6 ms·

The idea that the Chinese government could present a material international threat to your business is really a relatively new one[1]. Immediately after PNTR in

The idea that the Chinese government could present a material international threat to your business is really a relatively new one[1]. Immediately after PNTR in 2000 and before the installation of the current regime, it was a a more-or-less stable environment. Today's uncertainty really only started to creep in around 2014[2], and in those 14 years the global supply chain concentrated so heavily in and around China that you need to overcome a lot of inertia to move elsewhere. Most attempts to do so until now have been either for low-value mfg - t-shirts or bicycles - or focused on relatively less complicated finishing and assembly stages. 1. What I mean here is that in earlier days, you were more likely to be concerned about access to the PRC market and making sure you had strong internal IP protections in place with your contract partners. 2. In addition to the politics, this is also around the time it became clear that the Chinese economy in general needed to change, because they were starting to lose out on low-margin products to lower-wage countries.

devoply 7y ago
It's what happens when Poo bear goes looking for honey.
crdoconnor 7y ago
It was kind of inevitable that this would happen as China moved up the value chain and ever more of the American industrial supply chain came to rely upon it - especially hi tech. In a way, it's better that this decoupling (which will not be a quick process) happens sooner rather than later, before that reliance can be used as an effective weapon against the US (turning off the industrial goods tap/sanctions could be pretty devastating).
- DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
  It would be best that there be no decoupling. The decoupling is driven by a belief by some in the American government that they can somehow blunt the economic development of China and maintain American geopolitical hegemony into the foreseeable future. That's a very dangerous thing to attempt to do, because it sets the two countries on a definite path towards conflict. The question is really whether the United States is willing to accept its probable status as the #2 power in the world in a few decades, or whether it will make a serious attempt to retain its current position. Certain people who are influential with the current occupant of the White House, including Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon, truly believe that the latter option is possible, and are willing to enter into a major conflict with China.
  - steve19 7y ago
    My understanding is that it is driven by belief that the pie has been unevenly divided, with China benefiting far more than the USA (I am not saying I agree with this) . China is investing its extra pie into expanding is global power (military power and soft power),while simultaneously becoming more aggressive (South China Sea). The dragon is awake and it is natural for its competitors for resources to react. The USA is not going to be #2 in 30 years. And to suggest the USA should sit back and passively accept that is will be is as crazy as suggesting China should stop expanding its economic power base and global influence because the USA doesn't like it. These two behemoths will vye for power until an equilibrium is reached. If one wins its because the equilibrium was not in their favor, such as the USSR.
    - majia 7y ago
      I think the pie between the US and China is fairly divided. However, greedy US cooperates get most of the US share whereas Chinese government at least spent a fraction of the trade profit to lift hundreds of millions people out of property. When US middle class look at their newly enriched Chinese counterpart, they feel they are raped off.
      - yorwba 7y ago
        > Chinese government at least spent a fraction of the trade profit to lift hundreds of millions people out of property I was under the impression that those people were lifted out of poverty due to working higher-wage jobs in manufacturing rather than due to explicit wealth redistribution by the government.
        majia 7y ago
        While direct wealth redistribution isn't significant, huge spending on infrastructure on roads, railways, telecoms and education certainly helped. Without these infrastructure, people won't be able to build factories and work on higher-wage jobs.
      - imtringued 7y ago

devoply 7y ago

It's what happens when Poo bear goes looking for honey.

crdoconnor 7y ago

It was kind of inevitable that this would happen as China moved up the value chain and ever more of the American industrial supply chain came to rely upon it - especially hi tech. In a way, it's better that this decoupling (which will not be a quick process) happens sooner rather than later, before that reliance can be used as an effective weapon against the US (turning off the industrial goods tap/sanctions could be pretty devastating).

DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
It would be best that there be no decoupling. The decoupling is driven by a belief by some in the American government that they can somehow blunt the economic development of China and maintain American geopolitical hegemony into the foreseeable future. That's a very dangerous thing to attempt to do, because it sets the two countries on a definite path towards conflict. The question is really whether the United States is willing to accept its probable status as the #2 power in the world in a few decades, or whether it will make a serious attempt to retain its current position. Certain people who are influential with the current occupant of the White House, including Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon, truly believe that the latter option is possible, and are willing to enter into a major conflict with China.
- steve19 7y ago
  My understanding is that it is driven by belief that the pie has been unevenly divided, with China benefiting far more than the USA (I am not saying I agree with this) . China is investing its extra pie into expanding is global power (military power and soft power),while simultaneously becoming more aggressive (South China Sea). The dragon is awake and it is natural for its competitors for resources to react. The USA is not going to be #2 in 30 years. And to suggest the USA should sit back and passively accept that is will be is as crazy as suggesting China should stop expanding its economic power base and global influence because the USA doesn't like it. These two behemoths will vye for power until an equilibrium is reached. If one wins its because the equilibrium was not in their favor, such as the USSR.
  - majia 7y ago
    I think the pie between the US and China is fairly divided. However, greedy US cooperates get most of the US share whereas Chinese government at least spent a fraction of the trade profit to lift hundreds of millions people out of property. When US middle class look at their newly enriched Chinese counterpart, they feel they are raped off.
    - yorwba 7y ago
      > Chinese government at least spent a fraction of the trade profit to lift hundreds of millions people out of property I was under the impression that those people were lifted out of poverty due to working higher-wage jobs in manufacturing rather than due to explicit wealth redistribution by the government.
      - majia 7y ago
        While direct wealth redistribution isn't significant, huge spending on infrastructure on roads, railways, telecoms and education certainly helped. Without these infrastructure, people won't be able to build factories and work on higher-wage jobs.
    - imtringued 7y ago