3 ms·

Looking at the discussion so far - probably going to get trolled/downvoted but here goes: From all of the above comments - people are trying to undo only the p

Looking at the discussion so far - probably going to get trolled/downvoted but here goes: From all of the above comments - people are trying to undo only the parts of globalization that they don't like (wage arbitrage is one of them - stop crying!). I truly wonder what would happen if the Indians (and the rest of the world) started treating Americans the same way the America treats them and starts to roll back the impacts of globalization: 1. Stop American businesses from getting favors under trade deals and especially with sales of military equipment 2. Ask each American to provide all their social media account information when entering the country or throw them out 3. Set quotas for American businesses to sell their products/services. 4. Force Google, etc to locate servers and data-centers in China/India directly and give the keys to local governments (if the US government can get access why should other governments not?) If a trade war did happen: Specific to India: Their economy is mostly non-export oriented (except the IT services part) - they will probably take longer to raise the quality of living for their population - but it will probably be a better path to take (a trade war would probably help grow domestic businesses faster) Specific to China: The USA needs access to the Chinese markets rather than the other way. Plus they can always dump all those treasury notes Perhaps a trade war (rather de-globalization) would be a good idea for the developing world - it would bring better balance to the world and undo globalization as a whole and not parts of it (which is exactly what USA voted for when they elected Trump). P.S. Please don't give a self-righteous BS response about USA being the land of the free and so on.. I think it's pretty obvious most immigrants are there for the money and quality of living (the kind of quality that comes with money and not society, safety, etc)

Helmet 10y ago
You're severely underestimating the impact U.S. business has on other countries. A trade war with any of the countries you have listed would harm them much more than it would harm the US. China holds about 8-9% US debt. Their entire economic model is based on the devaluation of their currency so that the US and other countries purchase their products. If China dumps US debt, there is plenty of demand elsewhere. Look, I'm not some extreme pro-America nationalist - but you have to look at the facts and it is simply an indisputable reality that no other country in the world can compete with the US on economic grounds. You are overplaying your hand if you think that a trade war with the US would end favorably for any of those nations.
- throwaway251 10y ago
  You are right - no other country in the world can compete with the US on economic grounds. And the reason for this has been decades of international trade that the USA has benefited from. The aim should not be competition but dis-engagement. It would cause a LOT of short term pain - but 15-20 years later it would show benefits. China and India need to evolve with reduced dependence on exports (and the developed world). In any case they will have the largest markets based on current population projections. Just look at the kind of income inequality that exists in these countries - I would actually argue that this was a by-product of trying to copy/serve the US model at some level.
  - koopuluri 10y ago
    > I would actually argue that this was a by-product of trying to copy/serve the US model at some level. How?
throwawaytw5454 10y ago
If a trade war happened, it would wound the developing world a great deal more than it would impact the United States. The US could be self-sufficient in terms of resources and manufacturing with relatively minor policy shifts and subsidization of domestic industries. China's export-driven, currency-manipulating economic engine pretty much needs the US as a market so it doesn't collapse under its own weight. China already isn't playing ball by allowing American companies to compete within its domestic market, so it's not like that would be any great loss on that front. Personally, I'd love to stop subsidizing the third world at the expense of American citizens. Developing countries need the US a lot more than the US needs them.
- throwaway251 10y ago
  "Personally, I'd love to stop subsidizing the third world at the expense of American citizens. Developing countries need the US a lot more than the US needs them." That's the exact illusion most Americans live on. "On November 7, 2016, debt held by the public was $14.3 trillion or about 76% of the previous 12 months of GDP.[5][6][7][8] Intragovernmental holdings stood at $5.4 trillion, giving a combined total gross national debt of $19.8 trillion or about 106% of the previous 12 months of GDP.[7] $6.2 trillion or approximately 45% of the debt held by the public was owned by foreign investors, the largest of which were China and Japan at about $1.25 trillion for China and $1.15 trillion for Japan as of May 2016.[9]" Go figure.. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_St...
  - Retric 10y ago
    Debt and GDP is only loosely related. Nations only need to service their debt not pay it down in some short time period. Thus, 14.3 trillion in (debt) * (current interest rate - inflation) or around 14.3 trillion * (2.423% - 2.20%) = 28.6 billion per year or ~1/500 GDP aka peanuts.
    - throwaway251 10y ago
      That's assuming there is still growth and inflation - who are going to be the buyers?

Helmet 10y ago

You're severely underestimating the impact U.S. business has on other countries. A trade war with any of the countries you have listed would harm them much more than it would harm the US. China holds about 8-9% US debt. Their entire economic model is based on the devaluation of their currency so that the US and other countries purchase their products. If China dumps US debt, there is plenty of demand elsewhere. Look, I'm not some extreme pro-America nationalist - but you have to look at the facts and it is simply an indisputable reality that no other country in the world can compete with the US on economic grounds. You are overplaying your hand if you think that a trade war with the US would end favorably for any of those nations.

throwaway251 10y ago
You are right - no other country in the world can compete with the US on economic grounds. And the reason for this has been decades of international trade that the USA has benefited from. The aim should not be competition but dis-engagement. It would cause a LOT of short term pain - but 15-20 years later it would show benefits. China and India need to evolve with reduced dependence on exports (and the developed world). In any case they will have the largest markets based on current population projections. Just look at the kind of income inequality that exists in these countries - I would actually argue that this was a by-product of trying to copy/serve the US model at some level.
- koopuluri 10y ago
  > I would actually argue that this was a by-product of trying to copy/serve the US model at some level. How?

throwawaytw5454 10y ago

If a trade war happened, it would wound the developing world a great deal more than it would impact the United States. The US could be self-sufficient in terms of resources and manufacturing with relatively minor policy shifts and subsidization of domestic industries. China's export-driven, currency-manipulating economic engine pretty much needs the US as a market so it doesn't collapse under its own weight. China already isn't playing ball by allowing American companies to compete within its domestic market, so it's not like that would be any great loss on that front. Personally, I'd love to stop subsidizing the third world at the expense of American citizens. Developing countries need the US a lot more than the US needs them.

throwaway251 10y ago
"Personally, I'd love to stop subsidizing the third world at the expense of American citizens. Developing countries need the US a lot more than the US needs them." That's the exact illusion most Americans live on. "On November 7, 2016, debt held by the public was $14.3 trillion or about 76% of the previous 12 months of GDP.[5][6][7][8] Intragovernmental holdings stood at $5.4 trillion, giving a combined total gross national debt of $19.8 trillion or about 106% of the previous 12 months of GDP.[7] $6.2 trillion or approximately 45% of the debt held by the public was owned by foreign investors, the largest of which were China and Japan at about $1.25 trillion for China and $1.15 trillion for Japan as of May 2016.[9]" Go figure.. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_St...
- Retric 10y ago
  Debt and GDP is only loosely related. Nations only need to service their debt not pay it down in some short time period. Thus, 14.3 trillion in (debt) * (current interest rate - inflation) or around 14.3 trillion * (2.423% - 2.20%) = 28.6 billion per year or ~1/500 GDP aka peanuts.
  - throwaway251 10y ago
    That's assuming there is still growth and inflation - who are going to be the buyers?