Quote Originally Posted by Throbert McGee View Post
Could you define "commercially aggressive", please? I'm a little puzzled by your perception that this phrase does not already apply to China.

I mean, I think that flooding world markets with ultra-cheap goods produced under sweatshop conditions, and throwing business investments at Third-World nations on the condition that they officially oppose Taiwanese independence, both might qualify as examples of "aggressive commerce."
Commercially aggressive is when you instigate economic sanction against countries that have a political system that you don't like, prop up right wing dictatorships, or conspire to overthrow dictatorships or democracies that you do not like, in order to further the economic agenda of your own local corporations. Or when you invade countries that have plentiful natural resources that you need.

Britain and to a lesser extent other European countries used to do these types of things (or the historical equivalent).. The USA is doing it today.

I don't particularly support Chinese sweatshops. But at least profits from the sweatshops there are surely but slowly helping growing the Chinese economy and benefiting the population.

That's more than what could be said for foreign-owned sweatshops in Central America, Mexico etc! They had sweatshops for many decades without living conditions improving. If I were you, I'd worry more about what goes on on my doorstep, in Central America, instigated by American companies, than what China gets up to on the other side of the globe, within its own borders!

By the definition that I gave, China is not particularly economically aggressive.

As for sweatshops:
Nobody is forcing anyone to buy their products!
I, for one, prefer locally made products where possible, where I can afford it. I prefer to buy clothes that are manufactured in the EU for example, supporting economies like the Portugal and the Baltics rather than China. I deliberately choose European products where I can - I do not believe it is economically or environmentally healthy to be dependent on import from the other side of the globe. Obviously I make exceptions for electronic gadgets.

What goes on between China and Taiwan is essentially an internal matter. Both places are populated by Chinese people. The Chinese communists may have made many mistakes and have many faults, but the Kuomintang were certainly no angels either. They were guilty of some horrible war crimes and treated the local population terribly when they arrived on Taiwan after fleeing Mao.

What China DOES do, that could potentially be said to be somewhat economically aggressive is refusing to revaluate their currency and doing "infrastructure-for-natural resources" deals in the third world. But apparently the third world countries themselves appreciates what China has to offer (new roads, hospitals etc) for mining and oil deals. And surely they can do what they like with their own currency?

As a European it seems to me that what China is doing is more sensible (and possibly more decent) than what we are doing, i.e. just pouring endless national aid money into corrupt African states, while buying their agricultural produce for a pittance and manipulating the prices of African goods on European stock exchanges.

I would change my mind on China's aggressiveness the moment they invaded a foreign country for anything that could be construed as financial rewards.