Discussing Biden's Potential China Policy


Phead128

Junior Member
Or since Industrial Revolution:

annual-co-emissions-by-region_v15_850x600.svg


INTERACTIVE VERSION:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

horse

Junior Member
Registered Member
Saying "We have very difficult issues that lie ahead,” is a reflection of reality, even Chinese analyst say that Phase Two is more difficult to negotiate than Phase One.
There will be no phase two of trade negotiations.

Made In China 2025, that would be the CCP idea of phase two of trade negotiations. After all the dirty dealings, there is nothing left to talk about. All phase one seems to be is a lowering of hostilities for the moment.


Then we have to consider what the Americans are doing. They are printing money to give directly to Wall Street (subsidizing financial industry), giving incentives for TSMC and the like to increase US production (subsidizing IC industry), bailout their farmers (subsidizing agricultural industry), placed tariffs on all sorts of industrial goods regardless of point of origin (protection of manufacturing industry).

Why does the USA want China to change when it does the same. The CCP will only laugh.

:D
 

plawolf

Brigadier
While I agree with the general sentiment that both Democrats/Republicans are imperialists and want to continue world hegemony, it's disingenous to equate them as continuation of Trump-era hyper-aggression. I think Trump-era is an anomaly among Democrats/Republicans, an overly extreme expression of anti-China containment that is unlikely to continue in the future. Biden is just a different shade of containment of China, one of competition instead of adversary.

Also, China and US are very complicated states, with a lot of nuances to both.

You are being naive to think the US under the Democrats was any less hyper-aggressive towards China in substance, they were just better at sugar coating it and got their cat paws to lead the charge so they can pretend they are sticking up for the little guys when they were themselves the master mind and driving force.

Biden was Obama’s VP, the same Obama who went after the SCS to try to gain the ability to cut Chinese sea based trade with military force. Which would have been far more damaging to China had they succeeded than a dozen of Trump’s trade and tech wars.

Trump was just more direct and honest with his shitfuckery, while being far less effective at actually getting things done.
 

ansy1968

Captain
Registered Member
Hi horse,

This one takes the cake.

Made In China 2025, that would be the CCP idea of phase two of trade negotiations. After all the dirty dealings, there is nothing left to talk about. All phase one seems to be is a lowering of hostilities for the moment.

Yup, Its like a MMA match, China had absorb all your best blow without using any retaliatory action, now your exhausted and needed a time out. Screw you!!! But you know the Chinese we are a humble race, we may agree on some trade agreement but not our core interest, and Made in China 2025 is one of them.
 

hullopilllw

Junior Member
Registered Member
Also somewhat counterintuitively, I think Harris might actually push India closer to China or at least stop encouraging India as a US pawn to fight China, she is half Indian herself and as Potus will know the US only plans to use India and throw it out later, India is better off siding with China than as part of a Quad...

Wishful thinking. She is first an American national, then partly ethic Indian. What makes you feel she will prioritise India's future over American interest(in sustaining hegemony;their most critical concern now).
 

Phead128

Junior Member
You are being naive to think the US under the Democrats was any less hyper-aggressive towards China in substance, they were just better at sugar coating it and got their cat paws to lead the charge so they can pretend they are sticking up for the little guys when they were themselves the master mind and driving force.

At best, Obama's Pivot to Asia added 1,200 troops in Darwin, Australia, added more PAC-3 missiles to Taiwan/Japan, boosted Pacific fleet by +10% to 60:40 ratio, more flights in ADIZ in East China Sea, FONOPs violations of SCS EEZ, Taiwan arms sales that is entirely defensive weaponry, sale of used US coastguard equipment to Vietnam/Phillipines, and failed attempt at TPP-style passive containment.

Compare that to Trump, who imposed 10-25% on $550 billion Chinese-goods, new THAAD on Korean peninsula, revival the QUAD anti-China alliance, fomented civil unrest/riots in HK, encouraged Independence forces on Taiwan, banned 89 Chinese companies on national security grounds, including Huawei 5G/ZTE/Tencent/TikTok, stymied Chinese semiconductor industry on key EUV tooling, significant Taiwan Arms sales including offensive weapons like HIMARs, SLAM-ER, new F-16Vs, proposed de-listing of Chinese IPOs on NYSE, arresting of Huawei Princess Meng Wanzhou, proposed thief of Huawei 5G patents, baseless propaganda on COVID lab-origin.

I'll let everyone decide for themselves who is achieved more against China.
Biden was Obama’s VP, the same Obama who went after the SCS to try to gain the ability to cut Chinese sea based trade with military force.

Trump has done twenty-six (26) FONOPS in SCS between 2017-2020.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Obama/Biden only did five (5) FONOPs in SCS EEZ between 2015-2016.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


So Trump did 520% more FONOPS than Obama/Biden, and there is still 2 mons left to his presidency...

So if you were concerned about "Malacca oil chokepoint", it would be under Trump, who vastly outperformed Obama in terms of FONOPs.

Which would have been far more damaging to China had they succeeded than a dozen of Trump’s trade and tech wars.
China tests
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
against a moving targets in SCS for the first time ever in response to Trump sending
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in SCS and U-2 violations of Chinese "No-Fly Zone". The last known live-test of DF-21D was against stationary squares in Gobi desert in 2013 (Obama-era)
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


It is self-explanatory why China felt compelled to live-test DF-21D against a moving target in SCS when Trump is in charge, and not under Obama's rule.

Trump was just more direct and honest with his shitfuckery
I agree with the general sentiment that Republicans are more honest and direct that they are warmongering brutish savages who wants to rape you, while Democrats will sugarcoat their words, try to be friendly, with a smile on their face while trying to stab you to death.

, while being far less effective at actually getting things done.

However, I am not convinced that Obama's Pivot to Asia did any real damage to China except shore up support among "usual suspects" in Asia after decades of neglect due to the unmanageable military commitments in Middle East and War on Terror. I do not understand the intricacies of TPP-style passive containment and implications for China in long-term, so maybe Democrats are playing 3D chess with TPP. I admit I don't know what TPP means for China.

In contrast, Trump has done significantly short-term damage to China. In the long-term, China will be stronger because of semiconductor self-sufficiency and technological independence, but there is significant economic opportunity costs in short-term. Trump is infinitely worse than Obama, though if someone can explain why TPP-style passive containment is worse than tech bans/trade war, I'll be open to changing my mind.
 
Last edited:

hashtagpls

Junior Member
Registered Member
Let's have a look at the priorities of Trump's people and Biden's people

Trump's mob: jihadists for white anglo supremacy (Bannon, Cotton), out and out racists (Pottinger, Navarro). Their aims are white anglo supremacy uber alles.

Biden's mob: Anti Russia die hards, cold warriors, Globohomo.

Given the choice between two turd sandwiches, i'd take the turd sandwich more distracted at trying to kill Russia than trying to kill you.
 

hullopilllw

Junior Member
Registered Member
Difference is that these events have allowed China's economy to boom at the cost of American jobs and manufacturing - this is 2020 where China is a superpower that is benefiting from decades of American overconsumption which is finally coming to bite Americans in the ass, and not 1994 when China was an emerging economy

Wrong. China's economy did not boom at the cost of American jobs. That is a highly naive view.

Most American manufacturing jobs are already lost to TW, Korea and Japan in the 80-90s.
, way before China gain entry into WTO.

The fundamental aim of US is as follows :
1. American capitalists want to maximise their profit, and that requires a large mass of competent, cheap labour and relatively stable political environment.
2. 2nd aim of course is not openly told to the Chinese. America's politicians wanted to make use of trade relation to achieve peaceful regime change in China. Once the trade channel is opened, US influence will flow in and in time change the political system of China. From communist to democracy. Not for the benefit of the Chinese. But rather so that the US can have a backdoor to shape China, at time and method of US' choosing, to comply with US global policy. In short, America habour an intent to use trade to subvert China. But of course, this is not reflect upfront, and Carter's speech is plainly sugarcoating it as : " We do not undertake this important step for transient tactical or expedient reasons. "

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

From China perspective :
1. They accepted the first wish. The Chinese provided the cheap labour, utilise their scale of economy to lower the production cost. And even sweetened the deal by sacrificing their own environment to squeeze out the max possible profit margin, most of which goes to American capitalists, leaving the few cents to the workers. The Chinese did not complain because profit is never their aim in the first place. their main objective is to master domestic industrialisation.

Result :

America :
1. American MNCs got what they want, their profit soar through the decades, shareholders got richer way beyond their wildest dream. But there is a price to pay, the group of, already uncompetitive, American manufacturing workers got poorer and sidelined by the politicians(who adopt policies for business). But note that this is an expected consequence right from the beginning, when the choice is made to allow American firms to prioritise profit. When the choice is made to shift towards clean FIRE economy(
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
), with substantially higher margin and easier life for everyone. The anger of these working class, by right, should be directed at the US government but are instead blamed on China.

2. It turns out the Chinese leadership read the 2nd intent of US politicians as above. The Chinese blocked it out halfway. American cultures and softpower symbols like Mc D, Starbucks, Hollywood films are allowed to get in, but that is as far as it goes. Congress funded NGOS, reporters, US social medias and several other propaganda channels are blocked. The State Dept got stumped and feel cheated when their unspoken objective failed. Which is why Mike Pence say China cheated. China cheated for not living up to Americas' expectation. China did not turn into a state servitude to the US, like how most nations does. To the eyes of American ruling elites, that is a crime.

China :
Through leaning from firstly Germany, TW, Japan then America, China mastered what they seek ; manufacturing skills. But the Chinese didnt stop there. Unlike nations that are willing to remain as sweatshops for foreign MNCs, the Chinese want to be in control of their own destiny. Utilising the skills gained, the Chinese start to build their own brands and companies. This move is uncalculated on part of the US. The Chinese economy boom begins when Chinese manufacturers begin selling straight to customers, taking the profit themselves instead of going to the middlemen(US MNCs).

China play by the rules, which is set by the US and play in US favour.
And China won.
 

gelgoog

Captain
Registered Member
@Phead128
Obama also forbade the sale of Intel chips to China for use in supercomputers which led to the development of the Sunway chips.
What makes you think the Democrats would allow the sale of EUV litho to China? They wouldn't.
A lot of what Trump made would have likely also happened under Obama. Also, I think a lot of people here underestimate the importance of Congress and the Senate in designing these sorts of sanctions. Just look at Russia with the Magnitsky Act.
The emphasis would be less on direct tariffs that is all.
 

Top