5 ms·

The author is correct in saying that China fired the first shots in the trade war with effectively shutting out major US companies with its protectionism, while

The author is correct in saying that China fired the first shots in the trade war with effectively shutting out major US companies with its protectionism, while China's expansion into the US went on unrestrained. If this process continued on unchecked, China would definitely replace the US as the world power. China is an authoritarian state, with core values that are at odds with the US. Therefore, the stakes could not be higher, and now could very well be the last time that the US has enough leverage over China to actually come out on top.

avocado4 7y ago
China is going to have 450 million sick old people in 10 years. I don't think their domination was ever inevitable.
- dragonsh 7y ago
  Don't worry China won't be alone soon India will be in the same rank for authoritarian rule where everything will be monitored and dissent will be termed anti-national with secession laws applied and people jailed. This is the path India's current administration which might come back again, learned from China and using British methodology of divide and rule (dividing India along religious lines by letting people know where the cabinet is going for holy bath or pilgrimage).
  - profalseidol 7y ago
    Yeah, they should follow the steps of NSA.
    - Fjolsvith 7y ago
      Howso?
- Fjolsvith 7y ago
  And hungry people, with the pork famine on the way. They're going to have to play ball if they want to be able to feed their people soon.
anovikov 7y ago
Chinese environmental and demographic problems are a ticking bomb. I doubt they will be in anywhere like better position than now 10 years down the road. For all the insane crap happening in the U.S., it has healthiest demography among all (large that is, not counting say Israel) developed countries.
- mrpopo 7y ago
  > For all the insane crap happening in the U.S., it has healthiest demography among all (large that is, not counting say Israel) developed countries. Granted, it's better than in China, yes. But life expectancy is declining in the U.S. And France has a healthy demography and a stable population.
throwaway34241 7y ago
I agree with the article that the US can damage China's economy for several years by restricting components (but that it also will eventually be able to domestically produce the components required). I also agree with the article that doing so would hurt the US companies that produce the components that China no longer could buy. What I don't get, is what specifically will be achieved by doing this? How is the US coming out "on top"? I get that China has different values than the US, but I don't understand how restricting components fixes that.
- ardy42 7y ago
  > What I don't get, is what specifically will be achieved by doing this? How is the US coming out "on top"? I get that China has different values than the US, but I don't understand how restricting components fixes that. I'm just speculating, but it could perhaps hurt the desirability of their advanced exports on the world market, and create space for other countries to fill the void. One of China's current political advantages is that it's the current "workshop of the world," and if that's reduced they may end up being less influential. It's unlikely to affect the domestic political situation there, but that may be a lost cause for this generation.
  - throwaway34241 7y ago
    So to use a specific example of what I think you are saying about restricting components making other countries more influential: Huawei can't buy Qualcomm chips, so they use Chinese chips instead (which are inferior for several years before they catch up), so they are less competitive in Europe and Samsung sells more, which causes Korea to have a bit more worldwide influence compared to China over that several year period? That seems plausible, but also pretty speculative and it seems like there could be negative consequences too. For example, if the Chinese market switches over to Chinese chips, a lot more money will be invested in Chinese chips and they will probably develop more quickly. Normally the US complains about China blocking US products, the US blocking US products seems a bit less usual. The article points out that there a problems with China, and points out that there is a policy available that will hurt US companies and Chinese companies. I feel like I am missing the part though, where this policy fixes the problems with China. I feel like I need to understand that part before I am convinced that this is a good idea.
throwwayhhgbnhd 7y ago
The author is only right if that’s where we start the timeline. We can say the entire West started it during the Opium Wars, and China is merely trying to get back what it once had.
- jazzyjackson 7y ago
  The US being flooded with Chinese Fentanyl has always seemed like an echo to me, if not specifically engineered to be vengeful.
  - DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
    And the worst part is that when the United States tried to ban the importation of Fentanyl, Chinese gunboats attacked San Francisco and Los Angeles, and sailed up the Potomac and looted Washington, DC. The Chinese then forced the United States to pay massive reparations, to defray the cost of Chinese aggression against the United States. Yes, we all recall the Fentanyl Wars.
Barrin92 7y ago
>while China's expansion into the US went on unrestrained. If this process continued on unchecked, China would definitely replace the US as the world power. pretty much any projection, from consevative to optimistic implies that China will replace / supplement the United States on a 'several decades+' timeframe, so the aggressive stance taken by the US on a election cycle basis strikes me as unwise. At the end of the century Asia will be the center of the world. This is one advantage that China always had over the US, politicians in the country are able to think in 40 instead of 4 year intervals. And given that broadened context, poking the bear now simply to delay their capabilities by a few years seems like not such a good idea.
- adventured 7y ago
  China isn't thinking 40 years out. That's the greatest myth running about China's authoritarian system. There are few governments more obsessed with day to day sentiment and short-term thinking. That's why they have to control their people so tightly and they constantly watch everything going on socially for the slightest aberration. Everything about China is at risk of implosion at all times, that's why the authorities there behave as they do (from social credit, to wiping out other cultures, to aggressively limiting social variance, to extreme debt binging, to fear of basic human rights and expression, to perpetual economic stimulus, to their hyper universal surveillence). China talks long-term, that's it. The USSR used to talk long-term in their propaganda too, it was a fraud. Watch their actions instead. There is a mountain of evidence that they aren't actually acting long-term. See: their taking on the greatest-fastest pile of debt in world history over the last 10-15 years. They did that to satisfy extremely short-term thinking about social instability. There can be no greater example of short-term thinking for such a system, than to trade extreme debt to fake faster growth for a bit longer, rather than plotting longer term in a financially healthy manner and accepting slower growth. In terms of being unwise. The US doesn't need foreign countries, including on trade, nearly to the extent that China desperately needs foreign trade. When ranked globally, the US is among the least trade dependent major nations, and that provides an enormous bargaining position. China derives roughly 10x the growth impulse from each dollar of US economic growth, as compared to what the US derives from China. It is in fact wise for the US to confront China right now, precisely because the US does not need China. There are dozens of countries that net can replace much of the manufacturing that China handles for the US today. China knows this, it's why they've responded very carefully to US tariffs, they recognize there is a vast imbalance. China is in a precarious position today. They have all the debt of the US, with barely any social safety net (which will make their debt, tax and budget situation far worse), bad demographics, twin deficits (trade and budget), a smaller economy that is extremely rigid and one that is prone to frequent wrecks that must be constantly corrected by the central government with large stimulus programs. The system is clearly not working very well. There's zero proof thus far that Xi's new, highly regressive system will continue on the path of long-term economic expansion and success, now that Deng's system is formally dead. They may very well crash into a wall of stagnation under the new anti-Deng, anti-liberalization approach. It'll take many years yet to find out either way. I happen to not believe the new Xi system is compatible with furthering the success that the old system produced.

avocado4 7y ago

China is going to have 450 million sick old people in 10 years. I don't think their domination was ever inevitable.

dragonsh 7y ago
Don't worry China won't be alone soon India will be in the same rank for authoritarian rule where everything will be monitored and dissent will be termed anti-national with secession laws applied and people jailed. This is the path India's current administration which might come back again, learned from China and using British methodology of divide and rule (dividing India along religious lines by letting people know where the cabinet is going for holy bath or pilgrimage).
- profalseidol 7y ago
  Yeah, they should follow the steps of NSA.
  - Fjolsvith 7y ago
    Howso?
Fjolsvith 7y ago
And hungry people, with the pork famine on the way. They're going to have to play ball if they want to be able to feed their people soon.

anovikov 7y ago

Chinese environmental and demographic problems are a ticking bomb. I doubt they will be in anywhere like better position than now 10 years down the road. For all the insane crap happening in the U.S., it has healthiest demography among all (large that is, not counting say Israel) developed countries.

mrpopo 7y ago
> For all the insane crap happening in the U.S., it has healthiest demography among all (large that is, not counting say Israel) developed countries. Granted, it's better than in China, yes. But life expectancy is declining in the U.S. And France has a healthy demography and a stable population.

throwaway34241 7y ago

I agree with the article that the US can damage China's economy for several years by restricting components (but that it also will eventually be able to domestically produce the components required). I also agree with the article that doing so would hurt the US companies that produce the components that China no longer could buy. What I don't get, is what specifically will be achieved by doing this? How is the US coming out "on top"? I get that China has different values than the US, but I don't understand how restricting components fixes that.

ardy42 7y ago
> What I don't get, is what specifically will be achieved by doing this? How is the US coming out "on top"? I get that China has different values than the US, but I don't understand how restricting components fixes that. I'm just speculating, but it could perhaps hurt the desirability of their advanced exports on the world market, and create space for other countries to fill the void. One of China's current political advantages is that it's the current "workshop of the world," and if that's reduced they may end up being less influential. It's unlikely to affect the domestic political situation there, but that may be a lost cause for this generation.
- throwaway34241 7y ago
  So to use a specific example of what I think you are saying about restricting components making other countries more influential: Huawei can't buy Qualcomm chips, so they use Chinese chips instead (which are inferior for several years before they catch up), so they are less competitive in Europe and Samsung sells more, which causes Korea to have a bit more worldwide influence compared to China over that several year period? That seems plausible, but also pretty speculative and it seems like there could be negative consequences too. For example, if the Chinese market switches over to Chinese chips, a lot more money will be invested in Chinese chips and they will probably develop more quickly. Normally the US complains about China blocking US products, the US blocking US products seems a bit less usual. The article points out that there a problems with China, and points out that there is a policy available that will hurt US companies and Chinese companies. I feel like I am missing the part though, where this policy fixes the problems with China. I feel like I need to understand that part before I am convinced that this is a good idea.

throwwayhhgbnhd 7y ago

The author is only right if that’s where we start the timeline. We can say the entire West started it during the Opium Wars, and China is merely trying to get back what it once had.

jazzyjackson 7y ago
The US being flooded with Chinese Fentanyl has always seemed like an echo to me, if not specifically engineered to be vengeful.
- DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
  And the worst part is that when the United States tried to ban the importation of Fentanyl, Chinese gunboats attacked San Francisco and Los Angeles, and sailed up the Potomac and looted Washington, DC. The Chinese then forced the United States to pay massive reparations, to defray the cost of Chinese aggression against the United States. Yes, we all recall the Fentanyl Wars.

Barrin92 7y ago

>while China's expansion into the US went on unrestrained. If this process continued on unchecked, China would definitely replace the US as the world power. pretty much any projection, from consevative to optimistic implies that China will replace / supplement the United States on a 'several decades+' timeframe, so the aggressive stance taken by the US on a election cycle basis strikes me as unwise. At the end of the century Asia will be the center of the world. This is one advantage that China always had over the US, politicians in the country are able to think in 40 instead of 4 year intervals. And given that broadened context, poking the bear now simply to delay their capabilities by a few years seems like not such a good idea.

adventured 7y ago
China isn't thinking 40 years out. That's the greatest myth running about China's authoritarian system. There are few governments more obsessed with day to day sentiment and short-term thinking. That's why they have to control their people so tightly and they constantly watch everything going on socially for the slightest aberration. Everything about China is at risk of implosion at all times, that's why the authorities there behave as they do (from social credit, to wiping out other cultures, to aggressively limiting social variance, to extreme debt binging, to fear of basic human rights and expression, to perpetual economic stimulus, to their hyper universal surveillence). China talks long-term, that's it. The USSR used to talk long-term in their propaganda too, it was a fraud. Watch their actions instead. There is a mountain of evidence that they aren't actually acting long-term. See: their taking on the greatest-fastest pile of debt in world history over the last 10-15 years. They did that to satisfy extremely short-term thinking about social instability. There can be no greater example of short-term thinking for such a system, than to trade extreme debt to fake faster growth for a bit longer, rather than plotting longer term in a financially healthy manner and accepting slower growth. In terms of being unwise. The US doesn't need foreign countries, including on trade, nearly to the extent that China desperately needs foreign trade. When ranked globally, the US is among the least trade dependent major nations, and that provides an enormous bargaining position. China derives roughly 10x the growth impulse from each dollar of US economic growth, as compared to what the US derives from China. It is in fact wise for the US to confront China right now, precisely because the US does not need China. There are dozens of countries that net can replace much of the manufacturing that China handles for the US today. China knows this, it's why they've responded very carefully to US tariffs, they recognize there is a vast imbalance. China is in a precarious position today. They have all the debt of the US, with barely any social safety net (which will make their debt, tax and budget situation far worse), bad demographics, twin deficits (trade and budget), a smaller economy that is extremely rigid and one that is prone to frequent wrecks that must be constantly corrected by the central government with large stimulus programs. The system is clearly not working very well. There's zero proof thus far that Xi's new, highly regressive system will continue on the path of long-term economic expansion and success, now that Deng's system is formally dead. They may very well crash into a wall of stagnation under the new anti-Deng, anti-liberalization approach. It'll take many years yet to find out either way. I happen to not believe the new Xi system is compatible with furthering the success that the old system produced.