Will The U.S. Fall?

wilmar13 said:

I think you didn’t understand my post. One of my arguments WAS that China and to a lesser extent India (all developing countries for that matter) have a totally different culture that unless it radically changes will never be able to compete in an economic sense with the west. With regards to the Chinese they only value security and equality but both are totally counter to competition in its purest form. They do not value efficiency or profit (in Shanghais this is changing however). This is one of the major problems that almost all Western companies trying to make inroads into China are experiencing. Right now the only threat they pose is competition for resources and this is not going to change anytime in the near future.

I disagree that china is interested equality at all, in fact I would say they are at the very far end of the spectrum in that aspect.
I also think that their culture (China'a in particular) is helpfull to its competitiveness. Basically the cheaper you can produce goods for the world market the more competitive you are. If you are producing goods in the primary or secondary sectors (By far the largest world market) then lower labour costs has to be helpful. My point on this was that Chinese labour does not have the same freedom or power to negotiate higher wages, thus, short to medium, term China is in a stonger position to trade than the USA

wilmar13 said:

And I have to admit I can’t understand what you are saying here. There was very little theory in my post and what theory there was, isn’t mine. If you are referring to my comments about competition, that isn’t theory, that is an axiom. Competition is only bad from the perspective of the selfish loser… many people tend to get upset over the individual losers, rather than the collective good. I find it ironic that those that espouse evolution the most fervently are also the first to argue against economic competition. I don’t care if the US becomes a “loser” in the short term or long term, as long as the game is at a higher level, humanity in general will have a higher standard of living…but my opinion regarding Carreras original post is that the US isn’t going to fall out of the top 3 anytime soon.

Again I disagree. Competition is not inheritantly helpful. In some situations it certainly can be, but not as a firm rule. When dealing with capitalist economics you must remember that we are not looking at individual losers vs collective good.....it is more correct to look at collective losers vs Individual good (watch the movie "A Beautiful Mind : )) I do however strugle with your link to evolution and its relavince to this topic?

wilmar13 said:

The civil war in the US was about States Rights… those in the south wanted to be something like the EU is today, and the North wanted the Federal government to have almost absolute control. We can all talk about it over beers at Huskey’s house. I hope its OK with everyone, I am bringing Tsingtao and Cobra. 😉

Hehe, im not an expert on US history by anymeans but we where always tought that the US civil war was fought because the northern states could not compete with the Southern states economicly in no small way due to slavery.

I met many Americans on my travels. I recall we had some laughs with many of them. For instance, when I was studying in Russia, there were quite a few Americans knocking about in the university studying Russian.
I recall how one guy from Wales drank real vodka for the first time, put one foot in front of the other and the passed out unconscious. The Americans painted him with lipstick and wrote "[censored]!" on his forehead.
But I also kept bumping into these evangelists too. These dudes kept approaching and saying, "Do you know Jesus as your saviour?"
But all in all, I agree with you, except I think American females tend to be more "commercial". That is, the American girls I went out with tended to be more bubbly than the girls we have over here and I haven't met so many of them who tried to introduce me to Jesus as of yet. Mind you, my female friend from Carolina evidently prays.
So, sure, American people are generally O.K. But they deserve a better global image than Bush Junior, which was my point about image in general. Let's face it the Russians were embarrassed by the drunken, bumbling, boozy Boris Yeltsin so they got rid of him. Let's hope Bush is similarly discarded.

jhuskey said:

Starsky and Hutch? Well that's what makes the world an intersting place. We all have different things that "trips our trigger". Madonna huh?

Lyndie England is just a redneck, but if that is the worst that ever happened in the world I would invite you all for a world celebration and buy all the beer.
Wilmar13 said he would chip in. Just kidding of course, Wil never said he would chip in on the party but I imagine he would.
The best thing about the US are some damn good everyday people that the rest of the world will probably never meet or see on TV and Visa Versa.
Trust me on this! One thing that I have learned in my numerous years is that anything worth having takes a lot of effort and has many facets and that is somtimes too complex and difficut for some to fathom and execute, and therin lies the problem.
Quick solutions are only found in Hollywood movies,unfortunately.
]
Wil: The problem with your post is that it is too well thought out and endowed with way too much truth.
It will never sell!
Take my advise get "[censored] faced drunk" and lie like dog. It seems to play better.
PS: I have it on good authority that Madonna is throwing a Pizza party and inviting GW,MJ and Lyndie. Mike Tyson is the featured speaker.

"Right now the only threat they pose is competition for resources and this is not going to change anytime in the near future."

Are you kidding? China is becoming far more open than people over here imagine. So many Chinese people are getting rich now, they have fashion models that would turn many a western head, bars, discos, clubs and culture. Plus the food in China is delicious. There are so many western chains, stores, factories and businesses doing well in China - it's on a real boom.
We have a new wave of Chinese students over here filling the universities. There are many Chinese tourists visiting Europe and many have money.
I'm so optimistic about China's future I even thought of studying Mandarin and, if I was at school again, I'd definitely learn it.

wilmar13 said:

I think you didn’t understand my post. One of my arguments WAS that China and to a lesser extent India (all developing countries for that matter) have a totally different culture that unless it radically changes will never be able to compete in an economic sense with the west. With regards to the Chinese they only value security and equality but both are totally counter to competition in its purest form. They do not value efficiency or profit (in Shanghais this is changing however). This is one of the major problems that almost all Western companies trying to make inroads into China are experiencing. Right now the only threat they pose is competition for resources and this is not going to change anytime in the near future.

And I have to admit I can’t understand what you are saying here. There was very little theory in my post and what theory there was, isn’t mine. If you are referring to my comments about competition, that isn’t theory, that is an axiom. Competition is only bad from the perspective of the selfish loser… many people tend to get upset over the individual losers, rather than the collective good. I find it ironic that those that espouse evolution the most fervently are also the first to argue against economic competition. I don’t care if the US becomes a “loser” in the short term or long term, as long as the game is at a higher level, humanity in general will have a higher standard of living…but my opinion regarding Carreras original post is that the US isn’t going to fall out of the top 3 anytime soon.

The civil war in the US was about States Rights… those in the south wanted to be something like the EU is today, and the North wanted the Federal government to have almost absolute control. We can all talk about it over beers at Huskey’s house. I hope its OK with everyone, I am bringing Tsingtao and Cobra. 😉

Another mistake America made was the promotion of multiculturalism that goes against their own interests in Europe. The Europeans, Canadians and Brits have all come out in favour of multiculturalism as the new kind of communism. But the snag is, they made this decision without subjecting multiculturalism to any rigid, logical, historical analysis. We are simply being taught that we'll all prosper if we open up out borders fully and allow our own cultures to disappear.
Now, I'm not alone in this. Switzerland has only just stated they fear being invaded by millions of immigrants at a time when jobs are scarce for their indigenous people. The French have real fears over Turkey. Europeans are also reacting to the disappearance of their culture by becoming more nationalistic and waving more and more flags. Take a look at Holland if you doubt this. The old Holland of clogs and liberalism is gradually disappearing.
But the problem for the U.S. now is that Islamic mitancy is gaining strong roots in Europe in the same way communism gained a foothold in the fifties. Some Harvard scholars have now agreed with Russian academics who have stated the future orientation of Europe will be Islamic while the U.S. will remain Christian (possibly fundamentalist).
Only China will remian secular and China has no desire to follow the multicultural philosophy that's sweeping through Europe.

Fixey said:

I think you have missed a very basic point. Your economic theory works fine all things being equal, but all things are not equal. China and India do not work on the same social structure as the western world. China may have turned its economy towards capitalism but it is still a Social dictatorship. Your theory seems to rely on good old capitalistic supply and demand to bring equilibrium to the labour market over time but I think you are looking at the wrong supply and demand. I think it is a case of I demand you supply this OR ELSE! And that is why I think your theory is flawed. What scares me most is that the USA had a similiar situation a hundred or two years ago that resulted in civil war......I hope we dont end up with the global equivilant but alas I believe we will.

Another mistake America made was the promotion of multiculturalism that goes against their own interests in Europe. The Europeans, Canadians and Brits have all come out in favour of multiculturalism as the new kind of communism. But the snag is, they made this decision without subjecting multiculturalism to any rigid, logical, historical analysis. We are simply being taught that we'll all prosper if we open up out borders fully and allow our own cultures to disappear.
Now, I'm not alone in this. Switzerland has only just stated they fear being invaded by millions of immigrants at a time when jobs are scarce for their indigenous people. The French have real fears over Turkey. Europeans are also reacting to the disappearance of their culture by becoming more nationalistic and waving more and more flags. Take a look at Holland if you doubt this. The old Holland of clogs and liberalism is gradually disappearing.
But the problem for the U.S. now is that Islamic militancy is gaining strong roots in Europe in the same way communism gained a foothold in the fifties. Some Harvard scholars have now agreed with Russian academics who have stated the future orientation of Europe will be Islamic while the U.S. will remain Christian (possibly fundamentalist).
Only China will remian secular and China has no desire to follow the multicultural philosophy that's sweeping through Europe.

Fixey said:

I think you have missed a very basic point. Your economic theory works fine all things being equal, but all things are not equal. China and India do not work on the same social structure as the western world. China may have turned its economy towards capitalism but it is still a Social dictatorship. Your theory seems to rely on good old capitalistic supply and demand to bring equilibrium to the labour market over time but I think you are looking at the wrong supply and demand. I think it is a case of I demand you supply this OR ELSE! And that is why I think your theory is flawed. What scares me most is that the USA had a similiar situation a hundred or two years ago that resulted in civil war......I hope we dont end up with the global equivilant but alas I believe we will.

Melanie Philips, an Israeli born correspondent over here who sometimes appears on TV as puts it better. She hasn't mentioned how U.S. policy has somehow supported multiculturalism in Europe and abroad but she does come close to my own view that it's a new type of ideological communism that's destabilising Europe. She writes:

"Those of us who have consistently argued that multiculturalism would instead dissolve social bonds, set minorities against each other and, above all, rob the indigenous people of their right to their own culture and identity, have been mocked and vilified as bigots."

"What’s happened is actually very much worse than mere cynicism. Within government, there is a genuine belief that the country needs hundreds of thousands of foreign workers. There is no recognition of the need to use and train our own people instead. There is no sense either of what such enormous immigration levels will do to the character of the country.

And here we get to the core of this issue: New Labour’s profound belief that Britain is a multicultural society — or if it isn’t, that it should be.
In this, it reflects the view which has been prevalent on the left that a culture based on the values of the indigenous majority is illegitimate because it is intrinsically racist

Instead, a new culture had to be created in which no tradition had precedence over any other. So for at least two decades, history teachers have downplayed British political history on the grounds that it is ‘ethnocentric’. The Home Office itself says it is committed to multiculturalism, the explicit premise of the very school citizenship courses upon which the Home Secretary pins his faith to recreate patriotic loyalty.

Carrera said:

Another mistake America made was the promotion of multiculturalism that goes against their own interests in Europe. The Europeans, Canadians and Brits have all come out in favour of multiculturalism as the new kind of communism. But the snag is, they made this decision without subjecting multiculturalism to any rigid, logical, historical analysis. We are simply being taught that we'll all prosper if we open up out borders fully and allow our own cultures to disappear.
Now, I'm not alone in this. Switzerland has only just stated they fear being invaded by millions of immigrants at a time when jobs are scarce for their indigenous people. The French have real fears over Turkey. Europeans are also reacting to the disappearance of their culture by becoming more nationalistic and waving more and more flags. Take a look at Holland if you doubt this. The old Holland of clogs and liberalism is gradually disappearing.
But the problem for the U.S. now is that Islamic militancy is gaining strong roots in Europe in the same way communism gained a foothold in the fifties. Some Harvard scholars have now agreed with Russian academics who have stated the future orientation of Europe will be Islamic while the U.S. will remain Christian (possibly fundamentalist).
Only China will remian secular and China has no desire to follow the multicultural philosophy that's sweeping through Europe.

Fixey said:

I disagree that china is interested equality at all, in fact I would say they are at the very far end of the spectrum in that aspect.

Well I am not in a position to summarize Chinese culture authoritatively, but my opinion is based on two business trips to China, and many conversations with Chinese and other expats from Europe and the US that have done stints in China as well as many case studies and research into our markets there. Everyone alive in China right now had their value system created around communist ideology. What is your opinion based on?

Fixey said:

I also think that their culture (China'a in particular) is helpfull to its competitiveness. Basically the cheaper you can produce goods for the world market the more competitive you are. If you are producing goods in the primary or secondary sectors (By far the largest world market) then lower labour costs has to be helpful.

Competitiveness with respect to what? I am not sure you have a solid understanding of Economics.
A) just because wages are lower does not mean labor costs are, this is the efficiency issue I talked about earlier… for that matter the real monkey work is now leaving China for Vietnam where wages are less than 25% of what they are in China…
B) what makes you think we want to compete with the Chinese with making goods that are labor intensive? As a matter of fact the cheaper their goods are the better it is for everyone involved. I personally would much rather buy goods from them that are much cheaper than I could make them so that they can then buy what I make… this is the basis of trade. For now and most likely during our entire lifetime this means that I am focused on the design and development of the goods that they will make, guess where the value is added?

Fixey said:

My point on this was that Chinese labour does not have the same freedom or power to negotiate higher wages, thus, short to medium, term China is in a stonger position to trade than the USA

I stated this exact sentiment in my first post… but again wages do not correlate to anything other than having more warm bodies for a lower cost. Your statement about stronger position to trade makes no sense 😕 … it only lets them trade their cheap labor for our technology, we both win.

Fixey said:

Again I disagree. Competition is not inheritantly helpful. In some situations it certainly can be, but not as a firm rule. When dealing with capitalist economics you must remember that we are not looking at individual losers vs collective good.....it is more correct to look at collective losers vs Individual good (watch the movie "A Beautiful Mind : )) I do however strugle with your link to evolution and its relavince to this topic?.

You sound like one of the feel-good-everyone-is-a-winner, lets-hold-everyone-back-to-the-pace-of-the-slowest social activists here… unfortunately this is not the way the world is. This world can be cruel to the have nots… this is the basis of evolution… competition. The result is that the winners keep getting better and the level of the losers becomes higher than the winners of previous iterations. Better is a matter of perspective though and we will just have to agree to disagree here in that I view technological and economic progress as better, and you are likely to think in terms of social equality for all at the expense of technological and economic progress as better.

Fixey said:

Hehe, im not an expert on US history by anymeans but we where always tought that the US civil war was fought because the northern states could not compete with the Southern states economicly in no small way due to slavery.

Well we all know the winner gets to write the history books. Growing up in the US we were all taught the civil war was about Slavery, after all it sounds a lot better than it was about Northern agression and aggressive tariffs. For sure Slavery was an issue at the crux of the whole thing, but not the reason. As far as competing economically almost all of Industry was in the North, the south only had an advantage at agriculture so you were just taught more political spin. Yeah for sure Northern farmers could not compete, but why should they have?

Carrera said:

"Right now the only threat they pose is competition for resources and this is not going to change anytime in the near future."

Are you kidding? China is becoming far more open than people over here imagine. So many Chinese people are getting rich now, they have fashion models that would turn many a western head, bars, discos, clubs and culture. Plus the food in China is delicious. There are so many western chains, stores, factories and businesses doing well in China - it's on a real boom.
We have a new wave of Chinese students over here filling the universities. There are many Chinese tourists visiting Europe and many have money.
I'm so optimistic about China's future I even thought of studying Mandarin and, if I was at school again, I'd definitely learn it.

Have you ever been to China? Shanghais is the only city in China that resembles what you are talking about here. The majority of the country is so back woods it is like a different world. I am doubting that you are doing any business in China or you would not have this perspective.

I've lived with people from mainland China and shared a flat with Chinese. The only way we could communicate was via Spanish as they didn't know English. I've also dealt with Chinese quite a lot.
I'm more optimistic for the future of China than I am for Europe. I don't think either the U.S. or Europe will fall as such but I don't think the U.S. will be as globally dominant in the near future as we've been accustomed to seeing.
Let's consider the basic facts:
China's economy is growing faster than that of the former USSR and its currency, if anything, is artifically devalued (being far stronger than apparent). Manufacturing jobs are being taken up in China and it was manufacturing that made the U.S. economy in the fifties, I think.
China is also working on population reduction and it's predicted the standard of living for future Chinese will be far higher than it is at present. This is because there will be a booming industry and fewer Chinese as a whole.
China has an authoritarian government that, if anything, is a plus. Liberalism has basically sucked the life out of the west and and left us with high crime, lower standards of education (than in the sixties) and lack of competitiveness. Most Chinese grumble over the authoritarian government but realise at the same time they may be better off without western liberalism and political correctness.
China plans a manned moon mission in the very near future - hence Bush's decision to go back to the moon, knowing Chinese astronauts will be there soon if all goes to plan. But China plans a permanent base on the moon as well.
Lastly, China is creating manufacturing jobs for Chinese people and doesn't consider multiculturalism an option. There are already plenty of well-trained, educated Chinese to take up these jobs within the country.
More importantly, China doesn't allow Islamic radicalism to take root within the country and has a strong prohibitive line on all religions, which are seen as divisive..
So far, things seem to be going China's way but time will tell how the country progresses.

wilmar13 said:

Have you ever been to China? Shanghais is the only city in China that resembles what you are talking about here. The majority of the country is so back woods it is like a different world. I am doubting that you are doing any business in China or you would not have this perspective.

Carrera said:

P.S. I'm not being condescending. What people abroad love about the U.S. is the good weather

Been to New Orleans lately? Been to the Texas Gulf coast lately?

Carrera said:

China plans a manned moon mission in the very near future - hence Bush's decision to go back to the moon, knowing Chinese astronauts will be there soon if all goes to plan.

Been there and done that.....in 1969!!!

Carrera said:

I've lived with people from mainland China and shared a flat with Chinese. The only way we could communicate was via Spanish as they didn't know English. I've also dealt with Chinese quite a lot.
I'm more optimistic for the future of China than I am for Europe. I don't think either the U.S. or Europe will fall as such but I don't think the U.S. will be as globally dominant in the near future as we've been accustomed to seeing.
Let's consider the basic facts:
China's economy is growing faster than that of the former USSR and its currency, if anything, is artifically devalued (being far stronger than apparent). Manufacturing jobs are being taken up in China and it was manufacturing that made the U.S. economy in the fifties, I think.
China is also working on population reduction and it's predicted the standard of living for future Chinese will be far higher than it is at present. This is because there will be a booming industry and fewer Chinese as a whole.
China has an authoritarian government that, if anything, is a plus. Liberalism has basically sucked the life out of the west and and left us with high crime, lower standards of education (than in the sixties) and lack of competitiveness. Most Chinese grumble over the authoritarian government but realise at the same time they may be better off without western liberalism and political correctness.
China plans a manned moon mission in the very near future - hence Bush's decision to go back to the moon, knowing Chinese astronauts will be there soon if all goes to plan. But China plans a permanent base on the moon as well.
Lastly, China is creating manufacturing jobs for Chinese people and doesn't consider multiculturalism an option. There are already plenty of well-trained, educated Chinese to take up these jobs within the country.
More importantly, China doesn't allow Islamic radicalism to take root within the country and has a strong prohibitive line on all religions, which are seen as divisive..
So far, things seem to be going China's way but time will tell how the country progresses.

Well all I was really trying to say is that China will not develop western standards of living anytime soon. And the things you listed as reasons why they would are rare (even in Shanghais). While the giant is gaining speed at a very fast pace, don't forget how far behind it is starting. Trust me, if Brazil is considered third world, most of China isn't even in the same solar system. Competitiveness in terms of high value added industries and services will take time to develop.

That said, I have no illusion that China may become "the" world power in our lifetime as even if per capita it can never match the west, with well over 1 billion people it can afford some inefficiency. The points you make about the advantages of authoritarian government our interesting... Both Stalin and McCarthy would be proud.

How in the heck do you find Chinese that speak Spanish but not English?

I take your point but I think you know what I meant.
I recall Arnold Schwarzennegger always said he was fed up with the cold and snow in Austria and couldn't wait to get the the U.S. where the sun shone.
True, you folks got hit by a lot of freak weather but there have also been floods in China, tsunamis in Thailand and the like.
Nobody can control natural disasters, be it Pompei or earthquakes in Japan.

Colorado Ryder said:

Been to New Orleans lately? Been to the Texas Gulf coast lately?

Carrera said:

Nobody can control natural disasters, be it Pompei or earthquakes in Japan.

Apparently, some on this site think George Bush can control the weather.

You obviously see China as far less rosy a perspective as I do. I guess, that's just a difference of opinion and everyone has to make up his (or her) own mind.
I'm aware China has grinding poverty in the countryside and millions of people to feed. But many of the cities are doing fine and it will take a few more years for such a big country to increase living standards outside these cities.
My dark glasses are reserved for the west, not China. I see Europe as going in the wrong direction, trying to be a carbon copy of the U.S.A. and applying U.S. social economic policy to a totally different, historical situation.
And remember, Europe will face an ever grwoing number of terrorist attacks based on religious extremism, while I very much doubt this will be allowed to take root in China.
The London bombings alone and other attempted bombings have already cost us billions of pounds.
So, I think authoritarian rule in China is a good thing. I wasn't referring to Stalin as model for "authoritarianism" but was talking more about responsible. strong government by politicians who have sufficient backbone to grasp down-to-earth realities. I don't support dictators but I do think the West has become apathetic and unwilling to crack down on crime, hooliganism and street killings on a daily basis.
I'll bet people wouldn't hurl bottles at me from passing cars if I were riding my bike in Bejing. That's what I meant.
As for Spanish-speaking Chinese.....
Well, I had Chinese friends in Spain and ate a lot of Chinese food such as,
"arroz con tres delicias" and "pan chino con pollo y naranja" e.t.c.

wilmar13 said:

Well all I was really trying to say is that China will not develop western standards of living anytime soon. And the things you listed as reasons why they would are rare (even in Shanghais). While the giant is gaining speed at a very fast pace, don't forget how far behind it is starting. Trust me, if Brazil is considered third world, most of China isn't even in the same solar system. Competitiveness in terms of high value added industries and services will take time to develop.

That said, I have no illusion that China may become "the" world power in our lifetime as even if per capita it can never match the west, with well over 1 billion people it can afford some inefficiency. The points you make about the advantages of authoritarian government our interesting... Both Stalin and McCarthy would be proud.

How in the heck do you find Chinese that speak Spanish but not English?

Well, I agree. I was against point scoring over Katrina. This was pointed out on a BBC debate where one commentator over here (a conservative) said he felt angry over the fact those who hated Bush Junior would crucify him over Katrina.
I have plenty of things I can throw at Bush and don't need to use Katrina as a hammer to pound with.
Katrina basically caught everyone else out and Bush wasn't the only one to blame.

Colorado Ryder said:

Apparently, some on this site think George Bush can control the weather.

Carrera said:

You obviously see China as far less rosy a perspective as I do. I guess, that's just a difference of opinion and everyone has to make up his (or her) own mind.
I'm aware China has grinding poverty in the countryside and millions of people to feed. But many of the cities are doing fine and it will take a few more years for such a big country to increase living standards outside these cities.
My dark glasses are reserved for the west, not China. I see Europe as going in the wrong direction, trying to be a carbon copy of the U.S.A. and applying U.S. social economic policy to a totally different, historical situation.
And remember, Europe will face an ever grwoing number of terrorist attacks based on religious extremism, while I very much doubt this will be allowed to take root in China.
The London bombings alone and other attempted bombings have already cost us billions of pounds.
So, I think authoritarian rule in China is a good thing. I wasn't referring to Stalin as model for "authoritarianism" but was talking more about responsible. strong government by politicians who have sufficient backbone to grasp down-to-earth realities. I don't support dictators but I do think the West has become apathetic and unwilling to crack down on crime, hooliganism and street killings on a daily basis.
I'll bet people wouldn't hurl bottles at me from passing cars if I were riding my bike in Bejing. That's what I meant.
As for Spanish-speaking Chinese.....
Well, I had Chinese friends in Spain and ate a lot of Chinese food such as,
"arroz con tres delicias" and "pan chino con pollo y naranja" e.t.c.

No I am just saying China is not going to transform into a Japan with 10x the people overnight. I do not want to come off as negative towards China and its propects for the future. It was more of a kneejerk reaction to what I percieved as overhyping of China and its "threat" to western economies based on my own biases and personal experiences. China has a lot of potential but it isn't there yet.

Also I wasn't trying to insult you with the Stalin comment. More highlight the dangers that go along with the benefits of authoritarian rule. I would prefer my country go down the toilet in a bunch of liberal spew than to not have the freedom to call BS on liberal spew when it surfaces. I do agree though we are way to soft on cracking down the elements that support terorism within our own borders and your comments about the dangers of multiculturism may have some merit.

Que tal: "sopa del perro"?

Originally Posted by Carrera
China plans a manned moon mission in the very near future - hence Bush's decision to go back to the moon, knowing Chinese astronauts will be there soon if all goes to plan.

Colorado Ryder said:

Been there and done that.....in 1969!!!

Oops sorry. We stole that technology from the Germans. Does that mean the Germans were the first to the moon?

Colorado Ryder said:

Originally Posted by Carrera
China plans a manned moon mission in the very near future - hence Bush's decision to go back to the moon, knowing Chinese astronauts will be there soon if all goes to plan.

Oops sorry. We stole that technology from the Germans. Does that mean the Germans were the first to the moon?

No, that means that soon we will be able to go to the Moon in a BMW Shuttle and get some Won Ton soup and Egg Rolls for the trip back.

Well, yes, this is true. For example, when the U.S. competes against China in the Olympics, the U.S. forwards athletes of many countries. For example, Muhammad Ali was essentially African/Irish. The U.S. fields many Russian or German athletes who are chosen to represent the U.S. The Williams sisters and Sharapova are essentially immigrants too.
In the U.K. it is the same, except in running we had Bannister, Coe and Ovett and Cram.
But China competes only with Chinese athletes, trained in China.
The same goes for science and technolgy. The U.S. space program was borrowed technology from Germany. Computers were invented by the English and adapted by the Americans. Phones, wireless and aviation came from Europe.
The U.S. simply purchased the technology from other countries. It borrowed democracy from the Greeks and inherited law from the Romans - all Europeans. 🙂

Colorado Ryder said:

Originally Posted by Carrera
China plans a manned moon mission in the very near future - hence Bush's decision to go back to the moon, knowing Chinese astronauts will be there soon if all goes to plan.

Oops sorry. We stole that technology from the Germans. Does that mean the Germans were the first to the moon?