Should all the non communist countries of the world unite against China and the communist ones?

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 12
Topic's author
#1
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
I'd say this is the best way to contain communism and to get China to become a free society for the purposes of joining the LU and getting the trade benefits with it.

We also get to save money on the military since currently the world spends $1.6 trillion on the military a year and china spends about $200 Billion a year.  A world united against the communist countries can save $1 trillion a year on the military, still outspend China 2 to 1 and some of that money is used to improve the LU, some of that money can be used as a tax cut.

The constitution for the LU might be below:


If the world unites against the communist countries, we don't have to spend as much on the military per taxpayer and some of that money can go to social programs(liberals are happy), some of it can be used as a tax cut (conservatives are happy), and communism inevitably falls (America is happy).
#2
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
Why does any country that is not China have any business telling China what to do?

If China wants to be communist, it is non of my business. It is their right
#3
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@TheUnderdog
This is pretty precisely what the Trans-Pacific Partnership was designed to do and it was booed out of the room by both the American left and right in 2016.  Since America recently and overwhelmingly opposed such a trade deal, why so you think the same deal will succeed with a new name?
Topic's author
#4
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@oromagi
Why did the TPP fail?  I personally like the TPP as it enabled free trade and cost very few jobs, and all of the workers for these jobs could find any of the 13 million job openings that the University of Georgetown claimed exist that pay both over $55K/year and that only require a HS degree to complete.  I fail to see how TPP is a bad idea as it allows cheaper better goods to come from foreign countries and it also allows America to export more goods to foreign countries in return.
Topic's author
#5
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Wylted
China can be communist, but they would be losing trade if they stay that way.  Plus other countries get the trade.
#6
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@TheUnderdog

@oromagi
Why did the TPP fail?  I personally like the TPP as it enabled free trade and cost very few jobs, and all of the workers for these jobs could find any of the 13 million job openings that the University of Georgetown claimed exist that pay both over $55K/year and that only require a HS degree to complete.  I fail to see how TPP is a bad idea as it allows cheaper better goods to come from foreign countries and it also allows America to export more goods to foreign countries in return.
Politics.  Unions prejudiced the Left and Trump prejudiced the Right against TPP.  When Trump emerged as the front-runner, Hillary dropped her support for TPP hoping to deny Trump a campaign issue.  By the time of the election, most US politicians were publicly united against TPP while most were also secretly favored some kind of anti-China trading block.  When Trump tried to destroy NAFTA the following year, a whole parade of conservative economists visited the White House and finally managed to persuade Trump that NAFTA had actually been a pretty significant net gain for the US- an extra $400 billion GDP/year.  If Trump had the facts before running for President, TPP would very likely be constricting Chinese expansion today.
Topic's author
#7
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@oromagi
Unions prejudiced the Left and Trump prejudiced the Right against TPP.
Why would Unions be anti TPP and why would the right be anti TPP?  

By the time of the election, most US politicians were publicly united against TPP while most were also secretly favored some kind of anti-China trading block.
If US politicians support TPP, they should be open with their beliefs and not lie to their voters to get elected.

 When Trump tried to destroy NAFTA the following year, a whole parade of conservative economists visited the White House and finally managed to persuade Trump that NAFTA had actually been a pretty significant net gain for the US- an extra $400 billion GDP/year.  If Trump had the facts before running for President, TPP would very likely be constricting Chinese expansion today.
If Trump supports TPP now, why isn't he going out and supporting TPP which has improved the American economy?  I hate China because of their political prisoners and I want America to exceed China's economy.  TPP, combined with a LU military and the LU uniting to be one nation can contain China and expand the influence of America.
#8
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@TheUnderdog
-->@oromagi
Unions prejudiced the Left and Trump prejudiced the Right against TPP.
Why would Unions be anti TPP
  • Increased competition in labor markets as lower wage labor becomes available to US companies.
  • NAFTA  promised some labor protections but enforcement mechanisms were weak and ultimately advantaged Mexican labor for choosing to ignore most of the agreed protections.
  • In spite of huge gains in GDP, no subsequent wage increase followed in the US.  The top 1% pretty much kept all the proceeds of NAFTA.
  • US rules and regulations would be subject to civil suits and international negotiations.  So, if an Indonesian employer with a factory in the US wanted to challenge US overtime pay, they had at least some legal venues which Unions feared.
and why would the right be anti TPP?  
Generally, Wall St. and corporate America were on board but  Trump beat the crap out of  Bush, Christie, Fiorina, etc mostly just using a lot of ignorant arguments like "so complicated nobody knows what in it" and "imperils US sovereignty."  Rubio, and Cruz were sort of middle-roaders on TPP and quickly caved to try to win the Trump voters.  Pretty quickly, TPP came to stand for that establishment that Trump voters hated.
By the time of the election, most US politicians were publicly united against TPP while most were also secretly favored some kind of anti-China trading block.
If US politicians support TPP, they should be open with their beliefs and not lie to their voters to get elected.
Well, I agree.  Obama and Biden never changed their support for  TPP.  Bush and Romney never changed their support for TPP.  But the voters didn't care.  Unions withheld their PAC money until Hillary caved.  Trump has consistently been rewarded by the Right for lying to them about just about every subject imaginable- I genuinely don't believe an honest Republican is electable in America today.  Let's recall that both China and Russia deeply despised the agreement since it shut them out by design and  both invested millions in creating fake news about TPP in US media with incredible effectiveness.  US media didn't cover it much because trade agreements are boring so foreign disinformation totally overwhelmed honest reporting on the subject.
 When Trump tried to destroy NAFTA the following year, a whole parade of conservative economists visited the White House and finally managed to persuade Trump that NAFTA had actually been a pretty significant net gain for the US- an extra $400 billion GDP/year.  If Trump had the facts before running for President, TPP would very likely be constricting Chinese expansion today.
If Trump supports TPP now, why isn't he going out and supporting TPP which has improved the American economy? 
When has Trump ever expressed an opinion merely because America might benefit?  The answer is never.  Trump clearly believes in the safety and effectiveness of vaccinations having invested heavily in expedited vaccine development during his final year in office.  Pundits and health professionals frequently point out  that Trump could single-handedly save ten of thousands of Americans lives right now by strongly advocating vaccines now but he consistently refuses. 

If some new TPP like initiative were to be initiated by Biden in the next few years and Trump ran for office in 2024, you can be 100% confident that Trump would condemn the deal and run against it no matter what benefits he might perceive for Americans overall.  Trump just doesn't play that way.

I hate China because of their political prisoners and I want America to exceed China's economy.  TPP, combined with a LU military and the LU uniting to be one nation can contain China and expand the influence of America.
agreed


Topic's author
#9
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@oromagi
  • Increased competition in labor markets as lower wage labor becomes available to US companies.
There is increased competition, but there are also more customers.  In America, as the population increases, the amount of competition for customers increases due to an increased population, but due to that increased population, there is more business to be had within the people wanting the business.  This is why if America's population quadrupled, there is 4x as much competition for jobs, but there are 4x as many jobs available.  Not only that, but existing American workers have seniority advantages, so I don't foresee people losing their jobs due to globalization.  People were worried about China taking jobs when China isn't even in TPP so they can't.  Since only .6% of the US workforce works a job that is movable to other parts of the world, this accounts for roughly 1 million workers in the US.  The University of Georgetown found 13 million out of highschool job openings that pay $55K/year or more.  My solution to the 1 million job losses is to give holders of TPJs (Tariff dependent jobs) first dibs at finding a better job found on the list that the government should pay the University of Georgetown to create so anyone who loses their jobs due to free trade (if they lose their jobs) can find a better one on the list.


#10
drlebronski
drlebronski's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 993
3
5
9
drlebronski's avatar
drlebronski
3
5
9
-->
@TheUnderdog
Im a communist by definition but i hate authoritarian regimes like china and the soviet union (libertarian communist in a way). I do not think countries should intervene in other countries elections or governments simply because they are socialist. for example in chile after the first marxist president was elected 
a few years after the CIA funded the military to overthrow him and then pinchote was elected who was almost if not worse than stalin
#11
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@TheUnderdog
China is no more a communist country than Russia was a socialist one. Both are examples of totalitarianism. Totalitarianism generally masquerades as another political ideology and takes on the trappings of whatever is culturally significant to the proposed in group. 

Communism is the state of having no state as described by Karl Marx the father of modern communism (who himself had some very problematic antisemitic beliefs that would have made him a poor communist).
#12
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
I take wylteds stance, we need to focus on America before uniting with other countries