[PKop]

There's no permanence here, and you don't understand history or even business if you think this imbalance and dependence doesn't equal weakness at some point in the future. Just because we want China to always work for us and give us what we want doesn't mean completely ceding control of the decision means it will work out. Does any business (operating in much less cut throat stakes than great-power geopolitics) even bank all their supply on external sources, let alone one, let alone that one being their biggest adversary? Madness.

[ToucanLoucan]

But we have every reason to believe China will continue working for us because China benefits from that work. And insofar as the U.S. and China are adversaries at all seems to be purely culture war nonsense. China is not setting out to destroy the United States, they're setting out to sell the United States shit and we are setting out to buy it. The only reason there is even contention in this at all is that many pundits and analysts see the collapse of the American manufacturing sector as somehow the devious plans of a foreign adversary, and not the result of American business people seeking cheaper labor that works more efficiently overseas.

If we assume China is an adversary, then I would say it logically follows that the vast majority of American executives are in fact collaborating with the enemy, because they played critical roles in getting China to where it is today.

[Ajedi32]

China is a potential adversary because they are an authoritarian, undemocratic regime making military threats against neighboring free, democratic nations (Taiwan). If everything stayed exactly the way it is today, except the Communist party rulership were dissolved and replaced by a multi-party constitutional republic with representatives appointed through free, open elections I don't think the US would have nearly the same incentive to divest from China.

Free markets don't care about moral concerns like that though, just what's most economically efficient. And in the absence of tariffs, trading with China is very economically efficient.

[edmundsauto]

> <blank> is a potential adversary because they are an authoritarian, undemocratic regime making military threats against neighboring free, democratic nations

Fill in the blank with preferred major nation power of your choice.

[ToucanLoucan]

> China is a potential adversary because they are an authoritarian, undemocratic regime making military threats against neighboring free, democratic nations (Taiwan).

As opposed to an authoritarian, Democratic regime making military threats against neighboring free, democratic nations (Canada)?

> If everything stayed exactly the way it is today, except the Communist party rulership were dissolved and replaced by a multi-party constitutional republic with representatives appointed through free, open elections I don't think the US would have nearly the same incentive to divest from China.

Why does the U.S. have the right to declare unilaterally what forms of government are acceptable and what aren't? And no I'm not saying we have to necessarily trade with them, obviously, apart from the fact that the CCP came into power in 1949. We're a bit late to suddenly have issues with their government NOW after nearly half a century spent working with them in the open, and giving them shit tons of money.

[Ajedi32]

The US's authoritarian tendencies are not in remotely the same league as China and it's absurd to pretend otherwise.

Our right to declare that rule apart from the consent of the governed is unacceptable comes from the fact that it is unacceptable, not because the US has any special rights to declare it so. We hold these truths to be self-evident, now just as we did then.

The US has always had that same fundamental issue with China's government; we've just chosen to react to that reality in different ways over the years. China being more of an economic powerhouse now makes it a larger threat to human freedom than it has been in the past, so there are valid reasons to re-consider the status quo.

[worik]

> The US's authoritarian tendencies are not in remotely the same league as China

They are different. In the same league

* Iraq

* Vietnam

* Cuba

* Panama

* Grenada

* Gaza

That is just recent times, and I missed quite a few

The USA is a big bully, destroying lives and livelihoods all over the world since the genocide of American Indians stopped in their own backyard

Trump is making plain what every body with any brain worked out in 1962: The USA is a rouge nation

[ToucanLoucan]

> and I missed quite a few

I would include:

* Korea

* Japan (the use of the atomic bomb was controversial even then as it was after it was obvious the empire was finished and it was merely a matter of paperwork)

* Laos

* Cambodia

* Afghanistan

* Puerto Rico

* NEARLY Honduras, over fucking bananas of all things

> The USA is a big bully, destroying lives and livelihoods all over the world since the genocide of American Indians stopped in their own backyard

And even the notion that the genocide has stopped is dubious. We may no longer be openly killing them, and I guess that isn't nothing, but their cultures are irreparably damaged and most natives in the States live lives of poverty and suffering.

[Ajedi32]

I don't think you know what authoritarianism is. Military interventions in foreign affairs are a completely orthogonal issue.

On that subject though, the US has generally been a force for good around the world. Iraq was briefly a liberal democracy until the US military pulled back out and a theocratic regime took over again by force. Vietnam was a well-intentioned but bungled attempt to stop the spread of communism. When the US lost and pulled out the country turned into a one-party dictatorship. Other political parties there are outlawed. That's who the US was fighting against. The fact that these interventions ultimately failed doesn't make the attempts any less noble, though you can certainly make the case they were foolhardy to even try. Or perhaps if you're a pacifist you could argue any military intervention, even in the defense of human freedom, is immoral. I have mixed feelings on that subject myself, but it's ridiculous to compare anything the US did in recent history to what China or Russia are currently attempting or threatening to attempt. We never tried to conquer Iraq or Vietnam, just free them.

The US is a bully to dictatorial regimes and a friend to liberal democracies around the world. Trump's cage rattling is a tiny blip in the grand scheme of that legacy.