Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 27 of 27

Thread: Xi Jinping Wanted Global Dominance. He Overshot.

  1. #16
    Senior Contributor DOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,988
    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    the irony about all of this is, as deeply stupid as the tariffs/trade war is, i still support it...because at least -something- is being done with respect to China.

    Trump's conflation of standard protectionism and much more legit PRC IP theft issues is not ideal, but if it is the means by which the latter can be addressed, then that's the price that needs to be paid.

    the worst type of deal, which I'm glad the administration did not take, would be for China to just fob Trump off with some lousy additional wheat/soybean sales.
    Sorry, can't agree with that.

    US (and other OECD) companies love to yell and scream to congress critters about IPR theft, but when they're not on the record, the story changes:
    • Really making an effort to protect their property falls in the "too hard" category.
    • Participating in markets where IPR theft is rampant is too lucrative to miss.
    • Having the US Government play the bad guy is really useful.



    Then there's the target: foreign-invested companies doing business in China. Boy, those SOE executives must be busting a guy laughing at The Trumpet's poor aim.

    Probably much more important, slapping around your own citizens to get someone else to change their behavior is incredibly stupid.
    Trust me?
    I'm an economist!

  2. #17
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    4,527
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles!

    Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain!

  3. #18
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    4,527
    Quote Originally Posted by DOR View Post
    Probably much more important, slapping around your own citizens to get someone else to change their behavior is incredibly stupid.
    The idea is to make Chinese products uncompetitive in the long run. Trump's policies w.r.t China has acceptance from all over the spectrum. His methods might be questionable as Astralis laid out, but the motive is justified.
    Last edited by Oracle; 21 May 19, at 19:04.
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles!

    Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain!

  4. #19
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    4,527
    China Deserves Donald Trump
    It took a human wrecking ball to get China’s attention.

    A U.S. businessman friend of mine who works in China remarked to me recently that Donald Trump is not the American president America deserves, but he sure is the American president China deserves.

    Trump’s instinct that America needs to rebalance its trade relationship with Beijing — before China gets too big to compromise — is correct. And it took a human wrecking ball like Trump to get China’s attention. But now that we have it, both countries need to recognize just how pivotal this moment is.

    The original U.S.-China opening back in the 1970s defined our restored trade ties, which were limited. When we let China join the World Trade Organization in 2001, it propelled China into a trading powerhouse under rules that still gave China lots of concessions as a developing economy.

    This new negotiation will define how the U.S. and China relate as economic peers, competing for the same 21st-century industries, at a time when our markets are totally intertwined. So this is no ordinary trade dispute. This is the big one.

    For it to end well, Trump will have to stop with his juvenile taunting of China on Twitter (and talking about how trade wars are “easy” to win) and quietly forge the best rebalancing deal we can get — we probably can’t fix everything at once — and move on, without stumbling unthinkingly into a forever tariff war.

    And China’s president, Xi Jinping, will have to recognize that China can no longer enjoy the trading privileges it has had over the last 40 years, so he’d be wise to curb his nationalistic “no-one-tells-China-what-to-do” bluster and look for the best win-win deal he can get. Because Beijing can’t afford America and others shifting their manufacturing to “ABC,” Anywhere-But-China, supply chains.

    Here is how we got here: Since the 1970s, the U.S.-China trade relationship has been pretty constant: We bought China’s toys, T-shirts, tennis shoes, machine tools and solar panels, and it bought our soybeans, beef and Boeings.

    And when the trade balance got too out of whack — because China grew not only by hard work, by building smart infrastructure and by educating its people, but also by forcing technology transfers from U.S. companies, subsidizing its own companies, maintaining high tariffs, ignoring W.T.O. rulings and stealing intellectual property — Beijing placated us by buying more Boeings, beef and soybeans.

    China kept insisting it was still “a poor developing country” that needed extra protection long after it had become the world’s largest manufacturer by far. Nevertheless, the relationship worked for enough U.S. companies enough of the time that the world’s biggest incumbent superpower, America, accommodated and effectively facilitated the rise of the world’s next largest superpower, China. And together they made globalization more pervasive and the world more prosperous.

    And then some changes too big to ignore set in. First, China under Xi announced a “Made in China 2025” modernization plan, promising subsidies to make China’s private and state-owned companies the world leaders in supercomputing, A.I., new materials, 3-D printing, facial-recognition software, robotics, electric cars, autonomous vehicles, 5G wireless and advanced microchips.

    This was a natural move for a China aiming to leap out of the middle-income ranks and to reduce its dependency on the West for high-tech. But all these new industries compete directly with America’s best companies.

    As a result, all China’s subsidies, protectionism, cheating on trade rules, forced technology transfers and stealing of intellectual property since the 1970s became a much greater threat. If the U.S. and Europe allowed China to continue operating by the same formula that it had used to grow from poverty to compete for all the industries of the future, we’d be crazy. Trump is right about that.

    Where he is wrong is that trade is not like war. Unlike war, it can be a win-win proposition. Alibaba, UnionPay, Baidu and Tencent and Google, Amazon, Facebook and Visa can all win at the same time — and they have been. I’m not sure Trump understands that.

    But I’m not sure Xi does, either. We have to let China win fair and square where its companies are better, but it has to be ready to lose fair and square, too. Who can say how much more prosperous Google and Amazon would be today if they had been able to operate as freely in China as Alibaba and Tencent can operate in America?

    And how much money did China save — to subsidize its own companies — when its military stole the plans for Lockheed Martin’s F-35 stealth fighter and then made its own carbon copy, avoiding all the R & D costs?

    I repeat: Trade can be win-win, but the winning shares can be distorted when one side is working hard and cheating at the same time. We could look the other way when trade was just about toys and solar panels, but when it’s about F-35s and 5G telecommunications, that’s not smart.

    But that’s not all that is new and problematic. We now live in the age of “dual use.” In a dual-use world, “everything that makes us powerful and prosperous also makes us vulnerable,” noted John Arquilla, one of the top strategists at the Naval Postgraduate School.

    In particular, 5G equipment like that made by China’s Huawei, which can transfer data and voices at hyperspeed, can also serve as an espionage platform, if China’s intelligence services exercise their right under Chinese law to demand access.

    Indeed, the controversy around Huawei shines a spotlight on this whole new moment: Huawei increasingly dominates the global market for 5G infrastructure, which used to be controlled by Ericsson and Nokia. America’s Qualcomm is both a supplier of chips and software to Huawei and a global competitor.

    But the Chinese government has curbed competition against Huawei in China — by both foreign and Chinese companies — to enable Huawei to grow bigger, more quickly and cheaply. Huawei then uses that clout and pricing power to undercut Western telecoms and then uses its rising global market dominance to set the next generation of global 5G telecom standards around its own technologies, not those of Qualcomm or Sweden’s Ericsson.

    Moreover, in a dual-use world, you have to worry that if you have a Huawei chatbot in your home, an equivalent of Amazon’s Echo, you could also be talking to Chinese military intelligence.

    In the old days, when we were just buying China’s tennis shoes and solar panels and it our soybeans and Boeings, who cared if the Chinese were Communists, Maoists, socialists — or cheats? But when Huawei is competing on the next generation of 5G telecom with Qualcomm, AT&T and Verizon — and 5G will become the new backbone of digital commerce, communication, health care, transportation and education — values matter, differences in values matters, a modicum of trust matters and the rule of law matters. This is especially true when 5G technologies and standards, once embedded in a country, become very hard to displace.

    And then add one more thing: The gap in values and trust between us and China is widening, not narrowing. For decades, America and Europe tolerated a certain amount of cheating from China on trade, because they assumed that as China became more prosperous — thanks to trade and capitalist reforms — it would also become more open politically. That was happening until about a decade ago.

    For the last decade, though, said James McGregor, one of the most knowledgeable U.S. business consultants in China and a longtime resident there, it’s been clear that Beijing, instead of “reforming and opening, has been reforming and closing.”

    Instead of China getting richer and becoming more of a responsible stakeholder in globalization, it was getting richer and militarizing islands in the South China Sea to push the U.S. out. And it was using high-tech tools, like facial recognition, to become more efficient at authoritarian control, not less.

    All of this is now coming to a head in these trade talks. Either the U.S. and China find a way to build greater trust — so globalization can continue apace and we can grow together in this new era — or they won’t. In which case, globalization will start to fracture, and we’ll both be poorer for it.
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles!

    Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain!

  5. #20
    Senior Contributor DOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,988
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    The idea is to make Chinese products uncompetitive in the long run. Trump's policies w.r.t China has acceptance from all over the spectrum. His methods might be questionable as Astralis laid out, but the motive is justified.
    Oracle,
    Make Chinese products uncompetitive? Since when has the US trade war targeted products made by Chinese companies? The main targets, intended or not, are products made by foreign-invested companies. I doubt that any product-specific tariff could possibly target only Chinese makers.

    Acceptance from all over the spectrum? Aside from crazed ideological protectionists, the overwhelming response from the economic community has be “What kind of idiot punishes his own people, and the least well-off most severely?”

    I’ll grant you the methods are questionable – lunacy is another description – but the only way to have a justified motive is to actually seek something. No one knows what it is this (mal)Administration is trying to achieve by jacking up the cost of living / slashing the purchasing power of the American people.
    Trust me?
    I'm an economist!

  6. #21
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    4,527
    Quote Originally Posted by DOR View Post
    Oracle,
    Make Chinese products uncompetitive? Since when has the US trade war targeted products made by Chinese companies? The main targets, intended or not, are products made by foreign-invested companies. I doubt that any product-specific tariff could possibly target only Chinese makers.

    Acceptance from all over the spectrum? Aside from crazed ideological protectionists, the overwhelming response from the economic community has be “What kind of idiot punishes his own people, and the least well-off most severely?”

    I’ll grant you the methods are questionable – lunacy is another description – but the only way to have a justified motive is to actually seek something. No one knows what it is this (mal)Administration is trying to achieve by jacking up the cost of living / slashing the purchasing power of the American people.
    DOR,
    Make Chinese products uncompetitive? Since when has the US trade war targeted products made by Chinese companies? The main targets, intended or not, are products made by foreign-invested companies. I doubt that any product-specific tariff could possibly target only Chinese makers.
    Products that are made & shipped from China, be it foreign-invested companies or Chinese ones. If it hurts a section of Americans, who buy cheap Chinese made goods because of high tariffs imposed, then they simply stop buying it, unless they find another source. Read post #19, it lays out exactly the issues with China, and why China bought this trade war onto itself.

    Acceptance from all over the spectrum? Aside from crazed ideological protectionists, the overwhelming response from the economic community has be “What kind of idiot punishes his own people, and the least well-off most severely?”
    Politics aside, read this One grows what one consumes, or what other countries consume. If not soybeans, find out what agricultural products other big economies import. Grow them, sell them. Change or perish. Diversify clientele. It's not as if US is bankrupt that it cannot spend money to find other sources of exports. One thing, however, I agree with most democrats here on this board, is President Trump is surrounded by people who wants a war (trade or otherwise), but doesn't seem to figure a way out of it. The President needs solid advice and competent people who can give him alternatives that doesn't hurt the American public.

    I’ll grant you the methods are questionable – lunacy is another description – but the only way to have a justified motive is to actually seek something. No one knows what it is this (mal)Administration is trying to achieve by jacking up the cost of living / slashing the purchasing power of the American people.
    Punishing China.

    I have said it before, seek alternatives. Being a democrat, help a Republican President achieve that. You're an economist, write a white paper on how the Trump administration can go about punishing China, while at the same time defend the interests of the American public. Work together in undermining that wreck of an authoritarian country. Advise the President that he should work with all American allies in containing the regime. This is how America and the world wins.
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles!

    Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain!

  7. #22
    Senior Contributor DOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,988
    Oracle,

    On my first point –- Chinese products vs. those that are merely made in China -- the hard up folks who have no choice but to buy cheap imports are supposed to “simply stop buying it.” Sorry, but for people on a tight budget that is not a viable option. More, in post 19, which is not hard new but an opinion piece, there doesn’t seem to be much more than “my friend who does business in China” as the basis for that writer’s perspective.

    On my second point, that there is no wide-spread acceptance of protectionism from the economic community, “one Democratic strategist” is neither an economist nor a majority of Democrats or strategists.

    I’m not sure how finding new soybean export markets fits in with anything else here, so I’ll just point out that with the exception of oil, commodity producers have no hope of matching goods and services producers' standards of living. Value-added is where it’s at.

    Punishing China…
    Really? Is the foreign policy of the United States of America reduced to throwing our toys out of the crib?

    Bottom line: “Being a Democrat, help a Republican President …”

    Been there, tried that and got shafted so bad we’re in the 18th year of an unnecessary war of aggression arising out of GOPer lies to our allies, GOPer lies to Congress, and GOPer lies to the American people. All those deaths, for lies.

    We’re also in the third year of a presidency that GOPers openly sought with the illegal interference of a foreign power.

    When GOPers show that they value national interests above party or personal interests, we might be able to rebuild some trust. But, all those “moderate” Republicans who tolerate this clown without either leaving the GOP or encouraging impeachment have no honor.
    Trust me?
    I'm an economist!

  8. #23
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    4,527
    Quote Originally Posted by DOR View Post
    Oracle,

    On my first point –- Chinese products vs. those that are merely made in China -- the hard up folks who have no choice but to buy cheap imports are supposed to “simply stop buying it.” Sorry, but for people on a tight budget that is not a viable option. More, in post 19, which is not hard new but an opinion piece, there doesn’t seem to be much more than “my friend who does business in China” as the basis for that writer’s perspective.

    On my second point, that there is no wide-spread acceptance of protectionism from the economic community, “one Democratic strategist” is neither an economist nor a majority of Democrats or strategists.

    I’m not sure how finding new soybean export markets fits in with anything else here, so I’ll just point out that with the exception of oil, commodity producers have no hope of matching goods and services producers' standards of living. Value-added is where it’s at.

    Punishing China…
    Really? Is the foreign policy of the United States of America reduced to throwing our toys out of the crib?

    Bottom line: “Being a Democrat, help a Republican President …”

    Been there, tried that and got shafted so bad we’re in the 18th year of an unnecessary war of aggression arising out of GOPer lies to our allies, GOPer lies to Congress, and GOPer lies to the American people. All those deaths, for lies.

    We’re also in the third year of a presidency that GOPers openly sought with the illegal interference of a foreign power.

    When GOPers show that they value national interests above party or personal interests, we might be able to rebuild some trust. But, all those “moderate” Republicans who tolerate this clown without either leaving the GOP or encouraging impeachment have no honor.
    DOR,
    Your hate for Trump clouds your judgement, everytime. It's getting tiring. Criticize him for far-right resurgence etc. Punishing China is in American National Interests. Punishing Russia is in American National Interests. Punishing Iran is in American National Interests. Find me someone other than you, who has a different opinion on this. You won't find anyone else on this board, other than the 50 cent trolls who sign-up once in 6 months.

    Do the Chinese export food products to America? One can live without Chinese toys, mobiles and things alike, if one doesn't have the money. These things don't sustain life. Food does. Food is the only important and viable thing. When Americans stop buying Chinese products, companies will find a way to make them cheaper somewhere else (Vietnam, Bangladesh, Indonesia).

    Been there, tried that? Apart from criticism, which anyone can do, show me your individual effort in channeling the Trump administration in punishing China while at the same time finding new markets for Americans products. Storytelling is easy, no?

    If economists run the country, America would be a Chinese colony in another 10 years. 18th year of unnecessary war of aggression? Say that to the 3K Americans killed on 9/11.
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles!

    Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain!

  9. #24
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,227
    Quote Originally Posted by DOR View Post
    Been there, tried that and got shafted so bad we’re in the 18th year of an unnecessary war of aggression arising out of GOPer lies to our allies, GOPer lies to Congress, and GOPer lies to the American people. All those deaths, for lies.
    You are way out of whack on all your facts.

    1) Saddam Hussein is completely responsible for that war with his lies and actions.

    2) The first shot of that war was launched by Bill Clinton on January 23, 1998. I will let you do your own research as to why.

    3) Nuclear weapons research was buried, not destroyed as required by the terms of surrender

    4) Biochem weapons stocks were found buried, not completely destroyed as required by the terms of surrender.

    5) Biochem delivery vehicles were continued to be stored and new research into new delivery systems in violation of the terms of surrender

    And let's not talk about the Three Rings of Fire and The Release Order by Saddam. If you want to blame anyone, blame Saddam. If a madman has burned people in the past, tries to burn you before and says he will burn you again, you'd be an idiot not to believe him.

  10. #25
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    4,527
    If DOR was talking about the Iraq invasion, then it's 15+ years, not 18. 18 sounded like 2001, WoT. Huh!
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles!

    Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain!

  11. #26
    Senior Contributor DOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,988
    I get really tired of people who can't seem to accept any criticizm of Trump from those who disagree with his actions.
    Trust me?
    I'm an economist!

  12. #27
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    4,527
    Quote Originally Posted by DOR View Post
    I get really tired of people who can't seem to accept any criticizm of Trump from those who disagree with his actions.
    I take it as this post is being directed towards me. If you take off your far-left biased glasses, you'd notice there's plenty of posters including me who criticize Trump in here for bad policies, while support policies that punish terorrist and authoritarian regimes. You just criticize, you scream collusion, you don't provide facts or answers, and yet you don't criticize the GOPers for the recent abortion laws, and you continue to criticize, criticize and criticize. Move on.
    Last edited by Oracle; Yesterday at 15:40.
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles!

    Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Xi Jinping's historic power grab in China
    By citanon in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 79
    Last Post: 17 Feb 19,, 12:38
  2. And what of the future of U.S. air dominance ???
    By JRT in forum Military Aviation
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 24 Apr 17,, 23:38
  3. Xi Jinping and his ascent in the Chinese Communist Party.
    By AdityaMookerjee in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 18 Oct 10,, 15:44
  4. Dominance displays
    By Shek in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 27 Feb 10,, 00:40

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •