JosephH Posted January 13, 2010 Posted January 13, 2010 The point is that the Chinese are coming in behind us and, for all our two trillion, making us look like chumps and incompetents - particularly the way U.S. corps swept through Iraq like carpetbaggers versus doing any useful infrastructure work. That task is going to fall to the Chinese who will use their ability to do true infrastructure restoration as an attractive part of their overall package. They are doing the same in Africa and South America while we play war and worry incessantly about muslims. The strategic incompetence of it all is staggering - but then what do we have to show for our infrastructure restoration capabilities? An empty WTC site and the ruins of post-Katrina New Orleans? It makes us look weak and without collective will as a nation. Quote
billcoe Posted January 13, 2010 Posted January 13, 2010 China now holds the bulk of Iraqi oil and mineral contracts. We have immeasurably empowered the Chinese with our two trillion dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan. ...am I doing the math incorrectly? I don't see how your link gets you to 1/2. From your link:"Iraqi Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani said Baghdad will increase oil exports from roughly 144,000 bpd to 300,000 bpd in 2010" I don't see the actual 2009 production numbers from the US govt, but here's some recent news from Al's Jizzum. http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/12/2009122013166878529.html "Total Iraq exports stand at around two million bpd of crude oil". I divide 150,000 into 2,000,000 Barrels per day (Bpd) and I still don't get half even using a Chinese calculator. Is this some of that government math? Quote
j_b Posted January 13, 2010 Posted January 13, 2010 Incompetents? Doesn't it depend on your perspective? What's not to like for corporocracy to have its cannon fodder and its cheap labor in different parts of the world? Quote
prole Posted January 13, 2010 Posted January 13, 2010 (edited) From a world-systems perspective, it's less strategic incompetence than the inevitable decline phase in a cyclical process of successive hegemonies. The US has simply been overtaken by a more dynamic economic power that it helped to create and continues to foster. The US's "missteps" look quite familiar to historians looking at similar periods in capitalist history. Whether, as in previous eras, this transition will only be cemented after a period of global chaos and war remains to be seen. But it's certainly looking that way. Again, the late Giovanni Arrighi is a great resource here. Edited January 13, 2010 by prole Quote
JosephH Posted January 13, 2010 Posted January 13, 2010 The difference with China is better strategic State/Corporate cooperation relative to commerce and global investments. The US doesn't really even do this in the 'strategic' sense for all practical purposes, but rather our government wields power for individual commercial interests. Quote
JosephH Posted January 13, 2010 Posted January 13, 2010 China now holds the bulk of Iraqi oil and mineral contracts. We have immeasurably empowered the Chinese with our two trillion dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan. ...am I doing the math incorrectly? I don't see how your link gets you to 1/2. From your link:"Iraqi Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani said Baghdad will increase oil exports from roughly 144,000 bpd to 300,000 bpd in 2010" I don't see the actual 2009 production numbers from the US govt, but here's some recent news from Al's Jizzum. http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/12/2009122013166878529.html "Total Iraq exports stand at around two million bpd of crude oil". I divide 150,000 into 2,000,000 Barrels per day (Bpd) and I still don't get half even using a Chinese calculator. Is this some of that government math? I believe it's what they're wrapping up in contracts versus what they're currently pumping... Quote
prole Posted January 13, 2010 Posted January 13, 2010 The difference with China is better strategic State/Corporate cooperation relative to commerce and global investments. The US doesn't really even do this in the 'strategic' sense for all practical purposes, but rather our government wields power for individual commercial interests. True. The organizational capacities and dominant structures of successive hegemons have always had advantages over their predecessors. We may well see the private transnational corporation go the way of the Dutch East India Company in the coming decades. Quote
JosephH Posted January 13, 2010 Posted January 13, 2010 We may well see the private transnational corporation go the way of the Dutch East India Company in the coming decades. Exactly, it would seem the Chinese have stumbled upon and unconsciously recreated that experience and it's really working for them. It's ironic that ruthless state control under communism wasn't particularly successful - unless you take the long term view and see that the remnants of that state control applied to commerce [/capitalism] really does work out pretty well in a strategic sense. Quote
ivan Posted January 13, 2010 Posted January 13, 2010 A leopard doesn't change its spots. what then would this indicate about the arc of american history? Quote
prole Posted January 13, 2010 Posted January 13, 2010 (edited) We may well see the private transnational corporation go the way of the Dutch East India Company in the coming decades. Exactly, it would seem the Chinese have stumbled upon and unconsciously recreated that experience and it's really working for them. It's ironic that ruthless state control under communism wasn't particularly successful - unless you take the long term view and see that the remnants of that state control applied to commerce [/capitalism] really does work out pretty well in a strategic sense. Zizek's been doing a lot of writing around China's hybridity and its implications for us and the planet: http://www.16beavergroup.org/mtarchive/archives/002434.php Edited January 13, 2010 by prole Quote
Peter_Puget Posted January 13, 2010 Author Posted January 13, 2010 You guys sound just like the cats in the 80s saying Japan was taking over the world. By the way this is an occasionally fun site to read:http://mpettis.com/ Quote
ivan Posted January 13, 2010 Posted January 13, 2010 It makes us look weak and without collective will as a nation. that sounds about right Quote
Hugh Conway Posted January 14, 2010 Posted January 14, 2010 A leopard doesn't change its spots. what then would this indicate about the arc of american history? ask Giuseppe lampedusa Quote
JosephH Posted January 14, 2010 Posted January 14, 2010 It's a different ball game than the post-WWII US 'gravy' years. Gots to actually compete for resources these days. Also note the 'The Battle Over Rare Earth Metals' (China produces 95% of them at the moment and just started restricting exports) Quote
Hugh Conway Posted January 14, 2010 Posted January 14, 2010 (China produces 95% of them at the moment and just started restricting exports) They are willing to rape their environment to sell us useless crap? Boo fucking hoo. China is pretty short of unique mineral deposits; the countrys they've locked up are less loyal than a Tacoma hooker. Perhaps I'm wrong but being able to put a choke hold on a country because the others citizens can't buy an iPhone is currently a bit far fetched. Not that there aren't other reasons to be worried; just China is in many ways fighting the last war. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted January 14, 2010 Posted January 14, 2010 (China produces 95% of them at the moment and just started restricting exports) They are willing to rape their environment to sell us useless crap? Boo fucking hoo. China is pretty short of unique mineral deposits; the countrys they've locked up are less loyal than a Tacoma hooker. Perhaps I'm wrong but being able to put a choke hold on a country because the others citizens can't buy an iPhone is currently a bit far fetched. Not that there aren't other reasons to be worried; just China is in many ways fighting the last war. It's a bit more serious than iPhones. Rare earth metals are necessary for producing solar power generation equipment and other clean technologies, which by most accounts is where we'll need to head as a nation. China has a near monopoly on their production. It's a huge potential barrier between today's mess and tomorrow's sustainable, energy independent future, and one that may well push us towards King Coal and the across the board disaster that will produce. Quote
Hugh Conway Posted January 14, 2010 Posted January 14, 2010 It's a bit more serious than iPhones. Rare earth metals are necessary for producing solar power generation equipment and other clean technologies, which by most accounts is where we'll need to head as a nation. China has a near monopoly on their production. It's a huge potential barrier between today's mess and tomorrow's sustainable, energy independent future, and one that may well push us towards King Coal and the across the board disaster that will produce. No, China doesn't have a "near monopoly" Quote
ZimZam Posted January 14, 2010 Posted January 14, 2010 (China produces 95% of them at the moment and just started restricting exports) They are willing to rape their environment to sell us useless crap? Boo fucking hoo. China is pretty short of unique mineral deposits; the countrys they've locked up are less loyal than a Tacoma hooker http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8390614.stm and the first incident of Chinese workers being killed/kidnapped will be an automatic invite for their army to enter the country. Belgians in the Congo will look like Breakfast at Tiffany's. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted January 14, 2010 Posted January 14, 2010 A leopard doesn't change its spots. what then would this indicate about the arc of american history? what was cbs's sig line? leave to us to do the right thing after exausting all other courses? Quote
JosephH Posted January 14, 2010 Posted January 14, 2010 It's a bit more serious than iPhones. Rare earth metals are necessary for producing solar power generation equipment and other clean technologies, which by most accounts is where we'll need to head as a nation. China has a near monopoly on their production. It's a huge potential barrier between today's mess and tomorrow's sustainable, energy independent future, and one that may well push us towards King Coal and the across the board disaster that will produce. No, China doesn't have a "near monopoly" You're right, they have a near ironclad monopoly. 95% of the current world's supply of rare earth metals used in high tech and green industries are mined inside of China's borders. Quote
ZimZam Posted January 14, 2010 Posted January 14, 2010 The Mongolian Boulder boy could probably provide a ton of info on their resources, but they probably got his shit tapped 'cause he be workin' for the SeaEYEaye. Quote
Peter_Puget Posted January 14, 2010 Author Posted January 14, 2010 (edited) Living in the past! [video:youtube] Edited January 14, 2010 by Peter_Puget Quote
billcoe Posted January 14, 2010 Posted January 14, 2010 The Mongolian Boulder boy could probably provide a ton of info on their resources, but they probably got his shit tapped 'cause he be workin' for the SeaEYEaye. Of course they do, especially as I understand that Luke is a strong Christian. The US National Security Agency is also listening in to every call Luke makes with more certainty. JH, do you have a link on the contracts signed indicating the Chinese have 50% of future Iraqi Oil? Quote
Peter_Puget Posted January 14, 2010 Author Posted January 14, 2010 JH, do you have a link on the contracts signed indicating the Chinese have 50% of future Iraqi Oil? What do you mean by this statement? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.