3 ms·

>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 i

>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.
- genman 3y ago
  No, it is not. To do it required political support and it was argued that opening the trade will help China to become more open and democratic.
aragonite 3y ago
> 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. I'm intrigued by the metrics you're using to conclude that the US has been more generous towards China than it has been towards, say, Israel or even Mexico, as a matter of state policy. Especially considering that US placed China under trade embargo and singlehandedly denied it UN representation for 20+ years. The actions you are describing as representing a historically unprecedented level of generosity seems essentially to boil done to US agreeing to maintain normal trade relations with China, similar to those it has with nearly every other country. Worth noting that the US extends Most Favored Nation (MFN) status to all its trading partners — it's not some exclusive or rare privilege as its name might suggest but a standard practice in international trade.
- SkyMarshal 3y ago
  >than it has been towards, say, Israel or even Mexico, Partly due to what it cost the US public. Free trade with smaller countries hurts less than one-sided free trade with a protectionist mercantilist country 4x your population. (one-sided due to required joint ventures, unilateral bans on US social media, currency manipulation, among others) > and singlehandedly denied it UN representation for 20+ years. To be pedantic, the US didn't deny China representation for 20+ years, just the CCP. The ROC was a founding member of the UN and permanent Security Council member. US just opposed the CCP replacing it until 1971. Given the instability of CCP regime during that time - famine, Cultural Revolution - that wasn't an unreasonable position. > similar to those it has with nearly every other country. Except the Communist bloc countries, USSR, Cuba, etc. Extending MFN to China while they were still Communist was unprecedented.
  - l3mure 3y ago
    > Given the instability of CCP regime during that time The fentanyl histrionic in your earlier comment is especially good paired with this endorsement of the 50s/60s KMT, who were busy fighting an insurgency to establish and maintain a heroin cartel.
chen0x00 3y ago
If I weren't a human living on Earth and only based on your description, I would almost believe that the US is a saint, lol.

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.
genman 3y ago
No, it is not. To do it required political support and it was argued that opening the trade will help China to become more open and democratic.

aragonite 3y ago

> 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. I'm intrigued by the metrics you're using to conclude that the US has been more generous towards China than it has been towards, say, Israel or even Mexico, as a matter of state policy. Especially considering that US placed China under trade embargo and singlehandedly denied it UN representation for 20+ years. The actions you are describing as representing a historically unprecedented level of generosity seems essentially to boil done to US agreeing to maintain normal trade relations with China, similar to those it has with nearly every other country. Worth noting that the US extends Most Favored Nation (MFN) status to all its trading partners — it's not some exclusive or rare privilege as its name might suggest but a standard practice in international trade.

SkyMarshal 3y ago
>than it has been towards, say, Israel or even Mexico, Partly due to what it cost the US public. Free trade with smaller countries hurts less than one-sided free trade with a protectionist mercantilist country 4x your population. (one-sided due to required joint ventures, unilateral bans on US social media, currency manipulation, among others) > and singlehandedly denied it UN representation for 20+ years. To be pedantic, the US didn't deny China representation for 20+ years, just the CCP. The ROC was a founding member of the UN and permanent Security Council member. US just opposed the CCP replacing it until 1971. Given the instability of CCP regime during that time - famine, Cultural Revolution - that wasn't an unreasonable position. > similar to those it has with nearly every other country. Except the Communist bloc countries, USSR, Cuba, etc. Extending MFN to China while they were still Communist was unprecedented.
- l3mure 3y ago
  > Given the instability of CCP regime during that time The fentanyl histrionic in your earlier comment is especially good paired with this endorsement of the 50s/60s KMT, who were busy fighting an insurgency to establish and maintain a heroin cartel.

chen0x00 3y ago

If I weren't a human living on Earth and only based on your description, I would almost believe that the US is a saint, lol.