"Chimerica" listed in buzzwords of 2009 in NY Time

On December 19, New York Times had published a list named "The Buzzwords of 2009" which includes many new and reborn words popular for global people. Among these words, "Chimerica", assembled by China and America, is on the list, too.

"Chimerica" means the intertwined economies of China and the United States, which together dominate the world economy. Popularized by Niall Ferguson in his book "The Ascent of Money." And in December of last year, Ferguson published another article named "Chimerica is one country, not two" and said "Chimerica" is an interests community combined by the biggest consuming country and the biggest saving country.

Now China is making aggressive inroads into English, isn't it?

Buzzwords are a journalistic gimmick. Shows how far society has dropped, that people think they can sum up a year, a whole year, or even a decade, no, not in a single book, not even in a single article, but with a single fucking word! I mean come on, that's too low. What next, sum up a decade in a single letter? A single punctuation mark?

of course, we all know 2010 will be about the asterisk***

as for china making aggressive inroads into english, ive not heard of that...they outnumber english speakers though

Chimerica

"Chimerica is one country, not two" and said "Chimerica" is an interests community combined by the biggest consuming country and the biggest saving country.

Shuimo, I recognise that name. I also recognise 'Niall Ferguson'. Someone based in China is in a poor position to recognise what is going to be a future buzz word. The economic model in which China saves and America spends; has come to an end with a bump. It was always fundamentally wrong. Poor people supporting the life-style of self-indulgent rich people.

Someone like Niall Ferguson would give a lecture entitled 'Chimerica'. The title would make students curious and afterwards it would remind them what the lecture was about. But would ordinary people use it, and would it be become part of everyday language; No! If I was Chinese, I would feel very angry that I had saved my money in an economy that has gone bad. I might even think that I would be better off buying something that would benefit me directly.

At one time General Motors was going to sell off Opel to a Russian company. General Motors were in a dreadful mess and had to do something when hit by the credit crunch. As soon as the credit crunch passed; General Motors changed their mind. They had bought themselves some time. General Motors have retained the capacity to produce small fuel efficient cars. That is the future.

You could argue that the biggest loser in the credit crunch has been China. Ordinary people in China are not in a position to protest when their government makes a mistake. They cannot vote in their self interest. They are unable to have a say in their own future. That means that Chinese society can be incredibly self disciplined, with say the 'one child per couple' policy. But is it really very good for Chinese people?

"That means that Chinese society can be incredibly self disciplined, with say the 'one child per couple' policy. But is it really very good for Chinese people?"

Robin Michael, there's an aspect of that "one-child only" that perhaps you're unaware of: mass abortion of female fetuses, sometimes forced, and a tendency towards infanticide, especially in rural areas.

I remember reading a story of a female infant left out in the woods to die. The poor child was brought to a hospital, whose staff was told about the sequence of events. They told the Good Samaritan,"you should have just left her there."

Eventually, the child was adopted by an American family.

Well, if there are too many people, there are too many people. What else can you do?
GLobal warming campaigners ought to recognise that too.

Dear Jasper

I recognise you as being one of the nicer people on Antimoon. However I also know, from past experience of corresponding with Americans that it can be very boring having an argument with someone that you agree. For that reason I prefer to have arguments with people from the planet Texas. I believe it is located quite close to Mars, and the inhabitants are even more war-like than the inhabitants of Mars.

I am not joking. The Daily Telegraph ran a front page story in which British officers in Iraq said that speaking to their American opposite numbers was like speaking to Martians. Which is a shame in some ways because the British army has a lot of experience of successfully dealing with insurgencies.

There is a problem that as an American you should recognise. America's national interest is sometimes better served by supporting nasty dictatorships than supporting democracies. The American government often looks for a strong man that it can do business with. So President Obama can go to a conference, make a deal that he knows will stick, and then go back to the American people to see if it is acceptable to them. Can you imagine how confusing a world in which everybody has elections could be?

I realise that China's one child policy is possibly good for China, is bad for Chinese people, and allows America to continue to be the world's biggest consumer and polluter etc. If Americans seriously think they need to do something about climate change, they need to fundamentally change a lot of policies, like their policy on abortion. Do we need any more unwanted children? Perhaps the American government could start handing out condoms.

Our policy on abortion, Robin Michael? What would that be? Americans have them or don't have them all the time, as they choose.

Robin Michael:


<<America's national interest is sometimes better served by supporting nasty dictatorships than supporting democracies. The American government often looks for a strong man that it can do business with. So President Obama can go to a conference, make a deal that he knows will stick, and then go back to the American people to see if it is acceptable to them.>>

I don't think that you can logically claim that the American Government is the only one who has and continues to profit by propping up oppressive regimes. Why, the British in the 20th century were far more active in two such instances than the U.S. in Iraq or Afghanistan. This is without even mentioning all the assistance the U.S. received from the British during the Cold War, which is where these same things you speak of were largely made manifest. And we all know about Brittan's current activities in global politics. Why is it always, always "America does this, America does that"? Have you paid any attention to your own history or current affairs. Well, let an American give a Brit a refresher course on British foreign policy.

The British Investment in Apartheid:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/4362557

Gandhi and the British Empire:
http://historicalbiographies.suite101.com/article.cfm/gandhi_and_the_british_empire

<<I realise that China's one child policy is possibly good for China, is bad for Chinese people, and allows America to continue to be the world's biggest consumer and polluter etc. If Americans seriously think they need to do something about climate change, they need to fundamentally change a lot of policies, like their policy on abortion.>>

Well, the population of the U.S. is really not out of control. Most of the population growth in the U.S. comes from immigration, legal and otherwise. And, we in the U.S. can no longer claim to be the biggest risk as far as global warming is concerned. As you stated, there is a big investment in alternative energies in the U.S. as well as smaller vehicles and natural gas, which emits half the CO2 that other forms of energy produce. Actually, while china has not yet overtaken the U.S. in either economic or military power, it has over taken us in carbon emotions:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jun/19/china.usnews

Oh, and . . . I think China is well on its way to becoming a consumerist culture, while the U.S. is begining to save. Odd how things turn around.

Chinese car market overtakes US:
http://autos.ca.msn.com/news/canadian-press-automotive-news/article.aspx?cp-documentid=22841273


and, "The recession has caused a seismic shift in the consumer culture, converting die-hard spenders into savers. A growing number of people, either smarting from a job loss or spooked by the financial crises of others, are scrambling to get out of debt, establish emergency funds, and add to their retirement and savings accounts.

After having taken the first plunge by cutting holiday spending, many are seeking more substantial ideas on how to sustain their frugality.

With the turn of the calendar, financial planners and counselors typically get an influx of calls from people seeking help with New Year's resolutions to save money. This year, the requests have multiplied."

Full article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/24/AR2009122403374.html?hpid=topnews

Dear Wintereis

The British were involved in the scramble for Africa and Empire building generally. This was a continuation of foreign policy objectives that were always about what was best for Britain or the Royal Family or whatever.

So, why do British people have a sense of grievance about American foreign policy. Well, perhaps part of that grievance is that Americans say one thing, and do something else.

On the whole I am sure that British people would prefer the big bad world to be dominated by an English speaking country with similar values, than horror of horrors; China or Russia or Iraq or Iran!

Another thing to remember of course, is that not every single inhabitant of the British Isles is personally and directly responsible for British foreign policy and how it is implemented. Living in the UK, I probably have a better understanding of British foreign policy than someone who lives in another country.

I know that in the twisted logic of the terrorist that the inhabitants of a country are held responsible for that country's foreign policy. I know that sometimes that terrorists are not interested in right or wrong, but rather like the Trolls in antimoon, they are only interested in inflicting damage.

Happy New Year (Wintereis)

Wintereis Sun Jan 03, 2010 6:45 am GMT
Oh, and . . . I think China is well on its way to becoming a consumerist culture, while the U.S. is begining to save. Odd how things turn around.

----------------------

No, the Chinese are teaching americans lessons!

<<Well, if there are too many people, there are too many people. What else can you do?>>

Best bet for China is to start expanding its borders. That way, they can reduce the overcrowding without reducing the population.

"Living room" and all that. :)

Two to three billion Chinese spread out over the whole earth (with all non-Chinese eliminated from the picture) wouldn't be crowded at all.