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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TobagoJack who wrote (2888)	4/6/2001 4:49:12 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 74559

Jay... don't worry.. I'm not trying to argue either.. just trying to figure out what is motivating the Chinese politicos and how they are assigning the variables in their political equation. As for political risk... if there is a risk of nationalist instability and a power play within China's government, who's to say that China wouldn't just opt to national all US assets within China? Who's to say that Jiang and Zhu wouldn't fall from favor and the military assert greater influence in economic and policy decisions? This would create a terrible business risk for investors and business. From a business perspective, western companies have few legal rights outside of the arbitrary ones that can be granted and withdrawn at a moment's notice with the proper political environment. And this is what I see being what's currently at stake here, China's pushing the envelope with regard to making up the rules as they go along in a manner that they happen to see fit to do. As for CNN or Fox.. that's not the risk, but the result. And totalitarian systems bear a distinct difference with authoritarian systems, which are usually "strong man" governments usurping control of an established political system for their own ends.. Totalitarianism creates an entirely new system that excludes any opposition, where you have to be a member of the party to truly realize social priviledges or political influence. I look at as the equivalent as a political mafia, who have no desire to permit the average person to gain access to their world of priviledge. And I have to disagree with you about Hungary. First off communism was imposed upon Hungary buy the Soviet Union, thus never truly taking root in the society as a political ideology that people acknowledge. It was pretty much assumed that when the Soviets left, there would be political pluralism. And the former communists were able to regain power, as I recall, in the mid-'90s by manipulating the election process. Secondly, Hungary essentially possessed a hybrid economy with workers performing their daily jobs, and then being encouraged to become entrepreneurs on their own hours. The fact that the Soviets ruthlessly crushed the Hungarian revolution in 1956, while the west stood by, does not alleviate the reality of where they Soviets had to treat Hungary with "kid gloves" and permitting more economic and political freedom than their own people enjoyed. But I don't believe this is the case in China. China's revolution was from within (assisted by the Soviets, of course), and all previous ideologies or economic systems were prohibited. China's situation is more comparable to the Soviet Union, IMO, where communist power and authority is far more integrated into the system and increasingly coming into conflict with capitalist expectations. I have a hard time discerning any real "check and balance" system there, except between the military, intelligence/interior, and party officials. I still look back at Tianemen square as a glaring sign that the aging and corrupt political hacks are finding the young folks harder to control than they thought. And now they need to distract the Chinese people away from the glaring corruption and political vulnerability of the party elite by stirring nationalism against the US, in order to build up support for their corrupt administration that is ham-stringing economic change in the country. Please don't mistake my views here either. I have nothing against the Chinese people. In fact, I respect the chinese as a whole. But what burns me up is that a group of corrupt political dinosaurs are willing to create an environment of conflict between the US and the Chinese people that need not exist. There is such a wonderful opportunity for the Chinese people and the US to restore previous pre-communist economic and political ties to our mutual benefit. And it consistently is being subverted by a bunch of old communists trying to preserve their own fiefdoms. And again.. the US will not apologize, or had better not. For Bejing to claim that an lumbering, unarmed surveillance plane actually iniated hostilities with a fully armed and more nimble Chinese pilot is clearly illogical. And even had we been inside China's 12 mile territorial borders, it would not justify trying to force the plan down, or attempting dangerous maneuvers. The proper response would be launch an official diplomatic protest and CLEARLY state that any further violation would be met with force. But even then... choosing to shoot first and ask questions later should be condemned, no matter who undertakes the aggression. And again.. watch this boycott discussion as it starts to build. The longer China holds US personnel hostage (and that's essentially what it is at this point), the more we'll see average Americans making their own decisions to not buy Chinese goods. And this will be a situation that neither the US or Chinese politicians will be able to control and it will create long-term damage to relations. Regards, Ron