[saltking112]

One thing that I really like about the Trump administration is that finally the WH has decided to act against the systemic threat posed by China.

Can someone who is well versed in politics shed some light on if this is a trump specific phenonemon or had there been a sea change and the dems are now on board too ?

[pesmhey]

Obama was manufacturing the pivot to Asia. The TTP would have given a lot of power to corporations to combat China. This presents its own set of problems though.

Clinton was adamant that her grandchildren would not be speaking Chinese.

China has been acknowledged as a threat since 2008 really, by everyone really, just, sometimes people need a very visual and visceral demonstration of action (no matter how less-optimal it actually is). Surely some business people in here can relate to that sentiment?

[wavefunction]

From what I understand many corporate victims of Chinese industrial espionage since 2008 specifically declined to pursue prosecution for fear of what it would do to their existing or potential for business with Chinese entities and individuals.[0]

And this was despite a Justice Department that was chomping at the bit to prosecute Chinese industrial espionage. I bring this up because I think this shows why leaving weighty matters involving the security and future of your country up to corporations is a poor idea, especially when corporations are motivated solely by profit as corporatists gleefully remind us at all times.

[0]https://www.npr.org/2019/04/12/711779130/as-china-hacked-u-s...

[pesmhey]

Do you think the TPP was a response to this fear? Genuine question here.

[ENOTTY]

My instinct is that an Obama/Clinton administration would not have used a trade blacklist or tariffs.

[refurb]

Probably not. The Obama approach was a much softer touch.

Trump is certainly following up on his threats, but that approach carries some big risks as China can retaliate. It will come down to who blinks first.

[thawaway1837]

It may have been a “softer” approach but it would Have been a far cheaper, and more effective approach.

It would also have had the benefit of building alliances that centered around the US, as opposed to weakening alliances.

The tariffs have served to strengthen China’s position in the world, more than anything else. As an example, consider the fact that Germany is now allowing the Chinese to enter their market.

The reality is that when the RoW sees the US trying to strangle China economically in this fashion, they recognize that they also could be next (or, as was the case in the Trump tariffs, the European and Japanese allies were first on being hit by tariffs).

The only long term effect this is gonna have is basically to blunt American economic leadership, and the centrality of the American economy to the world.

Which may be a good thing, frankly, for the world at large, but is almost certainly not gonna be a good thing for American leadership and quality of life.

[pinkfoot]

"…Germany is now allowing the Chinese to enter their market."

Out of curiosity, when did the Federal Government have a ban on Chinese companies doing business in Germany?

[refurb]

It will remain to be seen how effective the Trump approach is.

[sremani]

Obama and Trump administration demands are pretty much similar, but when China said NO, their responses are totally different. Trump is taking China to the mat which Obama did not (what ever the reason may be).

[learc83]

Obama's response to contain China was the TPP. It could have been more (or less--no way to know) effective than Trump's, Obama just didn't tweet about it.

[sremani]

TPP was bad idea, it was so anti-worker I am surprised that a Democrat is supporting it. I do not have to say about the settlement system of TPP. It was stupid, literally having parallel legal system outside of all the current legal system.

TPP died for good reasons because it for technocrats by technocrats.

[pesmhey]

Can you point out some of the ways it was anti-worker? Genuine question btw

[maximente]

it was certainly anti american worker. here are some reasons why:

- would have removed US govt general requirement to buy goods produced in america

- would have moved jobs to vietnam (lower min. wage than china) instead of back to US, putting downward wage pressure on US manufacturing workers

- protect more investments in offshoring than NAFTA does (read: incentivize offshoring) in both manufacturing and services

http://cepr.net/documents/publications/TPP-2013-09.pdf

[dragontamer]

And under Trump, the steel tariffs have basically forced Ford and GM to stop making sedans in the USA and instead make them in Mexico. Ford Focus: moved to China (Ironically). Ford Fusion: Cancelled. GM Volt: Cancelled. Harvey Davidson: moving to Europe.

Things aren't exactly simple, and I am not convinced that the tariffs + tax cuts have helped the American worker at all. US Manufacturing is down for two months in a row now, and I don't see it getting any better any time soon.

We're at a point where the Trump-defenders need to start explaining exactly what these tariffs are supposed to do and why they think the tariffs are helping. The tariffs have been in effect for well over a year, do you have any evidence that they're helping yet?

---------

Frankly, I don't care how much we hurt, or help, China. It was supposed to be "American First". So lets talk about America and whether or not these policies help Americans.

[quotz]

Youre thinking in the short-term. Of course there are going to be short term economic losses for the US when Trump announced the bans and the tariffs. But its only short term until the west figures out how to defeat the communists. In the long term, theres gain, not just in the economy of western countries, but most importantly gain in human rights, human dignity, and most of all, liberty! China's oligarchs would get mad at the CCP when the economy starts going to shambles and when they cant take their money out of the country.

[Consultant32452]

It's too early to tell. Wars of any kind, including trade wars, are a short term cost hoping for a long term gain. If the Chinese economy is hurt more than the American economy that is one level of success. Then, if manufacturing moves back to the US and other Western hemisphere nations that's another level of success.

[bduerst]

Kind of - Japan ratified the TPP, and Obama just said he'd talk about it.

Regardless, you're still right. In lieu of the TPP falling apart, China created it's own version to control APAC trade and fill the power gap, called RCEP. The trade war and the "America First" attitude has only incentivized China to speed up the negotiations, which if successful, will control something like half the world's global GDP.

The next RCEP meeting is next month and it will be interesting to see what comes from it.

[mc32]

I think it’s early. Many of those countries see China suspiciously but also want trade. We’ll see if those countries are able to push back on one sided aspects.

[bakuninsbart]

Very doubtful that it will go anywhere soon. Not only do half the ASEAN countries and China have territorial disputes, India and China have rather cautious and cold relationships. Both SK and Japan are also very cautious towards China and have cold relationships with each other.

I would think that at least the South China Sea territorial dispute would have to be settled, China would have to (at least symbolically) drop its support for Pakistan, and Japan and SK would need some form of reconciliation.

[tzs]

> Kind of - Japan ratified the TPP, and Obama just said he'd talk about it

What do you mean by "just said he'd talk about it"?

[mytailorisrich]

The pivot to Asia was extremely sensible policy.

It recognised that Asia was going to be the most important region by far, and that short of a war China and likely India were going to be superpowers at least as big as the US.

Therefore the logical conclusion was to engage in order for the US to be able to influence and to reap the economic benefits.

[dillondoyle]

Also in my opinion TPP critically united other Asian nations. I think Trump admins' abandoning of traditional allies/structures like TPP and ceding soft/hard power across the board for the sake of 'America First' is going to have lasting damage and is thus not putting America First in the long term...

[Mountain_Skies]

Pan-Asian relations is far more complex than just China and not-China. TPP wouldn't change that.

[mc32]

Yep, also Bernie denounced the TPP. So it’s not an anti-Democrat position, thought it’s an anti-globalist position.

[deogeo]

> The TTP would have given a lot of power to corporations to combat China.

It would have given a lot of power to corporations, period. The same corporations that lobbied for so many anti-consumer and anti-democracy provisions, that both Trump and Sanders agreed it was awful, and ultimately caused the TPP to fail.

As for Clinton and the democrats - I wouldn't count on them to oppose China. Even after it was revealed Biden and Kerry's kids got $1 billion of Chinese investment right after their parents' diplomatic mission to China [1], they haven't denounced either. In fact, Biden is one of their presidential candidates.

[1] https://nypost.com/2018/03/15/inside-the-shady-private-equit...

[bavell]

TPP was awful just on it's copyright content alone, nevermind the other purported garbage in there. Here's [0] the EFF on TPP copyright.

[0] https://www.eff.org/issues/tpps-copyright-trap

[bassman9000]

would have given a lot of power to corporations to combat China

How? Apple and the NBA just bent to China's wishes. How would that have worked out?

[Karunamon]

The NBA rescinded that IIRC

[bassman9000]

Rescinded what? We just experienced how quickly they'll throw anyone under the bus if it harms their chinese market. For the downvotes: how would the TTP have helped companies police this?

edit: https://twitter.com/i/events/1182034806474825728

even at home

[yumraj]

Unfortunately Dems are NOT on board.

I remember one of the earlier debates and, when asked, I think most (all?) candidates had China much later in their priority list, after issues like healthcare, immigration, economy, Russia and so.

[mrlala]

>NOT on board

>had China much later in their priority list

Pick one?

>healthcare

As someone who is self employed and spends more than $20k for healthcare every year for a relatively healthy family of 4... you can just fuck right off if you don't think healthcare is a major major priority in this country.

People need to be HEALTHY in order to be HAPPY. There are so, so, so many people who can't afford to go to the doctor/dentist. They just hope for the best. Then something simple like breaking an ankle happens and it puts them into even further debt when they are already behind.

It's a viscous cycle, and sometimes it even seems like it's intended to keep down the poor.

[JoeAltmaier]

Whoa - its possible to have dental care and go to the doctor for most things, and not cost $20K per year.

So, healthcare/insurance is not really a priority for people - until it is. Until something major/fixable but very expensive occurs. Then its a priority.

So forgive people for being a little blind on the subject. Its insurance after all - you're betting the other guy your house will burn down, and hoping they win. Very strange issue, and not entirely obvious what the best solution might be.

If we could pay for everybody's unlimited medical care, maybe we'd do that. But it might not be affordable. So what kind of 'rationing' do we concede to? Because that's where the issue ends up.

[mrlala]

>Whoa - its possible to have dental care and go to the doctor for most things, and not cost $20K per year.

How do you figure that?

My health care premiums are $1350 a month for a 10k deductible and 30% co-insurance. My dental premiums are $200/mo.That is $1550/mo WITHOUT any out of pocket costs even. I'm a the premera bronze plan. This isn't even a gold plan. There are a couple plans that are _slightly_ less expensive but a bit more restrictive.

So please, how am I magically supposed to lower my costs and still be covered in case of a catastrophic event? Or serious illness like cancer? Are you suggesting I buy the $100/mo plans that cover basically NOTHING and would do NOTHING if a member of my family got cancer?

Come on. Lay it on the table. Tell me what to do?

>If we could pay for everybody's unlimited medical care, maybe we'd do that. But it might not be affordable.

Hello JoeAltmair, please meet THE REST OF THE CIVILIZED WORLD which is able to do it.

And let me give you a little analogy here. A big company like.. Microsoft, for example, is able to probably negotiate their health care premiums quite a bit because of a large base of people right? Way lower than "my cost" which is 4 people.

Now let me do something really crazy here.. bear with me.. what if we pooled over 300 million people together to have a massive base where the taxes that pay for the program are able to cover the people with little-to-no medical issues and the more extreme cases? Holy shit, what an idea.. how has no one ever thought of this before............................. are you still following me?

[JoeAltmaier]

The point I was attempting to make was, we rarely spend $20K a year on actual dental and miscellaneous medical expenses. Its the catastrophic stuff that's the real, entire reason for the insurance.

Clear?

[mrlala]

>we rarely spend $20K a year on actual dental and miscellaneous medical expenses

Yes and no.. I'm estimating $20k/4 = $5k/person for dental/medical. I mean.. with the arbitrary costs of things, that's not too insane. To say "rarely" doesn't do it justice.. pregnancy+kid? That's probably AT LEAST $15k without complications, so that boosts up the average. Young kids need a lot of visits/stuff..

Anyway, yeah I still agree that $5k/person is a bit high on what is actually spent by people if we took the whole population. Although there are so many extremes that bump up the numbers that maybe it isn't?

>Its the catastrophic stuff that's the real, entire reason for the insurance.

I agree with that.. sort of. But I think it's a misnomer to call "health insurance" just insurance.. I'm also supposed to use "health insurance" for annual visits to make sure everyone is ok. That's not insurance, that is simply keeping people healthy and a NECESSITY.

"Life insurance" is for the very unlikely situation that I will die in my 30s, and I want my family to have some security if I do.

"Health insurance" is an absolute NECESSITY because people get sick, they break bones, they have babies. We lump all this normal stuff to stay healthy in the same category as "cancer" or a massive car accident.

>Clear?

Not at all. Because you haven't given me any options. I 100% NEED "health insurance" or rather "regular health care + health insurance for the extreme" for my family. Agreed? My options are to either pay this ridiculous amount of money or have no insurance and "hope for the best". What a great country we are!

[mytailorisrich]

Calling any country that has the potential to overtake the US "a systemic threat" that must be "fought" is very dangerous.

Essentially this means that the US will try to defend their position as top power by hammering down anything they deem to be getting too big.

This is not realistic and this is how to start WWIII.

[knowledge102]

I agree that mentality is dangerous. In my other comment I wrote my stance on why it's I consider it a threat.

I copied and pasted it below

---

I care about avoiding war and avoiding exploitation.

Historically, the best way to avoid major wars, is to have a major power or an allies of power (possible in multipolar word), or strong enough attack power(nukes) to scare off the idea of war -- i.e a strong enough deterrent to make going war be a bad idea. No one wants to go to war if they know they will be destroyed. Like how a robber won't rob a house if they know a person with a gun will be waiting for them.

So if we want to avoid the loss of life on the scale of the world wars, then we need to avoid massive conflict between the major powers (who have the greatest destructive power by definition). Since they are major powers, with long alliances, a conflict with the U.S. and China would involve at least, U.S, China, Japan, South Korea, North Korea, Taiwan, the NATO countries of Europe, Canada. It's also very likely that it would involve Russia, India, Pakistan, Australia. Other countries that may be dragged in for strategic purposes would be essentially every country in Asia (including southeast Asia), North America, and the Middle East/any sources of oil.

The disruption to the balance of power, is extremely dangerous. That is the cause of war. It's creates such a powerful economic and political incentive to maintain dominance by obliterating the competition. Imagine your friendly giant corporation and their tendency to value money over everything, if they were allowed to kill their competition and killing them would lead to those sweet monopoly profits, do you think are moral enough to not just not just kill their competition instead of doing all that hard work of economic competition?

The fact that there's a strong chance of war is what concerns me so much about a rising China. Both the U.S. and China has the huge prize of being the dominant power if they destroy the other.

To maintain peace and avoid a huge loss of life, there has to be a big enough deterrence to make war not appealing. They each have to compete immensely in order to make the deterrence strong enough. This is why the U.S. and Soviet Union had an arms race. They also have to compete economically, so they can fund their defense.

Now, lets say war is avoided, and power is more evenly distributed. By definition, that means the U.S. has less influence than others do. Then should another country do something that exploits the U.S., then by definition we have less power to stop that. This could be some trade deals that hurt the U.S. economy (i.e. jobs, and livelihoods of people) to the extreme of war against an alliance far stronger than us.

I agree that the U.S. has done some horrible things during it's hegemony, and I do not support them. But the brutal reality is that, others would do the same to us.

I think the best case scenario is that we avoid war and reach a new stable/peaceful balance of power, and the many now powerful countries provide healthy competition to the U.S. while still bringing wealth to themselves and their people. For the sake of my country and it's people, I hope the we the U.S. is still powerful enough to defend ourselves from foreign exploitation, competitive enough to prosper in that world, and free enough to enjoy the rights that many in countries like China do not.

[spamizbad]

That's what TPP was supposed to be. Instead it was torpedo'd and replace with us unilaterally engaging in a trade war, where we place stiff tariffs and "blacklist" vendors.

You could argue these things hurt China more than the US, and while that may be true, it's also true that China arguably has a higher "pain tolerance" than the United States. If the economy softens, Trump's reelection chances evaporate. Meanwhile Xi could probably run the Chinese economy into the ground and hold onto power.

[knowledge102]

The threat from China has been existent and ignored for the past 30 years, the same 30 years that China rose from 3rd world country to the superpower it is today.

The change in attitude began with Trump. He was to first president to bring the threat of China to the mainstream political discourse. Since then, China is so objectively a threat to the U.S. economically, militarily and through their direct actions of manipulating U.S. businesses, countering our influence internationally, that bipartisian support was easy to flourish once someone actually took an anti-china stance.

The power of the Chinese market, low wage labor, sophisticated and concentrated foreign policy manipulation, and their stated strategy of "hiding their strength and biding their time" (until Xi), has worked to make the U.S. turn a blind eye. The problem of China has been present to any competent political scientist for a while now. But the amount of money incentives and ignorance on the part of U.S. business and political leaders made it so they would in essence be bribed to ignore the issue.

Obama did a pivot to asia, with the TTP at its helm, but in reality after 8 years of presidency and negotatitions, the results were nothing unfortunately. TTP is debatable as a solution. Even with the TTP, the U.S. has been losing 300 billion a year to China in trade. Granted this results in cheaper products for us, but 300 billion dollar trade surplus for China is what funded the communist dictatorship growing military spending, leading to a military that can be as powerful as the U.S.'s one day. 300 billion each year is more profit that what all the U.S's top tech companies make each year combined. The rise of China is not a miricale, like Japan's, Koreas, and other early east asian miricales, it was bought by America's consumers and political inaction.

Some theory, although depressing admittely: There is no government for governments, so each country lives in anarchy. Therefore nothing is off limits to get what you need to survive, including war. Countries go to war and act in self interest because, if they are not strong, whoever is will likely use their power to exploit the other country.

A balance of power brings stability. If there is 1 superpower, the world becomes globalized ( US after fall of soviet union). No world wars, because anyone who fights the dominant superpower will lose. This is called unipolar, one of the most stable and peaceful states for major powers.

Now when another power comes to rise, it is like a startup rising to crush the industry monopoly. Except, instead of having to battle it out economically, they can litteraly kill each other (or on the scale of countries, war).

The incentives for major war skyrocket

Britian was was the major power, they controlled 3/4ths of the world through their colonies and their unstoppable navy. Then industrial revolution and trains led to the rise of land powers, and the rise of Germany's economy. The rising powers, the disruption the balance of power eventually led to the world wars.

After that was U.S vs Soviet Union. The two sole superpowers after WW2 were on the brink of the nuclear war. for about 50 years.

The soviet union collapsed because communism with corruption was unable to keep up with captialism.

Now the U.S once the sole superpower, faces the rise of China. The chances of World War 3 are higher than ever, although they have calmed down from the high tensions of year or 2 ago.

I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I think it is important that we finally realize the immense threat that China is. Not just economically, but for our safety. Their goal is to be the top superpower, and to make the U.S. and anyone else bend to their will, as is every countries goal

[noelsusman]

Trump was not the first president to bring the threat of China into mainstream political discourse. The most famous moment of the 2012 presidential debates was Obama mocking Romney for naming Russia as our biggest geopolitical adversary rather than China. It has been a constant topic of discussion in Washington for decades. Also, economists nearly universally agree that trade deficits are not remotely the same as "losing" money to a country. That's not how trade deficits work. I have a massive trade deficit with my local grocery store, and nobody would describe that as a problem. These are the same economist who also universally agree that China is a major threat to US economic power.

The US has been facing the same problem that every superpower faces. We benefit from a stable global geopolitical climate, so any move that rocks the boat is bad for us. That's why every president until Trump has been reluctant to truly bring out the big guns with China. Those guns hurt us as much as China, and Trump is feeling that now. His trade war with China has wiped out most of the economic benefits of his big tax cut legislation.

Previous presidents weren't hapless morons on this issue. They just realized that we don't have many strong cards to play here. The TPP was the best card we had, but frankly I was pretty skeptical of how effective it would be. I'm similarly skeptical that Trump's strategy will be effective. China can easily afford to wait him out.

[knowledge102]

I agree trade deficits aren't necessarily bad for the economy. Lower cost of products means more efficient use of resources, lower cost for businesses and consumers. There are negative too, like how U.S. employment loses out since Chinese companies out compete their U.S. counter parts to death (although competition can be healthy) but my main argument isnt that.

The biggest issue about trade deficits with China is purely economic, it political/strategic. The trade deficit with China helps China grow in power. Their economy grows, and with the huge influx of taxes, they are investing in their military and foreign influence operations more and more.

Is it worth the economic benefit to cement the U.S's biggest strategic threat, who is also a brutal dictatorship? The long terms negatives, may outweigh the short term benefits.

You also bring up some good points. Any action against China back then could have hurt the U.S. as well, and our course of action may have been the lowest risk path, and arguably the lowest risk path may be the best one.

[kelnos]

I think the TPP would have hurt China quite badly. I'm still happy it failed, though: the copyright provisions were awful, and some of the rest of it looked far too much like a slide toward corporatism for my taste.

[mirimir]

I agree with most of your points. However, about this ...

> The threat from China has been existent and ignored for the past 30 years, the same 30 years that China rose from 3rd world country to the superpower it is today.

... I'm moved to note that it was Kissinger, as part of the post-WWII globalization effort, who helped China industrialize.

As I understand it, the idea is that war is less likely among nations, at comparable levels of economic and technological development, whose economies are strongly linked through trade.

The Soviet Union had helped China develop militarily, with tanks, ships, planes, missiles, and nuclear weapons. But it did a shit job, overall. So diverting China from ideological military confrontation to economic interdependence seemed like a smart move.

Longer term, though -- as you argue -- we have an overall stronger adversary than the Soviet Union would likely have become. They could have, with our help, destroyed modern civilization. But they arguably would have never dominated the world as the US has since WWII. As China may.

[knowledge102]

The Kissinger move was more to diminish the power of the Soviet Union, by straying China away from them.

You're right, war is less likely among nations with strongly linked economies. The important thing to note is that, at the same time, the survival self-interest of a county to dominant the other does not go away.

Which means that economic interdependence only helps avoid war so long as war itself doesn't provide more benefits.

China loved the idea that was popular in the the US of "peaceful" rising China, it meant people ignored the long term strategic threats militarily.

China has risen economically, and now they are aiming to have a military more powerful than the U.S.. They are also growing their influence in South America and Africa to get new markets, resources, and ultimately get rid of the dependence on the US market.

So, the dependence helped deter war in the short-term, but the economic gains let China position them better to serve the self-interest of being dominant.

[mirimir]

Yes, I totally agree.

There was already conflict between China and the Soviet Union. But yes, that increased as China gradually introduced capitalism, with decreasing emphasis on central planning.

And that intervention did indeed finally jump start economic development and modern industrialization in China. After the catastrophic Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward. But that didn't include national-level democracy and Western-style individual rights and freedoms. Likely contrary to Kissenger's expectations.

So yes, China might become the dominant world power. And that might roll back some global consequences of the European Enlightenment. Who would have thought?

[newfriend]

Great comment.

It has absolutely been a problem for decades, and most likely a well-known one. I was recently watching a collection of old jokes from Saturday Night Live from the 90s, and came upon this from Weekend Update in 1996:

> Following the surprise withdrawal of his nominee Anthony Lake, President Clinton has chosen acting CIA director George Tenant to head up the agency. Now all he needs is the approval of the House, the Senate, and this Chinese guy. [Photo of elderly bespectacled Asian man]

https://snltranscripts.jt.org/96/96pupdate.phtml

[cat199]

probably a reference to this whole thing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_campaign_fi...

some posit that this (may have) helped elect the clintons who in turn moved for the WTO/trade liberalization.

[H8crilA]

> although they have calmed down from the high tensions of year or 2 ago

What specifically looks more peaceful now?

[knowledge102]

There's certain events that can escalate strategic competition to conflict. Like in WW1, the "powder keg" was set by the strategic competition between multiple countries in Europe and the way the balance of power was distributed. The assassination of of the Archduke did not create this powderkeg, but it triggered it.

The "powder kegs" today are mainly the competition between the United States against China. There's also regional competition / "powderkegs", like Europe and Russia, Saudi Arabia and Iran, India and Pakistan.

Events that could have triggered these powder kegs/massive conflicts have calmed down a bit (relatively). The biggest ones have been when U.S vs North Korea rhetoric was at a tense high (China is heavily involved with NK and would likely get involved in any war there like they did in the 1950 Korean war), India-Pakistan (two nuclear powers bordering China) had some conflict on their border and were a the brink of war for a bit there (India is big competitor to China, Pakistan its big ally), and to a lesser extent Iran. If conflict were to arise in Iran, it would have probably been another middle eastern war (lots of money and death, few results), it would likely have Russia involvement like in Syria, and potentially China (although china like the money approach to influence, as they have put money towards influencing countries like Iran, and to a lesser extent Afghanistan and others).

[saltking112]

Thank you. Can you recommend some books on the subject? Or related subjects ?

[knowledge102]

For a decent understanding of the nature of politics, I would research some political theory, specifically "Realism".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_%28international_relat...

As for book recommendations, is there a specific topic you want to focus on? What are understanding are you looking to get out of them?

There's books on the rise of Asian economies, books on political theory that go more in depth, books on the politics and economics of China, history books on wars between rival powers, books on the history of Asia..etc

[ncfausti]

When China Rules the World by Jaqcues and AI Superpowers by Kai-Fu Lee are both very good.

[chrisjc]

> bipartisian support was easy to flourish once someone actually took an anti-china stance

Apart from Yang I haven't heard (partially because I haven't sought it out) any other democratic candidate voice any opinion on this matter. I really fear that if Trump doesn't have a second term, any Democrat will cut bait, sending a very dangerous message to the CCP.

edit: Actually, not sure I've heard Yang's stance on this either, just his opinion about the whole China/NBA matter.

[knowledge102]

Yea unfortunately it's pretty low key. The bipartisan support has been seen more in some actions by congress against China.

It's still not as big of a focus of attention to the general public as are other issues, and it could potentially become ignored. Sometimes, I wonder if these politicians even know enough political science or have enough awareness of the global landscape to understand the threat.

One of the most disappointing moment was when Joe Biden said that China was not competition, echoing the previous U.S. excuse for inaction from before. I think he backpeddled on that statement after backlash, but I'm not sure.

[lainga]

House Democrats have been fairly consistently anti-PRC since 1989. The last (failed) attempt to repeal PNTR was spearheaded by Bernie Sanders in 2005.

[luckydata]

You will not find a person that despises current POTUS more than me, but I'm also very positive about the fact that China is finally being identified as a real and present threat.

Unfortunately current POTUS is doing his very best to implement ineffective measures, it would have hurt China a LOT more to enter into TPP (I know, horrible treaty otherwise) than the stupid tariffs that were imposed.

At the end of the day, as a society we need to come to grips with a simple question: do we as a society keep doing business with a country that behaves like an enemy in any way that matters, and commits genocide and mass censorship of free speech for the profit of private corporations, or we say that our values (as imperfect in their application as they might be) are worth more than money?

I'm not holding my breath for us doing the right thing.

[gdy]

"we say that our values (as imperfect in their application as they might be) are worth more than money"

The US keeps selling weapons to the Saudi Arabia that uses them to wage a war of aggression in Yemen, that has brazenly murdered a journalist working for an American newspaper, that executes opposition figures based on fake charges of terrorism, that treats women and gays as inferior.

What sort of values are you talking about?

It's not an 'imperfect application' of the values that American propaganda attributes to America, it's exactly the opposite of them.

[luckydata]

You're entitled to your opinion, and free to state it, and that's exactly one of the values our constitution enshrines.

The others can be found here:

https://constitutionus.com/

for the philosophical underpinnings read this:

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

If you live in the US and don't like what's going on right now, I suggest you register to vote and help others do the same. For all the evident problems laid bare by the current administration, it's completely within the people's power to build a more perfect union.

[gdy]

The US has been selling weapons to Saudi Arabia for many decades. Free speech, philosophical underpinnings and voting haven't changed that.

From outside it looks like 'do as I say not as I do'.

I live in Russia and we had a constitution saying all the good things in the Stalin's time and we have even better one now.

[luckydata]

if you don't like the US selling weapons to the Saudis then I suggest you politely ask your government to stop interfering in our elections.

I guarantee results in about 14 months.

[gdy]

I don't like your country's hypocrisy.

It didn't start with Trump and I have no reason to think it will end with Trump.

As for Saudi Arabia, I have little doubts Russia will gladly sell them any weapon they want provided it is for sale at all.

[thawaway1837]

Obama (and Bush before him) identified China as a threat at least a decade ago, that’s why the US entered the TPP discussions in early 2008, and if the US had ratified, would have been a significantly more effective strategy that would have enhanced the US’s economic and geopolitical position and hurt China’s as opposed to this, which is damaging the US significantly, and while hurting China’s domestic economy, strengthening it on the global stage relative to the US.

Trump has not been a leader, but he has definitely been loud and used a “let’s throw a tantrum till I get what I want” approach, which makes far more noise, but achieves far less.

[vkou]

A systemic threat to what?

It's own people? Is that our problem? [1]

Uncooperative neighbours? We, here in the US, have posed, do pose, and continue to pose a threat to uncooperative nations across the entire world.

Our domestic economy? All problems with it are entirely of our own doing. Globalization killing the middle class? That's not a China problem, that's a domestic political problem. And yes, general tariffs are a systemic solution to this problem. Country-specific tariffs are a half-assed half-solution to it.

I understand that you're concerned that the uncontested US hegemony is not long for this world.

But I don't understand why you care so deeply about it. I don't consider that unipolar hegemony to have ever been a good thing for most people outside - or inside the US.

[1] If that is, in fact, the problem you care most about, then consider that the only way it will ever be solved, is internally, by the Chinese people. Foreign interference in those kinds of affairs is counterproductive - it only causes the target nation to close rank.

[oska]

> I don't consider that unipolar hegemony to have ever been a good thing for most people outside - or inside the US.

The same. I am greatly encouraged that we are moving back to a multipolar world and that the USA's untrammeled power is being challenged. And that it being challenged will be good for the US American people as well.

[knowledge102]

I care about avoiding war and avoiding exploitation.

Historically, the best way to avoid major wars, is to have a major power or an allies of power (possible in multipolar word), or strong enough attack power(nukes) to scare off the idea of war -- i.e a strong enough deterrent to make going war be a bad idea. No one wants to go to war if they know they will be destroyed. Like how a robber won't rob a house if they know a person with a gun will be waiting for them.

So if we want to avoid the loss of life on the scale of the world wars, then we need to avoid massive conflict between the major powers (who have the greatest destructive power by definition). Since they are major powers, with long alliances, a conflict with the U.S. and China would involve at least, U.S, China, Japan, South Korea, North Korea, Taiwan, the NATO countries of Europe, Canada. It's also very likely that it would involve Russia, India, Pakistan, Australia. Other countries that may be dragged in for strategic purposes would be essentially every country in Asia (including southeast Asia), North America, and the Middle East/any sources of oil.

The disruption to the balance of power, is extremely dangerous. That is the cause of war. It's creates such a powerful economic and political incentive to maintain dominance by obliterating the competition. Imagine your friendly giant corporation and their tendency to value money over everything, if they were allowed to kill their competition and killing them would lead to those sweet monopoly profits, do you think are moral enough to not just not just kill their competition instead of doing all that hard work of economic competition?

The fact that there's a strong chance of war is what concerns me so much about a rising China. Both the U.S. and China has the huge prize of being the dominant power if they destroy the other.

To maintain peace and avoid a huge loss of life, there has to be a big enough deterrence to make war not appealing. They each have to compete immensely in order to make the deterrence strong enough. This is why the U.S. and Soviet Union had an arms race. They also have to compete economically, so they can fund their defense.

Now, lets say war is avoided, and power is more evenly distributed. By definition, that means the U.S. has less influence than others do. Then should another country do something that exploits the U.S., then by definition we have less power to stop that. This could be some trade deals that hurt the U.S. economy (i.e. jobs, and livelihoods of people) to the extreme of war against an alliance far stronger than us.

I agree that the U.S. has done some horrible things during it's hegemony, and I do not support them. But the brutal reality is that, others would do the same to us.

I think the best case scenario is that we avoid war and reach a new stable/peaceful balance of power, and the many now powerful countries provide healthy competition to the U.S. while still bringing wealth to themselves and their people. For the sake of my country and it's people, I hope the we the U.S. is still powerful enough to defend ourselves from foreign exploitation, competitive enough to prosper in that world, and free enough to enjoy the rights that many in countries like China do not.

[Linq123]

>I agree that the U.S. has done some horrible things during it's hegemony, and I do not support them. But the brutal reality is that, others would do the same to us.

This is what nazis was saying in the wake of loosing war in East front, or Britis when they start loosing colonies one after another, turned out not all civilizations are as vindictive and machiavellian in nature as some of western countries are. Nobody put all whites or even nazis in death camps in Germany, or even made sure it's economicaly backwards, also nobody sought retaliations from Britain even after it ceased to exist as global superpower.

[knowledge102]

The exact actions, depend on the people in charge ultimately. But if I had to bet that the Chinese government, with a track record for organ harvesting their own people, having forced labor camps of chinese Uyghurs, and "disappearing" anyone who criticizes, would treat their subjects nicely, then I would probably lose that bet.

[seganddr]

A brand new account and it's pro-trump during an impeachment crisis?

[knowledge102]

I don't care about partisan lines, nor do I think anyone should be a fanatic of people with the power to exploit you. I just study political science man, and this is a topic that I researched a lot into.

Like the majority of people, I don't fully align with either party's exact and every positions like it's gospel. I think politicians should be examined on a policy by policy basis. When it comes to foreign policy, I support his actions against China and some other strategic moves. When it comes to domestic policies, I lean democrat way more.

[softwaredoug]

Trump lending his name to “getting tough on a China” is probably a sure fire way that “getting tough on China” will be in the political wilderness for the next 10 years.

[mattnewton]

I'm not so sure - if a tough on China stance continues to poll well, the next administration will probably follow suit. What absolutely will be in the wilderness is the current approach of tarriffs and bailouts.

[AJ007]

The mass internment camps are really the nail in the coffin for China on this one. A lot of the other stuff can be excused away politically, that one can’t.

[kelnos]

Given that we're pretty much holding all potential immigrants who cross our southern border in interment camps, I don't think we quite have the moral high ground here.

[mattnewton]

The United States has a lot of people cheering for efforts like that back home; I think it absolutely could get swept under the rug. It's a different situation at the American border, sure, but I think it points to a general lack of empathy for foreigners.

[leereeves]

Do you hate Trump so much that you'd choose the wrong side of an issue just to be on the other side from him?

[cerealbad]

It's a continuation of the pivot to Asia strategy dating back to Clinton. The Middle East was a sandbox for testing new weapons for the next cold war century. Remember in American foreign policy the two parties are indistinguishable.

[umvi]

I agree. Obama was way too buddy-buddy with Xi.

I hope the next president is even more hardline against China than Trump.

[resters]

Disclaimer: I'm not a fan of either party, so my view is hopefully a bit objective.

Trump ran on the economic policy ideas popularized by "liberal" economist Paul Krugman. I posted a comment on HN a while back with links to Krugman's various columns, with a header above each group that included the rhetoric used by Trump to tout those policies.

Krugman has been calling for trade policy changes against China for quite some time, and in spite of running as a Republican, Trump adopted Krugman's economic populism whole hog.

So the ideas have been around for a long time, but have heretofore only been taken seriously by a populist fringe of economists. Such economists are viewed by the mainstream economics profession the way the general public views anti-vaxers. There just isn't science supporting the views, but they are compelling to a niche group of zealots.

Economic populist rhetoric certainly sounds good to laypeople and hits on many emotionally potent hot buttons that mirror the jingoism that Trump uses across all of his rhetoric.

Just as vaccines (a small bit of the virus being injected into a healthy person) are highly counter-intuitive to laypeople, trade policy is similarly counter-intuitive. The idea that the US could be made worse off by retaliating against China's one sided tariffs seems unheard of and bizarre to those who do not understand the science.

To be blunt, there is zero economic or welfare justification for Trump's trade policy toward China. It is a tax on Americans and is making Americans poorer. No economist would disagree with that.

To your point, there may be some broader strategic sense to Trump's stance toward China, namely viewing China more as an adversary than as a third world country to whom we can outsource our polluting industries and whose government tolerates toxic pollution and (by our standards) backward labor practices.

But the important question to arrive at is why China is suddenly (reasonably?) viewed as an adversary to the US.

Sure, China has stolen some IP, but what developing nation (including the US) hasn't? Sure, China has one sided tariffs to protect some of its firms from competition, but so have many countries in the midst of rapid growth.

The answer is that the US has dramatically slowed its innovation and growth due to the massive investment in foreign wars and occupations. The amount invested in these wars is in the many trillions of dollars, and there has been significantly negative ROI. The result of this happening for 20 years is that "poof", China is now a competitor to the world superpower.

But contrary to Trump's rhetoric, this is not due to China cheating, or Americans being out negotiated, it's due to a much simpler problem, Americans allowing our leaders to flush such vast sums of money on wars that had negative ROI.

Consider how much better funded the lobbying arms of defense contractor firms are now than they were 20 years ago. Consider how our major tech firms (Google, Amazon, Facebook) are now defense contractors. Consider that neocon hawk Condi Rice was the first choice for the board at Dropbox.

The defense sector is eating the US alive, eating our future.

Be that as it may, China has managed to avoid making similar malinvestments, and is now (in relative terms) leapfrogging.

It is possible that Trump is the only one who is woke to the true threat posed by China, but keep in mind that the US is losing the trade war as China begins settling Africa and manufacturing moves from China to Africa, India, etc.

Rust belt jobs are never coming back to the US. Under Trump most farmers are now welfare recipients and the US economy is on the verge of major collapse.

One day soon we will view the world in which China and the US were major peaceful trading partners as a golden age of international cooperation.

Your comment uses the word finally which accurately describes Trump's policies as majorly outdated. Maybe if the US had been a bit more tough on trade 20 years ago a better agreement would have been reached. But maybe not. We can be sure that in today's world the US is destined to lose the trade war and also lose much more in the process.

[knowledge102]

I agree that the US has wasted immense money in foreign wars with not enough gained to economically justify it.

I also agree that part of China's rise is due to it's economic strengths and strategic investments. In addition to that, they 1.5 billion people, of which there's bound to be a lot of amazing innovators.

The documentary American Factory is a great documentary that shows how the efficiency in China is also helping them out compete the US. (sidenote: produced by the obamas company)

On the note of the defense sector, DARPA has funded so much research (they invented the internet) that has helped innovation and defense companies help provide jobs for many engineers and high tech peoples, which helps the growth in that sector. Defense spending is also how we maintain our safety. But I do agree, that a lot of it is immensely wasteful. I think defense spending is important and useful, but like what you're getting at- the amount we spend stupidly instead of investing or strategically is too extreme

[chr1]

Chinas economic future is not quite so bright, their moronic one child policy have prepared a time bomb for them which is going to reduce their working age population catastrophically, making catching up with US very hard.

[Havoc]

>finally the WH has decided to act against the systemic threat posed by China.

With a shoot self in foot reaction...

[onepointsixC]

How so?