I agree with Noll’s impression of how the Chinese view their government. I would be unwise to think the Chinese only support their government due to fear, that they are really ready to overthrow a government that might turn militaristic under the right circumstances.
They really due view government as ‘Daddy’ whereas many in the US arm themselves against the government and some try to starve government into near nothingness. Not passing any judgement but you have to look at some of the positive results they get if any lessons can be learned.
China does lack much in the way of innovation. The US has significant advantages in the philosophy of their nations makeup and how it came into existence. You don’t get Apple, Facebook and the innovation of the US. Because the US does not fear the questioning of authority, young kids with great ideas can leap frog older generations.
On the other hand, could it possibly be that China does derive some benefit from what their government does do? If one can suspend their complete belief that all things government are evil then if lessons can be drawn, they might be if an open mind exists.
On the US energy production explosion, an interesting article from the Canadian point of view.
Selling oil to Asia critical: Minister
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2012/11/15/20358056.html
From wired magazine, another related article on the explosion of US energy production and its impact on green energy.
Abundant Natural Gas and Oil Are Putting the Kibosh on Clean Energy
http://www.wired.com/business/2012/08/mf_naturalgas/
When I was looking for the former link I stumbled across this article and it seems to touch on all the points recently brought up. Lots of reading……no wonder my mornings always take so long!
Why the Clean Tech Boom Went Bust
Just amazes me where these goverment people can’t give the extra oil to there own country. Ain’t gas 1.50 to 2.00 more a gallon in Canada? More important to export it (profits) then to take care of your own people first so they can afford it.
You’re judging it by western standards.
To them, the state is not just a “representative of a country”. To them, the state is like the head of a family. To them the Government is respected like it was your “daddy”. Also, in China respect for your family comes before any indivual desire.
Yes, I am judging by Western standards. But if we do not have an agreed upon “ideal” standard then everything is relative and even a government such as National Socialism has every legitimacy if it was an anthropological/historically philosophical standard.
I certainly believe what you are saying about government in the typical Eastern (or simply Chinese)-mind meaning something different than it does in a Western-Liberal mind. That is a logical anthropological assumption. The Western (especially American) experience of popular sovereignty and governmental oppression is quite different from those in the East or Middle-east.
Let’s also remember that China was the FIRST PLACE in the world that believe in People’s Sovereignity. This happened in 220BC. At that time we still had Roman Republic (Then Empire), Aristocracy and such.
In China, from the 220BC even a farmer had the right to become a minister, an emperor! He just had to study, focus hard, and win statal exams.
The west (and then the rest of the world) was very late to the “people soveiregnity” idea, as late as 1789 (if you think on a larger scale, it was very recent).
Even if this is true, it is either not the same as Western conceptions of popular sovereignty or the people do not exercise their authority over their leaders very much.
If you like to get more information on the differences of cultures and kill some old clich�s, I advice you to read a work issued by the USA government to the Anthropologist “Ruth Benedict” to depict the real differencies between USA and JAPAN during ww2. (And it’s very similar to what I said about the Chineses).
I am quite familiar o the philosophical/theological differences between WWII Japan and the United States. I am not sure how this directly relates to our discussion though; other than that we are comparing US government philosophy to another Eastern/Confucian model. Though, if anything, I don’t believe the Japanese believed as much as the Chinese in popular sovereignty.
Japanese and Chinese are more similar than what you think, in their philosiphical approach to the government. (or at least they were)
That’s because confucianism was integrated in the Japanese Aristocracy based government. I proposed Ruth Benedict because as I believe you are an American, it’s a work written by one, to learn and understeand the reality under the actions of Japan (in this case), and in order to remove the cliches about it.
As I’m a westerner too, but I am an Academic in Asian history, philosophy and languages, (僕の選考は日本語だ～) , I believe it’s important to not project ethnocentric points of view into other countries.
Japanese and Chinese are more similar than what you think, in their philosiphical approach to the government. (or at least they were)
I believe we were talking about WWII era governments. If you are asserting that China has a historical confucian respect for their government, and Japan does (did) too, then I agree. But are you also ascribing the same popular sovereignty tradition in China to Japan of WWII (and immediately pre-WWII)? Because in my studies (I too have a degree in History) I did not get the impression that the Japanese people ever had the option (in reality or in their mindset) to overthrow/change their government. Doing so was not their purview or authority… which is the opposite of popular sovereignty.
That’s because confucianism was integrated in the Japanese Aristocracy based government. I proposed Ruth Benedict because as I believe you are an American, it’s a work written by one, to learn and understeand the reality under the actions of Japan (in this case), and in order to remove the cliches about it.
I take your suggestion into consideration. I cannot say I am going to go out and read it right away, but I appreciate the source. Have I issued any of the cliches you are referencing?
As I’m a westerner too, but I am an Academic in Asian history, philosophy and languages, (僕の選考は日本語だ～) , I believe it’s important to not project ethnocentric points of view into other countries.
I believe it is important to understand other cultures, for it does explain much of their behavior/historical tradition. However, I don’t believe that what I have said thus far is projecting my ethnocentric point of view upon the Chinese or anyone else. I simply pointed out that their government does not allow for much free thought or exercise of opinion. Even MrMalachiCrunch agreed with me on that. It was a statement, and a factual one too. I did not say whether their system of government was right or wrong, though I would gladly share my opinion on that.
I do reject relativism. That does not mean I expect every country or people to behave or believe the same things. But I do believe that there are objective standards of good and bad or positive and negative (most people do). Injecting those standards into a discussion is not being ethnocentric, it helps us define the situation and analyze it from a common framework. Otherwise, we can say that anything is acceptable given the proper context. I could elaborate, but hopefully you understand.
In some authoritarian states, the majority of the people do feel oppressed and believe that the government lacks legitimacy.
However, in other authoritarian states, the majority of the people might still approve of the government (despite lack of true democracy) for a variety of reasons. My understanding is that China falls within this category.
In many developing countries democracy is not the highest priority of the people. Economic growth, increasing national prestige, and improving quality of life often provide more legitimacy to a regime than elections could.
In many developing countries democracy is not the highest priority of the people. Economic growth, increasing national prestige, and improving quality of life often provide more legitimacy to a regime than elections could.
No argument there.
Hoffman, yes, the main (and basically only) difference between the approach to confucianism between ww2 Japan and China, is that in Japan it was “melted” with aristhocracy. (Toyotomi Hideyoshi is the only non-aristhocratic leader that had a “career” in the entire history of Japan)
The belief is different in this point:
For China, the celestial contract is in fact a contract. The emperor is legitimated to govern over China with a contract of trust. This contract can be broken anytime if the emperor itself proves to be not worthy of it.
For Japan, the emperor itself is of divine origins. It is said in the Kojiki and in the Nihon Shoki that the first known emperor (fictional) was the son of the nephew of their goddess Amaterasu. Giving a divine birth to the imperial family doesn’t promote any revolt, 'cause they’re there because they’re divine. (Japanese imperial family still keeps the original bloodline from 660BC due to their records. It’s proved that they kept their bloodline from at least the 300AD to today)
All the other points remain the same, and it is here that I find the crucial difference from the westerners that make those two civilization very similar.
The reverence for the governement was (is) very high. Let’s not forget Japanese people were able of doing things like the “Kamikaze attack” for the “glory of Japan and for the Emperor!”. Or the suicides (Seppuku), that even if they’re Japan-only related, they’re very tied with their interpretation of confucianism. (Ruth Benedict wrotes a lot about it)
A Japanese was able to even commit suicide, because for a confucian based country, the “social death” was worst than a real death.
(With all these blabblering, I’m not saying China and Japan are the same, but that they have similar roots that puts them in a similar place when we confront them on social and political issues)
(With all these blabblering, I’m not saying China and Japan are the same, but that they have similar roots that puts them in a similar place when we confront them on social and political issues)
Yes, I understand and I agree.
Just amazes me where these government people can’t give the extra oil to there own country. Ain’t gas 1.50 to 2.00 more a gallon in Canada? More important to export it (profits) then to take care of your own people first so they can afford it.
Giving away oil or cheap gas to poor people isn’t really good for a nation. Gas is roughly about 5 bucks a gallon in Canada, depending on 3.8L or 4.2L gallons. Expensive gas forces your average car to get better mileage. It does leave more for export by slightly reducing domestic demand thus improving your current account balances. Our government gets more from royalties than the US government and more from taxes. With this extra money and that from higher taxes on alcohol and tobacco means health care is for the most part free. That helps poor people more than cheap gas, really poor people still cant afford cars even with cheap gas but having healthier babies and lives is something everyone can enjoy.
I think the US should charge oil companies more for royalties, the oil does belong to the nation, and the nation is a group of people. The US really lets oil companies off the hook compared to other countries. Not saying nationalising oil companies is good, but they should profit the nation more than individuals when the wealth flows from the nation in the form of natural resources.
LOL> Jordan just raised gas prices and the country just went bonkers. Huge protests in the streets, and they got it cheap.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-11-15/jordanians-call-for-more-protests-over-price-hikes.
You think they pay $5.00 or something.
Unleaded 90 octane 0.800 JD / liter
Unleaded 95 octane 1.015 JD / liter
Diesel, Kerosene 0.685 JD / liter
Cooking Gas 10 JD / cylinder
1 Jordanian dinar = 1.4124 US dollars
IL, for the most part that article talks about the price of gas as in cooking and heating fuel. The rest of the world talks of petrol whereas its gas to us north americans. A rise of 54% of a basic commodity like heating and cooking fuel that has inelastic price/demand curve disproportionately affects poor people. The average Jordanian probably spends a great deal more of their budget on heating and cooking fuel then petrol considering the average Jordanian doesn’t have a car. A good political move to take advantage of it.
You think they pay $5.00 or something.
Il, I’m not sure who you are referring to or who the ‘they’ is since the only person so far to mention Jordan is you. Now Iran had some demonstrations lately over petrol subsidy reductions, petrol there is dirt cheap!
Mr Crunch,
In the middle of the second page, for example, you said the way around one of the problems with China was …
"I said it before and will say it again, instead of gutting US environmental laws (and labour laws), enforce them on Chinese companies and products. "
This is the sort of thing I shared when I observed that your solutions sound like the Bullying that folks complain about when they talk about the power and influence of the US. You asked (on page 5) that I provide an example, so there you are.
Fuel went up only 10%, The cost of cooking oil/gas did go up by 50%, but what they pay already is very low compared to us.
They= people of Jordan.
Mr. Dinosaur. Placing tariffs on products that are dumped below market costs or that are produced with slave labour is hardly bullying in the same way that over throwing a government in order to support commercial interests is, such as what happened to Iran in 1953 at the hands of the…I will be gracious…at the hands of the west. Some people in some countries in the middle east feel the US is keeping unpopular rulers in power such as Bahrain, if that were true that would classify as bullying. But not buying say unsafe products that kill your citizens cause they are made of poison…not bullying. Protecting domestic workers because China is willing to poison their country and have unsafe working conditions ain’t bullying in my books, its treating another nations people as you would treat your own. Bullying is when you enforce a double standard, support a tyrant against his own people. Russia is acting like a bully for its actions in Syria, so is China. Of course that is not much of a double standard if you ask the people of Chechnya or Tiananmen square I suppose.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d’%C3%A9tat
dinosaur, you asserted that I suggested that the US be the world’s police force, it was to this I asked you to cite your references, not comparing environmental tariffs to bullying.
A slow moving game of chess.
US pivots, China bristles
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20387131
I believe the US is moving its pawns into position, a well played game. A chess analogy and in no way a maligning comment on the US, rather a bit of appreciation for a game well played.
Some people in some countries in the middle east feel the US is keeping unpopular rulers in power
And they support this view because they have other axes to grind, mainly an anti-western crusade
But not buying say unsafe products that kill your citizens cause they are made of poison…not bullying.
Id rather have bullying than killing people so cheap goods could be sold.
@Imperious:
And they support this view because they have other axes to grind, mainly an anti-western crusade
http://gbk.eads.usaidallnet.gov/data/files/us_military_historical.xls
Foreign military aid FY2010:
Bahrain $19.7 million
Egypt $1.3 billion
Israel $2.8 billion
Jordan $303.8 million
Oman $10.4 million
Can you understand how even unbiased people might come to associate the United States with Middle Eastern governments?
Israel $2.8 billion
And they support this view because they have other axes to grind, mainly an anti-western crusade or hate Israel and since we are her friend , we become their enemy.
Why couldn’t they support that view on it’s own merits given the last 70 years of US involvement in the Middle East?
Tying back to the OP (since I didn’t mean to derail), I was trying to find figures on Chinese foreign military aid (i.e. from China to elsewhere).
Interesting article about US/Chinese interest in Pakistan.
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/sorry-pakistan-china-no-sugar-daddy
