8 ms·

You have to analyze the costs & benefits to all relevant parties when thinking about that sort of thing. I think you've only analyzed the costs to one party in

by jerf 7y ago

You have to analyze the costs & benefits to all relevant parties when thinking about that sort of thing. I think you've only analyzed the costs to one party in that analysis. "Cutting off all US supply chain in China" is on the table, but definitely way down the list of what China wants to do. The US decoupling from their economy isn't their big winning play, it's a nightmare scenario for them. If it was a big winning play right now for them, they'd already have done it.

toomuchtodo 7y ago
Bringing (automated) manufacturing back to the US and ensuring the security of our supply chains while also doing economic harm to an authoritarian government while they're in a precariously unstable economic situation? As a US citizen, I'm fully onboard. Call China's bluff. Monetary policy (cheap money) is in a phenomenal place to support the necessary infrastructure investments (roads, rail, energy, etc), and that spending will keep the US economy humming while further decoupling us from China's. What good are values as a nation if we're willing to trade them for profits and cheap goods from China?
- rayiner 7y ago
  Well said.
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    Thank you, I appreciate it.
- FruityFarm 7y ago
  Says the nation that slaughtered and took the land of the native population. The hypocrisy is unreal.
  - colechristensen 7y ago
    Isn't that every nation? And that "native" population to populations before it? Either you live in a place so inhospitable that nobody is interested in taking your land, or the land you live on has been stolen again and again and again by different populations.
  - HenryKissinger 7y ago
    Yeah, 200+ years ago. Every powerful nation has skeletons in their closet. That doesn't mean they have no credibility on human rights.
  - gamblor956 7y ago
    200 years ago. Meanwhile, China has slaughtered millions of its own citizens as recently as a few decades ago. And is on the brink of a genocide of the Uighurs as we sit here typing at each other.
  - mattnewton 7y ago
    Whataboutism is an argument for passive paralysis. Nobody is blameless, so nobody should try to fight injustice.
- Despegar 7y ago
  Are you kidding? US foreign policy regularly ignores "values" for other interests. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Communiqu%C3%A9s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Communiqu%C3%A9s
  - jerf 7y ago
    That's begging the question in an important sense though; what is under discussion is precisely a history of ignoring "values" for our other interests in China, the result that has created which did not match the stated goal of the previous policy, and the question of whether we should continue with that previous policy. It would be a particularly perverse deployment of "whataboutism" if one argues that honoring our values over profit is not something we should do now, because whatabout the fact up until quite recently we weren't?
    - Despegar 7y ago
      Framing it in terms of moral leadership is silly when the US regularly doesn't give a shit about it. See: Saudi Arabia and Israel
      - jerf 7y ago
        Here we are, giving a shit about it. Should we stop?
        coldtea 7y ago
        No, but they should admit that they're still not giving a shit, the right thing (assuming this is it) just happened to coincide with their interests for a chance...
        jerf 7y ago
        "They" maybe should. This is not a change of position for me. I'm 40; I remember the tail end of the Cold War, and for me, this is merely China unmasking what I always knew was there, not some amazing revelation. This is Communism. It has not changed in 50 years, right up to and including holding a pretty mask over its face for its Western audiences ready and eager to believe in it. The only difference is the world shrank, and it's harder for the mask to work when you're standing closer to it.
- rtkwe 7y ago
  The manufacturing won't come back it'd move to other Asian countries like Vietnam first.
  - adventured 7y ago
    It's ok for that manufacturing to go elsewhere, it's still a huge win for the US in the case in which the conflict with China continues to worsen (likely). It's the ideal approach to dealing with them: drain their economy of its manufacturing & exports and incubate a dollar-caused stagnation as they're unable to transact at the required scale with the rest of the global economy without a massive, endless supply of dollars (the Yuan has a trivial share of global foreign trade). They're already starting to suffocate under the lack of dollars right now, as their current account balance is shifting permanently negative. I'd expect them to begin increasingly restricting their citizens from foreign tourism, as it's a sizable source of dollar bleed, it's a luxury they can't afford much longer. They'll do it under the guise of the need to reinvigorate the Chinese spirit at home and to stop importing negative foreign incorrect values (some party b.s. like that). It's perfectly fine to redirect all US->China manufacturing into other nations such as Vietnam. Not only is that great for helping other nations develop (many of which are regional competitors of China, so it's further ideal that those nations become stronger vis-a-vis China), it reduces China's position of strength.
- tanilama 7y ago
  > As a US citizen, I'm fully onboard To be the advocate for devil, US salary is too high and regulation/labour too tight, protests too many. In other words, not 'business friendly'.
  - wcarron 7y ago
    I disagree. Wages have stagnated for decades. Regulation too lax, especially with regard to predatory financial practices and environmental damage. Protests, too few. The US is the most business friendly developed nation ever to exist. It is a corporate welfare state built upon the exploitation of the laborers.
  - wavefunction 7y ago
    That's a very limited concept of 'business friendly' and inaccurate in any case with regards to the US.
- navigatesol 7y ago
  >What good are values as a nation if we're willing to trade them for profits and cheap goods from China? And yet you promote Tesla, cozying up to the CCP and telling us that "China is the future" so that he can build some cheaper cars and get around tariffs? Whatever helps "the mission"? https://www.wraltechwire.com/2019/09/02/teslas-elon-musk-i-really-think-china-is-the-future/ https://www.wraltechwire.com/2019/09/02/teslas-elon-musk-i-r...
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
vinceguidry 7y ago
The US decoupling her economy from China isn't the nightmare scenario, it's losing her global prestige. Imagine all of our allies suddenly realizing that the US is in an untenable bargaining position and all tariffs are raised all over the world, all at once. That's the nightmare scenario. Trump's a dealmaker, he's shown himself to be less than utterly stupid in regards to foreign policy. But building a coalition against China might be more than he can handle.
reaperducer 7y ago
"Cutting off all US supply chain in China" is on the table, but definitely way down the list of what China wants to do. Exactly. It's one thing for China cut off the supply of microchips to the United States. The U.S. would have to make a massive investment in building new supply chains domestically and with other countries. It's another thing if the United States cuts China off from $6 billion in soybeans each year. China's population will start to starve long before a microchip shortage really hurts the U.S.
- diego 7y ago
  Do you really believe China depends on US soy to feed their population? Where did you get that from?
  - dekhn 7y ago
    they use it for pig feed and it's use as a component in many food products. I don't think they technically depend on it, but they depend on it and have to import huge amounts. If they didn't, they'd either have to make a domestic source (they have had trouble with this) or switch to other protein sources.
    - johnpowell 7y ago
      Or buy them from Brazil. Like they are now since the tariffs happened.
      - reaperducer 7y ago
        Or buy them from Brazil. Like they are now since the tariffs happened. It's not a question of switching to Brazil. China was already buying from Brazil. But Brazil doesn't have the capacity to make up for a cut-off of American supplies. Further, soybeans are seasonal. The reason that China buys from both the U.S. and Brazil is because they have harvests at opposite times of the year. Even if Brazil managed to magically ramp up to fill 100% of China's need in each Brazilian growing season, what is it going to do the other six months of the year?

by jerf 7y ago

toomuchtodo 7y ago

Bringing (automated) manufacturing back to the US and ensuring the security of our supply chains while also doing economic harm to an authoritarian government while they're in a precariously unstable economic situation? As a US citizen, I'm fully onboard. Call China's bluff. Monetary policy (cheap money) is in a phenomenal place to support the necessary infrastructure investments (roads, rail, energy, etc), and that spending will keep the US economy humming while further decoupling us from China's. What good are values as a nation if we're willing to trade them for profits and cheap goods from China?

rayiner 7y ago
Well said.
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  Thank you, I appreciate it.
FruityFarm 7y ago
Says the nation that slaughtered and took the land of the native population. The hypocrisy is unreal.
- colechristensen 7y ago
  Isn't that every nation? And that "native" population to populations before it? Either you live in a place so inhospitable that nobody is interested in taking your land, or the land you live on has been stolen again and again and again by different populations.
- HenryKissinger 7y ago
  Yeah, 200+ years ago. Every powerful nation has skeletons in their closet. That doesn't mean they have no credibility on human rights.
- gamblor956 7y ago
  200 years ago. Meanwhile, China has slaughtered millions of its own citizens as recently as a few decades ago. And is on the brink of a genocide of the Uighurs as we sit here typing at each other.
- mattnewton 7y ago
  Whataboutism is an argument for passive paralysis. Nobody is blameless, so nobody should try to fight injustice.
Despegar 7y ago
Are you kidding? US foreign policy regularly ignores "values" for other interests. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Communiqu%C3%A9s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Communiqu%C3%A9s
- jerf 7y ago
  That's begging the question in an important sense though; what is under discussion is precisely a history of ignoring "values" for our other interests in China, the result that has created which did not match the stated goal of the previous policy, and the question of whether we should continue with that previous policy. It would be a particularly perverse deployment of "whataboutism" if one argues that honoring our values over profit is not something we should do now, because whatabout the fact up until quite recently we weren't?
  - Despegar 7y ago
    Framing it in terms of moral leadership is silly when the US regularly doesn't give a shit about it. See: Saudi Arabia and Israel
    - jerf 7y ago
      Here we are, giving a shit about it. Should we stop?
      - coldtea 7y ago
        No, but they should admit that they're still not giving a shit, the right thing (assuming this is it) just happened to coincide with their interests for a chance...
        jerf 7y ago
        "They" maybe should. This is not a change of position for me. I'm 40; I remember the tail end of the Cold War, and for me, this is merely China unmasking what I always knew was there, not some amazing revelation. This is Communism. It has not changed in 50 years, right up to and including holding a pretty mask over its face for its Western audiences ready and eager to believe in it. The only difference is the world shrank, and it's harder for the mask to work when you're standing closer to it.
rtkwe 7y ago
The manufacturing won't come back it'd move to other Asian countries like Vietnam first.
- adventured 7y ago
  It's ok for that manufacturing to go elsewhere, it's still a huge win for the US in the case in which the conflict with China continues to worsen (likely). It's the ideal approach to dealing with them: drain their economy of its manufacturing & exports and incubate a dollar-caused stagnation as they're unable to transact at the required scale with the rest of the global economy without a massive, endless supply of dollars (the Yuan has a trivial share of global foreign trade). They're already starting to suffocate under the lack of dollars right now, as their current account balance is shifting permanently negative. I'd expect them to begin increasingly restricting their citizens from foreign tourism, as it's a sizable source of dollar bleed, it's a luxury they can't afford much longer. They'll do it under the guise of the need to reinvigorate the Chinese spirit at home and to stop importing negative foreign incorrect values (some party b.s. like that). It's perfectly fine to redirect all US->China manufacturing into other nations such as Vietnam. Not only is that great for helping other nations develop (many of which are regional competitors of China, so it's further ideal that those nations become stronger vis-a-vis China), it reduces China's position of strength.
tanilama 7y ago
> As a US citizen, I'm fully onboard To be the advocate for devil, US salary is too high and regulation/labour too tight, protests too many. In other words, not 'business friendly'.
- wcarron 7y ago
  I disagree. Wages have stagnated for decades. Regulation too lax, especially with regard to predatory financial practices and environmental damage. Protests, too few. The US is the most business friendly developed nation ever to exist. It is a corporate welfare state built upon the exploitation of the laborers.
- wavefunction 7y ago
  That's a very limited concept of 'business friendly' and inaccurate in any case with regards to the US.
navigatesol 7y ago
>What good are values as a nation if we're willing to trade them for profits and cheap goods from China? And yet you promote Tesla, cozying up to the CCP and telling us that "China is the future" so that he can build some cheaper cars and get around tariffs? Whatever helps "the mission"? https://www.wraltechwire.com/2019/09/02/teslas-elon-musk-i-really-think-china-is-the-future/ https://www.wraltechwire.com/2019/09/02/teslas-elon-musk-i-r...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

vinceguidry 7y ago

The US decoupling her economy from China isn't the nightmare scenario, it's losing her global prestige. Imagine all of our allies suddenly realizing that the US is in an untenable bargaining position and all tariffs are raised all over the world, all at once. That's the nightmare scenario. Trump's a dealmaker, he's shown himself to be less than utterly stupid in regards to foreign policy. But building a coalition against China might be more than he can handle.

reaperducer 7y ago

"Cutting off all US supply chain in China" is on the table, but definitely way down the list of what China wants to do. Exactly. It's one thing for China cut off the supply of microchips to the United States. The U.S. would have to make a massive investment in building new supply chains domestically and with other countries. It's another thing if the United States cuts China off from $6 billion in soybeans each year. China's population will start to starve long before a microchip shortage really hurts the U.S.

diego 7y ago
Do you really believe China depends on US soy to feed their population? Where did you get that from?
- dekhn 7y ago
  they use it for pig feed and it's use as a component in many food products. I don't think they technically depend on it, but they depend on it and have to import huge amounts. If they didn't, they'd either have to make a domestic source (they have had trouble with this) or switch to other protein sources.
  - johnpowell 7y ago
    Or buy them from Brazil. Like they are now since the tariffs happened.
    - reaperducer 7y ago
      Or buy them from Brazil. Like they are now since the tariffs happened. It's not a question of switching to Brazil. China was already buying from Brazil. But Brazil doesn't have the capacity to make up for a cut-off of American supplies. Further, soybeans are seasonal. The reason that China buys from both the U.S. and Brazil is because they have harvests at opposite times of the year. Even if Brazil managed to magically ramp up to fill 100% of China's need in each Brazilian growing season, what is it going to do the other six months of the year?