In the question and answers section he is asked about the disruptive tensions internationally over the demand for finite resources. This is really a subject on its own. The response from TB was essentially: “Why fight over what you can simply buy?”

However, the increasing nationalisation of resources means that not everyone will be able to buy what they need. There’s much opposition to enforcement in the global economy. Is the inevitable result war?

The Governor of California is about to test this proposition at State level in the US, per the FT.

“Arnold Schwarzenegger is due on Monday to call Californians to the polls in November for a special election that will test voters’ desire for change. . .The ballot sheet will list several initiatives promoted by Mr Schwarzenegger, including a proposal for automatic spending cuts when revenues fall. . . Advertisements promoting his spending cap initiative, known as the “Live Within Our Means Act”, have hammered home the claim that Democrats are responsible for disbursing $1.10 for every dollar the state takes in.”

On the other side of the Atlantic, Canada seems to agree that the priority should be economic liberalisation – much to the annoyance of US policy-makers. The US and the EU have a similar problem – how far to restrict economic liberalisation.

Doctors want Ottawa to consider private care
… Dr. Chantal Ducasse, a doctor in private practice said: “In the public system, I had to see 50 patients in six hours. It’s not human. We don’t do that with animals. We shouldn’t be doing that with human beings.”

Also see this:

Supreme Court strikes down Que. medicare law
“A parallel private system functions very good in most European countries and there’s no collapse of the public system,” Trudel added.

As for public sector reform, that’s needed badly, especially here in Canada with our Soviet style healthcare system. The absence of market mechanism has resulted in long waiting lists and sub-par service in some cases. The Conservatives I think tried to reform it recently by expanding the role of the market in healthcare. The resulting public backlash was a powerful one. What Canadian citizens desperately need, aside from a more market-oriented economy, is a basic economic education.

Fiscal responsibility, as you say, is one way out of the problem. But it’s surely a vote loser. The same obstacle preventing public sector reform in many countries.

The end of the Globe & Mail report from Curzon is: “U.S. military analyst Robert D. Kaplan writes: “When power relationships are correctly calibrated, wars tend to be avoided. Only a similarly pragmatic approach will allow us to accommodate China’s inevitable — and legitimate re-emergence as a great power.”

But most countries will surely agree with Canada – the posse to oppose globalisation may be very small. On the other hand, globalisation is said to be broken; not everyone agrees though.

This isn’t good. Economic integration of Canada with China would effectively make us a proxy. Better the US than China I say.

1) China is a rising imperial power that wants to expand its domain

2) Economic interdependence with the USA means political leverage for Washington, which places constraints on what China can do

3) Therefore, China is trading with other regions to diminish trade with the USA as a % of its GDP so that in the event of hostilities with the US, its economy would not be destroyed by a trade embargo by the US

It follows that the global economy won’t solve everything. Why? Because even with free trade it is still possible for the level of economic interdependence required for detente not to arise. China is selectively using free trade to cement itself to strategic regions (ie, S. America). Finally, IJ is right to point out that economic connectivity took second place to human nature. I posit that if a nation believes that imperialism will pay for itself, that acquisition will eventually compensate for the economic chaos it creates, then it will behave in an imperialistic manner. Both sides in WW1 thought that they were going to win, for instance.

Mike cautions us not to forget the importance of human nature, which can have an outlet in local politics. In support of this, the blogosphere mentioned recently that a warning (by Norman Angell) at the start of last century of the insanity of a world war was ignored – economic connectivity took second place to human nature.

The Ongoing China Debate