Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Michael M who wrote (51508)	8/16/1999 7:14:00 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

IMO, U.S. follow-up to Soviet collapse was and continues to be inept. Really, really inept! There we agree 100%, though if we started in on the specifics I'm sure we'd find plenty to dispute. One thing I think we could agree on, though, is that the legacy of ineptitude inherited from the current and previous administrations is going to make the job of the next one extremely difficult. Of course when the whole thing breaks down, whoever is in at the time will take the blame. Re. Chinese meddling/spying (pick any country/any administration) -- what shocks me is that anyone finds this shocking. I do think strong measures should be taken when evidence is presented. I would agree that strong measures should be taken internally, directed at the politicians and parties who accept the contributions, and the individuals who spy or cooperate with spies. Somewhat difficult to take strong measures against the countries involved, though, as we are constantly doing the same things to them, and are as likely to be caught. The age of shooting spies is long gone; repercussions are generally fairly mild, along the order of expelling "diplomats". Even this rather mild response is often frowned upon by counterintelligence folks, who would rather watch the spies they know about than take the trouble of finding their replacements. In the specific case of China, most of the "strong measures" I've seen proposed would play directly into the hands of the most troublesome factions in Beijing. Boosting their stature and influence is hardly a purpose we want to pursue, it seems to me. The Chinese are clever with money. Commerce on a grand scale is inevitable. This is true, and once it arrives it will become very difficult for the Chinese leadership to maintain its totalitarian character. My feeling here is that time is on our side, and that our best move is to keep cool, discourage confrontational situations, encourage commerce, and wait for the old party hands to die off. If it takes 20 years, so what? The commercial interests hold the financial cards, and the more influence they have the better. They do not want to rock the boat or embark on military ventures, which would only cause them trouble. suspect lessons will be learned; not all of them beneficial to U.S. I'm curious as to what you mean by that. The Chinese will of course seek a place in the world economy according to their competitive advantage, which is what we want them to do. If they succeed it will raise a new set of problems, but the more they become part of the system the less incentive they have to rock the boat. Emerging business class or not, money is not independent of government blessing in China, to the degree it is in the west. Of course not, but the government - and even the hardliners - know that without that emerging business class, there won't be any money for the government to bless. Don't get the idea I'm going soft on the head-blowing-off option. Just hate to see it used senselessly. There we agree. As for "others," we could both cite example after of example of attempts to blow our heads off. Sad. Fact of life. I suspect that if we were a little subtler in our use of power, a lot fewer people would want to blow our heads off. We need to realize that others around the world are somewhat less comfortable with the idea of worldwide US military hegemony than we are, and that they have some historical reason to be worried. There will always be some, of course, which is why we need to retain the capacity to retaliate in kind. The key, IMO, is not to use that capacity until it is absolutely necessary to use it, and then to use it decisively, precisely, and effectively. Easier said than done, obviously.