5 ms·

> The US needs access to China's goods to be viable. No, it really isn't. The thing the US is indeed does very little for an economy of its size. Washington c

> The US needs access to China's goods to be viable. No, it really isn't. The thing the US is indeed does very little for an economy of its size. Washington can slam fist on the table, and US industry will be out of China by tomorrow, without much impact at home besides no iToys this season, and few percents off its stock market. Lack of consumer goods would of course be upsetting, but people wouldn't die from lack of them.

vkou 6y ago
Yes, it does. Run a political campaign on 'All the stuff you buy? I'm going to make it cost more,' and you will be slaughtered at the polls. People barely making ends meet aren't very interested in those kinds of political statements. You could, of course, try to lie to them about what the consequences of your policies are going to be.
- baybal2 6y ago
  You are correct, and this is America's, and West's predicament. If you can't do this, you can't do this. And you certainly wouldn't be able to do even more painful things which are truly needed for the West to have any chance to put the genie back into the bottle. China, and Russia have effectively conditioned the NATO countries over the decades into "self-beneficial inaction." Now, seeing words like yours proves their strategy worked.
  - pjc50 6y ago
    This is still a massive improvement over the Cold War, though.
    - AlexCoventry 6y ago
      Aside from the small detail that we appear to be losing, this time.
      - pjc50 6y ago
        It's a funny kind of losing. It looks more like "not totally dominant" to me, which may be confused with losing by people who've not experienced that. What has the US really lost? No territory, no people; there's no stream of refugees to the "winning" Chinese side.
        AlexCoventry 6y ago
        We just got done dealing with four years of leadership by a (possibly unwitting) agent of a foreign power, installed with the help of holes in our IT infrastructure. Our sovereignty and capacity for effective self-governance are severely compromised, at this point. That's more important than loss of territory or people, in the long run.
        YaSamPoSebe 6y ago
        You are insane. As the rest of russiagaters.
        FpUser 6y ago
        >"We just got done dealing with four years of leadership by a (possibly unwitting) agent of a foreign power" Trump was anything but. Your writing just makes no sense.
- elefanten 6y ago
  It's a matter of figuring out the process. You can swap sets of things based on how easy it is to achieve similar enough economics elsewhere or elsewise. This isn't some insurmountable problem. Yes, there are scenarios where you go "too fast" and raise too many prices too quickly and piss people off. Or, you go slower and make it more palatable.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> Lack of consumer goods would of course be upsetting, but people wouldn't die from lack of them. Lack of consumer goods means lack of jobs for people who transport, warehouse, and sell consumer goods. Lack of jobs means lack of money to pay for things like food, shelter, medical care, etc, only some of which the US has adequate safety nets for. People will, indeed, die from lack of consumer goods.
- elefanten 6y ago
  Equivocation. Gp means lack of specific consumer goods, for a set time. Your comment makes it seem like this would lead to catastrophe or collapse. It would more likely lead to industry rotation and employment change. Yes, you can reduce any macro factor to a death count, but those are always trading off in all directions. It's meaningless to categorically single out a particular scenario of swapping production as more deadly than the others.
  - refenestrator 6y ago
    It would take a generation to build an electronics industry equivalent to shenzhen, and would require state involvement/investment that we're not capable of. I'd like to regain industrial capacity too but we're missing an entire population base of expertise and relationships.
pjc50 6y ago
> US industry will be out of China by tomorrow Yeah, I think you're under estimating the interconnectedness of the supply chain there. Would definitely make the pandemic disruption look small. And you're assuming China won't retaliate. I wouldn't like to be a US national in China when that happened.
- baybal2 6y ago
  > Yeah, I think you're under estimating the interconnectedness of the supply chain there. Would definitely make the pandemic disruption look small. Pandemic disruption is small. A disruption on this scale was nothing unheard of historically. Infectious diseases were taking millions of lives in the developed world before the advent of antibiotics, and to lesser extend until the bio-technological revolution of seventies. What was unheard of was world's biggest power being rendered utterly impotent, and in complete stupor by such minor events. I see a country like US being otherwise fully capable of dealing with a crisis on this scale easily. > And you're assuming China won't retaliate. I wouldn't like to be a US national in China when that happened. Of course they will! You will be cutting into personal coffers of their highest elites. It will be a very personal challenge to them. Having them eat watery gruel like lowly peasants will infuriate them. That's exactly the POINT. You see a bad guy, you challenge him to beat him. You don't beat a bad guy by avoiding him.
  - pjc50 6y ago
    So .. casualty projections? How far up the escalation do you want to go?
    - baybal2 6y ago
      > How far up the escalation do you want to go? Nobody wins a fight without fighting it to the end. Escalate until you win.
      - pjc50 6y ago
        .. and you emerge from your nuclear bunker and look at the glowing rubble where Taiwan used to be? The old Cold War was very clear that final victory involved civilian deaths in the millions. Be very clear: are you advocating for that?

vkou 6y ago

Yes, it does. Run a political campaign on 'All the stuff you buy? I'm going to make it cost more,' and you will be slaughtered at the polls. People barely making ends meet aren't very interested in those kinds of political statements. You could, of course, try to lie to them about what the consequences of your policies are going to be.

baybal2 6y ago
You are correct, and this is America's, and West's predicament. If you can't do this, you can't do this. And you certainly wouldn't be able to do even more painful things which are truly needed for the West to have any chance to put the genie back into the bottle. China, and Russia have effectively conditioned the NATO countries over the decades into "self-beneficial inaction." Now, seeing words like yours proves their strategy worked.
- pjc50 6y ago
  This is still a massive improvement over the Cold War, though.
  - AlexCoventry 6y ago
    Aside from the small detail that we appear to be losing, this time.
    - pjc50 6y ago
      It's a funny kind of losing. It looks more like "not totally dominant" to me, which may be confused with losing by people who've not experienced that. What has the US really lost? No territory, no people; there's no stream of refugees to the "winning" Chinese side.
      - AlexCoventry 6y ago
        We just got done dealing with four years of leadership by a (possibly unwitting) agent of a foreign power, installed with the help of holes in our IT infrastructure. Our sovereignty and capacity for effective self-governance are severely compromised, at this point. That's more important than loss of territory or people, in the long run.
        YaSamPoSebe 6y ago
        You are insane. As the rest of russiagaters.
        FpUser 6y ago
        >"We just got done dealing with four years of leadership by a (possibly unwitting) agent of a foreign power" Trump was anything but. Your writing just makes no sense.
elefanten 6y ago
It's a matter of figuring out the process. You can swap sets of things based on how easy it is to achieve similar enough economics elsewhere or elsewise. This isn't some insurmountable problem. Yes, there are scenarios where you go "too fast" and raise too many prices too quickly and piss people off. Or, you go slower and make it more palatable.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> Lack of consumer goods would of course be upsetting, but people wouldn't die from lack of them. Lack of consumer goods means lack of jobs for people who transport, warehouse, and sell consumer goods. Lack of jobs means lack of money to pay for things like food, shelter, medical care, etc, only some of which the US has adequate safety nets for. People will, indeed, die from lack of consumer goods.

elefanten 6y ago
Equivocation. Gp means lack of specific consumer goods, for a set time. Your comment makes it seem like this would lead to catastrophe or collapse. It would more likely lead to industry rotation and employment change. Yes, you can reduce any macro factor to a death count, but those are always trading off in all directions. It's meaningless to categorically single out a particular scenario of swapping production as more deadly than the others.
- refenestrator 6y ago
  It would take a generation to build an electronics industry equivalent to shenzhen, and would require state involvement/investment that we're not capable of. I'd like to regain industrial capacity too but we're missing an entire population base of expertise and relationships.

pjc50 6y ago

> US industry will be out of China by tomorrow Yeah, I think you're under estimating the interconnectedness of the supply chain there. Would definitely make the pandemic disruption look small. And you're assuming China won't retaliate. I wouldn't like to be a US national in China when that happened.

baybal2 6y ago
> Yeah, I think you're under estimating the interconnectedness of the supply chain there. Would definitely make the pandemic disruption look small. Pandemic disruption is small. A disruption on this scale was nothing unheard of historically. Infectious diseases were taking millions of lives in the developed world before the advent of antibiotics, and to lesser extend until the bio-technological revolution of seventies. What was unheard of was world's biggest power being rendered utterly impotent, and in complete stupor by such minor events. I see a country like US being otherwise fully capable of dealing with a crisis on this scale easily. > And you're assuming China won't retaliate. I wouldn't like to be a US national in China when that happened. Of course they will! You will be cutting into personal coffers of their highest elites. It will be a very personal challenge to them. Having them eat watery gruel like lowly peasants will infuriate them. That's exactly the POINT. You see a bad guy, you challenge him to beat him. You don't beat a bad guy by avoiding him.
- pjc50 6y ago
  So .. casualty projections? How far up the escalation do you want to go?
  - baybal2 6y ago
    > How far up the escalation do you want to go? Nobody wins a fight without fighting it to the end. Escalate until you win.
    - pjc50 6y ago
      .. and you emerge from your nuclear bunker and look at the glowing rubble where Taiwan used to be? The old Cold War was very clear that final victory involved civilian deaths in the millions. Be very clear: are you advocating for that?