Trade War with China

FriedRiceNSpice said:

Market based economy is the most efficient for growth past the initial and intermediate stages of economic development. State involvement and protection are absolutely necessary for the incubation stage of economic development, as an economy moves through the low, lower middle income, and upper middle income stages, with the corresponding shift in focus from primary to secondary and ultimately up to tertiary sec....

Click to expand...

It smells like a macro analysis paid by a billionaire or by a big bank.

The foundation of every advanced economy is the wide and wealthy middle class.

That needs
1. fair laws, that twisted towards the interest of middle class, NOT toward the interest of oligarch
2. good ,fast and fair juridical system
3. seller's job market as a typical state.

Without the above all market economy, innovation and other communist type slogans worth as much as the paper it's printed .

Look around the streets of suburban Kiev, and the streets of suburban Toronto, and the difference in laws and systematic skewing of rules will be obvious.

Check the fertility rate, that gives better indication about the relative level between countries than anything else ( apart from a few extreme poor country , where the contraception is non affordable luxury )

Josh Luo said:

But any talks of war between the U.S. and China must consider the likely possibility of a nuclear exchange, which would be a lose-lose scenario. Even without a nuclear war, third parties like Russia would simply step in a fill the vacuum after both the U.S. and China are weakened (we are talking about both the U.S. and Chinese navies being sent to the bottom of the ocean and no longer able to project their power after the war).

Click to expand...

The interest of a leader doesn't necessary aligned with the interest of the country / population .

The leading person interest to form the events can be the opposite of the interest of the country, in certain times.


which one is better, to be a fallen politician ( or prisoner ) in a peaceful country, or to be the leader of a country decimated by nuclear weapons.

Surprise - surprise, the typical politician choose the later option.

And it is the extreme part of spectrum, it is way easier to found bigger misalignment of interest in less important matters.

Also, we got to recognize that the EU and the U.S. share the same concerns about China's state-led economic model, except you got someone aggressive like Trump who is willing to get into a fist fight with China rather than continuing the TPP and WTO.

@Josh Luo

We can see the Pentagon are planning for a China with a larger economy/military than the USA. So the USA will no longer be the "unrivalled global superpower" as you put it.
The Australians have already published a few government white papers on the same theme.

China could be a far more formidable US rival than the Soviet Union ever was

"The Soviets were never able to match, much less overcome, America's technological superiority," the authors explained in their report released by the Center for New American Security. "The same may not be true for China."

The US has not faced a competitor with a gross domestic product greater than 40 percent of its own in well over a century. China's GDP is currently around 63 percent that of the US, and China is projected to have the largest economy in the world within the next decade or so.

"The United States will be unlikely to be able to spend its way out of the Chinese technological challenge" as it did with the Soviet Union, their report read, stressing that the US will, instead, "need to out-innovate and out-offset the Chinese."

• A new
  Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
  written by former senior Pentagon officials argues that China is targeting the US with a "deliberate, patient, and robustly resourced military-technical offset strategy."
• The authors make the case that China may be a more formidable challenge for the US than the Soviet Union because of its economic might and rapidly improving technological capabilities, many of which are being delivered to the military.
• The report by the Center for a New American Security argues that the US will not be able to outspend China as it did the Soviets, but instead, it must learn to "out-innovate" the Chinese if it hopes to remain competitive as China pushes closer to technological parity and eventually dominance.

Read more

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

So if China can likely outspend the USA in a cold war military arms race, it follows that the US would want to avoid a full-scale cold war with China.
From the Chinese perspective, China doesn't want to get into a full-scale cold war with the USA either, as it would divert from China's domestic development.

So whilst there are some die-hard cold warriors who believe the US will always be superior or that there can never be a compromise, we will see pragmatic US military leaders strenuously warning against a cold war against China. And they wouldn't want to see a trade war turn into a cold war.[/quote]

Quickie said:

Before that, he did say China is rude for having the 2025 policy. With these kind of childish statements, I don't think any trade deal can be made under this POTUS.

Click to expand...

Incredible isn't it!

Anlsvrthng said:

It smells like a macro analysis paid by a billionaire or by a big bank.

The foundation of every advanced economy is the wide and wealthy middle class.

That needs
1. fair laws, that twisted towards the interest of middle class, NOT toward the interest of oligarch
2. good ,fast and fair juridical system
3. seller's job market as a typical state.

Without the above all market economy,innovation and other communist type slogans worth as much as the paper it's printed .

Click to expand...

Yes, because analysts and researchers at big banks whom are paid exactly for their knowledge and understanding of economics and financial markets, as well as leading economists obviously have no idea what they are talking about, instead we should listen to the generalized and politically and ideologically motivated media sources who's main audience is a public that generally have no understanding of such matters. Funny that you bring up fertility rates, what exactly is your point there? Maybe you should actually look at the numbers and statistics first and make a more concrete statement, since I am not even sure what your hypothesis concerning the matter is.

EDIT: but I do agree with you market economy will be important going forward, and additional reforms in the legal area specifically pertaining to business and commerce would be welcome as well.

Josh Luo said:

It is the same in defence, the auto industry, aviation and many other sectors. Despite decades of effort and lots of state planning, China

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

depth of engineering skills, patents and technology needed to manufacture globally competitive high-end products. Dismantling a flight management system, a CAR BREAKING SYSTEM or a smartphone and reproducing the parts does not make it

Click to expand...

It is unbelievable theses days and age, there are still people out there actually believe this stuff!

China technology is so bad that it can't even dismantling, reproducing, or make them. Its a car break system! For crying out loud!

This is the 21st century, and this author still believe China can't make 19th century technology!

FriedRiceNSpice said:

Yes, because analysts and researchers at big banks whom are paid exactly for their knowledge and understanding of economics and financial markets, as well as leading economists obviously have no idea what they are talking about, instead we should listen to the generalized and politically and ideologically motivated media sources who's main audience is a public that generally have no understanding of such matters. Funny that you bring up fertility rates, what exactly is your point there? Maybe you should actually look at the numbers and statistics first and make a more concrete statement, since I am not even sure what your hypothesis concerning the matter is.

EDIT: but I do agree with you market economy will be important going forward, and additional reforms in the legal area specifically pertaining to business and commerce would be welcome as well.

Click to expand...

It Is Difficult to Get a Man to Understand Something When His Salary Depends Upon His Not Understanding It.

Josh Luo said:

Yes, that's my point. And also China's not yet ready to engage in a prolonged standoff with the U.S. and its allies. It has become a revisionist power way too early when the status quo hegemon still has every tool to contain the former's rise.

Click to expand...

No, China has never been a revisionist power, that's the daily mail you're reading in the UK clouding your judgement.

And China did not choose to "chall" the hegemon. It was the hegemon choosing to take down China now while is still got a slim chance of success.

Please get the fact right first, and stop reading those bias mail/express/sun. Etc.

Anlsvrthng said:

It Is Difficult to Get a Man to Understand Something When His Salary Depends Upon His Not Understanding It.

Click to expand...

This is a little ironic given the context of the discussion being about the importance of free markets and capitalism