Whos Ma Chen and that org "Independent Chinese Pen Center"? Is it like an NGO/ "free press" group?
PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency
- Thread starter pugachev_diver
- Start date
Who cares. The only thing important is such hanjians exist.
Not that I’m advocating for China to just discount trade with Europe and the US but given China’s current level of development it absolutely could absorb all its industrial capacity domestically if it wanted to. There are still lots of people who could use newer nice things in China who could absorb excess capacity if you just made it cheap it enough for them. It would just be less financially efficient to run the economy that way.
As a graduate majoring in International Trade, I would say that international trade exists because it improves the situation for most of the participants.
China is not only the world's largest exporter but also the second-largest importer.
This means that we still have a significant demand for some manufactured goods or intermediate products from Western countries to meet our own consumption needs and to supplement the supply chain on the production side.
However, as time goes by and technology advances, China's demand for foreign industrial manufactured goods will gradually decline. By then, China's demand will only be for raw materials and agricultural and livestock products, and such trade will not allow Western countries to maintain their current affluent lifestyles.
This is the essence of the China-US conflict that we see. However, before this conflict is resolved through one side's victory or some form of win-win outcome, China and the West both have strong trade dependencies on each other. That said, I would say that China is the side with a lower degree of dependence, after all, we can sustain ourselves at a level of living comparable to that of the 2000s if not 2010s.
China is not only the world's largest exporter but also the second-largest importer.
This means that we still have a significant demand for some manufactured goods or intermediate products from Western countries to meet our own consumption needs and to supplement the supply chain on the production side.
However, as time goes by and technology advances, China's demand for foreign industrial manufactured goods will gradually decline. By then, China's demand will only be for raw materials and agricultural and livestock products, and such trade will not allow Western countries to maintain their current affluent lifestyles.
This is the essence of the China-US conflict that we see. However, before this conflict is resolved through one side's victory or some form of win-win outcome, China and the West both have strong trade dependencies on each other. That said, I would say that China is the side with a lower degree of dependence, after all, we can sustain ourselves at a level of living comparable to that of the 2000s if not 2010s.
When you look into the details China’s trade dependency with the US is basically almost nothing now thanks to the effect of 8 years of trade wars.
The problem with this post is that the US simply isn't interested in a win-win relationship with China. Under that circumstance, free flow of trade is no longer possible and a long term approach towards decoupling is the only reasonable approach. The problem for the West is that they don't believe in long term planning, and they seem to have no idea what strategic materials are.
Not so. In fact, the fact that I can chat with you on this forum right now would not be possible without American computer hardware and software services obtained through trade.
China may completely rid itself of this kind of foreign dependency in 5~10 years, but not now.
I believe it is precisely because of this short-sightedness on the part of the West that they would be unable to use trade sanctions to trouble China after the PLA liberates Taiwan. They simply cannot bear the pain caused by such trade sanctions.
Meanwhile, the CPC is actually not interested in causing the collapse of the West by lowering the living standards of its own people.
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
No, dude, think about the core meaning of the economy. When all civility and artificial institutions are done away with, what is it? It's a matter of producing goods to sustain and embellish the lives of your citizens. Money has no intrinsic value. Selling your goods for their money is only meaningful if you use that money of theirs to buy their things for your own use. The main thing that China buys from the West is technology. The equation used to balance as China trading everyday goods like toys, washing machines, etc... for high tech goods like cars, planes, industrial robots, etc... As their technology slips and ours overtakes, we need that import less and less but they need our exports more and more, expanding to the things we used to need them for. Now they still need us for their toys and kitchen appliances and easy bullshit but now they also need us for our EV cars, computer chips, cellphones, industrial robots, etc... What do we need from them? Barely anything and waning. So if we don't want anything from them, what are we selling them things for? Just their money? It's just decorative paper! That equation no longer balances. Our citizens are working to give them better lives, trading for freely-printed decorative paper and these whiney little bitches are complaining that we're being unfair to them! Cut the relationship! Chinese can enjoy what we make; they can cover themselves in money they print. See who's better off.
This doesn't apply to countries in the global south where we can get raw materials from in trade for our manufactured goods. We can sell for their currency to buy their resources and they can sell for the RMB for things that modernize and enhance their lives. Win-win.
OK cool, so I guess in the end, America just have to accept defeat or we can all nuke out and start over. America's biggest advantage was a higher starting point than China. We all know who moves faster. So I'm cool with starting on the same line as them any day. If their will for dominance is iron than our will to break it is steel.
Using feigned irrationality and hysteria to threaten China into making concessions is itself a form of deterrence.
If 1,000 nuclear bombs can't keep them sane, then build 3,000, 10,000. China also has the right to be irrational and hysterical
"Should good guy be held at gunpoint?"
Last edited: