China quietly sets new 'buy Chinese' targets for state companies(reuters.com)
reuters.com
China quietly sets new 'buy Chinese' targets for state companies
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/china-quietly-sets-new-buy-chinese-targets-state-companies-us-sources-2021-08-02/
168 comments
This has been building for at least 5 years, but it's obvious now that the West needs to start acting. We didn't win the cold war by pretending it wasn't going on and China has certain advantages that we don't have. We have to coordinate on two separate levels that they do not. First, at the state level, where the game theory goes against us because it's typically rival factions (Democrats vs Republicans) and second at the alliance level where we need to coordinate between only semi-aligned nations.
We have some advantages, like our lead in technology, but few of them are natural advantages. So I actually think we're the long term losers of the second cold war. Especially if we try to ignore it as it starts.
We have some advantages, like our lead in technology, but few of them are natural advantages. So I actually think we're the long term losers of the second cold war. Especially if we try to ignore it as it starts.
China (and Russia's) disadvantage is that they are autocratic nations that don't play nicely with others. The West's advantage is its alliances. If the U.S., Canada, Australia, Japan, Europe, etc. all move in lockstep, autocratic nations can't ignore them.
You talk about a cold war as in specifically U.S. vs China. If it is just U.S. vs. China (meaning the U.S. isolates itself further from its allies in the future), then the U.S. will lose. China has a quarter of the world's population, heavily invests in science and technology, and has a population that is intensely nationalistic and works its ass off. The need for self-censorship and the cultural resistance to individualism means that the Chinese will always struggle in the arts, but that's about it.
You talk about a cold war as in specifically U.S. vs China. If it is just U.S. vs. China (meaning the U.S. isolates itself further from its allies in the future), then the U.S. will lose. China has a quarter of the world's population, heavily invests in science and technology, and has a population that is intensely nationalistic and works its ass off. The need for self-censorship and the cultural resistance to individualism means that the Chinese will always struggle in the arts, but that's about it.
Containing China effectively will require a high degree of cooperation between Japan, Vietnam, South Korea, and the Philippines. Those nations don't necessarily get along, and some of them are autocratic themselves.
Asia is helpful but Europe is essential.
You missed the most important one. India. But yea I don’t see Oceania uniting anytime soon.
What’s going to happen with the demographics in China?
What’s going to happen with the demographics in China?
China's population is starting to decline this year (if I'm not mistaken) but from a high of quite a lot. More importantly when are they going to put Winnie the Pooh out to pasture? It's very little about the Chinese people and much more about the current leadership. Where's Deng Xiaoping when you need him?
We initiated a trade war with China a few years ago. The idea that this move was done "quietly" is a Reuter's joke.
> China (and Russia's) disadvantage is that they are autocratic nations that don't play nicely with others. The West's advantage is its alliances.
China and Russia may not get along with each other or the West, but both have expended extensive effort building influence against the West and each other, and have their own extensive network of relationships to leverage.
The West’s advantage is productivity.
> China has a quarter of the world's population
1.4/7.8 < 18%
China and Russia may not get along with each other or the West, but both have expended extensive effort building influence against the West and each other, and have their own extensive network of relationships to leverage.
The West’s advantage is productivity.
> China has a quarter of the world's population
1.4/7.8 < 18%
> The West's advantage is its alliances.
What's the practicality of that? It's not like the rest of the US is dealing less with China because it's less allied with them in the ways that really matter like business or trade.
What's the practicality of that? It's not like the rest of the US is dealing less with China because it's less allied with them in the ways that really matter like business or trade.
[deleted]
> This has been building for at least 5 years, but it's obvious now that the West needs to start acting. We didn't win the cold war by pretending it wasn't going on and China has certain advantages that we don't have. We have to coordinate on two separate levels that they do not. First, at the state level, where the game theory goes against us because it's typically rival factions (Democrats vs Republicans) and second at the alliance level where we need to coordinate between only semi-aligned nations.
Don't forget Western business interests, which are politically powerful and will often succeed at blocking any action that interferes with their short-term profits. Their loyalty is to their shareholders, and they'll sell everyone else out for them. I actually see this as the biggest problem preventing the West from taking effective action.
The PRC doesn't have this problem, because its businesses are clearly subordinate to its political apparatus (e.g. they've been making examples out of very large and successful companies lately).
Don't forget Western business interests, which are politically powerful and will often succeed at blocking any action that interferes with their short-term profits. Their loyalty is to their shareholders, and they'll sell everyone else out for them. I actually see this as the biggest problem preventing the West from taking effective action.
The PRC doesn't have this problem, because its businesses are clearly subordinate to its political apparatus (e.g. they've been making examples out of very large and successful companies lately).
>"like our lead in technology"
True, and I don't know how much longer this can last. As an example, the rise of TikTok has certainly taken me by surprise. I've always seen world-class social media apps as a Silicon-Valley thing, something that only the US managed to produce. But now, not so much.
True, and I don't know how much longer this can last. As an example, the rise of TikTok has certainly taken me by surprise. I've always seen world-class social media apps as a Silicon-Valley thing, something that only the US managed to produce. But now, not so much.
It’s been a slow retreat. 15 years ago I was sitting around with a Juniper engineer mocking how Huawei had copied their router designs down to the English silk screening. Now, Huawei is making state of the art networking equipment with its own custom switch and router chips. Not only did Juniper move manufacturing from Walnut Creek to China years ago, some of its low end products are now white box Chinese designs.
Taiwan recently overtook Intel in semiconductor manufacturing, another area where we used to be peerless. How long before China matches is on that front as well?
Chinese industrial policy is kicking our ass. The Fortune 500 executives that kiss Xi’s ass know this (https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/...). That’s why they’re so obsequious.
Taiwan recently overtook Intel in semiconductor manufacturing, another area where we used to be peerless. How long before China matches is on that front as well?
Chinese industrial policy is kicking our ass. The Fortune 500 executives that kiss Xi’s ass know this (https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/...). That’s why they’re so obsequious.
>> "like our lead in technology"
> True, and I don't know how much longer this can last.
Yeah, especially since many, many Americans seem to stupidly reassure themselves by wishfully thinking it's some kind of natural advantage they have (e.g. the Chinese only copy, etc.).
IMHO, it's not too wrong to assume the PRC essentially has technical parity now, which should be pretty concerning to Americans because they also stupidly disposed of many of their other capabilities for short term business reasons.
> True, and I don't know how much longer this can last.
Yeah, especially since many, many Americans seem to stupidly reassure themselves by wishfully thinking it's some kind of natural advantage they have (e.g. the Chinese only copy, etc.).
IMHO, it's not too wrong to assume the PRC essentially has technical parity now, which should be pretty concerning to Americans because they also stupidly disposed of many of their other capabilities for short term business reasons.
TikTok is Vine 2.0, surprised it didn’t happen in the west as well.
I still don't understand why Vine went away. It seemed to be doing so well.
6s was the wrong choice for max length.
A surprising number of consumer startups are the same as another product, but with different business logic. Just look at Bumble.
>I still don't understand why Vine went away.
Twitter/Vine did not want to pay creators. I don't know the history on why YouTube/Twitch/TikTok figured it out and why Snap/Twitter/FB drag their feet with it. I remember there was a turning point where many large creators on Vine decided to move to Instagram/YouTube because it was easier to monetize.
Twitter/Vine did not want to pay creators. I don't know the history on why YouTube/Twitch/TikTok figured it out and why Snap/Twitter/FB drag their feet with it. I remember there was a turning point where many large creators on Vine decided to move to Instagram/YouTube because it was easier to monetize.
TikTok's only interesting technology is its recommendation system, which I doubt is that different or innovative compared to Netflix or Youtube. Maybe they're better at moderation because it makes censorship easier?
> TikTok's only interesting technology is its recommendation system
Come on, that's sorta like saying "Google's only interesting technology is its search algorithm" (I'm being a little loose here, but going back 20 years I'd say that's true). When it's the defining feature of your product, it's the only thing that matters and why it's the leader. Unless somebody can mimic TikTok's success, dismissing them seems arrogant.
> which I doubt is that different or innovative compared to Netflix or Youtube
Speaking from personal experience, Youtube has a horrible recommendation system, and Netflix is somewhere between okay and good.
Come on, that's sorta like saying "Google's only interesting technology is its search algorithm" (I'm being a little loose here, but going back 20 years I'd say that's true). When it's the defining feature of your product, it's the only thing that matters and why it's the leader. Unless somebody can mimic TikTok's success, dismissing them seems arrogant.
> which I doubt is that different or innovative compared to Netflix or Youtube
Speaking from personal experience, Youtube has a horrible recommendation system, and Netflix is somewhere between okay and good.
Contrary to the Cold War that situation seems the be responsibility of the West. China wouldn’t have become that powerful if the west didn’t put so much assets and production there with the naive thinking that capitalism alone would erode dictatorship.
> it's obvious now that the West needs to start acting
China's drive to reduce dependence on imports of high-tech goods is a reaction to the US' attempts over the last few years to use this dependence against China.
The US has used its central position in the world's financial system to force other countries to stop doing business with certain Chinese companies, such as Huawei. This can be a death sentence for these companies. Huawei can't buy 7nm chips from anyone - including Chinese companies - because those companies are afraid of US sanctions.
China has recognized that it is vulnerable to this type of economic aggression, and is taking measures to insulate itself. I expect to see China, Russia and other countries targeted by sanctions build up financial systems that bypass the US dollar, and for China to try to reduce dependence on high-tech imports.
This all goes back to the aggressive foreign policy that Trump initiated, and which Biden appears to be continuing.
China's drive to reduce dependence on imports of high-tech goods is a reaction to the US' attempts over the last few years to use this dependence against China.
The US has used its central position in the world's financial system to force other countries to stop doing business with certain Chinese companies, such as Huawei. This can be a death sentence for these companies. Huawei can't buy 7nm chips from anyone - including Chinese companies - because those companies are afraid of US sanctions.
China has recognized that it is vulnerable to this type of economic aggression, and is taking measures to insulate itself. I expect to see China, Russia and other countries targeted by sanctions build up financial systems that bypass the US dollar, and for China to try to reduce dependence on high-tech imports.
This all goes back to the aggressive foreign policy that Trump initiated, and which Biden appears to be continuing.
What we really have to do is to leave the US to itself and instead side with someone more peaceful instead.
We have no good leadership coming to right this ship.
Biden is a bust and next time around we either get Trump or Kamala...I don't think any sane person would feel confident in either of them. The elite in this country caused this mess with China and they will end up finishing us off thanks to their election games.
Maybe leadership at the top doesn't matter. There is the rest of the government, a huge organization of mostly unelected life term bureaucrats many of whom have probably seen the last cold war. They may end up saving us or China stumbles massively and their disadvantages(aging population, badly built infrastructure) bite them enough for us to survive.
Biden is a bust and next time around we either get Trump or Kamala...I don't think any sane person would feel confident in either of them. The elite in this country caused this mess with China and they will end up finishing us off thanks to their election games.
Maybe leadership at the top doesn't matter. There is the rest of the government, a huge organization of mostly unelected life term bureaucrats many of whom have probably seen the last cold war. They may end up saving us or China stumbles massively and their disadvantages(aging population, badly built infrastructure) bite them enough for us to survive.
Looking back at the candidates we’ve had since Bush vs Clinton, the only one who I think saw this coming and would have mobilized against it was Ross Perot. Everyone else saw $$ in their eyes as the shiny potential in China froze them in place. Ross had money and didn’t care about upsetting industrialists. Most other politicians will give in to industrial and commercial interests even when they carry long term detriment to the economy and its people.
I'll be honest, I wasn't around for Ross Perot but have read nice things.
I think we don't even need the best leadership...just someone who is kinda courageous and somewhat competent. That plus all the good things the US has going for it might be enough to solve this crisis.
We have had instances in the past of a black swan coming out of nowhere to save the day. Maybe this will happen again in 2024. As far as I can tell the Democrats don't have to choose Kamala although how often has the VP not gotten serious consideration in recent times? Especially when she is the establishment favorite?
And while it would be nice to see Trump get knocked out in the primary, all signs point to him being too far ahead of any other republican to be knocked out.
Just a sad situation all around that we have to hope for a pleasant surprise.
I think we don't even need the best leadership...just someone who is kinda courageous and somewhat competent. That plus all the good things the US has going for it might be enough to solve this crisis.
We have had instances in the past of a black swan coming out of nowhere to save the day. Maybe this will happen again in 2024. As far as I can tell the Democrats don't have to choose Kamala although how often has the VP not gotten serious consideration in recent times? Especially when she is the establishment favorite?
And while it would be nice to see Trump get knocked out in the primary, all signs point to him being too far ahead of any other republican to be knocked out.
Just a sad situation all around that we have to hope for a pleasant surprise.
> As far as I can tell the Democrats don't have to choose Kamala although how often has the VP not gotten serious consideration in recent times?
Exactly 100% of the time that it was the election where the party had a first-term incumbent, back to Humphrey in 1965, and that...isn’t something the DNC probably wants to repeat. Harris is only a potential candidate in 2024 if Biden doesn't run for reelection, and even then isn’t a shoo-in for the nomination unless Biden resigns before the primaries and she runs as the incumbent President. Which is such an extreme scenario that its not worth considering.
Heck, even for outgoing Presidents, the sitting Vice President hasn't been a contender in the subsequent Presidential nomination contest since Gore on 2000 (neither Biden not Cheney were contenders), and the only VP to actually be elected (rather than succeeding on death or resignation) to the Presidency in...quite a long time...was George Bush in 1988.
Exactly 100% of the time that it was the election where the party had a first-term incumbent, back to Humphrey in 1965, and that...isn’t something the DNC probably wants to repeat. Harris is only a potential candidate in 2024 if Biden doesn't run for reelection, and even then isn’t a shoo-in for the nomination unless Biden resigns before the primaries and she runs as the incumbent President. Which is such an extreme scenario that its not worth considering.
Heck, even for outgoing Presidents, the sitting Vice President hasn't been a contender in the subsequent Presidential nomination contest since Gore on 2000 (neither Biden not Cheney were contenders), and the only VP to actually be elected (rather than succeeding on death or resignation) to the Presidency in...quite a long time...was George Bush in 1988.
If Democrats run Harris they will lose even against Trump. My mom, an immigrant who voted Democrat reflexively, has straight up said she won’t vote for her. My dad is enough of a Yellow Dog Democrat that he probably will vote for her, but he’s really hoping it doesn’t come to that.
The media bubble around Harris is driving Democrats straight to the cliff. Minorities, who make up 40% of the party and are over represented in critical swing states, don’t like her. She was polling at mid-single digits among Black voters in the south (behind Biden, Sanders, and Warren) before she pulled out: https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/04/kamala-harris-black.... She was polling around the same among Latinos in her home state of California.
Apart from that, she’s a terrible retail politician. When I went to see the candidates speak in Iowa back in 2019, Elizabeth Warren stood around giving everyone hugs and taking selfies after the speeches were over. Harris, meanwhile, quickly retreated to her campaign bus to avoid having to shake hands and talk to people.
The media bubble around Harris is driving Democrats straight to the cliff. Minorities, who make up 40% of the party and are over represented in critical swing states, don’t like her. She was polling at mid-single digits among Black voters in the south (behind Biden, Sanders, and Warren) before she pulled out: https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/04/kamala-harris-black.... She was polling around the same among Latinos in her home state of California.
Apart from that, she’s a terrible retail politician. When I went to see the candidates speak in Iowa back in 2019, Elizabeth Warren stood around giving everyone hugs and taking selfies after the speeches were over. Harris, meanwhile, quickly retreated to her campaign bus to avoid having to shake hands and talk to people.
> The media bubble around Harris
You mean the bubble of persistently hostile coverage, or something that doesn't actually exist?
You mean the bubble of persistently hostile coverage, or something that doesn't actually exist?
I’m talking about the coverage on news sources aimed at Democrats like CNN/MSNBC that fawned over her and papered over her major flaws as a politician. My personal favorite, as a south Asian, is how the media portrayed her nomination as a major victory for us, despite little enthusiasm for Harris among the group. (Everyone I know who supported her is white.)
This sort of coverage is a liability for Democrats because it insulates them from information. A glaring example of this is Elizabeth Warren. It should have been news from the beginning that she had failed to establish personal networks with Black or Latino voters during her tenure as Senator. Her Super Tuesday supporters were 80% white, for an electorate that was only 50% white. When Democrats win elections by turning out Latinos in the southwest and Black people in the south, Warren won just 5-6% of those voters on Super Tuesday, behind Michael Bloomberg.
Elizabeth Warren was a dead-on-arrival candidate because minorities didn’t like her and they’re 40% of the Democratic Party. That should have been a huge story. Instead, the media fawned over her for months because they personally loved Warren. Super Tuesday this blindsided everyone, even though it should have been predictable given what we knew about Warren from the beginning.
If Biden doesn’t run in 2024, expect to see similar fawning coverage of Harris, focused on her “historic” identity and papering over her flaws as a politician. That creates a very real risk that Democrats nominate someone who their own base doesn’t like very much.
This sort of coverage is a liability for Democrats because it insulates them from information. A glaring example of this is Elizabeth Warren. It should have been news from the beginning that she had failed to establish personal networks with Black or Latino voters during her tenure as Senator. Her Super Tuesday supporters were 80% white, for an electorate that was only 50% white. When Democrats win elections by turning out Latinos in the southwest and Black people in the south, Warren won just 5-6% of those voters on Super Tuesday, behind Michael Bloomberg.
Elizabeth Warren was a dead-on-arrival candidate because minorities didn’t like her and they’re 40% of the Democratic Party. That should have been a huge story. Instead, the media fawned over her for months because they personally loved Warren. Super Tuesday this blindsided everyone, even though it should have been predictable given what we knew about Warren from the beginning.
If Biden doesn’t run in 2024, expect to see similar fawning coverage of Harris, focused on her “historic” identity and papering over her flaws as a politician. That creates a very real risk that Democrats nominate someone who their own base doesn’t like very much.
Elizabeth Warren got roflstomped in the primaries. In nationalized races, I doubt retail politics matters at all anymore.
I don't see anyone either. Perhaps Bloomberg. He seems to have run NYC better than most. That said, he was on the finance side of things, not industrial, so I'm not sure how sympathetic he would be towards the interests of working class Americans.
We need someone who understands capitalism and favors markets but also knows when to control the markets and not allow them to sell us under the table. Someone who understands their responsibility is the American economy and its people and not how well companies do in China or Indonesia or not. Yes, sure, we need foreign markets and they need us, but we should not cave in and let them limit what we can do in their country but then allow them to do as they will here. It has to have some reciprocity. We also need to take into account labor laws and environmental impact when assessing tariffs.
We need someone who understands capitalism and favors markets but also knows when to control the markets and not allow them to sell us under the table. Someone who understands their responsibility is the American economy and its people and not how well companies do in China or Indonesia or not. Yes, sure, we need foreign markets and they need us, but we should not cave in and let them limit what we can do in their country but then allow them to do as they will here. It has to have some reciprocity. We also need to take into account labor laws and environmental impact when assessing tariffs.
We have seen how Bloomberg performs under stress during the debates and his performance has left a lot to be desired. I don't see him entering politics ever again.
True. Although I thought he was trying to ‘wing it’ ala Trump, but he doesn’t have the same ability to shoot from the hip. He needs to prepare but not be robotic. How the hell did he win the NYC mayorship?
Why do you think it is only about the industrialists? I think it is mainly about consumers massively benefitting from the deflation in consumer electronics made in China.
Edit: At this point I believe that cutting the cords to China would at least incur a 50% drop in purchasing power of the average consumer in the medium term.
Edit: At this point I believe that cutting the cords to China would at least incur a 50% drop in purchasing power of the average consumer in the medium term.
I’m pretty sure Trump also had a big grudge against China. Yet he got blamed for his trade policy against China.
He really had a great opportunity to make a positive impact. Yet like most of his actions, he did not plan things out and instead caused lasting damage. Courage without intelligence is not good leadership.
Yeah his problem was he wasn’t systematic. It was mostly impulse. He needed more focus and coordination (with allies, with industry).
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.
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.
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.
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
>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
"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: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-1987-04-23-870131...
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
did they now? Frontline: Coming From Japan [The Fall Of The US Television Industry] (1992) 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: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-1987-04-23-870131...
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
> 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)).
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)).
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.
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.
> not only has billions of U.S. dollars just went to China without anything in return
Genuine question: doesn't Chinese crackdown on its tech industry and private education industry have a greater impact on Chinese people (who are also investors) than it does Americans?
Your post seems to imply that both actions were designed almost specifically to harm American pension and hedge funds. I would think that is just a side effect of the real goal (whatever that exactly is).
I am in China currently, but I am as ignorant of the underlying motives behind the crackdowns. I just know some Chinese friends involved in after school education (which is a huge market here) who are worried right now. I do believe it is possible, however, that the crackdown on private education is because of the pressure that kids are put on over here. But maybe it's naive of me to think that.
Genuine question: doesn't Chinese crackdown on its tech industry and private education industry have a greater impact on Chinese people (who are also investors) than it does Americans?
Your post seems to imply that both actions were designed almost specifically to harm American pension and hedge funds. I would think that is just a side effect of the real goal (whatever that exactly is).
I am in China currently, but I am as ignorant of the underlying motives behind the crackdowns. I just know some Chinese friends involved in after school education (which is a huge market here) who are worried right now. I do believe it is possible, however, that the crackdown on private education is because of the pressure that kids are put on over here. But maybe it's naive of me to think that.
Exactly. There's a myopia here: people[1] prone to imagine global geopolitics as a zero sum war between superpowers imagine ever action by the superpower they're unfamiliar with as some kind of targetted attack.
But the PRC government doesn't see it like that. Historically, they are far, far more vulnerable to their own people than they are to the US, which at the end of the day just wants to buy cheap junk and sit around streaming movies.
So if I see the CCP moving against financial interests inside China, I'm going to assume that they view those financial interests as the threat they're trying to control.
[1] And there are a LOT of such people here on HN.
But the PRC government doesn't see it like that. Historically, they are far, far more vulnerable to their own people than they are to the US, which at the end of the day just wants to buy cheap junk and sit around streaming movies.
So if I see the CCP moving against financial interests inside China, I'm going to assume that they view those financial interests as the threat they're trying to control.
[1] And there are a LOT of such people here on HN.
This is my opinion: but my belief is that the crackdown on education is not about the health and well-being of children, it’s 2 different reasons.
1) it’s crazy expensive to have kids in china now. This is putting off people from having kids. Removing the one child policy hasn’t helped the birth rate and with a growing aging population, china needs more people to have kids. Removing things that cause having kids to be expensive will (their hope) make couples want to have kids.
2) the last couple of generations have worked their butt off to put their kids in higher education for the dream of a better life and a white collar job. Recently they tried to merge schools which would make some degrees useless and force graduates into blue collar jobs. After the recent protests the merging of schools got scrapped. I believe this move is a stepping stone to try and prevent some people from progressing to degrees and force more people into blue collar jobs and keep their manufacturing industry alive.
1) it’s crazy expensive to have kids in china now. This is putting off people from having kids. Removing the one child policy hasn’t helped the birth rate and with a growing aging population, china needs more people to have kids. Removing things that cause having kids to be expensive will (their hope) make couples want to have kids.
2) the last couple of generations have worked their butt off to put their kids in higher education for the dream of a better life and a white collar job. Recently they tried to merge schools which would make some degrees useless and force graduates into blue collar jobs. After the recent protests the merging of schools got scrapped. I believe this move is a stepping stone to try and prevent some people from progressing to degrees and force more people into blue collar jobs and keep their manufacturing industry alive.
Hey thanks for the info; this is very interesting to know; mind sharing some links (English or Chinese is fine) on the protests regarding the merging of schools? Thanks!
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-57409218 Was first link on Google. But it’s 1am I need to sleep!
this is nonsense, especially 2. Job market does not work that way. If everyone is a data scientist, there are only 10 data scientist jobs, only 10 will be data scientists and the rest will work on other sectors.
If your parents spent a ton of money on you getting you educated and you got a degree in data science. Would you go work in a factory? Would your Chinese parents allow you to work in a factory? Remember china has a huge culture of being about face. They want to say “my son works as a neurologist” not “my son works in the assembly line at Foxconn”.
Most people in the west who get a degree as a lawyer don’t go work at McDonald’s for the next 40 years, despite the fact we have too many lawyers. They choose to not work at all until they can find a job with their degree.
Most people in the west who get a degree as a lawyer don’t go work at McDonald’s for the next 40 years, despite the fact we have too many lawyers. They choose to not work at all until they can find a job with their degree.
[deleted]
You do get a lot of disaffected former data science majors in that scenario though. At least in the short term.
Xi's thinking behind cracking down the after-school education sector started from 2018, he published an essay on this issue. From 2018, the ministry of education has been issuing orders to reduce the study pressure of school kids [1]. Chinese government set an objective, a few policies will lay out to achieve it, the current crackdown is just a follow-up when ministry of education's policy didn't work out, now four ministries are working together on this objective.
[1] http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A06/s3321/201802/t20180226_327...
[1] http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A06/s3321/201802/t20180226_327...
>I am in China currently, but I am as ignorant of the underlying motives behind the crackdowns.
Why search for underlying motives when the overt motivates are clear; Chinese tech companies should 'come home' to mainland capital markets. The script is simple:
1) Ticket X is floated in an NYC-based exchange 2) China announces some regulatory crackdown affecting X, whose valuation falls precipitously 3) X goes private at a fraction of its original valuation 4) X is re-listed Shanghai / Hong Kong 5) The regulatory challenges affecting X miraculously dissipate
Why search for underlying motives when the overt motivates are clear; Chinese tech companies should 'come home' to mainland capital markets. The script is simple:
1) Ticket X is floated in an NYC-based exchange 2) China announces some regulatory crackdown affecting X, whose valuation falls precipitously 3) X goes private at a fraction of its original valuation 4) X is re-listed Shanghai / Hong Kong 5) The regulatory challenges affecting X miraculously dissipate
Meanwhile if you go to big US retail stores or shop online, a large majority of the merchandise is Chinese so US retail companies are helping China while China is actively hurting the US. If you don't believe it, try to shop for products that aren't made in China.
Here's the data to back it up: https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/highlights/t...
Here's the data to back it up: https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/highlights/t...
If you go to China, you'll see that American and European brands are everywhere. These companies are making massive profits in China. The trade is by no means in one direction.
They're still made in China. Volkswagen to Nike clothes.
That depends very much on the product. For iPhones, which are ubiquitous in China, what percentage of the value added comes from China? The final assembly is in China, but most of the value is imported. The same goes for many products.
Since you mentioned VW, I just looked up the figures for German exports, and the largest destination for German car parts is China.
China imports about $9 billion in German car parts each year. That's in addition to about $17 billion worth of cars exported from Germany to China each year, making China the 3rd largest export market for German cars.
China imports about $9 billion in German car parts each year. That's in addition to about $17 billion worth of cars exported from Germany to China each year, making China the 3rd largest export market for German cars.
Yet any suggestion of avoiding Chinese products or supporting Chinese business is often attacked as racism or nationalism.
[deleted]
Buying Chinese goods isn't actively hurting the US... it's helping by providing Americans with cheaper goods.
As they lose jobs and have even less purchasing power… or trade in their machinist job for work at the dollar store… yah. I bet they like that they can buy a $5 T-shirt instead of paying $30, swap their red-wings for off-brand shoes to trudge the dollar store as a security guard. But, it is a lovely bargain for the professional class. Give me cheap and take my middle class job!
> Give me cheap and take my middle class job!
The trade-offs with trade are a little more complex than that. For example, if foreign steel was super cheap, you could have the people previously working in steel work in construction, and build more buildings. Or if midwestern auto manufacturing jobs were middle-class due to unions, but the economy shifts to services like Amazon, there is no inherent reason why service jobs couldn’t also be unionized.
In principle it’s not that different from automation - you can think of either as a black box you put money in and get product out. If you are playing your other cards right (admittedly a big if) it would be possible to largely benefit from either.
The trade-offs with trade are a little more complex than that. For example, if foreign steel was super cheap, you could have the people previously working in steel work in construction, and build more buildings. Or if midwestern auto manufacturing jobs were middle-class due to unions, but the economy shifts to services like Amazon, there is no inherent reason why service jobs couldn’t also be unionized.
In principle it’s not that different from automation - you can think of either as a black box you put money in and get product out. If you are playing your other cards right (admittedly a big if) it would be possible to largely benefit from either.
Sure! Except instead of replacing the machinists jobs with higher value jobs, they replaced them with security guard jobs at the Walmart and Dollar Tree. That’s happened every round. The working class has never got the long shrift in this deal. They always get screwed but they’re supposed to believe ‘this time’ it will be different.
I wonder if they can’t just be more aggressive on fiscal policy and run the economy hotter, leading to mild labor shortages and people moving away from Dollar Tree jobs (because higher productivity jobs lure the workers away with better wages).
Traditionally they’ve been worried about inflation but they’ve overestimated that most of the past decade (although it’s jumped up recently in response to the massive short term Covid spending). I don’t think the new stuff being proposed, while large, is nearly as high on a yearly basis so hopefully it can hit a non-inflationary sweet spot (although who knows).
Traditionally they’ve been worried about inflation but they’ve overestimated that most of the past decade (although it’s jumped up recently in response to the massive short term Covid spending). I don’t think the new stuff being proposed, while large, is nearly as high on a yearly basis so hopefully it can hit a non-inflationary sweet spot (although who knows).
Agreed. Dumb tariffs are not the answer. It needs to be a more nuanced strategy that makes US goods competitive locally and abroad.
There will always be certain costs associated with doing business in the West that don't appear in places like China. The most well known one being worker's rights. Even if you come up with some sort of "nuanced" miracle strategy that can make the west competitive whilst maintaining workers' rights, you probably can't prevent China from copying it and yet again being at an advantage due to labor law differences.
One concrete thing I would 100% advocate though, which I guess is an example of a "nuanced" strategy as you alluded to:
Gimp / legislate away white-labelling of foreign products and drop shipping-like businesses. These have had a huge "spam" effect on products and consumer's brand-awareness that it'd be so worth it. It's made people unable to discern quality which is a huge win for places like China that at the bottom-end of the price spectrum simply don't have the quality we expect and would usually want to avoid by virtue of paying more.
One concrete thing I would 100% advocate though, which I guess is an example of a "nuanced" strategy as you alluded to:
Gimp / legislate away white-labelling of foreign products and drop shipping-like businesses. These have had a huge "spam" effect on products and consumer's brand-awareness that it'd be so worth it. It's made people unable to discern quality which is a huge win for places like China that at the bottom-end of the price spectrum simply don't have the quality we expect and would usually want to avoid by virtue of paying more.
This argument could perhaps make sense if you replaced the US with a western country with proper worker rights.
now its ok to say it right? because the guy who fought against it was deemed a racist for saying it.
He was deemed a racist for all of his racist behavior. The most positive thing people had to say about his presidency was his efforts to confront China on trade, though the first phase of that trade deal appears to be a failure. I don't know how much blame to assign him personally though, we're not seeing many examples of success to compare it to.
To be clear, that guy was deemed racist for promoting stereotypes from a position of power. There are ways of fighting against CCP / Chinese govt. aggression without resorting to racism
sure. he was deemed a racist for saying china is responsible for the virus and was countered by politicians who willingly infected people with covid by pushing them to go to superspread events from chinatown parades to BLM riots.
[deleted]
Comments like these make it really difficult to not argue on the internet.
* He was deemed a racist for many reasons. One of which was using his leadership and influence to stoke anti-Asian sentiment. You're not debating this point, right? Whataboutism is one thing, but worse when paired with denialism.
* "Politicians who willingly infected people with covid" - Does it bother you that politicians would downplay the safety of American citizens related to an infectious disease to suit their own political ends? Or is this is a criticism you only levy against your political rivals? Do you really want to compare scorecards on Trump vs. his political rivals on public health?
* Ignoring that the vast majority of BLM events were peaceful, which superspreader events are you referring to? They were outside, in the summer, often mobile, with a large share of mask-wearing attendees. I don't see any evidence of any of these events becoming superspreader events.
* He was deemed a racist for many reasons. One of which was using his leadership and influence to stoke anti-Asian sentiment. You're not debating this point, right? Whataboutism is one thing, but worse when paired with denialism.
* "Politicians who willingly infected people with covid" - Does it bother you that politicians would downplay the safety of American citizens related to an infectious disease to suit their own political ends? Or is this is a criticism you only levy against your political rivals? Do you really want to compare scorecards on Trump vs. his political rivals on public health?
* Ignoring that the vast majority of BLM events were peaceful, which superspreader events are you referring to? They were outside, in the summer, often mobile, with a large share of mask-wearing attendees. I don't see any evidence of any of these events becoming superspreader events.
He did do that, but to be clear he was also called a racist for things like imposing travel restrictions with China early in the coronavirus pandemic.
It’s hard to take seriously the claim that accusations of racism are always made carefully and never used as a cheap partisan attack.
It’s hard to take seriously the claim that accusations of racism are always made carefully and never used as a cheap partisan attack.
>because the guy who fought against it was deemed a racist for saying it
The guy who was against it was a racist because he couldn't articulate anything other than "China bad" and his policies to address China were useless at best and harmful to America at worst. He only wanted to look tough against a made up enemy but refused to change anything at home.
If he was actually serious about competing with China, we would have been talking about Trump's infrastructure bill and had a plan on how to ween us off Chinese high-tech manufacturing (which is the best in the world), but now 4 years later we are scrambling trying to figure out how we will build fabs (one part of the equation) at home. For all the crying about China, he did shockingly little in actually addressing the issue (like almost all the issues he cried about).
Anyone who looks at out current situation and comes to the conclusion we need to bomb China is a racist in my eyes. They are only motivated a fear of a rising eastern power and have no motivation in actually investing stateside to improve American hegemony.
The guy who was against it was a racist because he couldn't articulate anything other than "China bad" and his policies to address China were useless at best and harmful to America at worst. He only wanted to look tough against a made up enemy but refused to change anything at home.
If he was actually serious about competing with China, we would have been talking about Trump's infrastructure bill and had a plan on how to ween us off Chinese high-tech manufacturing (which is the best in the world), but now 4 years later we are scrambling trying to figure out how we will build fabs (one part of the equation) at home. For all the crying about China, he did shockingly little in actually addressing the issue (like almost all the issues he cried about).
Anyone who looks at out current situation and comes to the conclusion we need to bomb China is a racist in my eyes. They are only motivated a fear of a rising eastern power and have no motivation in actually investing stateside to improve American hegemony.
I find it somewhat surprising that people are still defending that loser.
Furthermore, how many US industries and companies are compromised? Hollywood, the NBA, Blizzard, are a few that come to mind.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/10/steph...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitzchung_controversy
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/10/steph...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitzchung_controversy
The Chicago pension fund didn't think a VIE was actually ownership, right? Turns out the thing uses to circumvent capital controls was actually illegal, whoops.
Ha, it’s funny cause it’s true. The risk was always there. The pension fund can’t play dumb.
My only question is China apparently doesn’t think it need foreign investment any more? I mean this latest move will scare a lot of foreign investment away (“that’s a nice valuation you have, would be a shame if we made all for-profit companies illegal”). No doubt the Chinese are smart enough to know this so I assume they have enough domestic wealth to supply any capital needs?
Still, scaring off the international markets seems like a bad move.
My only question is China apparently doesn’t think it need foreign investment any more? I mean this latest move will scare a lot of foreign investment away (“that’s a nice valuation you have, would be a shame if we made all for-profit companies illegal”). No doubt the Chinese are smart enough to know this so I assume they have enough domestic wealth to supply any capital needs?
Still, scaring off the international markets seems like a bad move.
> My only question is China apparently doesn’t think it need foreign investment any more?
China hasn't really needed more foreign investment for quite a while. They get plenty of foreign capital from international trade.
What they needed was foreign IP, which they acquired by forcing foreign companies into joint ventures if they wanted access to the Chinese market. Not to mention state-sponsored industrial espionage.
At this point it's safe for any foreign investor to assume that any investment proposal in China that doesn't involve the transfer of IP to China is a scam.
China hasn't really needed more foreign investment for quite a while. They get plenty of foreign capital from international trade.
What they needed was foreign IP, which they acquired by forcing foreign companies into joint ventures if they wanted access to the Chinese market. Not to mention state-sponsored industrial espionage.
At this point it's safe for any foreign investor to assume that any investment proposal in China that doesn't involve the transfer of IP to China is a scam.
China never wanted foreign investment/ownership of their tech companies, that's why this cockamamie scheme with an associated service company listed in NY arose in the first place.
Reminds me of the people who got mad about the auto bailouts in 08 because the junk bonds they were holding didn't pay out. You bought the bonds! This is on you!
Investors were mad because the auto industry bailouts abrogated normal bankruptcy rules about creditor seniority and gave sweetheart deals to politically favored unions. The federal government changed the rules in the middle of the game.
People were upset because of how the secured debt was treated Some analysis here:
>...Secured debt takes first priority in payment; it is also typically preserved during bankruptcy under what is referred to as the "absolute priority" rule — since the lender of secured debt offers a loan to a troubled borrower only because he is guaranteed first repayment when the loan is up. In the Chrysler case, however, creditors who held the company's secured bonds were steamrolled into accepting 29 cents on the dollar for their loans. Meanwhile, the underfunded pension plans of the United Auto Workers — unsecured creditors, but possessed of better political connections — received more than 40 cents on the dollar.
>Moreover, in a typical bankruptcy case in which a secured creditor is not paid in full, he is entitled to a "deficiency claim" — the terms of which keep the bankrupt company liable for a portion of the unpaid debt. In both the Chrysler and GM bankruptcies, however, no deficiency claims were awarded to the wronged creditors. Were bankruptcy experts to comb through American history, they would be hard-pressed to identify any bankruptcy case with similar terms. .
https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-auto...
>...Secured debt takes first priority in payment; it is also typically preserved during bankruptcy under what is referred to as the "absolute priority" rule — since the lender of secured debt offers a loan to a troubled borrower only because he is guaranteed first repayment when the loan is up. In the Chrysler case, however, creditors who held the company's secured bonds were steamrolled into accepting 29 cents on the dollar for their loans. Meanwhile, the underfunded pension plans of the United Auto Workers — unsecured creditors, but possessed of better political connections — received more than 40 cents on the dollar.
>Moreover, in a typical bankruptcy case in which a secured creditor is not paid in full, he is entitled to a "deficiency claim" — the terms of which keep the bankrupt company liable for a portion of the unpaid debt. In both the Chrysler and GM bankruptcies, however, no deficiency claims were awarded to the wronged creditors. Were bankruptcy experts to comb through American history, they would be hard-pressed to identify any bankruptcy case with similar terms. .
https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-auto...
Another way of describing that story is they held the bonds into bankruptcy and didn't come out on top of the legal/political battle.
This battle was always going to happen! They just thought they had the better legal arrangement and would instead stick it to the pensioners. I have no sympathy.
This battle was always going to happen! They just thought they had the better legal arrangement and would instead stick it to the pensioners. I have no sympathy.
>They just thought they had the better legal arrangement and would instead stick it to the pensioners. I have no sympathy
No sympathy why? Because they're greedy investors and on the other side are hard working honest pensioners?
No sympathy why? Because they're greedy investors and on the other side are hard working honest pensioners?
That's an oversimplification, but it doesn't hurt as far as sympathies.
My actual issue is more along the lines of caveat emptor. People bought junk bonds in a company that then went bankrupt. That means they're going to be in court trying to recover money, and there's a lot of risk there about what they might or might not recover.
To the extent that the legal resolution was unprecedented... so was the top carmaker entering bankruptcy with all of those employees and pensions on their books. Biggest bankruptcy of that sort since the depression. Precedent isn't a suicide pact, when things get weird then people can adapt.
My actual issue is more along the lines of caveat emptor. People bought junk bonds in a company that then went bankrupt. That means they're going to be in court trying to recover money, and there's a lot of risk there about what they might or might not recover.
To the extent that the legal resolution was unprecedented... so was the top carmaker entering bankruptcy with all of those employees and pensions on their books. Biggest bankruptcy of that sort since the depression. Precedent isn't a suicide pact, when things get weird then people can adapt.
>..so was the top carmaker entering bankruptcy with all of those employees and pensions on their books. Biggest bankruptcy of that sort since the depression. Precedent isn't a suicide pact, when things get weird then people can adapt.
The example I quoted was about Chrysler. The actual largest bankruptcy was Lehman Brothers not Chrysler (or GM) The Lehman Brothers bankruptcy was about 15 times larger larger than Chrysler.
If the government wanted to save the pension, then the government should have increased the bailout to pay for it. This would have been better than breaking the rule of law just because the non-secured creditors have more political pull.
The example I quoted was about Chrysler. The actual largest bankruptcy was Lehman Brothers not Chrysler (or GM) The Lehman Brothers bankruptcy was about 15 times larger larger than Chrysler.
If the government wanted to save the pension, then the government should have increased the bailout to pay for it. This would have been better than breaking the rule of law just because the non-secured creditors have more political pull.
These investors were foolish to assume China would permit an unregulated free market in the same way the Western world does. I am entirely unsympathetic.
Well to be fair it seems the current administration in the U.S. will not permit an unregulated free market either, in any major industry.
It's almost as if their system just isn't simply "state capitalism".
> This economic war is accelerating.
Surprise. Meanwhile the U.S. has no will to change anything.
The current global mercantilist scheme is not a good thing.
Surprise. Meanwhile the U.S. has no will to change anything.
The current global mercantilist scheme is not a good thing.
If true (can't access the second link), it didn't have much effect on top stock market indexes. Most of them are either at ATH or near it.
See, that’s the thing about China: it seems to value their citizens more than some company’s money.
I'm not sure why this is a surprise to anyone. Hopefully now people are smarter not to invest in China to support the CCP.
> This economic war is accelerating.
This is the result of at least fifty years of incompetence from US political "leadership". This isn't about democrats or republicans. They have all been ignored their duty to look after national interests. Instead, they continue to play dumb-as-can be political games for self and party as opposed to acting with people and nation as objectives.
The most current example of this is the, again, dumb-as-can-be infrastructure spending proposal.
I dare anyone to make a list of ten companies who have chosen to locate their operations somewhere other than the US due to issues with our roads and bridges. Just ten. That's not much to ask, is it?
One would not spend this kind of money to "bring back" one company. No. You would want dozens. Well, name ten. Just ten.
You can't. You can't because the entire premise is dumb-as-can-be false. NOBODY is going to relocate or make a massive investments in the US because we spend trillions of dollars on redoing perfectly good roads, bridges and government buildings. Nobody.
This is unbelievably dumb at a time when we need to be incredibly smart.
Here's a list of 397 cities in the US:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...
I dare anyone to find ten companies who chose not to operate in the US because they could not find good roads and bridges in any one of these cities.
Frankly, I can't even think of a single company, much less ten. We are being told we need to spend unimaginable amounts of money on roads and bridges. Put simply, it's complete bullshit and it is the kind of decision someone makes to lose, not to win.
What do we need to spend money on?
My guess is that #1 has got to be education. The problem with this is that it is a long term investment. This decision should have been made twenty years ago. It takes that long for results to produce economic returns.
The Chinese were sending their kids to US universities twenty years ago. They are all running companies in China right now. While this was going on our educators focused on race, class and ideological warfare. While China is trying to be as entrepreneurial as possible our educators focused on producing brain-dead socialists, a great example of which is representative Ocasio-Cortez, probably the best example of just how far off the mark US education has gone. As someone who actually lived in the kind of thing this moron is pushing I cannot believe she was not laughed off the stage within microseconds of coming to the scene, much less reach the level she has.
If you are the product of the kind of brainwashing the US educational system has delivered over the last couple of decades you will disagree with this. Of course. However, that does not make the fantasies you believe true. Anyone who has lived and has been educated outside of this distortion field cannot believe the nonsense US some young adults actually believe. Things like supporting socialism and wearing a t-shirt with Che Guevara (a mass murderer) as a sign of who-knows-what, are baffling to anyone who was not subject to ideological elements in US education.
This is the first time I have, in the decades I have lived in the US, heard a major leader on the left (in this case, Biden) finally speak the truth on communism and socialism:
https://youtu.be/eL2ThTOaHXg?t=18
Will our educators now stop with the nonsense?
Instead of burning cash on roads we need to put businesses on those roads. Industry. We need to dump billions into industries such as electronics and semiconductors. Heck, we need to dump billions into ever single industry, because they are ALL GONE.
Try to buy US-made wire, screws or connectors for example. Some, sure, however, the overwhelming majority of everything that goes into consumer, commercial, industrial and military products is made in China.
How is that a formula for success? At all? We are setting up to spend trillions rebuilding roads and bridges. This will not attract or compel even a single company to bring a non-trivial amount of jobs to the US. And, while we are busy spending money we don't have on absolute bullshit, Chine is going to continue to invest money as fast as they can on what really matters. They will invest on and subsidize any business or business segment that can deliver true long term competitive advantages for their nation and people.
We will wake up, ten years later, with a bunch of nice new roads and bridges and twice the unemployment. On top of that, this year, so far, we have let over a MILLION people come through the southern border.
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/us-border-arrests-top...
At this run rate it is likely that this year alone that number will top a couple million. If we continue at this pace you are looking at five to eight million in four years.
BY DEFINITION and as a matter of cold-hard facts, 100% of these people are unemployed.
And, again, as a matter of cold-hard facts, we are NOT magically producing two million additional jobs per year to fully employ them.
And so, we have a situation where China is bound to take even more jobs out of the US while we invest in the wrong things and actively import millions of unemployed.
Despite what this might sound like, this isn't political at all. This is as common sense as things can get. If you give me the opportunity to damage a competitor by taking away business (China taking away jobs), driving them deeper into debt (waste money rebuilding roads and bridges) and increasing their baseline costs (importing millions of unemployed). Well, that's a dream. That's a competitive dream.
If your competitors insist on self destructing you take every possible opportunity to push them over the cliff. That's what China is doing. Not because they are evil. No. It's because we are stupid and we are doing it to ourselves.
Looking at it with detachment, from the perspective of a competitor, it's almost too easy. We have been consistently stupid for fifty years. What did people think would happen? You don't win a basketball game by giving your opponents free turnovers. You win by scoring more than they do and controlling the ball as much as possible. We have been giving it away for fifty years, and, just like in a baseball game, there comes a point beyond which reversing the score is simply impossible. If we don't demand more from our politicians the writing is on the wall, it has been there for all to see for quite some time.
This is the result of at least fifty years of incompetence from US political "leadership". This isn't about democrats or republicans. They have all been ignored their duty to look after national interests. Instead, they continue to play dumb-as-can be political games for self and party as opposed to acting with people and nation as objectives.
The most current example of this is the, again, dumb-as-can-be infrastructure spending proposal.
I dare anyone to make a list of ten companies who have chosen to locate their operations somewhere other than the US due to issues with our roads and bridges. Just ten. That's not much to ask, is it?
One would not spend this kind of money to "bring back" one company. No. You would want dozens. Well, name ten. Just ten.
You can't. You can't because the entire premise is dumb-as-can-be false. NOBODY is going to relocate or make a massive investments in the US because we spend trillions of dollars on redoing perfectly good roads, bridges and government buildings. Nobody.
This is unbelievably dumb at a time when we need to be incredibly smart.
Here's a list of 397 cities in the US:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...
I dare anyone to find ten companies who chose not to operate in the US because they could not find good roads and bridges in any one of these cities.
Frankly, I can't even think of a single company, much less ten. We are being told we need to spend unimaginable amounts of money on roads and bridges. Put simply, it's complete bullshit and it is the kind of decision someone makes to lose, not to win.
What do we need to spend money on?
My guess is that #1 has got to be education. The problem with this is that it is a long term investment. This decision should have been made twenty years ago. It takes that long for results to produce economic returns.
The Chinese were sending their kids to US universities twenty years ago. They are all running companies in China right now. While this was going on our educators focused on race, class and ideological warfare. While China is trying to be as entrepreneurial as possible our educators focused on producing brain-dead socialists, a great example of which is representative Ocasio-Cortez, probably the best example of just how far off the mark US education has gone. As someone who actually lived in the kind of thing this moron is pushing I cannot believe she was not laughed off the stage within microseconds of coming to the scene, much less reach the level she has.
If you are the product of the kind of brainwashing the US educational system has delivered over the last couple of decades you will disagree with this. Of course. However, that does not make the fantasies you believe true. Anyone who has lived and has been educated outside of this distortion field cannot believe the nonsense US some young adults actually believe. Things like supporting socialism and wearing a t-shirt with Che Guevara (a mass murderer) as a sign of who-knows-what, are baffling to anyone who was not subject to ideological elements in US education.
This is the first time I have, in the decades I have lived in the US, heard a major leader on the left (in this case, Biden) finally speak the truth on communism and socialism:
https://youtu.be/eL2ThTOaHXg?t=18
Will our educators now stop with the nonsense?
Instead of burning cash on roads we need to put businesses on those roads. Industry. We need to dump billions into industries such as electronics and semiconductors. Heck, we need to dump billions into ever single industry, because they are ALL GONE.
Try to buy US-made wire, screws or connectors for example. Some, sure, however, the overwhelming majority of everything that goes into consumer, commercial, industrial and military products is made in China.
How is that a formula for success? At all? We are setting up to spend trillions rebuilding roads and bridges. This will not attract or compel even a single company to bring a non-trivial amount of jobs to the US. And, while we are busy spending money we don't have on absolute bullshit, Chine is going to continue to invest money as fast as they can on what really matters. They will invest on and subsidize any business or business segment that can deliver true long term competitive advantages for their nation and people.
We will wake up, ten years later, with a bunch of nice new roads and bridges and twice the unemployment. On top of that, this year, so far, we have let over a MILLION people come through the southern border.
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/us-border-arrests-top...
At this run rate it is likely that this year alone that number will top a couple million. If we continue at this pace you are looking at five to eight million in four years.
BY DEFINITION and as a matter of cold-hard facts, 100% of these people are unemployed.
And, again, as a matter of cold-hard facts, we are NOT magically producing two million additional jobs per year to fully employ them.
And so, we have a situation where China is bound to take even more jobs out of the US while we invest in the wrong things and actively import millions of unemployed.
Despite what this might sound like, this isn't political at all. This is as common sense as things can get. If you give me the opportunity to damage a competitor by taking away business (China taking away jobs), driving them deeper into debt (waste money rebuilding roads and bridges) and increasing their baseline costs (importing millions of unemployed). Well, that's a dream. That's a competitive dream.
If your competitors insist on self destructing you take every possible opportunity to push them over the cliff. That's what China is doing. Not because they are evil. No. It's because we are stupid and we are doing it to ourselves.
Looking at it with detachment, from the perspective of a competitor, it's almost too easy. We have been consistently stupid for fifty years. What did people think would happen? You don't win a basketball game by giving your opponents free turnovers. You win by scoring more than they do and controlling the ball as much as possible. We have been giving it away for fifty years, and, just like in a baseball game, there comes a point beyond which reversing the score is simply impossible. If we don't demand more from our politicians the writing is on the wall, it has been there for all to see for quite some time.
I've never understood what business and governments in the west thought was going to happen by investing so heavily in China. Did they really think China would just bend over backwards and take it like every other poor third world country they did this to?
Western governments and corporations underestimate China far too much. Western banking dynasties go back a few hundred years, Chinese history and culture is thousands of years old and they operate in time scales of multiple generations.
Western bankers and corporations are spring chickens compared to China.
China as a country and culture only cares about one thing. Making the entire world an empire for the Han. They see everyone else as inferior, barely human.
They will do anything to accomplish this, no matter how long it takes.
All these western corporations, investment bankers and governments who think China's the future are right and they're helping them along swimmingly, what they don't realize is, they have no place in the Chinese future and will be discarded.
Western governments and corporations underestimate China far too much. Western banking dynasties go back a few hundred years, Chinese history and culture is thousands of years old and they operate in time scales of multiple generations.
Western bankers and corporations are spring chickens compared to China.
China as a country and culture only cares about one thing. Making the entire world an empire for the Han. They see everyone else as inferior, barely human.
They will do anything to accomplish this, no matter how long it takes.
All these western corporations, investment bankers and governments who think China's the future are right and they're helping them along swimmingly, what they don't realize is, they have no place in the Chinese future and will be discarded.
> I've never understood what business and governments in the west thought was going to happen by investing so heavily in China. Did they really think China would just bend over backwards and take it like every other poor third world country they did this to?
To be fair a given business in the U.S. that produces something isn't going to care about geopolitics. They made things in the U.S. by underpaying immigrant laborers, then when they noticed wages were cheaper in mexico they moved manufacturing there, then did the same when China became even cheaper and higher quality than Mexico. All these business leaders care about is quarterly profits and getting bonuses to personally enrich themselves as fast as possible. They could care less about what happens in the world around them if they can afford to drink their cares away in utopian Napa.
To be fair a given business in the U.S. that produces something isn't going to care about geopolitics. They made things in the U.S. by underpaying immigrant laborers, then when they noticed wages were cheaper in mexico they moved manufacturing there, then did the same when China became even cheaper and higher quality than Mexico. All these business leaders care about is quarterly profits and getting bonuses to personally enrich themselves as fast as possible. They could care less about what happens in the world around them if they can afford to drink their cares away in utopian Napa.
“ China as a country and culture only cares about one thing. Making the entire world an empire for the Han. They see everyone else as inferior, barely human.”
Easy does it MAGA. The PRC is a different animal than regular Chinese people.
Easy does it MAGA. The PRC is a different animal than regular Chinese people.
Yes, hence why I said as a country and culture and specifically left out the people. The average person. is typically not the one responsible for such decisions.
However, China's global ambitions and their xenophobia goes back much further than the PRC.
However, China's global ambitions and their xenophobia goes back much further than the PRC.
Global ambitions? Like invading countries and killing millions just to fix the oil price and pump more money into weapon industry?
Hindsight is 20/20 of course. I guess they wanted to prevent a 2nd USSR, and thought that stimulating capitalism would also stimulate democracy.
Because in the end, let's face it, the real problem is the CCP and not China itself. If China was a democratic country, the threat would be way smaller.
Because in the end, let's face it, the real problem is the CCP and not China itself. If China was a democratic country, the threat would be way smaller.
Chinas ambitions and culture go back further than the PRC. Their goals have nothing to do whITU communism.
People really don't seem to get this. The communism red herring is just the same red herring it was with the USSR.
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-20083309
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230286771_7
People really don't seem to get this. The communism red herring is just the same red herring it was with the USSR.
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-20083309
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230286771_7
I am not sure what is new here. This has always been the case, written or non-written. X-Ray or not. State companies or not. On Smartphone Screen, NAND, and millions of other things.
It's not about new, it's about highlighting progress against a plan that will likely create new competitors on a global stage while closing out any free market competition within their come country.
I know, what you state above isn't new either. Well to me at least. Not to mention how whey continue to dump money and capital in these new "competitors".
This is equivalent to an infinity percent tariff. Of course no one deserves access to the China market, but China as a one way economic diode doesn’t benefit anyone.
> economic diode
Great way to spell mercantilism.
> doesn’t benefit anyone
Not even China! (At least not Chinese people.)
Great way to spell mercantilism.
> doesn’t benefit anyone
Not even China! (At least not Chinese people.)
Citation needed given the poverty and gdp numbers over there the last 30 years.
You can compare/contrast with other impoverished nations that followed the IMF agenda, and how that worked out for them.
You can compare/contrast with other impoverished nations that followed the IMF agenda, and how that worked out for them.
False dichotomy. The choice isn't mercantilism XOR IMF agenda, and I certainly did not speak up for the IMF agenda (and won't).
Financial repression is a thing in China. It's true that mercantilism has been better for Chinese people than the IMF agenda for anyone else. So what?
EDIT: It takes two to mercantilist: the perennial exporter and the perennial importer. Mercantilism has been good for the American consumer, and bad for American industry, so bad for America.
Financial repression is a thing in China. It's true that mercantilism has been better for Chinese people than the IMF agenda for anyone else. So what?
EDIT: It takes two to mercantilist: the perennial exporter and the perennial importer. Mercantilism has been good for the American consumer, and bad for American industry, so bad for America.
If you're going to attack mercantilism from a free trade perspective, the IMF is at the other end of that pole. That's where your ideas were tried and failed in practice.
South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and China are all huge success stories due to protecting nascent industries while they caught up with more industrialized states.
South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and China are all huge success stories due to protecting nascent industries while they caught up with more industrialized states.
Don’t forget the US. The US benefitted from massive import restrictions in its early history. It only lowered the walls when it became competitive. Which was smart (by the way) and is what successful countries have historically done. Countries that didn’t protect themselves were crushed by international companies overpowering local companies.
[deleted]
> . It's true that mercantilism has been better for Chinese people than the IMF agenda for anyone else. So what?
But you wrote: "Not even China! (At least not Chinese people.)"
In one comment you say it didn't benefit the chinese people and then when you are called out, you say it did benefit them.
It's amazing how anti-china propagandists contradict themselves over and over again. You should go work for a news company.
But you wrote: "Not even China! (At least not Chinese people.)"
In one comment you say it didn't benefit the chinese people and then when you are called out, you say it did benefit them.
It's amazing how anti-china propagandists contradict themselves over and over again. You should go work for a news company.
And then I mentioned financial repression.
Also, Chinese companies are being paid in dollar debt that can easily turn out to be worth less than they though. China has all these reserves that, if they really push their model, must move in a big way towards zero. That's not good for them.
Also, Chinese companies are being paid in dollar debt that can easily turn out to be worth less than they though. China has all these reserves that, if they really push their model, must move in a big way towards zero. That's not good for them.
China's GDP growth owes largely to the construction of its ghost cities. I have data to show that.
Also you can look at the average income in Tier 2,3,4 cities in China adjusted to inflation, as well as deterioration in food quality. You don't need a middle age taxi driver from Hubei working in Hangzhou to tell you that.
Also maybe look at the pollution levels in most rural areas too?
Middle and Lower Income [1] classes (>90% of the population) in China tend to work really hard for little returns (so long as they're convinced they are gaining lots, which is why hyped-up nationalism and state-sponsored dezinformatsiya are rampent).
This is not healthy.
[1]: Quote from Li Keqiang, "600 million people earning a medium or low income, or even less. Their monthly income is barely 1,000 RMB yuan." http://english.www.gov.cn/premier/news/202005/29/content_WS5...
Also you can look at the average income in Tier 2,3,4 cities in China adjusted to inflation, as well as deterioration in food quality. You don't need a middle age taxi driver from Hubei working in Hangzhou to tell you that.
Also maybe look at the pollution levels in most rural areas too?
Middle and Lower Income [1] classes (>90% of the population) in China tend to work really hard for little returns (so long as they're convinced they are gaining lots, which is why hyped-up nationalism and state-sponsored dezinformatsiya are rampent).
This is not healthy.
[1]: Quote from Li Keqiang, "600 million people earning a medium or low income, or even less. Their monthly income is barely 1,000 RMB yuan." http://english.www.gov.cn/premier/news/202005/29/content_WS5...
First off, 600 million is not "90 percent" of China.
Second, do you think 2/3 of China are uniquely brain-washable, in that they're living in really bad conditions yet believe they're good because of the TV programming?
Or is it possible that, while foreign to the US, their bad conditions are actually way better than 30 years ago, let alone 50?
Second, do you think 2/3 of China are uniquely brain-washable, in that they're living in really bad conditions yet believe they're good because of the TV programming?
Or is it possible that, while foreign to the US, their bad conditions are actually way better than 30 years ago, let alone 50?
[deleted](1)
90%+ is both the middle and lower income classes. That’s more than 1.2 billion.
> 600 million is not "90 percent"
600 million are people making 1000yuan or less a month.
> do you think 2/3 of China are uniquely brain-washable
Yes. Everyone is brain-washable.
> ..that they're living in really bad conditions yet believe they're good...
No. It’s more complicated than this.
> is it possible... way better than 30 years ago
Yes. Due to Deng’s policy, which Xi has been reverting. My parents have both experienced the cultural revolution. We know how bad it was. My grandfather (who I never met) committed suicide.
> 600 million is not "90 percent"
600 million are people making 1000yuan or less a month.
> do you think 2/3 of China are uniquely brain-washable
Yes. Everyone is brain-washable.
> ..that they're living in really bad conditions yet believe they're good...
No. It’s more complicated than this.
> is it possible... way better than 30 years ago
Yes. Due to Deng’s policy, which Xi has been reverting. My parents have both experienced the cultural revolution. We know how bad it was. My grandfather (who I never met) committed suicide.
I'm with you that Xi represents a threat to the order Deng created, most scarily by exceeding term limits, but I think invoking the cultural revolution is several steps too far at this point.
Xi is more a fusion of traditionalism with nationalism for political convenience. None of that is compatible with banning monasteries, struggle sessions and sending people to the countryside as he personally was.
The biggest threat from Xi, imo with a crystal ball and huge error bars, is a brezhnev-like stasis where he stagnates the country in order to stay on top for multiple decades. Hopefully he isn't allowed to do that.
Xi is more a fusion of traditionalism with nationalism for political convenience. None of that is compatible with banning monasteries, struggle sessions and sending people to the countryside as he personally was.
The biggest threat from Xi, imo with a crystal ball and huge error bars, is a brezhnev-like stasis where he stagnates the country in order to stay on top for multiple decades. Hopefully he isn't allowed to do that.
China's in a great position to do this. Not many other countries could withstand the consequences. Westerners plan for 5-10 years ahead. China plans for 1-2 generations ahead.
Why would they need to? Everybody all over the world buys everything Chinese unless there is an alternative of higher quality they need and can afford. Isn't it so?
The types of articles listed would be important supply chain-wise in the event of a hot war.
Isn't that going to be a breach of damned near every FTA that they've signed?
Sounds somewhat similar to USA’s Berry Agreement, but less radical.
The Berry Amendment (not agreement) applies to military spending with the focus on maintaining an industrial base. The Chinese list is much broader and you'd be crazy to argue that China needs to take steps to maintain its industrial base. The article has this (incomplete) list:
- medical equipment - ground-based radar equipment - testing machinery - optical instruments - items used for animal husbandry - seismic instruments - marine, geological and geophysical equipment
Free trade is a bit of a joke anyway when talking about China when so many businesses are owned, to varying degrees, by the state. Reciprocal restrictions against China should have been put in place a long time ago, especially around environmental sustainability.
- medical equipment - ground-based radar equipment - testing machinery - optical instruments - items used for animal husbandry - seismic instruments - marine, geological and geophysical equipment
Free trade is a bit of a joke anyway when talking about China when so many businesses are owned, to varying degrees, by the state. Reciprocal restrictions against China should have been put in place a long time ago, especially around environmental sustainability.
Indeed, the Berry Amendment applies to everything sponsored by the military, including things like research grants. In comparison, the Chinese regulations discussed here only apply to fraction of its spending.
As for being state owned - there’s no real difference between state owned and “technically private, but entirely dependent on government funding”.
As for being state owned - there’s no real difference between state owned and “technically private, but entirely dependent on government funding”.
Didn't the states try that at the start of Trumps presidency?
New to me, Berry Amendment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berry_Amendment
Learning about this now ... appears as though the Berry Amendment is based on a defense policy, China's perhaps is political/economic.
I think the U.S. has everything to lose with this new China policy and little chance of imposing a similar one for the U.S.
Learning about this now ... appears as though the Berry Amendment is based on a defense policy, China's perhaps is political/economic.
I think the U.S. has everything to lose with this new China policy and little chance of imposing a similar one for the U.S.
There is also this one:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-action...
Executive Order on Ensuring the Future Is Made in All of America by All of America’s Worker
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-action...
Executive Order on Ensuring the Future Is Made in All of America by All of America’s Worker
There’s nothing “defense” about it; it applies even to things like plane tickets.
In the USA, the military industrial complex, beyond the defense aspect, fulfills similar roles which subventions/economic policies fulfill in other nations. They direct tax money back into the local economy. This isn't even a bad thing as it strengthens social cohesion. The defense contractors want to eat out, buy cars, etc.
Party time with Biden
Shadonototro(5)
america has been doing that for years. pretty much everyone is doing national buyin but Europe (because it is controlled by unelected ex goldman sachs managers, mondialists that are promoting the idea of a free market)
Are they supposed to loudly set it? It's ridiculous what blatant propagandists these wire services are.
But good for them. Hopefully they'll continue. They should target companies like reuters next. Why is Apple and Microsoft given preferential treatment in china?
Buy american in america. Buy chinese in china. I think we can all live with that.
But good for them. Hopefully they'll continue. They should target companies like reuters next. Why is Apple and Microsoft given preferential treatment in china?
Buy american in america. Buy chinese in china. I think we can all live with that.
“When goods don’t cross borders, armies will.”
Increasing isolation is not good for world security.
Increasing isolation is not good for world security.
> “When goods don’t cross borders, armies will.”
Why must that be true? Why can't we be content to stay where we are and leave each other alone?
Why must that be true? Why can't we be content to stay where we are and leave each other alone?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/investors-rethink-china-bets-af...
That's a huge amount of money and will dramatically and negatively impact the public pension funds. For instance, Illinois pension fund already has a $100-$300B deficit.
https://www.illinoispolicy.org/moodys-report-illinois-pensio...
Combined with this effort, not only has billions of U.S. dollars just went to China without anything in return, but now they're only purchasing within their own country.
This economic war is accelerating.