-
ODT Gun Show this Saturday! - Click here for info and tickets!
ODT help me on a paper?
- Thread starter oneill
- Start date
FWIW:
Mercantilism was predicated upon a colonial system where there was a distinct power dynamic from motherland to colony. The mother country expected the colonies to provide raw materials back to the homeland and then to be a willing market for the finished goods produced using those raw materials. The Great Powers of Europe quickly divided up the world and set out to exploit their colonies to their advantage on the Continent. We know how that worked out. If you took the position that the US relationship with China was a post-industrial economic mercantilism where we and others ship raw materials to Beijing and then buy the crap they produce, you have a very closely correlated example. Same thing goes for Saudi Arabia. Tracing that power dynamic might lead you to something interesting. I might argue that in this scenario China is on top of the power dynamic and the rest of the world, more or less, is subordinate.
As we are just spitballing here...Without looking through the peer reviewed journals on Galileo, I thought to argue that with increasing globalization, the liberalism position would inevitably be confirmed. As each country becomes more dependent on it's trading partners whether China, India or oil producing countries in the Middle East, increasing contact would inevitably lead to evolutionary social and political changes in the less "developed" world. We see this in the loosened economic policy that China has pursued for the last twenty years or so. Yet the centrally managed economy and society are alive and well even as the economic reins have been loosened to include limited capitalism. The conventional wisdom that a market economy needed a democratic government to flourish is arguably being tested in China and is failing. Observing the events of the Arab Spring which brought down several tyrants with whom the US was friendly show that the masses had to be assuaged in some manner. In Saudi Arabia, the House of Saud increased subsidies throughout the economy to mollify any discontent at the lack of transparent government there. This was only possible because of the oil revenues. In Egypt, the army took over and determined that the protests were over. By extension, one might argue that the limited capitalism that China now allows can be evaluated in this light. I don't know if you're old enough to remember Tiananmin Square but the Chinese army harshly put down a movement just like the Arab Spring in the summer of '89. Interestingly enough and of absolutely no use to you, is that these student led demonstrations for democratic reforms grew out of the problems such as inflation associated with the economic liberalization of the early 70's. Anyway, as you can see taking either side has some real meat you should be able to chew on for page after page!
Mercantilism was predicated upon a colonial system where there was a distinct power dynamic from motherland to colony. The mother country expected the colonies to provide raw materials back to the homeland and then to be a willing market for the finished goods produced using those raw materials. The Great Powers of Europe quickly divided up the world and set out to exploit their colonies to their advantage on the Continent. We know how that worked out. If you took the position that the US relationship with China was a post-industrial economic mercantilism where we and others ship raw materials to Beijing and then buy the crap they produce, you have a very closely correlated example. Same thing goes for Saudi Arabia. Tracing that power dynamic might lead you to something interesting. I might argue that in this scenario China is on top of the power dynamic and the rest of the world, more or less, is subordinate.
As we are just spitballing here...Without looking through the peer reviewed journals on Galileo, I thought to argue that with increasing globalization, the liberalism position would inevitably be confirmed. As each country becomes more dependent on it's trading partners whether China, India or oil producing countries in the Middle East, increasing contact would inevitably lead to evolutionary social and political changes in the less "developed" world. We see this in the loosened economic policy that China has pursued for the last twenty years or so. Yet the centrally managed economy and society are alive and well even as the economic reins have been loosened to include limited capitalism. The conventional wisdom that a market economy needed a democratic government to flourish is arguably being tested in China and is failing. Observing the events of the Arab Spring which brought down several tyrants with whom the US was friendly show that the masses had to be assuaged in some manner. In Saudi Arabia, the House of Saud increased subsidies throughout the economy to mollify any discontent at the lack of transparent government there. This was only possible because of the oil revenues. In Egypt, the army took over and determined that the protests were over. By extension, one might argue that the limited capitalism that China now allows can be evaluated in this light. I don't know if you're old enough to remember Tiananmin Square but the Chinese army harshly put down a movement just like the Arab Spring in the summer of '89. Interestingly enough and of absolutely no use to you, is that these student led demonstrations for democratic reforms grew out of the problems such as inflation associated with the economic liberalization of the early 70's. Anyway, as you can see taking either side has some real meat you should be able to chew on for page after page!
Its hard for me not to think of Cuba, we have been trying reeeeally hard to "liberalize" Cuba in the last half century and most everything has worked out poorly for the US despite their being a stones throw from Florida. Its hard to take those same things that failed in Cuba and make them work 5,000 miles away.
