Hi Rocky_Shortz,
It seems to me that Fullford is a little naive when it come to China. He seems also to forget what politics is all about.
The undoing in his thinking is in this paragraph:
"We have talked ourselves into believing that China is already a hyper-power. It may become one: it is not one yet. China is ringed by states - Japan, Korea, Vietnam, India - that are American allies when push comes to shove. It faces a prickly Russia on its 4,000km border, where Chinese migrants are itching for Lebensraum across the Amur. Emerging Asia, Brazil, Egypt and Europe are all irked by China's yuan-rigged export dumping."
South Korea will do nothing to China because of its' neighbour North Korea. I'm sure that Vietnam and India are really close allies of the US (sarcasm implied here) and is basing his theory that the battle is between the US and China. This battle is a fiction. The real battle is for trade and wealth.
The emerging Asian countries are in competition with China (nothing wrong in that), Brazil exports more raw material than finished goods and so is not in direct competition with China - in fact has a very good relationship with China wishing to trade in local currency rather than the US$ - selling to China resources and importing final products.
Politics only goes in your favour when you are healthy. Have you not seen recently smaller countries starting to voice their opinions about the US? Beginning to state that the US foreign policy is wrong? They can see that the US is hurting financially and thus is becoming weaker on the political stage and I'm sure that the high level politicians know even more than we do here on street level and we are beginning to get a good picture of what's going to go down.
The US was the superpower because it was the largest importing nation on this planet. However, China and India will be the rich new markets to emerge. There are a lot of poor people in India and China, but when they start to get some money in their pockets, as did the Arabs in the 1970's and the Russians in 1980/90's, they will start to buy. There will be more than 3 billion consumers avid for, initially, smaller electrodomestic items, followed by larger durable goods. These are massive markets and China and India will command who sells to them, as did the US. That is a lot of leverage in the political world!
What is the exit strategy for the US president? War? I heard recently that in 1949 after WWII the leaders of the UK, US and Soviet Union made an agreement to not make developed countries 'warzones' and to hold wars only in "Third World" nations (don't think these countries have anything to do with development, they are merely countries that were not included in the "First" nor "Second" worlds). I don't think the US will have the energy or manpower to fight in a war with China nor her allies. The US will have to lower its' head and be a little more honest and humble, suffer and accept the 'payback' that will come its' way and then move on in a fairer more balanced way which would make a better world for all.
Best regards,
Steve
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocky_Shorz
Is this the good news Fulford was talking about?  |