China's Dangerous Equation

In terms of foreign relations there are few basic assumptions that assume the mantle of an article of faith in the goings on of the world. One of these is the notion that China (the PRC not the ROC) is a growing force in the world. Its export-driven economy has weathered the economic downturn probably the most undamaged of any major nation, its productivity and currency holdings are growing, it buys quite a bit of our debt, and its centrally controlled economy has chugged along at roughly a 10 percent growth rate annually since 1978, when some semblance of sanity came to its style of government. It also has over a billion citizens, who are ruled over by a dictatorial government that has long displayed little concern for their well-being or fundamental rights (ignoring even the basic elements of the social compact that justifies a Communist government, which their party claims to be)--this in recent years has been managed by offering a greater standard of living and opportunities at a consumer society- ironic of course in a government that recently celebrated the 60th anniversary of its founding under a Gigantic Poster of Mao. Now whether Mao's Poster would react to the utter abandonment of its principles of creating a nightmarish landscape of deprivation, terror, state-supported mass murder, and misguided attempts at smelting iron/steel in backyard forges... in favor of a nearly corporatist state is not the point of this touching upon-- nor is it meant to be a several pages long hell-stomping of the Chinese people's good name while I extoll American virtue and values (though I yield to no man under 30 in my distrust of and distain for the Chinese government)

What I'm going to mention is that with China's rise, there seems to be a mixture of over-confidence and outright insecurity in their actions towards other countries--this is a nation that after all is presently leading the world in producing wind-turbines (often selling them to western companies and nations)---while also continuing to basically destroy its own environment as the world's largest polluter-- This week two occurences highlighted this-- the Obama Administration's going through with a six-billion dollar arm sale to Taiwan (which Bejing considers to be a break-away province, and has made part of official policy...seriously, their legislature passed a bill stating it legally... that if Taiwan -- known as the Republic of China-- were to actually proclaim de jure independence, as opposed to the de facto of the last 60 years, it would attempt to invade and conquer the island nation) in line with the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act-- in response to which, though they were informed well in advance-- the Chinese government threatened to sanction American companies such as Boeing, involved in the sale, and to increase its oppostion to sanctions against Iran. Chinese prickliness about interference in its own affairs aside--the Chinese government has no scruples about selling weapons to Somali militias, or to African dictators and rebels to ensure access to oil resources-- to say nothing of Kim Jong Il and his gangster nation-state/lunatic asylum in North Korea. Moreover, China continues to receive international development funds (such as in cleaner energy) and excemptions from a number of accords as a developing nation, while it engages in nationalistic economic policies of a distinctly unfriendly nature towards many Western and other Asian nations. The other major powers, both military and economic in East Asia- Japan and South Korea have a level of contempt for the Chinese government's actions. If the Chinese wish to engage in a trade confrontation, their position economically is not as strong as it appears when considering its habit of poking every other major economic power in the eye on political issues-- its view of the Dali Lama as an agitator and its willingness to punish those that meet with him doesn't help their case either.

China's reliance on foreign investment and markets I believe off-sets its advantage in holding debt and currency (ours for example). The fact that they seem to be eager to engage in a tit-for-tat trade conflict over Taiwan and the Dali Lama that can only harm their own interests and reputation (to say nothing of trying to hack Google to get the accounts of dissidents) indicates an insecurity their government has over recent internal instability and the flaws in their system-- when economic growth is their justification for denying basic rights to their citizens, while also tolerating an increasingly sharp divide in the country itself-- what happens when the growth doesn't reach every area or begins to slow? That those in rural regions in China make 3 and a half times less than their urban dwelling countrymen, and that any workers in an industrial setting work in often dangerous--even lethal conditions-- that is a system that, if the country continues to grow more wealthy, will need to be addressed. The over-half of the population that resides in these rural areas will demand some form of benefit or compensation for their conditions, even perhaps an entitlement program-- that provides some form of basic safety-net for seven hundred MILLION people in these areas of poverty, which would also require some form of the same for the more prosperous urban areas. The environmental disaster that is much of that country (the Bejing Olympics showed us some elements of this for certain) will also have to be addressed. Otherwise, the Chinese government (ever willing to crack down on ethnic instabilities and riots in the countryside, and protests in the cities) ignores their own population at their peril, god help them if the economic/job growth slows below 7 or 8 percent and unemployment becomes a problem.

In short: the Chinese need to be more willing to play fair ball in international politics and trade, otherwise they may find their economic and political arrangement is not nearly as robust as it appears. As they rise to become a major force in world politics, their rate of growth and increase in prestige cannot continue as it has---their citizens will demand their compensation as well. After all isn't that what getting rid of the Imperial regimes was all about--the citizens?

What is Money?

There are lots of things that come to mind when I ask what is money. Some may answer its the piece of paper or coin. The greenback or the euro are examples. Money is a medium of exchange. It makes commerce easier. Money is essentially the value of what you produce or have. It eliminates the barter system which would be necessary without the advent of money as idea of people. some may answer that money is property. You own money like you own your house or your food. So maybe its property. Ohh no.

Not according to the Supreme Court. Money is speech. didnt you know that? I have heard that money talks but this is completely insane. And the best part is they don't even try to rationalize it anymore, they simply point to starie decisis when its convenient. They list precedent and thats it. This courts decision assumes you will read the THOUSANDS OF PAGES in 30 court decision from the past 230 years. And if Clarence Thomas is writing the decision its more like back to 1215. Why are company's granted rights? People make company's so it cant be about their creators. Its a perverse reading of history.

And for my last rant. The supreme court drew this insane decision from a point that wasn't even brought before it. That isn't even judicial review. They just do what they want and get away with it because of their robes. The decision said, "Our practice ‘permit[s] review of an issue not pressed [below] so long as it has been passed upon . . . .’" In this decision they do what they want and the American people have to deal with it. This activist conservative court should be stopped.

Really what should happen is that the congress and the president agree to simply disregard this decision. That's right, Jefferson and Jackson did it. I would say that's starie decisis enough. Just ignore this blatantly unconstitutional interpretation.

And Justice Alito, we will see if this court opinion will open the flood gates. You simply mouthing something at the state of the union devoid of facts of the effects of policy really makes a lot of sense.

RIP Our Rights