By continuing you agree to eChinacities's Privacy Policy .
Sign up with Google
Sign up with Facebook
Q: It looks like 4 more years of Obama
And what will be the effect on China?
I'm not particularly a person who really gets into his political beliefs, nor do I try to persuade others on what I believe. In my opinion, you can pretty much throw out the political jargon that was dictated by both parties in the debate, pertaining to their stances on China. The US has no sovereignty over China and the likely hood of them being perceptive to any ideas of the sort would not exist. I see business as usual.
nevermind:
Um.... it's not about sovereignty of China. It's about policies and how they effect business between the two, so yes it does make a big difference
Good answer, BDaniels, really on the mark. Perhaps it doesn't cater to the coterie around here, but don't be dissuaded. IMHO, it's quite good.
nevermind:
On the mark? Must be life to live in a world where common sense doesn't need to exist when you can just be a chest pounding naitonalistic Chinese person.
Like it or not, the US election DOES affect China because of the amount of trade and economic action between the two combined with the disputes.
None really. Neither Obama or Romney were really going to enact any kind of economic protectionism. It'd be bad policy. Its good for China in that America will remain a reliable export market, as Obama's election is probably better for the middle class, but that's about it.
nevermind:
I am all for economic protectionism, it worked well for hundreds of years.
I really see your question as one that will require two answers. One in reference to the USA, and one in reference to China.
In regards to China, I do believe cooler heads will prevail in both sides. Let's face it, USA needs China, and China needs the USA. Maybe less politics and more talks, mixed with playing with the same set of rules, will someday find its way into this particular relationship. If that ever happens, both sides will prosper and achieve benefits.
In regards to USA (internal), Obama's victory was not as clear cut endorsement of himself and / or his policies. While the electoral votes did give him a majority and thus re-election, the popular vote indicates a 50 - 49 % split, or roughly half of those voting disagreed with his administration and policies. Funny that this is not presented by any of the news experts analyzing the results. They rather bang on the premise that Tea Party candidates of the far right were defeated (TG for hat), and that this faction is dead now (I wish).
What I see in the next four years is more of the same. A divided Congress, a Presidency ran by amateurs, by trial and error, and by printing new money even in overtime. One economic crisis less than 50 days away , the so called fiscal cliff. But there is another one looming not far behind, the debt ceiling will need to be raised too once more. And politicians care about being re-elected, not the betterment of the country.
So, for one thing I am glad is that I am not in USA, and my money is out of USA and not in dollars. I wish and hope Obama does have a proper agenda to get the economy moving, to provide jobs. Will he be a politician, or will he work for America? That remains to be seen.
mattsm84:
A little more about why this is being covered the way that it is, and why the Tea Party was the death rattle of American conservatism rather than a resurgence. There has been this idea floating around over the past two or three years that the coalition that makes up the Republican party has been slowly dying off. In specific terms, they are dependent upon white males that are over a certain age, or that do not possess a college degree. These people voted for Mitt Romney at a rate of roughly 5 to 1. But while this is the largest single group of American voters, they are, as a demographic, shrinking. Meanwhile younger voters and much much more likely to vote Democratic. Further, a quarter century ago whites in general, white men and women, were almost 90 percent of the electorate, and if the election had been held among only that group of voters only Romney would have won in a landslide as Reagan did in 84, but as of last Tuesday they comprised only 70% of voters. In very real terms this was the last time that a Republican candidate stood a chance of being elected to Presidency advocating the types of policies they tend to support. While a 50-49 split is a mandate to compromise, it assures that a compromise is more likely to happen on Democratic terms, otherwise they're looking at a series of Democratic landslides in 2016, 2018 and 2020.
HappyExPat:
If you are forecasting Democratic landslides in the next few elections, I do hope Mr Obama has something up his sleeve, and better be darn good. Four years of the same, will not elect a Democratic President. And Republicans better move from far left to a more center position, and learn to compromise, or not too many voters will go to the next election. But the next 3 or 4 months will give us an idea of what will we face 4 years from now. Too many Americans do not want to pay more taxes to be wasted in typical government spending. The solution is not to raise taxes, but to lower spending, but that does not get you votes..........
mattsm84:
Well, Happy, a couple of things. First, the Republicans are on the political right. Second, its in the demographics. If in four years both parties take the same share of white men, white women, Hispanics and blacks, then the Democrats, who won a slim majority this time will win a similar electoral victory but with a much healthier margin of the popular vote, something like 52-47. In the meantime, the Bush tax cuts will expire, which will raise revenue, and enough Republicans in the house will break rank and agree to tax increases that are tied to spending cuts, which was the sticking point last summer.
HappyExPat:
Whow, what a lapsus mentis. The Republicans in the far left. What was I thinking? I stand corrected, sorry about it. Those Republicans that you claim will agree to increase taxes in exchange for spending cuts already have said no tax increase. Increasing taxes takes money out of circulation, economy slows down. But Democrats have had many years to learn this lesson, and somehow they can not comprehend it. Take the just defeated Governor of Puerto Ricoi. In 4 years, he reduced taxes by 50 % to individuals, 30 % to business. Debt was reduced from 3.3 billion to almost nothing, revenue increased from taxes, economy grew at almost 9 % rate. And he was voted out of office !
mattsm84:
But cutting spending also removes money from the economy, and more importantly it removes money from the middle class. One the other hand raising taxes on higher incomes and continuing to spend on people with lower incomes means that wealth will be more concentrated in the middle, rather than simply hoarded at the top. Those republicans that said no to that just got their clocks cleaned, and will continue to lose national elections until they wise up and get with program. That means taking their spending cuts as tied to increases in revenue.
Obama will be better than Romney for China...........................lol
