4 ms·

Which would be the case if the tariffs were China-only, but the current presidential administration is enacting tariffs on many other countries, like Mexico, Br

Which would be the case if the tariffs were China-only, but the current presidential administration is enacting tariffs on many other countries, like Mexico, Brazil, and S Korea. Also, the upcoming Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) meeting in November could be used by China to unify most of APAC against the U.S. The U.S. TPP was a blocking move to prevent the RCEP, which in it's current form covers half the world's economy (India, China, and others). Negotiations for RCEP have been slow but with the U.S. now burning trade bridges with it's partners, we're probably going to see something interesting happen in November.

dmix 7y ago
I've never understood how Asian regional free trade agreements and China providing loans to developing countries is really a threat to the west. Why exactly should the World Bank and the US/Europe be the only top players in the game again? Has all the strings attached to that help really made the world a better place? As far as I'm concerned extreme poverty or simply poverty is enough of a goal to target. Attempting to forcefully push country's local politics and governance forward without solving the basic problems of quality of life and all of the luxuries that allow people to focus on less local problems affecting their lives directly, like what they are going to eat next, freeing people up to focus on government and community. That seems like an essential first step. Otherwise youre just mining the same small group of influential people already in those countries and expecting different outcomes. Not changing leadership or reducing corruption organically through education and the empowerment an influential middle class brings to politics.
- panda88888 7y ago
  > I've never understood how Asian regional free trade agreements and China providing loans to developing countries is really a threat to the west. It’s a threat from the US perspective, in the US national interest. Currently, the US is the top dog internationally, both economically and politically. As China increases its influence especially in the Asia and Africa region via economic investment and, potentially, demonstration of military prowess, it necessarily means US influence in said region decreases. This decrease in soft power of US means it is more difficult for the US to push for US-friendly policy in said region/country, which is detrimental to the US national interest.
  - saiya-jin 7y ago
    What is beneficial to US might not be beneficial to anybody else (meaning >90% of the world). If I take things to the extreme, it would probably be beneficial for US security and economy to have rest of the world as slaves. Not so much for us. Previous US governments seemed to have more moral constraints in this regard compared to current one (with great power comes great responsibility and all that). Interesting times we have. I for one root for China despite all its flaws - the world would benefit from counter-balance in power since US is less and less a good moral leader it once used to be. Plus when we compare outward aggressiveness of these 2 states, US very clearly loses. Fearmongering about China is just empty talk when simple historical facts about unjust invasions of sovereign states are compared. You know, the actually important criteria for common folks out there. Compared to that, the debate whether its better if NSA reads my emails compared to Chinese is a bit pointless.
    - panda88888 7y ago
      I agree with you on the fact that what’s beneficial to the US is not necessarily beneficial to other nations. And I agree with you that the current US president is less restraint than previous administrations. This is probably going to be controversial, but I personally think the US is relatively restrained in its meddling in other nation’s domestic politics given its power and influence. Every nation has its sphere of influence, and they use it for their national interest as needed. In the case of China, it has been building up its military presence in the South China Sea and establishing military base in contested islands to extend their territory claim. It remains to be seem how China will act when it is at the similar power level as the US.
      - marvin 7y ago
        China will be a tyrant. How can anyone imagine otherwise, seeing how it currently treats its perceived internal threats?
    - dmix 7y ago
      The only difference between this administration and the prior ones is less phony talk that masked the same agendas that existed for decades. Not to mention how this is a hyper US centric view of things. EU, Canada, Australia, and various other countries have tried pressuring China and it's a huge global bureaucratic system. The tweets coming out of the executive branch of the US doesn't have much effect on the giant multi national diplomatic machines like the World Bank and UN. People love exaggerating his actual power. Everyone paying attention has known the west does the human rights and democracy dog and pony show every big political event while the reality of actually changing another countries politics and governance is extremely challenging and almost always comes from within or as a result of their wealth being directly tied to acting morally or in the interest of their western partners. It rarely happens due to diplomatic pressure or boxing them out of trade deals and giving out loans. I personally don't see how it helps to say one thing while nothing really changes and looking the other way when cameras are off. Honesty would go farther and these countries aren't dumb, they see through it all too. So what difference does it make? That said, of course being civil and calculated is more valuable than being brash and blundering through diplomacy, but that doesn't mean they have to all be full of shit just to be "nice". You can still be honest and strong and not come off like an asshole while giving the media a perpetual panic attack, because they take every word literally as if they were all well thought out, completely serious, and have multiple hidden dog whistling layers, when it was just some throw away half joking tweet made at 3am because he likes to pump himself and America up. Most people can tell the difference, plenty pretend not to on purpose, but either way it doesn't help the process and gives fuel to the spin masters.
- mschuster91 7y ago
  > Why exactly should the World Bank and the US/Europe be the only top players in the game again? Because China exploits their loans to have leverage over the countries they deal with - there won't be any criticism of the Muslim Gulags or the oppression in Hong Kong from any country that has loans to China. In contrast, European loans do not come with such strings. The current Chinese government is a threat to the Western model of democracy and human rights, nothing less. But because of the world's dependency on China as a manufacturing shop, no one dares to do anything about them.
  - dmix 7y ago
    > Because China exploits their loans to have leverage over the countries they deal with - there won't be any criticism of the Muslim Gulags or the oppression in Hong Kong from any country that has loans to China. What developing country getting a loan from China was ever going to change Chinas domestic policy otherwise? If all of the West who does billions in trade can hardly make a dent I doubt its worth reducing trade and capital flow to African, latin America, and South Asian countries as a consequence.
    - mschuster91 7y ago
      The problem is that the West has looked away all the time with the shit China was doing, even back at Tiananmen Square decades ago. The West could have made a statement back then and uphold human rights, now I fear it is too late and the only way restoring human rights and democracy is either a mass uprising in China (which is unlikely given that many young Chinese are fed propaganda, and so much of it that even Chinese living outside of China defend the Chinese government's actions) or outright war which is next to impossible to win except if China would be nuked to the ground and a full-scale global nuclear war. The fact that many Western governments themselves are turning towards authoritarianism or outright fascism doesn't help either, and some of them are actually taking quite a bit of inspiration from the Chinese playbook, e.g. in mass video surveillance.
      - dmix 7y ago
        I'm still not sure what any of this has to do with China helping start an Asian alternative to the World Bank or making free trade deals. Both of those have plenty of positive benefits globally by stabilizing countries and improving the lives of hundreds of millions still left in poverty. It seems entirely vindictive, without a real end goal, merely because the West (not just America or their current exec branch [1] but the west including Canada, EU, Australia, etc) completely failed to change China's political policy by other diplomatic bullying/force so they are extending it into the global economic system designed to help smaller countries and the extreme poor, attempting to box out China and others participation. Which ultimately has no noticeable affect on China, so there are only losers as a result, the small countries in need of capital and trade. The West completely messed up the TPP via back room deals and other corporate hand outs which destroyed everyone's trust in its intentions. Which killed off their best counter balance due to their own self destructive anti democratic habits - which again started before Trump and was due to die regardless if Trump won. 1. This isn't just about America nor has the West's policy towards China hardly changed due to words of the US executive branch for 2-3yrs vs reality of the last few decades and the massive multi country beaurcracy that runs the world Bank, UN, and others. Once Trump is gone people will quickly remember that Obama and whoever comes next faced the same impenetrable wall that sovereignty, economic weight, and significant cultural differences that exist including a well perfected anti western propaganda that they reflexively employ to explain away all the bad things that happen, something dictators from ISIS to Venezuela has utilized as excuse #1 forever, which makes any western good will very difficult to exploit. Not to mention the limits of power that one executive branch has to change policy in other countries (which is a good thing) is significantly overstated. Even a no strings attached trade reform is a difficult ask for the west. If the US added a bunch of human rights stuff they wouldn't even get in the negotiation room. But apparently people think that will magically change with another US election. There was a long string of failures attempts to force human rights and democracy on other countries. There's far more bad examples for every good South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan (which are successes that have as much to do with historical trends, local culture, and domestic economic influence than it was pure diplomatic influence towards a western style gov).
jjakque 7y ago
> ...but the current presidential administration is enacting tariffs on many other countries... I'm quite curious to know possible rationals behind that? To layman like myself, it make absolute no sense, but on some level it got to have a purpose right? even if it's ulterior motive or personal agenda.
- bduerst 7y ago
  That's because the trade war is irrational. It's based in animosity, which is typically economically detrimental: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_discrimination#Animosity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_discrimination#Animos...

dmix 7y ago

I've never understood how Asian regional free trade agreements and China providing loans to developing countries is really a threat to the west. Why exactly should the World Bank and the US/Europe be the only top players in the game again? Has all the strings attached to that help really made the world a better place? As far as I'm concerned extreme poverty or simply poverty is enough of a goal to target. Attempting to forcefully push country's local politics and governance forward without solving the basic problems of quality of life and all of the luxuries that allow people to focus on less local problems affecting their lives directly, like what they are going to eat next, freeing people up to focus on government and community. That seems like an essential first step. Otherwise youre just mining the same small group of influential people already in those countries and expecting different outcomes. Not changing leadership or reducing corruption organically through education and the empowerment an influential middle class brings to politics.

panda88888 7y ago
> I've never understood how Asian regional free trade agreements and China providing loans to developing countries is really a threat to the west. It’s a threat from the US perspective, in the US national interest. Currently, the US is the top dog internationally, both economically and politically. As China increases its influence especially in the Asia and Africa region via economic investment and, potentially, demonstration of military prowess, it necessarily means US influence in said region decreases. This decrease in soft power of US means it is more difficult for the US to push for US-friendly policy in said region/country, which is detrimental to the US national interest.
- saiya-jin 7y ago
  What is beneficial to US might not be beneficial to anybody else (meaning >90% of the world). If I take things to the extreme, it would probably be beneficial for US security and economy to have rest of the world as slaves. Not so much for us. Previous US governments seemed to have more moral constraints in this regard compared to current one (with great power comes great responsibility and all that). Interesting times we have. I for one root for China despite all its flaws - the world would benefit from counter-balance in power since US is less and less a good moral leader it once used to be. Plus when we compare outward aggressiveness of these 2 states, US very clearly loses. Fearmongering about China is just empty talk when simple historical facts about unjust invasions of sovereign states are compared. You know, the actually important criteria for common folks out there. Compared to that, the debate whether its better if NSA reads my emails compared to Chinese is a bit pointless.
  - panda88888 7y ago
    I agree with you on the fact that what’s beneficial to the US is not necessarily beneficial to other nations. And I agree with you that the current US president is less restraint than previous administrations. This is probably going to be controversial, but I personally think the US is relatively restrained in its meddling in other nation’s domestic politics given its power and influence. Every nation has its sphere of influence, and they use it for their national interest as needed. In the case of China, it has been building up its military presence in the South China Sea and establishing military base in contested islands to extend their territory claim. It remains to be seem how China will act when it is at the similar power level as the US.
    - marvin 7y ago
      China will be a tyrant. How can anyone imagine otherwise, seeing how it currently treats its perceived internal threats?
  - dmix 7y ago
    The only difference between this administration and the prior ones is less phony talk that masked the same agendas that existed for decades. Not to mention how this is a hyper US centric view of things. EU, Canada, Australia, and various other countries have tried pressuring China and it's a huge global bureaucratic system. The tweets coming out of the executive branch of the US doesn't have much effect on the giant multi national diplomatic machines like the World Bank and UN. People love exaggerating his actual power. Everyone paying attention has known the west does the human rights and democracy dog and pony show every big political event while the reality of actually changing another countries politics and governance is extremely challenging and almost always comes from within or as a result of their wealth being directly tied to acting morally or in the interest of their western partners. It rarely happens due to diplomatic pressure or boxing them out of trade deals and giving out loans. I personally don't see how it helps to say one thing while nothing really changes and looking the other way when cameras are off. Honesty would go farther and these countries aren't dumb, they see through it all too. So what difference does it make? That said, of course being civil and calculated is more valuable than being brash and blundering through diplomacy, but that doesn't mean they have to all be full of shit just to be "nice". You can still be honest and strong and not come off like an asshole while giving the media a perpetual panic attack, because they take every word literally as if they were all well thought out, completely serious, and have multiple hidden dog whistling layers, when it was just some throw away half joking tweet made at 3am because he likes to pump himself and America up. Most people can tell the difference, plenty pretend not to on purpose, but either way it doesn't help the process and gives fuel to the spin masters.
mschuster91 7y ago
> Why exactly should the World Bank and the US/Europe be the only top players in the game again? Because China exploits their loans to have leverage over the countries they deal with - there won't be any criticism of the Muslim Gulags or the oppression in Hong Kong from any country that has loans to China. In contrast, European loans do not come with such strings. The current Chinese government is a threat to the Western model of democracy and human rights, nothing less. But because of the world's dependency on China as a manufacturing shop, no one dares to do anything about them.
- dmix 7y ago
  > Because China exploits their loans to have leverage over the countries they deal with - there won't be any criticism of the Muslim Gulags or the oppression in Hong Kong from any country that has loans to China. What developing country getting a loan from China was ever going to change Chinas domestic policy otherwise? If all of the West who does billions in trade can hardly make a dent I doubt its worth reducing trade and capital flow to African, latin America, and South Asian countries as a consequence.
  - mschuster91 7y ago
    The problem is that the West has looked away all the time with the shit China was doing, even back at Tiananmen Square decades ago. The West could have made a statement back then and uphold human rights, now I fear it is too late and the only way restoring human rights and democracy is either a mass uprising in China (which is unlikely given that many young Chinese are fed propaganda, and so much of it that even Chinese living outside of China defend the Chinese government's actions) or outright war which is next to impossible to win except if China would be nuked to the ground and a full-scale global nuclear war. The fact that many Western governments themselves are turning towards authoritarianism or outright fascism doesn't help either, and some of them are actually taking quite a bit of inspiration from the Chinese playbook, e.g. in mass video surveillance.
    - dmix 7y ago
      I'm still not sure what any of this has to do with China helping start an Asian alternative to the World Bank or making free trade deals. Both of those have plenty of positive benefits globally by stabilizing countries and improving the lives of hundreds of millions still left in poverty. It seems entirely vindictive, without a real end goal, merely because the West (not just America or their current exec branch [1] but the west including Canada, EU, Australia, etc) completely failed to change China's political policy by other diplomatic bullying/force so they are extending it into the global economic system designed to help smaller countries and the extreme poor, attempting to box out China and others participation. Which ultimately has no noticeable affect on China, so there are only losers as a result, the small countries in need of capital and trade. The West completely messed up the TPP via back room deals and other corporate hand outs which destroyed everyone's trust in its intentions. Which killed off their best counter balance due to their own self destructive anti democratic habits - which again started before Trump and was due to die regardless if Trump won. 1. This isn't just about America nor has the West's policy towards China hardly changed due to words of the US executive branch for 2-3yrs vs reality of the last few decades and the massive multi country beaurcracy that runs the world Bank, UN, and others. Once Trump is gone people will quickly remember that Obama and whoever comes next faced the same impenetrable wall that sovereignty, economic weight, and significant cultural differences that exist including a well perfected anti western propaganda that they reflexively employ to explain away all the bad things that happen, something dictators from ISIS to Venezuela has utilized as excuse #1 forever, which makes any western good will very difficult to exploit. Not to mention the limits of power that one executive branch has to change policy in other countries (which is a good thing) is significantly overstated. Even a no strings attached trade reform is a difficult ask for the west. If the US added a bunch of human rights stuff they wouldn't even get in the negotiation room. But apparently people think that will magically change with another US election. There was a long string of failures attempts to force human rights and democracy on other countries. There's far more bad examples for every good South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan (which are successes that have as much to do with historical trends, local culture, and domestic economic influence than it was pure diplomatic influence towards a western style gov).

jjakque 7y ago

> ...but the current presidential administration is enacting tariffs on many other countries... I'm quite curious to know possible rationals behind that? To layman like myself, it make absolute no sense, but on some level it got to have a purpose right? even if it's ulterior motive or personal agenda.

bduerst 7y ago
That's because the trade war is irrational. It's based in animosity, which is typically economically detrimental: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_discrimination#Animosity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_discrimination#Animos...