||
|
codeman305
United States13 Posts
| ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
| ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On December 08 2010 05:22 D10 wrote: China will win the US any day of the week, both country nuke each other and allies to oblivion, many more chinese will survive since they are more numerous they will rebuild faster. The US has far better attack capabilities then China does in terms of range. China has mostly been buying up defensive rockets anyways, but their navy is growing quite rapidly. Anyways India would likely bomb China before the US would. The US would just join in after all decimate china and then all the competing manufacturing jobs are opened up in the US again. You also just killed like 1/4-1/3rd of the population in one of the growing polluters of green house gases so you just helped the ego freaks! | ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
On December 08 2010 05:29 semantics wrote: The US has far better attack capabilities then China does in terms of range. China has mostly been buying up defensive rockets anyways, but their navy is growing quite rapidly. Anyways India would likely bomb China before the US would. The US would just join in after all decimate china and then all the competing manufacturing jobs are opened up in the US again. You also just killed like 1/4-1/3rd of the population in one of the growing polluters of green house gases so you just helped the ego freaks! nuclear subs tech = everyone dies they are hidden all around you just waiting for an excuse to unlead their inventories. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
You can intercept nukes and the US has invested heavily into this tech. It is also true that China is near to having more submarines then the US has although gross numbers or tonnage is not really a measure of military might. Just saying China in terms of military allies wouldn't have too many as they burn bridges to get ahead economically while India would have the US among others, it's why even like minded communist counties like Vietnam would side with the US in that kind of conflict. | ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
| ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On December 08 2010 06:07 D10 wrote: Idk, I think you oversee important points of such especulation, everyone is so eager to lick the US balls because they think its whats best for them, if the US were in such a situation, many countries would look after their own interests, I know I aint supporting the US in any military conflict that is not against insectoid swarming aliens. Like minded goverments often find it's easier to deal with then those who go off willy nilly in their affairs. But as far as governments go china is one without a lot of friends militarily who carry weight. | ||
|
pfods
United States895 Posts
On December 08 2010 05:38 semantics wrote: You can intercept nukes and the US has invested heavily into this tech. It is also true that China is near to having more submarines then the US has although gross numbers or tonnage is not really a measure of military might. Just saying China in terms of military allies wouldn't have too many as they burn bridges to get ahead economically while India would have the US among others, it's why even like minded communist counties like Vietnam would side with the US in that kind of conflict. One quick caveat about the subs, they're all attack subs that aren't capable of going out deep into the pacific. Essentially they're u-boats. | ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
On December 08 2010 06:11 semantics wrote: Like minded goverments often find it's easier to deal with then those who go off willy nilly in their affairs. But as far as governments go china is one without a lot of friends militarily who carry weight. You are certainly exagerating if you think China does not have the resources to transform the world in a nuclear wasteland, specially the US. Its an interesting scenario, personally I think if a conflict erupeted as a result from the Korea crisis, the US and EU and asia would go to hell | ||
|
StorkHwaiting
United States3465 Posts
On December 08 2010 05:38 semantics wrote: You can intercept nukes and the US has invested heavily into this tech. It is also true that China is near to having more submarines then the US has although gross numbers or tonnage is not really a measure of military might. Just saying China in terms of military allies wouldn't have too many as they burn bridges to get ahead economically while India would have the US among others, it's why even like minded communist counties like Vietnam would side with the US in that kind of conflict. I'm going to completely ignore the squabble (edit: you and D10) are trying to stir up about nuclear war between the two countries, as its rather obvious that only a psychopath would believe that either country would profit from initiating a nuclear war. To address your other point about why China and Vietnam are not allied: Vietnam is allied with the USA, not China, because China decided to invade Vietnam twice after the Vietnam war ended. It has absolutely nothing to do with China's supposed burning of bridges to get ahead economically. In fact, China has proven over the last 15 years that their economic and diplomatic efforts have been far more effective in securing lucrative economic agreements with foreign countries than the US of A. Further, China and the USA are currently facing off in a game of encirclement. The USA has S. Korea, Vietnam, Japan, Australia, and India. China has everything else, has port rights in every SEA country except Vietnam, has a trans-Siberian railroad that reaches all the way through the EU now, and extensive contracts for natural resources in both Central Asia and the Middle East. China now has an extremely strong presence on the African continent as well, including arms trade, construction, and exploitation of natural resources. India has also made several overtures to improving bilateral trade between the two countries. S. America is also currently in negotiations with China about cross-Pacific trade. Now, where exactly in this dossier of China's diplomatic achievements includes this burning of bridges that you speak of? | ||
|
Dagon
Romania264 Posts
China had an economic infrastructure when in America, people were using sticks and stones to hunt rabbits.. No offence.. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On December 08 2010 06:21 StorkHwaiting wrote: I'm going to completely ignore the squabble (edit: you and D10) are trying to stir up about nuclear war between the two countries, as its rather obvious that only a psychopath would believe that either country would profit from initiating a nuclear war. To address your other point about why China and Vietnam are not allied: Vietnam is allied with the USA, not China, because China decided to invade Vietnam twice after the Vietnam war ended. It has absolutely nothing to do with China's supposed burning of bridges to get ahead economically. It was mostly a comment to who has military might in the regions and who is aligned with who, although china has deals with resource rich counties they aren't exactly who you would tell your parents you are friends with. In fact, China has proven over the last 15 years that their economic and diplomatic efforts have been far more effective in securing lucrative economic agreements with foreign countries than the US of A. Further, China and the USA are currently facing off in a game of encirclement. The USA has S. Korea, Vietnam, Japan, Australia, and India. China has everything else, has port rights in every SEA country except Vietnam, has a trans-Siberian railroad that reaches all the way through the EU now, and extensive contracts for natural resources in both Central Asia and the Middle East. China now has an extremely strong presence on the African continent as well, including arms trade, construction, and exploitation of natural resources. India has also made several overtures to improving bilateral trade between the two countries. S. America is also currently in negotiations with China about cross-Pacific trade. Now, where exactly in this dossier of China's diplomatic achievements includes this burning of bridges that you speak of? It's rather the willing ness of china to deal with "governments" that 1st world counties would not like Burma. It's not that china lacks allies it's that they lack allies of counties who carry weight in the rest of the world, they deal with resource rich countries just not necessarily stable ones. | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On December 08 2010 06:27 Dagon wrote: I only have to say "Hell, it's about time!" China had an economic infrastructure when in America, people were using sticks and stones to hunt rabbits.. No offence.. I don't get it | ||
| ||
