4 ms·

You could be right, but it's hard to know how history would play out if a 'new cold war' with China started today, and with such a unique technological asymmetr

You could be right, but it's hard to know how history would play out if a 'new cold war' with China started today, and with such a unique technological asymmetry (as room temperature superconductivity), and with a country that has a great deal more technical capability, self-sufficiency, and scruples than the former USSR.

ethbr1 3y ago
The thing that brings China all those boons is that they make and sell things to the rest of the world. Absent free trade, their advantages dwindle. So the current "just shy of declared adversarial relationships" is optimum for them. Pushed further, say by retaining exclusive access to a game changing technology, and they start losing trade relationships (arguably, already have as manufacturing reallocated to SE Asia).
- h0l0cube 3y ago
  The trade war between the US and China (and the precipitating outcones) were instigated by the US. The withholding of ASML lithography equipment is a case in point. That said, in spite of tarrifs from the west, China still has plenty of skin in the game, and the hypothetical suggests that trade would still be open enough for China to profit
  - SkyMarshal 3y ago
    >The trade war between the US and China (and the precipitating outcones) were instigated by the US. That's very arguable when it was the US who led the world in opening up to China in the 90s/early 2000s, opening its markets to China, bringing China into the WTO, etc. (all at great cost to middle class Americans). China was an economic basket case and incapable of developing on its own. No country in history has been more generous to another. And what did the US get in return? Currency manipulation, large scale economic espionage and mercantilist behavior, protectionism of Chinese markets and industries, fentanyl, militarization of South China Sea and bullying the countries there, largest and fastest military buildup since 1930s Germany, supporting Russia vs Ukraine, threatening war over Taiwan, etc. "Unrestricted warfare". The US didn't cause China to do any of that, that was all the CCP's decision. Responses like economic derisking/decoupling (aka trade war) are completely legitimate and unsurprising.
    - p_j_w 3y ago
      >it was the US who led the world in opening up to China in the 90s/early 2000s, opening its markets to China, bringing China into the WTO, etc. (all at great cost to middle class Americans). China was an economic basket case and incapable of developing on its own. No country in history has been more generous to another. This is hilarious revisionism. We didn't do any of that out of generosity, we did it for profit. We saw a huge pool of cheap labor and decided we wanted to let our companies exploit that. We rubbed our hands together and grinned while selling them the proverbial rope.
      - ethbr1 3y ago
        Lifting half a billion+ people out of poverty and enabling a country to modernize seems like a decent outcome. Regardless of the motivations and machinations on either government's part.
      - SkyMarshal 3y ago
        If by "we" you mean the 1% of bankers and corporate executives who are the primary beneficiaries of drastically increased profit margins from outsourcing production to countries with no labor or environmental protections, then yes "we" did it for profit. But if by "we" you mean the large portion of the US middle class whose financial security and upward mobility was obliterated, then no "we" did not do it for profit and were extremely generous, sacrificial even, in lifting hundreds of millions of Chinese out of poverty when the CCP was unable to do that on their own. It's not like this is any surprise, Ross Perot was even explicitly warning about it back in 1992: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3LvZAZ-HV4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3LvZAZ-HV4
        h0l0cube 3y ago
        The second "we" was all too happy, and still is, to buy cheaper products, even when apprised of the economic consequences. The third beneficiaries are businesses, for whom components and manufacturing are now vastly cheaper, enabling further (taxable) wealth generation that could support the middle-class. If the US had a sensible culture (and hence democratically driven government policy) behind education, a skilled labor pool could have emerged to develop high-tech manufacturing that leveraged China's low-skill labor pool. Instead, China has 'hid its strength, and bided its time', establishing its own high-skill labor pool and advanced manufacturing capability, giving it substantial leverage over the entire world, without so much as starting a proxy war, usurping foreign lands, assassinating foreign political leaders, etc. US hegemony is absolutely its own to lose, but it all depends on the culture driving it.
- lupusreal 3y ago
  Absent free trade, China still has all the experience and expertise they have acquired up until now.
  - ethbr1 3y ago
    To sell to whom? Afaik, their domestic middle class market isn't nearby big enough to singlehandedly fuel their economy. And they'll economically-politically run up against the "middle class wants things like political power and freedom" if they try to balloon that class too quickly.
    - lupusreal 3y ago
      Sell? In the event that China is cut off from global trade, we're most likely talking about the lead up to a major war.
      - ethbr1 3y ago
        If we're talking about total war, those are uncharted waters. Losing Taiwanese, Korean, Australian, and EU specialty and raw material imports would hurt. A lot. Goodbye substantial amounts of integrated circuits, oil, and iron and copper ore. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_partners_of_China https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_... https://wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfile/en/Country/CHN/Year/LTST/Summarytext https://wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfile/en/Country/CHN/Yea...

ethbr1 3y ago

The thing that brings China all those boons is that they make and sell things to the rest of the world. Absent free trade, their advantages dwindle. So the current "just shy of declared adversarial relationships" is optimum for them. Pushed further, say by retaining exclusive access to a game changing technology, and they start losing trade relationships (arguably, already have as manufacturing reallocated to SE Asia).

h0l0cube 3y ago
The trade war between the US and China (and the precipitating outcones) were instigated by the US. The withholding of ASML lithography equipment is a case in point. That said, in spite of tarrifs from the west, China still has plenty of skin in the game, and the hypothetical suggests that trade would still be open enough for China to profit
- SkyMarshal 3y ago
  >The trade war between the US and China (and the precipitating outcones) were instigated by the US. That's very arguable when it was the US who led the world in opening up to China in the 90s/early 2000s, opening its markets to China, bringing China into the WTO, etc. (all at great cost to middle class Americans). China was an economic basket case and incapable of developing on its own. No country in history has been more generous to another. And what did the US get in return? Currency manipulation, large scale economic espionage and mercantilist behavior, protectionism of Chinese markets and industries, fentanyl, militarization of South China Sea and bullying the countries there, largest and fastest military buildup since 1930s Germany, supporting Russia vs Ukraine, threatening war over Taiwan, etc. "Unrestricted warfare". The US didn't cause China to do any of that, that was all the CCP's decision. Responses like economic derisking/decoupling (aka trade war) are completely legitimate and unsurprising.
  - p_j_w 3y ago
    >it was the US who led the world in opening up to China in the 90s/early 2000s, opening its markets to China, bringing China into the WTO, etc. (all at great cost to middle class Americans). China was an economic basket case and incapable of developing on its own. No country in history has been more generous to another. This is hilarious revisionism. We didn't do any of that out of generosity, we did it for profit. We saw a huge pool of cheap labor and decided we wanted to let our companies exploit that. We rubbed our hands together and grinned while selling them the proverbial rope.
    - ethbr1 3y ago
      Lifting half a billion+ people out of poverty and enabling a country to modernize seems like a decent outcome. Regardless of the motivations and machinations on either government's part.
    - SkyMarshal 3y ago
      If by "we" you mean the 1% of bankers and corporate executives who are the primary beneficiaries of drastically increased profit margins from outsourcing production to countries with no labor or environmental protections, then yes "we" did it for profit. But if by "we" you mean the large portion of the US middle class whose financial security and upward mobility was obliterated, then no "we" did not do it for profit and were extremely generous, sacrificial even, in lifting hundreds of millions of Chinese out of poverty when the CCP was unable to do that on their own. It's not like this is any surprise, Ross Perot was even explicitly warning about it back in 1992: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3LvZAZ-HV4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3LvZAZ-HV4
      - h0l0cube 3y ago
        The second "we" was all too happy, and still is, to buy cheaper products, even when apprised of the economic consequences. The third beneficiaries are businesses, for whom components and manufacturing are now vastly cheaper, enabling further (taxable) wealth generation that could support the middle-class. If the US had a sensible culture (and hence democratically driven government policy) behind education, a skilled labor pool could have emerged to develop high-tech manufacturing that leveraged China's low-skill labor pool. Instead, China has 'hid its strength, and bided its time', establishing its own high-skill labor pool and advanced manufacturing capability, giving it substantial leverage over the entire world, without so much as starting a proxy war, usurping foreign lands, assassinating foreign political leaders, etc. US hegemony is absolutely its own to lose, but it all depends on the culture driving it.
lupusreal 3y ago
Absent free trade, China still has all the experience and expertise they have acquired up until now.
- ethbr1 3y ago
  To sell to whom? Afaik, their domestic middle class market isn't nearby big enough to singlehandedly fuel their economy. And they'll economically-politically run up against the "middle class wants things like political power and freedom" if they try to balloon that class too quickly.
  - lupusreal 3y ago
    Sell? In the event that China is cut off from global trade, we're most likely talking about the lead up to a major war.
    - ethbr1 3y ago
      If we're talking about total war, those are uncharted waters. Losing Taiwanese, Korean, Australian, and EU specialty and raw material imports would hurt. A lot. Goodbye substantial amounts of integrated circuits, oil, and iron and copper ore. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_partners_of_China https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_... https://wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfile/en/Country/CHN/Year/LTST/Summarytext https://wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfile/en/Country/CHN/Yea...