Should China and the United States Go To War?

The United States stated she will sail her warships within China’s manmade island’s or islands’ 12 nautical mile, and China openly replied that it would not allow any country to violate its territory.  In coming days, if United States indeed will sail within China’s manmade islands’ 12 nautical mile and if China is indeed going to use force to stop the American warships from entering the area, we may have an uncontrollable situation in which it’s insane just to fathom about the possibility of a situation like this to occur in the first place.  The biggest question is what will happen after if China indeed sinks a ship or two that belong to the United States?  Will the United States go to war with China if such an aftermath would occur?  Who will push the red nuclear button first?  We cannot take China as Iraq, because China got so much more capabilities than Iraq could ever wish for.  China knows United States, although economically weaker by days and months, still has a very strong military and so facing the United States won’t be a walk in the park either.  It just happens that Intelligence Squared Debates program got a debate show in which it asks the debaters to actively debate on the question of “Are China and U.S. long term enemies?”  The video is right after the break.

The long term enemies part the video may get it wrong, because countries don’t look at each other as buddies but potential competitors or pawns or necessary evils or enemies.  It isn’t strange when I stated like that, because it’s true.  Basically, nobody knows how the United States and China will behave toward each other in a much longer term.  Nonetheless, at the present time, United States and China are clearly on the verge of starting a dangerous proposition in which neither country may want to back down, consequently leading to a global war.  If China and United States are at war, the war environment won’t be a vacuum space in which the participants are only China and the United States.  In fact, I believe that a war between these two giants will pull in all sorts of countries that choose sides.  Even a country wants to be neutral in such a scenario may not have a choice to do so, because geographical reason or whatever, one or both giants may want to push such a country into war anyway.

We can have a debate all we want on how long U.S. and China would be enemies, but if someone is crazy enough to think that it’s sensible to have China and United States go to war, we cannot rule out a situation in which nuclear weapons would fall off from the sky in both directions toward both countries.  By the way, Russia is China’s neighbor.  If Russia sees nuclear missiles from the United States heading toward the east, what do you think Russia will do?  If I’m a Russian leader, I would definitely think that the nuclear missiles are heading my way, and so I must reply in kind with my own nuclear missiles.  Meanwhile China too would be in panic and push the red nuclear button.  From my understanding, both China and Russia together have more nuclear weapons than the United States.  It’s not a situation I like to see for sure, because I don’t want to see my life and countless other people lives to be wasted away in seconds for power politics in geopolitical common sense.

In my opinion, geopolitical common sense is opposite from treating thy neighbor the way you want to be treated common sense, because geopolitical common sense is about not having to lose one’s position, power, and so on.  To put it bluntly, nobody wants to be a little guy, because being a king is always better.  A king can have his way, and a little guy will often have to swallow a hurtful pride.  Nonetheless, whenever we include nuclear weapons into the equation, it’s hard for a sane person to think it would be possible for United States and China to go to an all out war.  Perhaps, one side likes to think that such an all out war is insane, and so a controllable war would be possible.  One side may think that at some point, a situation got to a point that nuclear weapons may be used, they could negotiate deals to unwind down the war and nuclear weapons will not be used.  Unfortunately, in a war, I don’t think it’s that easy to control or wish a situation to occur the way we like it.  Thus, we may want to unwind the war down in a war in which nuclear weapons would be used, the enemy may not know our best intention and misread the intention somehow and nuclear weapons would be used anyway.

It’s scary to see the biggest boys on the block with nuclear weapons are about to strangle each other out.  Right after 9/11 of 2001 terrorist attack on World Trade Center’s twin towers in New York, time had become ever more dangerous.  It’s cliche to say that we are living in an interesting time, but I think cliche or not we are actually witnessing a time in which humanity is at risk of losing the sanity of it all.  What is even crazier?  It is that in a time in which I attended middle school, a time in which it was way before 9/11 of 2001, I had read something from a book in which a title I totally have now forgotten, and this something predicted the explosion of a major landmark in New York.  On 9/11 of 2001, I could not believe of what I’d witnessed on that day, and it reminded me a prediction I’d read in a book way back then.  How could a prediction be so true even though prediction is purely a fiction?  In my opinion, prediction is a fiction unless it becomes real.  Today, some people like to use bible prophecy which had been written eons ago to predict a war between China and the United States.  I want to say this, be careful of what you wish for!  A prediction may come true if we believe it and allow it to happen.

Without Moral, War Cannot Be Won, Peace Cannot Be Upheld

I’m a nobody, but I do have an opinion on how important morality is in a time of peace and war.  In peacetime, a country with moral on her side will be able to spread, influent, and expand soft power throughout the world.  In wartime, a country can use moral to rally allies and hearts to strengthen her war agendas.  In my opinion, moral is super important for a country to uphold as you never know in time of need the only thing a country can fall back onto for support and strength is the morality.

With right moral values that do not appear to be having hidden agendas, a country can use her moral values to push for an agenda on a world stage.  Nonetheless, forcefully pushing for an agenda in a way that it seems to utilizing a country’s moral values for blackmailing another would render her moral values almost ineffective.  In the short run, it would seem to work, but in the longer run she would find out that her earlier efforts have been waning and losing fast.

In wartime, moral values can glue disparate ideas and forces into a united front.  Unity in strength and efforts in wartime is super important, because without this everything would not be able to move forward in time of need.  Without unity, there would be no hope left for fighting against an enemy.  Without hope, there won’t be another fight.  Thus, it’s important that moral values are being upheld at the highest esteem in wartime.

When a government sets up a propaganda machine, her purpose is clear.  She is trying to unite minds in one direction for a purpose that she wants to achieve.  In general, she wants to convince her population that her side holds all the right moral values.  Propaganda is complex, but the purpose of propagandizing is rather clear.  It’s to convince and make belief.  Nonetheless, in the long run, propaganda would fail terribly if the government does not hold moral values that people at large would hold dear to their hearts.  After all, there is always someone else who would want to pick apart the propaganda plot.

Even in a single battle, the side with the moral values that worth to die for may enable soldiers in such a battle to fight with all their mights.  Perhaps, with such a purpose or purposes, these soldiers may actually allow her side to gain an upper hand in wartime even when this very single battle is lost.  This shows how important moral values are for peace and war.

In summary, I think moral values that do matter to people are the ones that would encourage people in peacetime and win war in wartime.  Without the moral values that do matter to the people, propaganda would work for awhile until the illusion breaks apart.  Without the right morals, a country cannot win hearts and minds.  Simply put, moral is super important for a country to not only win hearts and minds, but to also build and upkeep her freedom.  A freedom in which allowing her regime to last much longer than otherwise.

Common Sense Policies Can Better A Country

When the poorest man or woman needs to find a way to make a living, he or she needs the support of the working class industry.  Within this industry, there may be factories of all sorts, and there may be service jobs of all sorts.  Nonetheless, if a large country focuses on service sector only, there won’t be enough jobs.  Furthermore, if the working class environment doesn’t provide the diversity of both service and factory jobs, then there would be less choices for working class group to find the right jobs that would fit their abilities and demands.

This is why I think it’s wrong for a country to be narrow mind in term of thinking do away of this sector and that sector, because the less available job sectors there are the less jobs there will be for the working class group.  Often the poorest people in a country would find themselves toil away in the working class sectors.  Without enough manufacturing and servicing jobs, the working class group would not be able to put foods on their tables.  Basically, the working class sectors are the last resorts for the poorest people in a country.  When the last resorts are not available, the people would find themselves drowning in debts and financial difficulties.

Without the working class sectors to support the poorest people in a country, there won’t be a way for the poorest people in a country to sustain and wait for better opportunities to come by.  When minimum wage is too high, the employers for working class sectors would try to find ways to cut costs.  Perhaps, these employers would fire their employees to cut even more costs to boost profitability for a business.  Do away with minimum wage altogether may allow employers to exploit their employees with lower wages, but competition to acquire good employees will provide higher wages regardless.  With minimum wage, small businesses will find surviving to be harder than usual, and big businesses will have great advantages over small businesses as they got more cash to pay for the minimum wage.

High income tax would furthermore drive the poorest man or woman to the brink of desperation.  High corporation taxes would export jobs to countries with less corporation taxes, because we are living in a globalized world.  Finding the balance that keeps a country wealthy but not try to tax the working class people or corporations too much is a tall order.  Nonetheless, it would be wise to do so, because taxing the local population and companies too much would destroy a country’s future.

What about sale taxes?  Well, high sale taxes or any tax we could speak of would be a disaster anyway.  Thus, minimum sale taxes are necessary too.  Local population would appreciate to buy things with cheaper sale taxes in the market environment with either low or high inflation.  We are not living in a perfect world/country, thus we cannot demand to do away with all taxes, but high tax of anything is a recipe for disaster.  Common sense, really!  Anybody, educated or not, would understand this!

When tax codes are unclear and misleading, corporations can use lot of cash to hire lawyers to find loopholes within the tax codes.  Meanwhile, the working class people would not have the luxury of hiring expensive lawyers to find the loopholes within the tax codes for them.  Complex tax codes would discourage people to start a small business.  Without enough small businesses around, there would be less jobs around.  With not enough jobs around, working class people will find themselves to have less choices in making a living.  They might go hungry!

In summary, there are many things that can go wrong for a country, but things cannot be worse if a country implements common sense policies.  These policies are competing for keeping working class jobs inside a country, lowering taxes, and cleaning up the tax codes.  Of course, these three policies are never enough to fix all the problems of any country, because there are other improvements such as building and improving infrastructures.  I think with common sense policies, a country would go far!

Dr. Ron Paul On China’s Currency Devaluation And Currency War

Dr. Ron Paul warns more bad time to come as China is now beginning to participate in currency war.  Today, as it’s happening now, China devalues its currency to 1.9% weaker than the pegged Dollar (USA) (according to WSJ).  Market in the USA goes negative, and the world is actively watching China’s movements.  Dr. Ron Paul thinks what China is doing cannot solve China’s slow down in the long run, because the market eventually will force other countries to do the same thing which negates the benefits of what China is doing now.  Since China is devaluing its currency as we speak, can the FED in USA be able to raise interest rate?  Is China sending a message to the IMF and USA for not including China’s Yuan in SDR basket thus far?  How far China will devalue her currency?  Anyhow, check out Dr. Ron Paul’s message on China’s currency devaluation in the video right after the break.  Enjoy!!!

Sticks and Stones

In nuclear age, some people tend to think numbers don’t matter, because one nuke can send millions and more to the grave.  Nonetheless, I can’t help but wonder what if all the nukes go off but fail to kill the very last couple thousands of human beings, because the last few ones are resilient as cockroaches.  This shows that number does matter.  With enough number, even all the nukes go off, some human beings will be able to carry on with sticks and stones.  These people will live, but they will suffer a hell that they wish they had never been born.  Perhaps, Einstein can be wrong in some mathematical equations, but he might be dead right on people who live through the next great war will have to use sticks and stones for their regiments.

I’ve always had this thought in the back of my head, and it keeps on telling me that nuclear winter is coming.  We have witnessed atomic bombs went off in WWII in Japan, and the devastation of these bombs left behind was godlike destruction.  According to https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=1006041224270, a single modern nuclear bomb such as hydrogen bomb can be 1000 times more powerful than an atomic bomb.  With this picture of how powerful a hydrogen bomb may be, do we really want to test to see Einstein is right about sticks and stones?  Although I think there will be some lucky souls that might survive the successive nuclear bomb attacks — they might have underground bunkers and whatnot that can resist nuclear bomb attacks — but I doubt that we would know for sure who could win in the battle of number versus nuclear weapon.

In WWI, people were convinced that peace would prevail as the twentieth century was young.  I had heard some people mentioned how people back then believed modern trades and business links would bring peace and prevail over war.  Unfortunately, they were so wrong as WWI broke out in July 28th of 1914.  Nowadays, some people are believing that the world is so interconnected by modern communications, transportations, financial connections, trade links, and whatnot that WWIII would be impossible.  These people may want to refresh their memory of WWI, because history can sometimes be a great teacher.

In my opinion, it’s not a conspiracy theory to think that WWIII might happen.  It takes only one rouge state with many friends that starts the attack on another state with many friends to have a WWIII started.  In fact, it might just be about one state is winning an economic battle against another state, and the state that is losing in the economic warfare would begin to lash out with military prowess.  In today world, I’m pretty sure that two big powerful states that got friends may very well start a WWIII easily.  Perhaps, smaller states that are friends of the superpowers would push the superpowers into WWIII.  If a superpower fails to protect a smaller state or giving a smaller state a sense of security, I don’t think such a superpower would be able to recruit more friends into her alliance structure.  Sure, a WWIII may also start out with proxy wars in smaller states, but the fire of WWIII may eventually engulf the whole world.

We know wars such as WWI, WWII, and possible WWIII are wars that require traditional military structures.  By this I meant the battlefield will be littered with as many weapons and soldiers as possible.  Nonetheless, I think WWIII will also see nontraditional battlefields.  How come?  The future war is going to be a war of unrestricted warfare tactics and strategies.  From guerrilla tactics to massive force blitzkrieg, all is going to be carried out in WWIII.  Of course, all of that may not be even mattered if states with nuclear weapons decide to empty their nuclear arsenals as much and as fast as possible.

Knowing the truth of how ugly a future world war would be, why would humans even think about playing a zero sum game?  Perhaps, we are humans, but we still have some ape DNA strands within us still.  Only animals (e.g., ape, whale, bird, etc…) know the trap is around the corner and yet they still head right into it.  Let’s hope Einstein will be very wrong on how humans will resort to sticks and stones for regiments, because otherwise it would be insane.

Should Minimum Wage Be Raised Or Not?

For pure intellectual reason, I got interested in the debate of should we raise or not raise the minimum wage.  After watching Walter Block and Bill Quigley debate on minimum wage, my interest in this topic can only be enhanced.  The video of this debate is right after the break.

In my opinion, minimum wage is good when you apply it in good time.  The key is good time.  What is good time?  Good time is when the economy is doing good, low inflation on basic need prices (e.g., food, clothes, education, etc…), strong purchasing power at home and abroad (i.e., high living standard in term of strong currency value without the need of devaluing the currency for strong export market), and whatnot.  Minimum wage is effective in good time as it can apply some justice on punishing greedy corporations that just only want to maximize profitability rather than pay livable wage to their employees; punishing them to pay appropriate wage for their employees.  In good time, higher minimum wage encourages poor people to save less and spend more, but this is a redundant effort since good time doesn’t need the spending of the poor to elevate the economy.

In my opinion, minimum wage is bad when you apply it in bad time.  The key is bad time.  What is bad time?  Bad time is when high inflation prices into everything to raise the prices of foods, everyday needs, rents, housing, and whatnot.  Even high inflation in currency would be a bad thing too as it devalues the currency power (i.e., purchasing power), leading to a lower standard of living, comparing to a normal standard living of course.  As the weaker the currency the more you have to slave away for money to just get what you need.  An example would be high inflation of $1 would require $2 or $3 to buy one lollipop instead of $1 a lollipop.  You probably think I have digressed with the inflation talk, but I just want to emphasize that raising minimum wage in bad time can encourage the inflation to go on steroid.

Why raising minimum wage in bad time could supersize inflation?  Let’s assume that you are an employer of a small shop.  You cannot really afford to hire too many workers.  Thus, you want to make sure each worker you hire does have high productivity rate even though you may not be able to measure such a thing in real number.  Nonetheless, you want to have a feeling that a specific worker you hire is doing a good job for your business.  You know each worker would cost you a lot in term of wage if you have to pay the worker a higher minimum wage.  When a government mandates that you need to pay higher minimum wage, it makes the choice of firing a worker easier for you since you have to think about sustaining the profitability, minimizing the cost of doing business and whatnot.  Furthermore, you would probably include the cost of higher minimum wage for an employee in the products that you are producing, servicing, selling, and trading.  The employees who work for you got higher minimum wage, but they don’t have more money since the purchasing power of their wage hasn’t changed much for the prices of the products they may buy would go up.  Not only the employees but the employers themselves are customers, thus the costs of doing business such as buying materials for business would go up.  Simply put, raising minimum wage in bad time invites inflation to become hyper inflated.  It would be bad for the whole economy.

Big corporations love to have a good public relation image, because they think good public relation image will popularize their brand even more.  Furthermore, corporations believe that the more popular a brand is in image, the better the brand would perform in selling whatever.  It’s common sense really!  Thus in bad time, big corporations won’t mind raising minimum wage for their employees, because their profit margin is already high.  At the same time, their brand’s image gets a boost by paying higher wage for their employees in bad time.  Smaller businesses will have harder time in playing the PR game of raising wage, because their profit margin isn’t high enough to comfortably raise wage for their employees.  Thus, minimum wage encourages big corporations play PR game without taking the inflationary effect into the account.

Should we abandon minimum wage altogether?  Once minimum wage got raised, it’s really hard to undo the minimum wage’s level.  Don’t you think it’s really ugly for a government to tell her people to work for less than yesterday minimum wage?  Lowering the minimum wage isn’t going to be popular at all.  Abandoning it isn’t the solution either.  I think many things are relative, and minimum wage is definitely relative to changing time (i.e., good or bad time).  This is why I think raising minimum wage in good time would look good, and lowering the minimum wage in bad time invites protests.  I think since minimum wage is already in effect, the best thing to do is to not messing with it at all.  This means you better have a really good reason to raise the minimum wage.  Instead of messing with minimum wage to help the poor out, why not aiming for low inflation prices of foods, clothes, and whatnot.  Lower inflation would help out the poor in term of purchasing power as long the currency of a country isn’t already devalued to the point of near worthless.  After all, cheaper foods and whatnot would be a good thing for the poor and everybody else!

In conclusion, I don’t think minimum wage is the same thing as high productive wage.  I think individual company can do good by paying high productive wage (i.e., paying more) for employee who has done a stellar job in his/her role, because retaining a good employee from leaving the company for a competitor would be a good thing, in the consideration of having good, long term, business prospect.  When raising minimum wage without thinking about the consequence in having inflation on steroid would be extremely irresponsible thing to do.  In my opinion, instead of messing with the minimum wage, the government should worry about controlling the high inflation in everyday needs for the poor.  I don’t think the argument of minimum wage encourages productivity makes any sense, because productivity is a self-fulfilling-prophecy kind of thing.  Higher productivity will always be in demand in the business world, thus the competition for higher productivity will be abundant.  Higher minimum wage may encourage employers to fire employees easier and hire employees with better productivity rate.  Without raising minimum wage, the employers may give the employees with low productivity rate a second chance in retaining their jobs.  After all, retraining new employees would disrupt the flow of productivity anyway!  In general, the less poor people out there on the street, the better the economy and the society will be more stable.  If raising minimum wage can make inflation goes on steroid, then raising minimum wage is just an illusion for having done something good.