8 ms·

All of Our Bets on China Have Been Wrong

34 points by howard941 8y ago

soared 8y ago
The article makes some pretty intense claims but I'm not clear if they are purely hypothetical or closer to real predictions > This entry was posted in China, Doomsday scenarios,
oflannabhra 8y ago
I was really impressed by an article [0] linked by the original, which details the philosophy of Robert Lighthizer, the current US Trade Representative. I had little to no knowledge of of history or motivation of the current tariffs, and had mostly viewed the US administration's approach to the WTO and multilateralism as foolhardy at best. I am more and more becoming convinced that West v China is going to be the single most impactful issue of this decade, if not century. One would never be able to glean that based on what the western media reports on, however. I don't know if Lighthizerism is the best approach, but it is at least a different approach. I'm not sure if I agree with the article's apocalyptic ending tone, though. [0] - https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/08/06/you-live-in-robert-lighthizers-world-now-trump-trade/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/08/06/you-live-in-robert-ligh...
- HillaryBriss 8y ago
  > One would never be able to glean that based on what the western media reports on, however. yeah. i feel this is an interesting point. the article says that within China there are mainly disincentives to argue with or reason against the leader (Xi) OTOH, Western media see mainly incentives to argue with and reason against the leader (Trump). i daresay sometimes the Western media seem like theologians who already have the right answer (Trump and all of his statements and actions are by definition ignorant/wrong/bad) and have tasked themselves with constructing a path, a narrative, which supports only that answer. and, of course, Trump himself acts a lot like a medieval theologian too, but one who belongs to a different religion than the media. also, he often commits heresy and even changes religion altogether. at unpredictable times. so we're all rather confused about what's going on now and about what the future holds. interesting times.
SJWhiteTechie 8y ago
>some faced racism or xenophobia. "Anti-racism" and "anti-xenophobia" are just as "authoritarian" as the current Chinese system but you can't even express this viewpoint without being censored by multinational corporations like Google and Apple and Goldman Sachs who - of course - have a very vested interest in open borders, globalism, and "free markets." Even an old school leftist like Noam Chomsky has pointed this out. Global capitalism has always been against ethno-centrism, nationalism, and protectionism. Growing up in the 1990s, it's hilarious to look back at those AT&T commercials who would use outright "racism" and "token" Africans to promote their "global brands" - but that has now become the mainstream of the American Democratic party - the same ones who now hate Donald Trump, who spent his entire career promoting that same brand of "global capitalism." It's a version of so-called "white supremacy." The multi-national corporations like Google, AT&T and Goldman Sachs are perfectly aware that they can easily overpower, say, Nigerians or even Ukranians - but are terrified of Poles or so-called "white" working-class communities in West Virginia. You see this especially in the neo-con imperialism of the American Democratic party propaganda against Russia, who never tire of attacking Putin. Even though Democrats hate Trump and everything he (supposedly) stands for, you'll notice that even a partisan Democratic site like this one is eager to jump to attack China - in keeping with the current administration's trade wars. "Authoritarianism" is just a smear word at this point - if it actually had a meaning, it could refer to the current Democratic party and their control of imperialist centers like the US State Department and the "progressive" factions of the USA's Department of Defense. I'm 45 years old, a "white" American, and even I am shocked at the lack of introspection of my so-called "progressive" peers in the California tech industry. There's nothing in China that is more "authoritian" than Apple Inc. or Google Inc., except China is a little bit more honest about what they are doing. America - especially California and the Los Angeles/San Francisco/San Jose culture (which has replaced the old "Eastern Establishment" as the center of imperialist power) - has such a comical and overinflated opinion of their own "moralism" it's ripe for some sort of South Park parody, like when the tech executives sniff their own farts. Not a popular opinion here, but it's my opinion, and I'm very familiar with the audience. There are a lot of people like me, but we're typically a lot more reticient to express our opinions, due to fears of censorship.
squozzer 8y ago
I would argue the earlier mindset (i.e. China engagement) was not based solely on pie-in-the-sky optimism, but had a couple of other factors - 1) The belief that China would eventually succeed with or without us, so it is to our benefit for them to succeed with us. 2) The belief that engaging the Soviets hastened the end of the [First?] Cold War, so it might also work on the Chinese. Because we have no control scenario we can't be sure, but engagement probably worked, if for no other reason than to set up a situation where China appears a bit more transparent today than 30 years ago.

34 points by howard941 8y ago

The article makes some pretty intense claims but I'm not clear if they are purely hypothetical or closer to real predictions > This entry was posted in China, Doomsday scenarios,

oflannabhra 8y ago

I was really impressed by an article [0] linked by the original, which details the philosophy of Robert Lighthizer, the current US Trade Representative. I had little to no knowledge of of history or motivation of the current tariffs, and had mostly viewed the US administration's approach to the WTO and multilateralism as foolhardy at best. I am more and more becoming convinced that West v China is going to be the single most impactful issue of this decade, if not century. One would never be able to glean that based on what the western media reports on, however. I don't know if Lighthizerism is the best approach, but it is at least a different approach. I'm not sure if I agree with the article's apocalyptic ending tone, though. [0] - https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/08/06/you-live-in-robert-lighthizers-world-now-trump-trade/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/08/06/you-live-in-robert-ligh...

HillaryBriss 8y ago
> One would never be able to glean that based on what the western media reports on, however. yeah. i feel this is an interesting point. the article says that within China there are mainly disincentives to argue with or reason against the leader (Xi) OTOH, Western media see mainly incentives to argue with and reason against the leader (Trump). i daresay sometimes the Western media seem like theologians who already have the right answer (Trump and all of his statements and actions are by definition ignorant/wrong/bad) and have tasked themselves with constructing a path, a narrative, which supports only that answer. and, of course, Trump himself acts a lot like a medieval theologian too, but one who belongs to a different religion than the media. also, he often commits heresy and even changes religion altogether. at unpredictable times. so we're all rather confused about what's going on now and about what the future holds. interesting times.

SJWhiteTechie 8y ago

>some faced racism or xenophobia. "Anti-racism" and "anti-xenophobia" are just as "authoritarian" as the current Chinese system but you can't even express this viewpoint without being censored by multinational corporations like Google and Apple and Goldman Sachs who - of course - have a very vested interest in open borders, globalism, and "free markets." Even an old school leftist like Noam Chomsky has pointed this out. Global capitalism has always been against ethno-centrism, nationalism, and protectionism. Growing up in the 1990s, it's hilarious to look back at those AT&T commercials who would use outright "racism" and "token" Africans to promote their "global brands" - but that has now become the mainstream of the American Democratic party - the same ones who now hate Donald Trump, who spent his entire career promoting that same brand of "global capitalism." It's a version of so-called "white supremacy." The multi-national corporations like Google, AT&T and Goldman Sachs are perfectly aware that they can easily overpower, say, Nigerians or even Ukranians - but are terrified of Poles or so-called "white" working-class communities in West Virginia. You see this especially in the neo-con imperialism of the American Democratic party propaganda against Russia, who never tire of attacking Putin. Even though Democrats hate Trump and everything he (supposedly) stands for, you'll notice that even a partisan Democratic site like this one is eager to jump to attack China - in keeping with the current administration's trade wars. "Authoritarianism" is just a smear word at this point - if it actually had a meaning, it could refer to the current Democratic party and their control of imperialist centers like the US State Department and the "progressive" factions of the USA's Department of Defense. I'm 45 years old, a "white" American, and even I am shocked at the lack of introspection of my so-called "progressive" peers in the California tech industry. There's nothing in China that is more "authoritian" than Apple Inc. or Google Inc., except China is a little bit more honest about what they are doing. America - especially California and the Los Angeles/San Francisco/San Jose culture (which has replaced the old "Eastern Establishment" as the center of imperialist power) - has such a comical and overinflated opinion of their own "moralism" it's ripe for some sort of South Park parody, like when the tech executives sniff their own farts. Not a popular opinion here, but it's my opinion, and I'm very familiar with the audience. There are a lot of people like me, but we're typically a lot more reticient to express our opinions, due to fears of censorship.

squozzer 8y ago

I would argue the earlier mindset (i.e. China engagement) was not based solely on pie-in-the-sky optimism, but had a couple of other factors - 1) The belief that China would eventually succeed with or without us, so it is to our benefit for them to succeed with us. 2) The belief that engaging the Soviets hastened the end of the [First?] Cold War, so it might also work on the Chinese. Because we have no control scenario we can't be sure, but engagement probably worked, if for no other reason than to set up a situation where China appears a bit more transparent today than 30 years ago.