Trade War with China

Gatekeeper said:

"They helped China modernize its economy to oppose the USSR but now that China itself is becoming a bigger threat they will seek to destabilize China."

I'm not sure the US helped China to modernised? It certainly wasn't their intention. The US just wanted an extra weight to balance the Soviet threat.
It seek to do this by befriended China and offered her market for low cost goods in exchange for China buying their high techs like Boeing. Etc. (Deng pointed out to carter that China had to sell millions of low cost made in China shoes to buy one Jumbo jet).
It was a simple case of trade that could benefit both parties and at the same time keep China in the west orbit and away from the Soviet. That's all. It never was US intention to "help" China to modernised!
It was China's own sweat and toiled that make China what it is today!

Click to expand...

Sure. I do not discount that. The Chinese are industrious and were willing and able to modernize. No amount of trade would do that unless they themselves put the effort into it.
Nothing was given to the Chinese that they not pay with sweat and toil.
Perhaps it would be better to say that they didn't hinder them or restrict trade.
At least until Tianamen and even then those sanctions basically only applied to the military sector.
Before that the Western countries even actively collaborated with China on several military projects.

Other countries have had similar amounts of market access and did not progress to the same degree that China because of that lack of purpose or poor coordination. But do not discount the ability of the global corporations to undermine nationally important technologies or companies.

Brazil just handed Embraer on a silver platter to Boeing for example. Imagine something like that happening in China if the companies were in the public stock market and available for foreign acquisition. Companies can be bought, even dismantled and shipped away, and a market position which took decades to achieve obliterated.

Just look at what happened to Nokia in Europe for example. Why do you think Europe does not have any large Internet or electronic consumer goods companies?
They have been systematically brought down, broken up, and sold for parts.

the so-called "500 years west dominion" is a gross exageration. the driven force behind the west domonion is "the industrial revolution" which started around 1760, before that it's basically the west pirates plundered the world.

I think it is a reference on how Europe, rather than China, discovered and colonized the Americas and parts of Africa.
Thus expanding the sphere of influence of Europe. Enabling them to eventually outpace Chinese growth.

I agree with you. It took until like the XIXth century before China really crumbled.
But the Chinese themselves typically either put the start of the fall at the time of the Yongle Emperor or the fall of the Ming and the start of the Qing dinasty.

gelgoog said:

Sure. I do not discount that. The Chinese are industrious and were willing and able to modernize. No amount of trade would do that unless they themselves put the effort into it.
Nothing was given to the Chinese that they not pay with sweat and toil.
Perhaps it would be better to say that they didn't hinder them or restrict trade.
At least until Tianamen and even then those sanctions basically only applied to the military sector.
Before that the Western countries even actively collaborated with China on several military projects.

Other countries have had similar amounts of market access and did not progress to the same degree that China because of that lack of purpose or poor coordination. But do not discount the ability of the global corporations to undermine nationally important technologies or companies.

Brazil just handed Embraer on a silver platter to Boeing for example. Imagine something like that happening in China if the companies were in the public stock market and available for foreign acquisition. Companies can be bought, even dismantled and shipped away, and a market position which took decades to achieve obliterated.

Just look at what happened to Nokia in Europe for example. Why do you think Europe does not have any large Internet or electronic consumer goods companies?
They have been systematically brought down, broken up, and sold for parts.

Click to expand...

Glad we are on the same page!

LesAdieux said:

the so-called "500 years west dominion" is a gross exageration. the driven force behind the west domonion is "the industrial revolution" which started around 1760, before that it's basically the west pirates plundered the world.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure who claimed 500 years?

tidalwave said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Sneaky US wants actually one thing only but its too embarrassing to ask so that's why they are so vague in their demand in trade talk.

And they throw out alot of vague and big words like IP Protection, protection of US companies intellectual property. That's not an issue. China already has a law to forbid forceful transfer of technology in joint venture. CHina has its own research and development and dont need US to share technology at this point. US knows it. That's NOT what it really really wants. IP Protection is only a smokescreen,

Then there's the big words, structural change to state effect to economy. what do they mean by that?? US is very vague to this.

but the picture is getting clear and clear by process logic deduction.

US actually wants one thing and one thing only but too embarrassed to ask out directly because its too intrusive , overbearing.
What US wants from CHina is the chinese government to stop funding for investment for hightech. WOW, this is like telling a person how to spend its own money!!! That's way too intrusive and overbearing. THis is China sovereign matter of how it wants to spend its own money!! That's why US is so very vague in what it really wants in trade talk and keep throwing out smokescreen like IP protection and big words like structural changes. US is too embarrased to ask what it really wants from China !!!!

Click to expand...

Of course it's a smoke screen!
First, the "so called forced technology transfer". No one forced the CEO of the companies concerned to do such thing if they don't want to. If they were ever asked to transfer technology in exchange for market access for example. They can simply walk away. As an accountant we do cost/benefit analysis and NPV etc. On investment decisions.
The CEO must have been advised by their chef financial offericer that even with technology transfer, the investment still amounted to a postive outcome.
Therefore the investment is worthwhile and it's worth losing tech for the greater gain! If not. Then the investment is not worth pursuing and simply walk away.
So at the end of the day it's always about US's fixation on becoming second behind China. (Trump actually said so himself and boasted about it when he said before he took over as president. China was on course to overtake US by 2020. And that now ain't going to happen because of him)!
So to stop it from happening. US is going to dictate to China on how to conduct her economic policy and therefore infringe on CHINA's sovereignty! Just like they do on almost w very countries in the world. No change there then.

@tidalwave

That seems like a continuous issue with the trade war. It is some form of economic sabotage, only they have no idea what to actually target.

Example:

- To target the revenue of Chinese companies, limiting incoming tech transfer is a good idea

- But by stopping own tech transfers at the same time, US is efffectively reimbursing the lost revenue.

The result is strengthening the Chinese economy overall, maybe not by extreme growth (although growth still hit a record this year) but by easing competition for Chinese companies. We see this with Chinese tech brands off to a historically strong start and American brands suffering damage.

From a purely economical and technological perspective, China and US are not peer opponents any more than US and Soviet were peer opponents. The fact that the PLA is held back to be “just strong enough to defend territorial integrity” due to the prevalence of doves in the leadership blinds many Americans to this fact.

And putting itself in the spotlight by shameless acts is liable to changing the composition of the leadership. It’s probably not lost on most of the party center that nearly all US moves rely on military/violent means and could be ceased by overwhelming force.

Chances are, Trump DOES get China to stop Made in China 2025, because his actions get the politicians behind it kicked out of office and replace them with pro-rearmament politicians who will funnel all the tech and funds into the military industrial complex.

Biscuits said:

Chances are, Trump DOES get China to stop Made in China 2025

Click to expand...

Xi may actually concede on Made in China 2025 -- but in name only. I don't think 2025 was a real deadline, and getting it to happen that soon would have been unlikely anyhow. So Xi might change 2025 to 2030, which would be more practical anyway.

I doubt Trump could force Xi to destroy the underlying trends of technological progress in China: a huge wave of engineers and a large economy capable of supporting them.

Nutrient said:

Xi may actually concede on Made in China 2025 -- but in name only. I don't think 2025 was a real deadline, and getting it to happen that soon would have been unlikely anyhow. So Xi might change 2025 to 2030, which would be more practical anyway.

I doubt Trump could force Xi to destroy the underlying trends of technological progress in China: a huge wave of engineers and a large economy capable of supporting them.

Click to expand...

Lol they won't agree to anything. Trump will just add back whatever tariffs on China at any point his approval rates go down. having an enemy really unites the people.