8 ms·

I am less convinced that China is really good at playing the long game, and more convinced that China is subject to many of the same political struggles that we

I am less convinced that China is really good at playing the long game, and more convinced that China is subject to many of the same political struggles that we see in the US. It’s just so easy to tap into our fears of China that we want to believe that they’re this smart and ruthless. We look for evidence to validate our feelings. There are deposits of these rare earth minerals elsewhere. There are always more deposits, it’s just that they’re untapped until we deplete our cheaper sources. If China withholds its minerals, we will use more expensive sources, but we will still get the minerals.

jacquesm 4y ago
You don't need to be afraid of China to realize that outsourcing a very large fraction of all manufacturing for half the world to a single non-democratic country doesn't serve our interests in the long run.
- rednerrus 4y ago
  It lead to the longest era of peace and prosperity in the history of the world.
  - pimlottc 4y ago
    I think it's safer to say it /concurred with/ the longest era of peace and prosperity in the history of the world.
    - uejfiweun 4y ago
      Yes. The long peace in my view was more so caused by the invention of nuclear weapons which drastically lowered the incentive for war, forward-thinking decision makers who constructed a reasonably stable alliance between great powers, and mass communications technologies allowing for greater control and integration of populations.
      - rurp 4y ago
        This sums it up nicely. Many wars have been fought that might have been avoided with better communication. Nuclear weapons created an era with highly concentrated destruction. Major wars are much less frequent, but the next world war will be cataclysmic. Up until the next world war one should expect unprecedented peace and prosperity. Hopefully we can avoid undoing all of those gains and more in the blink of an eye.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - rednerrus 4y ago
      Creating economic prosperity and economic incentives not to fight was what led to peace and prosperity. This is absolutely causal.
  - nsvd 4y ago
    Or, maybe, it'll lead to the end of it.
- klodolph 4y ago
  True, but we do have to let go of our fear of China if we want to have any hope of figuring out what our own actions should be.
  - koolba 4y ago
    Fear of China may be the only thing capable of pulling us out of the mess that we’ve reached.
- humanistbot 4y ago
  > non-democratic country Just because a country is a democracy does not mean it will be a reliable trading partner. Democracies can easily swing from free market to protectionist trade policies -- and back. Outsourcing a very large fraction of all manufacturing for half the world to any single country is an incredibly risky idea.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    A non democratic country has fewer checks and balances on these things than the ones that do. But you are right, that's not a guarantee at all. Just a matter of degree.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - somenameforme 4y ago
      In the US both tariffs and sanctions can be (and are) unilaterally imposed by the president. Sanctions are crystal clear thanks to the IEEPA [1]. The president needs only declare an emergency, which is typically done in the exact same executive order imposing the sanctions. We're currently under at least 42 different national "emergencies", of which 34 are to impose sanctions. [2] The legal basis for tariffs is less clear, but in effect no different. Trump's tariffs [3] were all passed unilaterally, appealing to all sorts of acts that grant the president conditional tariff powers, but where the condition is framed in a broad enough way to include nearly any rationale. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Emergency_Economic_Powers_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Emergency_Econom... [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_i... [3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_tariffs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_tariffs
      - kelnos 4y ago
- heavyset_go 4y ago
  It serves the interests of those who run this country, they've made themselves very rich via this strategy.
- xwdv 4y ago
  Unfortunately the US consumer simply cannot afford to pay more for products no produced in non-democratic nations with impossibly cheap labor. They are already being pushed to the brink.
  - basilgohar 4y ago
    As long as many companies continue to make year-on-year record profits, I reject that prices are a product solely of non-Democratic countries' impossibly cheap labor.
    - rurp 4y ago
      In addition to that, a large portion of necessary spending is unaffected by outsourcing. A person can their spending on clothes or electronics quite low if needed; but housing, food, and energy costs are largely driven by domestic circumstances.
      - xwdv 4y ago
        Yes but overwhelmingly it’s the unnecessary spending that brings joy to people’s lives.
- mjevans 4y ago
  Centralization promotes efficiency, until a problem happens. I can't seem to find anything in news headlines, probably because the event I remember hearing about likely happened before Google's founding (I think it was the 1990s or 1980s?); but at a point in time the plastic used for either all or a lot of ICs was manufactured in one single facility. That plant happened to catch fire and it was a major supply issue. Even if that event was really a hypothetical recounted by a professor years later just to educate the class, it does serve as a good example. Markets are more stable with more than one single manufacturing site, more than one supplier. Economics will still push towards as much consolidation as possible, so for the good of countries and consumers, regulators must press on the scales and ensure _competition_ remains. Ideally every big country can at least pivot manufacturing centers to be entirely self sufficient if they need. Maybe superpowers have multiple facilities even for small items. Maybe groups of countries (E.G. the EU, NATO, etc) pool their resources and distribute manufacturing accordingly. Shipping also isn't free and externalities like pollution should not be allowed; they should be part of the cost to ensure that smart decisions about production happen.
  - philipkglass 4y ago
    You're probably thinking of the 1993 explosion at Sumitomo Chemical Company's plant that made epoxy resin for semiconductors: "Semiconductor Industry Faces Problems After Resin Plant Explosion" https://apnews.com/article/8fe2925b68d34d33f19a53e4892c74a2 https://apnews.com/article/8fe2925b68d34d33f19a53e4892c74a2 It caused a significant spike in DRAM prices: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1993-08-06-9308060189-story.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1993-08-06-930806... Today's low personal computer prices, particularly those on machines made by smaller companies, are likely soon to shoot up more than $100 per machine because of a panic in the world memory-chip market. Prices already have doubled for computer owners who want to expand the capacity of their machines to handle memory-hungry new programs based on Macintosh System 7 or on Microsoft Windows or the OS/2 operating system for IBM compatibles, industry officials said. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1993-08-06-9308060189-story.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1993-08-06-930806...
    - 4y ago
- teh_klev 4y ago
  > outsourcing a very large fraction of all manufacturing for half the world to a single non-democratic country doesn't serve our interests in the long run You do realise that a sizeable chunk of the world's oil and gas are sourced from "non-democratic" countries in the Middle East, yet somehow we leave them alone to openly torture, abuse and murder their citizens? And on top of that they're left alone to operate a cartel (OPEC) that holds the world to ransom when they decide one day to cut production and push up prices. Feels like there's a whole load of double standards on display here.
  - WillPostForFood 4y ago
    yet somehow we leave them alone to openly torture, abuse and murder their citizens Huh, like maybe "a sizeable chunk of the world's oil and gas are sourced from "non-democratic" countries in the Middle East" is the problem, and the reason those countries get a pass? So like we shouldn't be outsourcing manufacturing, we shouldn't be outsourcing energy production to terrible countries.
    - Retric 4y ago
      If by we you mean the US then we don’t. The US has effectively zero direct dependence on middle eastern oil due to domestic production and transportation costs. Canada is much closer and has a lot of oil. Where it matters is they can impact the global prices and thus what people pay at the pump. Though the actual profits from such spikes in American gas prices end up going to suppliers in America or Canada.
      - teh_klev 4y ago
        > The US has effectively zero direct dependence on middle eastern oil due to domestic production and transportation costs For now and whilst those extraction costs are cheaper domestically. The US needs the Saudis as a backstop and for infill of the types of crude oils the North American continent doesn't have access to or is in limited supply. They're also a handy client state to do the US's dirty work in the Middle East, see Yemen for example. The US also needs the Saudi's and their non-democratic allies to keep buying weapon systems to prop up Lockheed, Boeing et al. You need to look at the bigger picture.
joecool1029 4y ago
>and more convinced that China is subject to many of the same political struggles Who's going to vote their government out or jam things up with filibuster? For better or worse their government just 'does'. You cannot seriously compare a system like this to US/UK democracy paralyzation during things like COVID. I do not think their system is better or worse, it's just not subject to any kind of politics internally that would get in the way of whatever the hell their national intentions of the now are.
- klodolph 4y ago
  > I do not think their system is better or worse, it's just not subject to any kind of politics internally that would get in the way of whatever the hell their national intentions of the now are. If you are arguing that the Communist Party of China is not subject to internal politics, I don’t think that argument will withstand much scrutiny. Think about how much internal politics there are within the Democratic party or the Republican party of the US. Having a one-party state does not inoculate a country from internal politics.
  - uejfiweun 4y ago
    I think the distinction the parent is trying to make is that China's system is not subject to checks and balances (aka 'politics') that intentionally slow down the operations of government. Of course, any human organization will deal with organizational politics such as backstabbing and ladder-climbers. But in terms of national politics to decide policy, it's really just under full control of Xi. There are pros and cons to each approach. The US system is certainly slower and more infuriating but is also less prone to shooting itself in the foot. China's system works well when it works, but it more easily produces giant missteps like the Great Leap Forward or zero covid.
- worrycue 4y ago
  > Who's going to vote their government out or jam things up with filibuster? Losing an election in the US just means you are out of a job - and lose all its perks. Losing power in an authoritarian government could mean you are arrested for “corruption” and sentenced to death. The paranoia (and occasional country sabotaging acts) of CCP critters are justified as it’s a no holds barred fight for power and survival. https://archive.is/d9OsU https://archive.is/d9OsU
pm90 4y ago
Agreed. Everyone wants a bogeyman. It’s great for Nationalism and Politicians who can blame someone else. Strong economic ties are the only way to align interests and prevent destructive wars.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  That worked so well for Russia and the West.
  - adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
    it kind of did. Europe saved roughly 1% gdp for 30 years at the cost of 1 invasion that will almost certainly cost less that 30% of a year's gdp to repel.
  - foverzar 4y ago
    It took almost two decades of continued effort of toe-stepping and pinching various pain points to get where we are now, so quite well enough actually. Even now all parties are restrained and make deals: Ukraine still pumps Russian gas to Europe, receiving payments from Russia.
2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
What checks and balances are there in the Chinese government?
fspeech 4y ago
"In the draft, manufacturing technologies for high-performance magnets using such rare earth elements as neodymium and samarium cobalt were added to the export ban." It didn't mention restriction on export of mineral or magnets themselves. Pretty sure US would restrict similar technology export to China. BTW I don't think China ever exported such manufacturing technology. Formalization is likely due to the desire to show some ability to retaliate against western SME export ban.
Animats 4y ago
> I am less convinced that China is really good at playing the long game, and more convinced that China is subject to many of the same political struggles that we see in the US. It's more the classic leader-for-life problem. China's problem right now is Xi Jinping. He's been in power too long. He changed the rules to give himself a third term, as Putin did. He's centralized power around himself. He's created a cult of personality around himself. His decisions are much worse than they used to be. A decade ago he was seen as doing a good job. Not any more.
_8j50 4y ago
Whether china is good at the long game is the wrong question. They are obviously playing that game, they have even planned out the whole thing in "the 100 year marathon". The right question is if any of their democratic competitors are even in the game at all given their regular planned regime changes (elections) and multiple competing political parties. Even if china sucks at it, they win by default if there is no one else playing the game. If China holds the minerals and the west finds another way then China would have to sell it Cheaper to non-western emerging nations like india and brazil even cheaper, improving their relations in the long term with those nations. You can be an incompetent fool and lead a western nation so long as you can smoothtalk. But cleverness and competency are not optional if you want t o politically wrestle your way to be the leader of the CCP and almost half the planet's population.
- matthewdgreen 4y ago
  I think it’s very important to point out here that historically speaking, no autocracy has ever outperformed the democratic West on any economic or military measure over the long term. There have been periods where it seemed like managed economies were on the rise (see even the USSR during the 1950s and 60s) but this growth tailed off due to, in many cases, serious unforced errors that the autocratic political system couldn’t address. There are a lot of possible explanations for this, but the obvious one is that democracies can course-correct. We get plenty of bad leaders as well, but in the long term we replace them. Autocratic nations can have great leadership sometimes, but they can also get stuck with Mao for decades. All evidence seems to indicate that China is reverting away from a period of dynamic leadership and moving back to a period where party officials are chosen based on loyalty to one aging man, rather than their competence. Speaks to bad things ahead for China, maybe for all of us too.
  - _8j50 4y ago
    I don't disagree but 20th century didn't have the internet like it is today that helps centrally managed countries be more efficient. Also, China has had the same type of government since late 1940s and unlike russia and many other autocracies it has not just survived but is doing well economically. It is also incorrect to say China is an autocracy because as powerful as Xi is, if China's economy does not fare well then he still has to answer to the communist party congress. It's not like in north korea where they have fake elections or junta regimes with no elections. His party has no plans to replace him anytime soon but only because he is performing well enough. The CCP idolizes Xi but they are not beyond replacing him if he is unable to perform his duties. My point being, it may take longer but they can course correct.
Herval_freire 4y ago
>There are deposits of these rare earth minerals elsewhere. There are always more deposits, it’s just that they’re untapped until we deplete our cheaper sources. If China withholds its minerals, we will use more expensive sources, but we will still get the minerals. Same thing if you with-hold semiconductors. Somebody for sure is willing to sell general purpose chips to China second hand at a more expensive price. >I am less convinced that China is really good at playing the long game, and more convinced that China is subject to many of the same political struggles that we see in the US. Unlikely. China is subject to different struggles but they are much better at playing a long game given that their power is more centralized and has longer terms. Xi Jing ping is likely here to stay. Bidens term is almost up and the next guy may just undo everything he did.
- weq 4y ago
  > Somebody for sure is willing to sell general purpose chips to China second hand at a more expensive price. The US is stopping people from selling high tech chips to China. Have you not heard of this policy? I tenat to agree that Xi Jing Ping is distracted with retaining power like all the other democractic polticians are. Instead of left vs rights, its ultra left-ist faction against faction, corruption and profiteering in the CCP is rife. Every day enough figure gets sent to death it would seem after falling out of favour.
  - seanmcdirmid 4y ago
    Xi Jinping. The extra g caught me off guard. China is a fairly conservative country, so calling them ultra leftist also feels wrong, since any actual leftists would get kicked out of government very quickly. It’s more like the reformer wing (was headed by ex-premiere Li Keqiang) and the more traditionalist wing that Xi represents.
    - borissk 4y ago
      From the point of view of a dictator like Xi Jinping it's the people who support him vs every one else.
  - 4y ago
rodgerd 4y ago
> I am less convinced that China is really good at playing the long game The main difference is that China is good at ensuring that the state is not run for the benefit of a handful of companies and investors. Which is not an endorsement of many of the other things the CCP inflicts on Chinese citizens.
birdyrooster 4y ago
The only reason it's so cheap is that they have the economies of scale from dominating the market by any means necessary. Take away their customers and all of a sudden their relative cost will go up.

jacquesm 4y ago

You don't need to be afraid of China to realize that outsourcing a very large fraction of all manufacturing for half the world to a single non-democratic country doesn't serve our interests in the long run.

rednerrus 4y ago
It lead to the longest era of peace and prosperity in the history of the world.
- pimlottc 4y ago
  I think it's safer to say it /concurred with/ the longest era of peace and prosperity in the history of the world.
  - uejfiweun 4y ago
    Yes. The long peace in my view was more so caused by the invention of nuclear weapons which drastically lowered the incentive for war, forward-thinking decision makers who constructed a reasonably stable alliance between great powers, and mass communications technologies allowing for greater control and integration of populations.
    - rurp 4y ago
      This sums it up nicely. Many wars have been fought that might have been avoided with better communication. Nuclear weapons created an era with highly concentrated destruction. Major wars are much less frequent, but the next world war will be cataclysmic. Up until the next world war one should expect unprecedented peace and prosperity. Hopefully we can avoid undoing all of those gains and more in the blink of an eye.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - rednerrus 4y ago
    Creating economic prosperity and economic incentives not to fight was what led to peace and prosperity. This is absolutely causal.
- nsvd 4y ago
  Or, maybe, it'll lead to the end of it.
klodolph 4y ago
True, but we do have to let go of our fear of China if we want to have any hope of figuring out what our own actions should be.
- koolba 4y ago
  Fear of China may be the only thing capable of pulling us out of the mess that we’ve reached.
humanistbot 4y ago
> non-democratic country Just because a country is a democracy does not mean it will be a reliable trading partner. Democracies can easily swing from free market to protectionist trade policies -- and back. Outsourcing a very large fraction of all manufacturing for half the world to any single country is an incredibly risky idea.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  A non democratic country has fewer checks and balances on these things than the ones that do. But you are right, that's not a guarantee at all. Just a matter of degree.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - somenameforme 4y ago
    In the US both tariffs and sanctions can be (and are) unilaterally imposed by the president. Sanctions are crystal clear thanks to the IEEPA [1]. The president needs only declare an emergency, which is typically done in the exact same executive order imposing the sanctions. We're currently under at least 42 different national "emergencies", of which 34 are to impose sanctions. [2] The legal basis for tariffs is less clear, but in effect no different. Trump's tariffs [3] were all passed unilaterally, appealing to all sorts of acts that grant the president conditional tariff powers, but where the condition is framed in a broad enough way to include nearly any rationale. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Emergency_Economic_Powers_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Emergency_Econom... [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_i... [3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_tariffs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_tariffs
    - kelnos 4y ago
heavyset_go 4y ago
It serves the interests of those who run this country, they've made themselves very rich via this strategy.
xwdv 4y ago
Unfortunately the US consumer simply cannot afford to pay more for products no produced in non-democratic nations with impossibly cheap labor. They are already being pushed to the brink.
- basilgohar 4y ago
  As long as many companies continue to make year-on-year record profits, I reject that prices are a product solely of non-Democratic countries' impossibly cheap labor.
  - rurp 4y ago
    In addition to that, a large portion of necessary spending is unaffected by outsourcing. A person can their spending on clothes or electronics quite low if needed; but housing, food, and energy costs are largely driven by domestic circumstances.
    - xwdv 4y ago
      Yes but overwhelmingly it’s the unnecessary spending that brings joy to people’s lives.
mjevans 4y ago
Centralization promotes efficiency, until a problem happens. I can't seem to find anything in news headlines, probably because the event I remember hearing about likely happened before Google's founding (I think it was the 1990s or 1980s?); but at a point in time the plastic used for either all or a lot of ICs was manufactured in one single facility. That plant happened to catch fire and it was a major supply issue. Even if that event was really a hypothetical recounted by a professor years later just to educate the class, it does serve as a good example. Markets are more stable with more than one single manufacturing site, more than one supplier. Economics will still push towards as much consolidation as possible, so for the good of countries and consumers, regulators must press on the scales and ensure _competition_ remains. Ideally every big country can at least pivot manufacturing centers to be entirely self sufficient if they need. Maybe superpowers have multiple facilities even for small items. Maybe groups of countries (E.G. the EU, NATO, etc) pool their resources and distribute manufacturing accordingly. Shipping also isn't free and externalities like pollution should not be allowed; they should be part of the cost to ensure that smart decisions about production happen.
- philipkglass 4y ago
  You're probably thinking of the 1993 explosion at Sumitomo Chemical Company's plant that made epoxy resin for semiconductors: "Semiconductor Industry Faces Problems After Resin Plant Explosion" https://apnews.com/article/8fe2925b68d34d33f19a53e4892c74a2 https://apnews.com/article/8fe2925b68d34d33f19a53e4892c74a2 It caused a significant spike in DRAM prices: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1993-08-06-9308060189-story.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1993-08-06-930806... Today's low personal computer prices, particularly those on machines made by smaller companies, are likely soon to shoot up more than $100 per machine because of a panic in the world memory-chip market. Prices already have doubled for computer owners who want to expand the capacity of their machines to handle memory-hungry new programs based on Macintosh System 7 or on Microsoft Windows or the OS/2 operating system for IBM compatibles, industry officials said. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1993-08-06-9308060189-story.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1993-08-06-930806...
  - 4y ago
teh_klev 4y ago
> outsourcing a very large fraction of all manufacturing for half the world to a single non-democratic country doesn't serve our interests in the long run You do realise that a sizeable chunk of the world's oil and gas are sourced from "non-democratic" countries in the Middle East, yet somehow we leave them alone to openly torture, abuse and murder their citizens? And on top of that they're left alone to operate a cartel (OPEC) that holds the world to ransom when they decide one day to cut production and push up prices. Feels like there's a whole load of double standards on display here.
- WillPostForFood 4y ago
  yet somehow we leave them alone to openly torture, abuse and murder their citizens Huh, like maybe "a sizeable chunk of the world's oil and gas are sourced from "non-democratic" countries in the Middle East" is the problem, and the reason those countries get a pass? So like we shouldn't be outsourcing manufacturing, we shouldn't be outsourcing energy production to terrible countries.
  - Retric 4y ago
    If by we you mean the US then we don’t. The US has effectively zero direct dependence on middle eastern oil due to domestic production and transportation costs. Canada is much closer and has a lot of oil. Where it matters is they can impact the global prices and thus what people pay at the pump. Though the actual profits from such spikes in American gas prices end up going to suppliers in America or Canada.
    - teh_klev 4y ago
      > The US has effectively zero direct dependence on middle eastern oil due to domestic production and transportation costs For now and whilst those extraction costs are cheaper domestically. The US needs the Saudis as a backstop and for infill of the types of crude oils the North American continent doesn't have access to or is in limited supply. They're also a handy client state to do the US's dirty work in the Middle East, see Yemen for example. The US also needs the Saudi's and their non-democratic allies to keep buying weapon systems to prop up Lockheed, Boeing et al. You need to look at the bigger picture.

joecool1029 4y ago

>and more convinced that China is subject to many of the same political struggles Who's going to vote their government out or jam things up with filibuster? For better or worse their government just 'does'. You cannot seriously compare a system like this to US/UK democracy paralyzation during things like COVID. I do not think their system is better or worse, it's just not subject to any kind of politics internally that would get in the way of whatever the hell their national intentions of the now are.

klodolph 4y ago
> I do not think their system is better or worse, it's just not subject to any kind of politics internally that would get in the way of whatever the hell their national intentions of the now are. If you are arguing that the Communist Party of China is not subject to internal politics, I don’t think that argument will withstand much scrutiny. Think about how much internal politics there are within the Democratic party or the Republican party of the US. Having a one-party state does not inoculate a country from internal politics.
- uejfiweun 4y ago
  I think the distinction the parent is trying to make is that China's system is not subject to checks and balances (aka 'politics') that intentionally slow down the operations of government. Of course, any human organization will deal with organizational politics such as backstabbing and ladder-climbers. But in terms of national politics to decide policy, it's really just under full control of Xi. There are pros and cons to each approach. The US system is certainly slower and more infuriating but is also less prone to shooting itself in the foot. China's system works well when it works, but it more easily produces giant missteps like the Great Leap Forward or zero covid.
worrycue 4y ago
> Who's going to vote their government out or jam things up with filibuster? Losing an election in the US just means you are out of a job - and lose all its perks. Losing power in an authoritarian government could mean you are arrested for “corruption” and sentenced to death. The paranoia (and occasional country sabotaging acts) of CCP critters are justified as it’s a no holds barred fight for power and survival. https://archive.is/d9OsU https://archive.is/d9OsU

pm90 4y ago

Agreed. Everyone wants a bogeyman. It’s great for Nationalism and Politicians who can blame someone else. Strong economic ties are the only way to align interests and prevent destructive wars.

jacquesm 4y ago
That worked so well for Russia and the West.
- adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
  it kind of did. Europe saved roughly 1% gdp for 30 years at the cost of 1 invasion that will almost certainly cost less that 30% of a year's gdp to repel.
- foverzar 4y ago
  It took almost two decades of continued effort of toe-stepping and pinching various pain points to get where we are now, so quite well enough actually. Even now all parties are restrained and make deals: Ukraine still pumps Russian gas to Europe, receiving payments from Russia.

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago

What checks and balances are there in the Chinese government?

fspeech 4y ago

"In the draft, manufacturing technologies for high-performance magnets using such rare earth elements as neodymium and samarium cobalt were added to the export ban." It didn't mention restriction on export of mineral or magnets themselves. Pretty sure US would restrict similar technology export to China. BTW I don't think China ever exported such manufacturing technology. Formalization is likely due to the desire to show some ability to retaliate against western SME export ban.

Animats 4y ago

> I am less convinced that China is really good at playing the long game, and more convinced that China is subject to many of the same political struggles that we see in the US. It's more the classic leader-for-life problem. China's problem right now is Xi Jinping. He's been in power too long. He changed the rules to give himself a third term, as Putin did. He's centralized power around himself. He's created a cult of personality around himself. His decisions are much worse than they used to be. A decade ago he was seen as doing a good job. Not any more.

_8j50 4y ago

Whether china is good at the long game is the wrong question. They are obviously playing that game, they have even planned out the whole thing in "the 100 year marathon". The right question is if any of their democratic competitors are even in the game at all given their regular planned regime changes (elections) and multiple competing political parties. Even if china sucks at it, they win by default if there is no one else playing the game. If China holds the minerals and the west finds another way then China would have to sell it Cheaper to non-western emerging nations like india and brazil even cheaper, improving their relations in the long term with those nations. You can be an incompetent fool and lead a western nation so long as you can smoothtalk. But cleverness and competency are not optional if you want t o politically wrestle your way to be the leader of the CCP and almost half the planet's population.

matthewdgreen 4y ago
I think it’s very important to point out here that historically speaking, no autocracy has ever outperformed the democratic West on any economic or military measure over the long term. There have been periods where it seemed like managed economies were on the rise (see even the USSR during the 1950s and 60s) but this growth tailed off due to, in many cases, serious unforced errors that the autocratic political system couldn’t address. There are a lot of possible explanations for this, but the obvious one is that democracies can course-correct. We get plenty of bad leaders as well, but in the long term we replace them. Autocratic nations can have great leadership sometimes, but they can also get stuck with Mao for decades. All evidence seems to indicate that China is reverting away from a period of dynamic leadership and moving back to a period where party officials are chosen based on loyalty to one aging man, rather than their competence. Speaks to bad things ahead for China, maybe for all of us too.
- _8j50 4y ago
  I don't disagree but 20th century didn't have the internet like it is today that helps centrally managed countries be more efficient. Also, China has had the same type of government since late 1940s and unlike russia and many other autocracies it has not just survived but is doing well economically. It is also incorrect to say China is an autocracy because as powerful as Xi is, if China's economy does not fare well then he still has to answer to the communist party congress. It's not like in north korea where they have fake elections or junta regimes with no elections. His party has no plans to replace him anytime soon but only because he is performing well enough. The CCP idolizes Xi but they are not beyond replacing him if he is unable to perform his duties. My point being, it may take longer but they can course correct.

Herval_freire 4y ago

>There are deposits of these rare earth minerals elsewhere. There are always more deposits, it’s just that they’re untapped until we deplete our cheaper sources. If China withholds its minerals, we will use more expensive sources, but we will still get the minerals. Same thing if you with-hold semiconductors. Somebody for sure is willing to sell general purpose chips to China second hand at a more expensive price. >I am less convinced that China is really good at playing the long game, and more convinced that China is subject to many of the same political struggles that we see in the US. Unlikely. China is subject to different struggles but they are much better at playing a long game given that their power is more centralized and has longer terms. Xi Jing ping is likely here to stay. Bidens term is almost up and the next guy may just undo everything he did.

weq 4y ago
> Somebody for sure is willing to sell general purpose chips to China second hand at a more expensive price. The US is stopping people from selling high tech chips to China. Have you not heard of this policy? I tenat to agree that Xi Jing Ping is distracted with retaining power like all the other democractic polticians are. Instead of left vs rights, its ultra left-ist faction against faction, corruption and profiteering in the CCP is rife. Every day enough figure gets sent to death it would seem after falling out of favour.
- seanmcdirmid 4y ago
  Xi Jinping. The extra g caught me off guard. China is a fairly conservative country, so calling them ultra leftist also feels wrong, since any actual leftists would get kicked out of government very quickly. It’s more like the reformer wing (was headed by ex-premiere Li Keqiang) and the more traditionalist wing that Xi represents.
  - borissk 4y ago
    From the point of view of a dictator like Xi Jinping it's the people who support him vs every one else.
- 4y ago

rodgerd 4y ago

> I am less convinced that China is really good at playing the long game The main difference is that China is good at ensuring that the state is not run for the benefit of a handful of companies and investors. Which is not an endorsement of many of the other things the CCP inflicts on Chinese citizens.

birdyrooster 4y ago

The only reason it's so cheap is that they have the economies of scale from dominating the market by any means necessary. Take away their customers and all of a sudden their relative cost will go up.