7 ms·

Washington is playing a losing game with China

34 points by 1cvmask 5y ago

nobodyandproud 5y ago
Questionable source: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/quincy-trita-parsi-soros-koch-armin-rosen https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/quincy-trit... It tries to paint China as an economic rival, which of course it is, but the danger was and still is its political and military ambitions.
- engineer_22 5y ago
  Dubious indeed https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quincy_Institute_for_Responsible_Statecraft https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quincy_Institute_for_Respons...
  - w0de0 5y ago
    Am I missing something here? They’re outside the Overton Window, as any non-interventionist would be in America. But their funding and their membership are legit; it’s certainly not a front for China or some such.
throwawaysea 5y ago
I wonder if this article is making this too complicated. It seems to argue for a cooperation and relinquishing of economic power as a way to retain influence, for example by letting the dollar lose its reserve status. That sounds like a disaster, giving up a primary advantage the US has in global influence and authority. The other primary advantage, military strength, seems like it may also diminish if the US doesn’t step up (https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/2050-chinas-military-could-be-unstopable-165451 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/2050-chinas-militar...).
rkhassen9 5y ago
I was at a printing trade conference back in the day, there was a session titled "how to beat China". We were all tricked as the real topic was "how to offshore to China, because anything else is impossible" no doubt the talk was sponsored by the Chinese. Of course we can compete. This article leaves me with the same feeling.
- ncann 5y ago
  Short of outright banning Chinese products like the US did with Huawei I don't see how you can compete with the Chinese when they make things faster, cheaper, and with minimal quality loss. The last point about quality is even debatable.
  - toomuchtodo 5y ago
    Tarrifs to compensate for when China uses underpaid labor, slave labor, or ignores environmental regulations. Lots of way to level the playing field with policy that gates access to a market. If you can still make products faster and cheaper while adhering to the rules businesses in the developed world have to, congrats! You’ll succeed.
    - h0l0cube 5y ago
      Problem is those human rights violations permit slimmer production costs. More to that China has the supply chains and skilled labor necessary to build world class high tech manufacturing that further reduces costs. Sanctions are the only real way to incentivize China to improve its workers' rights such that the rest of the world doesn't have to lower its own to compete.
  - rkhassen9 5y ago
    Lol. Above message sponsored? Might have written "resistance is futile" Just give up? No way man.
    - h0l0cube 5y ago
      They're not exactly wrong. Even if tariffs increase enough for manufacturing capability to be restored in the US, factories will struggle to find the labor (Americans seem disinterested in such work), and the parts and maintenance supply chains will still be dependent on China.
      - nobodyandproud 5y ago
mrbadideas 5y ago
I would have thought strong writing skills were a requirement for diplomats.
akomtu 5y ago
The US should try to export its social justice to China: that's the only thing that can delay the inevitable.
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  China is rapidly aging. As long as developed countries “hold the line” against China, they’ll sputter out before achieving superpower status. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging_of_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging_of_China https://medium.com/politically-speaking/how-chinas-population-will-prevent-it-from-becoming-a-superpower-fe092f0c9340 https://medium.com/politically-speaking/how-chinas-populatio...
  - akomtu 5y ago
    CCP is also the kind of government that would send the old people to far away farms to grow rice for the "young builders of the new society" and China has 1.5 billions people, so it can keep doing this for a few generations. Bluntly speaking, CCP won't carry the dead weight around.
    - toomuchtodo 5y ago
      The issue is the fertility rate is permanently stunted. Even if they go soylent green on the elderly, they’re on a downward population trajectory that is likely locked in by cultural shifts. The longer the fertility rate is held down (China’s was 1.3 for 2020), the harder it is to reverse the trend due to momentum. Good for the planet and individuals making the choice, bad for the CCP. https://www.google.com/search?q=china+fertility+rate https://www.google.com/search?q=china+fertility+rate https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/10/china-birthrate-slumps-experts-blame-changing-attitudes https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/10/china-birthrat... https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-51145251 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-51145251 https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3135342/chinese-military-faces-challenge-falling-fertility-rate https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3135342/chi...
      - 5y ago
simonblack 5y ago
The US outspent the USSR. China is outspending the US. The USSR went broke and collapsed. The US is broke and will collapse.
- atatatat 5y ago
  Who will make the Chinese broke?
  - simonblack 5y ago
    You and I will both be pushing up daisies before then,so don't worry about it. If you really want an answer, I'd guess that India in the short term, or maybe Nigeria in the long trem.
- w0de0 5y ago
  Do you find no place for ideology? Perestroika and the collapse of Soviet pieties as hypocrisies - these are mere effects of economic exhaustion, and America will experience precisely the same? What about the inefficiency of centrally planned economies? Could that be why the Soviets went “broke”? In what way do you predict the United States will go “broke” and what do you imagine of its collapse? A geopolitical collapse? Do you imagine Texas will become Belarus? I believe you analysis is simple to the point of ineffectiveness - with respect.
  - simonblack 5y ago
    Ideology? Nope, I see the problem as financial and economic. You can't embezzle a country of billions (trillions!) and expect that it still has enough money to function properly. A country is really just analogous to a very large Corporation. In what way do you predict the United States will go “broke”? The US is already "broke". It has no chance in Hell of ever repaying its debt. The world has lost its confidence in the US economy. The use of the US Dollar as a Reserve Currency is now down to about half of what it used to be, and declining steadily. Going back to the Cold War 1.0, BOTH the US and the Soviets ran out of money at the end of the 1980s. The US was unfortunate(!) in having the Reserve Currency Credit Card which allowed them to keep spending as though nothing had changed. So now, 30 years later, and 30-odd trillion in debt, the US has no hope at all of recovering - it's just in too deep. The Zimbabwe scenario is close at hand. On the other hand, because the Soviets/Russians didn't have the Reserve Currency Credit Card, they had to to pull in their belts and try to pay off their own massive (but still manageable at that time) debt. That took them about 15 years, but now they are 'back in the black' and now have quite commendable foreign reserves. Their financial prospects are good. Do I imagine that Texas will become Belarus? Good question. It's certainly possible that, as a previously independent Republic, when the SHTF that the Texans will refuse to subsidise the other very destitute states with their oil money, so that they can sort out their own Texas financial problems. I'd guess that maybe it's a 50-50 chance that Texas will 'de-merge' to prevent their going down with the rest of the US.
MikeUt 5y ago
> Washington developed some well-founded complaints about Chinese economic behaviour — and launched a trade war. The trade war started by China with the basis for those "well-founded complaints". But it was only called a trade war when the US realized it and openly retaliated - after much of their industry and know-how got outsourced.

34 points by 1cvmask 5y ago

Questionable source: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/quincy-trita-parsi-soros-koch-armin-rosen https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/quincy-trit... It tries to paint China as an economic rival, which of course it is, but the danger was and still is its political and military ambitions.

engineer_22 5y ago
Dubious indeed https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quincy_Institute_for_Responsible_Statecraft https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quincy_Institute_for_Respons...
- w0de0 5y ago
  Am I missing something here? They’re outside the Overton Window, as any non-interventionist would be in America. But their funding and their membership are legit; it’s certainly not a front for China or some such.

throwawaysea 5y ago

I wonder if this article is making this too complicated. It seems to argue for a cooperation and relinquishing of economic power as a way to retain influence, for example by letting the dollar lose its reserve status. That sounds like a disaster, giving up a primary advantage the US has in global influence and authority. The other primary advantage, military strength, seems like it may also diminish if the US doesn’t step up (https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/2050-chinas-military-could-be-unstopable-165451 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/2050-chinas-militar...).

rkhassen9 5y ago

I was at a printing trade conference back in the day, there was a session titled "how to beat China". We were all tricked as the real topic was "how to offshore to China, because anything else is impossible" no doubt the talk was sponsored by the Chinese. Of course we can compete. This article leaves me with the same feeling.

ncann 5y ago
Short of outright banning Chinese products like the US did with Huawei I don't see how you can compete with the Chinese when they make things faster, cheaper, and with minimal quality loss. The last point about quality is even debatable.
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  Tarrifs to compensate for when China uses underpaid labor, slave labor, or ignores environmental regulations. Lots of way to level the playing field with policy that gates access to a market. If you can still make products faster and cheaper while adhering to the rules businesses in the developed world have to, congrats! You’ll succeed.
  - h0l0cube 5y ago
    Problem is those human rights violations permit slimmer production costs. More to that China has the supply chains and skilled labor necessary to build world class high tech manufacturing that further reduces costs. Sanctions are the only real way to incentivize China to improve its workers' rights such that the rest of the world doesn't have to lower its own to compete.
- rkhassen9 5y ago
  Lol. Above message sponsored? Might have written "resistance is futile" Just give up? No way man.
  - h0l0cube 5y ago
    They're not exactly wrong. Even if tariffs increase enough for manufacturing capability to be restored in the US, factories will struggle to find the labor (Americans seem disinterested in such work), and the parts and maintenance supply chains will still be dependent on China.
    - nobodyandproud 5y ago

mrbadideas 5y ago

I would have thought strong writing skills were a requirement for diplomats.

akomtu 5y ago

The US should try to export its social justice to China: that's the only thing that can delay the inevitable.

toomuchtodo 5y ago
China is rapidly aging. As long as developed countries “hold the line” against China, they’ll sputter out before achieving superpower status. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging_of_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging_of_China https://medium.com/politically-speaking/how-chinas-population-will-prevent-it-from-becoming-a-superpower-fe092f0c9340 https://medium.com/politically-speaking/how-chinas-populatio...
- akomtu 5y ago
  CCP is also the kind of government that would send the old people to far away farms to grow rice for the "young builders of the new society" and China has 1.5 billions people, so it can keep doing this for a few generations. Bluntly speaking, CCP won't carry the dead weight around.
  - toomuchtodo 5y ago
    The issue is the fertility rate is permanently stunted. Even if they go soylent green on the elderly, they’re on a downward population trajectory that is likely locked in by cultural shifts. The longer the fertility rate is held down (China’s was 1.3 for 2020), the harder it is to reverse the trend due to momentum. Good for the planet and individuals making the choice, bad for the CCP. https://www.google.com/search?q=china+fertility+rate https://www.google.com/search?q=china+fertility+rate https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/10/china-birthrate-slumps-experts-blame-changing-attitudes https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/10/china-birthrat... https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-51145251 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-51145251 https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3135342/chinese-military-faces-challenge-falling-fertility-rate https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3135342/chi...
    - 5y ago

simonblack 5y ago

The US outspent the USSR. China is outspending the US. The USSR went broke and collapsed. The US is broke and will collapse.

atatatat 5y ago
Who will make the Chinese broke?
- simonblack 5y ago
  You and I will both be pushing up daisies before then,so don't worry about it. If you really want an answer, I'd guess that India in the short term, or maybe Nigeria in the long trem.
w0de0 5y ago
Do you find no place for ideology? Perestroika and the collapse of Soviet pieties as hypocrisies - these are mere effects of economic exhaustion, and America will experience precisely the same? What about the inefficiency of centrally planned economies? Could that be why the Soviets went “broke”? In what way do you predict the United States will go “broke” and what do you imagine of its collapse? A geopolitical collapse? Do you imagine Texas will become Belarus? I believe you analysis is simple to the point of ineffectiveness - with respect.
- simonblack 5y ago
  Ideology? Nope, I see the problem as financial and economic. You can't embezzle a country of billions (trillions!) and expect that it still has enough money to function properly. A country is really just analogous to a very large Corporation. In what way do you predict the United States will go “broke”? The US is already "broke". It has no chance in Hell of ever repaying its debt. The world has lost its confidence in the US economy. The use of the US Dollar as a Reserve Currency is now down to about half of what it used to be, and declining steadily. Going back to the Cold War 1.0, BOTH the US and the Soviets ran out of money at the end of the 1980s. The US was unfortunate(!) in having the Reserve Currency Credit Card which allowed them to keep spending as though nothing had changed. So now, 30 years later, and 30-odd trillion in debt, the US has no hope at all of recovering - it's just in too deep. The Zimbabwe scenario is close at hand. On the other hand, because the Soviets/Russians didn't have the Reserve Currency Credit Card, they had to to pull in their belts and try to pay off their own massive (but still manageable at that time) debt. That took them about 15 years, but now they are 'back in the black' and now have quite commendable foreign reserves. Their financial prospects are good. Do I imagine that Texas will become Belarus? Good question. It's certainly possible that, as a previously independent Republic, when the SHTF that the Texans will refuse to subsidise the other very destitute states with their oil money, so that they can sort out their own Texas financial problems. I'd guess that maybe it's a 50-50 chance that Texas will 'de-merge' to prevent their going down with the rest of the US.

MikeUt 5y ago

> Washington developed some well-founded complaints about Chinese economic behaviour — and launched a trade war. The trade war started by China with the basis for those "well-founded complaints". But it was only called a trade war when the US realized it and openly retaliated - after much of their industry and know-how got outsourced.