I don’t know about revolution. There sure won’t be any improvements if everybody adopts a position of Twofishian resignation.

Meanwhile on planet Earth…… There is the golden rule, people who rule will get the gold, people with the gold will rule. The important thing here is not to make sure that the ruling elites have some divisions among themselves, so that its not rich people versus everyone else. It’s rich people and group A versus rich people and group B.

The nice thing about the US is that there is a rough division of power between different industries and locations with different rich people who don’t agree with each other.

Ponzi: Why we assume that such uber-wealthy financiers would care more about the great unwashed American masses than the rich people they work with, live with, and love is beyond me!

Self interest…..

The power and influence of the rich and powerful is based on more or less tacit support by the great masses, especially the upper middle classes. As long as the upper middle class can see themselves in the upper class, the middle middle class can see themselves in the upper middle class, the lower middle class can see themselves in the middle middle class, etc. etc., there ain’t going to be a revolution.

I think you need to do a bit more history and analytical classes. If you had been familiar with the Chinese History or had been able to cipher the finer prints or been able to understand the bigger picture at that point in time. Im sure you would have restrained yourself.

FYI, Chinese were already in an age of decline in the 1800-1900s, much owing to the internal strife and the relative backwardness in terms of technology,economy, etc etc…. (think you can check it out in the library, much have been written and debated on the exact causes)

And so, the European “boats” (not only British) were not the causalities per se. It is a whole culmination of many factors. And if you think this historical episode is a good indication of China’s current and future political and military stance, I seriously think you are absolutely flawed in your analysis!

America is badly in need of a political party that isn’t controlled to a great degree by big financial interests. When it comes to economics policy, all we seem to get from the two parties are Wall Street entities like Hank Paulson or Robert Rubin, two neoliberal bankers who couldn’t give a rat’s ass about the plight of the American worker. Why we assume that such uber-wealthy financiers would care more about the great unwashed American masses than the rich people they work with, live with, and love is beyond me!

And, Guest, leave David Chiang alone! He turned me on to that Henry C. K. Liu fellow. Now there is an interesting writer that gets one thinking in different directions!

You mean that “we only have to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down”? A dangerous idea!

Read a bit of history. The Brits conquered China with what, 2 boats that would have been laughed out of the Mediterranean. So military spending is no relation to how people can fight.

funds can be transferred, transparency denied, and accountability frustrated by financial outlaws beyond the ‘frontier.’

the linked (more or less, still) dollar/yuan currency area is bigger than the areas controlled by the chinese or u s governments individually. this is giving rise to impossible tensions -

i am guessing that there are two extremes to what can happen (limiting it to america / china for the moment :

either 1 in a horrible unwanted financial trainwreck the u s and china revert to protectionism, nationalism, isolationism, and war. the economic areas split and contract.

or 2 the area governed by law expands, and freely negotiated ground rules for trade, for currency exchange values, and for the issuing of currency units that are a fair and dependable store of value, - replace the current frustrating stand off.

america is badly in need of a globalist political party (dems ?) and an isolationist political party (g o p ?) and an open and democratic debate between the two - until a course can be set between the extremes.

I disagree with them, but I find them less dangerous and annoying than the “democracy uber alles” folks like Bill Kristol and Bill Gertz. Part of it is that I agree with their premise that if the international system is one of anarchy *then* conflict between the US and China is inevitable. So the solution is to change the international system so that it *isn’t* one of anarchy, and one in which there are powerful forces attempting to keep nations at peace with each other.

That’s where the multi-national corporations come in……

Also one very important concept that influences my thinking is one of “checks and balances.” One frequent pattern in history is that we say that group A is evil and group B is good, so that we force group A out of power and group B has absolute power. Once group B gets into power, then absolute power corrupts absolutely, so then you see the good people in group C, so you overthrow evil group B, and group C comes into power and then surprise, surprise group C becomes evil.

So a world in which multinational corporations hold absolute power would likely be hellish, but the solution is not to destroy the multinational and create a system in which the national governments hold absolute power, because that would be equally hellish.

Have a good one Brad and we will be sure to welcome Michael in good spirit.

Claus