RMCommunityCalendar
Events happening today
-
ALL
DAY
22 January 2026
This event began 01/22/2026 and repeats every year forever
To Bankrupt or not to Bankrupt?
The focus in the post is the following...Why couldn't Ford be the lone major USA automaker?
Before I speak on that specifically I must set the background.
Me side Pioneer in a dialog came up with two different positions to bankruptcy. The detail of friction, which relates to this post, is the ability of services to be sustained during and after bankruptcy.
Pioneer's position is firms of a certain financial volume can not be allowed to go bankrupt because the services they provide, even if they have insurmountable debt or have an unblackable ledger, will not be maintained during and after bankruptcy. And said services maintain a way of life in the usa, which is one of the biggest "weapons" in the usa.
My position is, bankruptcy must always be implemented for every failed firm regardless of financial volume because bankruptcy alone provides proper fiscal, I even add nonviolent, punishment to fiscal management that is inappropriate in the marketplace. And I add, bankruptcy can be implemented with legal speed or control of buyers to the failed firms parts or adjustment of technologies on sale by the firm, sequentially services are maintained.
This post is not about whose right or wrong, we are both right or wrong. These are financial strategic positions.
referral- Dialog between me and Pioneer
https://aalbc.com/tc/events/event/141-economic-corner-5-january-4th-2025 /
Now I end the background and to the main topic? Why couldn't Ford be the lone major USA automaker?
What is known?
During the 2008–2010 automotive industry crisis, Ford struggled but did not have to be rescued like General Motors[ larger than Ford] or Chrysler[ smaller than Ford], the other two large us automakers. But the USA had and still has minor automakers.
Thus, I argue based on my view to bankruptcy, General Motors + Chrysler should had gone through bankruptcy with all their assets+ technologies being sold to a closed market with Ford + minor usa automakers as the long buyers. No service would had been undone. Ford was still present and minor automakers in the usa with the bankruptcy market of General Motors + Chrysler would have the chance to grow. I add the bankruptcy can force the minor firms to be majority [ over 80%] usa owned for a space of twenty years or more to get access to the bankruptcy sale.
Pioneer's argument was enacted in reality by the government saving GM + Chrysler. But both firms became worse. In 2024, GM was negative in equity or net income, but very positive in assets. So from 2010 to 2024 GM hasn't improved at all, and still needs go through bankruptcy and have all of its assets sold. From 2010 to 2026 GM nor Chrysler have shown improved quality, while they were given a welfare check beyond anything to stay in business. And arguably, Ford was not given the financial advantage as the lone major domestic car maker it earned, evenly.
So why was Ford not able to be the lone major automaker in the usa?
Proof of autofailure position
URL
https://www.politico.com/story/2008/12/bush-announces-174-billion-auto-bailout-016740
Bush announces $17.4 billion auto bailout By Mike Allen and David Rogers 12/19/2008 08:22 AM EST Updated: 12/19/2008 01:31 PM EST President George W. Bush stepped in Friday to keep America’s auto industry afloat, announcing a $17.4 billion bailout for GM and Chrysler, with the terms of the loans requiring that the firms radically restructure and show they can become profitable soon. “If we were to allow the free market to take its course now, it would almost certainly lead to disorderly bankruptcy,” Bush said at the White House, in remarks carried live by the national broadcast networks. “In the midst of a financial crisis and a recession, allowing the U.S. auto industry to collapse is not a responsible course of action. The question is how we can best give it a chance to succeed.” Bush said that “bankruptcy now would lead to a disorderly liquidation of American auto companies.” “My economic advisers believe that such a collapse would deal an unacceptably painful blow to hardworking Americans far beyond the auto industry. It would worsen a weak job market and exacerbate the financial crisis,” he said. “It could send our suffering economy into a deeper and longer recession.” The money will come from the Wall Street bailout passed by Congress, a reversal for the White House. President-elect Barack Obama and Democrats had long advocated that course, and Bush had resisted it. Of the total, $13.4 billion will be paid out in December and January, administration officials told reporters in a briefing. The last $4 billion is contingent on release of the second installment of the Wall Street bailout funds by Congress. As it happens — in a source for some potential confusion — this breakdown also corresponds with how the money will be divided between GM and Chrysler, the two major recipients. Treasury estimates GM will require about $13.4 billion in loans; Chrysler $4 billion. Both companies will share in the first $13.4 billion paid out in December and January. GM will need the last $4 billion as well. The government gets a stake in each company, and can call in the loans on March 31 if the firms cannot prove “viability” by then. The manufacturers do not have to be profitable immediately but have to be “profitable soon,” a senior administration official said. The structure largely follows the pattern of legislation that failed in Congress last week in the Senate because of Republican opposition. Bush made no mention of this fight, but in stepping in as he is, the president risks angering conservatives in his party but the administration felt it had no choice given the fragile state of the economy. In doing so, Treasury decided not to be tied to the initial bill in Congress that provided only $14 billion in loans. That was always viewed as inadequate to get to March 31, and the administration opted to go with more realistic numbers. In doing so, however, it sets up a ticklish situation for Democrats in the new Congress. With the auto bailout, Treasury will have tapped out all of the first $350 billion from the financial markets rescue fund by late January. That means Democrats must deal with releasing the second $350 billion even as Obama will be trying to rally support for a large economic stimulus bill. On the Republican side, the real dividing point between the administration and bailout critics in Congress has had more to do with the conditions imposed on the loans — not the aid itself. These differences came to a head in the Senate over the question of how to treat the United Auto Workers, and what pressure should be put on the union to bring down wage levels to match those paid to non-UAW workers at US plants operated by Honda or Toyota for example. Senate Republican conservatives insisted that the UAW agree to specific wage adjustments by a date certain in 2009. When the union rejected this demand as political, Republicans killed the bill. The White House agreed that wage concessions would be needed but thought the better test should be the viability of the companies — not some fixed formula imposed on management and the union. There was real discomfort in the administration with what many saw as a regional, anti-union slant as Republicans from the South — where non-UAW, foreign owned plants are more common — demanded concessions that jeopardized aid to an industry so vital to much of the Midwest. Thus the loan agreements drafted by Treasury take a more flexible approach. There are “Restructuring Targets” to be met in the companies’ recovery plans, including moving to a more competitive wage structure by the end of 2009. But there is also some leeway if alternative savings can be found. The restructuring report due March 31 “shall identify any deviations from the Restructuring Targets and explain the rationale for these deviations, including an explanation of why such deviations do not jeopardize the Borrower’s long-term viability.” In explaining his decision Friday, Bush said holding back “would leave the next president to confront the demise of a major American industry in his first days of office. “The more responsible option is to give the auto companies an incentive to restructure outside of bankruptcy and a brief window in which to do it,” Bush said. “And that is why my administration worked with Congress on a bill to provide automakers with loans to stave off bankruptcy while they develop plans for viability.” The announcement immediately affects GM and Chrysler, not Ford, administration officials said. Ford, which took a line of credit just before financing dried up, has said it does not need immediate federal assistant to stay in business. Chrysler issued a statement thanking the administration but saying the terms will require “consideration.” Here are the details of the White House plan: Fact Sheet: Financing Assistance to Facilitate the Restructuring of Automobile Manufacturers to Attain Financial Viability Purpose: The terms and conditions of the financing provided by the Treasury Department will facilitate restructuring of our domestic auto industry, prevent disorderly bankruptcies during a time of economic difficulty, and protect the taxpayer by ensuring that only financially viable firms receive financing. Amount: Auto manufacturers will be provided with $13.4 B in short-term financing from the TARP, with an additional $4 B available in February, contingent upon drawing down the second tranche of TARP funds. Viability Requirement: The firms must use these funds to become financially viable. Taxpayers will not be asked to provide financing for firms that do not become viable. If the firms have not attained viability by March 31, 2009, the loan will be called and all funds returned to the Treasury. Definition of Viability: A firm will only be deemed viable if it has a positive net present value, taking into account all current and future costs, and can fully repay the government loan. Binding Terms and Conditions: The binding terms and conditions established by the Treasury will mirror those that were voted favorably by a majority of both Houses of Congress, including: — Firms must provide warrants for non-voting stock. — Firms must accept limits on executive compensation and eliminate perks such as corporate jets. — Debt owed to the government would be senior to other debts, to the extent permitted by law. — Firms must allow the government to examine their books and records. — Firms must report and the government has the power to block any large transactions (> $100 M). — Firms must comply with applicable Federal fuel efficiency and emissions requirements. — Firms must not issue new dividends while they owe government debt. Targets: The terms and conditions established by Treasury will include additional targets that were the subject of Congressional negotiations but did not come to a vote, including: — Reduce debts by 2/3 via a debt for equity exchange. — Make one-half of VEBA payments in the form of stock. — Eliminate the jobs bank. — Work rules that are competitive with transplant auto manufacturers by 12/31/09. — Wages that are competitive with those of transplant auto manufacturers by 12/31/09. These terms and conditions would be non-binding in the sense that negotiations can deviate from the quantitative targets above, providing that the firm reports the reasons for these deviations and makes the business case to achieve long-term viability in spite of the deviations. In addition, the firm will be required to conclude new agreements with its other major stakeholders, including dealers and suppliers, by March 31, 2009. Filed Under: 2010Politics
POST URL
https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/12348-could-ford-have-been-the-lone-major-us-automaker/
PRIOR EDITION
https://aalbc.com/tc/events/event/628-economic-corner-30-01202026/
NEXT EDITION
https://aalbc.com/tc/events/event/635-economic-corner-32-01282026/
1/24/2026
Citation
https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/12348-could-ford-have-been-the-lone-major-us-automaker/#findComment-79568
osted just now
@ProfD
On 1/22/2026 at 10:04 PM, ProfD said:
IMO, Ford could never have been the lone US automaker.
just for clarification, did you mean the lone major us automaker, as i asked, or the lone us automaker, which i didn't ask?
once I comprehend that I can look at the rest of your reply in total.
On 1/22/2026 at 10:04 PM, ProfD said:
Then, capitalists would have swooped in and picked the bones and built new automakers.
bankruptcy historically isn't designed to delete the assets of firms, but to allow for penalty to the owners or investors of firms while selling assets back into the market. Did you comprehend the original point of contention between me and @Pioneer1?
@Troy
22 hours ago, Troy said:
As you mentioned bail out undermine capitalism and artificially bolster companies as well as tax incentives, tariffs against foreign competition not to forget laws that stifle competition suppress worker rights, etc.
Bailouts don't undermine fiscal capitalism de facto, it is implementation. the problem with the usa is the government has bailed out every single industry in the usa absent managing for it to improve. White people love touting welfare to work for black laborers but then for the industries in the usa owned by whites in whole or majority: real estate/farming/aviation/automotive/banks/dot com/crypto/green energy , they want blank welfare checks absent demanding better management by the whites who are being saved from the poor house where their financial actions led them.
It is the same with tariffs. If you want to block out foreign firms that is fine, it is common in history for all governments, but you must manage the industry internal industry, the usa doesn't manage the internal. And that goes to laws that stifle competition or better, don't penalize failure enough.
Look at the film studios industry in the usa.
AT&T sold warner bros to discovery because AT&T wanted to get rid of the debt on a loser. AT&T spent alot of money and got no return and added debt. Discovery bought Warner Bros on the cheap on the condition of taking all the debt off of AT&Ts books.
Even though AT&T were and are making very positive profits on telecommunications, they didn't want the losing film studio on the books to manipulate their stock value or influence speculation to their stock negatively. But, AT& T needed to be penalized properly, by having that sale blocked and Warner Bros closed and its assets auctioned off. AT& T should never have bought Warner Bros in the first place. Again, film studios like all media properties are financial losers historically. yes they have times of positive results but usually they are failures for obvious reasons.
Music labels/film studios/theaters/sports teams/sports leagues/similar are all as collective industries financial losers. Dallas Cowboys? yeah but look at the canadian football league or the defunct euro league. yeah New York knicks , who have a fortunate stadim, but what about the d league, the chinese league? no and no. Look at the yankees. ok, but what of double or triple a? terrible. Music labels are historically only profitable for the selloff at the end of their lives.
So penalty is what is truly lacking? and I comprehend why ? not having financial penalty has a long tradition. the entire white wealthy of the confederacy were too big to fail , or had a huge bailout at the end of the war between the states. which like all bailouts after led to a consistency of behavior, in that case, killing black people. And even in bailing out the government can penalize. And that penalization can be very positive for the industry in cleaning up bad financial practices.
22 hours ago, Troy said:
All we really have is tesla and while China has superior vehicles that cost less our EV charging infrastructure is paltry compared to the rest of the world.
i don't have any validatable information on china, but some say their ev industry is bottoming out, the problem is, even though they have the greatest deposits of rare earth minerals for the batteries accessible the EV cars use and china has an infrastructure to produce them or use them, the chinese automotive industry is built to export, not sell in china, and with usa+ europe not fully suitable for EV use completely, let alone the majority of humanity, absent any infrastructure for EV cars, the market for EV's is not a global one. The fuel of gas based cars serves a very good function in terms of international trade. Oil just needs to be sold. BUT EV's need electricity at volumes above remote gain. Electricity to handle a large volume of EV cars requires a system of infrastructure. this is the financial flaw that always existed. this is why the oil producers were not worried with the EV car movement the usa led because they knew, while USA+ China + Western Europe + japan will eventually change their energy infrastructures, most governments in the world don't have any energy infrastructure at all. so any vehicle that requires one is financially negative from the begining. So... its complex. This is why the hydrogen developers are still active in the labs. The negative of hydrogen is they haven't found a way to make its infrastructure cheap, you still need hydrogen lines and production+ Hydrogen is very dangerous to handle, very explosive. and it smanufacture also is part of the comprehension of hydrogen bombs so... the nuclear element is about it and the usa/russai/china/india/israel/select western european don' want the development of nuclear weapons to be common knowledge outside of the current nuclear powers. The positive, is hydrogen is like gas, in that you don't need an electric grid as much as hydrogen tanks and hydrogen based cars just put hydrogen in.
1/24/2026
Citation
https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/12348-could-ford-have-been-the-lone-major-us-automaker/#findComment-79619
osted just now
@ProfD
6 hours ago, ProfD said:
Lone major US automaker as you asked.
I had to ask that because you may not realize but minor us automakers are us automakers. The usa has six minor automakers off the top of my head, and I know it is more. The USA has never had one automaker, so your language confused me , to be honest. I was specific in my words and your reply. confused me.
Now, I will repost your quote and then give my reply comprehending you meant lone major us automaker
On 1/22/2026 at 10:04 PM, ProfD said:
IMO, Ford could never have been the lone US automaker.
Even if the federal government had not bailed out the auto industry, venture capitalists would have allowed those companies to go into bankruptcy or become insolvent.
Then, capitalists would have swooped in and picked the bones and built new automakers.
Lee Iaccoca resurrected Chrysler back in the 1980s. Daimler-Mercedes gave Chrysler a life in the late 1990s. Fiat and Stellantis have kept Chrysler afloat.
Capitalism and the free market ultimately decide if/when companies are allowed to go belly up totally.
Expand
I have another question. Sorry but your wording warrants me to ask another question.
Are you saying that Ford couldn't be the lone usa automaker because after a shares buyout or bankruptcy, General Motors + chrysler would remain at least in branding while more importantly in function as major automakers OR even if broken up parts would come together to form a major automaker?
I had to ask because the post original topic which you may not have read was about bankruptcy's role and me and pioneer's differing position on the function or role of bankruptcy. Me nor Pioneer were questioning the function of bailouts or bankruptcy in revitalizing assets of failing firms. I don't quite comprehend why you mentioned that.
The Agnelli family made stellantis as a holding firm for all of their assets, which include chrysler. Crhysler from my view isn't a car company any more. Chrysler is like Lexus is to Toyota. Lexus isn't a car company, Toyota is a car company, lexus is a brand in a car company. Stellantis is the company, Chrysler is a brand . In the same way Oldmobile was a brand in General Motors. Brands are not car companies. They are divisions in car companies that can be deleted. Oldmobile was originally the top engineering division of General Motors. But it died a generic brand. Chrysler will go the same way more than likely. To say Chrsyler is being kept afloat by Stellantis is financially incorrect. Stellantis, bought Chrysler for its name brand, some assets, and connections in the us auto industry.
@Pioneer1
please tell me who are you making this question to?
5 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:
Why would people allow just ONE automaker?
If it is to me, I don't comprehend why cause I never said the usa would have one automaker , I said explicityly, one major usa automaker.
5 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:
Anything that involves generating a lot of money will produce multiple manufacturers....usually in competition with eachother.
well, yes intiially, when a technology is young the financial gateway to entry is less and you get many entrepreneurs. BUT, oover time the gateway to entry becomes more expensive and the competition dies. this is financial fact proven through history. No industry in humanity that is over one hundred years old has competition outside of government protection or other scenarios that maintain firms for various reasons, usually dealing with governments desire to be self reliant. Post offices for example. The easiest way to prove my point is video game manufacturers. the competition is very few firms. The multiple era is already over, but the gateway to entry is high.
@ProfD
4 hours ago, ProfD said:
I'm thinking if brotha @richardmurray had his own country, the government would be responsible for everything from production and manufacturing to healthcare. Maybe entertainment would be free market.
You don't know me clearly
@Pioneer1
4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:
The government is making everything so there is no incentive to improve and do better.
Where is the basis for this position? Many people in the usa utter it, but I find no basis in truth. Colleges and universities, completely funded by the federal government of the usa are constantly, competing to make breakthroughs in the same technology. And that is the usa alone. Do I have to speak on china? all the innovations in china happen through the chinese government. Is not china the leader in many technologies. What basis does the thinking I quoted from you have in truth?
1/25/2026
Citation
https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/12348-could-ford-have-been-the-lone-major-us-automaker/#findComment-79697
osted just now
@Pioneer1
16 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:
That's not the government.
Those are PRIVATE (or semi-private state) institutions competing with eachother and coming up with inventions and technology and using government as well as private money to do so.
I have done research in colleges, know others who have done research in colleges, the government in the usa is the funder for colleges and universities hands down. The private sectors level of investment in college research is no where near the governments.
And again, most of the colleges are not private. Most of the colleges the usa government funds through research are not private institutions, they are public colleges which is the government.
16 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:
The modern Chinese, Japanese, and Korean societies have invented NOTHING.
All they've done is copy or make slight improvements on Western products and technology.
They don't invent a car, they just make one a little different or a little better or cheaper.
They don't invent a computer or social media, they take it and tweak it a little to make it different or better.
The Chinese Communist Party is nothing more than a large TEMP-SERVICE with millions of loyal workers that Western corporations can go to for a relatively cheap educated labor source.
What is your personal problem with china? or chinese? first I can tell you , you are incorrect about chinese invention. But more, importantly, is second, where does this negativity toward china come from?
@ProfD
16 hours ago, ProfD said:
One way or another, even if Ford have been bought out or allowed to go bankrupt, another major automaker would have grown or been established.
Well Ford never needed to be bailed out,that was general motors and chrysler, but... I do notice one thing very prevalent in alot of black online discussions concerning finance, many black people seem to have access to a crystal ball of knowledge which gives them certainty on what will happen , which only a few black folk like me, don't have access to.
I never mentioned what would happen in the future, i simply stated that bakruptcy is a needed tool. Pioneer stated bankruptcy is a tool that can't be allowed for firms of a certain size. You have stated the usa will always have more than one major automaker , which has no relationship to me or pioneer point but is a grand assumption. You don't give any financial reasoning for your position nor do you seem to consider humanity en large, which has value financially. Russia+ China are real, they have their own desires or plans, the usa can't tell them what to do, this is why even though russia lost the cold war, the usa has actually never stepped foot into russia, while the usa has belitted countries absent nuclear power... that is the whole point of the nonproliferation law.
1/25/2026
Citation
https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/12348-could-ford-have-been-the-lone-major-us-automaker/#findComment-79705
osted just now
@ProfD
2 hours ago, ProfD said:
First, I realize you want your threads responded to in a certain way. It's not gonna happen.
your epiphany is false but ok
2 hours ago, ProfD said:
The subject of discussion is mostly hypothetical.
the subject me and pioneer was debating which i opened to the floor is about truth. Guessing what will happen is hypothetical but stating what can happen is merely the truth. I am not interested in prescience to the future. I don't know the future, nor will I assume it, but I do know possibilities and when possibilities are falsely suggested as impossible, that to me are lies.
2 hours ago, ProfD said:
isn't allowed in certain situations.
that is alie. lehmann was allowed to go bankrupt. In the past thirty years all sorts of firms of various financial scale have gone bankrupt. your mischaracterizing situations as allowances. They are not the same thing.
2 hours ago, ProfD said:
already how & why the USA is the pre-eminent super power.
yes, we meaning the regular posters of this forum have displayed we each have various views on why or how the usa is powerful. let alone the definition of power. yes I concur if what your saying is what I just said.
2 hours ago, ProfD said:
Neither Russia nor China is the threat talking heads would have folks believe.
of course, the truth is, no government ever has been as big a threat as any country as advertised, that is human history.
2 hours ago, ProfD said:
the number of Chinese people living in the US.
ok what is it with you and @Pioneer1 and the chinese? did white man give a job you had to chinese or something? the white man of the usa let chinese in so I find the idea of chinese power silly in that sense, the chinese didn't force anything, the white man of the usa did this. You accept white power, well white power did it, that wasn't white asian but white european power.
You and pioneer, with the chinese. I saw the pew maps, the mexicans and the chinese and the indians are the three groups coming in most. You and pioneer never speak of mexicans so i guess you two are unthreatened by them. you never mentions indians, I have no idea why but you two are on a chinese rant thing.
2 hours ago, ProfD said:
Russia has been involved in conflicts over there since Vlady Putin has been running sh8t. The US issues fake warnimgs but they're not going to do anything to him. It's not just because of nuclear weapons.
earlier than that, the first czar under the golden horde was the beginning of russias long history with chaos internally. It isn't just because, but mostly because. ask iran about the value of nuclear weapons.
2 hours ago, ProfD said:
The Chess *game* is more important than anything. These super powers cooperate in how they choose to run the planet.
oh machiavelli so many blacks love to speak of the chess game, and chess is really a poor strategy game but anyway.
1/25/2026
Citation
https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/12348-could-ford-have-been-the-lone-major-us-automaker/#findComment-79733
sted just now
@Delano
3 hours ago, Delano said:
It was becoming unpaid work.
that was funny, well done, rarely do i find anything funny in here, well done. and I apologize:)
@Pioneer1
3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:
So it appears that there more private colleges and universities than public ones.
And even the public institutions aren't actually ran by "the government".
They are ran by individuals who are hired and fired the institution itself similar to those that are private.
Now most academic institutions both public and private are either funded by or TAKE funding from the Federal government.
But that's not the issue.
The point is that the colleges and universities, even if they are public....don't OPERATE like a branch of the government like law enforcement or traffic control.
They're ran or operate like private institutions, supposedly hiring and firing people based on qualifications and self interests and are motivated by profit seeking and revenue increase.
Expand
Even enough, most of the educational organizations you suggest are operated like private institutions motivated by profit seeking and revenue increase have never increased profit or revenue and live off welfare by the government for over thirty years. so ok. but I do have three questions
1) did you ask the large language model to delete college scams? Private universities include all of those scam colleges like trump university and everything. You are a crude fiscal capitalistic so I am prepared to read you think those scams warrant labeling as colleges of learning.
2) Based on your position, if New York City opens up marijuana dispensaries they can be considered private institutions, even if they never earn a profit and have an ever increasing expense which warrants debt growth by the government? Cause the federal government grows debt to maintain funding the colleges and universities like the airlines, like the farms like the banks like the film industries, like the real estate industry. And even though everything i just mentioned financially collapsed, completely failed financially, you consider all those things, private institutions no matter how unable they are to actually make money, no matter how much debt the government incurs to keep them afloat.
3) In the future , if a president restricts federal funds to a college or university and it folds, that isn't the fault of said president ? Because these colleges are private institutions, which are not the governments responsibility to fund. Private institutions are the responsibility of the financiers, so if the failing financiers are no longer given welfare at the behest of a president for whatever reason, which Schrumpt is opening any future president of the usa to have the power to do, that president isn't going against fiscal capitalism. they are treating that college like the bank would a bad debtor or like white people like to treat black people on welfare.
3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:
My only issue with them is they CLAIM to be Communist but in actuality practice ultra Capitalism.
Their current economic practices are in direct contradiction and conflict with what their modern founder Mao Zedong and his fellow revolutionaries fought and died for.
Which was an end to Western imperialism over China.
but the country you call your home, claim's to be about freedom is the biggest slaver...
many governments claim many things, why does china have to be the most honest government in the world when the usa/england/france are still active.
That is not true, imperialism isnt about fiscal capitalism, imperialism is about power. Did you know the term emperor originally meant what many will call today a warlord. imperialsm isn't about finance, imperialism is about whether your country is subject to another or not.
China is the only non white european government in humanity free to do as it wants in itself. China is free from anyone's imperialism, including japan's.
And china to its credit has no desire in being the global police force, like the usa.
RMCommunityCalendar 0 Comments · 0 Reviews
