Quote:
Originally Posted by ArchmageXin
So you argue it is better for a country (say, Canada) to have the Americans claim it by Invasion rather than have it brought out by the chinese fair and square?
|
I'd say an economic invasion is still an actual invasion. That said, I'm also
NOT claiming China is economically invading anything. What I am saying is that economic actions by sovereign nations need to be evaluated strategically/politically vs. purely economically.
China offering to buy oil assets from Canada should also elicit a response that considers factors beyond economics. It should factor in strategic considerations. It's that simple.
In your crazy example: If the U.S. ever sent us a threatening letter saying they want our oilsands for nominal consideration, we'd have to figure out a response - petition NATO, find allies, determine cost of conflict, apply political pressure, negotiate in the best interests of the nation, etc etc. Strategic considerations.
Side Bar -- Your thinking still seems to be of an Imperialistic standpoint. Point is, the U.S. would actually never do it. In a modern world, conquering a place to secure assets isn't economically feasible -- what do you think happened to Spain's economy with the influx of South American gold?
Second Side Bar -- I don't want to get in to this on a thread like this, but what do you think Economics and Capitalism even is? They are respectively: 1) A study and discipline on the allocation of scarce resources and 2) It's fundamentally just a crowdsourcing mechanism to allocate the productive capacity of a society. It's efficient and inefficient in different ways and has certain flaws and weaknesses. Why do states tax companies in the first place? Heck, why do corporations have a mandate to earn profits? Think on this, do the research, we can continue these conversations in private if necessary.
Reply hazy, ask again later