We at an Economic War with China.

[compcons]

So China gets to find another source for consumers (India and Russia) and a place to get raw materials and agricultural products (Russia). It almost seems as if this is a perfect scenario for Russia. Trump shits all over our trade partners, China finds other partners, the EU and Russia step in to provide some sweet trade deals, and the US gets fucked. Of course there is no way our president and a handful of GOP congress folks who spent last July 4th in Russia could possibly be influenced by the Russians...

My inner conspiracy theortist really wants to see this play out.

 

[m8d]

The Chinese plan ahead for a century. The US plans by Trump's tweets.

 

[Ventanni]

I think America is greatly underestimating the value and threat this trade war placed on other sectors of the economy, where American companies have hegemony.

Eg Amazon (eg AWS) Google, Microsoft, Facebook for example. These companies are very dominant in the next gen data economy, far beyond the US borders. People are looking at this with a new perspective and concern.

While we are watching, so it's Europe and all these other countries that have Incorporated China into their supply chains. We are also at war with them as well. I can tell you for a fact these executives and supply chain mangers are pissed at the US are looking for ways to hedge, as well as rethinking their relationship with the US.

We are a huge econ, so they won't go away, but same for China. In the meantime were building lots of ill will, and reactions. There will be very wide and long lasting consequences to our actions.

Better be worth it....

Not really. It's a heck of lot easier for America to find sellers to produce $500B worth of stuff for them to purchase than it is for China to find $500B worth of buyers to fill the void of the loss of their biggest customer. Seriously, it would be like a whole town deciding it doesn't want to buy from Walmart anymore, so instead they go to Target. Trust me, there are so many foreign firms out there frothing at the mouth for a trade war to happen between the US and China. They'll happily take those contracts off China's plate.

Biggest benefactors of it all are probably going to be Vietnam, Thailand, India, and Great Britain.

 

[fskimospy]

China will be perfectly content with waiting Trump out. I’ve said this from the beginning, China would be fine with offering Trump some token concessions so he can save face but anything beyond that is unlikely as Trump is simply too erratic and untrustworthy to deal with.

It appears Trump drastically underestimated China’s willingness to endure trade disruptions.

 

[Jhhnn]

Not really. It's a heck of lot easier for America to find sellers to produce $500B worth of stuff for them to purchase than it is for China to find $500B worth of buyers to fill the void of the loss of their biggest customer. Seriously, it would be like a whole town deciding it doesn't want to buy from Walmart anymore, so instead they go to Target. Trust me, there are so many foreign firms out there frothing at the mouth for a trade war to happen between the US and China. They'll happily take those contracts off China's plate.

Biggest benefactors of it all are probably going to be Vietnam, Thailand, India, and Great Britain.

The problem with that is China's dominance in capital intensive higher tech production. In some market segments consumers will just pay more or buy less because other suppliers can't fill demand. They'll raise their own prices, of course, because they can. They'll be wary of making huge investments because the trade war could end at any time leaving them in the lurch.

Depending on what you're buying, it's overnight inflation. Trump may even fuck up fireworks-

Trump’s tariffs could fizzle fireworks, an American tradition that’s 95 percent made in China - The Washington Post

 

[pmv]

To be honest, I'm very unsure about the whole thing. It seems like a very complex question of economics that I'm not confident I know enough to judge.

But it does seem strange to me that politics seems to be dividing between liberals who blame Russia for everything that's gone wrong, and populist right-wingers who blame China. I'm not convinced by either. I don't find it plausible that global political developments depend on one country's political policies.

I also think the anti-China position wrongly paints the US and China as some sort of symmetrical rivals. When in reality a lot of China is still very poor. China's GDP per capita is far lower than the US. Ergo the pressures their leadership are acting under and the stage of development they are at is different.

And, rather than thinking, as some in this thread argue, that China can cope with economic fall-out of a trade war better than the US can, I worry that neither side will cope well, and that bad things will happen on both sides.

China in particular has a long history of serious instability and the current peaceful interlude is predicated on a deal where the population concentrate on getting rich and leave politics to the elites.

If this supposed 'economic war' ends up doing to China what happened to Russia after the cold war, with a serious economic downturn, the results might be very nasty indeed (though Russia, unlike contemporary China, actually was socialist, and its failure was largely down to its economic failings, exacerbated by the Reagan arms-race...China has different weaknesses, but not that one in particular).

And China is now a major part of the global economic engine. If it falters, so will much of the West, which will probably cause political instability there. We already had some of that with the last crisis, and it would have been worse without China keeping global growth figures up. Of course I suspect Bannon is partly hoping for precisely such a crisis, as it would be an opportunity for the far-right. Be a great irony though if the end result of an economic crisis caused by a collapse in China is some Western countries going communist [not suggesting that is _likely_ but I do think instability in the West is part of what Bannon is hoping for].

 

[cytg111]

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/ec...-tat-china-ready-endure-inflict-real-n1009891

China is digging in.
Maybe they figure they can outlast Trump until 2020 or impeachment?
Maybe they will get involved in the 2020 election to counter Russian influence

 

[darkswordsman17]

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/ec...-tat-china-ready-endure-inflict-real-n1009891

China is digging in.
Maybe they figure they can outlast Trump until 2020 or impeachment?
Maybe they will get involved in the 2020 election to counter Russian influence

I don't think Turmp concerns them much (they'd probably prefer not to put up with such an insane idiotic shithead, but they can make due without much problem, I mean they're used to it dealing with the North Koreans), as its a positive either way for them. Turmp is only temporary (even if he somehow wins in 2020) and in the meantime the US will struggle to handle the harm from it more than China will (and anyone getting their hopes up of China having catastrophic economic failure that changes their government...hope anyone dumb enough to be pulling for that realizes it'll cascade right to the US and send our economy tanking just as well). Plus they can always bribe Turmp, I mean, if there's one thing China knows, its simple corruption that Turmp operates as standard procedure. China also learns quickly and now that Israel, Russia, and corporations have given them the blueprint for how to do that "legitimately", they can follow suit without trying to hide it so much.

 

[darkswordsman17]

To be honest, I'm very unsure about the whole thing. It seems like a very complex question of economics that I'm not confident I know enough to judge.

But it does seem strange to me that politics seems to be dividing between liberals who blame Russia for everything that's gone wrong, and populist right-wingers who blame China. I'm not convinced by either. I don't find it plausible that global political developments depend on one country's political policies.

I also think the anti-China position wrongly paints the US and China as some sort of symmetrical rivals. When in reality a lot of China is still very poor. China's GDP per capita is far lower than the US. Ergo the pressures their leadership are acting under and the stage of development they are at is different.

And, rather than thinking, as some in this thread argue, that China can cope with economic fall-out of a trade war better than the US can, I worry that neither side will cope well, and that bad things will happen on both sides.

China in particular has a long history of serious instability and the current peaceful interlude is predicated on a deal where the population concentrate on getting rich and leave politics to the elites.

If this supposed 'economic war' ends up doing to China what happened to Russia after the cold war, with a serious economic downturn, the results might be very nasty indeed (though Russia, unlike contemporary China, actually was socialist, and its failure was largely down to its economic failings, exacerbated by the Reagan arms-race...China has different weaknesses, but not that one in particular).

And China is now a major part of the global economic engine. If it falters, so will much of the West, which will probably cause political instability there. We already had some of that with the last crisis, and it would have been worse without China keeping global growth figures up. Of course I suspect Bannon is partly hoping for precisely such a crisis, as it would be an opportunity for the far-right. Be a great irony though if the end result of an economic crisis caused by a collapse in China is some Western countries going communist [not suggesting that is _likely_ but I do think instability in the West is part of what Bannon is hoping for].

Sorry, had to stop there. You really need to actually learn something if you think that's the case. That's seriously conservative level straight up stupid "both sides" bullshit.

China's "history of serious instability" often were periods of stability longer than the US has been a country (as in 2-3x as long as the US has been a country even, and China has several of those periods) so that's kinda a silly argument to make. Much of their instability in the past couple of centuries was largely down to external stuff (which is exactly why they've changed and have no remorse for ripping off others for their gain because others did it to them).

If your argument is China being more free market economically, that's exactly why they'd weather such things better than the Soviet Union. They're just as socialist (if not moreso) otherwise though.

That's absolutely his plan. He's intentionally working to fuck up the world to try and make it more susceptible to his right wing fantasies.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Not really. It's a heck of lot easier for America to find sellers to produce $500B worth of stuff for them to purchase than it is for China to find $500B worth of buyers to fill the void of the loss of their biggest customer. Seriously, it would be like a whole town deciding it doesn't want to buy from Walmart anymore, so instead they go to Target. Trust me, there are so many foreign firms out there frothing at the mouth for a trade war to happen between the US and China. They'll happily take those contracts off China's plate.

Biggest benefactors of it all are probably going to be Vietnam, Thailand, India, and Great Britain.

One of the few people here that seem to know what the fuck they are talking about. I guess that is saying something.

So many morons here that think every country buys tons of Chinese shit products. "OH! If America doesn't buy it, then Russia and India will!" God damn, the stupid is so strong in this forum.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

China will be perfectly content with waiting Trump out. I’ve said this from the beginning, China would be fine with offering Trump some token concessions so he can save face but anything beyond that is unlikely as Trump is simply too erratic and untrustworthy to deal with.

It appears Trump drastically underestimated China’s willingness to endure trade disruptions.

You're better than this.

China makes cheap shit. Tons of countries make and sell cheap shit, due to cheap labor. In fact, China is actually struggling because as their economy becomes more developed, the less they can take advantage of cheap labor.

America buys tons of cheap shit products. Not many developed countries purchase these items. Tons of countries will make and sell them. Global companies that produce in China will also have no problem moving their production to other low cost of labor countries - and plenty already have. What does this tell you?

Again, let me stress this: I'm not saying sanctions are the correct move. But if you or anyone here think "China is winning" then you're clearly a step past retard and should seek some counseling.

 

[sandorski]

You're better than this.

China makes cheap shit. Tons of countries make and sell cheap shit, due to cheap labor. In fact, China is actually struggling because as their economy becomes more developed, the less they can take advantage of cheap labor.

America buys tons of cheap shit products. Not many developed countries purchase these items. Tons of countries will make and sell them. Global companies that produce in China will also have no problem moving their production to other low cost of labor countries - and plenty already have. What does this tell you?

Again, let me stress this: I'm not saying sanctions are the correct move. But if you or anyone here think "China is winning" then you're clearly a step past retard and should seek some counseling.

Sometimes, Arrogance causes one to dismiss the Other.

 

[fskimospy]

You're better than this.

China makes cheap shit. Tons of countries make and sell cheap shit, due to cheap labor. In fact, China is actually struggling because as their economy becomes more developed, the less they can take advantage of cheap labor.

America buys tons of cheap shit products. Not many developed countries purchase these items. Tons of countries will make and sell them. Global companies that produce in China will also have no problem moving their production to other low cost of labor countries - and plenty already have. What does this tell you?

Again, let me stress this: I'm not saying sanctions are the correct move. But if you or anyone here think "China is winning" then you're clearly a step past retard and should seek some counseling.

Watch China not give in to us.

 

[DrDoug]

Watch China not give in to us.

I like how he keeps on ranting about China not winning, ignoring the fact that in this 'war' nobody wins. As I have said before, China can absorb a hell of a lot more economic damage than we can and that gives them an advantage over us in this 'war'. Quit harping on someone winning and take note of the 'weapons' both sides have in this war. The one who can withstand the pain the longest, wins.

The American people aren't that patient and the Chinese people WILL be patient, or else.

 

[fskimospy]

I like how he keeps on ranting about China not winning, ignoring the fact that in this 'war' nobody wins. As I have said before, China can absorb a hell of a lot more economic damage than we can and that gives them an advantage over us in this 'war'. Quit harping on someone winning and take note of the 'weapons' both sides have in this war. The one who can withstand the pain the longest, wins.

The American people aren't that patient and the Chinese people WILL be patient, or else.

If I’m not mistaken he previously predicted that we would win this trade war relatively easily. I told him before that we would not.

 

[Thump553]

Steve Bannon goes into why China is going to lose. Very interesting. BTW, I think he's correct. China was suprised that Donald was POTUS, and they were blindsided by Trump. Bannon talks about Reagan and how he defeated the Russians in 7 years. Remember, in the 1970's Russia was a rising superpower. Reagan put an end to that, and now Trump is positioning himself to do the same to China.

USSR was definitely NOT a rising superpower in the 1970s. They were on a decline for a long time and entering their war in Afganistan was the final kiss of death to the USSR. Reagan took credit for what 40+ years of prior Presidents did-he was the guy at the finish line.

Not that Donnie is the least bit embarrassed about claiming credit for the benefit caused by his predecessor's policies, mind you.

Trump's "war" on China is a huge tax increase (tariffs) on the Target/Walmart shopper class of Americans, and also on farmers and other exporters, and has no stated strategy, policy or goals. Stupid is as stupid does.

 

[DarthKyrie]

USSR was definitely NOT a rising superpower in the 1970s. They were on a decline for a long time and entering their war in Afganistan was the final kiss of death to the USSR. Reagan took credit for what 40+ years of prior Presidents did-he was the guy at the finish line.

Not that Donnie is the least bit embarrassed about claiming credit for the benefit caused by his predecessor's policies, mind you.

Trump's "war" on China is a huge tax increase (tariffs) on the Target/Walmart shopper class of Americans, and also on farmers and other exporters, and has no stated strategy, policy or goals. Stupid is as stupid does.

He's trying to prove the GOP right, that government is the problem, by breaking the government.

 

[MrSquished]

One of the few people here that seem to know what the fuck they are talking about. I guess that is saying something.

So many morons here that think every country buys tons of Chinese shit products. "OH! If America doesn't buy it, then Russia and India will!" God damn, the stupid is so strong in this forum.

China manufactures a lot more than just cheap shit. I mean that is just stupid talk. They manufacture complex electronics, chemicals, rail cars, ships, airplanes, and more. At the same time it's not super easy to just drop ship and start immense specialized manufacturing operations in countries that aren't ready, don't have the infrastructure, skilled workers, etc...

You have zero idea of what you are talking about.

 

[Jhhnn]

Trump doesn't want a deal. He needs the Chinese boogeyman as an enemy for domestic political purposes. He'll be painting himself as a hero to the American farmer for bailing them out from the wicked, wicked Chinese. Walmart shoppers will pay for it, of course.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Fascists have always gained control by breaking down an existing system into anarchy to replace it with their own.

That's pretty much what authoritarians of all stripes do. He's still not an anarchist.

 

[Anarchist Mae]

Fascists have always gained control by breaking down an existing system into anarchy to replace it with their own.

I agree with everything you said, however while I understand you're using the dictionary definition of "anarchy":



I would like to point out that this is essentially propaganda, a deliberate conflation between state and government.

What anarchists actually believe is that an alternate form of government can be implemented, one that works by organising smaller groups of people to empower themselves rather than having the current state based heirarchy. Anarchism is essentially left wing libertarianism, pro freedom and anti needless hierarchy.

When you call Bannon an anarchist, you're doing anarchists a disservice, because Bannon is actually for state fascism.

 

[wirelessenabled]

Steve Bannon goes into why China is going to lose. Very interesting. BTW, I think he's correct. China was suprised that Donald was POTUS, and they were blindsided by Trump. Bannon talks about Reagan and how he defeated the Russians in 7 years. Remember, in the 1970's Russia was a rising superpower. Reagan put an end to that, and now Trump is positioning himself to do the same to China.

Two observations.

1. Reagan did not defeat the Soviets in 7 years. I had a Soviet defector as an Econ professor in the early 1970s. His position was that Soviet Russia was in bad shape and would not last long. They did not have the ability to run the command economy they had. The swings in the economy were getting wider and would soon crash.

2. Reagan was a mental midget and Trump knows even less about things than Reagan.

 

[Jhhnn]

When you call Bannon an anarchist, you're doing anarchists a disservice, because Bannon is actually for state fascism.

Bannon has styled himself as an anarchist, not me. Fascists use emotional rhetoric to create or inflame crises as a means to take control in a situation that obviously demands "strong leadership" & democracy ain't it.

Trade crisis! Crisis at the border! Crisis with Venezuela! Crisis with Iran! Opioid crisis! Crisis! Crisis! Trump alone can fix it! Hail Trump!

 

[Jhhnn]

2. Reagan was a mental midget and Trump knows even less about things than Reagan.

Reagan overruled all his Neocon advisers & did the right thing by the whole world in accepting Gorbachev's offer of major nuclear disarmament. The firepower of both sides was completely insane, enough to destroy civilization several times over & poison the planet. It's still ridiculous but not like it was.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

I like how he keeps on ranting about China not winning, ignoring the fact that in this 'war' nobody wins.

On a TEMPORARY basis -- no one wins from a GDP perspective. Correct. I never did not acknlowedge this. I specifically said that sanctions are likely not the best route.

As I have said before, China can absorb a hell of a lot more economic damage than we can and that gives them an advantage over us in this 'war'.

And you have zero basis or facts to show this. Hence, you're fucking dumb. You have zero clue of economics or markets - only your liberal bias feelings against the current administration. Go run off and try to find some facts child. Never mind, that's asking too much.

Anyone with half a fucking brain can understand that the BUYER has FAR more leverage than the seller in this economic system. There are FAR more sellers than there are buyers.