babble-intro-img
babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

Whither China

104 replies [Last post]

Comments

George Victor
Offline
Joined: Oct 28 2007

Omnia vincit market     :)


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

Ryan1812 wrote:
I think the fault of many leftists, if I may, is the kneejerk nationalism that tends to accompany their leftist zeal. I however, feel different. I feel that a more united North America will result in the merging of our political systems, which the US is, in this writters opinion, far superior. Bringing in Mexico will in effect work to write the wrongs in a country that is mired in corruption and drugs. Canada will finally be able to move away from a resourced based economy wherein we can finally embrace the entreprenurialism and electronic, scientific innovation that has so often come from the US.

Not all socialists are nationalists, I think is a fairly accurate way of describing it. I think fair trade is an excellent idea. And there are North American hawks who purport to be advocates of free and fair global trade. But as other socialists and leftist babblers will say to you, those rightwing hawks are mostly hypocritical. They have used trade as a weapon since WW II and even before that. Free trade certainly sounds good, but NAFTA has been anything but fair according to even former advocates of NAFTA who are now opposed to the expansion of Mulroney's Canada-US FTA, NAFTA in effect since 1994.

I think actor Martin Sheen said it well to a Vancouver audience in the 1980s. He said to Canadians that Washington is s madhouse really. Sheen told Canadians that Uncle Sam doesn't want to trade freely with Canada - he said that Uncle Sam and corporate America want to dominate Canada. And that's what's happened since 1989 and increasingly so since NAFTA.

China's rise is unique in recent world history in that it is not perceived to stand in opposition to the dominant system, capitalism. China is rising within the capitalist system and even integrating with the 500 year-old Atlantic power nations. And yet China is competing with the west for resources and continuing to expand economically at an average rate of 9 percent for the last quarter century, which is truly breath-taking considering how western economies are now in fiscal austerity mode with plans to shrink the one part of our leftover mixed market economies that was so vital to the survival of capitalism in North America post-1929. And as they attack labour and rollback ever more of our hard fought-for social democracy, our economies will fall further into decline. China and Asian econonmies continue expansion and are now the world's largest generators of capital wealth and will become the largest economies in the world in so many years as they once were in ancient times. It's their destiny.

Meanwhile, I think there will be no real recovery of capitalist economies here in the far west until our governments decide to scrap debt-driven monetarism altogether. It's bankrupt.. Their pro-creditor, pro-money economy does not work. In fact, the "new" liberal capitalism of roughly 1980 to 2008 is as much a colossal failure as what laissez-faire capitalism was by 1929 after 30 years in the test lab under optimal conditions, and as it was in Chile after just 16 years of near-perfect laboratory conditions. It's finished. Kaput. And while China and Asia continue rising, our leaders will continue downgrading democracy here and imposing austerity and low growth while their old cold war era rivals surge ahead. What will China do if the integrated economy goes for a big shit, some commentators have asked? The CPC will regroup and re-work the problem until central planners find alternatives. Meanwhile, our leaders will try to do-over what RB Bennett and Herbert Hoover were interrupted in pursuing, which was leave it to the market, laissez-faire nothingness for ten years. The rightwing think tanks and Bay Street bond salesment will lobby their hirelings in Ottawa and Washington to continue shovelling money to the banks and rich people while the North American economy goes down the tubes.

And the more our NAFTA partners spend on all things military the deeper they fall into recession and general turmoil at home. This is what our genius leaders Mulroney and Chretien-Martin tied Canada's economic wagon of fortunes to, and I think we need to trade freely with the rest of the world as a cure for what ails this country. NAFTA has looked a lot like old world colonialism with corporate America extracting raw materials and energy from Canada while essentially making mockery of Mulroney's promise to Canadians for "jobs, jobs, jobs." As Mel Hurtig described it, it's been more like the hollowing out of Canada. Canada is being Puerto Ricanized. Canadians will always come out on the short end of the stick as long as Uncle Sam and corporate America dictate their agendas to our weak and ineffective and corrupt politicians in Ottawa. NAFTA wasn't about trade so much as it was about securing corporate rights over labour and the environment. The Liberals finished what Mulroney started with FTA. They lied to Canadians in the 1988 and 1993 elections and then expanded FTA with NAFTA in 1994. They sold Canada's environment to Exxon-Imperial and the fossil fuel industry with NAFTA. And now Canada's national energy policy is dictated to us from corporate board rooms in America. What's afta NAFTA?


George Victor
Offline
Joined: Oct 28 2007

Ryan 1812:

"Wow, what a rant.  The answer to China is to merge the North American markets completely and entirly, to merge our collective economies, politics and societies. After all, we aren't really that different from our American cousins. We have only been led to think so by those who want a monopoly on our countries resources and who want to keep us divided. T"

 

Your position is that of the Calgary school of history, Ryan; assimilationist from the word go. Folks back in 1812 would have called you a Republican. Just to round out the picture,is your school in China also Christian based, by any chance? There must be some higher power at work making the prospect of President Palin somehow palatable.


Ryan1812
Offline
Joined: May 20 2010

 

I don't mind being called a republican (I only consider myself one as far as system of government is concerned, thanks Michelle Jean), since I don't even want to be attached to a monarchy in any way, it seems fitting. Assimilationist is fine too, though to be associated with Calgary does give me pause...does this mean I'm to be lumped in with the likes of Flanagan? Heavens no. No, the school isn't Christian based, and as far as Palin being President, say what? Listen, I'm an assimilationist but only in-so-much-as that I feel assimilating will be the best way for us to bring the standard up, instead of having it pulled down by those at the top. Broaden your gaze for a second and forget about what currently is and imagine what could be; a united North America would be an economic powerhouse that could effect global change in a monumental way. We could make social equality a reality, and I don't mean in a top down way either. Listen, I'm an activist. I organized a CAPP rally in my hometown. I heart democracy, but what I see right now in Canada is the increasing corporatization as a result of being more politically internal then anything else. I believe that this would change if we merged North America, as social change has almost always arisen first from the States and spread outwards as a result of social activism and dissent. This is the most idealistic I can get, however, before the Foucault in me shakes my brain and says, "Come on, that isn't going to happen. Get real."

 


NDPP
Offline
Joined: Dec 28 2008

Richard Fadden's provocative comments about China have a geopolitical context of which this latest by Rozoff may be useful:

Pentagon Provokes new Crisis with China

http://canada.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/76301


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

Ryan1812 wrote:
Broaden your gaze for a second and forget about what currently is and imagine what could be; a united North America would be an economic powerhouse that could effect global change in a monumental way.

Canada is America's gas tank. Canada is a semi-frozen Puerto Rico with a dwindling polar bear population and a lot fewer manufacturing jobs. Name one colonial outpost of corporate America's that is an economic powerhouse today. The G8s are all in economic turmoil, and the thirdworld capitalist economies are still thirdworld human rights hell holes.


Ryan1812
Offline
Joined: May 20 2010

Fidel wrote:

Ryan1812 wrote:
Broaden your gaze for a second and forget about what currently is and imagine what could be; a united North America would be an economic powerhouse that could effect global change in a monumental way.

Canada is America's gas tank. Canada is a semi-frozen Puerto Rico with a dwindling polar bear population and a lot fewer manufacturing jobs. Name one colonial outpost of corporate America's that is an economic powerhouse today. The G8s are all in economic turmoil, and the thirdworld capitalist economies are still thirdworld human rights hell holes.

We don't call it the "Third World" anymore Fidel. It's now developing or under-developed. The sole purpose for American corporate colonialism is to prevent anyone else from being an economic powerhouse. No colonial offshoot could be as powerful economically as the place of colonial birth. And come on, manufacturing jobs ARE CHEAPER ELSEWHERE. Nothing will change that. It's getting too expensive in China, so it's being moved elsewhere, and it will continue to be moved to the cheapest labour market. Plain and simple. So to challenge China Canada needs to diversify and, like I've said, moved to more value added goods. The time of North America being the hub of manufacturing is long gone. Stop being so conservative in your loyalty to the manufacturing sector and think ahead to the future. By continuing to look back, all that will result is Canadians being left further behind.


Lard Tunderin Jeezus
Offline
Joined: Aug 27 2001

Quote:
Stop being so conservative in your loyalty to the manufacturing sector and think ahead to the future.

Which future are you referring to?

The one in which all of our natural resources have been pillaged without any return to this nation? The one where environmental degradation reigns? The one where we can't feed ourselves, or quench our thirst from our poisoned streams and groundwater?

You see a future where technology has all the answers. I see a technological world totally dependent upon cheap energy, and becoming more and more unstable. Unstable politically, unstable economically, and unstable technologically as more and more complex technologies are more easily and quickly transferred around the globe, chopped up and repackaged without thought or any responsibility.


Ryan1812
Offline
Joined: May 20 2010

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

Quote:
Stop being so conservative in your loyalty to the manufacturing sector and think ahead to the future.

Which future are you referring to?

The one in which all of our natural resources have been pillaged without any return to this nation? The one where environmental degradation reigns? The one where we can't feed ourselves, or quench our thirst from our poisoned streams and groundwater?

You see a future where technology has all the answers. I see a technological world totally dependent upon cheap energy, and becoming more and more unstable. Unstable politically, unstable economically, and unstable technologically as more and more complex technologies are more easily and quickly transferred around the globe, chopped up and repackaged without thought or any responsibility.

I never said I favoured technology. I think too much reliance on technology will be our downfall. I wonder what you mean though by saying that nothing is returned to this nation. We are a nation that has used it's natural resources as our soul source of trade and economic viability. I would say that what we get comes directly from our trade in our natural resources. But I digress. Technology is definatly doing many things, many that I'm sure seem to us as scary. Remember, though, when they first exploded the A-Bomb they didn't know if it would ever stop splitting atoms and devour the entire planet. And when they blew up the first H-Bomb, the same fear was common. These things never happened and they wont happen. Even the hadron collider in Europe had it's detractors, but it never did such the world into it, as some had thought it would. Politically, economically, there have been periods in the past of instability that were worked through and all preceeding periods resulted in long periods of peace and prosperity. I would submit that we are in a period not unlike that of the European powers in the 1600's, young and blustering, but still very powerful. Canada's place is and will always be as a middle power and if we can play our cards right, we will come out just fine.


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

Ryan1812 wrote:
Stop being so conservative in your loyalty to the manufacturing sector and think ahead to the future. By continuing to look back, all that will result is Canadians being left further behind.

Yes we've lost lots of manufacturing jobs. And so has America and other OECD nations. I think what was keeping us from losing a lot of manufacturing jobs before was the lower Canadian dollar in comparison to the US buck. Now that's changed, and with so much foreign ownership and control in Canada's manufacturing sector, they couldn't wait to offshore. No other rich country has allowed a third as much foreign ownership in manufacturing as what Canada has. However, manufacturing is still an important sector of the economy for most rich countries and will continue to be in the future. 

And from what I've read of the future of manufacturing, it's going to be much more automated and increasingly more efficient as time goes on. After reading a little on nanotechnology, I really do believe that the future of manufacturing will be in IT and nanomanufacturing. We will see more areas of discpline cooperating and even combining human and other resources to make things. And I think that eventually the world really will become much smaller. Things won't be made in Asia and shipped all the way to North America by cargo ships in future. Instead they might ship us the designs for something over the internet, and our local all-purpose nanotech manufacturing plant will spit out exact duplicates on an automated assembly line.  And I think it will be more possible than ever before for the proletariat to own the means of production. Of course, this is if we don't blow up the world in the meantime.

And I think that the CERN lab in Switzerland is going to discover a new force or even forces of nature that will be as significant as tNewton's discovery of gravity leading to an industrial revolution. Europe should become a new centre of the world for wealth creation within the next one or two decades. We can't imagine the implications for society at this point, but I believe it will be very significant. China understands this and is why the CPC has offered to connect western Europe with city centres in China by high speedy rail and FOC to the currently cash-strapped Euro countries. The Chinese, I think, realize that the next 10 to 30 years are going to represent a new age of enlightenment for the world. And the China will likely be part of it. It's going to be big. Real big.

 


Ryan1812
Offline
Joined: May 20 2010

Fidel wrote:

Ryan1812 wrote:
Stop being so conservative in your loyalty to the manufacturing sector and think ahead to the future. By continuing to look back, all that will result is Canadians being left further behind.

And I think it will be more possible than ever before for the proletariat to own the means of production.

This is anti-thetical to corporate bottom line philosophy and their best interest. I would like to know how nanotech and the increasing automization of enterprize and reduction of manual labour in manufacturing jobs will result in a greater means of production ownership by the proletariat? Or have I miss understood what you are saying? I admit, this is also possible.


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

Ryan1812 wrote:
This is anti-thetical to corporate bottom line philosophy and their best interest. I would like to know how nanotech and the increasing automization of enterprize and reduction of manual labour in manufacturing jobs will result in a greater means of production ownership by the proletariat? Or have I miss understood what you are saying? I admit, this is also possible.

Oh I don't doubt that corporations will try to own the future economy and means of production as usual. I think the value of things produced will be in the designs more so than in where or how its made. The manufacturing end of things will shift to all purpose machines that will be reprogrammable and refitted for whatever purpose in , say, rigth there in Cornerbrook or Edmonton or wherever they need a bunch of widgets made today for stocking on shelves locally no farther than the other end of the same town where it's made. And open source software and open source this and that from other areas of science will merge in future and making it harder and harder to monopolize much of anything. Unless we move toward more totalitarian societies ruled by corporations, information will become cheaper and more accessible. I think that the things worth buying in the future will not be widgets so much as services. Widgets will be made really cheaply in the future, whereas things like future health care services will be sought after. How much will a guy with a bad ticker pay for a new heart to be grown from his own stem cells in a lab? How much will the young woman pay for a genetically engineered hair wave and permanent new hair color? Will their insurance cover these things, or will it be medicare? Need a house? Poof! This big-giant automated house building machien comes rolling on to to a piece of property and builds some high-rise social housing with central heating in a few weeks or so working by itself around the clock. Pkay, maybe some roofers will be needed, and maybe not.


Ryan1812
Offline
Joined: May 20 2010

Fidel wrote:

Ryan1812 wrote:
This is anti-thetical to corporate bottom line philosophy and their best interest. I would like to know how nanotech and the increasing automization of enterprize and reduction of manual labour in manufacturing jobs will result in a greater means of production ownership by the proletariat? Or have I miss understood what you are saying? I admit, this is also possible.

Oh I don't doubt that corporations will try to own the future economy and means of production as usual. I think the value of things produced will be in the designs more so than in where or how its made. The manufacturing end of things will shift to all purpose machines that will be reprogrammable and refitted for whatever purpose in , say, rigth there in Cornerbrook or Edmonton or wherever they need a bunch of widgets made today for stocking on shelves locally no farther than the other end of the same town where it's made. And open source software and open source this and that from other areas of science will merge in future and making it harder and harder to monopolize much of anything. Unless we move toward more totalitarian societies ruled by corporations, information will become cheaper and more accessible. I think that the things worth buying in the future will not be widgets so much as services. Widgets will be made really cheaply in the future, whereas things like future health care services will be sought after. How much will a guy with a bad ticker pay for a new heart to be grown from his own stem cells in a lab? How much will the young woman pay for a genetically engineered hair wave and permanent new hair color? Will their insurance cover these things, or will it be medicare? Need a house? Poof! This big-giant automated house building machien comes rolling on to to a piece of property and builds some high-rise social housing with central heating in a few weeks or so working by itself around the clock. Pkay, maybe some roofers will be needed, and maybe not.

To me this kind of society seems like taking  a brave new world several steps further then planned. I think this world shall never come because, perhaps you may agree, corporations ALREADY hegemize everything. Take any product you have and trace it to it's root elements, whatever it is. It's a corporation that worked for that items development. If corporations vanished tomorrow we would be completely unable to cope. I don't like ikt, but I think a world of automated services, if ever accessable, will only be by those wealthy enough to not need these services in the first place.


Ryan1812
Offline
Joined: May 20 2010

Fidel wrote:

Ryan1812 wrote:
This is anti-thetical to corporate bottom line philosophy and their best interest. I would like to know how nanotech and the increasing automization of enterprize and reduction of manual labour in manufacturing jobs will result in a greater means of production ownership by the proletariat? Or have I miss understood what you are saying? I admit, this is also possible.

Oh I don't doubt that corporations will try to own the future economy and means of production as usual. I think the value of things produced will be in the designs more so than in where or how its made. The manufacturing end of things will shift to all purpose machines that will be reprogrammable and refitted for whatever purpose in , say, rigth there in Cornerbrook or Edmonton or wherever they need a bunch of widgets made today for stocking on shelves locally no farther than the other end of the same town where it's made. And open source software and open source this and that from other areas of science will merge in future and making it harder and harder to monopolize much of anything. Unless we move toward more totalitarian societies ruled by corporations, information will become cheaper and more accessible. I think that the things worth buying in the future will not be widgets so much as services. Widgets will be made really cheaply in the future, whereas things like future health care services will be sought after. How much will a guy with a bad ticker pay for a new heart to be grown from his own stem cells in a lab? How much will the young woman pay for a genetically engineered hair wave and permanent new hair color? Will their insurance cover these things, or will it be medicare? Need a house? Poof! This big-giant automated house building machien comes rolling on to to a piece of property and builds some high-rise social housing with central heating in a few weeks or so working by itself around the clock. Pkay, maybe some roofers will be needed, and maybe not.

To me this kind of society seems like taking  a brave new world several steps further then planned. I think this world shall never come because, perhaps you may agree, corporations ALREADY hegemize everything. Take any product you have and trace it to it's root elements, whatever it is. It's a corporation that worked for that items development. If corporations vanished tomorrow we would be completely unable to cope. I don't like ikt, but I think a world of automated services, if ever accessable, will only be by those wealthy enough to not need these services in the first place.


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

Ryan1812 wrote:
Take any product you have and trace it to it's root elements, whatever it is.

If we trace the internet to its roots, it was publicly funded researchers who developed the first internet suite of protocols. It was the publicly funded US military that first connected two computers together by fiber optic cables. Discovery of DNA was publicly funded basic research. Satellites, and later, GPS were created by Soviet and US militaries, which, again, was publicly funded and owned technology. The best selling cancer drug in history was developed by publicly funded research in the US, An important drug in the antiretroviral AIDS cocktail of drugs, AZT, is a result of publicly funded research. A good number of important drug discoveries over the years were made by taxpayer funded researchers. It was a publicly funded researcher who proved that monkey stem cells could be isolated in a lab, which was proof from basic research that it could likely be done with human stem cells. A number of important metallurgical discoveries were financed with public money. And the highest risk basic medical and other research tends to be funded largely with taxpayer's money today. CERN labs research will likely result in new technologies down the road. So really, there are many examples of public funding and ownership(socialism really) driving important scientific research and producing benefits for society as a whole. Where would the car industry be without taxpayer funded roads and highways? The first telephone networks in North America were paid for with public money, and everyone could afford to have a telephone because of certain basic principles of socialism.

1812 wrote:
if ever accessable, will only be by those wealthy enough to not need these services in the first place.

Would the rich fund medical research and building of new hospitals out of their pockets? Would they pay the shot for electricity generation and building of expensive power lines into their mansions only? We could go on and on, but I think the rich prefer the way it is, that there are ordinary people paying taxes and sharing the cost of infrastructure and basic research into new scientific and technological developments.IBM salesmen once believed there was a worldwide need of about two or three countries needing about that many of IBM's computers at about a million bucks apiece. Today our cell phones have many times more computing power than the first IBM computers, but only because millions of people have donated our money for their products over the years, and IBM thought they would corner the market with desktop computers. But then PC clones were hatched, and prices came way down. IBM could not monopolize PCs no matter how secretive they were and however much they wanted to monopolize the PC market. But in the end it was our consumer purchases which made even that research and development produce newer and faster computer tech, and not because a handful of rich people wanted to hord something few of the rest of us ordinary slobs could ever afford to own. In the end, luxury items like yachts and diamond necklaces and fancy baubles can only put food on the table for so many workers. There are only a few million people in North America whose net worth is more than a million bucks not including real estate assets. The vast majority of us are not billionaires or even true millionaires.

The rich sometimes do believe in sharing and especially when it comes to socializing risk and cost of building a society which they benefit from as well. The most well heeled would never choose to move to an exclusive island for rich people only. Who would build the chicken coop, or fix the toilet when it backs up? Bill Gates ?


Doug
Offline
Joined: Apr 17 2001
Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

Chinese takeover of Potash to create conflicts: Analysts

Quote:
A senior Chinese researcher in the nutrition and fertilizer sector said on Friday that Chinese companies needed to acquire potash resources overseas and Canada presents good targets, Dow Jones quoted the China Securities Journal as saying.[...]

Canada's regulators need to consider whether a takeover is of net benefit to Canada when approving an overseas bid. Under recent provisions to the Investment Canada Act, the bids may also have to pass a test to ensure they're not a threat to the country's national security.

Is this a joke? "National security"? In Canada? Unbelievable!

 


George Victor
Offline
Joined: Oct 28 2007

Well, after all, if the Democrats ever block the movement of Tar Patch sludge into the U.S., China  stands ready to move it to the B.C.coast through a pipe that Enbridge Leaks has already engineered. 

Or does that prospect of a double whammy not suggest some sort of security either, Fidel ?   Laughing 

Remember the days when babblers rose up in the West to protest and pooh-pooh our environmental concerns?  They've gone underground, I guess.


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

Yes, I think what we've observed is how markets in Canadian oil actually work. The Yanks rob of us blind for most of the crude oil reserves and natural gas in Canada. Then when tar sands are all that's left, they kick the tires and tell us it isn't worth much, or at least, we'll have to pay to clean up the process before forcing it on the Americans at rock-bottom rates. And we should be glad that they're taking it off our hands. Meanwhile we have to eliminate China from competing for minerals and raw materials for reasons of "national security." Our corrupt stooges need runnin' outa Dodge on a rail.


George Victor
Offline
Joined: Oct 28 2007

quote: "Meanwhile we have to eliminate China from competing for minerals and raw materials for reasons of "national security."

 

I would eliminate them both. Would you not?


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

Absolutely. I would demand made in Canada national energy policy written by Canadians for Canadians.


Ryan1812
Offline
Joined: May 20 2010

I'm sorry but perhaps I've missed something. Eliminate China from competing? What are we asking for, elimination of China from our markets? Perhaps I did miss something. And Fidel, come on, a "made in Canada National Energy Policy?" How would it work in our screwed up federalism? Alberta already hates the center and it is barely holding, if at all. This kind of Nationalisation is the exact thing that Alberta faught in the Trudeau era. The war was won by Alberta and would be won again. We are no sooner going to come to a National Energy consensus then Venezuela is going to invite George Bush Jr. for a "cerveza." I think if China buys into our Potash, for example, all the better. At long as jobs stay in Canada and they are adherent to the market rules/labour rules we already have in place, why not sell off the company. Saskatchewan looks to make a hefty profit that they could invest into the province. Why is this a bad thing, I ask?


George Victor
Offline
Joined: Oct 28 2007

Ryan1812 wrote:

I'm sorry but perhaps I've missed something. Eliminate China from competing? What are we asking for, elimination of China from our markets? Perhaps I did miss something. And Fidel, come on, a "made in Canada National Energy Policy?" How would it work in our screwed up federalism? Alberta already hates the center and it is barely holding, if at all. This kind of Nationalisation is the exact thing that Alberta faught in the Trudeau era. The war was won by Alberta and would be won again. We are no sooner going to come to a National Energy consensus then Venezuela is going to invite George Bush Jr. for a "cerveza." I think if China buys into our Potash, for example, all the better. At long as jobs stay in Canada and they are adherent to the market rules/labour rules we already have in place, why not sell off the company. Saskatchewan looks to make a hefty profit that they could invest into the province. Why is this a bad thing, I ask?

Well, you did ask, but I don't know why you have to, given the ease of access to the answer.

Just don't have any children, Ryan, and you will never have to face the grandchild asking why you used up all of the resources and left a biosphere incapable of mediating the Sun's impact on Earth.

But wait, perhaps you are not planning on having kids.  If that plan was to be replicated by a few billion people then we would - in timely fashion - be able to count on continued existence of the species.

How you can talk about the virtues of Chinese capital profiting Saskatchewan - without consideration of the big picture and posterity - smacks of denial, like thatof death itself.


Ryan1812
Offline
Joined: May 20 2010

Oh GV, it's not denial, it's just accepting the inevitable. Come on, you know me by now. I've learned to accept the things I cannot change. One of those things is that China will begin buying up parts of the world it want's to own. If we had a government that was actually commited to reducing our impact on the earth, then China's purchasing of ANYTHING in Canada wouldn't be a problem. Instead of dreading China FDI, look to the government to strengthen rights and regulations to keep FDI in check.


George Victor
Offline
Joined: Oct 28 2007

If enough wusses cave - in the name of "inevitability" - that will certainly happen, Ryan. Such a position was common to the Handmaiden (read Atwood's take).

Read some Naomi Klein on why we should retain something of our sovereignty as well as fight for the kids' future - if the answer is not obvious. 


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

The longer the US and Canada deny China and Chinese corporations right of way to buying large minority ownership in key American and Canadian economic sectors, the less pressure there is on Beijing to allow global speculation to control the value of the Yuan/renminbi. And the less pressure there is on China to recycle US dollars with buying US debt. And the more the US encircles China and Asia militarily, the less pressure there is on Beijing to play fair in general.


George Victor
Offline
Joined: Oct 28 2007

That is a rather roundabout route to apply the kind of pressure that is really needed, Fidel. There has to be an agreement that they are leading the world over the environmental cliff of no return.  Playing "fair" is - if you'll pardon the expression - F all.


Liang Jiajie
Offline
Joined: Aug 21 2007

Ryan1812 -- The worry about Potash Corp. is that the potential Chinese buyers are state-owned, which means they're susceptible to the whims of China's domestic politics, a few autocrats in China, and international relations that wouldn't normally affect Potash Corp.  Given that China isn't an ally of Canada and that it doesn't operate under the rule of law, national security is a legitimate concern.  But if China had acquired the company, I suppose that Saskatchewan could simply break the law of re-take its potash reserves in a time of crisis.


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

But issues of who controls Canadian oil and gas were never a problem since even before NAFTA. It's simple - Canada's national energy policies are dictated to us from corporate board rooms in America. And in the US, corporate America in turn buys governments. Their's is a dollar democracy not a real one, and everyone knows it.  In the USA, corporate America's interests and US Government's purpose  are one and the same. It's as if US constitutional framers declared that democracy is the merger of state and corporate power.


George Victor
Offline
Joined: Oct 28 2007

Fidel....try to focus on "what should Canada do" in this case.  Saskatchewan has the say.  J L has laid it out for you. Please ease up on the "U.S. corporate America " theme for one goddam thread.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments