Korea Situation

[Gallus]

I don't want to sound like one of the ignorant "yeah 'Merica!!" types but in response to the comments made by Soron I do want to say that all things considered, and compared to previous superpowers, the world has fared all right under the US. Think the country is not doing too bad of a job.

Not at all, it's doing an excellent job. It's just a coincidence that every country the US "liberates" is doing a lot worse after the "liberation" than it was before.

[Love Mountain]

SEOUL, South Korea — South Korea elected Moon Jae-in, a human rights lawyer who favors dialogue with North Korea, as president on Tuesday, returning the nation’s liberals to power after nearly a decade in the political wilderness and setting up a potential rift with the United States over the North’s nuclear weapons program.

His victory caps a remarkable national drama in which a corruption scandal, mass protests and impeachment forced a South Korean president from office for the first time in almost 60 years, leaving the conservative establishment in disarray and its former leader in jail.

After two terms of Saenuri Party leadership, I guess somebody is taking notice.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

I hope "dialogue" in this case just means bribery of DPRK officials en masse.
If he actually thinks that he can accomplish anything of substance with the DPRK via dialogue then he is nuttier than cult lady was. If there was ever to be a dialogue to resolve issues of substance it would have to come from the USA and/or China.

[RedGuard]

so is this the same guy that was supposed to be the SK Bernie Sanders? Why does it seem like America is losing Asia. We have a Marcos wannabe in the Phillipines and now we have a leader of south Korea that wants to draw closer to china. Thanks Trump, your showboating really helped motivate the Japanese at least.

[Love Mountain]

so is this the same guy that was supposed to be the SK Bernie Sanders? Why does it seem like America is losing Asia. We have a Marcos wannabe in the Phillipines and now we have a leader of south Korea that wants to draw closer to china. Thanks Trump, your showboating really helped motivate the Japanese at least.

Doesn't sound like it. Sounds like Clinton. Center-Right, Center-Left at best. Hardly anyone votes pro-labor anywhere anymore.

[ByzantinePowerGame]

Doesn't sound like it. Sounds like Clinton. Center-Right, Center-Left at best. Hardly anyone votes pro-labor anywhere anymore.

Pro-labor is anti-consumer.

Whenever a union in on strike they are on strike against the customers, they want wages increased and they want consumers to pay for this.

Americans need to stop thinking like workers and start thinking like consumers.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

America is losing Asia because China's economic influence is greater. For Taiwan, as an example, to separate from China is literally impossible and we can't prop up Taiwan indefinitely unless we also have China. Same reason why the Soviets couldn't really do anything with Cuba, because that island cannot become economically independent from the USA, it is impossible. Unless the Chinese economy collapsed then there isn't a thing we can do short of destroying China by force of arms, it is just a matter of time before we lose Asia.

The Korea issue has long preceded Trump and it was evident that the ROK would slide closer to China since about 2013. What really did them in was when cult lady got impeached. The Philippines was really an overnight twist when Rodrigo Duterte was elected. What Trump could and should do is assure these states that he will neither concede to China nor withdraw support from these states. The rest is almost a coin toss since Trump does not have the means to remove Chinese influence in these countries.

[Love Mountain]

Pro-labor is anti-consumer.

Whenever a union in on strike they are on strike against the customers, they want wages increased and they want consumers to pay for this.

Americans need to stop thinking like workers and start thinking like consumers.

Classic supply-side vs demand-side economics argument. People work before they spend. Labor before Consumer.

America is losing Asia because China's economic influence is greater. For Taiwan, as an example, to separate from China is literally impossible and we can't prop up Taiwan indefinitely unless we also have China. Same reason why the Soviets couldn't really do anything with Cuba, because that island cannot become economically independent from the USA, it is impossible. Unless the Chinese economy collapsed then there isn't a thing we can do short of destroying China by force of arms, it is just a matter of time before we lose Asia.

The Korea issue has long preceded Trump and it was evident that the ROK would slide closer to China since about 2013. What really did them in was when cult lady got impeached. The Philippines was really an overnight twist when Rodrigo Duterte was elected. What Trump could and should do is assure these states that he will neither concede to China nor withdraw support from these states. The rest is almost a coin toss since Trump does not have the means to remove Chinese influence in these countries.

This is a tough sell. Many, including myself, are against any internationalism now. While normally I am, I believe its time to rebuild things at home first. Especially in the face of the recent catastrophe.

[ByzantinePowerGame]

Classic supply-side vs demand-side economics argument. People work before they spend. Labor before Consumer.

Labor, particularly unskilled and semi-skilled, is increasingly irrelevant due to automation. Unskilled labor is a dime a dozen and there is absolutely no future in unskilled labor. The world has no need for people whose only skill is to dig a ditch or swing a hammer.

I am more interested in society being able to have access to cheaply priced cars than I am in the "rights" of the automobile workers [semi-skilled labor] to continue making $60 per hour for doing shoddy assembly work.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

I'm also somewhat on the fence about this as much as I hate to admit it. Domestically the USA is in no position to start throwing their weight around abroad. But in my opinion that only emphasizes the need to have close ties to our allies in these areas. America did not single-handedly contain Red China as all the countries in the Archipelago contributed. On the other hand China has gotten this far not by force of arms but by subversion and economic policies and to that end one could argue that the Archipelago strategy was ultimately, though probably not yet, a failure. With Taiwan, ROK and Duterte's policies one might say that we have already lost unless we push back. Duterte's gambit could easily backfire if we made the appropriate response.

Perhaps our strategy is too passive but economically a war with China would be expensive both in lives, political stability and financially. In my opinion our only option (other than a swift strike) is economic war but the cost of competing makes this unfeasible. Though I do think we could use subversion in China using outlets like Taiwan and Hong Kong. Our goal ought to be the loss of power by the CCP, assuming that happened what repercussions could that have? Though I think China has been using subversion on us as well and we are simply unwilling to respond. For example we removed our propaganda radio towers, but really we need to ask ourselves why. Furthermore we have barely attempted to stop Chinese encroachment. But protectionism can be counter productive, if we used protectionism and limited ROK and Japanese trade would we simply not push them to export to China and likewise receive more imports from China?

Hard to say since China could easily succumb to their own protectionism that would lead them to reject imports and increase regulations. The Chinese domestic market is an untapped resource, one which the CCP does not wish to share with world as they prefer their people to buy Chinese goods. However Chinese GDP per capita makes it hard to actually profit from the Chinese market either way since who is actually going to buy these goods within China. Unemployment is also growing in China as is moving industry out of the country to increase their profits with foreign labour and a shift towards the service economy. More over the tycoons which are moving out of China as well as the two stock market crashes, corruption and poor production standards which should be a red flag that China's economy is going under. It is quite possible that the Red Dragon will simply implode under its own weight.

[Love Mountain]

Labor, particularly unskilled and semi-skilled, is increasingly irrelevant due to automation. Unskilled labor is a dime a dozen and there is absolutely no future in unskilled labor. The world has no need for people whose only skill is to dig a ditch or swing a hammer.

New technology creates new demand for labor. Let's not be Luddites now.

I am more interested in society being able to have access to cheaply priced cars than I am in the "rights" of the automobile workers [semi-skilled labor] to continue making $60 per hour for doing shoddy assembly work.

And nobody said that. Stop strawmanning.

I'm also somewhat on the fence about this as much as I hate to admit it. Domestically the USA is in no position to start throwing their weight around abroad. But in my opinion that only emphasizes the need to have close ties to our allies in these areas. America did not single-handedly contain Red China as all the countries in the Archipelago contributed. On the other hand China has gotten this far not by force of arms but by subversion and economic policies and to that end one could argue that the Archipelago strategy was ultimately, though probably not yet, a failure. With Taiwan, ROK and Duterte's policies one might say that we have already lost unless we push back. Duterte's gambit could easily backfire if we made the appropriate response.

Perhaps our strategy is too passive but economically a war with China would be expensive both in lives, political stability and financially. In my opinion our only option (other than a swift strike) is economic war but the cost of competing makes this unfeasible. Though I do think we could use subversion in China using outlets like Taiwan and Hong Kong. Our goal ought to be the loss of power by the CCP, assuming that happened what repercussions could that have? Though I think China has been using subversion on us as well and we are simply unwilling to respond. For example we removed our propaganda radio towers, but really we need to ask ourselves why. Furthermore we have barely attempted to stop Chinese encroachment. But protectionism can be counter productive, if we used protectionism and limited ROK and Japanese trade would we simply not push them to export to China and likewise receive more imports from China?

Hard to say since China could easily succumb to their own protectionism that would lead them to reject imports and increase regulations. The Chinese domestic market is an untapped resource, one which the CCP does not wish to share with world as they prefer their people to buy Chinese goods. However Chinese GDP per capita makes it hard to actually profit from the Chinese market either way since who is actually going to buy these goods within China. Unemployment is also growing in China as is moving industry out of the country to increase their profits with foreign labour and a shift towards the service economy. More over the tycoons which are moving out of China as well as the two stock market crashes, corruption and poor production standards which should be a red flag that China's economy is going under. It is quite possible that the Red Dragon will simply implode under its own weight.

I'm of the opinion that even conventional war between Great Powers is impossible at this point. Somebody will eventually back down. Though you never know with these aggressive regimes. I mean I've said before that I don't know much about Asia, but from the limited information that I'm working with, it seems to me that the "Great Game" in the Pacific and Asia is simply going to be economic rights, and we can easily win there today imo. Even with the battered economy and low consumer demand, we are still the world's biggest market. China? Not quite there yet though they do represent a large market as well, but, this is where India can also play a key part. Especially since India is much like Russia, very pragmatic AND they are a market that's only marginally below China. India can be the Chinese counter-weight in the Pacific. Really, imo, the only thing America really needs to do, is to continually reinforce their security commitments in the Pacific. In the meantime, there are much lower-hanging fruit, Africa. The second biggest continent in the world and the one with the largest untapped resources. And hell, you can sell it to the public. You're not installing regimes, you're actually saving lives, building water wells, blah blah blah. One American out of fifty actually even knows where a country like Tanzania is on the map. Who the hell knows.

Why the West would want to involve itself with Ukraine and duke it out with Russia is beyond me when there are countries like Congo with proven massive resource wealth. If there is a place that needs a pro-Western regime... it's the Congo. And hasn't anyone seen the growth numbers on these places? These people don't care about regulations, or rules, or any of that crap. They just want some food on the table. The World Bank report,

"The sustained decline in commodity prices has dealt a major setback to the region, threatening recent progress on poverty and revealing sizable macroeconomic imbalances in some countries. Regional per capita output contracted in 2016, with growth and employment slowing sharply in the large commodity exporters. A significant number of Sub-Saharan Africa’s poor live in countries where per capita income growth was negative in 2016. Unless growth is restored, poverty rates will rise. This implies a dual challenge: developing new sources of growth while ensuring macroeconomic stability."

If there ever was a time to buy, buy, buy it's today. Interest rates for us are only gonna rise. African commodity prices are down, their treasuries empty, poor governments are destined to be war-torn governments thanks to those colonial lines. Get them sucking on Uncle Sam's teet and you will have leverage over them for decades to come. United States military can provide stability and safety where private firms are too scared to invest. Isn't this the kind of we were accused of in Iraq that we should be doing right now in Africa?

[ByzantinePowerGame]

We are entering a new era where there will simply never be a demand for 50% of the workforce to be engaged in manufacturing.

The same way that we don't live in an era where 90% of people engage in agriculture, there is no demand for 90% of workers, or even 10% of workers, or even 3% of workers, in the industrial world, to be engaged in agriculture.

That era is over and never coming back.

[Love Mountain]

We are entering a new era where there will simply never be a demand for 50% of the workforce to be engaged in manufacturing.

The same way that we don't live in an era where 90% of people engage in agriculture, there is no demand for 90% of workers, or even 10% of workers, or even 3% of workers, in the industrial world, to be engaged in agriculture.

That era is over and never coming back.

Labor was reallocated from artisans and agriculture to factories. Today the shift is from factories to service. Where will they shift to next? I don't know, but the idea that 90% of us will be unemployed in the year 2200 is ridiculous to me. I'm not too worried about automation. Labor will simply shift to other sectors. The only thing that can really replace us is AI, and that isn't even in its infancy. It's hardly an embryo at this point.

[ByzantinePowerGame]

Labor was reallocated from artisans and agriculture to factories. Today the shift is from factories to service. Where will they shift to next? I don't know, but the idea that 90% of us will be unemployed in the year 2200 is ridiculous to me. I'm not too worried about automation. Labor will simply shift to other sectors. The only thing that can really replace us is AI, and that isn't even in its infancy. It's hardly an embryo at this point.

Actually 90% of the masses will be unemployed by 2040-2050, where did you get 2200? Minimum wage increases are already spurring fast food and retail to automate almost all services/functions. The future of retail is to have a skeleton crew of humans in the store and almost everything else automated. This will be the future for fast food as well.

[Love Mountain]

Actually 90% of the masses will be unemployed by 2040-2050, where did you get 2200? Minimum wage increases are already spurring fast food and retail to automate almost all services/functions. The future of retail is to have a skeleton crew of humans in the store and almost everything else automated. This will be the future for fast food as well.

There is far more demand for labor at this very moment than there are people getting fired. It's a good thing for those service jobs to get eliminated. Labor capital will simply be reallocated elsewhere as the economy re-adjusts.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

With China the CCP actually strongly regulates imports. So China is essentially shooting itself in the foot when it comes to trying to spur foreign investments in their country. That actually puts them in a much weaker position as a market. Although India is a little to complex for a definitive answer. I think unemployment in various parts of India and internal modernization and infrastructure is really at the forefront of India's economics. Together with their regional economic influence where they basically control production areas like Bangladesh by providing those cheap goods with an easy market. I don't think that India has the GDP per capita to effectively present itself as a huge market the way it is in the Western world. Technically neither does China since their production, population and market is mostly around the eastern coast of the country with much less towards the interior. So unless their population has steady employment and money to burn then foreign countries won't really get much out of China, that also does not take into account CCP control over the economy and how that stifles all sorts of investments especially foreign investment.

[Love Mountain]

I think a couple hundred million wealthy Han Chinese represent significant purchasing power. I mean, the influx of foreign dollars into West Coast and Canada has been significant enough to distort the housing markets there. That has been the limited case with wealthy Indians as well. I'm pretty confident that Asia will become a key market for consumer goods in the coming decades. Hell, maybe there will be a time when a large number of Western expats will invest into Asia instead of vice versa.

[ByzantinePowerGame]

I think a couple hundred million wealthy Han Chinese represent significant purchasing power. I mean, the influx of foreign dollars into West Coast and Canada has been significant enough to distort the housing markets there. That has been the limited case with wealthy Indians as well. I'm pretty confident that Asia will become a key market for consumer goods in the coming decades. Hell, maybe there will be a time when a large number of Western expats will invest into Asia instead of vice versa.

There are not a few hundred million wealthy people in China. At most there a few hundred million in an emerging middle class, if we are going to use that term. I dislike the term because it is nebulous, it really means nothing these days, and it has been disconnected from the historical meaning.

[RedGuard]

America is losing Asia because China's economic influence is greater. For Taiwan, as an example, to separate from China is literally impossible and we can't prop up Taiwan indefinitely unless we also have China. Same reason why the Soviets couldn't really do anything with Cuba, because that island cannot become economically independent from the USA, it is impossible. Unless the Chinese economy collapsed then there isn't a thing we can do short of destroying China by force of arms, it is just a matter of time before we lose Asia.

The Korea issue has long preceded Trump and it was evident that the ROK would slide closer to China since about 2013. What really did them in was when cult lady got impeached. The Philippines was really an overnight twist when Rodrigo Duterte was elected. What Trump could and should do is assure these states that he will neither concede to China nor withdraw support from these states. The rest is almost a coin toss since Trump does not have the means to remove Chinese influence in these countries.

Sure, makes sense from an economic standpoint. But what the hell is the U.S. military there for then? I thought we were following the old roman rules of vassal states here? Wtf. lol. I guess its a choice between being dominated by China or the united States, china makes more logical sense.

Doesn't sound like it. Sounds like Clinton. Center-Right, Center-Left at best. Hardly anyone votes pro-labor anywhere anymore.

It was CNN's Moniker I believe, thats what they called him. Of course I should have counted on CNN calling anyone remotely left to be "bernie sanders". Though he is apparently going after the "banks" so less like clinton in that department.

[Love Mountain]

There are not a few hundred million wealthy people in China. At most there a few hundred million in an emerging middle class, if we are going to use that term. I dislike the term because it is nebulous, it really means nothing these days, and it has been disconnected from the historical meaning.

Wealth is relative.

It was CNN's Moniker I believe, thats what they called him. Of course I should have counted on CNN calling anyone remotely left to be "bernie sanders". Though he is apparently going after the "banks" so less like clinton in that department.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/fea...123525219.html

"To address concerns about employment, one of Moon's campaign pledges was the creation of 12,000 new jobs in government and civil service. Government jobs are particularly sought-after by young South Koreans nowadays owing to their stability and generous pensions.

Geoffrey Cain, a business analyst and author of a forthcoming book on Samsung, noted that pledges for stricter corporate regulation disappeared from Moon's platform as the campaign wore on."

Not going to fix structural problems in South Korea.