It’s a sign of the times

foreclosure_cemetery

“Even the dead are now homeless.” Via JSMineset.

Don’t get me wrong; I love America, just as much as I love China. But things over here seem so FUBAR, and there is absolutely nothing that can be done. These are structural issues that run deep into the heart of how the US is “managed.” It will take generations to undo the damage caused by the bankster elites, who dine on lobster, truffles and caviar as the Americans they’ve screwed eat dirt. In between, we’ll mainly see stagflation and eventual inflation that will erase much of what’s left of the American Dream. It was fun while it lasted. Enjoy life’s simple pleasures while ye may.

Sorry if I’m not beaming with optimism tonight.

______________

Richard Burger is the author of Behind the Red Door: Sex in China, an exploration of China's sexual revolution and its clash with traditional Chinese values.

The Discussion: 91 Comments

Richard,

To your post, all that I can say is: “Amen, Amen, Amen!”

http://kunstler.com/blog/2010/08/one-lump-or-two.html

September 1, 2010 @ 1:48 pm | Comment

There’s a saying which is pretty universal – there’s nothing as certain as death and taxes… but the banking classes in America want to have a government that offers alleviation from half of that, and rest assured they’re spending money on the other half!
Sharing your ‘brimming with optimism’ outlook, I listened to a program on the Koch brothers funding ‘grass roots’ tea parties – http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129425186. Generally spending tens of millions of dollars doing everything they can to screw anything Obama implements… whilst there are Americans naive enough to blindly follow whatever the right wing feeds them I think the US will, very sadly, remain FUBAR.

September 1, 2010 @ 4:43 pm | Comment

RIP America. Once we were a mecca for the best and the brightest. Now we’re a nation of people too stupid and lazy to effect change.

September 1, 2010 @ 5:51 pm | Comment

dunno, the whole inflation/stagflation stuff is starting to fall on deaf ears for me personally. people have been predicting “doom” ever since even Bush was in office, and yet here we are, over two years later, and things aren’t really at catastrophic levels. yeah, unemployment is still high, foreclosures are still happening, but at the same time, the scary inflation everyone was predicting is nowhere to be seen and job losses have dropped.

wake me up when something new really happens…

September 1, 2010 @ 5:52 pm | Comment

…speaking of stupid- that should be “affect” and not “effect”

September 1, 2010 @ 5:53 pm | Comment

I didn’t think we were in grave financial danger under Bush. Not until the end of 2006. The inflation could be more than a year away. I just watch the banks and the dollar and the mood of the public. I hate the Tea Party but they do offer a glimpse into the state of fear, irrational as it may be, that permeates the country. Unemployment is the biggest concern, and there is no trend indicating it’s getting better, despite how they try to pretty up a monthly number.

I’m a very liberal guy, and there’s nothing I despise more than the fear mongering tactics at Fox News and elsewhere. But I do believe we are in an economic straitjacket that there’s no release from for some years to come. The inflation at some point is simply inevitable because you can’t print tons of currency and pump trillions into the economy without it eventually catching up with you.I don’t see Armageddon and blood on the streets. Just a lot of unhappiness, and that’s not a prediction – we’re there, as many of us who’ve lost their jobs or own a home they can’t pay for know.

September 1, 2010 @ 9:32 pm | Comment

It eerily reminds me of Poltergeist movie.

By the way, where do we put uncle Andy now….?

September 1, 2010 @ 9:34 pm | Comment

You are not being negative — you are being realistic. Your words describe the problem in a nutshell — “managed” and structural. Very good post about our country’s degradation. There is a blog called Privilege online — all about living high on the hog. To quote words from a popular song –”when will they ever learn” — barbara

September 2, 2010 @ 1:16 am | Comment

I honestly believe that all of our problems are fixable given sufficient political will and leadership — and those are the things we are lacking.

Keep your eyes on the California gubernatorial and senate election. If Whitman and Fiorina buy those two seats, having spent literally hundreds of millions of dollars, then I think, yes, we are totally FUBAR for the foreseeable future.

September 2, 2010 @ 4:55 am | Comment

As I’ve said before, our leaders in Washington are all but irrelevant nowadays. All the decisions are made on Wall Street, and every law passed in DC has been picked over by lobbyists and those with vested interests, and the result is nearly always laws that cater to them and not the people. We saw this so dramatically when in early 2001 deregulation went wild, with horrific consequences for California as Enron ran roughshod over the state, to everyone’s misery except Enron’s. Perfect example of deregulation run amok, and of what “free market” means to some businesses.

I agree, there is a serious lack of leadership, and Obama’s confrontation-free approach has been a disaster. About the economy, I don’t believe there was much he could do because both parties are stuffed with deficit hawks, and it’s now nearly impossible for a US president to initiate a massive public works program a la New Deal. So while I don’t think Obama alone could fix it, I think he might have if the right hadn’t so poisoned the well with its “socialism” meme, a huge success on their part. One can only marvel at their PR apparatus, and at Obama’s impotency in confronting it.

September 2, 2010 @ 5:31 am | Comment

Taking the long view gives me reason for cautious pessimism and slightly more cautious optimism.

My optimism comes from looking back and seeing how often the American system has been tested, and how resilient the system has been in bouncing back. History is full of know-nothing self-proclaimed populists funded by elite money and urged on by agenda-pushing media outlets.

My pessimism though is that these outlets have more power and reach than ever before and that the elite classes’ ability to create or block policy seems to have reached a new level. In addition, taking an even longer view, there is the simple truth (as the song goes) that nothing lasts forever, and that all systems, no matter how resilient, eventually lose their ability to bounce back.

We shall see.

September 2, 2010 @ 7:58 am | Comment

A very sane assessment, thanks. The current gridlock is unprecedented, and even if Obama were god he’d have a devil of a time getting anything passed. But he has disappointed me by not using his bully pulpit and appearing always to back down. The idea of the GOP coming back into power, especially with Sarah Palin aiming to become the fuehrerin in 2012, is something I don’t want to even think about.

September 2, 2010 @ 8:22 am | Comment

“The idea of the GOP coming back into power, especially with Sarah Palin aiming to become the fuehrerin in 2012, is something I don’t want to even think about.”

That’s the the kind of thought that keeps the dead awake at night.

I’m reminded of The West Wing when the Republican challenger to Bartlet’s second term is a ‘hairdo from Florida’ and Toby remarks that when God wants to punish us he gives us exactly what we want (or words to that effect).

On the one hand I want Obama to run against Palin because how can he possibly lose to such a [insert put-down of choice] candidate? On the other hand I fear that she (and those pulling her strings) would be only one step from putting the final nail in America’s coffin.

September 2, 2010 @ 8:44 am | Comment

The thing is, Obama hasn’t even tried to reframe the debate. He’s never wanted to. I think he pretty much is a part of the Wall Street establishment and that is primarily whose interests he serves.

Here’s a pretty good analysis of how the Democrats should be reframing the debate. But they won’t.

September 2, 2010 @ 8:50 am | Comment

Lisa, there’s also an excellent analysis of this in the current New Republic by John Judis, a very smart pundit. He tends to agree, Obama shrank away from defining the debate, opting for politeness over grit.

September 2, 2010 @ 9:04 am | Comment

NYT Op-Ed identifies those pulling the strings that dangle the US on the edge of no return: http://ow.ly/2yirP

September 2, 2010 @ 12:00 pm | Comment

We, as Americans, deserve the situation we are in. Through our incessant greed, our unwillingness to prevent pre-emptive, unjustified war, our constant obsessions with more stuff and bigger stuff coupled with our ignorant, lazy xenophobia we have been brought to this moment. Yes, the US has achieved much, but the cost of that achievement has been born by the rest of the world through our outrageously disproportionate use of natural resources. Now we celebrate ignorance, jingoism, racism. Even the democratic system has been corrupted and twisted into an ineffectual race to the gutter.

Historically these types of situations result into two potential outcomes: utter collapse or revolutionary change, violent or otherwise. Neither prospect is something to look forward to.

Since this is generally a forum on things Chinese, it is unfortunate that China doesn’t seem to have leaned from the American excesses and foibles of the 20th century. Instead China seems determined to repeat the mistakes with the added twist of doing it with five times the population in a nearly post-petroleum world.

September 3, 2010 @ 2:27 am | Comment

@F_N_A_S
“Since this is generally a forum on things Chinese, it is unfortunate that China doesn’t seem to have leaned from the American excesses and foibles of the 20th century. Instead China seems determined to repeat the mistakes with the added twist of doing it with five times the population in a nearly post-petroleum world.”

Heheheheh! Given that so many “patriots” of China justify any action China takes because various past European empires did it, this rings soooo true ;-)

September 3, 2010 @ 12:00 pm | Comment

Since this is generally a forum on things Chinese, it is unfortunate that China doesn’t seem to have leaned from the American excesses and foibles of the 20th century. Instead China seems determined to repeat the mistakes with the added twist of doing it with five times the population in a nearly post-petroleum world.

How so? They have invested more in renewables than anyone else, and their economic model is completely different.

September 3, 2010 @ 12:26 pm | Comment

I suspect that what is being discussed is despite the admirable investment in renewable energy, China is still an immense importer/user of carbon fuels to power its economic development — an unfortunate model perfected at great economic and environmental (and geopolitical human) cost by the United States.

I recall a trip last fall to Manzhouli where the Trans-Manchurian becomes the Trans-Siberian Railway and was impressed by not only the amount of cross-border traffic (it is, after all, China’s largest land ‘port’ — to use the Chinglish term on the sign at the gate) but also at the relatively consistent nature of the cars entering China: long (miles long) trains of nothing but petroleum cars and lumber and lumber and petroleum cars.

This is not even to touch upon the way that many Beijingers are aping US patterns of conspicuous consumption/materialist lifestyle rather than the more sustainable and (dare I say?) saner consumption trends of Europe or Japan.

September 3, 2010 @ 1:31 pm | Comment

It has to be; for now at least coal is cost competitive. Soon enough when renewable prices drop they are probably better positioned to make a switch, given that their infrastructure is still largely unbuilt.

That and I don’t think most people will even bother trying to consume like Americans, even if it were at all possible. It’s troublesome but it seems more like a phase than anything, there is already a bit of a backlash against materialism stewing.

If I recall correctly, Japanese in the 80s were a bit more extravagant than they are today of course.

September 3, 2010 @ 2:04 pm | Comment

I agree a backlash is forming, but the view from the ground here in Beijing is that it is slow in coming and has yet to adequately take hold. Materialism still reigns supreme.

September 3, 2010 @ 2:39 pm | Comment

“I don’t think most people will even bother trying to consume like Americans”
I dunno – it’s human nature. Everyoe is going to consume as much as they can afford….and when that’s at US levels, guess what….

September 3, 2010 @ 5:33 pm | Comment

Then why is it that Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, Japanese Americans etc still don’t consume as much meat, or waste as much money as most other Americans?

I think you can only explain so much without taking the people into consideration. I doubt Chinese people will ever be like Americans. They’re too fundamentally different.

September 4, 2010 @ 8:51 am | Comment

Not be like Americans (please don’t oversimplify as it’s a simple enough point!) nor am I suggesting that comparative levels of consumption of resource intensive products/waste are equal to, or even will inevitably reach, the unsustainable levels set in the US. (Though the explosive upward trend in fast food consumption by China’s young people — and children’s waistlines — is a worrisome development!) What I’m talking about are patterns of consumption which more closely resemble the materialism/conspicuous consumption commonly associated with the United States rather than that found in Europeans or even close Asian neighbors such as Taiwan, Japan or Korea. Perhaps it’s a phase, perhaps not. But you don’t have to spend much time in Beijing or Shanghai to notice.

As for Japanese/Korean/Chinese-Americans, etc. I’ll defer to your judgement since you live in the US and I haven’t for many years, but I think it would be problematic to assume Chinese-Americans and Chinese-Beijingers would, by virtue of a set of shared racial characteristics, therefore make the same economic and consumption choices. Always a possibility, and certainly experiences of other populations with similar cultural backgrounds are instructive, but such experiences can’t, for obvious reasons, be considered conclusive for comparison purposes, far too many other variables at work.

September 4, 2010 @ 10:04 am | Comment

Sorry, I was referring to Mike’s comment. But even Chinese people in Southeast Asia, or Singapore, or Taiwan, or Hong Kong or elsewhere don’t seem to waste and eat as much as Americans do.

That said people living in Beijing aren’t representative of all of China of course.

September 4, 2010 @ 10:10 am | Comment

Agree to both. As I said above (and in the comment before that) I doubt very much (or at least very much hope) per capita levels of waste/resource-intensive consumption never reach US levels.

And as I made clear in both of my comments, I was speaking of, and basing my observations on, Beijing and Beijingers with an aside regarding Shanghai. I made no such claims for China as a whole, though an interesting study, which likely is being done, might be to look at patterns of conspicuous consumption in the ’2nd tier’ or ’3rd tier’ cities to use the somewhat simplistic marketing categorization.

September 4, 2010 @ 10:23 am | Comment

True. The backlash against the obscene consumerism in Shanghai can’t come fast enough. Americanization is destroying China.

September 4, 2010 @ 10:53 am | Comment

“Americanization is destroying China.”

Not to be confused with ‘America is destroying China’, which seems to be your inference. This pattern of self-implosion is being brought upon the Chinese by themselves, old sport.

Let’s hope they can pull out of the consumerism dive before it’s too late, but I wouldn’t hold your breath.

September 4, 2010 @ 11:03 am | Comment

Nope, just like Communism and opium, it is being forced upon China by several foreign interests, not uncommonly in collusion with traitors.

I doubt they will ever consume as much as Americans, however, given that Chinese everywhere on the planet are less decadent and wasteful than Westerners.

September 4, 2010 @ 11:16 am | Comment

I think ‘forced upon them’ tends to minimize Chinese agency in the process. I suspect it’s a powerful combination of marketing, global commercial interests, patterns of status marking/status competition, social anxiety, rapid economic development, and rising incomes/standards of living. Separating it out and assigning percentages would be tough, but to say it’s purely a “Chinese problem” would as misleading as saying “it’s been forced upon them.” Both are far too simplistic a reading of the situation, like most things, I’m guessing the actuality is hiding in the middle somewhere.

By way of example, the BEIC and American traders were instrumental in bringing the Opium trade to China after it was clear that new forms of Opium intake not only made it more addictive but also easier to distribute. (A lot of this was related to the popularity of tobacco smoking after that product was first brought to Asia in the 15th/16th c., one notable example of the “Columbian Exchange”) Nevertheless, by the end of the Qing, most of the opium sold in China was domestically produced by Chinese farmers/manufacturers, with many consumers preferring locally-produced opium because it was cheaper (though less potent and product quality was considered to be lower). Does this make the massive crime of smuggling opium into China any less of a travesty? Of course not, nor does it ignore that opium became a key part of the Qing economy mainly as a result of smugglers (and later ‘legal’ traders) importing the drug in the economic interests of the colonial powers, but my point is: things are never as simple as they seem when we reduce them to Manichean binaries.

Finally, is it possible to have a discussion without making sweeping generalizations using race or other categories (“Westerners”) so broad as to be analytically meaningless? It seems quite childish and not particularly conducive to maintaining a quality discussion.

September 4, 2010 @ 12:42 pm | Comment

but to say it’s purely a “Chinese problem” would as misleading as saying “it’s been forced upon them.”

Jeremiah,

I take your point, but in saying that the materialism that pervades contemporary Chinese society is a home-grown problem, I was really saying that the Chinese are proving as weak and fallible in the face of opportunity as any previous nation on a roll. And for that they (or more especially el merpingtroid) can blame the human condition if they like, but not ‘decadent westerners’.

September 4, 2010 @ 1:42 pm | Comment

was really saying that the Chinese are proving as weak and fallible in the face of opportunity as any previous nation on a roll.

Any nation, except all of them. Unsourced claims as usual from you- but what do you expect from a someone like stuart who thinks anything with http:// in it is a valid source, as long as it is anti-Chinese and anti-Han?

September 4, 2010 @ 4:32 pm | Comment

Jeremiah

Hence the “traitors” bit ;)

September 4, 2010 @ 4:40 pm | Comment

That’s A LOT of traitors. Wonder who was left?

September 4, 2010 @ 5:42 pm | Comment

Though Stuart is onto something, I mean we have seen similar examples of rapid development leading to increased urbanization and social mobility/anxiety which then manifested itself through marking status through conspicuous consumption/shallow materialism. It’s a pretty big club, and possibly a phase through which China’s major urban areas are passing, but, like many things relating to China, the scale of the problem might make for a qualitative difference. As I said, we’ll have to see.

September 4, 2010 @ 6:37 pm | Comment

except all of them

I take that to mean that you absolve the British Empire et al of all blame for any misdemeanours committed in the name of plunder. Well done!

The additional point being that emerging powers blazing a trail of consumerism create human suffering in the weaker overseas nations whose resources fuel their domestic appetites. To which end South America and Africa are already getting royally shafted by the Hu/Wen dynasty.

Stick that in yer weekend pipe and smoke it, old sport.

September 4, 2010 @ 7:31 pm | Comment

The additional point being that emerging powers blazing a trail of consumerism create human suffering

You mean emerging Western powers. China isn’t an emerging power, China is China, and they are far less expansionist when reasserting power than the West to whom genocide is innate behavior.

To which end South America and Africa are already getting royally shafted by the Hu/Wen dynasty.

Source? I didn’t think so. They are getting a far better deal from China than any Western nation, or from the Indians or Arabs.

And that’s true Jeremiah, I can kind of see China going through the same phase Taiwan or Japan did during the 90s/80s respectively.

September 4, 2010 @ 11:12 pm | Comment

@merp

I doubt they will ever consume as much as Americans, however, given that Chinese everywhere on the planet are less decadent and wasteful than Westerners.

Looks like merp has a really serious case of selective amnesia again.

“The commission also dispensed a warning to the vice head of police at Shenzhen airport, Liu Shengqiang, who hosted a 110-table wedding banquet for his daughter

http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Asia/Story/STIStory_493408.html

Airport police can actually splurge on a 110 table wedding? Thanks for taking us to new heights of decadence and waste.

September 4, 2010 @ 11:13 pm | Comment

@merp

China is China, and they are far less expansionist when reasserting power

You got to be kidding. Look at what Red China’s Foreign Minister said in the presence of other leaders in a multilateral setting such as the ASEAN Regional Forum.

“China is a big country and other countries are small countries, and that’s just a fact” — Yang Jiechi

Wow, “peaceful” rise indeed.

September 4, 2010 @ 11:21 pm | Comment

@merp

Nope, just like Communism and opium, it is being forced upon China by several foreign interests, not uncommonly in collusion with traitors.

Oh dear. Merp is calling the Great Helmsman a traitor! That’s something new!

September 4, 2010 @ 11:24 pm | Comment

@merp

But even Chinese people in Southeast Asia, or Singapore, or Taiwan, or Hong Kong or elsewhere don’t seem to waste and eat as much as Americans do.

So what’s merp’s opinion on the waistline of one of China’s youngest general?

http://chinadigitaltimes.net/china/mao-xinyu/

September 4, 2010 @ 11:30 pm | Comment

Clearly because one man makes the fact that China is less obese than most nations invalid!

Because one man has a 110 table wedding (who knows how much the guests and family contributed) all of China is wasteful!

Because China (and Taiwan) are defending their legitimate territorial claims, they are belligerent!

All bow down to sp’s flawless logic!

September 5, 2010 @ 12:04 am | Comment

CHINESE authorities have punished two policemen for throwing lavish banquets and receiving money from guests, as the government pursues a crackdown on corruption, state media said on Monday.

A Communist Party disciplinary commission in the southern province of Guangdong said the sumptuous parties had cast the government and the party in a bad light, Xinhua news agency said.

The vice police chief in Lianjiang city, Chen Xizhao, was suspended for inviting 400 guests to a sumptuous banquet at his new home and collecting 65,000 yuan (S$13,417) in cash gifts from them, the report said.

lol, you think this is big news?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704281204575003351773983136.html

Despite the past year’s financial crisis and the ensuing bailout, banks will be paying out a record $145 billion in bonuses, which tops bonuses from 2007.

September 5, 2010 @ 12:06 am | Comment

@merp

Because China (and Taiwan) are defending their legitimate territorial claims, they are belligerent!

Doesn’t change the fact that Beijing is talking like the old “Celestial Empire” to its neighbours.

But aren’t Malaysia’s, Brunei’s, Vietnam’s or the Philippines’ legitimate too?

September 5, 2010 @ 12:08 am | Comment

@merp

Whose logic is flawed when he/she made hasty generalization such as “Chinese everywhere on the planet”?

I just need ONE opposite case to shoot that down because of the stupidity of the person who shouted that mad generalization.

September 5, 2010 @ 12:10 am | Comment

sp
But aren’t Malaysia’s, Brunei’s, Vietnam’s or the Philippines’ legitimate too?

Aren’t my claims to your house legitimate? No. They are historically Chinese territory. Southeast Asian nations are trying exploit “international law” to get their hands on territory they have never even touched until recently, whereas ROC and PRC claims are thousands of years old with commercial activity and archaeological finds to support them.

Whose logic is flawed when he/she made hasty generalization such as “Chinese everywhere on the planet”?

If you could read, you would realize I was comparing them to Westerners as a whole. So all I have to do now is find a fatter Westerner so a certain foaming at the mouth moron’s argument is discarded. Not mentioning any names, of course. Give up already and take an English class.

September 5, 2010 @ 12:15 am | Comment

This is thread drift at its most bizarre.

September 5, 2010 @ 12:34 am | Comment

Thanks to schizo, not sure what the p stands for.

September 5, 2010 @ 12:36 am | Comment

@merp

Haha. So much for merp’s “Chinese everywhere on the planet are less decadent and wasteful than Westerners”

I guess merp is trying to tell us that Liu Shengqiang or Chen Xizhao is either a) not Chinese or; b) not on this planet or: both a) and b).

Southeast Asian nations are trying exploit “international law”
So Merp is suggesting that China is not gonna give a shit about “international law” i.e. like George W Bush. How assuring!

whereas ROC and PRC claims are thousands of years old with commercial activity and archaeological finds to support them

Hahaha. Then I guess Italy can claim sovereignty over the entire Europe with Rome’s “thousands of years old with commercial activity and archaeological finds” to support them.

September 5, 2010 @ 12:39 am | Comment

Mud Eating and Regurgitating Pig. What kind of organism is that?

September 5, 2010 @ 12:41 am | Comment

@merp

I didn’t think so. They are getting a far better deal from China than any Western nation

Agreed. Mugabe certainly gets a good deal from the Chinese shipment of arms to his regime.

September 5, 2010 @ 12:58 am | Comment

Mud Eating and Regurgitating Pig. What kind of organism is that?

That’s not a nice thing to say about your mother. How cruel!

Agreed. Mugabe certainly gets a good deal from the Chinese shipment of arms to his regime.

At least they handled the whites properly. Nothing you can do about those Western sanctions that continue to rape Zimbabweans, however.

September 5, 2010 @ 1:06 am | Comment

Hahaha. Then I guess Italy can claim sovereignty over the entire Europe with Rome’s “thousands of years old with commercial activity and archaeological finds” to support them.

Hahahahahahah! HAHahHA HA! Yes each ha increases your shitty argument’s effectiveness by 10 times. No, the Romans lost these territories through force of arms- and they displaced natives to begin with. China’s islands were not ever settled by Southeast Asians, nor have they taken these islands through force. China is being very nice to them by putting up with their greedy antics.

I guess merp is trying to tell us that Liu Shengqiang or Chen Xizhao is either a) not Chinese or; b) not on this planet or: both a) and b).

Wrong answer. For every Liu Shengqiang I can find 10 white guys who are even fatter. Learn English.

September 5, 2010 @ 1:11 am | Comment

@merp

That’s not a nice thing to say about your mother. How cruel!

Merp is cute when he gets mad =)

At least they handled the whites properly.

“Properly” involves eviction from the land and then leading the Zimbabwean economy to astronomical inflation rates only matched by Weimar Germany in the 1920s.

September 5, 2010 @ 1:15 am | Comment

Nah you’re the one who’s pissed. You practically piss yourself spamming nonsensical garbage whenever I say anything and no smiley face is going to cover up your raging asspains.

“Properly” involves eviction from the land and then leading the Zimbabwean economy to astronomical inflation rates only matched by Weimar Germany in the 1920s.

Thanks to Western sanctions.

September 5, 2010 @ 1:17 am | Comment

@merp
For every Liu Shengqiang I can find 10 white guys who are even fatter.

You shouted “Chinese everywhere on the planet are less decadent and wasteful than Westerners”

What if we can find just this one white person on this planet who is happens to be less decadent and wasteful?

http://www.american-pictures.com/gallery/usa/pages/usa-00301.htm

September 5, 2010 @ 1:21 am | Comment

@merp

You practically piss yourself spamming nonsensical garbage

HOHOHO. Self-portrayal at its finest.

Thanks to Western sanctions.

Yup. If not, how can Beijing become the main supplier of small arms to Sudan, Zimbabwe and Burma?

September 5, 2010 @ 1:24 am | Comment

What if you can? Still means you don’t comprehend basic English. I obviously meant the AVERAGE Chinese person from their respective subgroups, compared to the average Westerner.

You’re the only one who doesn’t comprehend that. Even stuart understands, and he isn’t exactly the smartest person on the planet.

September 5, 2010 @ 1:24 am | Comment

HOHOHO. Self-portrayal at its finest.

Oh, so you’ve taken up this “you’re mad” canard now? I realize you’re slow on the draw, but this trick has already been done (poorly) by stuart and others.

Don’t even try sp. I can practically imagine you on the verge of tears, gnashing your teeth as spittle flecks your monitor, while you pound your sticky keys angrily in a delirious rage every time the four letters in my handle show up on the screen.

I can hear the click click click click clickclick of your F5 key, and just perceive the slightest hint of your greasy, unwashed beer gut and rotten hemorrhoid farts with each of your moaning, asspained comments.

September 5, 2010 @ 1:30 am | Comment

@merp

the AVERAGE Chinese person from their respective subgroups, compared to the average Westerner.

Averages is the only thing you learn in school? Hahaha. Averages are one of the most useless things in the world, didn’t your teacher in statistics teach you that? And what is an “average” Chinese person? What’s your definition?

Looks like someone’s organ between his ears are as small as Dubya’s.

September 5, 2010 @ 1:31 am | Comment

@merp

I can practically imagine you on the verge of tears, gnashing your teeth as spittle flecks your monitor, while you pound your sticky keys angrily in a delirious rage every time the four letters in my handle show up on the screen.

I can hear the click click click click clickclick of your F5 key, and just perceive the slightest hint of your greasy, unwashed beer gut and rotten hemorrhoid farts with each of your moaning, asspained comments.

No wonder you “thank” schizo at #49.

September 5, 2010 @ 1:33 am | Comment

@merp

China is being very nice to them by putting up with their greedy antics.

Yup. Cause the Middle Kingdom expects “the small barbarians” from Southeast Asia to kowtow in the direction of the Celestial Empire as vassal states.

September 5, 2010 @ 1:42 am | Comment

Averages is the only thing you learn in school?

Oh right we should rely on anecdotes and hearsay like you.

Yup. Cause the Middle Kingdom expects “the small barbarians” from Southeast Asia to kowtow in the direction of the Celestial Empire as vassal states.

Rather, to stop being greedy fucks and opportunists.

September 5, 2010 @ 2:05 am | Comment

“China isn’t an emerging power”
—really? Then what is she?

“China is China”
—what is that supposed to mean? Sure, unique characteristics yada yada yada, but still subject to the human condition, I suspect. If one wants to see the capacity of Chinese people for “consumerism”, one only need look at the discordance of prosperity between eastern coastal urbanites and rural western Chinese, then consider the resultant disparity in consumption. I’m not sure why some people constantly see the need in blaming others on behalf of Chinese people…especially when he’s not Chinese himself. Usually, people normally learn about taking responsibility for their actions in their early adolescence. As Chinese people increase their consumption, it seems downright childish to suggest that “the west” is making them do it. As the Cantonese saying goes, you can’t push down a cow’s head unless the cow wants to drink. Gosh, if we take this any further, pretty soon it’ll be “the voices” telling them to consume stuff.

“they are far less expansionist when reasserting power”
—considering that China is just entering the league of the big boys, that’s a slightly premature statement, especially when she’s just finished declaring that the South China Sea is now a “core” interest. Time will tell. Plus this is the 21st and not the 19th century, so it seems that a projection of power should not be gauged on the metrics of yesteryear.

“whereas ROC and PRC claims are thousands of years old with commercial activity and archaeological finds to support them.”
—didn’t realize the PRC had been around that long…though it might feel that way for some people in China. “claims” are nice, but fairly worthless unless recognized by treaties.

To SP123:
“I just need ONE opposite case to shoot that down because of the stupidity of the person who shouted that mad generalization.”
—actually, I wouldn’t phrase it like that, cuz it starts sounding like something Charles Liu would say. Suffice it to say that Mr. Merp likes his unfounded generalizations as much if not moreso than the next guy. And people like Merp are disproportionately given to the urge to speak on behalf of other people (sometimes up to as many as 1.3 billion other people), even as he sits half way around the world in a different country. Curiously, this is a very common trait for people who happen to harbour his POV.

September 5, 2010 @ 2:31 am | Comment

stuart alling China an “emerging power” as if China wasn’t already a power before is the point. stuart wants to imply that China will suddenly go about and wreck the place like Germans or English did. There is no historical precedence for this.

one only need look at the discordance of prosperity between eastern coastal urbanites and rural western Chinese, then consider the resultant disparity in consumption.

You mean look at them or look at the statistics? Consumerism isn’t all that strong anywhere in China- it’s a few people being very visible. That’s why Americans are howling and screaming and moaning about China needing to buy more Starbucks, Apple and McDonald’s- because apparently this will be so great for Chinese living standards.

As Chinese people increase their consumption, it seems downright childish to suggest that “the west” is making them do it.

No one is saying the “West” is making them PERSONALLY do something. Their neighbors? That’s a possibility. Straw man, almost.

considering that China is just entering the league of the big boys, that’s a slightly premature statement,

China was always a “big boy”. Even at their poorest they were a regional power. If by league of the big boys you mean something like Soviet America and America at the height of the Cold War that’s something else.

especially when she’s just finished declaring that the South China Sea is now a “core” interest.

The South China Sea is also a core interest of Taiwan. No ASEAN nation has any rightful claim to almost all of those islands.

didn’t realize the PRC had been around that long…though it might feel that way for some people in China. “claims” are nice, but fairly worthless unless recognized by treaties.

What treaty gives white, European derived, foreign, outsider Canadians the right to First Nations territory? Military matters as well. China also has the moral claim to these islands- too bad if you think otherwise.

September 5, 2010 @ 2:41 am | Comment

didn’t realize the PRC had been around that long

To further illustrate why this argument doesn’t work, how long has a unified Vietnam been around? So I guess China owns everything it wants from Vietnam by default. Genius!

If you go further and say the CPV was founded earlier, then you have to acknowledge their cession of the islands to the PRC.

September 5, 2010 @ 2:44 am | Comment

“stuart wants to imply that China will suddenly go about and wreck the place…”
—if by “place”, you and/or Stuart was referring to the environment, then you guys might be onto something…

“one only need look at the discordance of prosperity”…”You mean look at them or look at the statistics”
—I think I’ll leave you to figure that one out for yourself.

“Consumerism isn’t all that strong anywhere in China- it’s a few people being very visible.”
—I guess someone forgot to tell Audi. Somehow, those Ingolstadt boys seem to think China has been their #1 market.

“No one is saying the “West” is making them PERSONALLY do something.”
—wow, are you really starting to recognize that Chinese people can and should take responsibility for their own actions? Well, maybe there’s a glimmer of hope for your rehabilitation after all. Of course, no one said “personally”. So you haven’t quite rid yourself of the childish arguments yet. But these things take time. Keep the faith.

“China was always a “big boy”.”
—oh brother, again. I’ll leave you to again figure out the statement to which this was referencing. You’ve got some homework to do.

“No ASEAN nation has any rightful claim to almost all of those islands.”
—I’m glad you think so.

“What treaty gives white, European derived, foreign, outsider Canadians the right to First Nations territory? Military matters as well.”
—ahh, back to that old favourite again, when North America was not organized into geopolitical states and there was no one to have a treaty with. These days, Canada has numerous treaties with various aboriginal First Nations. Hey, but maybe you’re beginning to accept that China might have some expansionism in her as well, since you mention the military bit. I think we’ve made some progress here today. Good work, m’boy.

“So I guess China owns everything it wants from Vietnam by default.”
—huh?!? It’s a wonder that people with your lack of logic don’t fall down more often.

Any resolution of the South China Sea claims will involve contemporary political states, not their historic predecessors. That point seems so blatantly obvious as to defy mention, but not for everyone, I guess.

September 5, 2010 @ 3:03 am | Comment

I meant the region, or the whole world. stuart basically thinks all Han are vermin to be exterminated and are inherently evil.

I guess someone forgot to tell Audi. Somehow, those Ingolstadt boys seem to think China has been their #1 market.

That’s relative, they are doing badly everywhere else as far as I know. That and many Chinese are first time auto buyers, they aren’t adding to their collections.

are you really starting to recognize that Chinese people can and should take responsibility for their own actions?

Wow, are you still banking on semantics to dodge an argument? No one Chinese person can “take responsibility” for the behavior of their neighbors or a minority of conspicuous consumers. This is easy enough to understand from the plain English I used, i.e “forced on China” not “forced on each individual Chinese person”. When there is a native reaction to this consumerist nonsense, all the Westerners shout and scream and shriek about how China isn’t consuming their overpriced, anti-competitive goods enough.

when North America was not organized into geopolitical states and there was no one to have a treaty with.

So I guess raping babies is okay because they don’t have a personal moral and legal code? So then what gives your “geopolitical states” so much moral weight? Nothing but a bunch of pieces of paper written by your favorite people ever, white European mass murderers and colonists.

These days, Canada has numerous treaties with various aboriginal First Nations.

Do they honor them? Shitty treaties forced at gunpoint nonetheless. Why shouldn’t the First Nations tear up these white man treaties and just do as they please? It’s their land.

Hey, but maybe you’re beginning to accept that China might have some expansionism in her as well, since you mention the military bit.

It’d sound like that to a kindergartener perhaps. China hasn’t expanded since the late Qing, they are simply defending their territory from greedy opportunists.

It’s a wonder that people with your lack of logic don’t fall down more often.

I applied your own logic (that states lose all right to any territory when there is regime change). I guess every time America has an election, the “international community” should recognize this as Americans accepting a blank slate as their geographic boundaries.

Again, nerd bean counting.

Any resolution of the South China Sea claims will involve contemporary political states, not their historic predecessors.

Okay, in terms of contemporary political states China is older than Vietnam by ten years. Winner takes all in SK Cheung politics. Actually lets make it a vote, 1,320,000,000 Chinese vote against 79,000,000 Vietnamese. Democratic AND international-tistic!

September 5, 2010 @ 3:16 am | Comment

“stuart basically thinks all Han are vermin to be exterminated and are inherently evil.”
—huh? I’m sure Stuart can defend himself, but I find your description of his ‘thoughts’ to have quite possibly missed the mark.

“That’s relative, they are doing badly everywhere else as far as I know.”
—oh brother, again. So ‘relative’ to “everywhere else”, Chinese people are on a consumerism spree then, right? Besides, apart from the R8, Audi makes daily drivers, so I don’t think the majority of their vehicle lineup is sprinkled with models that sit around in collections. Ferraris, on the other hand, would be a different story, but I understand they aren’t hurting in China either. Now, of course, not every Chinese person is consuming extravagantly. There are many in western China who heard Deng’s mantra that “not everyone can get rich at the same time”, and I suppose are still patiently awaiting their turn. But of the Chinese who have gotten rich, they don’t seem adverse to consuming, contrary to your assertions.

“No one Chinese person can “take responsibility” for the behavior of their neighbors or a minority of conspicuous consumers.”
—what, you mean Chinese people are in fact individuals? Good to know. That would be a useful fact for the CCP to realize, or acknowledge. BTW, of course one can’t be responsible for the actions of another. You’re back to arguing against a point I didn’t make, which, if memory serves, would not be your first time. Who is forcing “consumerism” on China? Here, the English corollary to that Cantonese phrase I used earlier works just as well: you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink. If Chinese people are increasing their consumerism, that’s their deal. In fact, no ‘blame’ is necessary…except in the depths of your mind.

“Nothing but a bunch of pieces of paper written by your favorite people ever, white European mass murderers and colonists.”
—so riddle me this: where are you currently living, and why? If you’re gonna make a point about no treaties being signed, logic dictates that you at least recognize the limitations of the treaty process. Granted, ‘logic’ defies you. But it’s in play nonetheless. As a news flash, it’s the 21st century. In this century, bona fide nations exist around the South China Sea. So a resolution of territorial disputes will require a treaty process. In case you weren’t aware, things are a bit different these days than the days of Columbus.

“Shitty treaties forced at gunpoint nonetheless.”
—here’s some advice for you. Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

“defending their territory”
—LOL. The areas around the South China Sea are not “their territory”. This is the part when checking a map or atlas might serve you well.

“I applied your own logic (that states lose all right to any territory when there is regime change).”
—huh? Umm, you don’t possess the capacity for logic. So to try to utilize that of others is understandably unwieldy for you, as evidenced here. States have as much right to territory as other states choose to allow, and vice versa. These agreements are governed by treaties. Regime change has nothing to do with it. The second half of that paragraph (what you “guess”) is retarded, or would obviously be considered as such by someone in the slightest possession of a brain. Sadly, that excludes you.

“in terms of contemporary political states China is older than Vietnam by ten years. Winner takes all in SK Cheung politics. Actually lets make it a vote, 1,320,000,000 Chinese vote against 79,000,000 Vietnamese. Democratic AND international-tistic!”
—OMG, how do you look yourself in the mirror after uttering “arguments” (and I use that term loosely here) as pathetic as this? If there is a dispute to be resolved with a treaty TODAY, then the parties to the treaty would be the nation/states in existence TODAY. How does the PRC being “older” than Vietnam have to do with it? Is there something about “contemporary” that eludes you? Unbelievable.
As for the second part, where does one begin? First of all, it is more than a little ironic that you would have Chinese people “voting”. Yes, let’s give Chinese people the vote. Surely, if they’re capable of voting on foreign policy, they would be capable of voting on domestic policy, such as who should govern them and under what system. I share your endorsement of such a concept. When can they start?
Second, international treaties are not “voted” upon by their respective nationals. 1.3 billion Chinese constitute one party to the treaty. 79 million Vietnamese constitute another party to any such treaty. I imagine there would be quite a few other parties to such a treaty as well.
Third, you’re back to the habit of assuming that all Chinese feel exactly the same way about something. And all Vietnamese, for that matter. You sure take great comfort in your generalizations. I must thank you, however, for giving me a good laugh.

September 5, 2010 @ 6:19 am | Comment

oh brother, again. So ‘relative’ to “everywhere else”, Chinese people are on a consumerism spree

To the point- Audi sold all of 100,000 cars in China last year or thereabouts, as far as the profit margin and price tag on those vehicles- who knows, I’m sure you have the source.

But of the Chinese who have gotten rich, they don’t seem adverse to consuming, contrary to your assertions.

Your source for this is that 100,000 Audis were sold in China?

If Chinese people are increasing their consumerism, that’s their deal.

Right nothing with the West spending billions trying to encourage Chinese to buy their overpriced goods. As we all know advertising is a useless endeavor, which is why companies pour hundreds of millions into it.

As a news flash, it’s the 21st century.

Who cares?

In this century, bona fide nations exist around the South China Sea.

Says who? And why should these “bona fide” nations matter? Why are they “bona fide”? Because you say so?

here’s some advice for you. Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

Take your own advice. If you don’t like the truth then admit it- don’t try to lie and deceive your way out of it.

LOL. The areas around the South China Sea are not “their territory”. This is the part when checking a map or atlas might serve you well.

I guess Hawaii doesn’t belong to America because it’s an island? However China has had those islands explored, fished and mapped for thousands of years before the Vietnamese even knew they existed.

States have as much right to territory as other states choose to allow, and vice versa.

Glad you concede. China will not allow Vietnam or other opportunists to steal their islands.

How does the PRC being “older” than Vietnam have to do with it?

Oh I don’t know, perhaps maybe a certain passive aggressive bean counter implied that the PRC was only 60 years old and thus had no claims on anything prior to 1949? Maybe.

.I share your endorsement of such a concept. When can they start

Yes global democracy is a good idea for China. Everything should be a vote; where should all American tax dollars go? 1.3 billion Chinese can vote on this important decision against 300 mil Americans.

1.3 billion Chinese constitute one party to the treaty. 79 million Vietnamese constitute another party to any such treaty.

But the Chinese party has greater weight. They will not concede free islands to people who were never present. Case closed, I think China should be nice about it however.

I imagine there would be quite a few other parties to such a treaty as well.

No legitimate ones except China. If Vietnam can claim the Spratlys, Argentina can claim the Falklands and Ireland.

September 5, 2010 @ 6:47 am | Comment

China isn’t an emerging power, China is China, and they are far less expansionist…blah blah blah

You might not be aware of this yourself, old sport, but be sure to tell party HQ that your programming and medication has been very effective next time you file a report.

This is the only other possible explanation for the man behind feromerp: http://ow.ly/2zDDa

Gotta hand it to you, old sport. If that’s really you, you had me going with all that CCP rhetoric for a while.

September 5, 2010 @ 8:33 am | Comment

I’ve gained some weight since then, how much does Fox News pay you btw?

September 5, 2010 @ 8:36 am | Comment

Do they honor them? Shitty treaties forced at gunpoint nonetheless.

You mean amassing 20000 troops on eastern Tibet and presenting Lhasa with the “The Agreement of the Central People’s Government and the Local Government of Tibet on Measures for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet”, demanding that any changes to the agreement was not allowed?

That’s shit at gunpoint indeed!

September 5, 2010 @ 11:06 am | Comment

Oh right we should rely on anecdotes and hearsay like you.

merpy thinks that news URLs are hearsays. Oh by the way, you refused to share with us the characteristics of your “AVERAGE” Chinese person.

September 5, 2010 @ 11:32 am | Comment

Actually lets make it a vote, 1,320,000,000 Chinese vote against 79,000,000 Vietnamese. Democratic AND international-tistic!

When India’s population exceeds that of China around 2025, India should have a vote against China over Aksai Chin. Woohoo, cheers to merpy logic!

September 5, 2010 @ 11:38 am | Comment

You mean amassing 20000 troops on eastern Tibet and presenting Lhasa with the “The Agreement of the Central People’s Government and the Local Government of Tibet on Measures for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet”, demanding that any changes to the agreement was not allowed?

Tibet was annexed far, far earlier than that.

merpy thinks that news URLs are hearsays

If they’re from crap sources like yours.

When India’s population exceeds that of China around 2025, India should have a vote against China over Aksai Chin.

Not if China votes to split away their annexed territories first :)

September 5, 2010 @ 12:01 pm | Comment

Tibet was annexed far, far earlier than that.

Mongolia also annexed China far far earlier. Looks like Mongolia should claim the whole of China for itself.

Not if China votes to split away their annexed territories first

Time is running out for China, because China only have 15 years before India’s larger population can vote every inch of disputed territories away from China according to merpy logic. :)

September 5, 2010 @ 12:10 pm | Comment

“Audi sold all of 100,000 cars in China last year or thereabouts”
—indeed. One example of consumerism. There’s nothing wrong with it. But it becomes obtuse when someone wants to (a)find blame in Chinese people buying Audis and other consumer goods and (b)places said blame on “the west”. A bizarre habit indeed.

“Your source for this is that 100,000 Audis were sold in China?”
—it’s one example thereof. You’d think that be pretty self-evident.

“As we all know advertising is a useless endeavor, which is why companies pour hundreds of millions into it.”
—when did this become about “advertising”. Yet again, an example of arguing against…god knows what. Let me help you out. Here’s that saying again: you can lead a horse to water (cue your advertising mantra), but you can’t make it drink (can you figure this out yourself, or do I need to draw out the intestines for you?).

“As a news flash, it’s the 21st century…Who cares?”
—LOL. Evidently not you. To each their own. Most people I know live in the 21st century. What century are you living in?

“Says who? And why should these “bona fide” nations matter?”
—you have got to be kidding me. But with you, maybe you’re not…

“If you don’t like the truth then admit it”
—I just love it when people throw “the truth” around. Such a compelling statement of “fact” (which, btw, is a term which seems to be interchangeable with “the truth” in some people’s lexicon, and is similarly comical when they use it).

“I guess Hawaii doesn’t belong to America because it’s an island?”
—again, how is it possible for you to look yourself in the mirror after a gem like that?

“However China has had those islands explored, fished and mapped for thousands of years”
—that’s fabulous. And meaningless. We’re talking about “today”, remember. Mind you, this is probably comparable to the Tibet argument where you guys like to suggest that Tibet today should forever remain a part of China because it at points in the historical past had chosen to recognize itself thusly. Well, a consistently nonsensical argument is certainly consistent nonetheless.

“Glad you concede. China will not allow Vietnam or other opportunists to steal their islands.”
—um, as a general rule, it almost always helps to read the entire sentence. If you had, you would’ve no doubt noticed the “vice versa” part. Which is to say, in case you’re wondering, that Vietnam may not allow China to claim them either. At the end of the day, the dispute will likely be resolved via a…you guessed it…treaty. Besides, it’s not really the islands themselves per se that matter. It’s the shipping lanes, and even more importantly, the stuff that lies under the sea floor.

“implied that the PRC was only 60 years old and thus had no claims on anything prior to 1949? Maybe.”
—Oops. Wrong! Better luck next time. The PRC could be a thousand years old (and let’s hope it never gets to that), but any dispute over territory TODAY will still need to be resolved via a treaty TODAY. Not a difficult concept, if you put your mind to it.

“Yes global democracy is a good idea for China.”
—whoa. I think you’ve shot your wad a little prematurely, m’boy. You gotta start small, learn to walk before trying to run. Let CHina have a national democracy first, get her feet wet, then we can talk “global”. So, how about it? Bueller?…Bueller?
Actually, having a world without nations, where people are citizens of the world rather than citizens of a country, is quite a romantic notion. Nice display of idealism. But I’m not sure how practical it is. And if the world is “nationless”, then for starters there would be no China and no USA. And there might be a lot fewer people in what is now called China, since those folks could then go anywhere. And there are still 5 billion other people to contend with. So it gets a wee bit more complicated than what you would suggest, buddy. Time to think it through…which is never a bad idea before you speak anyhow.

“But the Chinese party has greater weight.”
—she’ll have as much weight as the other parties to the treaty choose to give her. What other parties do to resolve other disputes would be up to those other parties. Again, not a complicated concept.

September 5, 2010 @ 12:29 pm | Comment

sp
Mongolia also annexed China far far earlier. Looks like Mongolia should claim the whole of China for itself.

Uh no, because Mongolia ceded their territory to China.

it’s one example thereof. You’d think that be pretty self-evident.

One example, considering a huge population of one-time buyers, is not enough really.

Yet again, an example of arguing against…god knows what.

Yeah and forcing market doors open through exploitative trade org injunctions, etc.

September 5, 2010 @ 12:42 pm | Comment

“One example, considering a huge population of one-time buyers, is not enough really.”
—so are you now forgetting about placing blame on “the west”, and actually asserting that Chinese people have little consumerism, even among those lucky ones who can afford it? Maybe you should clarify: not enough for what?

“forcing market doors open”
—oh please. Deng started the “opening up”, remember? Without that, we probably wouldn’t even be having this conversation. For starters, if China wants into overseas markets, she needs to reciprocate. And second, if China wants to become less dependent on exports for her GDP, then somebody is going to have to step up and buy the stuff she makes. You guessed it, that would be Chinese people. Finally, it’s still up to the horse as to whether it’s gonna drink or not.

September 5, 2010 @ 12:54 pm | Comment

Finally, it’s still up to the horse as to whether it’s gonna drink or not.

In which case you are acknowledging that it is being “led” :)

you have got to be kidding me. But with you, maybe you’re not…

This is the same stunt you pull when you can’t answer the question, pretend you’re knowledgeable or intelligent while ignoring the question. So what legitimacy do “modern nations” all have? That they exist?

—that’s fabulous. And meaningless. We’re talking about “today”, remember. Mind you, this is probably comparable to the Tibet argument where you guys like to suggest that Tibet today should forever remain a part of China because it at points in the historical past had chosen to recognize itself thusly. Well, a consistently nonsensical argument is certainly consistent nonetheless.

We’re talking about “today”? So historical ownership means nothing? What, pray tell, determines who owns what land? Based on how much you and your buddies like a country? It doesn’t matter if we’re talking now or then- what matters is CONTINUITY. Which Vietnam does not have, and China does. What also matters is PRECEDENCE, which Vietnam does not have, and China does.

So any nation should be able to claim any piece of land and have their claims, no matter how ridiculous, acknowledged? I don’t think so.

that Vietnam may not allow China to claim them either.

And under what authority does Vietnam have to claim China’s islands? Vietnam has as much claim to those islands as Poland does to Britain. “Just because I say so” isn’t enough.

but any dispute over territory TODAY will still need to be resolved via a treaty TODAY.

That’s absurd. So if I claim all of Angola for myself tomorrow they’d have to settle with me in your international clown court?

I think you’ve shot your wad a little prematurely, m’boy. You gotta start small, learn to walk before trying to run.

So now you suddenly believe in precedents! How about we start with village democracy first, oh wait, it has already been in place for several years now :) That argument cuts both ways.

where people are citizens of the world rather than citizens of a country, is quite a romantic notion. Nice display of idealism.

Yes, and so is your defense of an untenable status quo. So is your laughable idea that China will give away it’s territory simply because some greedy opportunists want it. Next maybe Korea will claim Beijing as their territory, and you will demand China settle it with a treaty.

she’ll have as much weight as the other parties to the treaty choose to give her.

Nope. Those are China’s islands, not Vietnam’s. They will get no weight whatsoever, just like how I have no right to claim Arizona as my private kingdom. You’d make a horrible lawyer. Something isn’t rightfully disputed because you see it and want it- you have to prove your claims are legitimate. ASEAN nations can bring nothing but “WE WANT IT, GIMME GIMME GIMME” to the table.

And no, a nation of 80 million simply has no right to the same political voice as a nation of 1,320,000,000, any more than Delaware or Montana should have more electoral votes than California.

September 5, 2010 @ 1:30 pm | Comment

And no, a nation of 80 million simply has no right to the same political voice as a nation of 1,320,000,000,

We look forward to the day somewhere in 2025 where India’s population exceeds that of China. By then China will simply have no right to the same political voice as India. Three cheers for merpy logic!

September 5, 2010 @ 1:42 pm | Comment

Again, in 2024 China will simply vote to have India divided properly into three countries. No error in logic here :)

Just you shrieking and tearing your hair out because I’m 1000 for 0 on you.

September 5, 2010 @ 1:48 pm | Comment

And under what authority does Vietnam have to claim China’s islands? Vietnam has as much claim to those islands as Poland does to Britain. “Just because I say so” isn’t enough.

All the ASEAN countries want to have a code of conduct in the South China Sea. China, as a “big” country cowardly rejected that. If you have legitimate claims, why are u scared? China is behaving more like the US under George W Bush i.e. using its power to bully others without any rules of constrain. Dubya should be a defence consultant in Zhongnanhai and teach them the fine art of his Bush Doctrine.

September 5, 2010 @ 1:52 pm | Comment

Again, in 2024 China will simply vote to have India divided properly into three countries. No error in logic here :)

Yawn. Your dear leaders in Zhongnanhai haven’t even contemplate that bird-brain shit of yours at this moment in their dealings with India.

Just you shrieking and tearing your hair out because I’m 1000 for 0 on you.

Hoho. Can see that the schizophrenic side of merp is rearing its head again. All the wild imaginations gushing out of that birdie little brain.

September 5, 2010 @ 1:56 pm | Comment

Next maybe Korea will claim Beijing as their territory, and you will demand China settle it with a treaty.

If that happens, China can claim Somalia and the entire Indian Ocean as its “core interest” because of the historical traces of Zheng He’s exploration. Woo hoo!

September 5, 2010 @ 2:03 pm | Comment

That’s absurd. So if I claim all of Angola for myself tomorrow they’d have to settle with me in your international clown court?

That makes merp the evil twin of Dubya because they share the same disdain for international law. Strange bedfellows indeed.

September 5, 2010 @ 2:05 pm | Comment

I’m not wading in here because I’ve think we’ve taken this pretty far off topic, and the sight of Merp shrieking and tearing his hair out, while amusing, is too sad for me on such a beautiful Sunday afternoon, but just so we’re clear…

Notions of ‘historical claims’ and ‘historical continuity’ need to be approached with far more care than seems to be the case here. Both rely on narratives of a vintage more recent than many people are aware (or those who are aware would prefer to admit).

Just saying…

September 5, 2010 @ 2:12 pm | Comment

“In which case you are acknowledging that it is being “led””
—sure. Like you say, there’s advertising. And it’s high time for you to accept that whether Chinese people consume, and what they consume, are their choice, and their responsibility. Enough with the silliness about blaming the west for Chinese consumerism. Welcome to adulthood.

“So what legitimacy do “modern nations” all have? That they exist?”
—wow, so a question about who might be party to South China Sea negotiations now becomes one of existentialism? As I said, you are quite…something.

“So historical ownership means nothing?”
—did I say that? Didn’t think so. But historical ownership matters only insofar as what others concede to your possession historically. For instance, it’s not GuangDong province that is up for discussion.
Now, someone could go and “claim” GuangDong province. Having such claims acknowledged would indeed be ridiculous. But that would be a different ball of wax.

“So if I claim all of Angola for myself tomorrow they’d have to settle with me in your international clown court? ”
—hey, do you have a basis for making such a claim? This I would love to hear.

“How about we start with village democracy first, oh wait, it has already been in place for several years now :) That argument cuts both ways.”
—first of all, those “village” “democracies” are barely democracies at all. Second, quite a leap from “village” to global, don’t you think. Again, walk first, then run. Try provinces next. Then (gulp) try all of China first. This I’d love to see. It’s a one way argument. Keep moving up in terms of scale, if you want to end up with “global”. China/CCP is hardly ready for “running” when it comes to democracy.

“So is your laughable idea that China will give away it’s territory simply because some greedy opportunists want it.”
—much like Tibet, I’d ask the people affected what they would prefer.

“you have to prove your claims are legitimate.”
—so too China. And don’t worry. Thankfully, you won’t be qualified to adjudicate their legitimacy. We know your capacity for objectivity.

When it comes to treaties, each nation is a party to it. Certainly, China’s size and influence has to be factored in, but it’s nothing like your ridiculous assertion that it’s a straight ratio of populace size.

BTW, I like how you’re keeping score in your head. Quite cute. And juvenile. To each their own.

September 5, 2010 @ 2:27 pm | Comment

Carry this on in another thread it you want. This thread is closed.

September 6, 2010 @ 12:43 am | Comment

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.