Blame The Real Bad Guys - The Powers Behind Super Powers, page 4

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by rock427

---

The US Trade Representative gives us some really solid numbers regarding importing and exporting to China. While I'm sure that much or most of that trade is from western companies, operating within China... I'm sure that some of it is Chinese product. There is a healthy agriculture import from China to the US for example - and I doubt we're outsourcing farmers yet.

But none of this disputes the things I've been saying. My point IS that global conglomerates ( primarily US owned entities ) are using the Chinese for profit maximization. This is one of the major factors in my thoughts. I do realize that we've been on the China/USA subject for a few pages... But this is called "The Powers Behind Super Powers"... and obviously both the US and China are super powers. All I'm doing is working my way to the "behind them" part.

Spoiler alert: It's multinational conglomerates and financial services firms.

~Heff

Its actually Goldman Sachs.

And subjectively speaking, I wouldn't consider China a superpower. This is primarily due to them being relatively new on the world stage, the questionable lasting sustainability of their growth, lack of innovation, and the fact that they still lack a true blue water navy. (amongst other things) Economically, China is nothing special when you look at their actual drivers for economic growth. (Fixed investments equating to 60% of Chinas GDP is a great example of this) It takes $6-$8 worth of debt to equal $1 of growth in China. So I remain incredibly pessimistic about Chinas long-term outlook when it comes to economics.

Originally posted by Hefficide
The US and China are role playing War Games in Cyberspace???

China and the U.S. are playing pretend war to vent their mutual frustrations and avoid a real one, according to a report by the Guardian. The State and Defense departments participated in two hypothetical-conflict sessions last year, and another round is planned for May. The war games were designed to prevent a “sudden military escalation” amid burgeoning anger in Washington over cyber attacks that the U.S. says are originating in China...

...During the first round, officials had to talk about what they would do if they were attacked by a computer virus like the Stuxnet worm that disabled nuclear facilities in Iran. Then they had to discuss how they’d react if they found out the attack was launched by the other side. “Known as "Track 1.5" diplomacy, it is the closest governments can get in conflict management without full-blown talks,” the newspaper reports.

~Heff

Sorry to cut up your post there, very informative. To me this really just wreaks of pre-WWII appeasement. China's going to see steps like this as a sign of weakness, they're going to get more and more ballsy and the next thing you know South Korea and Taiwan are being invaded. China has publicly stated more than once that they need more space, that their borders are becoming to restrictive for their growing population. China is the world's most populace country, by quite a bit, but not the worlds densest population which I think is still India. Nonetheless they've made it clear that they're looking to expand their borders and obviously they have their eye on Taiwan, but probably not because of space concerns, they've always regarded the 'break away' as their property and loathe that they don't have it.

What is the US going to do if China decides to take Taiwan by force? I'm seeing WWII parallels here and really most wars have similar beginnings, WWI was sparked by as little as a political assassination in a country that ended up having little to do with the actual war. I certainly do not want to see a WWIII type situation, what I am saying is that I see parallels.

P.S. If that ever does end up going down I just hope I have a bottle of jack or something to keep me company when the bombs start droppin'

reply to post by rock427

---

Ah, lost my post and have to start all over.

You are right, China is a paper dragon, and until they learn to clean up corruption and develope a more egalitarian society, they will never succeed as a global power. China can not go to war against the US because they are economically dependent on the US, and will continue to be until they develop their own domestic demand. That means rising wage. Which takes away their strategic advantage. The only way the Chinese will ever compete with the US is through innovation, and the only way they will ever succeed at this is by becoming a more egalitarian society.

The PTB/ICBs have been playing this same game of economic chess since the renaissance, and each time they have come up losers. It is a very recognizable pattern of foolish policies that depends on continuous growth in debt that is unsustainable. Two main factors have allowed them to keep repeating this foolish pursuit, globalization and abundant sources of easily controlled energy resources. Both of these factors are about to come to an end at about the same time, and that will be the end of the ICBs, and good riddence to them.

What do they want in the Middle East? How about a new source of slave labor. They the gig is about up in China, and they need a new source of slave labor soon. Sorry ICBs, but just like oil, the high quality easy to get slave labor is all dried up.

reply to post by poet1b

---

Very well put.
It's nice to know others see it in the wider view without an agenda and false generic tired old regurgitation of who or what to blame.


It's refreshing to read.

reply to post by poet1b

---

I disagree that China is economically dependent upon the US. If the US is making governing concessions as previously proposed on this thread then that would indicate that China has some bargaining chips giving the US cause to cave in to a few of their demands. Moreover if China were so dependent upon the US economically then I would see no reason as to why the US would take pause on issues such as human rights and cyber attacks, why not hit China hard on the issues if the US was the clear victor in this relationship? Personally I think that the two see a mutual benefit to their economic ties and if either were to pull out the other would suffer greatly, really they would both suffer and possibly to an equal degree.

I see China's cyber attacks on the US and US interests as testing the relationship, "how far can we push them before they push back?" The farther they push with no push back the more they know about how valuable the US considers the relationship. The two have their poker faces on as is required, I think China wants to see how valuable the US considers them and it would appear that the US sees quite a bit of value in this relationship.

Edit: It would seem to me that the US is pushing harder for economic ties with China than China is. China is willing to test the relationship, but the US is not willing to do anything that might destabilize it. This says to me that the US has more reliance on these economic ties than China does. It might be that China has plenty of reliance too and are simply trying to hide how much they need it, but I don't think so. China is really pushing some buttons and the US is not pushing back much at all.

Hmmm... Now that I think about it, this is really more telling than what I had originally thought. Looks like the poles are shifting to the east no? The US actually is starting to appear desperate. Where once nations would cave to US demands in favor of economic ties now nations will be caving to Chinese demands. Trading one tyrant for another IMHO.

reply to post by Hefficide

---

Seems to me the people behind the superpowers got together at some point and started cutting the world cake amongst themselves...

Originally posted by Symbiot
reply to post by poet1b

---

I disagree that China is economically dependent upon the US

I disagree, China is very much so dependent on the US for export led growth. Outside of Europe, no one buys more Chinese products than the United States. If we look at exports as a percentage of GDP, nearly 1/3rd of Chinas economy is dependent on exports as a driver. Most of Chinas growth over the past 30 years has come from fixed investments and exports. Basically Keynesian economics on steroids. We've all seen just how effective/wasteful stimulus can be here in the US. China has basically been using fixed investments as a source of growth since the 1980's. This causes waste, massive corruption, and inefficiencies within the system. If we look at consumption in China as a percent of GDP, its actually gone down since the year 2000. (48% down to 32% today.) What this means is that China has never been more dependent on selling outside countries "made in China" than it is now. As manufacturing continues to contract in China, the effects will reverberate throughout the entire Chinese economy.

Gordon Change is a notorious China bear when it comes to Chinas economic outlook. He wrote a great article that explains just how reliant China is on the US. And with the continued degradation in Europe, they're only becoming more reliant on the US. Some think he has a bias whenever it comes to China, however, I rarely ever see and argument against why hes wrong. IMO, he has his finger on the pulse.

China Is 175.6% Dependent on the U.S.

reply to post by SLAYER69

---

Thanks Slayer, I don't succeed at this often enough.

It really is the bigger trends that shape things. At best, we can apply what influence we are capable of producing at the right time, and the right place, and hope it is enough to make a difference. Sometimes, I think we succeed.

reply to post by Symbiot

---

What demands has the US conceded?

The only concessions I see are to serve the interest of the current true super powers, the ICBs.

reply to post by poet1b

---

I used the term 'if' because it was an opinion proposed by Hefficide. I can't say that I subscribe to the theory, but Hefficide makes a decent case in my opinion. Honestly I think the US does appear to be turning a bit more socialist these days, maybe it is in concession to the Chinese?

Originally posted by Hefficide
Maybe the shared, international, Corporate sponsored goal is to control population through birth control rules - and by making it hard for people to have kids... Turning parenthood into a luxury, rather than a right and a natural part of life.

Makes ya think.

You'll have to understand that the two of us are on slightly different wavelengths so we're probably likely to disagree in some areas. I don't think that the ICB is the power behind the superpowers, significant sway yes, but not complete power. Really I would imagine that the US free market, more free than China's anyway, would be of greater interest to corporations. Sure cheaper labor is available in China, but if China's economic style were to reign supreme then there would be little in the way of free market.

Edit: By the way Hefficide proposed his opinion in the form that the ICB is driving a global population control agenda. I have a difference in opinion regarding the ICB, but see that there is some socialism creeping into the US so where he sees ICB agendas I see governing concessions.

reply to post by rock427

---

I see you're numbers and they serve your point. What I'm saying is that numbers can lie believe it or not. I believe that the US and China, as well as everyone else, have their poker faces on. Neither wants the other to know what's going through their mind or how much or little they need the other.

Where you're basing your opinion on numbers, a solid logic, I'm basing my opinion on actions. I see that China is testing the relationship and the US is neither testing or pushing back, this shows that the US is unwilling to destabilize the relationship where China is giving little pause to put strain on it. To me this is where the two stare each other down and the US flinched.

reply to post by Hefficide

---

I'm inclined to agree with you here, this has been one of the better threads I've ever read and really enjoyed participating. Thanks for your input and that thanks goes out to others as well. Really some excellent input from a variety of vantage points.

reply to post by Symbiot

---

Market freedom is a matter of perspective.

In communist nations, where government has complete control of the economy, the capitalist, the people who own and control the means of production have all the freedom to do what they want, while the average people have no freedoms or rights whatsoever. In communist China, the capitalist are free to do whatever they want, including enslave their workers and pollute the environment at will.

In the US, which is more of a true market economy, workers have rights and bargaining powers to keep the capitalists in check, so In the US workers have more economic freedom.

Capitalism is only a small part of a market economy, the bigger part is the right to barter for the price in the exchange of goods and services. Market economies work best with a strongly representative government evenly enforcing a fair set of rules that enable competitive markets to function.

The US hasn't become more socialistic, it has become more communistic, which is a direct result of free market policies, which turn over all power to the capitalists who eliminate the proper functioning of the market economy.

Like communism, free market economics is an unrealistic ideology that does just the opposite of what it was supposed to do.

Now to table the next bits of information:

The worlds largest companies:

The Worlds Biggest Banks.

The Worlds Most Powerful People.

The Worlds Richest Nations

Oh, and just for a bit of perspective...

Most Repressive Societies ( Human Rights ).

I add that last one for two reasons. First, our good friend China is on it. And, second, a surprising American ally are on the list...

Don't we invade other countries, using their human rights markers as just cause? Hrm...

Seems to me the pattern is simple to see. China and oil very deeply entrenched in all of the above.

Well, that and Wal Mart. But, hey? At least it must be a two way street, since There are Wal Marts in China!

Do you suppose that Chinese citizens argue with each other, saying "Don't shop at Wal Mart! Everything there is made in America! Buy Chinese! Buy local!"

~Heff

reply to post by Hefficide

---

Also, an unavoidable theme when looking at world's largest companies and other mega economic data is the Western origin of nearly every enterprise.

Modern banking, oil/gas/automotive, electronics, insurance, pharmaceuticals, weapons. These are all evolved industries of historical Western innovation.

So Chinas #1 company by revenue, Sinopec could easily be seen as more Western than Chinese.

Now the question is, will China and other developing countries take the lessons of 20th century Western science and build on them, possibly even surpassing the likes of America in innovative capacity?

New Delhi, Nov 5: On the same day US President Barack Obama's speech telling his country to overtake India and China in education made headlines, a study has revealed that more Indians study and graduate in Maths and Science than in US and Canada.

link


If we're losing the technological edge and the West retains the goal of economic dominance, then the only viable methods left would be the coercive type schemes you've suggested.

Do the populations of various nations have what it takes to choose a model of collective growth instead of relative positioning? Allowing China/India to rise freely without Western cooperate intrusion will probably lead to greater relative power for Asia, but maybe at the benefit of avoiding serious conflict.

reply to post by poet1b

---

I'm going to copy and paste a response I posted in another thread that I think applies here, hope that doesn't bother anyone:

With pure capitalism the government cannot stop monopolies or even slavery, the government exists to maintain a military and act as a liaison when conducting foreign diplomacy. It starts out as a race, the people race to start their little businesses and after enough time and competition has passed one reigns supreme over all the people and abuses that power to no end.

With socialism the government is given more power to regulate the people and corporations, more power to effect the economic ebb and flow of the nation. The corporations end up in never ending competition which costs too much, money is being spent on hurting the competition which ends up stifling research and development to no end. So much money is spent on conflict that there's not enough left over to help humanity grow. Currently every country is technically socialist, but at varying degrees some are more on the capitalist side while others have more communistic tendencies.

With communism there is no race, the government has all the power because they make all the rationing decisions. Obviously no one could be trusted to make these decisions, they'll simply ration out themselves 90% of everything and then give everyone else an equal dividend of the remaining 10%. Communism essentially starts out where capitalism ends up and socialism, well two wrongs don't make a right

As far as the worlds most powerful people and most powerful corporations are concerned I think they could become a global controlling force IF they weren't their own worst enemies. What I mean here is that the worlds most powerful people are still human and face the same issues that all human beings face, they have trouble coming to agreements with one another and they all want to be top dog so even though they sometimes work together they more often work against each other. Where you might see Ford enter into a brief partnership with Chevy or Toyota by and large the groups remain in fierce competition. As they compete with each other it is the people that pay the price, putting up with sub-par cheap products, TV ads that make promises that the actual product does not stand up to, competitive salaries that end up being as little as possible.

I'm not sure if you remember when T-Mobile's Sidekick service was hacked, but they lost a lot of customers when their customers lost everything they had stored on-line. Almost immediately after this hack T-Mobile put itself on the market for sale and the only perspective buyer was AT&T. One certainly couldn't say for sure, but the old follow the money adage usually fits the bill, my guess is that AT&T hacked T-Mobile. Beforehand AT&T had already publicly stated that they needed to obtain T-Mobiles 4G network at all costs. The buyout ended up being governmentally blocked due to AT&Ts unwillingness to provide certain documents.

I'm sure we all remember the BP oil spill, this wreaked of purposeful befuddling and notice how BP was ever ready to put up cameras displaying the oil pouring into the gulf 24/7. BP is the worlds largest manufacturer of alternative energies including solar and wind generators. Believe it or not I feel that BP actually blew up their own platform as a means to increase public ire for oil and hasten the switch to alternative energies. Already positioned for the switch BP figured they could get an edge on the competition if they could make the switch happen before their competition was ready. Just my opinion, but I think it's sound.

So, if true, we can see where some of the worlds most powerful organizations remain embattled with one another. Sure they could become a global force to be reckoned with, if they didn't hate each other so.

Norway To Open Century Old Package
  Posted 19 days ago with 127 member flags

World\'s richest woman calls for Australian workers to be paid $2 a day to compete with Africans
  Posted 6 days ago with 69 member flags

Blame The Real Bad Guys - The Powers Behind Super Powers
  Posted 18 days ago with 65 member flags

19 Yr Old Hostage Gunned Down By Police While Escaping Captor
  Posted 8 days ago with 53 member flags

DHS Source: “It’s going hot”
  Posted 14 days ago with 49 member flags

Police Shoot Another 911 Caller In Her Own Backyard
  Posted 19 days ago with 46 member flags

50,000 people have 90 mins evacuate , Percy Quinn Dam expected to break
  Posted 12 days ago with 46 member flags

The Oatmeal\'s Tesla Fundraiser Pushes Past $1.1M
  Posted 15 days ago with 44 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: