4 ms·

Isn't creating demands the US strength over China? Now you are saying it is not important for the US but important for China? Either way NYT recently did a good

Isn't creating demands the US strength over China? Now you are saying it is not important for the US but important for China? Either way NYT recently did a good piece on the "China Shock" and the main takeaway is that people couldn't react to changes that happened too fast but they finally did. Now suddenly they are pushed to go the other way overnight.

arrosenberg 1y ago
What part isn't clear? China needs our market more than we need their factories. It's going to be bad for both countries, but my thesis is that it will be worse for them, and the US will come out of it still well positioned economically. I'm not sure what the New York Times has to do with anything, they're constantly spouting opinions that don't pan out.
- fspeech 1y ago
  Your conclusion isn't logical. US per capita income is far higher meaning its economy is far more leveraged. To put it simply Costco employees need to push through way more goods per person, Google employees way more ads per person to sustain their much higher income. On the other hand, Chinese unskilled migrant export factory workers, while low wage, have a rural home to go back to and their standard of living won't change that much, while their skilled technicians can not be replaced en mass anywhere in the world. There's no way you can win a contest of pain against China. Think of the comparison as throwing sand into gears that are running at different speeds. You do far more damage to the one running at high speed. The reason I brought up the NYT article is to say that even if you think change is important doing it rapidly is going to put the people that the policy is supposed to help through the wringer.
  - arrosenberg 1y ago
    We already agree it's putting people through the wringer, I said as much. We're going to have to agree to disagree here. The Chinese government may be willing to go to the mat, but 1.3 Billion people will have something to say when their economy slows down. So will 300M Americans, but hey, that's what elections and protests are for. We all know how protests in China go.
    - dchftcs 1y ago
      To make fspeech's point more obvious, while the rare earth materials may only be worth billions to China over multiple years, they could destroy entire industries worth trillions of dollars over the world, and in particular US. This is less obvious for other China exports, but with the "leverage" that's mentioned, you can assume for each dollar worth of imports lost from China, US may lose more than one dollar, possibly several dollars worth of production. On top of alienating multiple other trade partners and sending them to work with China. The US is losing its guts, its intestines, its kidneys, while China may only be losing an arm or a leg, or even just some of muscle and blood.

arrosenberg 1y ago

What part isn't clear? China needs our market more than we need their factories. It's going to be bad for both countries, but my thesis is that it will be worse for them, and the US will come out of it still well positioned economically. I'm not sure what the New York Times has to do with anything, they're constantly spouting opinions that don't pan out.

fspeech 1y ago
Your conclusion isn't logical. US per capita income is far higher meaning its economy is far more leveraged. To put it simply Costco employees need to push through way more goods per person, Google employees way more ads per person to sustain their much higher income. On the other hand, Chinese unskilled migrant export factory workers, while low wage, have a rural home to go back to and their standard of living won't change that much, while their skilled technicians can not be replaced en mass anywhere in the world. There's no way you can win a contest of pain against China. Think of the comparison as throwing sand into gears that are running at different speeds. You do far more damage to the one running at high speed. The reason I brought up the NYT article is to say that even if you think change is important doing it rapidly is going to put the people that the policy is supposed to help through the wringer.
- arrosenberg 1y ago
  We already agree it's putting people through the wringer, I said as much. We're going to have to agree to disagree here. The Chinese government may be willing to go to the mat, but 1.3 Billion people will have something to say when their economy slows down. So will 300M Americans, but hey, that's what elections and protests are for. We all know how protests in China go.
  - dchftcs 1y ago
    To make fspeech's point more obvious, while the rare earth materials may only be worth billions to China over multiple years, they could destroy entire industries worth trillions of dollars over the world, and in particular US. This is less obvious for other China exports, but with the "leverage" that's mentioned, you can assume for each dollar worth of imports lost from China, US may lose more than one dollar, possibly several dollars worth of production. On top of alienating multiple other trade partners and sending them to work with China. The US is losing its guts, its intestines, its kidneys, while China may only be losing an arm or a leg, or even just some of muscle and blood.