There is already a name for a system that intentionally creates high export, low import and consumption: Merchantilism, or economic nationalism. It's a system that was imported from the West, as it was first practiced by European states. Even America's founding fathers, like Alexander Hamilton, favored such a system.

Labelling an essentially Western invention as "Confucian Imperative" exposes your ignorance of both Western and Far Eastern histories. Given that, historically, nations like China and Japan were insular societies that kept trade with the outside at a minimum. In this context, export-driven models like cerchantilism were adaptations of a characteristically Western economic model by East Asian societies.

And the first East Asian neo-merchantilist state was Japan, not China. Back when China was still a country of starving Marxist farmers, Japan was writing the playbook on government-subsidized, protectionist, export-driven economic development for Asian nations. Japan was the trendsetter, the first Asian nation in which domestic industry had the strong arm of the government, eroded American manufacturing and dumped cheaper Japanese goods into the American market. And they were an ally, think about that.

China is essentially following a similar path. Back in the early 90s people were still buying American, now they are buying Chinese. No one forced the American companies to move their manufacturing overseas, no one put a gun on the heads of American consumers to buy these goods. They did that on their own, and their money is now funding the Chinese merchantilist export-machine. We as Americans could pay a little bit more for American-made, and maybe we could have our manufacturing jobs back, but darn it if we don't love cheap crap. So yes, we do vote with our wallets. I stand by my statements and I'm not backing off.

It's not a matter of authoritarian vs democratic governments, it's a matter of the pursuit of national interest over international interest. The needs of the tribe, over the needs of the greater community. Is it fair? Hell no. It wasn't fair when the Western nations did it, and it's not fair when East Asian nations do it. But life ain't fair, little buddy. Thems the breaks.

Unfortunately Bob, China was a mercantilist empire at least as early as any modern nation in Europe--as early as the Ming Dynasty. Indeed, it was China's consistent policy, even through the radical change in governance which occured with the Qing takeover, to limit and control all imports to the country while exporting a considerable amount in the hopes of accumulating precious metals which would be proof of the emperor's power and potential largesse (the backdrop for China's condescending and supremely arrogant treatment of other nations in her history). One would expect you to at least remember this, as it typically is considered the primary cause of the Opium War.

But apart from that, your remedial appeal to tribes and your attempt at blaming China's ugly actions on things "imported" from the West (!) has that je ne sais quoi we've come to admire from you and the people we presume you hope to represent.

Whatever the case may be, there is no direct link between dynastic and modern China, policywise.

The export-driven Chinese economic policy was articulated in the 1990s and didn't hit full stride until the 2000s. That policy was influenced by the development model of Japan and other Asian nations, which was itself influenced by European merchantilism. However, the effectiveness of this Asian model in China is hampered, perhaps even endangered, by the legacy policies and institutions of Marxist-Leninist-Maoism, which has no basis on traditional Chinese culture.

Your arguments that Chinese economic policies are based on some traditional Chinese mindset, therefore, are wrong. Modern Chinese policies are not driven by Confucian mores, but by a mix of nationalism and pragmatism more common to 19th/early 20th century European states and post-WWII East Asia.

And for the record, I did not blamed China's actions on the Western "imports". It was China's choice to adopt these Western concepts, no one forced them to. My argument was in direct response to Allan's incorrect labelling of economic nationalism as a "Confucian Imperative". I'm sorry if you mis-interpreted my statements, but I'm not going to start defending points that I never made in the first place.

Actually, there are many links policywise. Would you like for me to read from the pronouncement of Emperor QianLong in the Qing Dynasty?

"The export-driven Chinese economic policy was articulated in the 1990s and didn't hit full stride until the 2000s. That policy was influenced by the development model of Japan and other Asian nations, which was itself influenced by European merchantilism. "

Yet before the hiccup of communism and domestic incompetency throughout the 20th and much of the late 19th century...China had a model. This model was based upon severely restricting imports and exporting as much as was possible (or which did not disrupt national security). This model was carried through even during the communist phase, despite the fact that China was not a major manufacturer. The emphasis on "self-reliance" while exporting virtually all of China's oil can easily and accurately be read in this way.

"However, the effectiveness of this Asian model in China is hampered, perhaps even endangered, by the legacy policies and institutions of Marxist-Leninist-Maoism, which has no basis on traditional Chinese culture."

Back to determining what is and is not Chinese/Asian? Another dangerous import, then?

"Your arguments that Chinese economic policies are based on some traditional Chinese mindset, therefore, are wrong."

Except those aren't my arguments. My argument is that China has historically shown as much if not more of a predilection toward rampant mercantilism as any Western nation. And that mercantilism is not something China has only recently adopted from seeing other countries do it effectively (even if it did give some impetus for the export model, which is only practiced to such a degree today due to the relative differences between China's domestic market vis-a-vis the globe in 1500 and that of today).

"And for the record, I did not blamed China's actions on the Western "imports"."

Ah, you claimed something was unfair (a detrimental term) and further claimed that this model was imported from the West. The reason you didn't "blame" China for its actions is because you basically said "tough" (which people typically say when they know they are benefiting by doing something ugly). But there is no doubt you attributed China's actions to a model you (falsely) claim the West initiated, and you yourself selected the word "imported" (which I find highly amusing, BTW). But at least I am pleased to read that you acknowledge China's choice in adopting such policies.

"I'm sorry if you mis-interpreted my statements, but I'm not going to start defending points that I never made in the first place."

Then write better and think more clearly.

"Would you like for me to read from the pronouncement of Emperor QianLong in the Qing Dynasty?"

That depends, does Chinese Communist Politburo craft policy based on Qing Emperor pronouncements?

"This model was carried through even during the communist phase, despite the fact that China was not a major manufacturer. The emphasis on "self-reliance" while exporting virtually all of China's oil can easily and accurately be read in this way."

Note you said 'read in this way' means your interpretation. It could well as been based on Maoist philosophy, which was to form a self-sufficient, self-reliant proletariat free from the exploiting classes.

"My argument is that China has historically shown as much if not more of a predilection toward rampant mercantilism as any Western nation. And that mercantilism is not something China has only recently adopted from seeing other countries do it effectively"

But that's precisely what happened. China jumped onto the bandwagon after the so-called "Asian Economic Miracle", quite later, mind you. The sophisticated mechanisms found in the modern Asian economic model didn't exist in the Qing or Ming Dynasty. If China was to adopt its old dynastic mercantilism, they would have utterly failed in this more sophisticated world before they even started. Just like it did back then. So yes, it was recently learned, recently adopted.

"Ah, you claimed something was unfair and further claimed that this model was imported from the West. The reason you didn't "blame" China for its actions is because you basically said "tough". But there is no doubt you attributed China's actions to a model you claim the West initiated, and you yourself selected the word "imported"

China's actions are their own choice (or at the choice of the Politburo), I've said so as much, I have never, ever placed the fault at the West. Same with Communism. If I see a guy smoking a cigarette on TV, and I made a choice to start smoking cigarettes (even though it is bad for me), I don't blame the guy on the TV. So yes to Western imported, no to the West at fault. I never said China imported good Western ideas.

"Then write better and think more clearly."

Wow, I think I found my soul mate.

"That depends, does Chinese Communist Politburo craft policy based on Qing Emperor pronouncements?"

You mean something like claim Taiwan and Tibet? I should think so. And if the links are there, who is to say it doesn't? Certainly there are threads of governance which run clear through to the present day, particularly in China's view of the outside world. But I suppose this would be of no concern to you, since it does appear you've just engaged circular thinking for you at this point, Bob.

First you claimed China was not mercantilist until it borrowed a model from a Japan who borrowed it from the West. That argument proven wrong, you then went on to say that there is no direct link between China's history of mercantilism and its present day mercantilist activities (which is the point I presume Allan was trying to make?). Now, rather than recognize that what is in question is precisely those links and whether a thread could be established historically, you would prefer to keep inanely repeating it was imported from the West.

And of course this is where the circularity becomes vertiginous. Now China's success becomes proof that it could not be doing something now that it attempted in the past. You argue that the model must be a recent adoption and therefore imported from the West for the rather absurd reason that the Ming Dynasty model was insufficiently "sophisticated", which of course leaves out several rather obvious counters to your argument: A) The modern mercantilist model is not especially sophisticated either (really.); B) There is no one modern Asian model, try as you might like to form one; C) we must assume the "Western model" you foolishly insist China imported was too, per your arguments, insufficiently sophisticated in its day to act as an original model for this new "Asian economic model", which therefore must have its own origins in Asia (again, per your arguments); and D) that China's contemporary success comes as much from investment and technological theft, which has happened in the last 20 years at a rate to dwarf anything which occured in the Qing Dynasty, and which has allowed, therefore, a much larger range of products to export. Feel free to pick one.

But of course all of these overlooks the seminal point: that the basic platform of 1) exporting as much as possible (even during difficult times) to build up precious metals or foreign reserves and 2) restricting imports wherever possible remains the same in China, from the Ming Dynasty till today (with a few notable exceptions). These are the two pillars of mercantilism. And they have been very Chinese for a long, long time.

You make some very good points, to the extent that I am willing to admit that my grasp of Chinese history is weaker than I suspect. I come from the perspective that most, if not all of the political and economic theories, like most inventions, originated from the West. That thinking now appears flawed, and this presents an incentive for me to brush up on Chinese history. My original argument was a counter to Allan's description of a mercantilist system as a unique Chinese concept (hence the label "Confucian Imperative"), which to my knowledge at the time, already took root in Europe. Now my discussions with you lead me to believe that neither me or Allan are correct. This made me reevaluate my view of mercantilism as a product of parallel development, neither unique to Europe or China.

On the question of what influenced China, there is matter of post-WWII Japan. Japan's economic development through 1954-1993 had the same characteristics you listed: focus on export, accumulation of foreign reserves, limiting imports, under the central-planning of MITI. Given China's adoption of similar characteristics around that same time (the 1990s); and given that the modern CPC philosophy is a mixture of Marxist-Leninist-Maoism and Deng Xiaoping pragmatism (neither traditionally Chinese); it seems feasible that the modern Chinese trade policies were, at the very least, inspired by Japanese economic development, rather than the Qing Dynasty, which most Chinese view as a very low point in their history.

However, based on what I learned from our discussions, that an current of protectionism existed as a Chinese meme, only to be reaffirmed by the success of the Japanese model and resurfaced after decades of Communist rule. This is still, to me, an extraordinary claim, but I begrudgingly admit to the possibility. You gave me a lot to think about.

I'm glad you're pointing out what I've always suspected: China is not yet capitalistic, at best it is merely practicing pre-Capitalist mercantilism...
I disagree with your characterization of "voting with their wallets"...voting implies a measure of choice, and I'm not so confident Americans really have a genuine "point-of-purchase" choice in what they buy, which to me would be the genuine dynamic of true Free Markets.
Instead, we purchase the lesser evil of bad energy choices in automobiles, for example, because others have already decided the only choice would be internal-combustion petroleum for the last 100 years. We "vote with our wallets" and stop purchasing OTC drugs, infant car seats, and other consumer items only after sufficient numbers of people have been killed or injured by them, in a sort of macabre cross between Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery" and Smith's "The Wealth of Nations".

And if I buy a $20 dollar toaster for $8 dollars at Wal-Mart because somewhere along the line a shop laborer in China made up the $12 deficit with underpaid labor, there's no way I reasonably know that or make the decision at the check-out counter in Free Market terms. "Ratify" or "vote of confidence" or "assent to" perhaps, but I doubt if Americans have voted with their wallets in any dynamic way since perhaps the 1950's. By the time the Chinese products have reached our store shelves, all the decisions have already been made...

Let me begin with the question that requires clarification and then I will offer perspectives or as the late Graceland, TN resident (E) might convey, "Taking Care of Business". Should we practice increased restraint regarding excessive consumption of goods designated as "Art" (Paintings, Sculptures, Statues, etc.) in an effort to further promote sustainability as opposed to excessive procurement of luxury items?

Allan Green-Solid contribution and explanation. Really enjoyed your perspective and insight.

Marty, in your submission where you stated, "that financial meltdown has been caused by ’deregulation mantra’ practiced by Republicans and allowing banks to issue derivatives and debt obligations (CDS’s and CDO’s). The problem was further compounded by another Republican mantra, that of ’tax cuts’ which screwed up US governmental finances" provides readers with a powerful example that illustrates an individual whose logic and credibility at best should be considered as "highly questionable". The causation you suggest as reasoning for the financial debacle clearly exposes a disconnect with reality which is most common among political ideologues from both ends of the entire political spectrum.
The "Affordable Housing Program" was the initial key component that initiated the financial crisis as the federal govt. insisted that organizations such as (CITI) provide loans to families that could not afford housing cost (especially families who chose ARM loans) and the noble effort by the FEDS ended by having thousands of people out on the streets. This is obviously a politically inconvenient and incorrect topic, however as a resident in Boulder, CO where the standard of living is very excessive; I recognize the benefits of the program for less fortunate individuals as my hometown is the perfect case study that offers sound reasoning to support these types of assistance initiatives. With that being said I am not letting the mort. brokers of the hook either as they collaborated with real estate appraisers to introduce excessive inaccurate overvalued pricing appraisals; as liquidation ensued and the loans were farmed out to insurance agencies; the excessive overload of foreclosures left reserves dry to cover the loans and so began the initial stages of the crisis. Who is responsible.......everyone including the federal govt (fannie mae/freddie mac govt. owned), lenders, banks-they all played a role towards making this happen. Recent financial reforms however do not include govt. oversight.......only the private sector is subject to new legislation and I don't think there exist a more powerful example that illustrates the political arrogance, elitism, and self-righteousness entitlement mentality existing in our nation’s capital. Not to mention that less than 10% of D.C.'s current economic policy advisors has ANY experience in the private sector, but their time in academia (Fantasy Island---De Plane, De Plane) along with the countless degrees legitimize offering economic policies whose implementation and success have no foundation that involve practical application in the real world and experience through trial and error. The absence of common sense among career academia is not surprising as economic proposals offered only bear fruits within the classroom where realistic challenges, unintended consequences, and application of real world business techniques is being ignored in favor of satisfying personal political ideological ideals.
Incentive based economic policies are critical for restoration of a healthy business climate and historically across the globe there does not exist an example where increased taxation, trial litigation, and regulation have realistically contributed to measurable (not meager to modest), healthy, robust economic growth (measurable rapid economic growth).

The Republicans I agree played a huge role as their implementation of record spending measures I found to be quite disgusting along with ignoring the coming financial storm and both parties should be ashamed at their behavior-I have not allegiance towards either group therefore everyone both in govt. and private sector should be reprimanded and held accountable for their actions and behaviors. Is there actually a govt. bureaucracy that dare be mentioned in the same sentence with the word "efficient"?

Taxes-The Death Tax and Estate Tax is what I am assuming you are referring towards and while the imposition of these taxes can only be intellectually honestly categorized as legalized extortion as practiced upon the constituents living in the United States. These affect every one across the entire economic spectrum and noting that the currency entailed in these accounts has already been subject to triple and quadruple taxation; that notion alone is very disturbing in itself as these taxes really hurt small to mid-family farming operations. The rich though you say??? I have no money and tons of student debt and my origins do not include growing up in a family of influence with comfortable financial security; with that being said, I don't hate, nor will I berate someone for their success and achievements through hard work. Berating others success is extremely childish as I could care less whether an individual has excessive financial security....good for them.

Yo, BobChen you stated in your last post that, "There is already a name for a system that intentionally creates high export, low import and consumption: Merchantilism, or economic nationalism. It's a system that was imported from the West, as it was first practiced by European states". Bob may I suggest that you spend some time and do a case study on Detroit, MI as America's once heralded "city of industry" that has been raped by the entitlement, self centered UAW racket along with local bureaucracies whose collaborative efforts now result in avg exodus of 27K residents per year. Need more? Why don't you spend time in a right to work state as these are some of the last areas in our current economic fiasco that are experiencing success. Are you aware of the fact that right to work states are predominately saturated with European based companies?? WTF? How can that be? Simple common sense economic incentive policies are luring in droves of foreign companies who can be productive, make a profit (Heaven Forbid), while also offering great benefits packages and incentives to their workers. I have spent time in right to work states predominantly in auto factories and part makers whose larger contingent is mainly European.

I don't believe a word exist to describe the level of stupidity that is required to make such a dishonest, unrealistic, and uninformed claim that recognition is demanded in this particular case where you said, "No one forced the American companies to move their manufacturing overseas, no one put a gun on the heads of American consumers to buy these goods. They did that on their own, and their money is now funding the Chinese merchantilist export-machine. We as Americans could pay a little bit more for American-made, and maybe we could have our manufacturing jobs back, but darn it if we don't love cheap crap. So yes, we do vote with our wallets. I stand by my statements and I'm not backing off."
I can only suggest that you take some time and conduct objective research regarding the "Fall of Detroit".
Outlandish Union demands fulfilling the selfish appointed entitlement babies have bled companies dry, ceased productivity, and essentially killed any perceptions regarding "team orientation" and this reality honestly has provided incentives for American companies to move offshore; over regulation, excessive fed oversight and irresponsible taxation are all viable factors that play a vital role towards the future of companies. By the way, most working Americans don't have the luxury to pay extra just to feel good about buying products whose existence is solely the result of protectionism, while also funding the health pension for the UAW member who smokes five packs a day but feels he should be entitled to receive full health benefits without offering any financial contributions or acknowledging the merits of personal responsibility in correlation with personal responsibility.

Finally Bob, you put more than icing on cake when you relinquished any recognition involving the gifts and talents that separates our society as individuals when you exposed your infatuation with the notion of a "collective".......It's not a matter of authoritarian vs. democratic governments, it's a matter of the pursuit of national interest over international interest. The needs of the tribe, over the needs of the greater community. Ah yes Bob, the utopian zombification of society void of independent thought only allows for worship involving central planning figures who are perceived as celestial savior figures that exist to relinquish power solely to the institution and members associated with govt. To categorize you as a fanatical proponent of Gene Rodenberry’s Star Trek Global Utopian society would probably be an understatement…….right comrade?

Incentives are the vital keys to revitalize our economy while adjusting behaviors associated with consumption of excessive amounts of “art based aesthetic” luxury items.