Why do we care about China?

Great Debates
1

First of all, I’m not jingoistic in that I believe every country should do things “the American Way” but I do believe that America should do its best to help the oppressed in foreign countries.

That being said, why the fuck do we constantly kowtow to Peking? They have an abhorant civil rights record, what they’ve done to Tibet is unconscienceable, and now they shipping us lead-based toys - an act that would get any American company shut down and sued into oblivion. If any other country did these things, we as the world’s policeman would come down so hard on them it would make the current relationship with North Korea look like a gropefest at a teenager party.

But we give China the coveted “most favored country” status in trade treaties, we back down when they complain about honoring the Dali Lama, and there is no serious consideration to boycott the Peking Olympics unless they make improvements in how they treat their citizenry. Basically, we kiss their ass so much their butt will fall off from Chap-Stik poisoning.

What is going on? Due they have incriminating photos of all our presidents? Are we afraid that if we push, they’ll nuke us? Are we worried that if we piss them off, General Tso won’t send over any more chicken?

2

If it makes you feel any better, a non-inconsequential number of people in China think the same about the US.

It would be nice if we can all get along, but what are you going to do.

[Dante] We should all have sex with each other[/Dante]

3

*Chinese *Americans I know think we should stop being so damn nice to China.

4

[QUOTE=SaintCad]
That being said, why the fuck do we constantly kowtow to Peking?
[/quote]
They are economically important to us, that’s why we suck up to them.

[QUOTE=SaintCad]
First of all, I’m not jingoistic in that I believe every country should do things “the American Way” but I do believe that America should do its best to help the oppressed in foreign countries.
[/quote]
Too bad we’ve never shown much interest in that. At least as often we’ve collaborated in or enforced that oppresssion, if it got us something we wanted.

[QUOTE=SaintCad]
They have an abhorant civil rights record, what they’ve done to Tibet is unconscienceable, and now they shipping us lead-based toys - an act that would get any American company shut down and sued into oblivion.
[/quote]
We’ve never cared much about civil rights, and it would need to be the government that cracked down on China, not a lawsuit. Since the American government is largely an extension of corporate Amerca, that means the lives and health of American citizens are expendable if someone, somewhere profits from it.

[QUOTE=SaintCad]
If any other country did these things, we as the world’s policeman would come down so hard on them it would make the current relationship with North Korea look like a gropefest at a teenager party.
[/quote]
We aren’t the world’s policeman, we’re the world’s corporate enforcer.

5

The are an enormous trading partner, and America’s chief source of inexpensive consumer goods. Plus, since China has bought up so much of our debt, they have us by the balls. My impression is they could cause the US dollar to crash and burn just by refusing to by any more government bonds, or by unloading the ones they currently own.

6

[QUOTE=Sophistry and Illusion]
Plus, since China has bought up so much of our debt, they have us by the balls. My impression is they could cause the US dollar to crash and burn just by refusing to by any more government bonds, or by unloading the ones they currently own.
[/QUOTE]

Doing so would bring their own economy crashing too the dust as well. If they have us by the balls, we have them by the throat…there simply is no other market in the world like the US market. That’s why everyone sells their stuff here.

The short answer too the OP is pretty much what has been said…we ‘care’ about China because atm we have a huge amount of trade with them…and it’s trade in the every day goods that US citizens use. Additionally, since Nixon’s time we have really bent over backwards too try and bring ‘communist’ China into the fold and out of the Soviet/Russian sphere of influence. There is still an attitude out there that keeping good relations between China and the US is a good thing…even without all the trade.

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
They are economically important to us, that’s why we suck up to them.
[/QUOTE]

We sucked up too them BEFORE they were economically important too us. Why do you suppose that happened in your black and white world view? Did we have a time machine and know they WOULD be economically important too us someday, so we might as well suck up while the sucking was good??

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Too bad we’ve never shown much interest in that. At least as often we’ve collaborated in or enforced that oppresssion, if it got us something we wanted.
[/QUOTE]

Never, ehe? Do you ever get tired of your black and white, non-nuanced view point of the world? Or do you really enjoy comic books that much? Seriously, try a novel sometime, ehe?

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
We’ve never cared much about civil rights, and it would need to be the government that cracked down on China, not a lawsuit. Since the American government is largely an extension of corporate Amerca, that means the lives and health of American citizens are expendable if someone, somewhere profits from it.
[/QUOTE]

Complete horse shit…but then, no surprise. It’s you after all. Hyperbolic bullshit is your middle name.

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
We aren’t the world’s policeman, we’re the world’s corporate enforcer.
[/QUOTE]

If Belgium fucks with us on trade again we’ll send Chaney over too break their kneecaps…

-XT

7

[QUOTE=xtisme]
We sucked up too them BEFORE they were economically important too us. Why do you suppose that happened in your black and white world view? Did we have a time machine and know they WOULD be economically important too us someday, so we might as well suck up while the sucking was good??
[/QUOTE]

I dunno. You don’t have to be Karnak the Magnificent to predict that a country with 1 billion inhabitants is eventually going to be a major economic player.

8

[QUOTE=Sophistry and Illusion]
I dunno. You don’t have to be Karnak the Magnificent to predict that a country with 1 billion inhabitants is eventually going to be a major economic player.
[/QUOTE]

:dubious: Why? What indicators in the 70’s were there at China would become a major exporter of cheap goods? Lots of people? That’s not generally an indicator that a country is going too become an economic powerhouse. A billion people is all well and good…but a lot of countries have large potential markets of cheap labor, yet they haven’t become major players. Russia for instance. Africa as a collective.

If it was a no-brainer why didn’t you invest heavily in the 70’s in the emerging Chinese markets? Or in the 80’s? 90’s?

Besides, even if you, Karnak wanabe, predicted that China would develop as it has today way back in the 70’s, do you REALLY think that US government (a.k.a. the Nixon administration and subsequent administrations) made that same calculation and that’s why we ‘sucked up’ too them??

-XT

9

[QUOTE=xtisme]
:dubious: Why? What indicators in the 70’s were there at China would become a major exporter of cheap goods? Lots of people? That’s not generally an indicator that a country is going too become an economic powerhouse. A billion people is all well and good…but a lot of countries have large potential markets of cheap labor, yet they haven’t become major players. Russia for instance. Africa as a collective.
[/quote]

Well, Russia is an anomaly. But China doesn’t have Africa’s ethnic diversity and history of tribal conflict, so from a stability and prosperity standpoint, that’s a plus. And you didn’t have to predict that China would be a producer of cheap products; on the contrary, I would sooner have predicted that it would be an enormous *consumer * of products (which it is becoming). Either one would have made it a big player.

'Cause in the 70s and 80s I was a kid, and in the 90s I was broke.

It does seem to attribute to the gummint a certain far-sightedness which would be unusual, to say the least.

10

It’s nothing new - the West has been poking about in China for hundreds of years. The dynamics have changed with regard to who sells what to who, but really, with the amount of Chinese investment in the US, is it any wonder the US plays suck-ass? I mean, what would be the effect if the Chinese banks decided they preferred Euros over dollars for reserves?

11

Nitpick: It’s Beijing, not Peking.

12

I saw a graph recently that charted world power and estimated GDP of certain world powers over the last 400 years. China led those graphs except for a dip in the last 150 years which is rising. Anyone know where I saw this graph?

13

There are lots of correct answers to the question in the OP. The one I’ll mention goes like this: sure, maybe China “deserves” to face a hard line from the U.S. in some abstract, retributive way. Who would benefit from that, though? Disrupting our trade with China would hurt the citizens of both countries, and it behooves us to stay on generally good terms with the most important emerging country in the world – we will have more influence on Chinese policy as an ally than as an enemy.

14

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Hyperbolic bullshit is your middle name.
[/QUOTE]
This is not the Pit and you know better.

Knock it off.

[ /Moderator ]

15

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
This is not the Pit and you know better.
[/QUOTE]

Apologies…you are quite correct Tom.

-XT

16

[QUOTE=Siam Sam]
Nitpick: It’s Beijing, not Peking.
[/QUOTE]

Sure, if you kowtow to the Communists’ preferred romanization. I say support freedom: Wade-Giles or bust!

17

[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
Sure, if you kowtow to the Communists’ preferred romanization. I say support freedom: Wade-Giles or bust!
[/QUOTE]

Suit yourself. Having spent time in Beijing, it’s rendered Beijing everywhere. The only time I see Peking is with the duck.

18

[QUOTE=Siam Sam]
Suit yourself. Having spent time in Beijing, it’s rendered Beijing everywhere. The only time I see Peking is with the duck.
[/QUOTE]

Obviously that’s because ducks (which can fly, as opposed to chickens, which cannot) are a symbol, nay, a beacon of freedom to the world, not to be linguistically imprisoned by petty overlords.

19

[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
Sure, if you kowtow to the Communists’ preferred romanization. I say support freedom: Wade-Giles or bust!
[/QUOTE]

Nitpick - by Wade-Giles, it would be Peiching.

20

I don’t think there’s a G at the end, and you’ll have to include superscripts for tone as well. :eek:

Pei3Chin1.