4 ms·

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 wit

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
  Well, it is true that globalization hurts the US middle class. Basically the argument in favor of globalization that economists use is that basically it is beneficial at a national level for the USA to exploit Chinese labor. The cost savings obviously go into the pocket of the executives. The people who lost their jobs get nothing. Obviously the same thing happens to every industry to varying degrees. Those who don't lose their jobs can still see their wages stagnate also known as deflation. The central bank then tries to combat the deflation by injecting money into the economy. It doesn't work: Inflation doesn't go up for anything other than housing, education or health insurance. That can only mean one thing. Prices that do not go up are not dictated by the local economy. If inflation would happen in the US and increase widget prices from $4 to $5 then production simply shifts to a country that can indeed produce the widget for $4. If what I explained above is true, then it's time to rejoice. It means that the problems the middle class suffers from are temporary until every other country has been lifted out of extreme poverty. All we have to do is wait until the race to the bottom is over. However if what I said is wrong, then it's time to be sad. There is no easy solution and the middle class might never get back on track.
  - benlorenzetti 7y ago
    Deflation and wage stagnation are not the same thing, indeed sometimes they are opposite. And I don't think their is a clear way to measure what potentially low percentage of the cost savings go to executives' pockets. But certainly true that American workers are being squeezed, having to compete against more and poorer workers because of globalization and free trade policies.
throwaway34241 7y ago
> The USA is not going to be #2 in 30 years How and by what metric? China already has a larger GDP (PPP) than the US. And their economy has approximately doubled every decade for the past 3 decades. There were worries that Japan would surpass the US and that didn't pan out. But Japan has 1/2 the US population. China has 4x the US population. This is also a big difference vs Russia. I am sure the US does not want to "accept" a 4x bigger country ever having comparable influence. But does the US really have the power to keep China, another nuclear power, at 1/4 US GDP level forever? You say accepting this is crazy, but escalating a conflict between two world powers in an attempt to permanently repress one of them seems a bit crazy to me (negotiating for a better trade deal is another matter). There are plenty of countries that enjoy a high standard of living without being the undisputed #1 economic power. I'm skeptical that the US actually looking out for its own interests necessarily involves a big conflict with China, although I could easily imagine that outcome.

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
Well, it is true that globalization hurts the US middle class. Basically the argument in favor of globalization that economists use is that basically it is beneficial at a national level for the USA to exploit Chinese labor. The cost savings obviously go into the pocket of the executives. The people who lost their jobs get nothing. Obviously the same thing happens to every industry to varying degrees. Those who don't lose their jobs can still see their wages stagnate also known as deflation. The central bank then tries to combat the deflation by injecting money into the economy. It doesn't work: Inflation doesn't go up for anything other than housing, education or health insurance. That can only mean one thing. Prices that do not go up are not dictated by the local economy. If inflation would happen in the US and increase widget prices from $4 to $5 then production simply shifts to a country that can indeed produce the widget for $4. If what I explained above is true, then it's time to rejoice. It means that the problems the middle class suffers from are temporary until every other country has been lifted out of extreme poverty. All we have to do is wait until the race to the bottom is over. However if what I said is wrong, then it's time to be sad. There is no easy solution and the middle class might never get back on track.
- benlorenzetti 7y ago
  Deflation and wage stagnation are not the same thing, indeed sometimes they are opposite. And I don't think their is a clear way to measure what potentially low percentage of the cost savings go to executives' pockets. But certainly true that American workers are being squeezed, having to compete against more and poorer workers because of globalization and free trade policies.

throwaway34241 7y ago

> The USA is not going to be #2 in 30 years How and by what metric? China already has a larger GDP (PPP) than the US. And their economy has approximately doubled every decade for the past 3 decades. There were worries that Japan would surpass the US and that didn't pan out. But Japan has 1/2 the US population. China has 4x the US population. This is also a big difference vs Russia. I am sure the US does not want to "accept" a 4x bigger country ever having comparable influence. But does the US really have the power to keep China, another nuclear power, at 1/4 US GDP level forever? You say accepting this is crazy, but escalating a conflict between two world powers in an attempt to permanently repress one of them seems a bit crazy to me (negotiating for a better trade deal is another matter). There are plenty of countries that enjoy a high standard of living without being the undisputed #1 economic power. I'm skeptical that the US actually looking out for its own interests necessarily involves a big conflict with China, although I could easily imagine that outcome.