[MangoCoffee]

for the first time in a long time both party agree on this. i believed this is the U.S. failure for believing in China. U.S. bring China into WTO, open up trade and hollow out Midwest. what American get in return is Emperor Xi. CCP is not going to change and Xi already have more powers consolidated into him than any other previous CCP leader even Mao.

American's dream for a open and democratic China is long dead.

[baybal2]

> American's dream for a open and democratic China is long dead.

There already is an open and democratic China across the Taiwan straight. And the USA has a looong history of rather ambivalent relationship with it, starting from the Chinese civil war (to the surprise of many, US has sided with Mao for quite a number of times)

For long, US policy was to purposefully keep the Republic of China weak, vulnerable, and dependent.

Were the US even 1% genuine in their commitment to seeing democratic China, they would not be consistently setting up Taiwan to be undermined politically.

[magicsmoke]

Because during the cold war Taiwan wasn't nearly big enough to counterbalance the USSR. the PRC was, and when the US got bloodied in Vietnam and needed to pull out they wanted to make sure the USSR couldn't step into the hole they left behind and start pushing across the rest of Southeast Asia. Cue the PRC. Right after the US left, the PRC had their own war with Vietnam because they thought Vietnam was working with the USSR to conquer the rest of Southeast Asia and surround them, and the PRC and the US ended up working to isolate Vietnam over its invasion of Cambodia and put pressure on the USSR. With China holding down the fort in East Asia, the US could pull back its military spending from 10% GDP to 5% GDP in the 70s while the USSR got bankrupted by a new military threat.

Doesn't look like US politicians today are willing to throw Eastern Europe under the bus to flip Russia against the PRC like they threw Taiwan under the bus though.

[sudosysgen]

Even without Russia as a threat, China is incomparable to the USSR. Its productive potential dwarfs that of the US manifold.

[1_person]

I would be interested in seeing the supporting arguments and data for your latter claim. At a glance US gross manufacturing output lags China by about 7%, but per capita US manufacturing output is ~300% that of China. Between the Monroe Doctrine and NATO states, however, the "US manifold"'s productive potential is where it appears accurate assertions of relative dwarfism can be made. Without intimate familiarity of geopolitics, I would estimate all save 3-5 of the top 20 nations by manufacturing output fall clearly in the US sphere of influence.

[sudosysgen]

This is because when comparing manufacturing outputs, you should look at it in PPP terms, not in absolute dollar terms, due to devaluing and other factors. When you want to calculate how many tanks, missiles, bombs and airplanes, PPP output is what matters. Or if you want to take a page out of the Soviet playbook, Gross Material Product.

The US manufacturing sector is 11.6% of GDP, so 2.33 trillion dollars PPP. In China, it accounts for 40% of the GDP, so more or less 10 trillion dollars of manufacturing output PPP (!). This is a manifold advantage.

The reason why this is to be done is because if you wanted to build say, a tank in the US vs China or Russia, you would need many more dollars for the exact same tank. So measuring manufacturing output must be done PPP.

[magicsmoke]

During the cold war both the US and the USSR were self sufficient in terms of wheat and oil. China is one naval battle in the Indian ocean away from having a taste of Imperial Japan's oil shortages in WW2. If the USSR practiced state capitalism then we might still be locked in the twilight struggle with them today.

[sudosysgen]

No, and no. There is no reason to believe that the USSR would have been able to develop beyond their level of development, that many capitalist nations aren't able to surpass, given the geopolitical and political situation. It seems to me that the fall of the USSR was due to political issues, and an unsustainable political system, more than anything.

China also doesn't require any naval transport from oil shortage. Indeed, it very conveniently has a major oil exporter to it's north. So unless you would wage war on the Russian and Chinese mainland, you have no hope of completely starving China of oil. You might reduce the amount of oil they have, but they have enough reserves to last until a tripling of Sino-Russian pipelines.

[forgot_again]

We're discussing a recent change in tone, behavior and overall policy. What you're describing is the product of previous administrations working hard to get on (the People's Republic of) China's good side, cozying up to China and trying to integrate it into the Democratic community.

This is now precisely what is changing.