4 ms·

More of a political move than a legal one, saying please don't ban us... But this trade war is a bifurcation of the world that was going to happen sooner or lat

More of a political move than a legal one, saying please don't ban us... But this trade war is a bifurcation of the world that was going to happen sooner or later. US is trying to tilt the table on its side. It's a bold move Cotton, let's see if it pays off.

mytailorisrich 7y ago
I agree that it's political since they seem to want something that is already the case. Not sure, though that a "bifurcation" has to happen. We live in fact in a strange situation. The world in under a "Pax Americana" where the US are at the top and effectively rule. This is not a tenable situation especially with large countries several times the US' population. The way forward a "multipolar world" and the role of the US is to let that happen peacefully and to play a constructive part. I am not convinced that this is their current agenda.
- apatters 7y ago
  There are not a lot of historical examples of a multipolar world that was stable and peaceful. There are competing theories, but there's a valid case to be made that if many nations believe they have a shot at being #1, they will inevitably go to war to find out. Whereas the current unipolar system, despite its flaws, is correlated with the largest expansion of peace and prosperity in history. I think a lot of what we are seeing in geopolitics today comes down to world leaders realizing that there could be another pole in this system if things keep going the direction they are going. And that second pole would be an authoritarian nation which is one of the greatest human rights violators on earth, has a million people in detention for practicing moderate Islam, claims sovereignty over Tibet, Taiwan and Hong Kong despite vigorous protest from all the aforementioned, and who shelters a neighboring hermit state that's always threatening to nuke the other pole. Predictably you have dictators like the ones in Cambodia, Russia and Thailand who are enthusiastic about the idea. Increasingly you have resistance to it in the West and in allied stable democracies like Japan and India.
  - mytailorisrich 7y ago
    The issue here is that this is like physics: You may not like it but you cannot beat it. In my view it is simply 'physically' impossible for the world to remain unipolar under American so-called leadership. It worked for a time because the only other developed pole was Europe (and Japan), which is not united with each and every country much smaller than the US. But as the rest of the world develops then we fall back to a situation similar to the rise of the US in Victorian times: Whatever the British thought, it was 'physically' impossible for them to remain at the top. This is not only because of China. India, the EU, maybe an African block longer term. In today's world, war between 'superpowers' to find out who's #1 is also simply not possible because the cost would be astronomical and the result inevitably that everyone would revert to the stone age in a nuclear wasteland. In 100 years this will all stabilise with the US being may in 3rd place, maybe just in the top 5. No direct war, but maybe a few proxy wars in the meantime.
  - Jedi72 7y ago
    The US could give up their priviledged position in the anglosphere and give all of us who are currently just along for the ride (i.e. weaker weatern nations) a real shot at the democracy they so fervently sprout. I forsee more colsolidation along the lines of the EU where western powers officially come together to maintain their top status, but as a whole rather than individual nations. A situatiom which comes with its own benefits & issues...
    - drawnwren 7y ago
      Not to be _too_ reductionist, but isn't this exactly the situation that led to the, "valid case to be made that if many nations believe they have a shot at being #1, they will inevitably go to war to find out." In the op?
      - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
        > if many nations believe // Isn't it "if many powerful people believe that they can use the population under their control to satisfy their megalomania"? WWI should probably have been resolved by not stopping the murder at Archduke Ferdinand but continuing on to any Royal/controlling person who thought going to war was a good idea. Do nations of people actually care if they're "#1"? People on the whole want local things AFAICT, sufficient freedoms to raise their family and achieve a degree of fulfillment in their lives.
lsc 7y ago
>But this trade war is a bifurcation of the world that was going to happen sooner or later. why is it inevitable? What do trade wars get us? As I understand it, trade wars decrease the GDP of the world, decrease the total output and productivity of markets on both sides. I mean, certainly, it's better than a war war, but it's something that has great costs for both sides, and few (no?) Benefits for either.
- tspiteri 7y ago
  Just like wars, in trade wars one side gets hit worse than the other, which is kinda the point I guess. Also, just like trade wars, wars come at great costs to both sides, but they still happen.
  - lsc 7y ago
    >Just like wars, in trade wars one side gets hit worse than the other, which is kinda the point I guess. but if both sides are worse off at the end than at the beginning... why do it? Are people really willing to immiserate themselves if they know the other guy is even worse off? I always thought of wars as conflicts over resources where one side, at least, though they could gain more by fighting than what the fight would cost them. But some wars, I have a hard time putting some wars into that framework without going way out into conspiracy land, and even then, what possible profit, say, could the US have gotten out of Vietnam, or the USSR out of Afghanistan that would justify the cost of those wars? was it just an error in judgement about how much such a war would cost?
    - tspiteri 7y ago
      Sticking to trade wars, let's say country A is the current leader and country B is catching up. A might start a trade war knowing that it will be worse off right now, but B will lose more, and A will remain the leader. The competition from a stronger B could be even more costly to A than the trade war. And also, yes, some consider relative wealth more important than absolute wealth; "I'd rather have $100 and my neighbor $10, than I have $150 and my neighbor $140."

mytailorisrich 7y ago

I agree that it's political since they seem to want something that is already the case. Not sure, though that a "bifurcation" has to happen. We live in fact in a strange situation. The world in under a "Pax Americana" where the US are at the top and effectively rule. This is not a tenable situation especially with large countries several times the US' population. The way forward a "multipolar world" and the role of the US is to let that happen peacefully and to play a constructive part. I am not convinced that this is their current agenda.

apatters 7y ago
There are not a lot of historical examples of a multipolar world that was stable and peaceful. There are competing theories, but there's a valid case to be made that if many nations believe they have a shot at being #1, they will inevitably go to war to find out. Whereas the current unipolar system, despite its flaws, is correlated with the largest expansion of peace and prosperity in history. I think a lot of what we are seeing in geopolitics today comes down to world leaders realizing that there could be another pole in this system if things keep going the direction they are going. And that second pole would be an authoritarian nation which is one of the greatest human rights violators on earth, has a million people in detention for practicing moderate Islam, claims sovereignty over Tibet, Taiwan and Hong Kong despite vigorous protest from all the aforementioned, and who shelters a neighboring hermit state that's always threatening to nuke the other pole. Predictably you have dictators like the ones in Cambodia, Russia and Thailand who are enthusiastic about the idea. Increasingly you have resistance to it in the West and in allied stable democracies like Japan and India.
- mytailorisrich 7y ago
  The issue here is that this is like physics: You may not like it but you cannot beat it. In my view it is simply 'physically' impossible for the world to remain unipolar under American so-called leadership. It worked for a time because the only other developed pole was Europe (and Japan), which is not united with each and every country much smaller than the US. But as the rest of the world develops then we fall back to a situation similar to the rise of the US in Victorian times: Whatever the British thought, it was 'physically' impossible for them to remain at the top. This is not only because of China. India, the EU, maybe an African block longer term. In today's world, war between 'superpowers' to find out who's #1 is also simply not possible because the cost would be astronomical and the result inevitably that everyone would revert to the stone age in a nuclear wasteland. In 100 years this will all stabilise with the US being may in 3rd place, maybe just in the top 5. No direct war, but maybe a few proxy wars in the meantime.
- Jedi72 7y ago
  The US could give up their priviledged position in the anglosphere and give all of us who are currently just along for the ride (i.e. weaker weatern nations) a real shot at the democracy they so fervently sprout. I forsee more colsolidation along the lines of the EU where western powers officially come together to maintain their top status, but as a whole rather than individual nations. A situatiom which comes with its own benefits & issues...
  - drawnwren 7y ago
    Not to be _too_ reductionist, but isn't this exactly the situation that led to the, "valid case to be made that if many nations believe they have a shot at being #1, they will inevitably go to war to find out." In the op?
    - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
      > if many nations believe // Isn't it "if many powerful people believe that they can use the population under their control to satisfy their megalomania"? WWI should probably have been resolved by not stopping the murder at Archduke Ferdinand but continuing on to any Royal/controlling person who thought going to war was a good idea. Do nations of people actually care if they're "#1"? People on the whole want local things AFAICT, sufficient freedoms to raise their family and achieve a degree of fulfillment in their lives.

lsc 7y ago

>But this trade war is a bifurcation of the world that was going to happen sooner or later. why is it inevitable? What do trade wars get us? As I understand it, trade wars decrease the GDP of the world, decrease the total output and productivity of markets on both sides. I mean, certainly, it's better than a war war, but it's something that has great costs for both sides, and few (no?) Benefits for either.

tspiteri 7y ago
Just like wars, in trade wars one side gets hit worse than the other, which is kinda the point I guess. Also, just like trade wars, wars come at great costs to both sides, but they still happen.
- lsc 7y ago
  >Just like wars, in trade wars one side gets hit worse than the other, which is kinda the point I guess. but if both sides are worse off at the end than at the beginning... why do it? Are people really willing to immiserate themselves if they know the other guy is even worse off? I always thought of wars as conflicts over resources where one side, at least, though they could gain more by fighting than what the fight would cost them. But some wars, I have a hard time putting some wars into that framework without going way out into conspiracy land, and even then, what possible profit, say, could the US have gotten out of Vietnam, or the USSR out of Afghanistan that would justify the cost of those wars? was it just an error in judgement about how much such a war would cost?
  - tspiteri 7y ago
    Sticking to trade wars, let's say country A is the current leader and country B is catching up. A might start a trade war knowing that it will be worse off right now, but B will lose more, and A will remain the leader. The competition from a stronger B could be even more costly to A than the trade war. And also, yes, some consider relative wealth more important than absolute wealth; "I'd rather have $100 and my neighbor $10, than I have $150 and my neighbor $140."