US Politics Megathread

[Goodspeed]

But then how is it paranoia to think China is interested in expanding its territory through conquest?

I would say that is pure paranoia; "..." I mean, instead, It could be possible to think of many big nations, that want to trade with each other, in order to gain goods for everyone, It could be possible that it does not take wars, and that ONE should be in power over everyone else.

[spanky4ever]

remember Bay of Pigs, where USA and Russia almost raged WW3 over some military bases in an Island, called CUBA

[Dolan]

I would say that is pure paranoia;

Yeah, that's how superpowers behave. They're constantly paranoid about showing the slightest sign of weakness which could be exploited by its enemies. So much money has been spent during the Cold War due to mutual paranoia. So many infiltrated spies, so much invested effort even just for little incremental gains in information, here and there.

Saying If the Chinese are getting as powerful as we (USA) are, they will be just as prone to rage wars all over the planed, for their own benefits.

I mean, in stead, It could be possible to think of many big nations, that want to trade with each other, in order to gain goods for everyone, It could be possible that it does not take wars, and that ONE should be in power over everyone else.
As far as I know, Chinese companies are making deals in Africa, on very different terms than USA government do for their Big Corp. I will not say more, cos you can google it yourself if you are interested.

Well that's a very naive view on how the world works. China sees its economic ascension as a huge opportunity to have a "Chinese century". Once they unleash their economic force all over the world and make other nations dependent on their credit and technology, the possibilities are almost endless. They could become something like a soft, stealthy superpower that doesn't even need to use the threat of military power to gain advantages like the USA. They could just threaten to cut your credit or cripple your infrastructure, in very euphemistic and tame ways. And then you would be pulling hairs out of your head wondering "how did it all get to this? why didn't we stop it before it was too late?".

But this is not about trade. The USA is quite economically self-sufficient: up to 86.6% of its GDP is produced internally. China has a slightly bigger dependence on trade: they produce about 80% of their GDP only from their domestic economy. So China would be much more impacted by a trade war than the USA. And it's not just a question of imports and exports, it's also a question of getting access to public contracts for building infrastructure in other countries. And this is where the USA is trying to block China, by appealing to its allies (EU and the Anglophone world) to refuse to allow Chinese firms to compete for infrastructure projects in their countries.

[spanky4ever]

But then how is it paranoia to think China is interested in expanding its territory through conquest?

I would say that is pure paranoia; "..." I mean, instead, It could be possible to think of many big nations, that want to trade with each other, in order to gain goods for everyone, It could be possible that it does not take wars, and that ONE should be in power over everyone else.

the quote I made there, is how I perceive USA are thinking, its not a "REAL" quote, lol
Thus far China has not made a single military base near USA, but you saw the picture of the military bases surrounding China. How about that

[Dolan]

The whole global system right now basically revolves around the USA. If they let China overtake them, then it's going to revolve around China. So the USA is thinking "it should better be us leading, than them". Simple as that. Why let your current advantageous position just slip through your hands and see your position in the world diminished, with all the negative consequences arising from that? Like losing the supremacy of the dollar, seeing your financial centres become less influential, seeing the industrial focus moving to China, future technological lead etc etc etc.

[spanky4ever]

and yeah @Dolan that is Chinese strategy, they build infrastructures in Africa and try to promote the economy for Africa. That is different from USA politics in Arica, and other countries; they build infrastructure to benefit their Corp interests, and they exploit the natural resources of the country and bribe the government to be silent about it.
No wonder, China has such a big success in Africa.

[Googol]

and yeah @Dolan that is Chinese strategy, they build infrastructures in Africa and try to promote the economy for Africa. That is different from USA politics in Arica, and other countries; they build infrastructure to benefit their Corp interests, and they exploit the natural resources of the country and bribe the government to be silent about it.
No wonder, China has such a big success in Africa.

Basically Neo-Colonization.

[spanky4ever]

https://youtu.be/6w-DVGWVhIw?t=70
I wonder how Biden will do in this State, saying it will all get better if we only have dignity about it.

[Dolan]

@spanky4ever

Lol, do you also believe in the kindness of strangers? China is literally colonising Africa right now. It's a new kind of slavery, slavery through debt. Slavery 2.0.

Do you think they are doing this out of good will and their desire to spread love and flying unicorns all over the world?

Here's a case study: China lent Sri Lanka millions of dollars since the end of the civil war on that island in 2009. Later on, Sri Lanka has become unable to pay back that debt. So it had no choice but to give one of its most important ports to China on a 99-year lease.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-40761732

This is called "debt trap". First lend a country money, ostensibly to "help them develop their infrastructure". Then once they become too burdened by debt, demand control of their infrastructure. That's the Chinese modus operandi.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-40761732

This is already a known fact. Look:

https://www.dw.com/en/double-debt-risk- ... a-44819336
https://qz.com/1223768/china-debt-trap- ... oad-plans/

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-45916060

[spanky4ever]

@spanky4ever

Lol, do you also believe in the kindness of strangers? China is literally colonising Africa right now. It's a new kind of slavery, slavery through debt. Slavery 2.0.

Do you think they are doing this out of good will and their desire to spread love and flying unicorns all over the world?

Here's a case study: China lent Sri Lanka millions of dollars since the end of the civil war on that island in 2009. Later on, Sri Lanka has become unable to pay back that debt. So it had no choice but to give one of its most important ports to China on a 99-year lease.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-40761732

This is called "debt trap". First lend a country money, ostensibly to "help them develop their infrastructure". Then once they become too burdened by debt, demand control of their infrastructure. That's the Chinese modus operandi.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-40761732

This is already a known fact. Look:

https://www.dw.com/en/double-debt-risk- ... a-44819336
https://qz.com/1223768/china-debt-trap- ... oad-plans/
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-45916060

I do not know all that you seem to think you know by posting alot of threads, but I do know, that I would prefer to get funds to build infrastructure for the ppl who live here, and not only roads for the Big Corp to move their goods faster. As far as I know, there is no bending the arm when it comes to Chinese loans, but surely they will have something they want in return. Its not a givaway, anyway

[Dolan]

Well, yeah, those who were stupid enough to take those loans now find out it's too late for regrets.

They now have to give away chunks of their economy, strategic points from their country (such as ports). And I don't mean that in a metaphorical way. They are literally and legally handing over ownership rights to pieces of their territory, for a defined period of time (like almost one century for that Sri Lankan port).

[spanky4ever]

Well, yeah, those who were stupid enough to take those loans now find out it's too late for regrets.

They now have to give away chunks of their economy, strategic points from their country (such as ports). And I don't mean that in a metaphorical way. They are literally and legally handing over ownership rights to pieces of their territory, for a defined period of time (like almost one century for that Sri Lankan port).

economics these days, are all about loans. For single individuals, families, companies, and for nations as well.

[Goodspeed]

Of course. You wouldn't want people spending money that actually exists

[spanky4ever]

Of course. You wouldn't want people spending money that actually exists

That is pretty ignorant

[Goodspeed]

Attempt at a joke, referring to the predatory practices of credit card companies, resulting in many people (very common in the US) paying insane interest on a debt that never goes away. They would lose a lot of revenue if people only spent money that they actually had, so they "wouldn't want" that.

[spanky4ever]

Attempt at a joke, referring to the predatory practices of credit card companies, resulting in many Americans paying insane interest on a debt that never goes away. They would lose a lot of revenue if people only spent money that they actually had

I really did not get that joke, given the context, but you are right about the predatory loans, given to those who cannot afford it, AT ALL

[Goodspeed]

Well what China is doing is pretty much the same thing. Debt trapping for profit.

[spanky4ever]

Well what China is doing is pretty much the same thing. Debt-locking and then profiting.

without the military, often helping in a military coup, helping corrupt ppl gain power, and the Big Corporations running everything, and without the government having to pay for the infrastructure that the corporations needed to exploit them. Except for those smaller issues, it's the same thing.
yeah, its basically the same thing (not)
And those "small issues" are making China popular, and other, more exploiting countries, not so popular, anymore. Cannot blame them, it's pretty smart to prefer investment from China

[Goodspeed]

I'm finding it difficult to decipher that post.
There was a sequence of posts about debt trapping and I attempted a joke and then tried to explain what made me think of it, since you said you didn't understand given the context. That's all..

[Dolan]

without the military, often helping in a military coup, helping corrupt ppl gain power, and the Big Corporations running everything, and without the government having to pay for the infrastructure that the corporations needed to exploit them. Except for those smaller issues, it's the same thing.
yeah, its basically the same thing (not)
And those "small issues" are making China popular, and other, more exploiting countries, not so popular, anymore. Cannot blame them, it's pretty smart to prefer investment from China

Yeah sure, it's better when your country gets trapped in debt and then China asks you to hand over your ports, in exchange for "further investment".

They're doing this for "the people" they're developing the infrastructure for those poor people. And then taking control of it completely for one century. As in taking ownership of it. Those "people" will not see any profit or gains from that debt-funded infrastructure. It's built on their territory, but they can only look at it from behind a chain-link fence. For 99 years.

Just enough for a Chinese century to take place.

[spanky4ever]

without the military, often helping in a military coup, helping corrupt ppl gain power, and the Big Corporations running everything, and without the government having to pay for the infrastructure that the corporations needed to exploit them. Except for those smaller issues, it's the same thing.
yeah, its basically the same thing (not)
And those "small issues" are making China popular, and other, more exploiting countries, not so popular, anymore. Cannot blame them, it's pretty smart to prefer investment from China

Yeah sure, it's better when your country gets trapped in debt and then China asks you to hand over your ports, in exchange for "further investment".

They're doing this for "the people" they're developing the infrastructure for those poor people. And then taking control of it completely for one century. As in taking ownership of it. Those "people" will not see any profit or gains from that debt-funded infrastructure. It's built on their territory, but they can only look at it from behind the chain-link fence. For 99 years.

Just enough for a Chinese century to take place.

would you prefer the former solution then? the usual USA one I mean, you bash the one and do not mention the other one. That's kind of strange to me, since I made a post, trying to contrast them.

[Dolan]

Sure, they're both bad in their own ways. But that's the logic of how politics work and have worked for millennia. At some point, you just have to pick a side or complain about the state of the world forever.

And if I had to pick a side in terms of values and how things get done, I don't think I'd side with China. If it's just simply because China is a Communist country with an authoritarian government which controls everything. I don't think I would want to support that kind of system. Sure the USA and the current status quo are also bad. But at least, with the Americans you can actually talk, you can express your criticism, they're not going to tell you "you know what, since you owe our banks some money, give us that chunk of your territory for 99 years". They don't really control their companies that easily as China does, since their economic agents have a lot more freedom. Sure, for national security reasons, they all get called to help their government, they get consulted and so on. Sure, their government also does everything it can to promote their interests abroad. But there's a lot more room for negotiation there.

Look at how the EU reacts to the USA's requests to ban Huawei. Germany has refused to simply comply with the USA's requests. The Germans have basically said "we'll decide for ourselves how we proceed about these potential risks with allowing Huawei to have so much control over how our communication infrastructure gets developed". They didn't say either no or yes. So how does the USA force the EU's hand in this story, for example? How are they simply demanding EU states to hand over their ports for a 99 years lease?

Another example. Trump/USA have demanded NATO allies to increase their defence spending. And some states have responded to this request by increasing their spending and some haven't. What is more, a country like Germany is now refusing to buy F-35 fighter jets (https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... e-tornado/) made by the much-hated "American industrial military complex", in the name of which the US government apparently does everything, according to every online opinion since the beginning of the internet. So if the USA military industrial complex is so powerful and the US government have so much clout around the world, how come they can't even get a state like Germany, on whose territory they have military bases, to just buy their planes? I thought the USA is also despotically abusing other states and controlling them from afar. It doesn't quite seem like it, does it?

I guess "common people's knowledge" on such subjects is not such a good teacher, eh.

[deleted_user]

I'm common ehhh

[Dolan]

Yep, the topic is about you.
Gotta extract some attention from it, eh.

[deleted_user]

Gotta tell someone they're extracting some attention from it, eh.