3 ms·

The US has been a spectator for 30 years, as the CCP has kept up an onslaught of economic attacks on the US. The ban on Huawei was a good 1st step, which shoul

by screye 5y ago

The US has been a spectator for 30 years, as the CCP has kept up an onslaught of economic attacks on the US. The ban on Huawei was a good 1st step, which should be followed with an protectionist approach to trade with China. (as long as it refuses to act in good faith with the US.) It will affect the US economy in the short term, but the US has felt like a frog being slow boiled for the last 30 years. The CCP is now accelerating because they finally have the leverage to twist the US's arm in economic retaliation. Globalist trade is based around bi-directional open channels. The way the west has resigned multiple industrial disciplines to China, cannot be defended under any economic school of thought. Post WW2 America knew what was up. They knew to export low-margin industries to nations they could tie up in stringent trade rules and had the militaristic asymmetry to enforce said rules. (They weren't necessarily unfair either) With Africa, India and SEA being at the point of 1980s China, now is the time to pump some money and get large-scale low-cost manufacturing setup in these nations. It would be a win-win arrangement of monumental proportions. It helps that some of these countries are either deeply suspicious or are already in an exploitative neo-colonialist arrangement with China, making them willing to look at alternatives. (I do not mean doing stupid things like Belt-and-road though) Now like all tug-of-wars of power, this is going to appear quite 'unethical'. But, I can't think of a single instance in history where an 'ethical' player beat a motivated 'hook-or-by-crook' player in a competitive setup. Also, as far as war goes, this is the most peaceful way to engage in it.

captainredbeard 5y ago
Henry Kissinger's foreign policy blunders will be looked back on with the same disdain as Chamberlain's. He set us up for practically all of the FP problems we face today.
tablespoon 5y ago
> The ban on Huawei was a good 1st step, which should be followed with an protectionist approach to trade with China, as long as it refuses to act in good faith with the US. That's a first step, but not a stopping condition, IMHO. I'd say it should continue until there's less ideological conflict (e.g. movement towards political liberalization instead of away from it). > Post WW2 America knew what was up. They knew to export low-margin industries to nations they could tie up in stringent trade rules and had the militaristic asymmetry to enforce said rules. (They weren't necessarily unfair either) More than that, it knew not to become too economically dependent/entwined with ideological opponents. IIRC, there were significant restraints on trade with the Communist Bloc (off the top of my head: CoCom, tying trade policy to human rights (Jackson–Vanik_amendment), and requirements that trade be conducted with hard currency (e.g. no credit)).
grumblenum 5y ago
Do you think the folks with real decision making power (I'm thinking people invited to Davos, rather than people in mostly ceremonial political roles) in the United States actually want a future without global Chinese hegemony? As far as I can tell, our elites are overtly hostile to the American populace and actively undermine us. I am reminded of 1940s US-Soviet relations where FDR & friends saw Stalin as the lovable rascal leading us all toward a lovely future of enlightened, global despotism under the new faith of dialectical materialism (nowadays otherwise named). Given the chummy trade relations we maintained with our 'enemies' throughout the 'Cold War', I suspect Soviet capitulation was kind of, like, an accident. I don't think our money-masters or politburo want Americans as we know them to survive.
silicon2401 5y ago
It's not helped by people who push for things like open borders and globalism. Being open and selfless only works if everybody else is, too. Otherwise the most selfless get taken advantage of by the most selfish
rasz 5y ago
>Post WW2 America knew what was up did they now? Frontline: Coming From Japan [The Fall Of The US Television Industry] (1992) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aesJTsZqm6c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aesJTsZqm6c "September 30, 1990. HOW DID Japan destroy the American television industry? The secret history of that strategy reveals how Japanese manufacturers and the Japanese government first created an anti-competitive cartel ..." https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:iVdEh3wdnXAJ:https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1990/09/30/japan-and-the-big-squeeze/0fb1617e-8756-4390-a776-f1619d59869a/ https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:iVdEh3... Direct assault on the entire American electronics industry as a form of revenge for ww2, and the late limp dick non responses leading to total collapse of whole sector https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1987-04-23-8701310301-story.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1987-04-23-870131... Japan even had foreign currency quota and ownership limits just like China does today. "MITI'S SUCCESSES AND FAILURES IN CONTROLLING JAPAN'S TECHNOLOGY IMPORTS" https://www.jstor.org/stable/43294946 https://www.jstor.org/stable/43294946

by screye 5y ago

captainredbeard 5y ago

Henry Kissinger's foreign policy blunders will be looked back on with the same disdain as Chamberlain's. He set us up for practically all of the FP problems we face today.

tablespoon 5y ago

> The ban on Huawei was a good 1st step, which should be followed with an protectionist approach to trade with China, as long as it refuses to act in good faith with the US. That's a first step, but not a stopping condition, IMHO. I'd say it should continue until there's less ideological conflict (e.g. movement towards political liberalization instead of away from it). > Post WW2 America knew what was up. They knew to export low-margin industries to nations they could tie up in stringent trade rules and had the militaristic asymmetry to enforce said rules. (They weren't necessarily unfair either) More than that, it knew not to become too economically dependent/entwined with ideological opponents. IIRC, there were significant restraints on trade with the Communist Bloc (off the top of my head: CoCom, tying trade policy to human rights (Jackson–Vanik_amendment), and requirements that trade be conducted with hard currency (e.g. no credit)).

grumblenum 5y ago

Do you think the folks with real decision making power (I'm thinking people invited to Davos, rather than people in mostly ceremonial political roles) in the United States actually want a future without global Chinese hegemony? As far as I can tell, our elites are overtly hostile to the American populace and actively undermine us. I am reminded of 1940s US-Soviet relations where FDR & friends saw Stalin as the lovable rascal leading us all toward a lovely future of enlightened, global despotism under the new faith of dialectical materialism (nowadays otherwise named). Given the chummy trade relations we maintained with our 'enemies' throughout the 'Cold War', I suspect Soviet capitulation was kind of, like, an accident. I don't think our money-masters or politburo want Americans as we know them to survive.

silicon2401 5y ago

It's not helped by people who push for things like open borders and globalism. Being open and selfless only works if everybody else is, too. Otherwise the most selfless get taken advantage of by the most selfish

rasz 5y ago

>Post WW2 America knew what was up did they now? Frontline: Coming From Japan [The Fall Of The US Television Industry] (1992) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aesJTsZqm6c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aesJTsZqm6c "September 30, 1990. HOW DID Japan destroy the American television industry? The secret history of that strategy reveals how Japanese manufacturers and the Japanese government first created an anti-competitive cartel ..." https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:iVdEh3wdnXAJ:https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1990/09/30/japan-and-the-big-squeeze/0fb1617e-8756-4390-a776-f1619d59869a/ https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:iVdEh3... Direct assault on the entire American electronics industry as a form of revenge for ww2, and the late limp dick non responses leading to total collapse of whole sector https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1987-04-23-8701310301-story.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1987-04-23-870131... Japan even had foreign currency quota and ownership limits just like China does today. "MITI'S SUCCESSES AND FAILURES IN CONTROLLING JAPAN'S TECHNOLOGY IMPORTS" https://www.jstor.org/stable/43294946 https://www.jstor.org/stable/43294946