Wednesday, March 11, 2009

China's financing us to build their militiary clout

On September 6, it was reported that China was the straw that broke the camel's back when it came time for the Fannie / Freddie bailout.

On January 5, I offered this Q&A:

Q. Why does the American government care about China?
A. You don't scream at your banker.

On February 11, I opined that "it'll be difficult for the US to continue with the printing presses running 24/7... and not start getting some serious pushback from the people who financed our credit card spending spree for the past decade."

On February 21, following HRCs visit to China (where she said that "Human rights cannot interfere with the global economic crisis...") I concluded that Obama's post "stimulus package" concern with deficit spending was because America is now taking direction from China on monetary policy and fiscal policy.

Now just this weekend I saw reporting that China was still buying treasuries at a record pace.


Why would China continue to finance America's reckless fiscal policy?

I think I found the answer.

CNN reports:

A U.S. surveillance ship violated Chinese and international laws during patrols more than 100 miles (160 kilometers) off the Chinese coast over the weekend, China's state-run media reported Tuesday.

As I see it, China is cashing in a few chips with the huge cash reserves in a tradeoff for encroaching on America's sphere of influence. In other words, they are encroaching on our ability to project military power around the world.

In global geopolitical terms, this is a big deal. I'm sure the likes of VP Biden will get all excited about the "significance" of China's actions.

Frankly though, I wish America would stop projecting power all over the world and start minding our own business.

Why exactly do we still have soldiers in Germany?

Besides the fact that we're now apparently taking orders from the same people who ordered the crackdown on Tiananmen Square in 1989, we're broke.

Though I expected such things to happen with China, I didn't expect them to happen so swiftly.

Well, no better time than the present for President Obama to deliver that change I can believe in.

Tim White


Anonymous said...


America must protect it's interest around the world. The world's stability is in our interest and its in the worlds interest we project and back up this image. China has contested those waters for 50 years. You are correct, China is building a powerful arsenal including a sub fleet that could soon rival ours. If anything, The Japanese should contribute significantly more to support our military presence in Asia.

Obama is offering ample evidence that he believes weakening our military presence will promote stability. I would argue that is a dangerous miscalculation, i.e negotiating with moderate Taliban, getting into bed with Hamas, etc.

With 20 million unemployed Chinese we better remind ourselves that projecting a deterent power is important to the survival of our country, our economy and the presevation of the liberties our government is , at least for now, unwilling to fritter away.

When the dust settles I want to know this is the nation that survived the flu and has been vacinated for the next outbreak.

Tim Slocum

Anonymous said...

8 year of the Bush administration's fair trade has built China into an economic powerhouse that can now intimidate any nation it wants to.

As part of Bush's free trade, we shipped much of our productive capacity to China, sent entire factories, sent leading technologies and our U.S CEO's in order to get their huge bonuses continue continue to move manufacturing to China.

The U.S is probably the world's greatest debtor and we are kidding ourselves that we can remain the world policeman.

As we have seen with Iraq, our supposed allies stand by the sidelines and even aid our enemies.

Anonymous said...

Anon 12;31
You're correct. We're not and should not be the world's policeman. Alliances matter but its obvious, as you point out, that our allies act in their self interests and often work with and against us. Ergo...the US must continue to work in its self interests which I would argue absolutely means we maintain a strong, nimble and ready military if we are to remain the worlds biggest economy (which we still are despite our governments obstacles to maintaining this). Like it or not we are who we are in the world stage...not perfect but not bad either. Would the Russians, French, Iranians or Chinese be a preferable "policemen"?

As we edge towards a more socialisitic national agenda and the shift of our tax dollars gravitates towards government sponsored social welfare programs it will hardly matter that we have less of a manufacturing base either. And it will be even more improbable we survive as the nation we are today. That is the internal threat...far greater than the external threats right now.


Anonymous said...

Tim Slocum,

To understand why you are not correct with your views please read Chalmers Johnson (he also has many videos on youtube).

In short Johnson theme is that America cannot be both an empire and a republic; they are mutually exclusive. He also shows how all empires have failed and this is the course America is on.

Best Regards,

Mike Ulicki

Anonymous said...


With all due respect I'm sure the theory is worth reading but to your (his) premis I must ask has there ever been a Republic on earth that truely mirrors the American model? First, we're not an empire. We're an idea, maturing, evolving and emerging because of who we are and what we stand for and how we have succeeded. We're not Rome (1000 years...not bad), Great Britain, France, Soviet Russia, etc. No king, no strongman general, No serfs (yet)etc.

I'm interested in how we survive and thrive not how we're destined to fail. We're never going to be Switzerland either. And finally I've always had trouble with an author (Chalmers Johnson)with a pretentous sounding name...probably of his own making.

Tim Slocum

Anonymous said...

Tim Slocum,

If you are interested as you say in how we survive you better start understanding history; hence we repeat it.

To make the argument that because we are not a mirror like any other republic excludes us from repeating history is hollow.

To say we are not an empire has no backing; take a deep look at our military bases worldwide.

It is unfortunate that you will not attempt to explore outside your own belief system. An interesting point is that Chalmers Johnson had beliefs alike to yours but as he got more information he changed them. Had he only been named Charlie; perhaps you would have read him?

Best Regards,

Mike Ulicki

Anonymous said...

Explore I must and explore I did. Mr Chalmers Johnson has thoroughly researched American "imperialism" going back to Jefferson's annexation of the Louisina Territory. Who knew all bets were off for us after the Declaration of Independence was wrought. The declaration was designed to seperate our interests from those of our imperial master. Ultimately a revolution was won and a Constitution was crafted and has been amended over time as we as a nation awaken to more modern ways of thinking, abolition of slavery (after a Civil War), women's sufferage, etc.

Our perfect Union was neither perfect nor a union on day one. Johnson points out that we have been an imperial people since that Louisiana purchase and virtually any annexation including Indian territory and distant outposts around the globe where US troops have posted and navy ships have made a port of call.

Since much of this behavior comes down to the mechanics of nation states and empires alike I would be more concerned about where he expects us to go from here. Our republic is only safe when we can defend our interests. This doesn't give us a right to impose our will but it can and will put at as odds with adversaries. And I have to say, "so what". I think most of our modern day threats are now internal and far more so now with Obama imposing his brand of governance upon us.

Clearly Mr. Johnson is not a fan of the Bush administration, which is fine by me. He only had to suffer that administration eight years. Lets wait and see how he accesses the Obama administration. I will venture a guess that he will support its new focus on social welfare programs modeled after failed or declining states, which ironically are far more consequential to American liberty and exceptionalism than any other actions undertaken by president Bush, Clinton, etc.

College professors will be writing about what is wrong with America until the next "big bang". That is healthy. They keep us on our feet, arguing, debating and tweeking. And fortunately we live under a system of checks and balances, which manages to help us work things out.

Tim Slocum