What if?
What do you think would happen if, say tomorrow, China nuked North Korea? I mean, other than the devestating loss of life. It’s not completely out of the realm of possibility. Just asking because that region just got scary and, well, it could get worse before it gets better. And China doesn’t exactly fart around.
October 12th, 2006 at 1:28 pm
We can all hope, but I don’t think a nuke would be necessary. I’m sure that the PLA has moles inside the very most inner sanctum of the Dear Leader, and if activated, that mole would do the job PLA-style, with a bullet to the back of the head of the Dear Dork.
October 12th, 2006 at 2:57 pm
China won’t nuke N. Korea. Part of the reason China has historically supported N. Korea is because they want to keep the Koreans in Korea. Nuking Pyongyang would result in a huge exodus of refugees out of North Korea and into China, which is exactly what China doesn’t want.
October 12th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
I think most roads lead to a re-militarization of Japan. Only NK going away peacefully will
delayprevent that.October 12th, 2006 at 4:54 pm
tgirsch,
You’re right, China is more likely to nuke us (like some of their military people have already threatened) than to nuke their long-time ally N. Korea.
I wonder why it is our government gives China a masive “free trade” surplus when they have DELIVERABLE WMD’s with which they’ve threatened to use while we are at war with Iraq which had no delivery systems and we can’t buy a Cuban cigar?
October 12th, 2006 at 5:00 pm
Ron W:
I wonder why it is our government gives China a masive “free trade” surplus
Perhaps you were asking this question rhetorically, but I’ll answer it honestly anyway. Because presidents both Democratic and Republican caved to big business “free trade” interests that were interested in opening up China for its cheap labor. As Tam points out in another post linked by Uncle, a certain large corporation in Bentonville, Arkansas was at the forefront of that movement. The China agreement is one of the biggest things I fault Clinton for, but it doesn’t get nearly enough attention.
But hey, what’s national security when there are windfall profits to be made at the expense of American jobs? And who gives a shit about American jobs when I can buy a DVD player for 39?
October 12th, 2006 at 5:38 pm
Talk of a “free trade surplus” is just as silly as “trade deficit.” I have a HUGE trade deficit as against my local grocery store. I’ve bought a hell of a lot more from them than they’ll ever buy from me. So what?
October 12th, 2006 at 5:42 pm
Talk of a “free trade surplus” is just as silly as “trade deficit.”
I’m not sure it’s just as silly. Ultimately, if we’re paying out more money to other countries than they’re paying back to us, how can that be anything other than a net loss?
And while you’re giving more money to your grocery store than they’ll ever give back to you, that money has to be coming from somewhere. Presumably someone is giving you money for something, and I’m betting the money you’re getting is a helluva lot more than what you’re spending at the grocery store. So I’m not exactly going to file that one among your best analogies. 😉
October 12th, 2006 at 5:47 pm
It’s a sign we have the money to spend 😉
It’s not a loss because I loss isn’t defined as how much you sell to someone and how much that someone sells to you. The converse would not be a gain either. The only issue is whether or not both sides of particular transactions have gains.
October 12th, 2006 at 7:14 pm
I hear that North Korea was stealing China’s trains a while back, saying that they were part of the aid package (when in fact they obviously weren’t). They’re allies but not best friends.
October 13th, 2006 at 12:02 pm
If we were simply handing them money, and getting nothing in return, that would indeed be a loss. But weren’t not; we’re giving them one form of property, and getting another in return, on terms deemed favorable by both sides. We buy from them because we can get the goods for less money by buying from them than we could elsewhere. They sell to us because we pay them enough for it to be profitable. It’s a win-win.
Contrast that with North Korea. If, for once, the UN were to actually grow a spine and do something about them, we’d blockade the country such that nothing goes in or out. At which point their “trade deficit” would be zero, making their economy … better than ours?!
Of course, but that’s because I’m not running on a deficit. It doesn’t have anything to do with trade deficits, one way or the other. Maybe a burglar comes around and robs me every now and then; that doesn’t make it OK if my employer pays me more than the robber steals. By contrast, the grocery store doesn’t steal anything, ergo, no real deficit there, either in general (in the sense that I don’t pay out more than I bring in) or in my trade with the supermarket (I pay $1 cash for every $1 worth of goods I take from them, which is only a “deficit” if you think cash is better than goods).
I’m glad that you think my other analogies are even better, but FWIW, the same holds here. The U.S. government operates at a deficit, and we have a trade “deficit,” but the two concepts are unrelated.