Trump's China Strategy: Death By a Thousand Paper Cuts

[Papillon + 485]

Firstly many thanks for your detailed replies. Apologies for the length of my previous posting, my wife will be the first to tell you of my ramblings on occasion. There were several topics however that I felt the need to address. I will try to reply briefly to several of the comments I received above. 

8 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

which was never about winning "the trade war", but about reshuffling a crooked deck. China bribed Clinton and got most favored nation status, then leveraged that into building their manufacturing at the Direct expense of ours.

I would agree sir but to refer to your very own analogy it was an American president himself that took such bribes and altered this deck. Therefore the comment regarding China, and a very small percentage of people having subsequent power there, is equally applicable here to your nation surely, as 'the few' in your country have affected your status for decades due to their own greed and personal gain. 

8 hours ago, ronwagn said:

The rights to bear arms protect all the other rights in our constitution. This right is, in fact, being widely infringed upon.

A fair comment sir, but again I could equally argue that when these important rights are infringed upon, again by 'the few', that it strengthens my previous comment. 

8 hours ago, ronwagn said:

I wonder what percentage of Americans would want to live in China and vice versa. Feel free to speculate.

Very true sir, though when these assumptions and beliefs of other countries are based upon false claims it is not the fairest comparison. What I mean by this is, an American's view of Chinese life, and indeed vice versa, are potentially based on falsehoods to begin with, though I appreciate your point and would agree that numerically the facts are most surely in your favor of course. 

7 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

Women's rights to their own body.... what a travesty.

I am assuming sir this is a sarcastic comment and if so would wholeheartedly agree. However I hope you will appreciate that abortion is a topic to me that I would prefer to converse in person, as words and sentiment can be misconstrued within a format such as this, and this is to myself not 'fair', for wish of a better term, for a subject of such importance and scope. 

8 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Those jobs are never coming back". Whoops they Are coming back, which is why China is trying to interfere in This election to get Trump out of office

Could you provide a reference or proof of this comment sir please? Forgive my potential ignorance, but I am assuming you are referring to the delays in signing a meaningful deal between the nations and not an apparent interference as in the terms mentioned with regard to the Russians or Ukrainians? 

8 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Xi can "pretend" he's rooting out corruption, but it's baked into the system. All he accomplished was a change of the guard of who gets to collect the red envelopes. 

Again sir I would tend to agree but are not most countries unfortunately in our modern era in containment of a system where corruption is potentially 'baked in' (had not heard this metaphor before sir). For instance, Mr Clinton, to use your very own example, or your media and its inherent political bias?

8 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Luckily there's this little thing called the Internet (invented here BTW) and everyone who wants to get informed, can. 

 

True sir, however I am confident you will agree that the majority indeed of what is on this invention is sheer falsity or full of bias or some form of agenda which helps matters of importance not one bit? Admittedly there are reputable sources within but they can be rare to find.

8 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Papillon, I thank you for the effort you put into your response. It sounds to me that we are not too far away from each other in our beliefs and might gain from further debate. 

Thankyou sir, and yourself too, and yes I would tend to agree. 

Edited December 2, 2019 by Papillon

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

44 minutes ago, Papillon said:

9 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

which was never about winning "the trade war", but about reshuffling a crooked deck. China bribed Clinton and got most favored nation status, then leveraged that into building their manufacturing at the Direct expense of ours.

I would agree sir but to refer to your very own analogy it was an American president himself that took such bribes and altered this deck. Therefore the comment regarding China, and a very small percentage of people having subsequent power there, is equally applicable here to your nation surely, as 'the few' in your country have affected your status for decades due to their own greed and personal gain. 

Please show me a nation whose leaders aren't corrupt or at the very least desperate to cling to power and will do whatever it takes to do so.

To me it is apparent that we as human beings are flawed and are easily corrupted when in positions of power and this leads to corruption, whether they be Chinese, American, English or whoever, it doesn't matter, the flaw in human nature remains. Look at Cuba where Castro has a  personal net worth of $900M and yet 99% of the population languish in abject poverty.

Hegemony wars (along with religious wars) throughout the ages of man have killed 100's of millions and usually this has been down to greed or fear of losing power by a handful of desperate or crazy "leaders".

Projects such as ITER (https://www.iter.org/) that combine dozens of nations working together to try to better humanity give me hope, it may prove to be the biggest white elephant known to man, or it may be a real breakthrough for the world, at least we are working together and trying to better ourselves not at the expense of another country or demograph.

I believe fundamentally with democracy, freedom of speech, capitalism, human and animal rights.

I'm sounding like a liberal now, which I am not by the way 🤣

[Papillon + 485]

2 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Please show me a nation whose leaders aren't corrupt or at the very least desperate to cling to power and will do whatever it takes to do so.

I would agree sir, hence I gave this comment previously ... 

1 hour ago, Papillon said:

Again sir I would tend to agree but are not most countries unfortunately in our modern era in containment of a system where corruption is potentially 'baked in'

4 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

To me it is apparent that we as human beings are flawed and are easily corrupted when in positions of power and this leads to corruption, whether they be Chinese, American, English or whoever, it doesn't matter, the flaw in human nature remains

I coud not agree more sir, my response, although maybe not referenced above, is that certain corruptions are referenced as not as bad as other nations' and so it makes it a lesser evil as you say. I simply think it is a shame that entire nations are put into a box by other nations who are far from fault free. And as with most countries, as noted by Mr Smith, these actions and so their repercussions on society and even future generations, are enacted by less than a percent of a total population. It is a way of life and indeed human nature, as sad as that is to say.

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

2 minutes ago, Papillon said:

  1 hour ago, Papillon said:

Again sir I would tend to agree but are not most countries unfortunately in our modern era in containment of a system where corruption is potentially 'baked in'

Yes I agree but again we are talking about degrees of "baked in" and I don't just think this is a "modern era" phenomenon.

I tend to agree with others like Ward and Ron that societies that are allowed to openly question those in power without fear of reprisals will remain a "freer" society than those that don't. This does not mean that those societies are less corrupt, or beacons for morality.

[Papillon + 485]

I am in agreement with you sir, I think I have spoken wrongly or am being misunderstood. I simply referenced the 'modern era' if my memory serves, as that seemed to be where the conversation went after ronwagn hinted that we should not talk of 'all history' and after Mr Smith referenced Xi, so I in fairness hinted at modern times globally, in keeping with the timeline of Xi's rule. I hope this clarifies sir. 

Edited December 2, 2019 by Papillon

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

14 minutes ago, Papillon said:

I am in agreement with you sir, I think I have spoken wrongly or am being misunderstood. I simply referenced the 'modern era' if my memory serves, as that seemed to be where the conversation went after ronwagn hinted that we should not talk of 'all history' and after Mr Smith referenced Xi, so I in fairness hinted at modern times globally, in keeping with the timeline of Xi's rule. I hope this clarifies sir. 

Perfectly clear Papillon ☺️

[WHY + 12]

I am always grateful when the level of discourse is raised as it is in this conversation.

The question of systems involving large numbers of people is interesting. Particularly when we consider confirmation bias. Tying these systems of belief to financial prediction of oil & gas futures is a subject for far more intelligent folks than me. (It is, of course, the basis for much software that is simply designed to drive the "average" investor out of the market by parting them from their money.)

Plastic Blue Bottle is of the opinion that people will gather around anyone they believe will protect them. Doing this inevitably involves trust. Thus each of us consciously or unconsciously weighs our autonomy against the prevailing "world view" of the system(s) we inhabit.

To my mind, poor as it is, two basic systems appear to have evolved:

1. Historically speaking the "West" moved forward from the overlord/serf model - where the serf serves and gets to live, procreate and die at the behest of the overlord - to a model where the serf still serves (we call it work) but also gets the benefits of education, healthcare, mobility (social, physical, spiritual), limited self-determination (we call it politics) and sometimes pleasure. The key here was to create an ideology based in the individual but, make no mistake, the overlord/serf model still holds true. (How many billionaires do you personally know - unless you are one of course?!)

2. But... human beings are a diverse lot and some in the East chose to retain the centralized power model... provided that the "overlord" became an ideal that would benefit everyone equally(-ish) as in a "commune". It should be noted that only China truly succeeded in this and most other countries fell back into "overlord-ism" very quickly i.e. Russia. And even China has allowed that individuals are more motivated when they do not have total dependency on the state - of course this is only allowed in the direction of the economy.

So what then is the difference between these competing ideologies that are so vigorously defended by their proponents? The only difference I can see as worth measuring is the human cost - the total sum of human (and animal) suffering. Plastic Blue Bottle says that in an uncaring universe it really doesn't matter how many live or die in the petri dish - he has a wicked sense of humor. But assuming that human lives and happiness matter, for me, this is only this way to measure success. I suppose that a "harm reduction" strategy for the human species is not perhaps the loftiest of goals but it seems like a good start point. At least it involves setting aside ego to ask what is harm and how can we reduce it?

Plastic Blue Bottle says that I am a idealist, dreamer and idiot. He may have a point.

Edited December 2, 2019 by WHY

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

12 hours ago, remake it said:

 

So provide the evidence toe jam, because these claims have been repeatedly debunked and you still peddle conspiracy theories.

Asked and answered buckwheat, do try and keep up

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

9 hours ago, Papillon said:

I would agree sir but to refer to your very own analogy it was an American president himself that took such bribes and altered this deck. Therefore the comment regarding China, and a very small percentage of people having subsequent power there, is equally applicable here to your nation surely, as 'the few' in your country have affected your status for decades due to their own greed and personal gain. 

A fair comment sir, but again I could equally argue that when these important rights are infringed upon, again by 'the few', that it strengthens my previous comment. 

Very true sir, though when these assumptions and beliefs of other countries are based upon false claims it is not the fairest comparison. What I mean by this is, an American's view of Chinese life, and indeed vice versa, are potentially based on falsehoods to begin with, though I appreciate your point and would agree that numerically the facts are most surely in your favor of course. 

Could you provide a reference or proof of this comment sir please? Forgive my potential ignorance, but I am assuming you are referring to the delays in signing a meaningful deal between the nations and not an apparent interference as in the terms mentioned with regard to the Russians or Ukrainians? 

Again sir I would tend to agree but are not most countries unfortunately in our modern era in containment of a system where corruption is potentially 'baked in' (had not heard this metaphor before sir). For instance, Mr Clinton, to use your very own example, or your media and its inherent political bias?

True sir, however I am confident you will agree that the majority indeed of what is on this invention is sheer falsity or full of bias or some form of agenda which helps matters of importance not one bit? Admittedly there are reputable sources within but they can be rare to find.

First of all Papillion, let me join the other voices here in thanking you for upgrading both the intelligence and demeanor of this site. A fine job sir and I hope to emulate your good example. I'll admit to some frustration with certain posters and a tendency to join them in the gutter, because they're not elevating their discourse. 

Since I'm doing this on a mobile device I can't handle large posts very well since there's a lot of scrolling back and forth. I don't mind reading them, just difficult to reply. I've edited yours above and will address them.

Agreed about our president. Be assured there are many partisans who would vehemently disagree with my contention about Clinton and the evidence is circumstantial at best. However, there was a certain "air" with the Clintons, which added up to the stench of corruption for those not on the "winning party" side. 

To address multiple threads at once, let me clarify the US system and how its adversarial design actually aids in tamping down corruption. As Mr Plant says and I agree, humans are fundamentally flawed beings and I also agree with another Englishman who said, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely". Our founding fathers knew this, so designed a system with multiple checks and balances. The three arms of government are well known, but the additional rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights and the amendments to the constitution also serve a vital purpose. As @ronwagn alluded to, our 2nd Amendment is in there to try and keep the government honest, which presumes the 3 branches didn't succeed. A fail-safe as it were.

Remember, like China in 1949, this country also was the product of a revolution. The founding fathers built on what was right and built in safeguards against what was wrong. Importantly, the First Amendment gives me the right to criticise the government without fear of reprisals. That's so engrained in our culture that it's impossible to visualize being without it. It's certainly being abused but even knowing it's misused, the pros outweigh the cons and we'll grudgingly put up with, for instance, Antifa. So you should understand, from an American perspective Hong Kong protests look like protests here, and we all recognize that China doesn't put up with that, being an authoritarian country, plus we all witnessed what happened at Tiananmen Square. How might things have gone differently there if China had our first two amendments? Recognize too that I personally know people who were there, no need to find out through warped lenses of the MSM.

Our founders never would have envisioned the entire MSM being suborned as it has been by a very limited cabal of owners. In their day there were multiple competing papers in the same town. Now a town is lucky to have one, but it's owned by Knight Ridder or some corporate behemoth. Therefore internet, such as it is gives a balancing viewpoint. It is up to the readers to separate the wheat from the chaff. 

Finally, how is China attempting to interfere in our election? First, very smart Chinese, likely educated here, have analyzed the electoral college map, and have been applying direct pressure on those states where Trump got through, what the MSM were calling in the 2016 election, the "Chinese wall" of blue democrat states. Since these are largely rural, they've been attacking the economies of those states, which grow soybeans etc. In addition, they've been sending humans and bots to post anti Trump messages on bulletin boards like this one, but focused on agriculture. I don't have direct evidence of additional methods but suspect plenty of direct involvement in DC with various factions. 

[Otis11 + 551]

To pull this thread back on topic...

On 11/28/2019 at 3:41 PM, Gerry Maddoux said:

I suppose everyone brings their baggage from the past. The first people to get hurt by a trade war are the farmers and blue-collar workers. I grew up on a farm and ranch. The soybean farmers are committing suicide at such a rapid rate that they now have suicide hotlines in places where no one did that sort of thing. The steel mills are so-so; the greatest demand for steel right now is pipeline steel and it either comes from a Russian-owned subsidiary in Regina, Canada or from China, with a little more each day being made here in the good ole US of A. 

I am a big proponent of democracy, and am pulling for Hong Kong, but not the trade war. Again, I have coffee with my good friend who won the Nobel Prize for coming up with the ratio by which asset classes are rated, and he taught for years at Stanford. He has said a hundred times that no one wins in a trade war. 

Certainly, and importantly since this is an oil and gas site, we have not won anything in this trade war. For US oil and LNG exports to China, this has been a pyrrhic victory only. They have turned increasingly to Russia and Saudi Arabia. 

Okay, so I'm out of synch. I voted for Mr. Trump and will very likely vote for him again, but I have to tell my story like I feel it. 

Interesting - the farmers I know (while most are not terribly thrilled with the current situation) are far from that level of desperation...

And your economist friend may be right in the realm of pure economics, however he's overlooking the complexity of the situation. Free trade and increased trade improve economic outcomes for both parties, as long as both parties play reasonably nice. That's not the situation here for a number of reasons.

First, China is distorting the free market, thereby making some products produced in China and shipped to the US take more resources than they would have if produced locally (aka higher marginal cost of production) just because the Chinese government has determined that there is some external benefit to them doing so (Employment, development of infrastructure/personnel, avoiding dependence on foreign nations, increasing dependence of foreign nations, etc)  that is not captured in the economic price of that unit. This undermines the principle of comparative advantage as the underlying premise of mutual benefit for free trade and challenges the basis for Bill's argument that 'no one wins trade wars'. (Btw, I'm guessing it's Bill because that's who it sounds like. If so, circles are smaller than I would have guessed.)

 

On 11/29/2019 at 2:25 PM, ronwagn said:

This is not just a trade war. It is a war for who will lead the world and whether or not the world is run by dictators or by free nations. If China were allowed to continue on its current course their leadership would soon eclipse ours. 

Western Europe already has greatly infringed on the liberties of its people and the leaders in power want to continue on that course. The people still have a chance to reverse course however, but that will be a long range struggle. Socialists have done a good job of undermining countries around the world. The people need to wake up. 

Agreed! So even if there is an argument that everyone involved 'loses' from the economic perspective, when you take into account the benefit of avoiding open hostilities and that impact on our economy... I'd say both sides win (assuming we can, in fact, avoid this outcome).

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

53 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

 

Finally, how is China attempting to interfere in our election? First, very smart Chinese, likely educated here, have analyzed the electoral college map, and have been applying direct pressure on those states where Trump got through, what the MSM were calling in the 2016 election, the "Chinese wall" of blue democrat states. Since these are largely rural, they've been attacking the economies of those states, which grow soybeans etc.

That is not interfering with an election, it is applying economic pressure in a completely legal and transparent manner (it's even well reported in "liberal news").  Election fraud is interfering with the actual voting process, or extensively manipulating the media.  Changing peoples' minds on who they want to lead is just campaigning.

"Dear POTUS you want those farmer votes? Stop screwing with us!" 

Alternatively, do transfer payments using money from blue states to buy those red votes (not so fair).

China openly did similar things against Canada and our canola crops after we arrested the Huawei exec (at the request of the states) and totally pissed China off.  We still have the chick, I would have just mailed her home... not our problem.

[Papillon + 485]

2 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

First of all Papillion, let me join the other voices here in thanking you for upgrading both the intelligence and demeanor of this site. A fine job sir and I hope to emulate your good example.

Thankyou sir and for the detail in the response. I foolishly had not considered the various farming states as it were but I would tend to agree with Enthalpic's sentiment that to call this illegal or interference is a little of a stretch. In all honesty I'd consider this rather simple yet also clever politics and economic pressure as stated. USA attacks with tariffs for example, China attacks certain crop states? It is all pressure in one form or another back and forth is it not? 

2 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

very smart Chinese, likely educated here, have analyzed the electoral college map

With respect sir is this not the sort of thing the average person round the world could just research online? I am referring to which states voted for who in 2016? Why they would have to be particularly 'very smart' or 'educated in USA' is a little baffling to me currently I must admit. 

Edited December 2, 2019 by Papillon

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

18 minutes ago, Papillon said:

Thankyou sir and for the detail in the response. I foolishly had not considered the various farming states as it were but I would tend to agree with Enthalpic's sentiment that to call this illegal or interference is a little of a stretch. In all honesty I'd consider this rather simple yet also clever politics and economic pressure as stated. USA attacks with tariffs for example, China attacks certain crop states? It is all pressure in one form or another back and forth is it not? 

With respect sir is this not the sort of thing the average person round the world could just research online? I am referring to which states voted for who in 2016? Why they would have to be particularly 'very smart' or 'educated in USA' is a little baffling to me currently I must admit. 

There are games within games going on. If it were just random Chinese (or other) citizens choosing to spend their free time googling and posting that would be one thing. But the people doing this are state sponsored actors paid by the government and able to call on govt resources unavailable to random citizens. Technically, and regardless of @Enthalpic's opinion, this is illegal. Since the government is employing these people, do you believe they're not hiring the best and brightest? 

You use a technique called "whataboutism", where you say so and so is doing the same. Granted, other countries are and have been doing this for centuries. Some are just better at it than others. Our CIA uses elaborate means that cost billions and yield little to no results. They are the laughingstock of the international intelligence community, except for the fact they're part of a 900 pound gorilla, so the laughing is muted. The CIA would love to take credit for what is happening in Hong Kong for instance, but they've (yet again) been caught completely unaware. They didn't even see the Soviet Union falling, even while it was happening in front of them. 

The CIA can't interfere in Chinese elections since they don't really have them. They "attempt" to monitor what is going on with the Politburo and high party officials, but are generally caught napping when something big happens. They live in places like Stirling, Virginia where they all vote democrat and gossip with each other about US politics. They are our Deep State you've heard about. Instead of focusing outward, they're focused inward, to our detriment. 

Notice I get to say things like this because I'm American. They might even have a computer monitoring here, which might flag my name and they'll quickly use their vast resources to find out exactly who I am and where I live. But they'll do nothing, just start a file if that. I've been to Stirling and was at a BBQ party with my friend and his neighbors, all of whom worked for the CIA. They went to the best schools, got the best grades, but don't have a lick of common sense among them. This country succeeds in spite of them, not because of them. 

[Papillon + 485]

1 hour ago, Ward Smith said:

You use a technique called "whataboutism", where you say so and so is doing the same.

Is this sentence to myself sir? If so what or who did I reference as 'doing the same' ? We were discussing potential Chinese interfering in US elections were we not and did not suggest the Americans were doing the same? I apologize but I am a little confused if this is directed at myself.

Also with respect I find it a little ironic if directed to me, when half the conversations on the website contain some form of reference to China? - 'whatabout' China I could argue? There is a conversation entitled 'China's blueprint for global power', and I have recently had a conversation with yourself and ronwagn concerning how the US sees itself as 'ruling the world'. Therefore am I correct to assume it is fine for the US to have this 'blueprint' but 'whataboutchina' ?

If this is indeed correct then with respect the 'so and so doing the same' and 'whataboutism' seems to be coming from most users here sir in fairness, and always about China. 

1 hour ago, Ward Smith said:

Notice I get to say things like this because I'm American.

Again, a reference to the Chinese being unable to do so no doubt? Whataboutism indeed sir, although it's apparently a 'technique' I use yet fine for yourself to do so? I genuinely do not know if this 'whataboutism' is intended as an insult? However when you use it it seems to not be 'so and so is doing the same' but rather 'look how much better we are than China'. This website seems sometimes to be some sort of international competition sir, it is rather odd to me.

Note also we are within a conversation where the title suggests death to a nation by paper cuts. If I wished to bring up 'whataboutism' and suggest the same fate for your nation I am rather confident in what your reaction would be, but here it seems if about China then anything goes?

Edited December 3, 2019 by Papillon

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

1 hour ago, Ward Smith said:

 Technically, and regardless of @Enthalpic's opinion, this is illegal.

Please explain exactly how soybeans tariffs are illegal?

What do you want? Blanket tariffs against all products - equal on both sides - just to encourage domestic production?

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

1 hour ago, Papillon said:

If this is indeed correct then with respect the 'so and so doing the same' and 'whataboutism' seems to be coming from most users here sir in fairness, and always about China. 

 

Sometimes it's about India and Africa.

Why bother cleaning up our own act when China pollutes more? Please ignore the fact they have many more people to take care of.

[Papillon + 485]

1 hour ago, Ward Smith said:

But the people doing this are state sponsored actors paid by the government and able to call on govt resources unavailable to random citizens. Technically, and regardless of @Enthalpic's opinion, this is illegal

Enthalpic I agree with regard to the legality. With respect Mr Ward, the souces of interest to China would surely merely be 'which states grow things' or 'which states voted for Mr Trump' in essence? Why would this information only be available to government resources and not to the average citizen or just online for all? I am clearly missing something here as to me it seems the sort of detail a child could research in minutes online. 

2 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

Sometimes it's about India and Africa.

Well I have not seen these yet sir. What I have noticed however are users believing there is an agenda behind Miss Thunberg (which I agree with), and yet I have seen so far no conversations about these people behind the agenda sir? It seems it is easier for grown men to attack a teenage girl with a certain syndrome. I find it rather telling and quite pathetic in all honesty. 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

5 minutes ago, Papillon said:

 It seems it is easier for grown men to attack a teenage girl with a certain syndrome. I find it rather telling and quite pathetic in all honesty. 

It is totally pathetic - this little girl has done more with her life than the vast majority of the people here, myself included, yet people attack her - put on your man pants and suck it up people.

Edited December 3, 2019 by Enthalpic

[Zhong Lu + 845]

The numbers: The Institute for Supply Management said its manufacturing index sank to 48.1% in November from 48.3% in October. Economists surveyed by MarketWatch had forecast the index would register a reading of 49.2%.

This is the fourth straight sub-50 reading. Readings below 50% indicate business conditions are getting worse.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-manufacturing-sector-weakens-further-in-november---ism-2019-12-02

[Marcin + 519]

First @Papillon thank you for increasing the quality of discussion at this place. I will also try to emulate it.

@Tom Kirkman you linked article stating that US won trade war with China.

When I first read articles about the US vs China trade war/all these tariffs, I asked myself the question what is this all about, why the hell mass media are making so much noise about this very unimportant issue in US-China relations.

The fact that President Trump is talking about it constantly is not enough. There came reflection:

99.9% of PEOPLE DO NOT UNDERSTAND economics and nature of US and China economies,

but the ISSUE of TRADE DEFICIT is a very simple notion, to gather society around it. Every Joe Sixpack can think that US deficit in trade with China is important, and this very Joe Sixpack may think that he understands the complexity of the relations between superpowers and because of that think better of himself. Mass media have to adjust to stupidity of society, because they need viewers and advertisers. Mass media task is not to educate people that overall deficit or surplus of country with all partners counts.

The fact that the notion of importance of bilateral deficit between 2 countries (China and US) is a really very stupid one, this fact is irrelevant to mass media and thus sheep viewers. Btw who could understand real economists like for example Stephen Roach.

1. Bilateral deficits between countries are not important, what is important is overall deficit or surplus of the country with all partners ( freshman year of any economics studies).

2. The larger the country, the less important foreign trade is. In 2018 China had overall surplus in foreign trade with all partners of 2.7% of its GDP, and US trade deficit of 4.2% of its GDP.

3. There are no losers in China-US trade war, and also no winners because this issue, even that easy to peddle to society is not important. What is very important is technology supremacy.

4. Countries of the size of US and China naturally have nearly everything important produced or created within its borders. It is the case of national security and simple economies of scale. Current situation that China is not one of the leaders in some areas of advanced manufacturing, is a short term deviation from this tendency. For example China like US will produce all types of passenger aircraft because it currently is 25% of global demand and will be 40% of global demand for aircrafts inthe future. Or all types of semiconductors. Or have similar military capability to ensure access to resources (read: hydrocarbons). Preventing this development of China by US is totally patriotic from US perspective. But it is futile as the country of the size of China at the current level of development will naturally have very high R&D output (China is 2 years away from achieving  US output in R&D, at present by major indicators 3/4 of US output (indicators:international patents, citations in scientific press, number of scientists, PhD thesis, yeraly R&D investment etc.). Of course gap will stay for at least 10-15 years but will narrow fast.)

So United States can move to other offshoring countries all manufacturing that is now in China. It is not important to China in the long term, because China predominantly depends on domestic market (like US) and other countries.

Remember the fact US only 4% of global population, isolated on scarsely populated North America continent. 65% of global population is in Eurasia and China is located on this continent. China borders 14 countries. US only 2. Geography decides the hegemony.

So hegemony conflict is actually already over, bar nuclear attack of United States on China.

Please guys never write about importance of trade war again, who wins, who loses. Of course if you would find any reliable person that can argument  that trade war is the most important issue in US-China relations please link this piece, I would love to learn something new and revolutionary in economics.

 

 

Edited December 3, 2019 by Marcin
typo and clarification

[ronwagn + 6,290]

5 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

That is not interfering with an election, it is applying economic pressure in a completely legal and transparent manner (it's even well reported in "liberal news").  Election fraud is interfering with the actual voting process, or extensively manipulating the media.  Changing peoples' minds on who they want to lead is just campaigning.

"Dear POTUS you want those farmer votes? Stop screwing with us!" 

Alternatively, do transfer payments using money from blue states to buy those red votes (not so fair).

China openly did similar things against Canada and our canola crops after we arrested the Huawei exec (at the request of the states) and totally pissed China off.  We still have the chick, I would have just mailed her home... not our problem.

Do you think Canada should be neutral in world affairs despite being such a close neighbor and being considered an ally of America?

[Papillon + 485]

18 minutes ago, Marcin said:

First @Papillon thank you for increasing the quality of discussion at this place. I will also try to emulate it.

Thankyou sir, very much appreciated. Your posting was very well stated.

18 minutes ago, Marcin said:

Mass media have to adjust to stupidity of society, because they need viewers and advertisers. Mass media task is not to educate people that overall deficit or surplus of country with all partners counts.

 

I particularly liked this line, somewhat sad but true but I must confess it made me chuckle Marcin.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

1 hour ago, Enthalpic said:

It is totally pathetic - this little girl has done more with her life than the vast majority of the people here, myself included, yet people attack her - put on your man pants and suck it up people.

Spouting false information and alarming ignorant people is a very negative accomplishment for which she has a real talent. He talent is being an annoying little brat. It is better for one to do nothing than something pernicious. She is a useful idiot of the socialist movement. She is a watermelon, green on the outside and red on the inside. The real accomplishment is opposing her and all the other climate alarmists. 

I might have some level of respect for her if she were to go to China and India and tell them what to do. Her handlers do not have that on their agenda. Any idea why? 

[Papillon + 485]

Then with respect sir, attack her 'handlers' and the 'socialist movement' rather than a teenage girl who arguably has little say deep down in these affairs, seeing as you referred also to her as a 'puppet' in a conversation title. This was my point above. I do not see memes of the agenda pushers or even particularly criticism, just of an unwell little girl. To quote yourself above, 'any idea why?' That was all I was trying to get across sir with respect, why the attacks on the 'puppet' and not the masters pulling the strings?

Edited December 3, 2019 by Papillon

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Spouting false information and alarming ignorant people is a very negative accomplishment

Jeez are we back to christianity again?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

🤣🤣   sorry Ron, couldn't resist lol x

Right now I'm done. A final quip just for you buddy. You love me really and you know it, Take care.