How Low Can You Go: Selling Out Taiwan To Settle U.S. Debt With China?

Static Chaos's picture

Static Chaos

Post-Lehman and after the Too Big To Fail Wall Street banks were ultimately bailed out by the American taxpayer, Moral Hazard was cited as a major systemic risk to the global financial system.  Three years later, a NYT OpEd piece has managed to potentially take Moral Hazard to the next level -- the fiscal and ethical system of the U.S. government.


From NYT written by Paul V. Kane (emphasis mine):

"With a single bold act, President Obama could correct the country’s course, help assure his re-election, and preserve our children’s future.

....He should enter into closed-door negotiations with Chinese leaders to write off the $1.14 trillion of American debt currently held by China in exchange for a deal to end American military assistance and arms sales to Taiwan and terminate the current United States-Taiwan defense arrangement by 2015."

Kane then went on to pat himself on the back that

"This would be a most precious prize to the cautious men in Beijing, one they would give dearly to achieve."

For those unfamiliar with this part of U.S. foreign policy history, here is a quick rundown excerpted mostly from Wikipedia:

The Taiwan Relations Act (the TRA) is an act of the United States Congress passed in 1979 under President Jimmy Carter after breaking the relations with the Republic of China (ROC) - Taiwan to establish diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China (PRC).

While not recognized as "the Republic of China (ROC)", Taiwan is to be treated under U.S. laws the same as "foreign countries, nations, states, governments, or similar entities" under the TRA. The TRA also requires the United States "to provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character", and "to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan."

U.S. administrations have since sold arms to Taiwan in compliance with the Taiwan Relations Act despite protests from Beijing.  The TRA does not require the U.S. to intervene militarily if the PRC attacks or invades Taiwan, and the U.S. has maintained a "strategic ambiguity" in that scenario.  However, a July 2007 Congressional Research Service Report confirmed that US policy has not recognized the PRC's sovereignty over Taiwan.

From the bio at NYT, Kane is "a former international security fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School, is a Marine who served in Iraq."  As leaned as Kane might be, it is a serious stretch even for him to have come up with such a "creative solution" to America's debt problem, by selling out another government, which has very little to do with the debt agreement between China and the U.S. to begin with, breaking enacted U.S. laws all through "closed-door negotiation" with Beijing, without a single regard and consult to Taiwan.


Furthermore, Kane's proposal is essentially the epitome of Imperialism much despised by the West in that using Taiwan as a leverage to settle the U.S. debt owed to China, thus implying Taiwan as a piece of property owned and could be "traded" by the United States in a debt settlement negotiation.


Inter-country courtesy and decency to Taiwan aside, Kane's suggestion is just plain wrong on so many levels.  It is ironic how the Arab Spring is overthrowing autocratic governments and leaders left and right, yet Kane has regressed to the opposite as to recommend President Obama basically bowing, symbolically as well as physically, to China, which is still largely autocratic despite recent progress, all for a quick trillion bucks.


Kane has also worked out the math for China:

"A deal for the resolution of Taiwan’s status could save China $500 billion in defense spending by 2020 and allow Beijing to break even by 2030, while reducing America’s debt and serving our broader economic interests."

Where do you think China would put the $500 billion saving in Taiwan defense?  Hint: Beefing up the defense (think nuclear) against the U.S. would be a good guess!


Kane's conclusion:

....By tackling the issue of Taiwan, Mr. Obama could address much of what ails him today, sending a message of bold foreign policy thinking and fiscal responsibility that would benefit every citizen and be understood by every voter.

I'm sure the world community would be thrilled to learn that Obama's "bold foreign policy thinking", "fiscal responsibility", and his re-election all hinge on a tiny island with a population of mere 23 million.  Jimmy Carter sold Taiwan out some 30 years ago, conceivably it would not be hard for the U.S. to do it again.  But seriously, how low can you go?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
earleflorida's picture

japan would/could build up a military deterrent in a few years if said actions occur and blow up china for us -  what comes next,... canned worm  invasions, where the only bait is or are  artificially colored flavored human? 

matrix2012's picture

What a retarded intelligence!

How can one "sell out" or trade something that it does not possess?

If the story puts HAWAII or ALASKA on the table, it'll be much comprehendible!

matrix2012's picture

I think folks must read this one eye-opener!

No Platform! Establishment Division to stop Natural Unity

"Sifting people into groups in order to identify ideological similarities can be used for two purposes: Firstly, to identify like-minded individuals in order to build an organisation to combat a common enemy, or to advance a common aim (sometimes the same thing); secondly, to demonise anyone who does not conform to the views, ideals and prejudices of the labeller. Labelling as regards to political matters is more often of the 'divide and conquer' variety than of attempts at unity."

newbee's picture

And how has Hong Kong worked out since China took it back - just fine.  They are essentially the same as before with their own currency, controls, elections etc.  The same will happen to Taiwan.  It's been part of China for thousands of years.  At least half of the Taiwan people are dieing to re-unite with China, it's only the last Nationalist Party hold outs that want to keep Taiwan separated from China since their 1945-48 civil war. 

This reunion will happen one way or another.  I say we get out of the way and let it happen.  Tibet is part of China as well, always has been.  "Free Tibet", makes me laugh.  The monks were slave owners over the Tibetan people and want that control again.  The average Tibetan is quite happy not being in chains and shackles under the monks' control.  Enough with us fucking around in other people's business.

merizobeach's picture

"And how has Hong Kong worked out since China took it back - just fine."  Do you live in HK or even ever go there?  The HK people are not pleased that their legislature is a rubber stamp appointed by Beijing, and the CCP has repeated renigged on promises to restore their self-governance--promises dating back to and upon which the British hand-over was predicated. 


"At least half of the Taiwan people are dieing to re-unite with China, it's only the last Nationalist Party hold outs that want to keep Taiwan separated from China"  You, newbee, are a total fucking arrogant idiot.  And by the way, your understanding or history and reality are severely skewed.  You clearly do not live in Taiwan, and you have no understanding its citizens.  Only about 10% of Taiwanese want political integration with China, and that number drops steadily as those old civil war era immigrants--chinese nationalists--die off.  There are about a further 10~15% of Taiwanese who identify themselves as Chinese or Chinese/Taiwanese, but they do not long to join the totalitarian empire.  The young people in Taiwan increasingly indentify themselves as citizens of the nation of Taiwan, even if their corrupt immigrant government still calls itself the Republic of China.  The word "TAIWAN" is clearly printed on the front their passports.  It is those last, old Taiwanese-hating and oppressing Chinese Nationalist Party immigrants that have never relinquished autocratic control who are now brokering to assimilate the Taiwanese people into Beijing's political sphere; they are doing this because their numbers are dwindling and their party--already an anachronism--will be purged within a generation if they don't find a way to re-leverage themselves over the locals.  And why shouldn't they?  They, including the sitting president, are Chinese-born immigrants who do not see themselves as Taiwanese despite their 60 year occupation and the growing Taiwanese nationalist sentiments of their own grandchildren.


"Tibet is part of China as well, always has been."  You are ignorant and wrong.  Always?  WTF does that mean?  Since 15000 years ago when people established permanent settlements there?  Well, let's see, the People's Republic of China is about 62 years old, so that makes you about the dumbest shit on the block.

"The average Tibetan is quite happy"  Quite happy that their national anthem is illegal in their own homeland?  Happy that they can be imprisoned for free speech or marching through their villages?  Take your arrogance and washed-brain and fuck yourself, and while you do it, STFU.

matrix2012's picture

Well, talking about TIBET, one may be interested to learn below information.

For a clear purpose, it NEVER comes into discussion about the FACTS that before liberation, the Tibetan people were lived under SERFDOM.


"...Before that, Tibet was a slave colony, what the Western press euphemistically refers to as a 'feudal system'. It was no such thing. Virtually ALL THE POPULATION was OWNED by the DALAI and OTHER LAMAS and WORKED THEIR ENTIRE LIVES WITHOUT PAY. The highest monks often owned 35,000 to 40,000 slaves. The prettiest girls (and boys) were confiscated to the monasteries for sex. Life was brutal and harsh, corrupt and punctuated by civil wars - the last in 1950. Life expectancy was barely 30..."

Following is another excerpt from an article by N. RAM (link is given below):

"The sky is turquoise, the sun is golden,

The Dalai Lama is away from the Potala,

Making trouble in the west.

Yet Tibet's on the move."


"...Yet there can be little question that there is a Tibet question, that it has a problematical international as well as Sino-Indian dimension, that it continues to cause concern to the political leadership and people of China, and that it serves to confuse and divide public opinion abroad and, to an extent, at home. This is essentially a function of the coming together of a host of objective and subjective factors. These are the Dalai Lama's religious charisma combined with the iconic international status of Tibetan Buddhism; his long-lastingness and tenacity; the ideological-political interests and purposes he has served over four decades and more; his considerable wealth and global investments and resources mobilised from the Tibetan diaspora in various countries; the grievous cultural and human damage done, in Tibet as much as in the rest of China, during the decade of the 'Cultural Revolution' (1966-76); the nature of the 'independent Tibet' movement that has rallied around the person and office of the Dalai Lama; the links and synergies 'His Holiness' has managed to establish with Hollywood, the media, legislators, and other influential constituencies in the West; the plausible, yet demonstrably tendentious and false, propaganda material generated by this anti-China and anti-Communist campaign in the post-Cold War era; and (from an Indian standpoint, not the least troubling aspect) the Dalai Lama's continuing Indian base of operations.


Historically, from the second half of the thirteenth century when China came under the Mongol Yuan dynasty founded by Kublai Khan, Tibet has experienced the merging of religious and temporal power in a peculiar type of theocracy. With the ascendancy of the Gelug, or Yellow, sect of Tibetan Buddhism, the honorific 'Dalai' (meaning 'Ocean'), conferred on the leader of the sect by the ruler of a Mongol tribe, appears during the Ming dynasty in the sixteenth century. Historical records show that the institution of the Dalai Lama as an 'incarnate' politico-religious supremo - recognised and indeed empowered by the Chinese Central Government - dates back to the middle of the seventeenth century, when the Great Fifth received a formal title and a golden seal of authority from the Qing Emperor whom he visited in Beijing. From that time, there have been Dalai Lamas powerful and inept, ascetic as well as pleasure-seeking, learned as well as shallow, masterful as well as manipulated, long-lived but also cut off in youth (possibly poisoned) in several cases...."

If you really wanna know the truth instead of some fantasies or even fabricated realities, please drop by at below.






cfosnock's picture

Lets take this at face value and we cut off aid to Taiwan. Taiwan has money so it turns to the Russians for military hardware. Taiwan will now not be supporting our Military Industrial Complex.  Then add that our "aid" goes directly towards the Military Industrial Complex's bottom line. Do you think the Military Industrial Complex would not allow one of its top customers go to its competition? Congress may mot care about Taiwan but it does care about its campaign contributions so this will never happen

rcwhalen's picture

Selling out Taiwan to repay US debt is a hideous proposal.

americanspirit's picture

The posters on this thread who say that Taiwan is far too valuable to the US to trade to China for debt are right. So, how about trading California? That should do the trick, and the US wouldn't be out anything worth keeping. /s


etresoi's picture

"the ... ethical system of the U.S. government" must be the ideal definition of an oxymoron.

CEOoftheSOFA's picture

I thought Obama might be temped to sell Alaska for a trillion. But selling something we don't own just goes to show that I'm not thinking out of the box. 

Smiddywesson's picture

This proposal demonstrates how narcissistic and establishment minded the extreme wings of both parties are.  They can't imagine a world where we just default.  These lapdogs of TPTB believe in the current monetary and financial system to the exclusion of everything else, including reason, morals, and the Constitution of the United States of America.


PulauHantu29's picture

You miss the point. China and Taiwan already have a vibrant trade flights...etc. Most young people in Taiwan and China don't have the old grudges.

So why pay over a trillion for a healing process that is talking place gradually? Do you think money (or war) solves everything? You must be from Wall Street.

Widowmaker's picture

Mr. Kane and certain publishers might want to consider wearing a helmet for a while.

Hopefully one capable of stopping tai pianos.

Selling Taiwan has been used around the world in retired military circle jerks to always get a laugh. It's an old buck- skin joke.

The NYT needs better material and more class -- glad I don't subscribe.

BigInJapan's picture

What a moron.
Both Japan and Taiwan would have nukes ready before I could get my house sold and with their backs to the Pacific, be ready to use them.

billwilson's picture

Kane is a fucking idiot.

The Taiwan issue is that the rest of the world is too fucking chicken to stand up to China. Taiwan is a nation of 23 million people that is refused international recognition. It has every requirement to be a country (its own territory, currency, military, elected representatives, central bank, legal system ....) yet the rest of the world does not recognize it ... yet somehow recognizes every tiny isalnd nation with a few thousand people. Taiwan is about the 50th largest country by population (bigger than Switzerland, Greece, Portugal, Hungary, Norway ......)

TAIWAN is a country!


Widowmaker's picture

Actually, the Taiwan issue was the United States military implication standing behind them, not demographics.

Selling them off forfeits many championship titles, idealistic and otherwise.

Fascism draped in an American flag using the dirty dollar to bail out corporations, even when it consumes democracy and principle every step of the way.

Smiddywesson's picture

Taiwan is a country"

So was Tibet.

Hell, we should sweeten the deal and throw in New Jersey

xglider's picture

This is an incredbly ridiculous and cynical proposal proposed by Mr. Kane. Taiwan is important on many levels:

1) Taiwan is a grassroots based democracy and has a political system that is based on human rights, free speech and representative government by free elections in a part of the world that needs more examples of this, not less. This was hard fought by the people of Taiwan at tremendous risk and sacrifice over several generations. They also demonstrate that liberal democracy can work in an ethnically "chinese" populace (unlike what Singapore or China claim, that democracy is somehow incompatible with Chinese culture). China, if it is ever to develop into a democracy needs Taiwan to remain thus.

2) Taiwan is an important component of the global electronic supply chain and industry. Many key players in the US consumer industry (ie: Foxcon) are actually Taiwanese companies with factories residing in China. Needless to say, key american industries will lose more leverage (ie Apple) once Taiwan is completely subsumed into the Communist industrial / political complex. 


Taiwan is an important strategic and economic ally in an area that has been and continues to grow in importance to the US. If we follow Mr. Kane's logic, we should sell out Isreal to the Iranians and so forth. We betray our fundamental core values as Americans. 

I'm heartened by some of the more well informed commentators here who are calling out Mr. Kane's proposal as complete repugnant trash based on short sighted ignorance. I hope others will come to the same conclusion.



etresoi's picture

"we should sell out Isreal to the Iranians"  Now here is an idea I can support.  Unfortunately  Iran is not stupid and would find no use for Isreal is a liability to its sole ally.

merizobeach's picture

This Paul Kane is definitely an arrogant scumbag.


There are more people in Taiwan than in any of the states except CA and TX; the land area is small, but there are more people in Taiwan than Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Nevada, Montana, Wyoming, and North & South Dakota combined.  Now, Mr Kane obviously doesn't know or give a shit about those people, but just to be clear, he is proposing to give the brutal dictatorship of China a green light to invade and conquer a sovereign democratic republic of 23 million people; he proposes to deny political self-determination to a large group of people--who already have political self-determination--and who would then be subjected to the malice of a hostile, oppressive, and vengeful regime.  Cain seems to have made this proposal amorally, because it is ethically reprehensible.


Basically, Kane is flat wrong in just about every sentence of his article.  He also neglects historical realities such as Reagan's "Six Assurances" in 1982, the Taiwan Relations Act passed by Congress in 1979, the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act of 2000, and the recently introduced bill, The Taiwan Policy Act of 2011.


The political absorption of Taiwan by China could potentially have major repercussions on air and waterways and therefore commerce and regional security.  Nevermind that regional security would be totally compromised in the event of a military conflict between Taiwan and China.  Extending China's waterways would further exacerbate pre-existing conflicts with Japan over the Senkaku/Diaoyutai islands and with the Philippines and Vietnam over the Spratly Islands and the South China/East Philippine Sea.


Kane proposes unsaddling a great deal of US debt, which is a decent theory except for the futility of the gesture when it would equate to the permanent loss of an allied nation (on the doorstep of the enemy) in exchange for a stopgap debt extension.  Kane also neglects that Taiwan is somewhat like an ATM for the US military industrial complex, as that little country laps up any and all weapons systems offered to them by the US.  Taiwan's government has been trying for years to get approval from GWB and now BHO to spend tens of billions on F-16C/Ds, submarines, cruisers, helicopters, missiles, etc--pretty much whatever they can get.


Without taking the time to methodically refute Kane's article point by point, which would swell to a long dissertation, I will conclude simply that I find his thesis to be highly offensive, morally repugnant, and extremely arrogant.  It's true that the hegemonic ruling party in Taiwan today is so afraid of democracy and losing power again that they have brokered a deal to deliver Taiwan's political assimilation in exchange for some promise or illusion of permanent domestic governance, and the Taiwanese people may foolishly opt for this by re-electing the incumbent, President ("Call me Mr") Ma, in January, but as they are still presently citizens of their own sovereign country, they still have legislated human rights, including the right to political self-determination; and neither Mr Cane nor Nobel Laureate Obama have the legal authority to co-opt those human rights nor to sacrifice the freedoms of those people.


Paul Kane: you are a disgrace.

Gringo Viejo's picture

How low? Bottomless. America's politically connected, moneyed class is morally repugnant. But no more so than 15 years ago when the "leader of the 'free' world" was pumping his white owl in and out of a 25 year old intern's cunt. And everyone just turned way and said, hey, it's not my daughter. Come to think of it, we're a morally repugnant people.

Marco's picture

Screwing around in a loveless political marriage and selling out 28 million of your allies to a dictatorship is on a whole different level IMO.

longonSpam's picture

Hold on a minute, its genius just misdirected.. we get to keep Taiwan & we give China Texas. Only catch is they have to take delivery. If they do it FOB our dock throw in Mississippi for free.

merizobeach's picture

While we're at it, let's force secession on the entire former confederacy. That was a war that shouldn't have been fought!  Shoulda told 'em 150 years ago: "You're leavin'?  Damn, party on!  Now GTFO!"  >:-D

takinthehighway's picture

Just in case you might like to relieve some of your historical ignorance...

Read the sample chapter...

...oh, and we are making preparations to leave...

merizobeach's picture

Future geography teacher: "This bloated mass of land (and people), boys and girls, is called Texas, the capitol province of the People's Democratic Christian Republic of the Patriotic Nationalistic American South.  You might not ever meet people from there because of the Great Wall Protecting the South that we built for them, which runs the full length of their land border.  Nobody gets in or out, and everybody on the inside and outside is satisfied with this arrangement."

longonSpam's picture

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out..

Btw we were here first and we're way bigger and we can kill all of you anytime we want so YOU have to move.

B-Bye now..

Lednbrass's picture

You wouldnt have to force much, we're pretty well sick of you chest waxing pseudo intellectual nancy boys as it is.  Get that in writing, and a big chunk of the south would is more then happy to walk, it would certainly be better then being chained to the northeast and left coast as they implode.

merizobeach's picture

"we're pretty well sick of you chest waxing pseudo intellectual nancy boys as it is."  Point well taken and no offense from me, buddy!  My full disclosure is that I was pretty well sick with the entire lot and jettisoned myself out of Bushistan early on; I've never even set foot in Obamastan!  That "love or leave it" mentality that so many there have also suits me well.


It's a big world, and I won't live in a society or under a government that I find reprehensible.  The present administration in Taiwan is intolerable, but there are elections coming here in January; the Democratic Progressive Party is fielding chairwoman Tsai Ing-wen, Taiwan's first female presidential candidate versus the incumbent president, Chinese Nationalist Party chairman Ma Ying-jeou.  If Ma wins again, this country is toast.  I'll pack for Sihanoukville; I've already looked at the tickets.


As an aside, Mr Ma graduated from National Taiwan University, then from NYU Law, and also Harvard Law; he worked for a Wall St law firm and then for a bank in Massachusetts.  As Taipei mayor, he embezzled NT$11million (about US$350K)--into his wife's bank account, and when it was discovered, he donated the money to a charity and was acquitted in his party-rigged legal system.  When Ma first ran for his party's chairmanship versus an old, decrepit party stalwart, his own father threatened to hang himself if he won, suggestedly because of his untrustworthiness, perhaps because of his brief flirting with American liberalism in the 70s and his holding of a Green card.  Ma, of course, won the seat; the insane old Taiwanese-resenting Chinese immigrant father kicked the bucket soon afterward.  Ma proved his father wrong, as has led the party with an iron fist and in accordance with the senior, behind-scenes influence of Lian Chan, the arcitect of the assimilation strategy.


Ms Tsai also graduated from NTU, then from Cornell Law, and a PhD from London School of Economics; she was a university professor, and then working under Taiwan's first democratically elected president, Lee Tung-hui, Tsai helped draft the "special state to state relationship" doctrine that marked the precedent of the ROC acknowledging the PRC while simultaneously declaring ROC sovereignty in Taiwan, made by President Lee on German radio in 1999.  Tsai left the CNP (also known in pinyin as the Kuomingtang, or KMT) with the departing president and later became vice-premier during the subsequent DPP administration.  She became party chairwoman after the DPP's loss in the 2008 presidential elections.

merizobeach's picture

If "better" or more representative government is the goal, then I think the US is much too big and ought to be divided.  Texas, California, New York, and Alaska are about as similar as Germany, France, Spain, and Italy.  Those Europeans don't have any wish to further erode their representation in government with further political integration.  Perhaps 'reverse engineering' political union might restore better democracy in America.


I think a Chile-shaped country from about Santa Cruz, CA to the Canadian border, from the coast about 50~100 miles inland, depending on geography, would encapsulate a demographic of citizenry that might more happily co-exist.  Alaska should be independent, as should Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Guam. South and east CA, NV, AZ, NM could throw in together, perhaps.  For sure, Utah and the surrounding Mormon-dominant demographic regions could be given sovereignty (and land-locked with travel restrictions put on their passports).  New England could break off somewhere under or around Philly.  Chicago could be the capitol of a great swath of central farmland... I was going to include east WA, ID, MT, ND, SD, WY, but now I suspect they would want to be a rural entity unto themselves--see "tri-state militia".  And Texas unto itself, or with the South as a whole: independence and soveriegnty unto them.  Perhaps even south Florida should be sliced off for its own jurisdiction.  At least with those changes, the local presidents (or dieties or whatever, in the case of the Kingdom of Mormon) in those smaller countries might, possibly, have higher approval ratings and/or deliver governance more suited to the local people.  Maybe.  At least, there might not have been the political or military cohesion to have set the middle east on fire for the past ten years.

longonSpam's picture

Since I'm in "Chile North" lets make that ALL OF NORCAL plus Oregon & Washington State. We get Yosemite and the Valley north of Fresno, thank you very much.

The first thing we're gonna do is sign a big fat treaty with the Northeast Corridor just as soon as they dump Philly and then all the rest of you are str8 fukked. We'll have all the money, all the innovation, great schools, renewable resourses, natural beauty that we will respect & maintain and we finally get to exile all the asshole neocons that are incapable of understanding what a social contract is.

This is sounding better by the minute.

merizobeach's picture

Wow, dude, I've been ranting about and  espousing this years, and you might be the first to agree with enthusiasm.  :-)


Are you sure you want Spokane and the Mormon part of Oregon?  The Spokanites of ole Spokanistan, where I went to high school, might be happier with the Idaho/Montana crowd... they'd get to be the big frontier city!

longonSpam's picture

If it means LA & Vegas are in a different country I'm all in. Everybody has a little part of the family that's totally fucked up & embarrassing.. the high desert Tards will make it easier to keep peace with Idaho anyway. They wouldn't even notice. Sun Tsu would demand a token crazy/Mormon/whatever contingent to preserve sovereignty.

You are my new hero btw, CLASSIC take on Texas! I'm pretty near Yosemite, lived in San Francisco for a long time.. we've got a lot in common with Seattle & Portland(and Boston back east I suppose) but very little with Houston or Orlando. Why do we absolutely positively have to be in the same county? I'm down big time for the People's Socialist Northwest Territories.

All we gotta change in the Declaration of Independence & Constitution is replace all the Creator's & Gods with Universal Healthcare. And then actually follow it, what a concept..

merizobeach's picture

Cheers!  :-)

I went to Yosemite about four years ago, last time I was in the States.  Beautiful, of course, and my first time to see wild bears.  Years ago, I lived in SF briefly and Santa Rosa for a while.  Nice places.  When my Taiwanese students say they want to study in the States, I send them all to the Bay Area.

Best wishes to the Better-Governmentarians (and Secessionists)!

trav7777's picture

I think I proposed this like 3 years ago, that we would possibly sell out Taiwan at some point

eatthebanksters's picture

Why would China do the proposed deal with us when they know if the 'stuper committee can't find common ground there will be automatic cuts to our budget including $600 Billion to the Defense portion;  This will gut out military and defensive capability. When this happens, give it two or three years and China will sail over and stake their claim to Taiwan un-opposed.  Meanwhile we'll owe them another trillion SS.  Patience can be a virtue.

AvenoSativo's picture

Krugman's Nobel prize and his tireless NYT penning work be damned, "To Save Our Economy", we only have to "Ditch Taiwan". What a genius! Krugman should give his Nobel prize to Kane.

No need to argue about how (not) to kick the can down the road. After "Ditch Taiwan", America can party on!

Absalon's picture

"For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul?"


But to sell your national soul for ten months of deficit spending?

Stuck on Zero's picture

We sold all our manufacturing to China for a few trillion.  Taiwan has shafted us 1000 times in trade.  Why don't we just walk away from that part of the world?

Marco's picture

Because if the US tries to "walk away" from China (ie. erect trade barriers) the dollar will lose reserve currency status and America will be forced into trade balance ... at which point all kinds of shit will hit the fan. The necessary reduction in median standard of living inside the US to attain trade balance is massive (manufacturing wise it's not a big problem, the problem is oil).

Yen Cross's picture

 China/ 5 thousand years of Gun Powder!  Even the Russians that control a land mass 3X the size of yours, and share borders, with just under 200 million people! , hold your tunneling {Viet Nam} style warfare in check!

laosuwan's picture

why do usa newspapers, which call themselves the fourth branch of government, feel they have a write to editorialize about anything. are they not supposed to be impartial providers of news with no inerests other than the truth and facts. Yet here they are saying, government needs to do this, nobody should be allowed to do that, abandon Taiwan, etc., etc. What gives them the right to expect their (the owner's) opinion is any more valid than anyone else's opinion? Just the fact that they own a printing press. I never understood why USA people allow this.

Hedgetard55's picture

Agreed. That freedom of speech thing is way overrated, Adolf.

laosuwan's picture

What Freedom of Speech? How can there be freedom of speech if the news is biased? Speech is discussion and opinon based around some shared understanding of a fact or observation. But if the news is biased, or telling them what to think, then how can there be freedom?

ejhickey's picture

why d we allow it?  because in America everyone has the right to be an idiot and the first amendment gives them the right to prove thier idiocy in print.  Mr. Kane has done that, in spades.

web bot's picture

You know... where I grew up... I knew people who didn't have any teeth in their heads or dentures... also people who couldn't read or write... but some of these people had great common sense... they just never had the opportunity to advance. If so, they would have risen considerably, which brings me to Mr. Kane. He's surpassed his level of competence and not amount of tooth extraction will help him.

CHINA is our future enemy... Look at their history... look at their Taoist philosophy. We in the west don't understand how the Chinese think... and that's a grave underestimation of what's to come.

This guy is an idiot.