Let’s Try This....

[Strangelovesurfing + 737]

2 hours ago, BradleyPNW said:

Endogenous growth theory indicates China's misbehavior does not have long term impacts on the US economy. Is EGT wrong? Maybe. But if one wants to make the case EGT is wrong then I'd like to see the competing theory and academic citations. Otherwise it's bar banter. 

The geopolitical questions are a separate issue. They also point toward Donald's incoherent trade policy. Are we engaging in protectionist trade policy to help our economy or as a geopolitical strategy? Answer from his surrogates: "we're don't know because his policy is impulsive and we're leaning heavily on confirmation bias to create an explanation of his policy after the fact." 

In regard to a coherent geopolitical action designed to counter China in the sphere of economic trade we had a plan in place to create and join the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Donald cancelled US involvement in the TPP immediately without supplying a rational explanation. Impulse. Insanity. Incoherence. Did Obama have to fight against Republicans to get TPP moving? No. Obama had to fight the left. So why did Donald side with the Bernie Sanders wingnuts?

 

You have a very flowery and overly wordy way of saying, the US just needs to invest in it's people and CCP behavior will have no effect on future US growth. Unless I'm misunderstanding Mr. Buckland's intent in this thread, increases or decreases in GDP growth rates and various policies, economic belief structures and theory's in a vacuum, aren't what this column is intended to provoke discussion about.

Edited May 24, 2020 by Strangelovesurfing

[Strangelovesurfing + 737]

2 hours ago, specinho said:

May be what i have seen might not be what you understand ??

 

First off, that is an interesting artifact on your post, I can't quite make out what it says. Please write your vertical lettering artifact in a regular english language structure that goes left to right. Looks a bit fishy.

On 5/23/2020 at 10:13 AM, Strangelovesurfing said:

The US was opposing 5G, if not mistaken, instead of acknowledging the progress of speed and functions and embracing it ....... O-ran might be a joint venture between Europe and China?? China shares it with Europe and vice versa?

The US has never been opposed to 5G implementation, some elements of society view EMF emissions in very bad lights, that may be where your confusion comes from.

O-Ran isn't a joint-venture, it's a new standard of open-architecture telecommunications using virtual machines to do the heavy lifting that run on standardized networking hardware, it's your understanding that needs refinement. All you need to do is read the first page of their site, it's all laid out for you in an easy to understand format if your goal is to actually be informed and have a real substantive back and forth.

https://www.o-ran.org

It's all right there.

Edited May 24, 2020 by Strangelovesurfing

[BradleyPNW + 282]

2 hours ago, John Foote said:

I suspect you'd have no problems telling the difference between a 22 watt tube amp I have, that cost way too much, and a 300 watt chip driven system, even with the same speaker cab.

For getting a neutral flat response, I personally prefer the inexpensive solid state machine. But for how that 22 watt system reacts to analog inputs from a guitar, how it struggles when it's overdriven or receives a distorted signal, huge audio difference. With expensive emulation software you can shrink the difference, but it's still there. 

Some people like the sound of tube amp distortion. As consumers, they can choose to pay more for an amp that distorts the source. But I'd hate to think someone purchased a tube amp thinking it was more accurate than a $2.50 class-D. 

[BradleyPNW + 282]

30 minutes ago, Strangelovesurfing said:

You have a very flowery and overly wordy way of saying, the US just needs to invest in it's people and CCP behavior will have no effect on future US growth. Unless I'm misunderstanding Mr. Buckland's intent in this thread, increases or decreases in GDP growth rates, and various policies, economic belief structures and theory's in a vacuum, aren't what this column is intended to provoke discussion about.

Are you all about language cop cosplay? I occasionally misspell words so that should be a treat for you. 

[Strangelovesurfing + 737]

Just now, BradleyPNW said:

Are you all about language cop cosplay? I occasionally misspell words so that should be a treat for you. 

No just analyzing your approach, it's structure is interesting, By the looks of it you're well versed in academic debate logic traps.

[0R0 + 6,251]

2 hours ago, specinho said:

 

This perspective is rather new but very subjective.............. There might be another key concern i.e. exchange rate of dominant currencies vs Yuan. The prices could be low and yet highly profitable e.g. a toothbrush selling one Yuan (costs of production could be few cents) in China could be fetching 0.5 cents (3.5 Yuan) or lower in the US..........  They do not need to sell things at high prices to gain............. or no? In addition, as one of the major holders of US debts or national bonds, China Yuan is subjected to depreciation to reduce the amount involved. Foreign tradings and keeping foreign currencies in foreign land might appear very lucrative under conditions like these??........................................ Loan defaulters are most probably imbecile breeds of some immoral rich with messy lives whom might regard no sense of responsibility as their superior right, often arrogant, ruthless, indifferent, not capable of anything. Shall they are given a leveled platforms, they might not be able to compete even at basic tasks. Without the inheritance makes them the worst mankind whom might have messed up the world for their greed, ignorance and arrogance.................. Minority of those might cause troubles to the industry they are in but not so much to the economy of a country as a whole............

 

The defaulters are simply using the legal avenues available to skirt the capital controls that prevent them from taking their capital out of China where they expect better returns, like negative yielding yen and euro bonds. Better than prime Shanghai real estate selling at 5 times the equivalent in NYC London Sydney Tokyo Paris.

Or say you are a teen retail seller with various manufacturing facilities and your sales have been dropping each year for a decade, so you are exporting, but now you can't find young folks for your sewing machines. Your desired overseas factories are not regarded as important for capture by China so you don't get a permit to take dollars out for investment. So you take a huge loan and put up some undesirable factories and retail outlets as collateral, make a huger production run, and export the lot to wherever it might sell, pocket the money, build your new production and new retail space and never come back to China, leaving the creditors to figure out what to do with the old factories and retail space that no longer even break even.

[0R0 + 6,251]

4 hours ago, BradleyPNW said:

Endogenous growth theory indicates China's misbehavior does not have long term impacts on the US economy. Is EGT wrong? Maybe. But if one wants to make the case EGT is wrong then I'd like to see the competing theory and academic citations. Otherwise it's bar banter. 

The geopolitical questions are a separate issue. They also point toward Donald's incoherent trade policy. Are we engaging in protectionist trade policy to help our economy or as a geopolitical strategy? Answer from his surrogates: "we're don't know because his policy is impulsive and we're leaning heavily on confirmation bias to create an explanation of his policy after the fact." 

In regard to a coherent geopolitical action designed to counter China in the sphere of economic trade we had a plan in place to create and join the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Donald cancelled US involvement in the TPP immediately without supplying a rational explanation. Impulse. Insanity. Incoherence. Did Obama have to fight against Republicans to get TPP moving? No. Obama had to fight the left. So why did Donald side with the Bernie Sanders wingnuts?

 

The TPP married the US under WTO like terms. It was better and excluded China but it was not reversing the mercantilist tilt away from the US towards it as Trump's new trade deal concept would have it. IT was a campaign issue, no surprise unless you were not following his campaign.

Trump has been consistently against trade with China as it was, recognizing that it was irrational to allow them to hollow out US industries while they made no money off of it and lost US workers their jobs essentially for nothing.

As to EGT, it is a useful way to think about the elements of economic advancements, but it is quantitatively weak. So has no backing in numbers except in the most gross way. The actual content is essentially immeasurable mush. I would much rather avoid the quantitative claptrap and go directly to Austrian school and Schumpeterian analysis to investigate the non quantitative aspects. Otherwise, EGT is weakly quantitatively useful and provides an interesting non specific discussion of comparative policy preferences rather than questioning whether proactive policy - whatever it is, has any use at all.

Trump running on a detachment from foreign entaglements could not also run on a China cold war platform at the same time, so it is an unfair trade and IP theft platform he ran on and made public statements of policy about. But look at who his trade team was, Lighthizer and Navarro. They are just short of nuking Beijing as legitimate trade policy. The phase one deal was about creating a current account crunch in China, pressuring their ongoing dollar crisis. Phase 2 was about the internal legal reforms and economic policy changes that would amount to disabling the CCP's ability to control the economy.

The current stance has shifted post CV19 to saying explicitly "if we are to have a trade relationship with China at all". The message from Trump to business about their rejoicing at the prospect of a phase 1 trade deal was "I order you to move out of China". They just didn't get the message at all. 

The engagement with China was a misjudgement in that China didn't mellow out, but rather had pushed forward Deng's reformers but the moment things got tough the hardliners turned out to have retained complete power and were not tempered in the slightest. Within a few years, the actual capitalists and the reformers that would not move aside when asked, and the regional power bosses were exterminated - nearing half a million people to date. It was called an anti corruption campaign. By the time Xi got his  power, the forward path of China was set and aggressive tariff policy against it should have been started then.

[BradleyPNW + 282]

19 hours ago, 0R0 said:

The TPP married the US under WTO like terms. It was better and excluded China but it was not reversing the mercantilist tilt away from the US towards it as Trump's new trade deal concept would have it. IT was a campaign issue, no surprise unless you were not following his campaign.

Trump has been consistently against trade with China as it was, recognizing that it was irrational to allow them to hollow out US industries while they made no money off of it and lost US workers their jobs essentially for nothing.

As to EGT, it is a useful way to think about the elements of economic advancements, but it is quantitatively weak. So has no backing in numbers except in the most gross way. The actual content is essentially immeasurable mush. I would much rather avoid the quantitative claptrap and go directly to Austrian school and Schumpeterian analysis to investigate the non quantitative aspects. Otherwise, EGT is weakly quantitatively useful and provides an interesting non specific discussion of comparative policy preferences rather than questioning whether proactive policy - whatever it is, has any use at all.

Trump running on a detachment from foreign entaglements could not also run on a China cold war platform at the same time, so it is an unfair trade and IP theft platform he ran on and made public statements of policy about. But look at who his trade team was, Lighthizer and Navarro. They are just short of nuking Beijing as legitimate trade policy. The phase one deal was about creating a current account crunch in China, pressuring their ongoing dollar crisis. Phase 2 was about the internal legal reforms and economic policy changes that would amount to disabling the CCP's ability to control the economy.

The current stance has shifted post CV19 to saying explicitly "if we are to have a trade relationship with China at all". The message from Trump to business about their rejoicing at the prospect of a phase 1 trade deal was "I order you to move out of China". They just didn't get the message at all. 

The engagement with China was a misjudgement in that China didn't mellow out, but rather had pushed forward Deng's reformers but the moment things got tough the hardliners turned out to have retained complete power and were not tempered in the slightest. Within a few years, the actual capitalists and the reformers that would not move aside when asked, and the regional power bosses were exterminated - nearing half a million people to date. It was called an anti corruption campaign. By the time Xi got his  power, the forward path of China was set and aggressive tariff policy against it should have been started then.

So bar banter it is. 

The leap from claiming that EGT is quantitatively weak to let's do Austrian economics because there's no better alternative to EGT is interesting. But this is bar banter so I guess it doesn't break any rules. 

As I gulp down my domestic American beer I'd like to point out that despite Trump Trade Theory claims to greatness we should acknowledge his policy led to farm welfare bailouts and Harley Davidson moving Chinese bound production to Thailand to avoid tariffs. BTW, that's a good clue as to what would happen if we did what the OP suggested. Manufacturers would just shift production to intermediary countries. What would that mean for the American consumer? Increasing CPI that would eventually level out somewhere above where we are right now. 

The farm welfare bailouts are especially harmful because the American taxpayer is subsidizing agriculture in foreign countries as they take advantage of new Chinese market openings. So, all the work American farmers have done over the decades to build supply channels to Asia were picked up and dumped in the garbage. 

With regard to influencing China toward western reforms through trade, isn't that an issue for human rights activists? We know Trump doesn't care about human rights. So that has no bearing on why Trump is pursuing a...bespoke...trade policy strategy. 

Also, why in the world would you bring up the "Our great American companies are hereby ordered to immediately start looking for an alternative to China" insanity. That's got to be a top five most embarrassing tweets for Trump supporters. It's completely off the rails crazy. When you say things like that unexpectedly ex-Republicans like me spit our beer out of our noses. Then we have to dab our nostrils with a paper napkin until they stop burning. 

[Piotr Berman + 82]

Douglas Buckland: If we can’t figure out how to make toast (for example) without a Chinese toaster, we deserve to be ruled by China!

The Greatest Generation must be rolling over in their graves!

====

I wanted to point out that international trade is very complex, and sledge hammer approaches may do more harm than good.  Using toasters to toast reduces kitchen fires caused by inept toast lovers.  In my example, a nice variety of toasters that existed decades ago was replaced by a single crappy design made in China with a big variety of "shells" justifying a variety of prices.  The way our companies operate, a ban on Chinese imports would result in imports from Vietnam and/or Indonesia, with Chinese "heart" inside.  As a resident of USA, I would not see anything positive (or may be negative, if one of the neighbors makes kitchen fire, grills are already verboten by the landlord).

LED lightning products seem another example.

 Now multiply it by tens of thousands of products: 0 non-positive outcome multiplied by gazillion makes a big negative.

Then we have problems like rare earth metals that are needed for this or that and which are produced in 80% by China, in part because under enlightened authoritarian regime you do not have huge difficulties with environmental permits -- some of that stuff is toxic and cheap ore processing is seriously polluting.   China is the top supplier for many mineral products.

Edited May 26, 2020 by Piotr Berman
typo

[Gregory Purcell + 94]

On 5/22/2020 at 5:27 PM, BradleyPNW said:

We could have joined the TPP to project economic trading block power against China, but no. Instead, Dumb Donald struck again and decided to withdraw from the TPP and start a trade war that killed US farmers and required government farm welfare

We would still be in the same boat  TPP would have been a free trade deal with everyone in the Pacific except for China which is more or less the same as tariffs on China.   Also Obama was try to get the same concessions which Trump was trying to get with tariffs.   And those concessions are a line in the sand China will not change, it is going to protect and subsidize  it's domestic industry and retain a large degree of central planning.  

[Gregory Purcell + 94]

On 5/22/2020 at 2:20 AM, Douglas Buckland said:

Have China block ALL imports AND exports from/to the US. By the same token, have the US block ALL imports/exports from the US to China.

At some point our trade war may go nuclear , China decides to sanction the USA and will no longer accept US dollars for goods and services, then nationalize all US owned factories.     US manufacturing would have a very difficult time restarting all those supply chains we out sourced to China.  

   

[BradleyPNW + 282]

47 minutes ago, Gregory Purcell said:

We would still be in the same boat  TPP would have been a free trade deal with everyone in the Pacific except for China which is more or less the same as tariffs on China.   Also Obama was try to get the same concessions which Trump was trying to get with tariffs.   And those concessions are a line in the sand China will not change, it is going to protect and subsidize  it's domestic industry and retain a large degree of central planning.  

Economic analysis of TPP came to the conclusion it was neutral, almost no economic gain. So why do it? Because it was primarily designed as a geopolitical counter to China. However, you're claiming TPP would net the same result as Trump's Chinese trade tariffs. Where did you get your information? 

"The model estimated that TPP would have positive effects, albeit small as a percentage of the overall size of the U.S. economy. By year 15 (2032), U.S. annual real income would be $57.3 billion (0.23 percent) higher than the baseline projections, real GDP would be $42.7 billion (0.15 percent) higher, and employment would be 0.07 percent higher (128,000 full-time equivalents). U.S. exports and U.S. imports would be $27.2 billion (1.0 percent) and $48.9 billion (1.1 percent) higher, respectively, relative to baseline projections. U.S. exports to new FTA partners would grow by $34.6 billion (18.7 percent); U.S. imports from those countries would grow by $23.4 billion (10.4 percent)." https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub4607.pdf

 

Edited May 26, 2020 by BradleyPNW

[BradleyPNW + 282]

One direct consequence of Trump's Chinese trade war was economic harm to US agriculture. The US taxpayer had to start bailing out the American farmer. In contrast, one of the expected beneficiaries of TPP was US agriculture: 

"Among broad sectors of the U.S. economy, agriculture and food would see the greatest percentage gain relative to the baseline projection" (Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement: Likely Impact on the U.S. Economy and on Specific Industry Sectors, page 21, https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub4607.pdf) 

However, the big problem with trade protectionism is real income decline. As consumer prices rise Americans suffer real income loss, our money buys a smaller basket of goods. I don't know how to characterize Donald's trade policy because it is incoherent and haphazard, but I think it's fair to say it is an American Consumer Last trade policy. It harms the American consumer in favor of whoever winds up winning the crap shoot of chaos. 

[Gregory Purcell + 94]

21 minutes ago, BradleyPNW said:

Economic analysis of TPP came to the conclusion it was neutral, almost no economic gain. So why do it? Because it was primarily designed as a geopolitical counter to China. However, you're claiming TPP would net the same result as Trump's Chinese trade tariffs. So where did you get your information?

Now maybe Obama was the better trade war general,  what I am trying to say striking a free trade deal with everyone in the Pacific excluding China, would make trade with China (relative to trade with other trading partners) more expensive, much like slapping a tariff on each other makes trade with China more expensive.   The affect on US-China relations and trade would be similar.  And the collision over trade was happening long before Trump,  the following piece was written December 2014.

 

Dear friends,

Today I sharing with you a document which I personally consider as absolutely crucial: an in-depth analysis of the China-Russia Strategic Alliance (RCSA) written by somebody who looks at it from the “Chinese side”.   I want to tell you a few words about how this document came into existence.

I was talking with Larchmonter 445 about the development in Russia when I realized that a lot of his arguments centered around the relationship between China and Russia and when I probed him further I realized that he knew a lot about it.  Not only that, but he had come to the exact same conclusions about the RCSA as I had, but he came to the from the other, Chinese, side.  That’s when I asked him to write a short analysis of this topics, and Larchmonter 445 agreed.  Except that is as a perfectionist workaholic and his short analysis ended up 25 pages long and with 39 footnotes!  As a result, what I can now share with you is a comprehensive survey of all the officially known components of the RCSA (you can bet that there are many more which I kept secret!).

I find Larchmonter 445’s image of a double helix particularly appropriate because what we are witnessing here is the birth of a new geopolitical “life form” so to speak, an informal alliance of two countries which goes much deeper than most regular alliances do: what we are seeing is the mutual agreement to establish a full-spectrum geostrategic symbiosis between two civilizational realms as both Russia and China are what used to be called ’empires’ in the past but which today are what I call “civilizational realms”: multi-ethnic, multi-national and multi-religious ex-empires whose influence extends beyond their current national borders and whose international strategic “weight” makes far more akin to continents then to countries.

Make no mistake, what we are seeing is something unprecedented in history and it is much more than just an “alliance”.  After all, an alliance can easily be broken and country A can decide to switch from an alliance with country B to an alliance with country C.  In the case of the RCSA what we are seeing is something much more akin to the birth of Siamese twins: in a geopolitical tectonic shift, Russia and China have decided to be shared not just “at the hip”, but with many “vital organs and systems” including energy and defense, of course, but also their economies and long term development policies.  Each symbiont will keep its own head and brain, but they will share “torsos”.

I would argue that this is by far the single most important political development since the end of WWII and probably the most important one in this century: it is hard to overstate the implications of what this means and Obama’s famous “pivot” to Asia is completely dwarfed and, really, rendered utterly irrelevant by this new reality: typically, while the Obama roared and barked, Putin and Xi Jinping quietly, but profoundly, changed the planetary equilibrium.  I wonder if somebody will dare tell the White House.

I urge you all to carefully read Larchmonter 445′ White Paper and to keep it for future reference (in particular all the recent developments he lists).  Since it was too long to post here, I have made it available for download from Mediafire in ZIP, ODT, DOCX and PDF file formats.  You can find the link to the Mediafire directory right under Larchmonter 445’s introductory remarks below.

A big THANK YOU to Larchmonter 445!

I hope that you will enjoy this great read.

Cheers,

The Saker

 

http://thesaker.is/vineyard-of-the-saker-white-paper-the-china-russia-double-helix/

[BradleyPNW + 282]

2 minutes ago, Gregory Purcell said:

Now maybe Obama was the better trade war general,  what I am trying to say striking a free trade deal with everyone in the Pacific excluding China, would make trade with China (relative to trade with other trading partners) more expensive, much like slapping a tariff on each other makes trade with China more expensive.   The affect on US-China relations and trade would be similar.  And the collision over trade was happening long before Trump,  the following piece was written December 2014.

From an economic point of view, the key difference between Trump's tariffs and TPP is how it affects American consumers and real income. Unlike Trump's trade tariffs, TPP did not increase consumer prices. If TPP reduced cost of trade within the trading block it would decrease consumer prices for those goods. Consequently, Chinese goods would be relatively more expensive than the bloc goods, but they would not be more expensive relative to pre-bloc prices. The American consumer is no worse off with TPP than without. But the American consumer is worse off with Trump's trade war. 

The damn fool claimed trade wars were "good, and easy to win." Whelp, today we have proof Donald's trade war was not good and he did not win. 

 

[BradleyPNW + 282]

"It's easy!"

Donald is such a freaking idiot. 

[Gregory Purcell + 94]

23 minutes ago, BradleyPNW said:

The damn fool claimed trade wars were "good, and easy to win." Whelp, today we have proof Donald's trade war was not good and he did not win. 

 Very true, I am just pointing out Obama started the trade war with China.   By the way because I have most my money in Gazprom stock you can for all practical purpose consider me a friendly Russian Troll.    

 

The Pivot to Asia Was Obama’s Biggest Mistake

“The pivot failed to achieve key goals in Asia while inattention made matters worse in Europe and the Middle East.”

By John Ford

January 21, 2017

Credit: Official White House Photo by Pete Souza  

It is impossible to know what a president’s foreign policy legacy will be until long after they have left office. But there is good reason to believe that the “pivot to Asia” will come to be seen as President Barack Obama’s greatest foreign policy mistake.

Obama once referred to himself as the first Pacific president and the pivot is touted by Obama’s defenders as a great success that properly rebalanced America’s foreign policy focus away from costly interventions in the Middle East to Asia, the prophesied center of the 21st century economy.  The reality is that the pivot was a failure that caused serious negative side effects in other parts of the world.

The pivot was based on a series of flawed assumptions, namely: That U.S. foreign policy had previously neglected the Asia Pacific, that Asia’s rising importance in the global economy called for the assignment of more military resources to the region, and that the United States could afford to pull back from the Middle East and other regions. By taking the approach it did, the Obama administration managed to make tensions in the Asia-Pacific worse while also allowing the Middle East and Europe to fall into even deeper chaos than before as a result of neglect.

First, it is simply wrong that the United States was ignoring the Asia Pacific when Barack Obama came to office. Far from being neglectful, the Bush administration’s Asia policy was a success. The Bush administration helped get tensions between China and Taiwan to a historic low. It concluded free trade agreements with Australia, South Korea, and Singapore and began talks on what became the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). It also concluded a civilian nuclear agreement with India and forged a new relationship with that country while simultaneously managing to build a partnership with Pakistan to deal with Afghanistan. Some of these policies were later repackaged by the Obama administration as part of the pivot.

The pivot did include some new diplomatic initiatives (such as the rapprochement with Myanmar) but the real problem was the shift in security and defense policy. By putting Asia at the center of its security strategy, the Obama administration inadvertently made the entire enterprise seem to Beijing like an effort to contain China militarily. This led China to respond by becoming more aggressive, helping to undo the general tranquility that existed before 2008.

Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.

Emblematic of this mistake was the roll-out of the Air-Sea Battle doctrine. First outlined in a then-classified memo in 2009, ASB became official doctrine in 2010. From the beginning, it was an effort to develop an operational doctrine for a possible military confrontation with China and then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates openly discussed the need to counter China’s growing military capabilities. The signal received in Beijing was the United States had hostile intentions toward China and was trying to contain it militarily. The result was that the entire pivot was seen by Beijing as part of a broader effort to encircle China.

If the first flaw in the pivot was the prominence of its military component, the second flaw was that there wasn’t a compelling reason to have a military component at all. The premise of the pivot was that Asia was more important relative to other parts of the world because it was home to a rising proportion of global GDP and was now at the center of the world economy. But this called for an economic response to take advantage of an opportunity, not a military response to counter threats. Yet, the pivot to Asia contained a robust military component.

This led China to view the entire enterprise, not just its military components, as part of a broader effort at containment. For example, when the TPP was finalized in 2015, Obama said, “TPP allows America — and not countries like China — to write the rules of the road in the 21st century.”  Even trade deals were being presented as a way to counter the threat from China. It is no mystery why Beijing believed U.S. strategy in the region centered on containing China’s rise. The United States publicly said this is exactly what it was doing.

It didn’t have to be this way. One obvious opportunity for a different approach was China’s invitation for the United States to join the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). The United States refused to participate and even objected to the U.K. joining the AIIB. As Leland Lazarus explained for The Diplomat, this decision was an enormous error. If the United States had pursued the Trans-Pacific Partnership by publicly emphasizing it hoped China would one day join while also joining the AIIB, the entire perception of any pivot in Beijing would have been radically different. Instead of appearing to be a strategy to undermine China it would simply appear to be an effort to take full advantage of the economic opportunities presented by Asia’s dynamic economic growth. Instead, the United States chose a path that heightened military tensions and missed out on economic opportunities.

The third grave error was the United States took its eye off the ball in Europe and the Middle East. The Obama administration appears to have believed that the United States could not walk and chew gum at the same time and focusing on Asia meant losing focus somewhere else. This was both untrue and highly dangerous. American neglect of Europe was followed by Russian adventurism in Ukraine, an increased threat to the Baltic states, and the erosion of democracy in Poland and Hungary. After America pulled back from the Middle East, the Syrian Civil War displaced 11 million people and caused a refugee crisis, Islamic State moved into Iraq, and America’s relationships with its Gulf allies frayed as Iranian influence expanded throughout the region.

The final tally is not pretty. The pivot did not contain the rise of China. Instead, China became more aggressive, pressing its claims in the South China Sea and to the Senkakus. China also continues to close the gap in military capabilities with the United States. Its economy continues to grow, as does its share of global GDP. The TPP looks to be dead in Congress while China pursues trade deals of its own with key countries in the region. The pivot failed to achieve its key goals in Asia while inattention helped make matters worse in Europe and the Middle East. The pivot to Asia has been a failure on all fronts. Given the importance of the Asia-Pacific, this failure is likely to be remembered as President Obama’s greatest mistake in foreign policy.

John Ford is a Captain in the U.S. Army JAG Corps who studied at Peking University. He has previously written for The Diplomat on China’s economy and its maritime disputes in the South China Sea. The views expressed here are his own. You can follow him at @johndouglasford on twitter.   

 

  https://thediplomat.com/2017/01/the-pivot-to-asia-was-obamas-biggest-mistake/

[BradleyPNW + 282]

2 hours ago, Gregory Purcell said:

 Very true, I am just pointing out Obama started the trade war with China.   By the way because I have most my money in Gazprom stock you can for all practical purpose consider me a friendly Russian Troll.    

I voted for McCain and Romney. Nevertheless, I didn't have a problem with Obama because he was pro-America in deed and word. Policy differences or criticisms like you posted in the article are fair game for a president. I think Obama did good things and I'm also open to criticism of his policies and outcomes. I'm ok with a president like Obama who makes mistakes as long as he makes those mistakes in an attempt to do right by America. Donald Trump, in contrast, is anti-American in both word and deed. 

A president who attacks the free press, anti-American. A president who attacks the FBI, anti-American. A president who orders US corporations to "hereby immediately start looking for an alternative to China," anti-American. 

He was even anti-American before he became president. The pink tie wearing POS used his lawyers to screw construction sub-contractors out of their pay after they completed the work. 

[Marcin2 + 724]

You are Americans and view TPP through American lenses which is natural.

Trump tearing up, reckless tearing up the effect of many years of multinational diplomatic effort is globally perceived as:

United States is unstable, unreliable partner.

No continuation of foreign policy goals, No goals.

For the short-term domestic reasons US can waive vital interests of its 11 partners.

11 partners joined TPP to hedge against China, at first with reluctance.

Since January 2017 they all know that US is unable to be constructive power in Eurasia.

Tell me about 1, one just one constructive US action in Asia-Pacific.

Sanctions, tariffs and escalation of rhetoric are not constructive.
China is for trade and co-operation US is to hedge strategic bets.

[Marcin2 + 724]

@Gregory PurcellChina-Russia alliance is super stable.

At least until China would be much stronger than US, in this case, if Russia would be bold enough and China treats badly its junior partner, Russia could try to change sides.

But it is more than 30 years perspective.

Russia and China close co-operation started as direct reaction to unipolar strength of United States.

Culmination and formalization of processes brewing since late 90s was June 2001 SCO.

At this moment Russia and China ( in 2001 it was still Russia and China, in 2020 it is China and Russia, senior and junior partner positions were switched) created No US entry zone in Eurasia.

”war on terror” was to secure independent and pivotal countries in Middle East and Central Asia.

Bush or CIA just needed to look the other way and fireworks of 9/11 (just like Pearl Harbour) enabled move on Iraq, Afganistan and in the future on Iran.

Without SCO Central Asia could be next.

30 million square km, 55% of landmass of Eurasia, continent inhabited by 70% of humanity.

It was geographical: You shall not pass, made by 2 countries in 2001 still much weaker than US.

China and Russia are complementary economies.

China gives economic protection and unlimited demand for all Russian natural resources.

Russia supplies natural resources, military technology and raw military power.

Both countries strategic versatility is increased.

Russia can keep Syria, anex Crimea, No problem Big Brother gives economic coverage through its clout.

China can concentrate on Pacific threat, cause all land borders are secure. The goal is development of Navy, Air Force and Rocketry.

[Strangelovesurfing + 737]

1 hour ago, Marcin2 said:

At this moment Russia and China ( in 2001 it was still Russia and China, in 2020 it is China and Russia, senior and junior partner positions were switched) created No US entry zone in Eurasia.

This would only apply to the north/east Asia geographic area. Indian Ocean, Middle East/Medit. and Atlantic/European Penn. are more or less wide open geographically. How is the US blocked from those areas of Eurasia?

[Strangelovesurfing + 737]

1 hour ago, Marcin2 said:

Russia can keep Syria, anex Crimea, No problem Big Brother gives economic coverage through its clout.

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-assad-syria-peace-process-1505490

https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2020/05/us-raise-stakes-russia-syria-hts-olmert.html

How is Russia going to 'keep' Syria and what is it actually keeping? The Libyan war is heating up, it's hard to see how Russia pays for all this.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/hisutton/2020/05/19/feared-russian-missile-system-targeted-and-captured-in-libya/#827095f1a5cb

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/05/military-accuses-russia-deploying-fighter-jets-libya-200526140634761.html

Guess Putin didn't learn anything from the US med-east fiasco. The quicksand is moving fast.

[Strangelovesurfing + 737]

5 hours ago, Gregory Purcell said:

 Very true, I am just pointing out Obama started the trade war with China.   By the way because I have most my money in Gazprom stock you can for all practical purpose consider me a friendly Russian Troll.    

 

The Pivot to Asia Was Obama’s Biggest Mistake

“The pivot failed to achieve key goals in Asia while inattention made matters worse in Europe and the Middle East.”

By John Ford

January 21, 2017

 

  https://thediplomat.com/2017/01/the-pivot-to-asia-was-obamas-biggest-mistake/

A bit of fairness to Obama, he did come in during the crash when US self-confidence was at a nadir. When your house is on fire, it's hard to concentrate on anything else.

[Marcin2 + 724]

6 hours ago, Strangelovesurfing said:

This would only apply to the north/east Asia geographic area. Indian Ocean, Middle East/Medit. and Atlantic/European Penn. are more or less wide open geographically. How is the US blocked from those areas of Eurasia?

US military just has No entry zone covering 55% of Eurasia: Russia, China, Central Asia, it creates large landmass of strategic stability.

It changes security and future strategic equation in Eurasia.

[Marcin2 + 724]

6 hours ago, Strangelovesurfing said:

 

How is Russia going to 'keep' Syria and what is it actually keeping? The Libyan war is heating up, it's hard to see how Russia pays for this

Guess Putin didn't learn anything from the US med-east fiasco. The quicksand is moving fast.

Chinese economic protection and ni US entry zone made it easier for Russia to keep:

1.Mediterranean Sea access for its fleet air force and army through Tarsus base and Latakia base,

2. Black Sea base in Sevastopol through annexation of Crimea.

In short it allowed Russia to keep its strategic position in Europe.

We can only be sorry for Ukrainians for lack of development of mature, patriotic elites. It was so obvious Russia would take Crimea in order to keep Sevastopol base.

Would Americans give up Pearl Harbour base ?

And all these operations were relatively cheap, No economic / imperial overstretch here.

Edited May 27, 2020 by Marcin2
Typo