Tag: china

The Republicans are joining the Central Bank of China in criticizing [Fed Chairman] Ben Bernanke. This is really distressing to me. […] [complaints about currency manipulation from Chinese central bankers] is like being called silly by the Three Stooges.
And then to have Republican leaders in Congress [agree is] bizarre. The Republicans are arguing that the Fed should not even be concerned about unemployment.

Barney Frank, letting other Democrats see how it’s done. Now say it every day for a few months. On your one millionth repetition, when you can’t stand to say it again: you will have reached somebody for the very first time.
Source: tnr.com

File under: Things We’re Not Allowed to Discuss.
Much easier to talk about big bad China bogeyman than the simple fact that the car-centric, energy hungry American lifestyle of the late 20th century on is the thing driving our trade deficits, driving our foreign policy decisions, driving our economy into the ditch. Is it any wonder? The economic inducements drive most people to live 50 miles from work and, as a result, drive for hours each and every day, and drive everywhere else you may want to go as well. Insanity. And, far from calling out said insanity, our society seems to look down upon and make life unnecessarily difficult for those who are even able to choose to withdraw from this cycle.
That it is a solvable problem if and when met with sustained will to change it gives me no optimism whatsoever. That the process of solving it would greatly assist our own recovery will never be discussed. Cars today! Cars Tomorrow! Cars über alles!

Now, [the GOP] will say, ‘Well, we’re going to cut spending.’ So you say, ‘Okay, what are you going to cut?’ And then what they say is, ‘Well, we’ll cut education by 20 percent. We’ll eliminate 200,000 children from early childhood education programs like Head Start. We’ll cut financial aid for 8 million college students.
At a time when the education of our country’s citizens is probably the best predictor of that country’s economic success, they think it’s more important to give another tax break to folks who are on the Forbes 400 list.
Now, I want to ask my Republican friends: Do you think China is cutting back on education? Do you think South Korea is making it harder for its citizens to get a college education? These countries aren’t playing for second place. And guess what. The United States doesn’t play for second place. We play for first place.

Barack Obama, finally playing for first place himself.

The future does not belong to those who are content with today, apathetic toward common problems and their fellow man alike, timid and fearful in the face of new ideas and bold projects. Rather it will belong to those who can blend vision, reason and courage in a personal commitment to the ideals and great enterprises of American Society.

Edward M. Kennedy, in an undelivered paragraph written for his RFK eulogy. Print out and post in the White House if you please because we are not on drugs. We have judged the evidence and find you timid and fearful in the face of old ideas and positively cowering in the face of anything like a new idea.
We were not deceived by the idiotic rhetoric of the far right. We knew you were a centrist and a pragmatist from the get-go. We are inherently sympathetic to the cause and appreciate the moments of progress, no matter how diminished or incremental they may be, when those moments have stumbled and sputtered into being. Unlike the people you classify as not on drugs, we actually give you credit for them. And but so we’re getting awfully tired of being portrayed as a villain by the same group that treats FOXnews as a thoroughly impartial and purely journalistic concern.
As was noted on the crazed liberal outlet msnbc the other night, right now in China people are commuting on a spanking-new ~200mph MagLev train. In America, we’re un-paving roads because we can’t afford them anymore. Precisely where in that sentence can you find the “great enterprises of American Society,” Mr. Gibbs? That’s what makes us uneasy. That’s why we’re crying out for some leadership, especially if it’s just tilting at windmills. Because that’s a part of leading: taking up an important cause, no matter how unpopular or unheralded, and fighting for it, whatever may come. Yes: even if you lose.
And, not coincidentally, that is precisely what we have never seen out of this administration. Must be all the drugs.

Team NoKo

Kevin Drum makes a point I’ve wondered after:

[China’s] unwillingness to put serious pressure on North Korea mostly seems to come down to a combination of inertia and a fear of massive refugee flows across the border if North Korea collapses.

But why? There are 23.8 million people in all of North Korea. Even if every living human North Korean crossed the border, you’d be dealing with a rounding error in terms of China’s overall population. That and, as Kevin notes, you’d likely have broad international support once said refugee crisis began to unfold, so it’s not as though China would be alone in dealing with that rounding error.

Like so much surrounding this crap-fest, it makes no sense at all. Well except for the manifold parts that make it clearly bad news for The Democrat.

Can’t be done

This quote is probably worth noting:

Japan Steel Works is spending 80 billion yen ($864 million) at its Muroran plant in the country’s northern island of Hokkaido by March 2012 to increase capacity to make parts for 12 nuclear reactors a year, compared with 5.5 units now, the president said.

The investment will increase annual sales from Japan Steel Works’ cast and forged steel for electric and nuclear power to 70 billion yen from the year starting April 2012, up from 45.5 billion yen expected for the current year, Sato said.

This is important, you see, because we can’t make this part in America. Despite all the hype recently given over to the idea that we’ll be steadily building new nuclear power plants (and wind turbines and solar cells and lots of other, non-carbon based energy production mechanisms) in this country as a partial offset to our ever greater carbon emissions, it’s completely clear that we can’t and won’t be building very many nuclear reactors, if any at all. Simply put, we cannot because we cannot. We cannot cast the key component here. Meaning in this country, which, as we are constantly reminded, is supposedly superior in all respects. But rather it’s over in Japan, where Japan Steel Works is currently the only place that can cast these large, integral, and functionally irreplaceable single pieces. And, oh by the way, China has an interest in cornering some or all of their current and theoretical output:

The country has 9,100 megawatts of nuclear capacity and has approved the construction of additional reactors able to generate 25,400 megawatts, Sun Qin, then-deputy head of the National Energy Administration, said last month. China will issue a plan by the end of the year to push development of clean energy sources such as nuclear, wind, solar and hydro power.

The average time it took to build China’s first 10 nuclear reactors was 6.3 years, according to a report commissioned by the German environment ministry.

Gross domestic product in China expanded 7.9 percent in the second quarter as the economy rebounded from the weakest growth in almost a decade, boosted by stimulus spending.

“Similar to road and railway construction, nuclear energy is also part of China’s plans for a recovery after the economy slowed,” Sato said.

In fact, the entire future run of this component for five to ten years (or more) is already spoken for. Recovery X all over again. We need a new economy. We need to make things, preferably things that are in demand. You want a real National Security issue of the Call to Greatness kind? This is it.

A real country with functional leadership (and, uh, leaders) would be talking about this right now. Acting, right now. It will take decades to do even begin to do anything about it. Instead, we’ll spend those decades not doing anything while China (and the rest of the world) acts. As it stands right now, China looks to have the money, the power (both political and but more importantly: electrical) to be unassailably in ascendancy over the next 50 years. The US: not so much. We’ll be lucky to still be a reasonable tourist destination come 2050.

You might just take a look at what quantity of excess electrical power-generation the United States had on hand in 1940. What are a few of the more important war and/or peace projects that we carried off with that seemingly excess power capacity? Compare that situation with today’s. Then look at China. Who is better prepared for the future? To grow and locate a new market in an X-shaped recovery, in which the “old” jobs and the “old” economy simply never return? Just saying.
Then pause to consider this: which country is currently leading the world in wind turbine production? In solar cell production? GeoThermal? Hydroelectric? I’ll give you a hint: the United States isn’t even reliably in the Top 5 of those categories. Even from a purely capitalistic position: which countries are then better positioned to profit on the grand conspiracy that is climate change and carbon emissions reduction? Is it to be thought of as an a priori harmful concept to generate power from sources other than fossil fuels? Or to make and sell equipment to others who may wish to do likewise? Judging from our national posture, one could only assume it must be.

The Chinese and others have chosen their priorities and are working towards them. We have an inwardly focused, rotting core of a political system that is doing less than nothing about even setting national priorities, much less acting on them. Wonder who’s going to come out on top in that equation? Sure as hell won’t be America, home of Free Enterprise, with special emphasis on would, as in “theoretically could”:

Czech forges have said that they would be able to retool to build large reactor vessels within about two years.

This economy can’t get back on track because the track we were on for years – featuring flat or declining median wages, mounting consumer debt, and widening insecurity, not to mention increasing carbon in the atmosphere – simply cannot be sustained.

The X marks a brand new track – a new economy. What will it look like? Nobody knows. All we know is the current economy can’t “recover” because it can’t go back to where it was before the crash. So instead of asking when the recovery will start, we should be asking when and how the new economy will begin.

Robert Reich. X is the new L. This elusive new economy is precisely why we should be investing, and heavily, in infrastructure and overall technological development. Nothing else matters. At all.

Just about everyone

America: satisfied to be number two. Or ten; or even just outside the top-25 somewheres, but who can keep count?

While China (and others) use the current downturn to invest heavily in their infrastructure, we in the United States use it to line up for group photos and pat ourselves on the back for the political savvy it took to stop any kind of productive jobs bill from getting through and but still allowing some “jobs” bill to get through such that we don’t look like obstructionist asshats (it’s our “play of the week”, Bill!). Oh, wait, did I say “we”? I meant the GOP.

Anywho, worth repeating:

a Chinese official [reportedly told] him “over the past decade you’ve spent $1 trillion on Iraq and Afghanistan, we’ve spent $1 trillion building the future of China”

You’d think a politician somewhere would grab this concept that seemingly combines 52 different concerns into a simple, understandable concept that can be stated in one sentence, and then use that sentence to craft a new politics of American progress, building infrastructure and other actually useful projects that both provide jobs today and also create the greased skids of tomorrow’s economic growth. But, no. Can’t do that here. Just like most other things China is, you know, actually doing.

It’s going to be a long, slow slog back up. America:Britain::1900:2015. Welcome to functional irrelevancy.

The Future of China

Matt Yglesias ponders a Ryan Avent post that is apropos of that Chris Hayes quote below. Somewhere, off in the distance, Kevin Bacon barked.

At any rate, Avent looks at that ~$650B (again, that doesn’t even include Afghanistan and Iraq) expenditure and wonders:

With that kind of money you could entirely build out a national network of true high-speed rail. One year’s worth of defense spending gets you that. Which makes one wonder: where are all the economists, wringing their hands over cost-benefit analyses of these defense expenditures?

[…]

What was the cost, human and economic, of the I-35 bridge collapse? Of the Metro crash and resulting limitations on service? Of the Bay Bridge shutdown? And of course, investments in infrastructure constitute positive contributions to the economy, which ultimately strengthen our ability to direct resources toward defense. Aimless defense spending, on the other hand, may well make us poorer and less secure.

Which I think is absolutely right. Both Yglesias and Avent toss this chart into the mix:

The nut? Yglesias provides:

…if we took 10 percent of the defense budget and re-allocated that to infrastructure, we could have a national [High Speed Rail] network in ten years. And we’d still be spending over triple what our nearest rival spends.

[…]

a Chinese official [reportedly told] him “over the past decade you’ve spent $1 trillion on Iraq and Afghanistan, we’ve spent $1 trillion building the future of China”

Who can argue with that last statement? We’re pissing it away. And they know it. That’s the reason they buy up our debt: to help us piss away Our Current Advantage (such as it is). All the F22s ever built aren’t going to be worth a damn in 20 years when we can’t afford to gas them up, much less use them on our primary creditor. The paper lion indeed.

But, by all means: defense spending is inviolable. It’s utterly remarkable that Obama (the do-nothing President, natch) managed to cut as many idiotic spending programs from that budget as he did. Amtrak? Now there’s a program that needs to turn a massive profit while serving disinterested and actively hostile Member districts. It’s just a needless sap on federal coffers, after all, sucking up nearly $490 MILLION DOLLARS in FY2008. That sort of spending is clearly unsustainable for a democracy.