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 : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TobagoJack who wrote (64182)	6/13/2010 12:02:47 AM
From: SG	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 217936

"But globalization, with all its problems, will have to go on as a driving force. You cannot reverse it." I'm afraid that peak oil will reverse globalization. We're not going to be shipping Alaskan salmon to China to be filleted and then shipped back to the U.S. for sale when oil is $200/bbl. Innumerable other stupidities will go by the boards. Sg

To: TobagoJack who wrote (64182)	6/14/2010 12:41:20 AM
From: energyplay	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217936

Well this is worrisome - Basically, help the US maintain some actual or illusory primacy to keep all the sea lanes open - and let the US pay for it. ******* Q: I was really struck by an article written by a Chinese scholar arguing that China should help the United States retain its leading role in maintaining the world order because U.S. hegemony has benefitted China greatly by excusing the country from committing to maintaining the world order. Does this argument make sense? A: Yes, it makes sense to me, but only to a limit. We really political elites in China don't want to see too much American political influence in the world want to see the U.S. economy prospering. China benefits from a strong U.S. economy and borrows from its technological know-how. The paradox there is that and the expansion of its military power. And the same kind of paradox and anxiety exists in the U.S. when it watches China. The Obama administration says it welcomes a strong, prosperous China. But do they mean a stronger military power of China? These two countries share one thing in common: They wish each other well in economic terms but not necessarily in political and geostrategic terms. On the one hand, I do share this scholar's expectation that the United States will remain prosperous and educationally and scientifically advanced. It has the resources and advantages to keep its leading position in the world. But frankly speaking, this hope cannot be translated into assessing and perceiving U.S. military and political power. It is politically incorrect in China to say we want a stronger U.S. hegemony. But this kind of strategic thinking you just described is very important. I mean, we should analyze the world in a more complicated and sophisticated way. ******** This also explains why China won't really build pipelines to Iran - not because the US would try to stop it (we would) but because the Iranians want to be able to threaten their neighbors and shut the Persian Gulf, but still get Iran's exports out. This is Iranian "adventurism" not in China's interest, since China and their suppliers and customers buy form the other Gulf states UAE, Kuwait, Saudis, Iraq, etc. So China will not build the logistic backstop to Iranian expansion (why sell crowbars to juvenile delinquents ?), but will keep studying the issue and complaining of US "interference".... So China's policy is to help the US maintain the right level of influence, but not too much... "...political elites in China don't want to see too much American political influence in the world... "