http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china ... 579618.htm

BEIJING, May 10 (Xinhua) -- The PLA Daily, the official newspaper of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) of China, on Thursday warned the Philippines about the Huangyan Island incident, saying the country's armed forces will not allow anyone to take the sovereignty of the island away from China.

"We want to say that anyone's attempt to take away China's sovereignty over Huangyan Island will not be allowed by the Chinese government, people and armed forces," the newspaper said in a signed article titled "Don't Attempt to Take Away Half an Inch of China's Territory."

Instead, it is wise to give up such attempts and abide by international rules to gain the forgiveness of the Chinese people and the pardon of the international community.

China has exercised restraint on the Huangyan Island incident. "If one mistakes China's kindness for weakness and regards China as a 'paper dragon' as instigated by some onlookers, he is terribly wrong," the article added.

China had suffered too much humiliation as its sovereignty was encroached and territory carved up when the country was poor and weak.

http://world.time.com/2012/07/24/chinas ... china-sea/

China and Taiwan both claim almost all of the 3 million-sq-km South China Sea, and the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei have partial claims. All except Brunei occupy disputed islands and reefs in the sea. The possibility of rich, undersea oil and gas resources has led to increasing conflict between the neighboring states, and analysts say China’s new city will only worsen the disputes. “All trends are in the wrong direction,” says Ian Storey, a senior fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore. “The claimant countries have hardened their positions on jurisdictional claims. That’s made a legal resolution or a negotiated settlement harder because there’s less room for compromise.”

The dispute roiled the Association of Southeast Asian Nations foreign-ministers meeting in Cambodia that took place July 9–13. It failed to agree on a concluding joint statement for the first time since the group was founded in 1967. While the Philippines and Vietnam pushed for adding the South China Sea standoff to the statement, China’s ally Cambodia balked at including the issue, which China says it wants to resolve in bilateral discussions with each claimant rather than in a multilateral forum.

Read more: http://world.time.com/2012/07/24/chinas ... z21ZISYX7E

Political relations amongst people and countries have worked a certain way during at least 5,000 years of human history; yet some people assume that starting right now, based on all of the information they have access to, things are fundamentally different today and the world will work differently. There have been intelligent people with this view before WWI and in the 1930's.

ray

To what extent do you think that intergenerational poverty is explained by the failures of our institutions

The poverty rate in Sweden is much lower than in the US.
Whats different? Swedish institutions of social welfare mostly. (Largely medical, educational and unemployment benefits) Unless you want to suggest that Swedes are a more motivated hard working people than Americans.

ray

Political relations amongst people and countries have worked a certain way during at least 5,000 years of human history; yet some people assume that starting right now, based on all of the information they have access to, things are fundamentally different today and the world will work differently. There have been intelligent people with this view before WWI and in the 1930's

Whats fundamentally different today? The Chinese own business all around the world. (They just bought a Calgary based oil company that has operations in the North Sea, Gulf of Mexico, Columbia and northern British Columbia..) They own US treasury notes in abundance. They have millions of citizens living all over the world. They are an export economy dependent upon access to markets.
Before WWI and in the 30s.... trade was minimal compared to that which occurs today.
Sure there might be regional conflicts, like the dispute in the South China Sea. But even the oil deposits there aren't worth putting at risk the economic growth that is required to keep their home land populace supine.
Self interest includes a calculation of what will be lost if a conflict is fought. In the 30's germany didn't own factories around the world, or do an awful lot of trade in finished goods compared to today.
Today, a conflict between China and Viet Nam might well end Chinas access to the Japanese, American and European markets. At least for a time.
Things have evolved...

So China is going to be more adventuresome when we cut our military budget from 700 billion to 350 billion, RJ? Odd that a country spending 60 billion or so on its military would feel safe challenging one will spending 5 times as much. American in the 1930s spending on the military was much smaller than other major powers--now we are talking about cutting spending to go to maybe where we are 5 times as much as the nearrest competitor. And, given our huge trade imbalances, it is hard to justify such huge expenditures.

It seems RJ that you want to punish people for their inability to get out of poverty. A lot of people in poverty are disabled, in some way, have limited education and even have a limited iQ. Studies show it is difficult to get out of poverty. Is it genetic? It is cultural? Is it a legacy of discrimination? It is not having equal access to quality eduction? It is a by-product of a market economy that, without strong unions and/or government intervention, allows businesses to pay workers low wages? I'm sure it is a combination of these things. But Purple has shown that our economy produces enough wealth that we could easily end poverty without compromisng national security. Your answer was first it is not possible because the poor would have no incentive to work. Now it appears that you are arguing that since people are in poverty 50% due to their own fault then it is wrong to help them. I don't know how any of us can untangle all of the factors that lead to inter-generational poverty, but it seems to me that as long as a minimal safety net is still a long way below median income levels there is no harm in Purple's plan..

Ray Jay: Some things do change over the course of 5,000 years, but I agree that we can't expect everyone to be peaceful. The question is: why should the USA at this point in our history have to carry so much of the burden of policing the entire world? When the Romans enforced the Pax Romana they at least collected taxes from everywhere to help pay the cost. I don't see the Philippines, Vietnam and Malaysia sending us any tribute.

If the USA were to cut its military to 40% of present size, China would possibly become X amount more bullying as a result. At that point Australia and Japan, along with most of the nations in between, might well get together for a discussion: what should we do about China's aggressiveness? Currently, they can say to themselves: "we'll leave it up to the USA to deter China. Their citizens can pay the price of deterrence." But once the USA adopts a form of neo-isolationism whereby we're satisfied being the strongest military on earth (but not stronger than the next 20 combined), these nations will have to figure out some method of collective security based on their own collective resources. We'll pitch in; maybe even lead the effort. But there's no reason we have to spend three or four times as much (as a % of GDP) than everyone else. We spend 4.7%, Australia 1.8%, Japan 1.0%, Malaysia 2.0%, Philippines 0.8%, Indonesia 0.9%. South Korea, for crying out loud, spends only 2.9% of GDP on defense. What the frack??!! That's just barely more than France, and S. Korea is facing a somewhat more immediate threat.

There's a discussion above about the moral hazard of giving poor people money for doing no work. Good discussion. What about the moral hazard of providing nations with a free defense?

rickyp wrote:ray

To what extent do you think that intergenerational poverty is explained by the failures of our institutions

The poverty rate in Sweden is much lower than in the US.
Whats different? Swedish institutions of social welfare mostly. (Largely medical, educational and unemployment benefits) Unless you want to suggest that Swedes are a more motivated hard working people than Americans.

Ricky, just because you can only fathom 2 reasons for an occurrence, doesn't mean that there are only 2. Please don't give me your false "ors" until you've bothered to consider other reasonable possibilities.

freeman2 wrote:So China is going to be more adventuresome when we cut our military budget from 700 billion to 350 billion, RJ? Odd that a country spending 60 billion or so on its military would feel safe challenging one will spending 5 times as much. American in the 1930s spending on the military was much smaller than other major powers--now we are talking about cutting spending to go to maybe where we are 5 times as much as the nearrest competitor. And, given our huge trade imbalances, it is hard to justify such huge expenditures.

It seems RJ that you want to punish people for their inability to get out of poverty. A lot of people in poverty are disabled, in some way, have limited education and even have a limited iQ. Studies show it is difficult to get out of poverty. Is it genetic? It is cultural? Is it a legacy of discrimination? It is not having equal access to quality eduction? It is a by-product of a market economy that, without strong unions and/or government intervention, allows businesses to pay workers low wages? I'm sure it is a combination of these things. But Purple has shown that our economy produces enough wealth that we could easily end poverty without compromisng national security. Your answer was first it is not possible because the poor would have no incentive to work. Now it appears that you are arguing that since people are in poverty 50% due to their own fault then it is wrong to help them. I don't know how any of us can untangle all of the factors that lead to inter-generational poverty, but it seems to me that as long as a minimal safety net is still a long way below median income levels there is no harm in Purple's plan..

First, you have to be careful with purchase parity when comparing US and Chinese military spending. It costs us several times more to make shirts, and to keep a standing army. We may also have less tolerance for soldier loss of life or injury (although clearly we have failed in this score over the last several years), requiring additional expense. Finally, it is more expensive to project your military forward. We've learned that in Afghanistan, Iraq, and it is also true in the South China Sea.

Second, I agree that we spend more on the military than I would like. I just think that you have to be careful that we don't err in the other direction. There are serious consequences.

Regarding your last paragraph, that's not fair at all. I don't want to punish anyone, and I certainly take no joy in anyone living in poverty. I just don't have confidence that you have an answer, regardless of whether you can convince yourself that you do. Programs are complicated and inevitably have unintended consequences. Right now two thirds of US spending is on transfer payments (SS, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps) and clearly the problems aren't solved to your satisfaction. There are over 1,000 federal programs that try to address educaiton, unemployment, poverty, and they clearly are not working. Why should I believe that you can design one that would work? People are complicated and so are government programs. Democracy is messy. People in the system try to take advantage of it. What makes sense to you, may not make sense to others who have equal votes as you.

Purple wrote:Ray Jay: Some things do change over the course of 5,000 years, but I agree that we can't expect everyone to be peaceful. The question is: why should the USA at this point in our history have to carry so much of the burden of policing the entire world? When the Romans enforced the Pax Romana they at least collected taxes from everywhere to help pay the cost. I don't see the Philippines, Vietnam and Malaysia sending us any tribute.

If the USA were to cut its military to 40% of present size, China would possibly become X amount more bullying as a result. At that point Australia and Japan, along with most of the nations in between, might well get together for a discussion: what should we do about China's aggressiveness? Currently, they can say to themselves: "we'll leave it up to the USA to deter China. Their citizens can pay the price of deterrence." But once the USA adopts a form of neo-isolationism whereby we're satisfied being the strongest military on earth (but not stronger than the next 20 combined), these nations will have to figure out some method of collective security based on their own collective resources. We'll pitch in; maybe even lead the effort. But there's no reason we have to spend three or four times as much (as a % of GDP) than everyone else. We spend 4.7%, Australia 1.8%, Japan 1.0%, Malaysia 2.0%, Philippines 0.8%, Indonesia 0.9%. South Korea, for crying out loud, spends only 2.9% of GDP on defense. What the frack??!! That's just barely more than France, and S. Korea is facing a somewhat more immediate threat.

There's a discussion above about the moral hazard of giving poor people money for doing no work. Good discussion. What about the moral hazard of providing nations with a free defense?

I think that you are right that other nations do not spend enough, and we are stuck making sure that they are protected. We seem to be the victim of a sort of game theory where our population is more willing to spend on defense than other democracies for certain cultural and historical reasons. I don't know whether you have followed the recent ASEAN conference in Cambodia, but there are very serious discussions going on. All of the countries that you mention are afraid of China, and they are all looking to the US for leadership. Your idea is appealing, but the real world of Diplomacy is more complicated than simply telling other countries we have decided to become neo-isolationsists until you guys spend more money on defense. Sometimes PMs of other countries just know their limits and have no choice but to appeal to our leaders to pay money for defense because that is the only option. But I agree that it is unfortunate that we are stuck holding the bag, in spite of our massive deficits.

rickyp wrote:No. But Ukrainians probably will.. So, is the trouble of subjegating the Ukrainians worth the invasion and occupation? ......

I can't awnser your questions ricky because you are still facing the same problem as your previous comments. You are assuming a rational actor on the part of the Nation State. Nation states very rarely act rationally. You point to Chechyna. I could point to Georgia. Also, according to this article the Poles may be a little worried about what Russia might eventually do as well.

Sorry RJ about the about the comment about punishing the poor--I'll take that back.

Ray Jay wrote:To what extent do you think that intergenerational poverty is explained by the failures of our institutions, and to what extent by the individual actions of people in poverty? I'll put my marker at 50/50. I'm guessing you are at 90/10 whereas Dr. Fate is at 10/90.

I think the other aspect of this that needs to be examined is actual contact with poor people. I've interacted with many--tens of thousands, I'd guess. I think 10/90 is a pretty good bet.

Ray Jay wrote:We seem to be the victim of a sort of game theory where our population is more willing to spend on defense than other democracies for certain cultural and historical reasons. ... Your idea is appealing, but the real world of Diplomacy is more complicated than simply telling other countries we have decided to become neo-isolationsists until you guys spend more money on defense.

Sometimes the "real world of diplomacy" is made to seem more complicated than it really is. What in the world would get all these other countries to spend more on defense other than the USA cutting back? (Some new Hitler, I suppose. Let's not hope for that as a solution!) Unless and until we do, they have no reason to spend more money on guns. But if we were suddenly to make real cuts, the calculus of budgets and defense would immediately have to be reexamined in every capital in the world. (Maybe China would stop accelerating their defense spending!)

As for the cultural and historical reasons that make "our population ...more willing to spend on defense than other democracies" - this has only been true since WWII. Prior to that it was decidedly not the case. At root, when it comes to the psychology of our citizenry, I believe we are at least as much an isolationist nation (even today) as an interventionist one. At least that was true at one time, and wars like Iraq and Afghanistan are making it more and more true every year. Culture evolves; history is new every day.

I must admit that I find it puzzling that President Obama seems totally committed in both word and deed to maintaining the military at or above today's strength. He came into office seemingly the least military-minded President ever, but I suspect he's done as nearly every President: fallen in love with the military once in the chair of the C-in-C and having enjoyed the power that comes from wielding a stick bigger than Teddy Roosevelt could have possibly imagined.

I started this thread by juxtaposing defense spending to poverty simply because poverty was being discussed elsewhere, and because the numbers work out so dramatically. But clearly, if we were to chop defense spending down, we'd find a variety of ways to spend/invest/save that money. We could spend on education or infrastructure, or on health, or we could lower taxes. Unless we're incredibly stupid (and mind you, I don't discount the possibility!), almost anything we do with half a trillion dollars a year is going to strengthen us as a nation. Having a beyond-huge military strengthens us. As much as we'd be strengthened this other way? I wouldn't be so sure.

I think the assumption being made is that a dollar spent on the military is not as effective economically speaking as a dollar spent on infrastructure or a reduction in taxes. Arguably, we have recent history to reflect over because by reducing military spending Clinton was able to balance the budget and we probably had the best economy in many years. If the military spending allowed us to dominate trade it might also be justified, but it is not clear that we are deriving most of the benefits from trade with Europe or Asia. or more imporantly that trade would be negatively affected if we cut spending.

It is obviously important to get the level of military spending at the right level. Too little and we endanger our nationaly security and affect our ability to protect access to oil and trade. Too much and we are endangering our long-term interests because military spending negatively affects our economy (and ultimately our military strength is dependent on our economic strength) As Purple points out our allies would probably consider raising their military spending once America's umbrella did not cover them completely. So our reduction in military spending could at least partially made up by our allies. But given how far we are ahead of any other country in both spending and military efficiency, there appears to be a good level of fat that could be trimmed.

Doctor Fate wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:To what extent do you think that intergenerational poverty is explained by the failures of our institutions, and to what extent by the individual actions of people in poverty? I'll put my marker at 50/50. I'm guessing you are at 90/10 whereas Dr. Fate is at 10/90.

I think the other aspect of this that needs to be examined is actual contact with poor people. I've interacted with many--tens of thousands, I'd guess. I think 10/90 is a pretty good bet.

I'm sure you have more experience in this area than I do. It also depends on how you interact with the given population. How much of your experience is influenced by that? If your interaction with a disadvantaged population was as, I don't know, let's say a grief counselor, you may feel differently (although maybe not). As I write that I chuckle to myself because of a conversation wtih a friend who rotated as an ER doc in central Boston; he said that he saw so many alchoholics and drug users, and they were an incredible drain on our society. I'd be intereseted in other views based on actual experience.

By the way, the last several posts have been very good.

ray

rickyp wrote:ray

To what extent do you think that intergenerational poverty is explained by the failures of our institutions

The poverty rate in Sweden is much lower than in the US.
Whats different? Swedish institutions of social welfare mostly. (Largely medical, educational and unemployment benefits) Unless you want to suggest that Swedes are a more motivated hard working people than Americans.

Ray

Ricky, just because you can only fathom 2 reasons for an occurrence, doesn't mean that there are only 2. Please don't give me your false "ors" until you've bothered to consider other reasonable possibilities.

I offered the question Whats different? .. I provided what I know to be big significant differences... Somehow, this small Euorpean nation, has acheived a remarkably low poverty rate. If you have other explanations than the four being raised on this board have at them. (The 4 being, their social systems of health, education and unemployment insurance and the lower military spending).
If on the other hand its the typical," yeah but the US is different... " Don't bother. Nothing is identical, and nothing seems to be similar enough for some Americans to beleive they can learn from another nations experiences.