Posted on 08/22/2002 5:57:00 PM PDT by maui_hawaii
That's the problem with most US businessmen these days (my / your peers). Most of them neither want to consider nor talk about the geopolitical dimension. They have become too $&@*$@ arrogant and confident in the West and in the particular form of capitalism that has come into vogue since the late 1980s (there are many forms after all, you know this to be true...). Indeed, it looked to many like this form defeated the East, but why then, is the East now ascendent? Perhaps the Sun Tzu way of looking at things? In point of fact, the "winning of the Cold War" was not nearly so clean a win as many think. Much of what happened 1988 - 1993 was very ambiguous and without a clear settlement or winner. Yet, many Westerners started to beat upon their chests and gloat - a bit too early I think.
Viewing what appears to be crystalizing as a very new world situation with the new century, any objective analyst would have to, at this point, admit that the sort of ubiquitous span of Western control via multinational corporations and Western based financial networks might have been just a bit oversold. Already we can see that the theories of Francis Fukuyama and Thomas L. Friedman have serious gaps and flaws. Once again, I suspect, we shall have to confront both geopolitical and economic conditions that are less than ideal for the free nations of the world. War? Perhaps. Pain? You bet. In any case, those few business people who bring themselves to consider other dimensions besides the economic one, and without wishful thinking, will be the overall winners as we proceed through the first real wave of serious global chaos since the 1940s.
While on the subject of Japan, there are still a far greater percentage of vertically integrated firms there versus the outsourced and PRC mongering US. And that will be a good thing for them when the #&$#* hits the fan.
Given the current investigations into corporate practices and "Martha," it would not be inappropriate to extend corporate transparency to all business that has any interests in America at all.
In the end though, if they are honest and transparent concerning China operations, they will uncover that a lot of business is done out of political motivations. Also, a lot of companies don't even want to be in China.
Of course there is the old addage that when goods don't cross borders, armies will.
I would hope for the China apologist crowd to be knocked off their high horses. To an extent thats happened.
After thats been done we can see the CCP for what it is and play hardball with them, and realize things aren't all peechy keen with them. China isn't better than anyone. They are not "the wave of the future"...
Then they decry any and every type of government intervention. Any time the government does anything at all its called "socialism"...
If it were not for political government directive by Washington DC, we would not be doing business with China.
If government can open China, or anywhere else for that matter, then government can also advocate and enforce a balanced and secure trade policy.
It is rare for an ancient civilization to recover its past glories. Once they peak and burn out, they stay gone. Not that they don't try from time to time to bring it back and realize their destiny. Mussolini tried to bring back Rome. Saddam is trying to being back Babylon. Arabia is trying to bring back Damascus. We won't wish China luck in bringing back the Middle Kingdom; nobody wants it.
WOW. BIG bump. Quote of the week.
The globalists are not really globalists. They are China-ists. If they want to be globalist as far as trade goes, thats fine, but that means being globalist, not a China hand.
From Hieronymous on the Commodity Futures Trading Act of 1974:
"the transactions and prices of commodities on such boards of trade are susceptible to speculation, manipulation, and control, and sudden or unreasonable fluctuations in the price thereof frequently result of such speculation, manipulation, or control, which are detrimental to the producer or the consumer and the persons handling commodities and the producer and byproducts thereof in interstate commerce"
Commodity futures markets look to be the free-est markets there are. And maybe it is so. But it is only extensive regulation by government that makes it so.
Extending this to free markets, only government regulation can guarantee a truely free market. Anarchy leads directly to disaster.
This can be extended to real estate and mining claims. Without laws there is chaos.
Exactly. Fair trade bump. Free is good when everyone has the same set of rules.
Football has rules, yet the competition decides who is really the best team.
No one else's government stays out of the international market. Thats why Bush getting trade powers was/is a good thing.
If our "trade" "partner" sells everything to the US, but at the same time throws every road block to us selling to them, thats not a square deal. The US should take a pound of flesh out of someones @ss when they start things of that nature.
China is on the top of the list.
With that being the case, I am of the opinion that we should trade with those countries who offer such opportunities.
We are pretty darn good at business, marketing, selling, etc. In a fair competition, who is gonna come out on top?
Are they going to out innovate us? No. Are they going to out market us? No. Are they going to be more creative than us as a whole? No.
They know this. We are not hegemons. We are just better at what we do, and it challenges their strongholds.
Bump.
Check out this thread....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.