What is fantastic and new is that these obvious things are documented and published, by people who are in a unique position to verify them.
We all know North Korea is nuts, but it's news when their BFF China calls it a spoiled child. Then China is forced to publicly acknowledge their desire for Korean unification.
China hasn't publicly acknowledged a desire for unification. We know the same thing now as we knew 3 years ago: that there are elements in Chinese officialdom that would like an end to the horrorshow that is the DPRK, and that the military still views the DPRK as a vital buffer against the west.
Right. In the great rock-paper-scissors game of ideology-nationalism-money, money wins every time. South Korea is a much better trading partner than the black hole in the ground that is North Korea. A hole in which China has dumped billions of dollars with pretty much no return outside of fulfilling a desire for a cold-war style buffer zone. Plus the bonus of South Korea not really being a threat to China anymore (you could debate they weren't ever a threat and the end to the Korean war was a big misunderstanding but that's a different debate).
What? Imperialism is seldom about money. Trade is much better to make money than war. War only costs money, and 'acquired' territories don't make money, they just cost it - so much that many a kingdom with too aggressive expansion policies has gone (nearly) bankrupt because of it.
One can argue that some resources are not equal to money -- say China's imperialist expansion into non-resource rich areas as a method of buffer zone acquisition against strong foreign powers -- e.g. resources = security model.
But from before Rome on, most empires adopt an expansionist policy as a method of acquiring resources to turn into money. Kill the inhabitants, take their stuff, everybody gets rich.
resource = money model.
Here's some relevant background
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_EmpireDuring the Age of Discovery in the 15th and 16th centuries, Portugal and Spain pioneered European exploration of the globe, and in the process established large overseas empires. Envious of the great wealth these empires bestowed, England, France and the Netherlands began to establish colonies and trade networks of their own in the Americas and Asia.
erp -- thought I read that somewhere, but that indeed would be a bit much to expect.
I love all the stuff about Afghanistan, the VP with $50MM in walking around money. There's abstract corruption, but the detail is what really stirs the pot.
There are five thousand results on Google News for 2009 on [karzai corruption] alone. Come on. This isn't "abstract vs. concrete"; it's "information vs. narrative". Narrative is addictive. We lap it up. That's why the press runs it. That's the vulnerability WL takes advantage of (for better or worse).
Comments
What is fantastic and new is that these obvious things are documented and published, by people who are in a unique position to verify them.
We all know North Korea is nuts, but it's news when their BFF China calls it a spoiled child. Then China is forced to publicly acknowledge their desire for Korean unification.
China hasn't publicly acknowledged a desire for unification. We know the same thing now as we knew 3 years ago: that there are elements in Chinese officialdom that would like an end to the horrorshow that is the DPRK, and that the military still views the DPRK as a vital buffer against the west.
Right. In the great rock-paper-scissors game of ideology-nationalism-money, money wins every time. South Korea is a much better trading partner than the black hole in the ground that is North Korea. A hole in which China has dumped billions of dollars with pretty much no return outside of fulfilling a desire for a cold-war style buffer zone. Plus the bonus of South Korea not really being a threat to China anymore (you could debate they weren't ever a threat and the end to the Korean war was a big misunderstanding but that's a different debate).
> In the great rock-paper-scissors game of ideology-nationalism-money, money wins every time.
Why did WWI happen, then?
Money.
Or if you want to get precise, imperialist policies (which are about Money in the end).
What? Imperialism is seldom about money. Trade is much better to make money than war. War only costs money, and 'acquired' territories don't make money, they just cost it - so much that many a kingdom with too aggressive expansion policies has gone (nearly) bankrupt because of it.
What is Imperialism about then?
It's always about resource acquisition.
One can argue that some resources are not equal to money -- say China's imperialist expansion into non-resource rich areas as a method of buffer zone acquisition against strong foreign powers -- e.g. resources = security model.
But from before Rome on, most empires adopt an expansionist policy as a method of acquiring resources to turn into money. Kill the inhabitants, take their stuff, everybody gets rich. resource = money model.
Here's some relevant background
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire During the Age of Discovery in the 15th and 16th centuries, Portugal and Spain pioneered European exploration of the globe, and in the process established large overseas empires. Envious of the great wealth these empires bestowed, England, France and the Netherlands began to establish colonies and trade networks of their own in the Americas and Asia.
Yes, though that's not the whole story.
Have you heard of principal-agent conflicts? What benefits certain subgroups / lobbies may not benefit the organisation as a whole.
I agree. Some people, like defence contractors do make lots of money with war, though.
erp -- thought I read that somewhere, but that indeed would be a bit much to expect.
I love all the stuff about Afghanistan, the VP with $50MM in walking around money. There's abstract corruption, but the detail is what really stirs the pot.
There are five thousand results on Google News for 2009 on [karzai corruption] alone. Come on. This isn't "abstract vs. concrete"; it's "information vs. narrative". Narrative is addictive. We lap it up. That's why the press runs it. That's the vulnerability WL takes advantage of (for better or worse).