• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the United States maintain Trade with China at the same level or turn elsewhere?

Should the United States maintain Trade with China at the same level or turn elsewhere?

  • The U.S. should maintain the same level of trade with China

    Votes: 1 5.0%
  • The U.S. should turn to other countries for trade over China

    Votes: 15 75.0%
  • I do not know enough about the issues to answer either way

    Votes: 1 5.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 4 20.0%

  • Total voters
    20

Felis Leo

Moral clarity is needed
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2018
Messages
14,112
Reaction score
21,083
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
The question for the evening is whether it is in the United States' long-term interests to maintain the bilateral trade relationship with China at the same level, or whether we should turn to other trading partners to fulfill our nation's need for manufactured consumer goods.

I was pondering recently in the wake of our nascent trade war with the People's Republic of China, and the fact that it is going to raise the cost of consumer goods of many Americans. The United States over the past four decades has become ever more dependent on trade with China. On the one hand it has helped lower the cost of living for the average American, while spuring the economic rise of one of the most destitute and backwards countries on the face of Earth into a new global superpower. On the other hand, our interdependent trade relationship with China has also spurred intellectual property theft, and China regaining its place from being the Sick Man of Asia into reestablishing what can only be called its Imperial hegemony over East Asia, and across the world. Many thought economic liberalization would come with political and social liberalization. Instead, we now see the rise of what can only be described as a bellicose, authoritarian, single-party fascist state which offers protectionism state-sponsored companies and in which the technological advances have allowed the Chinese Communist Party to control the lives of its citizens more efficiently from establishing the Orwellian "social credit system" and concentration camps for Western Chinese Muslim Ugyhurs.

For all intents and purposes, in exchange for decades worth of low-cost consumer goods, the United States appears to have given the Peoples Republic of China and the Chinese Communist Party the strength with which to subsume both its internal and its geopolitical rivals...the United States included. It reminds me of Aesop's Fable, The Eagle and the Arrow:

An Eagle was soaring through the air when suddenly it heard the whizz of an Arrow, and felt itself wounded to death. Slowly it fluttered down to the earth, with its life-blood pouring out of it. Looking down upon the Arrow with which it had been pierced, it found that the shaft of the Arrow had been feathered with one of its own plumes. "Alas!" it cried, as it died,

"We often give our enemies the means for our own destruction."

Now, many here might say that the United States is not much better than China, and perhaps worse than China. That is not my argument for this evening. My question to everyone here is whether or not it is in the United States' interests to continue to maintain this bilateral trade agreement at the same level, or whether we are stacking the wood for our own funeral pyre by doing so. Personally, I think we should be looking at opening up and widening trading relationships with other developing nations which actually share many if not all of our democratic values, respect for rule of law and individual liberty, such as India. But I would like to hear what those who are interested in this topic have to say. Have a good night, everybody.
 
Last edited:
The question for the evening is whether it is in the United States' long-term interests to maintain the bilateral trade relationship with China at the same level, or whether we should turn to other trading partners to fulfill our nation's need for manufactured consumer goods.

I was pondering recently in the wake of our nascent trade war with the People's Republic of China, and the fact that it is going to raise the cost of consumer goods of many Americans. The United States over the past four decades has become ever more dependent on trade with China. On the one hand it has helped lower the cost of living for the average American, while spuring the economic rise of one of the most destitute and backwards countries on the face of Earth into a new global superpower. On the other hand, our interdependent trade relationship with China has also spurred intellectual property theft, and China regaining its place from being the Sick Man of Asia into reestablishing what can only be called its Imperial hegemony over East Asia, and across the world. Many thought economic liberalization would come with political and social liberalization. Instead, we now see the rise of what can only be described as a bellicose, authoritarian, single-party fascist state which offers protectionism state-sponsored companies and in which the technological advances have allowed the Chinese Communist Party to control the lives of its citizens more efficiently from establishing the Orwellian "social credit system" and concentration camps for Western Chinese Muslim Ugyhurs.

For all intents and purposes, in exchange for decades worth of low-cost consumer goods, the United States appears to have given the Peoples Republic of China and the Chinese Communist Party the strength with which to subsume both its internal and its geopolitical rivals...the United States included. It reminds me of Aesop's Fable, The Eagle and the Arrow:

An Eagle was soaring through the air when suddenly it heard the whizz of an Arrow, and felt itself wounded to death. Slowly it fluttered down to the earth, with its life-blood pouring out of it. Looking down upon the Arrow with which it had been pierced, it found that the shaft of the Arrow had been feathered with one of its own plumes. "Alas!" it cried, as it died,

"We often give our enemies the means for our own destruction."

Now, many here might say that the United States is not much better than China, and perhaps worse than China. That is not my argument for this evening. My question to everyone here is whether or not it is in the United States' interests to continue to maintain this bilateral trade agreement at the same level, or whether we are stacking the wood for our own funeral pyre by doing so. Personally, I think we should be looking at opening up and widening trading relationships with other developing nations which actually share many if not all of our democratic values, respect for rule of law and individual liberty, such as India. But I would like to hear what those who are interested in this topic have to say. Have a good night, everybody.

Given the history of how China has treated such trade in the past, not to mention how it has behaved in adhering to other standards of trade and international interaction over the years. We should find another way.

This coming from when they were poked at for undercutting US sources in the tire market several years ago (2008 I believe) to how they've always handled things as simple as copyright infringements in their own products and even below sub-standard trade/production practices.

It's not like we don't have other options, or even can't alleviate the problem of supply in our own country. Though finding where to produce such wares would be the first issue. California is probably one of the most horrible places to try and build a new business. But there are other states out there with the necessary will and available space to start up such productions.

I also don't support completely cutting China off. Maybe just sticking with them on products that they've been stable produces of for the last few decades and are therefor more trustworthy at producing.
 
Should the United States maintain Trade with China at the same level or turn elsewhere?

"'Should the US maintain' with China trade any any level" isn't even a valid question unless and until the US implements either trade sanctions or trade quotas. Trade with China, that is the extant volume (level) of it, is a function of firms' business decisions and buyers' willingness to purchase the PRC-made goods rather than competing products.
 
"'Should the US maintain' with China trade any any level" isn't even a valid question unless and until the US implements either trade sanctions or trade quotas. Trade with China, that is the extant volume (level) of it, is a function of firms' business decisions and buyers' willingness to purchase the PRC-made goods rather than competing products.

Indeed. And that is central to the question: Is it in the interests of both the United States' polity and populace to lower the current trade barriers we have erected with China and go back to the pre-tariff levels? Or should our government look to foster greener pastures elsewhere through opening bilateral trade agreements other nations for the purposes of obtaining manufactured consumer goods for our populace?
 
~ United States needs to return to manufacturing our own goods as well as very high quality products for export worldwide. People can have a choice : cheap junk or high quality that will outlast cheap and perform better ( mostly electronics ) ��
 
~ United States needs to return to manufacturing our own goods as well as very high quality products for export worldwide. People can have a choice : cheap junk or high quality that will outlast cheap and perform better ( mostly electronics ) ��

Chicago and Detroit as well as many other "former" industrial centers in the country could be useful in such endeavors. I'd easily endorse a super pack to put them back on track to begin rebuilding and kick production into gear.
 
Chicago and Detroit as well as many other "former" industrial centers in the country could be useful in such endeavors. I'd easily endorse a super pack to put them back on track to begin rebuilding and kick production into gear.

This would relive on businesses willing to accept lower margins. This is what drove the push to over seas manufacturing in the first place.

Without accepting lower margins, then that TV you're trying to sell is going to be 2-3 times more expensive than the made in China competitor. Americans have already show which one they favor.
 
Chicago and Detroit as well as many other "former" industrial centers in the country could be useful in such endeavors. I'd easily endorse a super pack to put them back on track to begin rebuilding and kick production into gear.

~ Don't know if it's true that Trump administration is in talks with TOYOTA about possibly taking over a closed GM plant .( Ohio ? )
 
Let's keep looking forward.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership Trump killed is isolating China in its own neighborhood. China would have only those countries outside of the TPP, such as Laos and Cambodia. TPP is going forward anyway so USA must rejoin it to give it the leadership only the USA can provide to include its economic and trade benefits to Americans at home.

Beijing's dependence on the $USD is good for the good guys which is why the trade war is killing China. CCP Dictator-Tyrants in Beijing now recognize the trade war was not a game designed to finish with both sides landing on home while shaking hands. History has an almost iron rule that in a trade war the creditor country is the loser, and China is it. The debtor country -- USA -- invariably comes out ahead despite hardships on each side because the debtor country has the greater resources -- far greater resources in this particular mismatch.

Trump's chief China axeman in the WH, Trade Council Chairman Peter Navarro from UC means to set back the CCP economy to the levels of the GW Bush and Clinton years. Xi and his gang have just now come to recognize this so they are furious. That is, their own retaliatory high tariffs are depriving them of the $USD they need to keep their economy stable. Navarro has Trump who anyway hates China leaving no means of escape for Xi. The $USD bleeding in China is continuing with no good end in sight while it only gets worse with each passing month. Far worse is coming and Xi knows this.

China was Iran's biggest oil customer so when Trump killed the sanctions waivers Beijing had to turn to Russia which is gouging 'em on prices. Chinese consumers are feeling this and more so they're getting more impatient with Xi than they had been already, what with Xi giving away tens of billions of bucks to foreign corrupt governments in a Made in China debt trap for a Belt and Road project nobody in Asia wants or will allow to begin inside their borders (except for Pakistan).

The PC-16 countries are already taking up the low cost production China used to do to its great benefit. Because the Post China 16 low income countries are gaining in low cost manufacturing at the expense of China, the new Chinese middle class are caught in the confounding middle income trap. Neither Chicago nor Detroit can compete with the PC 16 either which ironically includes Mexico.

ee16_world00.jpg
 
Now, many here might say that the United States is not much better than China, and perhaps worse than China. That is not my argument for this evening. My question to everyone here is whether or not it is in the United States' interests to continue to maintain this bilateral trade agreement at the same level, or whether we are stacking the wood for our own funeral pyre by doing so. Personally, I think we should be looking at opening up and widening trading relationships with other developing nations which actually share many if not all of our democratic values, respect for rule of law and individual liberty, such as India. But I would like to hear what those who are interested in this topic have to say. Have a good night, everybody.
I find the idea that China will somehow entirely destroy the US economy ridiculous rhetoric. It certainly has the potential to develop in to a very effective competitor but as its economy develops, it will face many of the same difficulties Western economies have, probably along with some of its own so it’s unlikely to dominate any more than America or Europe already do. You might not like the idea of another strong competitor but you’re not going to stop it (legitimately at least) and it’s always better to work with reality rather than pushing for the impossible dream.

It would certainly be in US interests to continue to develop trading relationships with a wide range of nations, especially other developing ones, but it’s unrealistic to suggest China could be replaced given its size and unique position and trying to replace it, especially before there are any viable alternatives in place, it only going to do the US harm in the short and long term. I think it’d be much more in the US interests (and Chinese interests for that matter) for them to try to develop a more friendly relationship rather than building each other up as eternal enemies. That’s basically the difference between the US relationships with Europe and the Middle East and I’d like to hope we’d all prefer more of the former than the latter.
 
China is unique in that it has a centralized socialist free market system. This state of affairs is only about 30 years old. It was an improvement from the old socialist and poor China. The new China built a bridge between socialism and the free world market. The bridge building was assisted by the West, and allowed China to play by it own set of rules. It allowed the Chinese government to maintain centralized control, as they learned to be part of the world economy.

The transitional bridge building time allowed some cheating, that is not acceptable in free market economies. However, it was needed for the transitional bridge. These included the stealing of intellectual property and government involvement in international price fixing below free market prices. But again, this was allowed, like the unsightly scaffolding of a new building, so the bridge could be built, and China would be a part of the world free market economy.

Trump feels it is time, to cut the dedication ribbon and open the bridge. The construction is done, and the scaffolding was in place long enough. The first phase over the past 2 years took down the scaffolding. The opening of the bridge requires that China play by free market rules, which will have an impact on the centralized control of its government. China made their leader, dictator for life. This was a preventive measure to stall open elections, since open election could alter the nature of their country. Elections based on money and popularity, like in the USA, rarely ends up with the best leaders.

One of the problems and opportunities for China is connected to internal intellectual property generation. The reason the USA is so strong in this area has to do with freedom. The centralized socialist control in China, limits freedom, as a means to maintain social integration. This limitation of freedom, is a barrier to their own generation of unique intellectual property. China is a very creative country and could bring new unique products to the market.

However, the fear is one huge idea like Amazon, can make some people, who are not in the central government, very powerful. China is going through birth pains, but this is needed, since the world after the next Chinese transformation, will be much better. An entire new range of intellectual property will be good of the world and the Chinese economy. The US is setting an example, with the hope the Chinese come over the bridge.
 
~ United States needs to return to manufacturing our own goods as well as very high quality products for export worldwide. People can have a choice : cheap junk or high quality that will outlast cheap and perform better ( mostly electronics )

Nothing is stopping US companies, old and new, from producing high quality stuff in US and giving consumers this choice. I think consumers have consistently chosen the "cheap junk" as you call it, which is why US companies cannot compete.
 
The question for the evening is whether it is in the United States' long-term interests to maintain the bilateral trade relationship with China at the same level, or whether we should turn to other trading partners to fulfill our nation's need for manufactured consumer goods.

I was pondering recently in the wake of our nascent trade war with the People's Republic of China, and the fact that it is going to raise the cost of consumer goods of many Americans. The United States over the past four decades has become ever more dependent on trade with China. On the one hand it has helped lower the cost of living for the average American, while spuring the economic rise of one of the most destitute and backwards countries on the face of Earth into a new global superpower. On the other hand, our interdependent trade relationship with China has also spurred intellectual property theft, and China regaining its place from being the Sick Man of Asia into reestablishing what can only be called its Imperial hegemony over East Asia, and across the world. Many thought economic liberalization would come with political and social liberalization. Instead, we now see the rise of what can only be described as a bellicose, authoritarian, single-party fascist state which offers protectionism state-sponsored companies and in which the technological advances have allowed the Chinese Communist Party to control the lives of its citizens more efficiently from establishing the Orwellian "social credit system" and concentration camps for Western Chinese Muslim Ugyhurs.

For all intents and purposes, in exchange for decades worth of low-cost consumer goods, the United States appears to have given the Peoples Republic of China and the Chinese Communist Party the strength with which to subsume both its internal and its geopolitical rivals...the United States included. It reminds me of Aesop's Fable, The Eagle and the Arrow:

An Eagle was soaring through the air when suddenly it heard the whizz of an Arrow, and felt itself wounded to death. Slowly it fluttered down to the earth, with its life-blood pouring out of it. Looking down upon the Arrow with which it had been pierced, it found that the shaft of the Arrow had been feathered with one of its own plumes. "Alas!" it cried, as it died,

"We often give our enemies the means for our own destruction."

Now, many here might say that the United States is not much better than China, and perhaps worse than China. That is not my argument for this evening. My question to everyone here is whether or not it is in the United States' interests to continue to maintain this bilateral trade agreement at the same level, or whether we are stacking the wood for our own funeral pyre by doing so. Personally, I think we should be looking at opening up and widening trading relationships with other developing nations which actually share many if not all of our democratic values, respect for rule of law and individual liberty, such as India. But I would like to hear what those who are interested in this topic have to say. Have a good night, everybody.

Most all countries should tell China to screw off.
 
China is unique in that it has a centralized socialist free market system. This state of affairs is only about 30 years old. It was an improvement from the old socialist and poor China. The new China built a bridge between socialism and the free world market. The bridge building was assisted by the West, and allowed China to play by it own set of rules. It allowed the Chinese government to maintain centralized control, as they learned to be part of the world economy.

The transitional bridge building time allowed some cheating, that is not acceptable in free market economies. However, it was needed for the transitional bridge. These included the stealing of intellectual property and government involvement in international price fixing below free market prices. But again, this was allowed, like the unsightly scaffolding of a new building, so the bridge could be built, and China would be a part of the world free market economy.

Trump feels it is time, to cut the dedication ribbon and open the bridge. The construction is done, and the scaffolding was in place long enough. The first phase over the past 2 years took down the scaffolding. The opening of the bridge requires that China play by free market rules, which will have an impact on the centralized control of its government. China made their leader, dictator for life. This was a preventive measure to stall open elections, since open election could alter the nature of their country. Elections based on money and popularity, like in the USA, rarely ends up with the best leaders.

One of the problems and opportunities for China is connected to internal intellectual property generation. The reason the USA is so strong in this area has to do with freedom. The centralized socialist control in China, limits freedom, as a means to maintain social integration. This limitation of freedom, is a barrier to their own generation of unique intellectual property. China is a very creative country and could bring new unique products to the market.

However, the fear is one huge idea like Amazon, can make some people, who are not in the central government, very powerful. China is going through birth pains, but this is needed, since the world after the next Chinese transformation, will be much better. An entire new range of intellectual property will be good of the world and the Chinese economy. The US is setting an example, with the hope the Chinese come over the bridge.


The Party School off Tiananmen Square has spent some years lately debating whether to hold national elections. The Party knows they'd lose in elections at all levels -- national, provincial, county and municipal -- and that reformers would take office. The Party knows this is the pattern in authoritarian states that yield to elections whatever the reason, cause, motivation.

The Party also knows there would be economic chaos and social disorder under a reformed government in China. The Party figures it could move back into government and the economy again, this time saying the alternative to 'em is worse. Settle the matter, it would.

The only question in the Party is whether to surrender power voluntarily or to wait until they're forced out. Still, the Party is confident it would get away with returning to power in either event due to the collapse of the economy and the inability of the democracy reformers to govern China.

I myself like the idea of subdividing China into six nation states. It's the only way to make reforms possible in Chinese lives. China is too big to reform or change as it is. So subdividing it into its six historically cultural civilizations is the only viable way to do it.

There's the Yellow River and Basin civilization in the North; the Yangtze River and Basin Civilization in the middle, the Pearl River Basin and Civilization in the South (Hong Kong and Canton et al). Return Xinjiang to independence and Tibet to its former sovereignty. Beijing, Tianjin and Shanghai are their own economy and civilization to include Dalian which are an area where there are more people than in the United States. That would establish four sovereign Chinas with different names, forms of government; it would liberate Xinjiang and Tibet, and it would leave Beijing et all as authoritarian but less so. The Party-Government CCP-PRC will not do this willingly of course. So compelling 'em to make the radical changes is the only way.
 
~ United States needs to return to manufacturing our own goods as well as very high quality products for export worldwide. People can have a choice : cheap junk or high quality that will outlast cheap and perform better ( mostly electronics ) ��
Yo do realize that the U.S. exports lots of products, right? Below is real (adjusted for inflation) exports. The U.S. has never exported more than it has now.

fredgraph.png


One problem with the OP's question is that it is simplistic. It presumes the U.S. can turn a spigot and get products elsewhere. That really isn't the case, and certainly in the short term. China has build a complicated supply network. Apple builds its products mainly in China. Their entire supply chain is in China. If they need a thousand rubber gaskets, there's a factory next door. If they need a million screws? That factory is a block away. If they need that screw made a little bit different? It will take three hours.

The point is that manufacturing plants don’t exist in isolation; Apple and other companies benefit a lot from being part of a manufacturing cluster, with specialized suppliers and a large pool of workers with the right skills close at hand.

Whether a consumer buys cheap goods or expensive quality is a personal choice that shouldn't be dictated by government.

The other problem with this above post and the OP's thread is that it makes it sound as if trade is bad. It isn't. International trade exists because it encourages an efficient market mechanism.

Now, is China a bad actor? It has been and continues to be in some areas. It used to manipulate its currency. It doesn't do that any longer. It does play fast and loose with stealing intellectual property. That is an area that the TransPacific Trade Agreement addressed. Unfortunately, that was one of the first measures that Trump cancelled after taking office.

The problem is, as Bret Stephens writes today, "Worst, Trump is obsessed by our trade deficit with China, which has led to his tariffs. But tariffs are a tax on U.S. consumers, and the wrong tool to deal with China’s routine theft of intellectual property. Trump is falling down here, too, by failing to sanction the entities or individuals doing the stealing."
 
Last edited:
Indeed. And that is central to the question:
  1. Is it in the interests of both the United States' polity and populace to lower the current trade barriers we have erected with China and go back to the pre-tariff levels?
  2. Or should our government look to foster greener pastures elsewhere through opening bilateral trade agreements other nations for the purposes of obtaining manufactured consumer goods for our populace?
Responses:
  1. Yes, it is in the interests of the polity/populace to remove the tariffs federal government has levied against not only the PRC's imports but also the tariffs levied against other nations' imports. (See Post 20)
  2. With the caveat that I don't know what precisely you mean (i.e., what specific outcomes you have in mind to effect) by "foster greener pastures":
    • Yes, our government should look to "foster greener pastures elsewhere."
    • Yes, our government should "foster" such "pastures" by signing legally enforceable trade agreements; however, such agreements need not be predicated as the only way to elsewhere "foster greener pastures."
    • No, the purpose for signing such agreements is not "obtaining manufactured consumer goods for our populace" because there is nothing prohibiting the US populace from obtaining manufactured consumer goods. There are things we don't manufacture in the US, but there's nothing stopping us from doing so; we just don't because it's more cost-effective to manufacture them elsewhere.
 
There is an island of garbage the size of Texas floating in the Pacific Ocean. Most of this originated in China. Every country should boycott China until they stop polluting our oceans and clean up their mess. This is also the main reason Chinese products are cheaper. They do not adhere to any EPA type standards. They simply dump all their trash, hazmat included into the rivers or in land fills.
 
This would relive on businesses willing to accept lower margins. This is what drove the push to over seas manufacturing in the first place.

Without accepting lower margins, then that TV you're trying to sell is going to be 2-3 times more expensive than the made in China competitor. Americans have already show which one they favor.

If that were the same case maybe. Though historically margins haven't always been as such, even here in the states. Though I would still like to buy American and have an appliance that I wouldn't need to replace in two years.
 
~ Don't know if it's true that Trump administration is in talks with TOYOTA about possibly taking over a closed GM plant .( Ohio ? )

One of the only ones that I can think of off the top of my head would be Ohio, yes. Though given all of the information being circulated about Trump true, or false. I would take anything that I don't here directly with a grain of salt in most cases.

Even then, if it comes from them. There is no indication that such a move would actually come to a head at anytime with the amount of stonewalling that the administration gets from it's opposition.

Waiting and checking up on any leads would be a good choice here.
 
Trade with China is somewhat complicated. Corporations view the US as a "saturated market". 300 million people who already have all kinds of consumer goods. The Chinese populations is 4 times larger and is hungry for new consumer goods, and growing fast. So the stock market will always vote China. GM makes more money overseas than it does here. Same of many other corporations. The growth potential is Asia, meaning China mostly.

So American companies want fair access to the Chinese market. But that doesn't mean lots more jobs here. They want into the Asian market and intend to manufacture in the Asian market. Our trade relationship with China is a traditional Mother Country/Colony arrangement. We sell them lumber, concrete, soy, wheat, corn, hogs, etc., along with some valued added products like heavy earth moving CAT tractors which they don't really produce (enough to meet their demand) as yet.

So American corporations and American labor have essentially different goals. That's why many corporations keep trying to stiff Trump on their commitment to creating jobs here.

China will eventually be the world's largest economy, and biggest military, if they want to. And they will achieve that even if they act honestly. But they also use every chance they get to steal technology, American business plans, ignore copyright, and have all sorts of "special conditions" for foreign companies wanting to do business in China. For instance; they require that the technology be shared with them, that their technicians be trained in the manufacturing process, and that every company have Chinese partners.

The Chinese hack American companies, and our government, and our military, (think Huawaii) on a regular, intensive basis. Those American corporations complain to our government but don't want to make a fuss because they don't want to be locked out of the Chinese market. And that's exactly what the Chinese will do.

Doing business in China and then importing finished goods back into the USA is quite an advantage for any company doing business in China. No pesky EPA, no OSHA, no copyright problems. (Harbor Freight is full of copyright infringement tools imported from China). Not to mention the workers are primarily wage slaves. There is no way for an American consumer to sue a Chinese company, whether it's over lead in toys, bad milk, or poisonous sheet rock. The Chinese manufacturer sets up a dummy US company and if they get caught and sued they simply file bankruptcy of the front company.

Bottom line; the Chinese don't have to cheat. But they are in a hurry. Their stated goal is dominance in 90% of high tech industries by 2025. It's called the 2025 program.

Should we fight back? You get to decide at the ballot box.
 
The question for the evening is whether it is in the United States' long-term interests to maintain the bilateral trade relationship with China at the same level, or whether we should turn to other trading partners to fulfill our nation's need for manufactured consumer goods.

I was pondering recently in the wake of our nascent trade war with the People's Republic of China, and the fact that it is going to raise the cost of consumer goods of many Americans. The United States over the past four decades has become ever more dependent on trade with China. On the one hand it has helped lower the cost of living for the average American, while spuring the economic rise of one of the most destitute and backwards countries on the face of Earth into a new global superpower. On the other hand, our interdependent trade relationship with China has also spurred intellectual property theft, and China regaining its place from being the Sick Man of Asia into reestablishing what can only be called its Imperial hegemony over East Asia, and across the world. Many thought economic liberalization would come with political and social liberalization. Instead, we now see the rise of what can only be described as a bellicose, authoritarian, single-party fascist state which offers protectionism state-sponsored companies and in which the technological advances have allowed the Chinese Communist Party to control the lives of its citizens more efficiently from establishing the Orwellian "social credit system" and concentration camps for Western Chinese Muslim Ugyhurs.

For all intents and purposes, in exchange for decades worth of low-cost consumer goods, the United States appears to have given the Peoples Republic of China and the Chinese Communist Party the strength with which to subsume both its internal and its geopolitical rivals...the United States included. It reminds me of Aesop's Fable, The Eagle and the Arrow:

An Eagle was soaring through the air when suddenly it heard the whizz of an Arrow, and felt itself wounded to death. Slowly it fluttered down to the earth, with its life-blood pouring out of it. Looking down upon the Arrow with which it had been pierced, it found that the shaft of the Arrow had been feathered with one of its own plumes. "Alas!" it cried, as it died,

"We often give our enemies the means for our own destruction."

Now, many here might say that the United States is not much better than China, and perhaps worse than China. That is not my argument for this evening. My question to everyone here is whether or not it is in the United States' interests to continue to maintain this bilateral trade agreement at the same level, or whether we are stacking the wood for our own funeral pyre by doing so. Personally, I think we should be looking at opening up and widening trading relationships with other developing nations which actually share many if not all of our democratic values, respect for rule of law and individual liberty, such as India. But I would like to hear what those who are interested in this topic have to say. Have a good night, everybody.

Losing the market to sell in is what is going to hurt. The manufactured goods just get switched to another country like Bangladesh or India. That's not going hurt near as much as you would think. I have to go look were the numbers are and post them sometime, but its quite fascinating just how little the pain would be if any in regards to purchasing things. China is VERY replaceable in that regard. Its the market were we sell OUR goods to them that is going to hurt a bit when we lose it.

Personally I am of the opinion we should just cut them out of our market period until such time as they decide they want to play fair. Its gona suck not being able to sell to them, but on the other hand it gives their competitors a leg up and that is good. Too bad we have market shares in their competitors markets already.
 
~ United States needs to return to manufacturing our own goods as well as very high quality products for export worldwide. People can have a choice : cheap junk or high quality that will outlast cheap and perform better ( mostly electronics ) ��

Yep

Bringing back manufacturing has quite a few positives

How.did.we.win WWII? We built more tanks, jeeps, ships and.weapons than any country in the world. Now we.are dependent on imports even for food.

High quality manufacturing jobs will put Americans to work in jobs that can allow them to buy homes, pay taxes and live the American Dream. restore our middle/working class. Improve income inequality. Put money in people's pockets where they can buy quality Made in America products

I am sure there are a lot more.positives
 
There is an island of garbage the size of Texas floating in the Pacific Ocean. Most of this originated in China. Every country should boycott China until they stop polluting our oceans and clean up their mess. This is also the main reason Chinese products are cheaper. They do not adhere to any EPA type standards. They simply dump all their trash, hazmat included into the rivers or in land fills.
As I understand it, for some reason both China and India, the world's two largest polluters, are exempt from U.N. standards to that end because they enjoy some sort of "developing nations" status.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
 
As I understand it, for some reason both China and India, the world's two largest polluters, are exempt from U.N. standards to that end because they enjoy some sort of "developing nations" status.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

That is true and they are also exempt from the Paris Accord. I don't know how that works, the two biggest polluters are exempt.

However, this should be a consumer thing. I personally will not by a made in China product if I have any option. If others did the same China would clean up their act or the business would move elsewhere. China for the most part makes little but trinkets. Those low cost Chinese made items can be made for the same low costs in many places. We should not allow them to destroy our planet.
 
There is an island of garbage the size of Texas floating in the Pacific Ocean. Most of this originated in China. Every country should boycott China until they stop polluting our oceans and clean up their mess. This is also the main reason Chinese products are cheaper. They do not adhere to any EPA type standards. They simply dump all their trash, hazmat included into the rivers or in land fills.

It's gross to even mention it but dead pigs are floating down Chinese rivers daily. Pigs die from polluted feed. Farmers dump 'em into the river. China needs the USA soybeans that are prohibited by Trump's trade war because USA soy is both nutritious to pigs and other livestock and pure. China has turned to South American nations for soybeans, Brazil in particular but it's not enough for the huge mass of pigs in China nor are the South American soybeans of the same quality. US has reduced pork exports to China besides which is the main meat in China. While everyone there eats chicken, eating chicken is a vendor stop on the sidewalk in between meals. Pork in China is what beef is in the USA.

The geniuses in the Chinese Communist Party decided in the 1990s that they could ignore pollution while rushing headlong into unrestrained and unregulated economic development led of course by state enterprises. CCP fat asses based this decision on their perception that in the West both Europe and North America suffered insufferable pollution during the industrial revolution. This stupidity fell apart once citizens started spontaneous demonstrations against their grossly polluted air, land and waterways. In the many industrial areas to include Beijing a black sky at noon is ordinary. In the North of China where Chicago winters are the rule black smoke emanates from smokestacks when they turn on the Mao era boilers to heat buildings. Dalian City at the Yellow Sea is a modern and gleaming city engulfed by the black smoke of heating plants in the dozen big cities that arc around it.

The problem goes back to the ten years of Party Chairman and PRC president Hu Jintao who in 2012 left office to his successor Xi Jinpingpong who pays no mind to pollution. Hu had to make a new rule that public protests against pollution had to be accepted because so many Chinese were taking to the streets in every part of developing China to demand blue skies, soil they can grow things in and rivers they can drink water from without seeing dead pigs floating past out their kitchen window.

Maybe the worst part of the pig carcasses streaming downriver while getting mass snagged here and there is that the Party-Government has no expertise to clean it up. I met a recent twentysomething college grad in the heavily industrial South of China several years ago who was an environmental clean up technician whose English is good. He said he felt he accomplished something cleaning up wetlands of the Pearl River but that he felt alone in China doing it. He returned home in the North of China where there is virtually no cleanup. I continue to advise and assist him trying to get into a Stanford graduate program from which he will never return to China. He'll cheerfully set off for Central Kentucky University if that's what it comes down to (which I doubt). The mass of the Chinese population need to get out of China because the pollution is thorough and it is hopeless. Which is another severe discussion entirely.
 
Back
Top Bottom