5 ms·

Firstly, I don't know what they expect to achieve with these threats. I think the US has shown so far that it's not going to easily bend to such threats, this w

by bArray 7y ago

Firstly, I don't know what they expect to achieve with these threats. I think the US has shown so far that it's not going to easily bend to such threats, this was a bad move on their part. Maybe they knew this, hence using the media to broadcast this message. Still, this very much sounds like escalation talk rather than de-escalation. Secondly, these "rare earths" aren't actually rare, most mines were simply shut down because they weren't competitive with China. The Chinese deliberately drove the price of various materials into the ground in order to gain a monopoly (a security risk I think the West should have seen coming). A local example of this was Sheffield steel. Thirdly, if the cost of such materials was to rise significantly, hopefully it would have the affect of removing planned obsolescence being built into products. A mobile for twice the price might make people hold onto their mobile devices a little longer before upgrading, for example. Hopefully we can also get modular devices popular again with planned upgrade paths, rather than the glued-together mess we currently deliver.

Blackstone4 7y ago
It's not just about threatening the US, it's about bolstering the Chinese moral across the nation, building a belief that China is a resilient underdog and the world is against it but it will fight back.
- NotPaidToPost 7y ago
  > China is a resilient underdog and the world is against it but it will fight back. Which not inaccurate.
- ptah 7y ago
  that's exactly what the US propaganda also claims
  - _iyig 7y ago
    >China is a resilient underdog and the world is against it but it will fight back U.S. propaganda is the mostly the opposite of this. We’re supposed to be an invincible freedom juggernaut who the whole world loves, including the poor, oppressed people of Iran/North Korea who generally love America [actually true in Iran, from what Persian friends tell me] and just want some drone-delivered democracy. The reality is of course somewhat different.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
Causality1 7y ago
Indeed. The American side of the trade war is not based on economic math. It's a political tool to win domestic support. What China does in response is essentially irrelevant, short of something extreme enough to wreck their own economy.
dalbasal 7y ago
"I think the US has shown so far that it's not going to easily bend to such threats" This is a cliche problem with these "great power" games. On one hand, neither side can publicly "bend." OTOH, public statements and/or implications that "we'll make them bend" are politically popular.^ Concessions are only possible when the volume of disputes are muted. Once they become national pride issues, or leaders put their own image on the line.... At that point, it's no longer about commodities or tariffs or whatnot. It's about winning. ^China is not a democracy, but that does not mean they don't have politics or that public perception is less important.
boudin 7y ago
What the current US government want to achieve is not clear neither. You can't expect China to say nothing and just abide to whatever. There's no long term view, China has quite a few things they can use to pressure the US and it will be stupid for them not to use those. It's a self-harming game and the first one to bend will lose it. The longer US tarifs stays, the more some US companies that depends on those imports will be in trouble. China has plenty of cards to go the same route, controlling a huge part of the western companies production system. It feels to me that this is just a first card, and there's some more damaging ones to both China and the US to come. And to be honest, with the current US behaviour, between this and Iran, the only thing it achieve is that most of the world will want to be as independant as possible of the dollar in the future
- zwaps 7y ago
  Wait, did the US not state what it wants to achieve? It wants China to give the same market access as it enjoys in other countries in the world, including regulating and treating foreig companies as its own companies are treated. Also, IP theft. It also seems that in contrast to what you say, other countries are setting up to move away from China, to Vietnam, say. I wonder what recourse the CCP really has.
  - dingaling 7y ago
    This being the same USA that caps foreign ownership of airlines to 25%, for example. And which country was built on unlicensed use of European IP... No country or bloc has a truly free market. Even the EU has rules preferring and protecting indigenous companies. Criticising China alone is just hypocrisy.
    - joaomacp 7y ago
      It's not hypocrisy, it's playing by the same rules: China bans US tech companies, US bans a China equipment company.
    - sgent 7y ago
      China is by far the worst offender. Their laws resemble a developing economy while they are significantly industrialized. Make no mistake that the majority of the US including the Democratic congress support Trump on the goals -- if not 100% on the methods. Quite stupidly the US picked a trade battle with Canada and the UK/EU before going after China. Trump's administration had the termidity to call Canada a security threat while the air defence of the US mainland's second in command is a Canadian General.
mirimir 7y ago
One could also say that "[China] has shown so far that it's not going to easily bend to such threats, [so] this was a bad move on their part" about the Huawei gambit.
AlayaMatrix 7y ago
And we're talking about a trade war that the US started and then escalated, what do you expect China to respond?
- bArray 7y ago
  > we're talking about a trade war that the US started and > then escalated The trade war had already started years before it was declared. China has been strategically taking down Western industries and forcing dependence on them. It was only a matter of time something like this would happen. > what do you expect China to respond? Either way this will end the same way, both Countries will have to come to some agreement. The only choice is when. China has had an advantage for quite some time and has gotten away with quite a lot (economic trading status, debt traps, stealing of IP, etc), if they struck a fair deal with the US I'm sure they would write it all off.
tanilama 7y ago
You are doing it the wrong way. This administration had gone great length to convince China what it wants is not just trade, it wants a surrender from China to address its own confidence crisis with itself. And of course, the bill will be 100% on China. So it is not a game with economical gain any more, it is the game of great powers, and China needs to have its own Trump card and demonstrate the willingness to deploy it. It doesn't suit their best interests, but as comparing to lose the 'war', it is better to try it than not. Because who knows? If the current global order isn't something that is maintainable, what is clear to me, China/US won't be the worst off if it no longer exists, because they are so big, the new order or orders will have them play the critical part of it anyway, so they are not afraid to burn it to ground themselves.
- bArray 7y ago
  > it wants a surrender from China to address its own > confidence crisis with itself What makes you think this?
ummonk 7y ago
How is Sheffield steel an example of rare earth metals?
- bArray 7y ago
  > How is Sheffield steel an example of rare earth metals? It's a local (to me) example of China undercutting an industry in order to destroy it and replace it. This is how they achieved dominance in some of the "rare earth" material trading industries.

by bArray 7y ago

Blackstone4 7y ago

It's not just about threatening the US, it's about bolstering the Chinese moral across the nation, building a belief that China is a resilient underdog and the world is against it but it will fight back.

NotPaidToPost 7y ago
> China is a resilient underdog and the world is against it but it will fight back. Which not inaccurate.
ptah 7y ago
that's exactly what the US propaganda also claims
- _iyig 7y ago
  >China is a resilient underdog and the world is against it but it will fight back U.S. propaganda is the mostly the opposite of this. We’re supposed to be an invincible freedom juggernaut who the whole world loves, including the poor, oppressed people of Iran/North Korea who generally love America [actually true in Iran, from what Persian friends tell me] and just want some drone-delivered democracy. The reality is of course somewhat different.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

Causality1 7y ago

Indeed. The American side of the trade war is not based on economic math. It's a political tool to win domestic support. What China does in response is essentially irrelevant, short of something extreme enough to wreck their own economy.

dalbasal 7y ago

"I think the US has shown so far that it's not going to easily bend to such threats" This is a cliche problem with these "great power" games. On one hand, neither side can publicly "bend." OTOH, public statements and/or implications that "we'll make them bend" are politically popular.^ Concessions are only possible when the volume of disputes are muted. Once they become national pride issues, or leaders put their own image on the line.... At that point, it's no longer about commodities or tariffs or whatnot. It's about winning. ^China is not a democracy, but that does not mean they don't have politics or that public perception is less important.

boudin 7y ago

What the current US government want to achieve is not clear neither. You can't expect China to say nothing and just abide to whatever. There's no long term view, China has quite a few things they can use to pressure the US and it will be stupid for them not to use those. It's a self-harming game and the first one to bend will lose it. The longer US tarifs stays, the more some US companies that depends on those imports will be in trouble. China has plenty of cards to go the same route, controlling a huge part of the western companies production system. It feels to me that this is just a first card, and there's some more damaging ones to both China and the US to come. And to be honest, with the current US behaviour, between this and Iran, the only thing it achieve is that most of the world will want to be as independant as possible of the dollar in the future

zwaps 7y ago
Wait, did the US not state what it wants to achieve? It wants China to give the same market access as it enjoys in other countries in the world, including regulating and treating foreig companies as its own companies are treated. Also, IP theft. It also seems that in contrast to what you say, other countries are setting up to move away from China, to Vietnam, say. I wonder what recourse the CCP really has.
- dingaling 7y ago
  This being the same USA that caps foreign ownership of airlines to 25%, for example. And which country was built on unlicensed use of European IP... No country or bloc has a truly free market. Even the EU has rules preferring and protecting indigenous companies. Criticising China alone is just hypocrisy.
  - joaomacp 7y ago
    It's not hypocrisy, it's playing by the same rules: China bans US tech companies, US bans a China equipment company.
  - sgent 7y ago
    China is by far the worst offender. Their laws resemble a developing economy while they are significantly industrialized. Make no mistake that the majority of the US including the Democratic congress support Trump on the goals -- if not 100% on the methods. Quite stupidly the US picked a trade battle with Canada and the UK/EU before going after China. Trump's administration had the termidity to call Canada a security threat while the air defence of the US mainland's second in command is a Canadian General.

mirimir 7y ago

One could also say that "[China] has shown so far that it's not going to easily bend to such threats, [so] this was a bad move on their part" about the Huawei gambit.

AlayaMatrix 7y ago

And we're talking about a trade war that the US started and then escalated, what do you expect China to respond?

bArray 7y ago
> we're talking about a trade war that the US started and > then escalated The trade war had already started years before it was declared. China has been strategically taking down Western industries and forcing dependence on them. It was only a matter of time something like this would happen. > what do you expect China to respond? Either way this will end the same way, both Countries will have to come to some agreement. The only choice is when. China has had an advantage for quite some time and has gotten away with quite a lot (economic trading status, debt traps, stealing of IP, etc), if they struck a fair deal with the US I'm sure they would write it all off.

tanilama 7y ago

You are doing it the wrong way. This administration had gone great length to convince China what it wants is not just trade, it wants a surrender from China to address its own confidence crisis with itself. And of course, the bill will be 100% on China. So it is not a game with economical gain any more, it is the game of great powers, and China needs to have its own Trump card and demonstrate the willingness to deploy it. It doesn't suit their best interests, but as comparing to lose the 'war', it is better to try it than not. Because who knows? If the current global order isn't something that is maintainable, what is clear to me, China/US won't be the worst off if it no longer exists, because they are so big, the new order or orders will have them play the critical part of it anyway, so they are not afraid to burn it to ground themselves.

bArray 7y ago
> it wants a surrender from China to address its own > confidence crisis with itself What makes you think this?

ummonk 7y ago

How is Sheffield steel an example of rare earth metals?

bArray 7y ago
> How is Sheffield steel an example of rare earth metals? It's a local (to me) example of China undercutting an industry in order to destroy it and replace it. This is how they achieved dominance in some of the "rare earth" material trading industries.