ie8 fix
Click Here

Welcome to the new Cold War: China vs. the United States

By | April 21, 2011, 5:00am PDT

Summary: It is becoming more and more clear that China is a clear and present threat to American security.

When it comes to America’s cybersecurity, I’ve been concerned about China’s motivations and actions since at least 2008.

In The Coming Cyberwar in The Journal of Counterterrorism and Homeland Security, I detailed rumors of a suspected Chinese cyberattack that took out 9,300 square miles of electrical service. Later, in 2009, I asked CNN’s audience if China is friend or foe.

More recently, National Defense Magazine reported that China apparently hijacked more than 15% of the world’s Internet routes for about 18 minutes (what is it with 18 minutes, anyway?) and had the potential to listen in on vast amounts of traffic.

In my article, “State-sponsored cyberterrorism” for Counterterrorism Magazine (no online link, sadly), I wrote about how the 2009 Report to Congress of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission described Chinese penetration attacks against U.S. security facilities going back to 2007. Here’s the important summary quote:

A large body of both circumstantial and forensic evidence strongly indicates Chinese state involvement in such activities, whether through the direct actions of state entities or through the actions of third-party groups sponsored by the state.

Our relationship with China is complex.

China is also America’s largest creditor. When our government decides to spend more money it doesn’t have, it’s often China that covers the check. Our debt to them is reputed to be in the trillions of dollars.

In my latest book, How To Save Jobs (free PDF download), I wrote extensively about how China’s transformation into a modern superpower has directly impacted the jobs situation here in America.

See also: In China, many younger military leaders view America as the ultimate enemy

See also: Is China gearing up to start World War III?

Here on ZDNet Government, I’ve also talked about how concerned I am with some of China’s military actions and attitudes towards the United States.

Next: Symantec, Huawei and the Chinese army »

Topics

David Gewirtz, Distinguished Lecturer at CBS Interactive, is an author, U.S. policy advisor, and computer scientist. He is featured in The History Channel special The President's Book of Secrets.

Disclosure

David Gewirtz

At various times during his adult life, David has voted for both Democrats and Republicans, and has been disappointed by both. He is deeply disturbed by how partisanship has come before patriotism in America, which gives him the freedom to pick on both sides.

David is a frequent guest on TV and radio stations across America and can usually be heard or seen on-the-air at least once a week. He writes weekly commentary and analysis for CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 and has been interviewed by Fox News, CNN, various ABC and NBC affiliates, and Canada’s Global TV. He has been a featured guest on National Public Radio and has also been featured on Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and Radio Liberty where his commentaries on technology, industry, and emerging nations have been broadcast into 46 countries (all in their own unique translations).

David is the executive director of U.S. Strategic Perspective Institute, a nonprofit research and policy organization. He is the Cyberterrorism Advisor for the International Association for Counterterrorism & Security Professionals, a columnist for The Journal of Counterterrorism and Homeland Security and a special contributor to Frontline Security Magazine. He is a member of the FBI’s InfraGard program, the security partnership between the FBI and industry. David is also a member of the U.S. Naval Institute and the National Defense Industrial Association, the leading defense industry association promoting national security.

David is an advisory board member for the Technical Communications and Management Certificate program at the University of California, Berkeley extension. He is also a member of the instructional faculty at the University of California, Berkeley extension.

David’s “day job” is as publisher and editor-in-chief of ZATZ publishing, an online publisher of technical magazines. Other than than his ownership stake in Component Enterprises, Inc. (the parent company of ZATZ), David has no additional industry investments.

ZATZ has many advertisers who do, in part, provide for David’s lush income and extravagant lifestyle. Most of them are IBM and Lotus aftermarket suppliers, some of them make goodies for Microsoft Outlook, and a few make all sorts of strange mobile devices and add-on products. David has been a regular judge of the IBM Awards, but has no formal financial interest in or with IBM.

Because the ZATZ online magazines often review products, David and ZATZ are sent an overwhelming stream of unsolicited, silly, and often useless products to review. Because they’re such a pain to track and ship back, these products often wind up in a dumpster or fill up the corner of a large closet. Although David has no plans to review products in connection to his ZDNet blog, if he does do a product review, he will disclose any relationship completely in that posting.

Both through ZATZ and independently, David derives a small income through various advertising and sales relationships with Amazon.com and Google. These are minor relationships and they will not impede his willingness or ability to chastise either company should they deserve it.

David has many other business relationships, but none of them relate to anything he covers in his ZDNet blog. David does have a bit of the sales-guy bug and if he’s not doing a sales deal with someone at least once a month, he goes through withdrawal. He has a number of consulting clients, but none of them relate to anything he covers for ZDNet (and if they ever do, he will either disclose that fact, or decline to write about them).

Back in the 1980s, David held the unusual title of “Godfather” at Apple. He has written and published 40 incredibly simplistic applications for Apple’s iPhone.

Although David is forbidden to disclose the terms of his iPhone developer agreement, he isn’t drinking the Apple Kool Aid, will never be confused with a metrosexual, and feels free to mock Apple, and Apple users, any time the occasion permits, on alternate Tuesdays, or if he’s bored.

Biography

David Gewirtz

In addition to hosting the ZDNet Government and ZDNet DIY-IT blogs, CBS Interactive's Distinguished Lecturer David Gewirtz is an author, U.S. policy advisor, and computer scientist. He is featured in The History Channel special The President's Book of Secrets, is one of America's foremost cyber-security experts, and is a top expert on saving and creating jobs. He is also director of the U.S. Strategic Perspective Institute as well as the founder of ZATZ Publishing.

David is a member of FBI InfraGard, the Cyberwarfare Advisor for the International Association for Counterterrorism & Security Professionals, a columnist for The Journal of Counterterrorism and Homeland Security, and has been a regular CNN contributor, and a guest commentator for the Nieman Watchdog of the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University. He is the author of Where Have All the Emails Gone?, the definitive study of email in the White House, as well as How To Save Jobs and The Flexible Enterprise, the classic book that served as a foundation for today's agile business movement.

237
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Welcome to the new Cold War: China vs. the United States
bluebendphoto 31st Jan
this article grossly oversimplifies things. there is a huge difference between the relationship with china and ours with the ussr. china owns a huge amount of our debt. they could crush us financially. ussr didn't have us in their pocket. huge difference.
http://www.bluebendphotography.com/best-of-the-biltmore-estate-wedding-photos
I think the world's been dazzled somewhat by Chinas' emergence as a manufacturing superpower, we seem to forgotten that the country is still in fact the same old communist dictatorship it always has been. Just because the dictatorship has discovered how to make money it doesn't mean anything's changed behind the thin veneer of respectability, just take a look at Tibet. This is a nation that would dearly love to destroy anyone or anything that doesn't share its' own political ideology (the USA for example).
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Welcome to the new Cold War: China vs. the United States
VoicesInTheHead Updated - 21st Apr 2011
@AndyPagin you are right. China 'would' do anything to spread its ideology just like US of A 'is' doing it now.
0 Votes
+ -
So what ideology is best for you
Will Farrell 21st Apr 2011
@VoicesInTheHead
One that allows you freedom to be what you want to be, say what you want to say, or the other that tells you to be what they want you to be, and to say what they want you to say?

It's working out reall well for those Chineese journalist, artists, students, Nobel prize winners, isn't it?
0 Votes
+ -
@VoicesInTheHead

Exactly, we are doing just the same right now - doing anything to spread our ideology
0 Votes
+ -
jhc04, so have other countries
Will Farrell 21st Apr 2011
@VoicesInTheHead
look at the middle east, spreading their ideology.
When they're not busy blowing up something in the West, they're blowing each other up in their own countries, and their neighboring countries.

So you don't think we should try to spread our ideology, that we just let these countries spread theirs?

And that helps us how?
in their goals.

There is no moral equivalency between the Chinese ideology and that of the west in general. I would rather hear about an ideology which respects human rights, than one that suppresses those rights.

Do at least a little bit of thinking next time.
@VoicesInTheHead

How does everyone completely miss the point? The "bad" part isn't spreading ideology. The "bad" part is any party suppressing rival ideologies.

As much as the US sucks at civil liberties and foreign policy, comparing the US to China is just STUPID, because all that does is give the loons at the CATO institute bountiful ammunition to point out how much better we are than China as if that was good enough.
0 Votes
+ -
Message has been deleted.
ItsTheBottomLine Updated - 25th Apr 2011
  • Flagged
@AndyPagin
Small world (and the beginning of the end)!
0 Votes
+ -
@kd5auq

Not really, USA wasn't really a significant world power until well into the 20th century. Loosing the colonies in the Americas hurt national pride but not much else, the big money was in the west indies/Caribbean (slaves & sugar cane). The emerging USA was never a threat to the British empire or vice-versa. In fact there's a lot of similarities between our two governmental systems, we're both ruled by constitutional monarchs, the difference is you elect yours and we don't. Were both democratic capitalist nations.
0 Votes
+ -
AndyPagin: Learn the meaing of "monarch"
adornoe@... 21st Apr 2011
monarch: A nation's ruler or head of state usually by hereditary right.

There is a difference between a monarch and an elected official. The elected official can be replaced the next election cycle, whereas, with a monarch, there is no such mechanism for replacement. You're stuck with a monarch for life, unless a revolution is undertaken to remove the monarch by force. In the U.S. we don't use force to displace any monarch or any elected official.

Clear?
@AndyPagin
There's more differences than similarities and some facts wrong with your assertions.
- British monarch is mainly a figurehead with no real power
--In the UK the power resides with the Prime minister and Parliament. Until recently, seats at the House of Lords were hereditary.
-Britain doesn't have an actual constitution like the U.S. Pretty much, British constitution is whatever Parliament says it is.
--Americans are citizens. Brits are subjects.
0 Votes
+ -
@ AndyPagin

The British monarch, like constitutional monarchs in other EU countries, has essentially no power. The US president has a great deal of power. In constitutional monarchies, power rests with elected parliaments. In the UK there's an appointed upper house, the House of Lords, which also includes a few hereditary peers, but it has very little power. The power lies with the House of Commons, and in particular with the government chosen by the majority party (or parties).

Having said that, the UK and US do resemble each other in an important way, which is that they both use 'majoritarian' rather than proportional electoral systems (including for the US president, via the Electoral College). This tends to suppress small parties, allowing the dominant parties to rule without much threat from outside challenges, and promotes two-party systems.

Under proportional systems, which are common in continental Europe, it's relatively easy for new parties to be formed if the electorate are displeased with the large parties. This means that newer parties are more likely to form, and also that established parties are less able to ignore the will of the electorate -- if they do, the angry electors will form a new party, and may have a real chance of being elected. In contrast, in a two-party (or nearly two-party) system, electors who defect to small parties basically throw away their votes, which only benefits the large party they dislike most.
@kd5auq

Well, at least you are aware of how many of them viewed us, which puts you past American highs-schoolers, but don't forget: it was European monarchs who supported our Revolution in order to weaken Britain. It was only after the French Revolution that they suddenly realized that might have been a huge ideological error. But even then, it was the French attitude that worried them a lot more than the American: we never shared the French enthusiasm for spreading the Revolution as Napoleon claimed to do.
@AndyPagin
You are so right, I worked for a company named Transistor Devices Inc. in Hackettstown, New Jersey and can tell you that this sub-company has a subsidiary company called TDI-China near Beiijing. They were always getting the new contracts, new equipment, etc. Thanks to company officers that were involved like Robert Smolinski, George Cutler who directly involved company assets in these dealings. Then this company also decided to begin hiring Bosnian War Refugees because they were getting kickbacks from the state rated at fifty percent or more in some cases. After all of this was in place, they let all of us go by means of laying off department by department. I say bring back the Monroe Doctrine against this company.
@AndyPagin China is buying the US because they can't invade. They are a manufacturing giant because they have basically free labor.
0 Votes
+ -
@LarsDennert, China has it's own problems. Their policy of one child per household has caught up with them. Most of the men are highly educated and don't want to work in the factories thus driving up labor costs. Second families have been aborting girls in favor of males which which has lead to a significant number of men vs women which makes China's birth deficit problematic as it will take several generations to get out the whole they have created. The aging population needs the younger population to finance the health care and their is not going to be enough people to go around. If you think the US baby boomer issue is bad, China has it even worse.
I am a 75 year old citizen and have served my country during the Korean conflict for 6 years and I have always been suspicious of China's intents thru small hints in their manners toward America and thru our support in buying their products etc. I have watched them grow to a powerful country and now my fears are even greater that they will step up to dominate the world and us especially through our gigantic amount of money we have borrowed from them I truly Pray my fears are wrong and that god will continue to bless our country in spite of our attempts to discard him.Andy I truly think your views are 100% accurate thank you
@AndyPagin. Are you referring ala 1970's US Vietnam anti-commie war and 1950's North Korea war ideologies? Or better yet the allied bombings in Libya (rather strange this one as Gaddafi worked well with the US for a bit beforehand).

As for full body cavity searches... another day perhaps!
0 Votes
+ -
Get real.
Lester Young Updated - 22nd Apr 2011
@AndyPagin

China is run by an authoritarian bureaucracy that is anything but ideological. They realized some 35-40 years ago that ideological baggage was holding them back. Mao and the Cultural Revolution clique around him were the last true ideologues to hold power.

China's combination of authoritarian,government and pragmatic capitalism won't warm anybody's hearts. But it arguably serves China under their circumstances better than the USA is served by its highly ideological capitalism that has held sway for the past 30 years. There is no guarantee that the USA will outcompete China on strictly economic grounds. If China wanted to kick the USA in the balls, all they would need to do would be to unload some bonds. The scariest part is, there is no reason to assume the USA will continue to hold the moral high ground over China if it continues to hold its ideological capitalist baggage at all costs.
0 Votes
+ -
What the heck is "ideologica capitalism"?
adornoe@... 24th Apr 2011
Look, you may be in love with China and its "strategic" suppression of the population, and it's strategic "capitalism", but one thing that can't be denied is that, for China to have even begin to be considered a "world power", it needed to copy the ways of the more capitalist countries, most directly, the U.S. China is still a third world country, overall, when the whole population is considered.

Try a bit more practical perspective for a change.
0 Votes
+ -
I'm sure they're watching and learning.
Lester Young 25th Apr 2011
@adornoe@...

But I doubt very much that they're about to swallow the ideological capitalism advocated by Reaganites, Bushbrains, and teabaggers. They're interested in what works, not in elevating unfettered markets and unlimited concentration of wealth to a religion.

Want to see an ideological capitalist? Go find a mirror.
0 Votes
+ -
Look, it's okay to like the Chinese people, but, to sound like you favor what the Chinese leadership are doing over anything that America does or might do, is to sound kind of treasonous. Try a little more love for America next time.

But I doubt very much that they're about to swallow the ideological capitalism advocated by Reaganites, Bushbrains, and teabaggers.

You are absolutely right, because, to go all the way with capitalism, as advocated and practiced by "Reaganites" and "Bushbrains" and "teabaggers", would be tantamount to the Chinese finally admitting that their system was and is a failure. Before the Chinese can make any real headway towards real prosperity, they'll have to drop all ties to communism and their tyrannical rule of their people.

They're interested in what works,

Yet, what's been working for them has been their adoption of free-market capitalism, even if in a moderated or controlled fashion. But, until they go full-blast towards capitalism, their success will be very limited. Besides, they will never have a self-sustaining internal economy until the majority of the Chinese people get any benefits from their fairly new experiment with capitalism. Right now, the benefits from their venture into capitalism is being felt by less than 10% of the population. That's not a "success" to be proud about.

not in elevating unfettered markets and unlimited concentration of wealth to a religion.

You might be the only simple-minded individual in the world that equates wealth with religion. Let me be the first to clue you in: they're not the same.

Wealth comes from hard work and from people with initiatives and from the risk takers and from the entrepreneurs. It's never derived from "religion". The risk takers are the ones that make any economy hum, and without the incentives and the initiatives and the risk-takers, no economy anywhere will ever achieve long-lasting success. Without that kind of wealth-creation class, China will never be a success, and punishing success always kills economies. That's why socialism has always failed. And China still has the majority of Chinese being ruled under socialist economic principles. So, they may have seen an advantage to capitalism, but, they fear going all the way, because, that would be a clear admission that their system has been a failure. But, they should take a lesson from history which indicates that, socialism always leads to failed economies, and by extension, failed nations.

Want to see an ideological capitalist? Go find a mirror.

That is so silly.

Capitalism is part of my ideology, that ideology being conservatism. Conservatives believe in the free-market system, and when capitalism is allowed to be practiced without too much government intervention, then whatever country is embracing it, has always had huge success. It's only when socialism begins to creep back into an economy that capitalism will cease being as productive. And that's what is being witnessed in the U.S. right now.

You may want to call it "religion", but I prefer to call it realism. If capitalism were to be taught as a religion, then perhaps then you could call me a "believer of capitalism", but, that wouldn't be such a bad thing, because, I would be embracing something that really works, as opposed to prayers and blind belief. Blind belief is what liberals and progressives are about, when, even with mountains of evidence that, socialism doesn't work and has never worked, they continue to insist that, it can work. That's the basic definition of insanity, which is doing the same thing over and over again, with the hope that, it will some day work.

Like I've said before, if you don't believe in our economic system, and would prefer the socialist system, then I'm pretty sure that Cuba and Venezuela and North Korea and even China, would welcome you with open arms.

Now, would you like some pom-poms to help you with your "cheerleading" of the Chinese way?
  • Flagged
@adornoe@...

Most of the world has figured that out. Ideological capitalists such as yourself and ideological communists such as the North Korean government haven't.

Your kindergarten view of what creates wealth is missing some key elements. You forgot the importance of labor, resources, productive apparatus, and the efficient use of capital to optimize the allocation of such. Unfortunately for the US, use of capital markets to concentrate wealth has been at the expense of their other functions. That's why we have speculation bubbles and scams based on the derivatives market. They were failures at generating real wealth, but they rewarded the risk generators with crazy wealth. Note that those who generated the risks (your "wealth creation class" that "makes the economy hum") were not the same as those who bore the downside of the risk. The downside was shunted onto society as a whole and onto the government. If you, as an ideological capitalist, can't see the evidence for failure of unfettered markets in the 2008 financial crisis, you are indeed blinded by faith.

Society's choices are either to rein in wealth concentrating (not wealth generating) practices by your beloved "wealth generating class," or face more crises and declining real wealth. It's pretty clear what your choice would be, as your main concern is creeping "socialism." But your path of ideological purity is an economic, as well as moral, failure.
your way of thinking sounds just like what one would hear from Chavez or Castro.

Unregulated markets and complete state control are equally wrong.

Bunk!

You're creating another strawman argument in order to try to defend your nonsense.

Look, it's been clear from the beginning of time that, government control of an economy is a killer to any country's economy. That should be a given and not even entered into any argument about economics.

Government regulations are not the same as government running the economy, but, with too many regulations and many of those being intrusive, the economy might as well be run by the government, because, the end-effect is to kill the economy.

In a free-market system, there is no need for regulations other that laws to protect the consumer and to prevent illegal activities.

The free-market system is "self-regulating", and businesses will be born and others will die, all depending on the needs and wants of the consumer. The consumer decides, and that is probably the best regulatory system ever "devised", because, it's a natural regulator.

Most of the world has figured that out.

If most of the world had figured out that government control and heavy government regulations were killers to their respective economies, then the majority of the economies of the world wouldn't be going through the repercussions of big government intrusion.

Ideological capitalists such as yourself

Get this through your thick head: being a capitalist has nothing to do with ideology. Capitalism may be part of the platform adopted by an ideology. There are democrats and republicans and conservatives and libertarians, who believe in capitalism as the economic system for the country. I believe in capitalism because, it has been traditionally, the best wealth creation system for the world. Wealth creation is what lifts all people, the rich, the middle-class, and even the poor. Without the wealth creation that comes from capitalism, most countries end up in poverty.

and ideological communists such as the North Korean government haven't.

Communism is an ideology, in which the government controls everything, including the economy. Since government is in control of the economy in a communist state, the economy is socialist in nature, since, the government decides what is going to be produced and how it's going to get distributed. That's the basic tenet of socialism/communism, and communism is the more stringent form of socialism, where the government dictates how everything is going to run.

Your kindergarten view of what creates wealth is missing some key elements.

Be careful what you think you know. What you know is not enough to invalidate anything I've said.

If what I've said regarding the wealth creation mechanism of any economy is in any way false, then all of the wealth that has ever been created through capitalism must have been mythical. According to your silly statement, whatever wealth people accumulated in the U.S., wasn't real, and everybody was always living in poverty.
  • Flagged
You forgot the importance of labor, resources, productive apparatus, and the efficient use of capital to optimize the allocation of such.


Look, you ninny, those items go without needing to be stressed.

Labor, while important, always come later, after the entrepreneur or venture capitalist or ristk-taker or inventor or the one with the initiative or idea, has decided that, he or she is ready to go and create a business with his idea or invention. Without the ones with the creativity and the ones with the venture capital, labor will just go to waste, and as we've seen lately, the U.S. is suffering with the labor force not having enough work, and that's to the tune of around 20% of people not working (not the official 8.6% from the government). Labor is worthless without the people to lead them, and the leaders are the ones that have to take the credit for wealth building.

Equipment and factories and other assets, also go without having to mention them, because, without the ideas and the people to implement those ideas, i.e. the wealth-building class, equipment and factories would never get built or used.

In a free-market economy, you can't put the cart ahead of the horses.

Your problem is that, you're still thinking backwards, like government, which starts with labor and equipment as the main ingredient to jump-start an economy. Having skilled people and nice equipment and ready-made factories, isn't going to do anything for the economy, unless those resources have something of value to be used for, and the value always comes from the inventive and idea and entrepreneur class. Notice how, throwing $1 trillion in stimulus money into the economy by Obama didn't really help the economy? The labor bodies were there, and the roads and bridges were there, and government was there to "lead the way", but, those projects were doomed from the beginning, because, they weren't really creating anything of self-sustaining value.

Unfortunately for the US, use of capital markets to concentrate wealth has been at the expense of their other functions. That's why we have speculation bubbles and scams based on the derivatives market.

Bubbles tend to be corrected when the markets do not react as expected by the speculators. Thus, the high gold price is a bubble, and eventually, it will come crashing down. The housing market was in a bubble, and it came crashing down. The dot.com bubble of the 90s was unsustainable, and it came crashing down. The markets are self-correcting, and people do tend to lose their shirts in highly speculative markets. But, that's not what is plaguing the American economy right now. What's hurting the economy is the high-taxes, the high cost of complying with regulations, and the high-cosst of labor and benefits, and the high cost of real-estate.

But, speculation is just another word for "investing", and what those investors are doing is gambling that, there is money to be made in whatever business they're "speculating" about. That's a necessary function for keeping the economy going, even if there are some crooks and shady deals that occur along the way.

They were failures at generating real wealth, but they rewarded the risk generators with crazy wealth.

What the heck is a "risk generator"?

Nevertheless...

The American economy was and is very good at generating wealth, and what has always been hurtful was government intervention into the free-market system. As government grew bigger, and as taxes got higher, and as government regulations got expensive to comply with, the economy shrunk accordingly. Most of the reasons for the downturn in the economy can be attributed to big govenment getting in the way.

There is nothing at all wrong with being a risk-taker and getting wealthy or wealthier as a result. Along the way, other people are also benefited, mostly the everyday laborer who will likely get to work because somebody decided to take a risk in the economy.

Note that those who generated the risks (your "wealth creation class" that "makes the economy hum") were not the same as those who bore the downside of the risk. The downside was shunted onto society as a whole and onto the government.

What the heck are you talking about?!?

No, dude. You have things backwards, as usual.

The risk for any problems with businesses, are always the responsibility of the owners or investors of those businesses. The public is not saddled with any of the burdens of collapsing businesses. It's only the government intervention which has decided to "rescue" some businesses and add the costs fo those rescues to the deficit and the national debt. Any business which fails in a free-market system, should be allowed to "fail", and there should be no such thing as "too big to fail" in order to justify government rescue plans or government takeovers. That's something which should be left to countries such as China and Cuba and Venezuela.
  • Flagged
If you, as an ideological capitalist,

Again, that's stupid phraseology.

can't see the evidence for failure of unfettered markets in the 2008 financial crisis, you are indeed blinded by faith.

The collapse of the economy in 2008 had many causes, with the main one being government intrusion into the free market system, most notably into the banking and lending industry. The CRA (Community Reinvestment Act), and the double whammy from the bad practices from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, were most instrumental in the demise of the housing markets and several large banks. Without the government sponsored Freddie and Fannie, the lending instutitions would not have had the incentive to make the sub-prime loans and then sell those loans as packages to other institutions, with the knowledge that, the government would back those loans with no risk to the banks or lending instutitions. If the government had not created the CRA and Fannie and Freddie had not been the backer of last resort to the packaged securities, then the collapse of the real-estate market would never had even begun to develop.

Again, it's government that caused the problems and the eventual collapse, and like usual, you have no understanding of what really happened.

Society's choices are either to rein in wealth concentrating (not wealth generating) practices by your beloved "wealth generating class,"

Society, aka: government intervention, has no business dictating how wealth will be distributed in the economy, and the wealth creation mechanism works best when government stays out of the way. People, wealthy or otherwise, have the right to do with their money as they wish. Once govenment starts to dictate how you're going to use your money, for business or private matters, that's when the economy turns the country into a Haiti or Cuba or Venezuela.

Sorry, but, you're too clueless the even be thinking about economic matters. You need to move to a country that already has government doing the things you propose. Look at how Chavez in Venezuela, and you'll notice quite a bit of similarity between what you propose and what he's been doing. You're a communist, even if you don't realize it yet. And, a communist doesn't understand the free-market at all, or doesn't want to understand it.

or face more crises and declining real wealth.

Real wealth has been steadily declining since the government started being more intrusive. It's a directly proportional effect: the more government intrusion, the less wealth produced by the economy. It never fails, and it's a history lesson demonstrated over and over again by all the failed attempts at socialism.

It's pretty clear what your choice would be, as your main concern is creeping "socialism."

Creeping socialism was a concern. We're now into a takeover by socialism. We had creeping socialism for a long time, when more and more "government" funded social programs were being added to government responsibility, and we became even more socialist when government regulations virtually dictated how businesses would have to be run. Now, we're on the verge of the government expenses growing larger than the GDP, and at that point, everything we earn will be consumed by government expenditures. Since the national debt is already "unpayable", and government continues adding more social layers to govenment responsibility, the time is fast approaching when the people won't be able to afford their basic needs of shelter, food, clothing, transportation. We already have about 20% of people who are entirely dependent on government for all of their expenses, and we have 35% who get most of their needs from government, and we have some 50% who don't pay any taxes at all, while the top 5% or earners pay for about 95% of government revenue. The next step for government is to confiscate all wealth, and at that point, the U.S. will cease to be, because, the constitution won't matter anymore, and government will be in control of everything. That's when the country will have been turned into a banana republic.

But your path of ideological purity

Again, stupid phraseology.

Stop it! You keep making a fool of yourself.

is an economic, as well as moral, failure.

The free-market doesn't require that everyone think alike. People can make their own decisions in a free-market system, and the consequences of their own actions should be blamed on their own stupidity.

The most immoral resulat in any country would be to head towards an economy which cannot be self-sustaining, and where poverty will become the standard of living. That's what always happens with thinking such as yours, and with socialism.

When it comes to thinking ideologically, it's best to look at historical results before making a determination about the best direction for a country. Historically, socialism and big government have always been destructive to their economy and eventually to the survival of the country.

If you can't learn from the lessons of history, you're bound to make the same stupid and deadly mistakes as those that you didn't care to learn from.
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
Sounds like war criminal Bush's mouthpiece is jabbering away again...

lol...
and will only be able to utter simple, brainless remarks.
  • Flagged
@AndyPagin

Exactly right. They won't even admit to themselves that they are being so destructive, either.

Nor is it just nations not sharing their ideology they target. They are now much worse than the US ever was for emitting CO2 and (other) pollution, too. They are poisoning their own people as well as people around the globe.
Its been clear since Clinton was in office. Most of you folks just didn't have the vision.
@Bodazapha

This.
Nothing changes. Hell, if I were China I would be attacking the USA too:

China: "Where's my money USA?!?!"
USA: "Come on China just give me a few more decades, I'm good for it I swear!"

It's like a bad drug deal. China builds everything for us but they know how to kill fun (see the recent article on them banning anything time travel related and all that nonsense), and the USA, well this country might as well be a dictatorship because the people don't mean squat. We continued to get screwed financially with increasing costs of living, lower employment rates, increasing gas prices, horrible hourly wages, and a national debt that Princes in the Middle East shutter at the thought of.

So let them attack us, at this point it would be like robbing a homeless bum.
0 Votes
+ -
Well, ....
Economister 21st Apr 2011
@Bates_

You would at least have the shopping cart wink
0 Votes
+ -
Perfect allegory.
Lester Young 22nd Apr 2011
@Economister

The shopping cart economy.
@Bates_
"well this country might as well be a dictatorship because the people don't mean squat."

Erm.. If you don't like the government you can vote them out. In China you can keep your feelings to yourself or face imprisonment torture and execution.
@AndyPagin

i have a better idea for Bates_, if he/she doesn't like the ogvernment LEAVE! Nothing is forcing you to live here.
@AndyPagin

Yes, we do have a choice - between thief and robber. And it doesn't matter who they are, everyone in the public office is way richer than you and me.
@blinded1
Unless you actually know who AndyPagin is, saying everyone in public office is way richer than him is being ignorant. Besides even if it was true, then at least in the US, you have the same opportunity as everyone else to try to get into public office.
@anono
"then at least in the US, you have the same opportunity as everyone else to try to get into public office."

Where do you live, Anono? Here in US money talks, one dollar one vote. Nothing else counts!
@AndyPagin Voting is BS, and for the most part the people's vote again doesn't mean squat. Popular vote is nothing but fluff in my eyes. And as for leaving, I would love to leave and move to Germany, but when you don't make enough money to move you really can't move so I am stuck in NJ currently.
0 Votes
+ -
Message has been deleted.
xiaojiekyii Updated - 22nd Apr 2011
Gee, have you had your liberal head stuck up your behind!!!! China has been our enemy since the communist took over in the late 40's. We are paying for there rapid buildup of there military to attack us in about 15 to 20 years from now.
0 Votes
+ -
Precisely
sissy sue 21st Apr 2011
@rvr001@...
50 years ago, China was Red China, and communists were the enemy. Anyone aiding and abetting China by giving it technology, information, and business would have been considered a traitor back then. Nowadays, we just call it a new market. Politics makes strange bedfellows, and too many rich and powerful people would trade with the devil if there was profit in it. And sell their own country down the river with no regrets.
@rvr001@...
On top of that they come over here for a diplomatic tour and photograph all of our military vehicles and go home and figure out how to to better. To make counter effects...
The words are "their" for posession, and "there" for place. It is no wonder we are losing to the ChiComs, we don't even know how to use our own language!
I agree they have been our enemy since they drove Chiang Kai-shek, out to Taiwan, and they still claim Taiwan as theirs.
If we want to be a world power again, we need to get a good education, put it to use and quit buying cheap junk from China, and build it here again as good stuff. Japan moved on from cheap junk to good stuff, as will China eventually, but they don't have our best interests at heart. There are other places willing to manufacture stuff for the world. Every time we look at things, they say "Made in China", we need to fix that, quit fueling their economy to use against us. Japan took our scrap steel and turned it into weapons in WWI, since then Japan and Germany have become good partners, it may take longer than we have to make China a good partner, unless we foment a revolution with the likes of what is going on in the Middle East. Even Vietnam is coming around, it may be that it is a smaller country and saw the need easier than the much larger China. Maybe we should make up with Russia, now that it is no longer the Soviet Union, surely their labor is cheaper than ours if that is all we want. Many of their former sattelites are striving for independence as well, so they need our money to fight the rebels!
Beware of China and their global hegemony, whether by force or by cyber warfare. I personally do not use Symantec products, last time I bought a Norton product, it wouldn't load so I wasted my money on it and haven't looked back. I don't know where my free AVS is made, something to look into.
0 Votes
+ -
Who says they need to attack us?
Lester Young 22nd Apr 2011
@rvr001@...

All they need to do is sell some bonds.
0 Votes
+ -
...And after we're run over, there'll still be someone that will say, " I never saw it coming. " With China and Russia dumping U.S. Currency as their back-up currency and forming an alliance financially and an Oil Pact too... We're screwed! - Plain and simple!

Oil is the other place we're going to be hammered HARD! on with speculators running up the price based solely! in fear of the where the Market M - A - Y go. - How stupid is that?! - To run a financial market in fear and not intelligent thought; based in sound methodologies, IS STUPID!

Add with all that is going on; the fact that Saudi Arabia has the foundation laid for unrest and protest which!, could slow or worse!, shutoff the oil flow altogether. No one sees the bus coming and we're right snack dab in front of it. People complain about this kind of negative talk all the time but, if we don't act NOW !, we are screwed... plain and simple.
@The Rifleman
Acting is a simple at allowing America to use its own GIANT supply of oil from Alaska instead of allowing the oil compaines to sell it off shore. There I just solved the oil crisis for the next 200 years or so. Maybe now we'll have enough time to develop better renewable energy for everyday use. It's not like 40 years from the last oil crisis was enough.
@The Rifleman
Nobody sees the bus coming, because they are too busy staring at their smart phones to even notice that they're standing in the middle of street.
@IronKangaroo
Ya really!!! No kidding. With parts made in China no doubt too!
this article grossly oversimplifies things. there is a huge difference between the relationship with china and ours with the ussr. china owns a huge amount of our debt. they could crush us financially. ussr didn't have us in their pocket. huge difference.
http://www.bluebendphotography.com/best-of-the-biltmore-estate-wedding-photos

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix