Friend or Foe? World Economy “Big Enough” for U.S.-China Partnership
Aaron Task
tech Ticker, Jan 19, 2011”big-enough”-for-u.s.-china-partnership-altman-says-535826.html

Category: Video

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

3 Responses to “China, Friend or Foe?”

  1. beaufou says:

    Nations have no friends or foes, only interests.

  2. CitizenWhy says:

    The Chinese rulers, in their tendency to rigid hierarchies, really want a few strong nations to govern the word in some sort of harmony, pursuing their own interests, competing, but keeping the world stable, while expanding “widespread prosperity.” They also want everyone to accept the inevitability of poverty for many.

    They want a hierarchical multi-polar world, with each ruling its zone firmly but shrewdly.

    They are very afraid of Arab society, and Muslim society in general.

    They envy the role of English in the world, and want to boost the use of Mandarin among the educated elite worldwide.

  3. siezmic says:

    Roll on the 21st century…if only to bring deeper closure to the American century.
    This clip gives a pretty good indication of the brainwashed message that so often seeps out of US based media. I hope it is not indicative of general US sentiment but I suspect it is not far from what many citizens of the USA believe, as do others from around the world.
    The introductory spiel offers a critical shopping list of “tension” drivers…free trade, human rights, use of military force…as if none of these issues could be dropped at the door of the USA (impact of QE2 on global currency rates, protectionism for US agriculturalists versus foreign more efficient imports, Guantanamo Bay, Iraq….), believe me, you don’t have to be Al Qaeda to find lots of fault with the US global position on many fronts.
    Then the paranoia of one of the interviewers cuts in when he prepares a question for his guest. He talks of the rise of China in terms of GDP growth relative to Japan, and then he states “they only have us left to take over”…so I guess on that basis the USA has clearly engaged in rampant neo-colonialism for the past half a century as its economy “took over” the entire world and its population consumed vastly greater per capita share of global resources than any other culture has come close to doing…yes, beware!!! China intends to take over the USA. The future is clearly going to be McNoodles and Chinese fries…

    Next the guest, Daniel Altman, chimes in with his spin on why China will launch into decline after trumping the world and easing into cruise mode. Now, to be clear, I think we are a long way away from knowing currently what will happen but the fraility of Mr Altman’s position is clear when he states the forces driving their current growth will peter out – rural/urban migration and ability to copy technology…whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa? Let me understand this…so he is saying China is basically a big rice paddy, plus some rapidly growing cities, where people go to rip off the west, and then…that’s it…they go into decline because the Chinese confucian based culture stifles innovation…? Thats his book…oh my god….
    I feel that Altman has little idea about China or the Chinese people. He appears to have no conception of organisational change, the effects of transforming exchanges, agent theory, provincial rivalry in China, Chinese performance in Education and new technologies development, IP development/registration…I could go on. Where does he think they got the worlds (overwelmingly) fastest super-computer recently?

    It is true that China’s cultural heritage based in Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism to some small extent, is still firmly enmeshed in China’s reality but the durability of these inputs is borne out by their longevity. They last because they can adapt and because they represent a desire to align with nature rather than trying to master nature in the Greek or Western tradition.

    China, and the rest of the world, will face many major challenges in the next 30 years but China wont me brought down by Confucianism. If you want to pick on a deep seated cultural negative, look to provincial/national rivalries and neighbour relations…those have been the cause of most of China’s problems over time, in combination with natural disasters…I think history in this case will repeat.
    The truth, surely, is that China’s culture will adapt over the next decade and beyond in response to forces some of which we can anticipate and some that are yet to emerge. If you believed Daniel, communism would never have happened in China – where does filial piety fit into Marx’s vision?

    Altman discusses China in the context of it being the latest in a long line of nations with global economic control aspirations, following in the glidepath footsteps, most recently, of Japan and the USA. He makes no mention of forces that are already appearing far less reliable – the ecological cocoon within which we live. Is there a chance, in his view, that a malthusian climax brought together by over 9 billion (2050) people scraping for room, clothing, food, shelter and water as mother nature does her best to rid herself of a spoilt brat of a species called “Humanity”, might have something to say about it all?

    How is it that now, with all the information at hand, a commentator can discuss the 1.3 Billion people in isolation from the unique environment on which they are reliant? Surely mother nature will have something to say about the footprint of that many people unless some extremely major paradigm shift occurs in the way we extract, process and consume as a species.