Hating the Chinese has become as American as apple pie. It unites Democrats, Republicans, independents, and even more than one Green Party member I have talked too.
But, we are asked to pretend, we are not prejudiced against Chinese people. It is the Chinese (communist) government's economic policies that are driving us, the best, sweetest, and least prejudiced people on earth, we Americans, to do battle with the Chinese.
All we demand is fairness. We just want some stability. We don't want to work hard for our pay. We are not used to it. So the Yuan (or Renminbi, if you use the more modern term for Chinese money) has to float. And it has to float upward against the American dollar. It has to make American goods cheaper in China, and Chinese goods more expensive in the U.S. Like an iPod, iPad or Mac could possibly be more expensive.
A quick recap the history of relations between the United States of America and China is in order. China was the wealthiest and most civilized nation in the world in when English settlers first started grabbing land in what is now the U.S.A. in 1607. On the other hand, the Chinese ruling class were mostly complacent and uninterested in modernization. Viewing (correctly) Europeans as predator-pirates, the Chinese allowed only limited intercourse during the 17th and 18th centuries. Americans started trading with China while we were still part of the British empire, but the trading was trivial to the Chinese.
In the early 1800's the imperial nations began seeing China as a great prize to be devoured, but its government was still strong enough to repel the predators. U.S. trade with China increased, and U.S. merchants participated in the illegal opium trade. That is where the Delano side of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt got their fortune (the Forbes fortune, too.) The Chinese government clamped down on opium, which was destroying Chinese culture and its economy. Parliament, the device by which a small number of British voters bullied half the world, resulted in the launching of the Opium Wars by Britain, which China lost. Britain got Hong Kong and America and other nations got the right to "free trade" with China.
The Chinese next resisted being gobbled up by America and friends with the Boxer Rebellion. The U.S., Japan, Britain, France, Russia and Germany ganged up on China and essentially got control of the Chinese government. Eventually the Chinese people rebelled, overthrew the monarchy, and formed a Republic. But America and friends preferred a weak China, and so backed a number of warlords, most notably Chiang Kai-shek.
Starting in the 1920's Japan, which had been more successful at resisting U.S., British and Russian bullying, decided that the only way Japan and all Asia would not get gobbled up would be by Japan taking the leadership of Asia. The Chinese warlords sponsored by the Euro-American imperialists did not like that idea. The Japanese, unfortunately, resorted to force to install modern, enlightened (capitalist), pro-Japanese regimes in China. This eventually led to open, declared war between the U.S. and Japan. Chiang Kai-shek's warlords also fought Japan, as did a new Chinese government set up in north-west China by the Communist Party.
America won the war, but not before Japan had encouraged most east Asian nations to declare independence. The Philippines declared independence from the U.S., Vietnam from France, Indonesia from the Netherlands, and Burma and India from Britain.
As the Japanese withdrew from the mainland, a civil war erupted between the Communist Party and the U.S. financed warlord Chiang Kai-shek. The Chinese won the civil war, but by then the Chinese economy was totally wrecked. In a mere 100 years China had gone from still being one of the wealthiest nations in the world to being one of the poorest. Chiang, helped by America, moved China's silver and gold, as well as what was portable of its industries, to the island of Taiwan, where he set up a dictatorship protected by the U.S. navy.
It took the Chinese decades to rebuild their nation. The U.S. refused to trade and pretended Chiang still ruled China. Although Nixon made peace in the 1970's, only in the 1990's did the Chinese start to have sustantial trade with the U.S. The U.S. gave the Chinese no breaks. We treated trade as a form of economic warfare, extracting as much from the Chinese in return for whatever modern technology we were willing to export to them.
So what do the Chinese owe the U.S. What is the standard of fairness that should apply to this situation?
Here's what I think: Americans have not been being screwed by the Chinese. We have been being screwed by Americans, by our own capitalists and their political subsidiaries. They want to direct our anger at the Chinese when it should be directed at ourselves and our economic lords.
So now the exchange rate of the yuan does not float against the dollar, and we buy more from China than they buy from us. First of all, as former Secretary of State Cordell Hull used to pontificate, global free trade can't be balanced on a bilateral (2-nation basis). Goods flow in all directions. China does not have a trade surplus with every nation. Because the U.S. economy is now so consumer oriented, we suck the blood of the entire world. China is just the assembly point, where quick hard-working hands turn raw goods and parts from the global economy into crap that you buy at Walmart because you don't have the good sense to save and invest your money.
If the yuan floated, then China would have a small lower trade surplus with the U.S. They would not take in so many billions of U.S. dollars. They would not buy so many U.S. government bonds to get rid of those dollars. The interest rates on bonds would go up, and the federal government would be stuck paying a lot more interest. So the national deficit would get worse, unless government spending were cut back further. In any case, that won't be good for the U.S. economy.
The way to balance things out with China is for the U.S. to compete on a fair basis, rather than whining and asking for special treatment. We could also increase import duties, which would lower demand for Chinese goods and help the U.S. Treasury. We could teach our children math and engineering and business practices instead of English, Art, and Film Studies.
Oh, things are pretty fair already. We could compete. But our American capital has been concentrated in the hands of a very few people because we no longer have meaningful taxes on inheritances and capital gains. This wealthy elite has become very lazy. They do the easy thing, aided by a bunch of well-paid technocrats, advisors, and lawyers. They invest in China or developing nations when they could invest in the U.S.
I just don't get how we can blame the Chinese for Steve Jobs and crew's failure to invest in the U.S. We don't even have to destroy America the Beautiful to create new factories. There is plenty of empty factory space in Detroit and other American cities.
Let's renovate those empty factories, and stop blaming the Chinese for our problems. I think the success of the Chinese is a great thing for humanity. They are a very civilized people, so far. If they become the number 1 economy in the world again, it will probably make the world a better place.
Showing posts with label Hong Kong. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hong Kong. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Hong Kong Thoughts: FDR, Chiang Kai-shek, and the Mont Tremblant Conference
I can assume you've heard of Hong Kong, and most of you know FDR stands for United States President-for-Life Franklin Delano Roosevelt. You should know that Chiang Kai-shek (1887-1975), the Generalissimo, was the generally acknowledged leader of the Chinese government (such as it was) during the era of Roosevelt and Hitler. Chiang even went on to a ghostly existence as the leader of the rebel island province of Taiwan once he lost mainland China to the Chinese Communist government.
I'm pretty sure you don't know about the Mont Tremblant Conference, because I only learned of it a few days ago while reading A History of Hong Kong
by Frank Welsh. Nothing like reading a Brit book to learn some things about American history that are ... not in American books.
Before we get into Mont Tremblant, let me mention that on page 424 I learned a new fact about the D. in FDR. During World War II, President Roosevelt's "visitors were reminded that his maternal grandfather, Warren Delano, had been a partner in Russel's [Hong Kong establishment] and that his mother had spent part of her childhood in Hong Kong. The fact that Russel's had been active in the opium trade ... did not seem to cross the President's mind." But I'm sure all you FDR fans already knew that. I just missed it somehow.
Today the Mont Tremblant conference is a mystery, it does not even have its own Wikipedia page [another item for my To Do list]. According to Welsh, scattered about pages 423-427, the conference took place between December 4 and 14th, 1942 at Mont Tremblant near Quebec, Canada. I learned elsewhere it was sponsored by a non-governmental organization, the IPR (Institute of Pacific Relations). The Chinese nationalists were doing little in the way of fighting the Japanese at that time, but Roosevelt was giving them a lot of money and arms that the British thought could be better used to fight for British dominance of Europe and North Africa.
Some American leaders were playing the anti-colonialism card, notably Vice-President Wallace. But Roosevelt stated he was willing to give the French colony of Indochina as well as Hong Kong to Chiang Kai-shek. The Brits present had no problem trading rhetoric. When FDR referred to the Brits grabbing Hong Kong, Oliver (Lord) Stanley retorted "Mr. President, that was about the time of the Mexican War, wasn't it?" The British, less blinded to certain realities than the anti-communists in Roosevelt's regime, in 1942 already suspected that Chiang Kai-shek would not be able to hold onto power if the Japanese left China. Recall that the number 2 man in the Kuomintang (Chinese Nationalist Party) had been set up as the head of China by the Japanese, a pretty cozy relationship that no one any longer seems to want to talk about.
David MacDougall, formerly a member of the Hong Kong government, attended Mont Tremblant and reported that there was a division in the British delegation between those who were willing to pacify the U.S. by giving up Hong Kong, and those who believed that after the war a general settlement on colonialism in the Pacific would be necessary. In such a conference the British might give up Hong Kong if the Dutch and French gave up their colonies. And it the U.S. gave up the Philippines and Hawaii. Welsh does not mention it, but the U.S. had grabbed quite a few smaller Pacific islands during its colonial expansion. [FDR repeatedly turned down the requests of the Philippines for independence during his regime. The Japanese granted the Philippines formal independence.]
Now, as part of my research into the U.S. War Against Asia, I feel I need to read in more detail about this Mont Tremblant conference. No treaties were signed, but that should not relegate the conference to the dustbin of history. Are there minutes of the meetings somewhere? All this sort of stuff should be on the Internet now, where scholars and the merely curious can access it easily.
I'm pretty sure you don't know about the Mont Tremblant Conference, because I only learned of it a few days ago while reading A History of Hong Kong
by Frank Welsh. Nothing like reading a Brit book to learn some things about American history that are ... not in American books.
Before we get into Mont Tremblant, let me mention that on page 424 I learned a new fact about the D. in FDR. During World War II, President Roosevelt's "visitors were reminded that his maternal grandfather, Warren Delano, had been a partner in Russel's [Hong Kong establishment] and that his mother had spent part of her childhood in Hong Kong. The fact that Russel's had been active in the opium trade ... did not seem to cross the President's mind." But I'm sure all you FDR fans already knew that. I just missed it somehow.
Today the Mont Tremblant conference is a mystery, it does not even have its own Wikipedia page [another item for my To Do list]. According to Welsh, scattered about pages 423-427, the conference took place between December 4 and 14th, 1942 at Mont Tremblant near Quebec, Canada. I learned elsewhere it was sponsored by a non-governmental organization, the IPR (Institute of Pacific Relations). The Chinese nationalists were doing little in the way of fighting the Japanese at that time, but Roosevelt was giving them a lot of money and arms that the British thought could be better used to fight for British dominance of Europe and North Africa.
Some American leaders were playing the anti-colonialism card, notably Vice-President Wallace. But Roosevelt stated he was willing to give the French colony of Indochina as well as Hong Kong to Chiang Kai-shek. The Brits present had no problem trading rhetoric. When FDR referred to the Brits grabbing Hong Kong, Oliver (Lord) Stanley retorted "Mr. President, that was about the time of the Mexican War, wasn't it?" The British, less blinded to certain realities than the anti-communists in Roosevelt's regime, in 1942 already suspected that Chiang Kai-shek would not be able to hold onto power if the Japanese left China. Recall that the number 2 man in the Kuomintang (Chinese Nationalist Party) had been set up as the head of China by the Japanese, a pretty cozy relationship that no one any longer seems to want to talk about.
David MacDougall, formerly a member of the Hong Kong government, attended Mont Tremblant and reported that there was a division in the British delegation between those who were willing to pacify the U.S. by giving up Hong Kong, and those who believed that after the war a general settlement on colonialism in the Pacific would be necessary. In such a conference the British might give up Hong Kong if the Dutch and French gave up their colonies. And it the U.S. gave up the Philippines and Hawaii. Welsh does not mention it, but the U.S. had grabbed quite a few smaller Pacific islands during its colonial expansion. [FDR repeatedly turned down the requests of the Philippines for independence during his regime. The Japanese granted the Philippines formal independence.]
Now, as part of my research into the U.S. War Against Asia, I feel I need to read in more detail about this Mont Tremblant conference. No treaties were signed, but that should not relegate the conference to the dustbin of history. Are there minutes of the meetings somewhere? All this sort of stuff should be on the Internet now, where scholars and the merely curious can access it easily.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Hong Kong History and Wild Swans of China
As my relaxing reading lately I have been dividing my attention between two books, A History of Hong Kong by Frank Welsh and Wild Swans by Jung Chang. Both books have pro-British Empire glosses that are undermined by the actual historical facts recounted.
As the title would indicate, A History of Hong Kong is written in a competent, standard historical manner. It is unappologetically pro-British. Frank Welsh seems to think the package of British civilization and British racism and attrocities is a package any wise country would buy at any point in history. Yet he does not hold back the facts, including the gory details of the Opium Wars, including exactly which British mercantile families and politicians benefitted. For me, the most useful part of the book so far has been the color it has cast on The U.S. War Against Asia. It is obvious that Commander Perry's military expedition against Japan was merely a shadow copy of the British operations against China in the decades that preceded it. That makes sense, but Perry's chronicler only mention's his studies of Japanese history, not his apparently careful study of how the Brits grabbed Hong Kong.
Wild Swans is the more complex and interesting book. If you don't know the history of modern China, it certainly paints a picture by telling of the struggles of the ancestors of the author to make good under the old Empire, under the Kuomintang, and then as communist bureaucrats. In the introduction Chang gushes with a love of modern England and a hatred of Mao, but so far in the book the stories sound authentic enough. No one comes out looking good. Bad as the communists may be painted, the Kuomintang were worse; bad as the Kuomintang might have been, they were better than the Manchus. Some of Jung Chang's ancestors are Manchus, but they are mostly Han. Because the book concentrates on the stories of her mother and grandmother, we see the meaning of modern reforms is particularly compelling for women. On the other hand Chang takes many opportunities to trash the folly of peasants and the incorporation of peasant knowledge into modern communist Chinese practice.
Closer to home, people in this coastal California community are talking about the Gulf oil spill. Good thing we don't allow drilling off our shores. Of course we drive our cars just as much as people in the gulf states. Soon I need to get up from this computer and drive to a meeting in Boonville to try to get an environmentalist elected to office. I tried to get the other organizers to hold these meetings by teleconference, but no, they are old fashinioned, they like in-person meetings. As a result I have missed almost all of the meetings. I am driving today because suddenly our campaign seems to be in trouble; I'm hoping my personal presence will have an impact, but in fact it will probably be one last waste of time and gasoline.
Wild Swans's stories of hunger and physical hardship in 20th century China reminds me of how corrupted by material wealth our American society is. Point Arena like anywhere else. Voters here are mostly apathetic about the primary coming up in June. Those who liked to complain about Bush have been replaced by a far smaller number of people who like to complain about Obama, but mostly politics and economics are just too complicated for Californians to bother their heads with. On the other hand, the turnout for Fishtank was good Saturday at the Arena Theatre. Nothing against Fishtank, they were great. As to democracy, forget about it. The captains of the U.S.S. Ship of State can sink it just fine, without any help from citizens at all.
More about the books at Amazon:
As the title would indicate, A History of Hong Kong is written in a competent, standard historical manner. It is unappologetically pro-British. Frank Welsh seems to think the package of British civilization and British racism and attrocities is a package any wise country would buy at any point in history. Yet he does not hold back the facts, including the gory details of the Opium Wars, including exactly which British mercantile families and politicians benefitted. For me, the most useful part of the book so far has been the color it has cast on The U.S. War Against Asia. It is obvious that Commander Perry's military expedition against Japan was merely a shadow copy of the British operations against China in the decades that preceded it. That makes sense, but Perry's chronicler only mention's his studies of Japanese history, not his apparently careful study of how the Brits grabbed Hong Kong.
Wild Swans is the more complex and interesting book. If you don't know the history of modern China, it certainly paints a picture by telling of the struggles of the ancestors of the author to make good under the old Empire, under the Kuomintang, and then as communist bureaucrats. In the introduction Chang gushes with a love of modern England and a hatred of Mao, but so far in the book the stories sound authentic enough. No one comes out looking good. Bad as the communists may be painted, the Kuomintang were worse; bad as the Kuomintang might have been, they were better than the Manchus. Some of Jung Chang's ancestors are Manchus, but they are mostly Han. Because the book concentrates on the stories of her mother and grandmother, we see the meaning of modern reforms is particularly compelling for women. On the other hand Chang takes many opportunities to trash the folly of peasants and the incorporation of peasant knowledge into modern communist Chinese practice.
Closer to home, people in this coastal California community are talking about the Gulf oil spill. Good thing we don't allow drilling off our shores. Of course we drive our cars just as much as people in the gulf states. Soon I need to get up from this computer and drive to a meeting in Boonville to try to get an environmentalist elected to office. I tried to get the other organizers to hold these meetings by teleconference, but no, they are old fashinioned, they like in-person meetings. As a result I have missed almost all of the meetings. I am driving today because suddenly our campaign seems to be in trouble; I'm hoping my personal presence will have an impact, but in fact it will probably be one last waste of time and gasoline.
Wild Swans's stories of hunger and physical hardship in 20th century China reminds me of how corrupted by material wealth our American society is. Point Arena like anywhere else. Voters here are mostly apathetic about the primary coming up in June. Those who liked to complain about Bush have been replaced by a far smaller number of people who like to complain about Obama, but mostly politics and economics are just too complicated for Californians to bother their heads with. On the other hand, the turnout for Fishtank was good Saturday at the Arena Theatre. Nothing against Fishtank, they were great. As to democracy, forget about it. The captains of the U.S.S. Ship of State can sink it just fine, without any help from citizens at all.
More about the books at Amazon:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
