Soft anti-Americanism
- From: Les Cargill <lcargill@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2008 14:36:40 -0500
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200812/fallows-chinese-banker
This is an article by James Fallows, an interview with
Gao Xiqing. Gao Xiqing is one of the giants of Chinese finance.
It makes some great points - we have too much emphasis on
abstract financial manipulation at the expense of manipulation
of actual goods and services. Compensation is very different,
expectations are vastly different.
But what shines through to me is what I call "soft
anti-Americanism". It's a less warlike Qutbism, and
it's very striking. The title says it all - "Be Nice
to the Countries that Lend You Money."
There's a vague reference to pulling out of Iraq. But it's
mostly surprising to me how scattershot the thing is, how
little coherence his criticism bears. Not all - but there are tow
modes - one is more technical, and the other is
attitudinal.
I say "mild Qutbism", and I mean it. The resonances are somewhat
striking. "Finally, after months and months of struggling with your own
ideology, with your own pride, your self-right-eousness … finally [the
U.S. applied] one of the great gifts of Americans, which is that you’re
pragmatic." That's very similar to what a Qutbist would say, albeit with
a dollop of sugar at the end. And of course funneling billions into
failed organizations is, I suppose, obvious to a person who was alive in China when he was.
I don't disapprove of this sort of anti-Ameericanism, but it seems
a displacement in this case - his fortune is completely due to the
very things he decries. He also misidentifies the role of savings and
such in this. We could, if we wanted, call the experiment in
industrialism in China a form of immigration with out having to leave
the mother country. We moved 1900s New York *to China*, because that's
cheaper now. This is to me analogous to Britain moving its
low-end industrial revolution to America because *it* was cheaper. Both
statements leave out enough detail to be wrong on my part, but it's
*like* that.
Sure, there was ideology, but it was complex mixes of ideologies,
forged on the anvil of politics. Pride? Self-righteousness? Erm...
maybe, in cases, but the underlying structure is a perception
of dishumility. I dunno - what do you call the hubris of a Countrywide?
Stupid. That's what you call it.
I can't deny him his observations - but the word that doesn't appear
is "stupid". These things are stupid. I've been playing defense
myself against various bubbles since the mid 90s.
But it's ultimately kind of surprising how strongly the phrase "you
think you're better than us" shines through all that. "I won’t say
kowtow [with a laugh], but at least, be nice to the countries that lend
you money."
Very strange. I'm not 100% sure what to make of that. Cynically, if we
sent flatterers with nice gifts over, he'd be happy? America is brusque,
no doubt. But would it have made a difference?
What he is identifying in my mind is the Neocon Thing - let the
intellectuals write the book/plan, and the foot soldiers ( Bush
being the top foot soldier ) simply don't apologize or explain.
I appreciate how all this must look to a factory girl in Bejing, but
there's really not that much to be done about it. If America crashes,
SFAIK it all goes with it.
--
Les Cargill
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Soft anti-Americanism
- From: patmpowers
- Re: Soft anti-Americanism
- From: Rod Speed
- Re: Soft anti-Americanism
- From: Michael Coburn
- Re: Soft anti-Americanism
- Prev by Date: Henry George on Public and Private Debt
- Next by Date: Jews and the Gaza holocaust
- Previous by thread: Henry George on Public and Private Debt
- Next by thread: Re: Soft anti-Americanism
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|