|Home||Switchboard||Unix Administration||Red Hat||TCP/IP Networks||Neoliberalism||Toxic Managers|
May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Bigger doesn't imply better. Bigger often is a sign of obesity, of lost control, of overcomplexity, of cancerous cells
|News||Neoliberalism as a New Form of Corporatism||Recommended Links||Brexit||Casino Capitalism||Secular Stagnation||Ayn Rand and Objectivism Cult|
|Financial Crisis of 2008 as the Crisis of Neoliberalism||Gangster Capitalism||Anti-globalization movement||Psychological Warfare and the New World Order||Key Myths of Neoliberalism||Globalization of Corporatism||Greenwald US|
|Elite Theory||Compradors||Fifth column||Color revolutions||The Great Transformation||Right to protect||If Corporations Are People, They Are Psychopaths|
|Super Capitalism as Imperialism||Neocolonialism as Financial Imperialism||America’s Financial Oligarchy||Inverted Totalitarism||Disaster capitalism||Neoliberalism as a Cause of Structural Unemployment in the USA||Neoliberalism and inequality|
|Corporatist Corruption: Systemic Fraud under Clinton-Bush-Obama Regime||Harvard Mafia||Friedman --founder of Chicago school of deification of market||Republican Economic Policy||Monetarism fiasco||Small government smoke screen||The Decline of the Middle Class|
|Libertarian Philosophy||Media domination strategy||Neoliberalism Bookshelf||John Kenneth Galbraith||Globalization of Financial Flows||Humor||Etc|
As the most recent transformation of capitalism, neoliberalism is a broad economic and political project of restoring class power of financial oligarchy it enjoyed in 20th of XX century (financial revanchism). It involved consolidation, globalization and rapid concentration of financial capital (Giroux 2008; 2014).
As an ideology, neoliberalism consider profit-making to be the final arbiter and essence of democracy ("market fundamentalism"). Like Fascism and Bolshevism neoliberalism relies on the power of the state for pushing neoliberal "reforms". Despite smoke screen of "free market" rhetoric neoliberal are statists par excellence.
From the late 1980s to 2016, neoliberal ideas held hegemonic sway among both the Democratic elite and the Republican elite in the USA. Election of Trump is the first sign of the crack in the neoliberal facade. And it was caused by the collapse of neoliberal ideology in 2008, but by Russian interference in the USA election like deceptively Clinton's wing of the Democratic Party with the help of intelligence agencies is trying to present it
Unlike fascism and bolshevism which both relied on population mobilization, neoliberalism tried to emasculate citizens suppressing political activity by treating them as just a consumers. In other words it promote political passivity and replacement of real political struggle by colorful spectacle like wrestling in WWE. Consumption is the only legitimate form of activity of citizens under neoliberalism and exercising of their choice during this consumption is the only desirable political activity. With the related religious belief that the market can both solve all problems and serve as a model for structuring all social relations (the idea of "self-regulating market," to use Karl Polanyi's phrase.) Grinding mass unemployment — with only tiny remnants of New Deal protection mechanisms to soften the blow — created political instability that destroyed any chances of Clinton Wing of Dems for reelection in 2016.
As the mode of governance, neoliberalism produces the ways of life driven by a survival-of-the fittest ethic, grounded in the idea of the free, predatory individual in economic jungles. And it declared the morality of the right of ruling groups and institutions to exercise power ignoring issues of ethics and social costs (variant of "might is right" mentality). This set of economic policies tend to produce an economy with highly unequal incomes, prevalence of monopolies and high business concentration, unstable booms, and long, painful busts.
As the political project, it involves the privatization of public services, the dismantling of the connection of private issues and public problems, the selling off of state functions, liberalization of trade in goods and capital investment, the eradication of government regulation of financial institutions and corporations, the destruction of the welfare state and unions, and the complete "marketization" and "commodification" of social relations.
Neoliberalism has put an enormous effort into creating a commanding cultural apparatus and public pedagogy in which individuals can only view themselves as consumers, embrace freedom as the right to participate in the market, and supplant issues of social responsibility for an unchecked embrace of individualism and the belief that all social relation be judged according to how they further one’s individual needs and self-interests.
Matters of mutual caring, respect, and compassion for the other have given way to the limiting orbits of privatization and unrestrained self-interest, just as it has become increasingly difficult to translate private troubles into larger social, economic, and political considerations. As the democratic public spheres of civil society have atrophied under the onslaught of neoliberal regimes of austerity, the social contract has been either greatly weakened or replaced by savage forms of casino capitalism, a culture of fear, and the increasing use of state violence.
One consequence is that it has become more difficult for people to debate and question neoliberal hegemony and the widespread misery it produces for young people, the poor, middle class, workers, and other segments of society — now considered disposable under neoliberal regimes which are governed by a survival-of-the fittest ethos, largely imposed by the ruling economic and political elite.
That they are unable to make their voices heard and lack any viable representation in the process makes clear the degree to which young people and others are suffering under a democratic deficit, producing what Chantal Mouffe calls “a profound dissatisfaction with a number of existing societies” under the reign of neoliberal capitalism (Mouffe 2013:119). This is one reason why so many youth, along with workers, the unemployed, and students, have been taking to the streets in Greece, Mexico, Egypt, the United States, and England.
Neoliberalism is the second after Marxism social system that was "invented" by a group of intellectuals (although there was not a single dominant individual among them) and implemented via coup d'état. ( Installed from above by a "quite coup") Although is formally only around 40 years old (if we could the edge of neoliberalism from the election of Reagan, which means from 1981) neoliberalism as ideology was born much earlier, around in 1947. And the first neoliberal US president was not Reagan, but Jimmy Carter.
In any case in 2008 it already reached the stage of discreditation of its ideology. When ideology became discredited, the social system based on it enters zombie state. That happened with Bolshevism after its victory on the WWII when it became evident that the working class does not represent the new dominant class and communist party is unable to secure neither higher productivity of economics, nor higher standard of living for people then the advanced capitalist societies. Soviet soldiers in 1944-1945 saw the standard of living in Poland (which was Russian province before the revolution, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Austria and started to suspect the dream of building communist society was just another "opium for the people", the secular religion which hides the rule of "nomenklatura".
Later the Soviet intelligencia realized that The Iron Law of Oligarchy in applicable to the USSR no less that to any Western country. We probably can assume that Soviet ideology entered zombies state in 1945, or may be later in 1963 (with Khrushchev Thaw) when it became clear that the USSR will never match the standard of living of the USA population and most of Western European countries. Illusions of the possibility of global Communist hegemony had evaporated with the collapse of Sino-Soviet relations (also the 1960s.) Around 1975, the Soviet Union entered a period of economic stagnation from which it never emerged. Due to this the USSR looked to Europe, primarily West Germany, to provide hard currency financing through massive loans, while the US became a major supplier of grain.
All in all the story of the USSR collapse suggests that after the ideology was discredited the society, which was based on it, can last several decades, or even half a century (The USSR lasted another 28-46 years (depending on the point at which you assume the ideology was completely discredited). But the sad story of the USSR after 1963 does suggests that if the ideology is "man made" like is both the case with Marxism and neoliberalism, the collapse of ideology is the prolog to the subsequent collapse of the society (even if with a substantial lag).
Neoliberal society probably has at least the same staying power as Bolshevism. Probably more. So we can expect that after 2008 -- when the ideology was discredited and neoliberalism entered zombie stage it will last around 50 years. If not more. The key fact that might speed up the collapse of neoliberalism is the end of cheap oil. As soon as the price of one barrel of oil exceeds some magic number (different researchers cite figures from $70 to $120; let's assume $100 per barrel) the USA like the USSR will enter the period of stagnation from which it might never emerge without dismantling neoliberalism first.
So the crisis of neoliberalism as ideology doers not signify the death of neoliberal as a social system. It will continue to exist in zombie state for some time. A development that some will indeed see as a curse, others as a blessing. Many people after 2008 declared that neoliberalism is dead or seen to be in its death throes. Many obituaries of finance capitalism and global free trade were written in 2008-2012. Nevertheless, neoliberalism has shown itself to be resilient and remains the dominant social system around the world( this resilience was called by Colin Crouch "the strange non-death of neoliberalism".)
The USSR managed to survive in a very hostile international environment more then 40 years (1945-1991) after Bolshevism was dead as an ideology. Absence of hostile environmt, as well as the lack of alternative social system might prolong the life of neoliberalism. Also one advantage neoliberalism enjoys is that collapse of the USSR was prompted by the ascendance of neoliberalism and betrayal of Soviet nomenklatura (which correctly decided that they will be better off under neoliberalism, then under Brezhnev socialism) is that socialism was discredited. Also unlike KGB brass, which was instrumental in transition of the xUSSR space from Brezhnev socialism to neoliberalism (with the first stage of gangster capitalism) the USA and GB intelligence agencies (actually all five eyes intelligence agencies) still is ready to defend neoliberalism, as color revolution against Trump had shown.
However, Brexit (and the election of Jeremy Corbyn as head of Labour) and the movements surrounding Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump in the United States are each in their own way symptomatic of a turning of the political tide against neoliberalims, especially such features as hyper-globalization and deregulation of financial markets. The benefits of free trade – of goods, services and capital – and outsourcing of labor to low-cost destinations are now being challenged across the political spectrum.
That means that the crisis of neoliberalism iturned from purely intellectual (collapse and discreditation of the ideology) to political challenges. Even "leading economists" like Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman, Jeffrey Sachs and Thomas Piketty started voicing concerns. Rising inequality lessen the cohesion of neoliberal societies and and created social tentions within them as we see in Marcon France. Even top economist from the IMF have recently acknowledged that neoliberalism has been “oversold”.
But we still do not see social system that will replace neoliberalism yet. And that might prolog the life neoliberalism to the upper limit of the suggested range Meantime the crisis of neoliberalism created preconditions for the rise of far right movements and switch to "national neoliberalism" (or neoliberalism without globalization). Much like Stalinism was socialism within one given country with Trotsky idea of permanent world revolution till final victory of socialism sent to the dustbin). It is an interesting theoretical question if "national neoliberalism" promoted by Trump can be viewed as a flavor of neoliberalism or a flavor of neofascism. If the latter then neoliberalism already died around 2016 and existed in its classic form just 30 years or so. I doubt that we can do such equivalence.
At the current stage collapse of neoliberalism, if we can use this word, is still very slow and almost invisible. Brexit and election of Trump in the USA are probably the first two most notable events after 2008 that can be interpreted as such. Both undermined "neoliberal globalization" -- one of the key components of neoliberalism, because like Communism before it is about building a global neoliberal empire (led by the USA financial oligarchy in close cooperation of other western oligarchies), without state borders.
Still "Great recession" which started in 2008 is the fact of life. Nations took various roads out of the Great Depression and that's probably will be true for the Great Recession. Some used deficit spending and the abandonment of the gold standard, which had to overcome resistance from business. In Germany, fascism removed "capitalist objections to full employment," wrote economist Michal Kalecki, by routing all deficit spending into rearmament and by keeping labor quiescent with political repression and permanent dictatorship.
We can envision the same process of the growing level of repression in the USA due to the growing gap between ideology postulates and the real life conditions, especially falling standard of living for most of the people (let's say, lower 80% in the USA. Top 20% including large part of "professional" class are doing just fine, much like nomenklarura in the USSR).
In the United States, the replacement ideology for unregulated capitalism on the early 20th was the New Deal. After some initial failed experimentation with planning, New Dealers settled on a framework of stimulus, regulation, unionization, progressive taxation, and anti-trust, heavily influenced by Louis Brandeis. To get people back to work and prime the economic pump, vast new public works were built, and millions were directly employed by the state. Business — especially finance — was regulated, above all to prevent concentration. Unions were protected under a new legal regime created by the National Labor Relations Act. Taxes on the rich were sharply increased, both to raise revenue and to deliberately prevent the accumulation of vast fortunes. Finally, world trade was managed under the Bretton-Woods system. New Deal ideology did not win at once and in 1937, FDR reversed the course and went back to austerity, instantly throwing millions out of work, and forcing him to return to deficit spending. It took the WWII war spending in 1941-1945 to entrench the New Deal and to eliminate mass unemployment. War also created the political space for Roosevelt to raise the top tax bracket to 94%. Think about it. Less then a century ago the top tax bracket in the USA was 94%. The erosion of the New Deal started almost immediately. For example, in 1847 trade union power was undercut by Taft–Hartley Act.
The New Deal framework held for about three decades after the end of the war — during which time the country also had the greatest economic boom in American history. Critically, this time the fruits of growth were also broadly shared. For all the many faults in the New Deal, in this period America was reformed from a country which functioned mostly on behalf of a tiny elite into one which functioned on behalf of a sizable chunk of population.
In this sense ascendance of neoliberalism was a counter-revolution against New Deal staged by financial elite: fundamental economic bedrock is quite similar: deregulation, tax and spending cuts, union busting, and free trade. Its adherents resurrected the idea of the self-regulating market, creating an elaborate mathematic model in which depressions were always the result of structural problems, the economy is always at full employment, and nothing could be changed without making someone else worse off. Once again, the political message was that regulations and taxation should be kept as low as possible.
A generation of economists centered around the Chicago School, including Friedrich von Hayek, Milton Friedman, and Robert Lucas, provided the intellectual backbone, gaining strength in the 1950s and '60s. They argued that New Deal structures were a drag on economic growth, and that taxes, regulation, and social insurance needed to be cut. America simply couldn't afford the strangling red tape and high taxes of the New Deal. And this time, they assured everyone, things would be different — no 1929-style crash would be in the cards.
Neoliberals' opportunity came in the 1970s, when the world economy ran into difficulties and at the center of those difficulties was the rising price of oil. War spending, the baby boom coming of age, and the oil shocks created serious inflation and pushed the U.S. into a trade deficit, which broke the Bretton-Woods system. Profits declined and big business mobilized against labor. The first wave of de-industrialization in the USA and offshoring of factories to Asia hit manufacturing.
I wonder if oil can serve as the grave digger of neoliberalism this time.
Like all analogies it far from being perfect. Here are major objections:
The main charge that may be laid against Gorbachev as leader is that he lacked an effective strategy of statecraft: the mobilization of resources to make a country more self-confident, more powerful, more respected and more prosperous. Instead, Gorbachev frittered away the governmental capital accumulated by the Soviet regime, and in the end was unable to save the country which he had attempted to reform.
There one, especially deep analogy between any neoliberal society and the USSR. Neoliberalism borrowed large part of its strategy and tactic of acquiring and maintaining power directly from Marxism, specifically from the flavor of Marxism, which partially originated (and remained popular until late 1940th) in the USA, and called Trotskyism (which Trotsky was a Russia émigré, he spend his formative years in the USA). Actually analogies with Marxism are to numerous to list.
The first notable analogy is the slogan "Dictatorship of "free markets"" instead of "dictatorship of proletariat." With the same idea that the driving force of this social transformation is the intellectual "vanguard" recruited mainly from "Intelligentsia" (mainly right wing economists and philosophers of the Mont Pelerin Society created in `947 with the explicit goal to oppose socialism and Bolshevism) will drive steeple to the "bright future of all mankind" -- global neoliberal empire led by the USA. And that the end justifies the means.
In short, neoliberalism is a kind of "Trotskyism for rich." And it uses the same subversive tactics to get and stay in power, which were invented by Bolsheviks/Trotskyites. Including full scale use of intelligence agencies (during WWII Soviet intelligence agency -- NKDV -- rivaled the primary intelligence agencies of Nazi Germany -- Abwehr; CIA was by-and-large modeled on Abwehr with Abwerh specialists directly participating in its creation ). It also process the ideal of World Revolution -- with the goal of creating the global neoliberal empire. The neoliberal USA elite is hell-bent on this vision.
Like Trotskyism neoliberalism generally needs a scapegoat. Currently this role is served by Islamic fundamentalist movements. But recently Russia emerged like more convenient scapegoat, at least for "CIA democrats" like Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Also like Bolshevism before, neoliberalism created its own "nomenklatura" -- the privileged class which exists outside the domain of capital owners. Which along with high level management and professionals include neoclassical academic economists. Who guarantee the level of brainwashing at the universities necessary for maintaining the neoliberal system. This "creator class" fight for its self-preservation and against any challenges. Often quite effectively.
Yet another strong analogy is that the deification of markets much like the idea of "dictatorship of proletariat" is "fools gold". This fact was clearly established after the Great Recession, and one of the most succinct explanation of the stupidity of the idea of self-regulating market remains Karl Polanyi's famous book The Great Transformation. Polanyi argued that the development of the modern state went hand in hand with the development of modern market economies and that these two changes were inextricably linked in history. And all talk about small state, state as "night watchman" are pure hypocrisy. Like Marxism, neoliberalism really provides "the great transformation" because it both changes the human institutions and human morality. The latter in a very destructive way. The book postulated that and "free market society" (where the function of social regulation is outsourced to the market forces) is unsustainable because it is fatally destructive to human nature and the natural social contexts humans need to survive and prosper.
Polanyi attempted to turn the tables on the orthodox liberal account of the rise of capitalism by arguing that “laissez-faire was planned”, whereas social protectionism was a spontaneous reaction to the social dislocation imposed by an unrestrained free market. He argues that the construction of a "self-regulating" market necessitates the separation of society into economic and political realms. Polanyi does not deny that the self-regulating market has brought "unheard of material wealth", but he suggests that this is too narrow a focus. The market, once it considers land, labor and money as "fictitious commodities" (fictitious because each possesses qualities that are not expressed in the formal rationality of the market), and including them "means to subordinate the substance of society itself to the laws of the market. This, he argues, results in massive social dislocation, and spontaneous moves by society to protect itself. In effect, Polanyi argues that once the free market attempts to separate itself from the fabric of society, social protectionism is society's natural response, which he calls the "double movement." Polanyi did not see economics as a subject closed off from other fields of enquiry, indeed he saw economic and social problems as inherently linked. He ended his work with a prediction of a socialist society, noting, "after a century of blind 'improvement', man is restoring his 'habitation.
But when 50 years passed and generation changed they manage to shove it down throat. Because the generation which experienced horrors of the Great Depression at this point was gone (and that include cadre of higher level management which still have some level of solidarity with workers against capital owners).
They were replaced with HBS and WBS graduates -- ready made neoliberals. Quit coup (in Simon Johnson terms) naturally followed ( https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/05/the-quiet-coup/307364/ ) and we have hat we have. In a sense neoliberalism and Managerialism ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Managerialism ) are closely related. Here is how he "reinvents" the concept of "Minsky moment" in the new conditions of neoliberal globalization"
Typically, these countries are in a desperate economic situation for one simple reason—the powerful elites within them overreached in good times and took too many risks. Emerging-market governments and their private-sector allies commonly form a tight-knit—and, most of the time, genteel—oligarchy, running the country rather like a profit-seeking company in which they are the controlling shareholders. When a country like Indonesia or South Korea or Russia grows, so do the ambitions of its captains of industry. As masters of their mini-universe, these people make some investments that clearly benefit the broader economy, but they also start making bigger and riskier bets. They reckon—correctly, in most cases—that their political connections will allow them to push onto the government any substantial problems that arise.
Unlike Bolshevism after 1945, neoliberalism in zombie state (which it entered after 2008) remains dangerous and is able to counterattack -- the US sponsored efforts of replacement of left regimes in LA with right wing neoliberal regimes were by-and-large successful. I two key LA countries neoliberalism successfully counterattacked and won political power deposing more left regimes (Brazil and Argentina ). That happened despite that this phase of neoliberal era has been marked by slower growth, greater trade imbalances, and deteriorating social conditions. In Latin America the average growth rate was lower by 3 percent per annum in the 1990s than in the 1970s, while trade deficits as a proportion of GDP are much the same. Contrary to neoliberal propaganda the past 25 years (1980–2005) have also characterized by slower progress on social indicators for the vast majority of low- and middle-income countries [compared with the prior two decades ( https://monthlyreview.org/2006/04/01/neoliberalism-myths-and-reality/ ) :
In an effort to keep growing trade and current account deficits manageable, third world states, often pressured by the IMF and World Bank, used austerity measures (especially draconian cuts in social programs) to slow economic growth (and imports). They also deregulated capital markets, privatized economic activity, and relaxed foreign investment regulatory regimes in an effort to attract the financing needed to offset the existing deficits. While devastating to working people and national development possibilities, these policies were, as intended, responsive to the interests of transnational capital in general and a small but influential sector of third world capital. This is the reality of neoliberalism.
The Soviet Union collapsed partially due to the fact that collapse of oil prices (which might be engineered event) deprived it of the ability to buy the necessary goods from the West (which at this point included grain, due to inefficiency of Soviet model of large centralized state owned agricultural complexes).
In case of the USA an opposite situation might also serve as a trigger: as soon as oil cross, say, $80 dollar per barrel mark most Western economies slide in "secular stagnation" and that means growing discontent of lower 80% of population. Also as globalization is inherently dependent on cheap hydrocarbons and disappearance of cheap oil will male the current international patterns of flow of goods across countries with China as world manufacture open to review.
This is the situation when the irresistible force of globalization hits the brick wall of high oil prices. Also high cost of hydrocarbons means "end of growth" (aka permanent stagnation), and neoliberalism financial schemes based on cheap credit automatically implode in the environment of slow of zero growth. So expect that the next financial crisis will shake neoliberalism stronger then the crisis of 2008.
A lot of debt becomes unplayable, if growth stagnates. That makes manipulation of GDP numbers the issue of political and economic survival because this is the method of "inspiring confidence". And the temptation to inspire confidence is too great to resists. Exactly like it was in the USSR.
It might well be that the consistent price of oil, say, over $120 is a direct threat to neoliberal project in the USA. Even with prices over $100 the major neoliberal economics tend to enter the stage of "secular stagnation". It also makes the US military which is a large consumer of oil in the USA much more expensive to run and virtually doubles the costs of neoliberal "wars for regime change", essentially curtailing neoliberal expansion.
Election of Trump is just testament that some part of the US elite is ready for "Hail Mary" pass just to survive. The same is true about financiering of color revolutions, which as a new type of neoliberal conquests of other countries, also require a lot of cash, although not at the scale of "boots on the ground".
The implosion of the entire global banking/mortgage industry in 2008 has essentially delegitimized neoliberalism as an economic and social model which the U.S. has been pleased to espouse as the royal road to prosperity for decades. It signified the end of Washington Consensus.
At this point ideology of neoliberalism was completely discredited in a sense that promise prosperity for all via "free market" mechanisms. The whole concept of "free markets" is from now on is viewed as fake. Much like happened with bolshevism in the USSR.
It actually was viewed as fake after the Great Depression too, but the generation that remembered that died out and neoliberalism managed to perform its major coup d'état in the USA in 1981. After trail balls in Chile and GB.
Also its fake nature became evident to large part of global elite (which probably never have any illusions from the very beginning) as well, which is even more dangerous, a large part of upper middle class in many developing countries, the social strata from which "fifth column of neoliberal globalization" is typically recruited.
Global neoliberal empire still is supported by pure military and financial power of the USA and its Western (and some Asian, such as Japan) allies as well as technological superiority of the West in general. So right now mainly ideological postulates of neoliberalism, especially as its "free market absolutism", started to be questioned. And partially revised (the trend which is visible in increase financial regulation in most Western countries). So "self-regulation free market model proved to be neither self-regulating, not really free -- it just transferred the cost of its blunders on the society at large. This form of neoliberalism with the core ideology intact but with modified one of several postulates can be called post-neoliberalism or zombie neoliberalism.
While indoctrination now reached almost all adult population, there are some instances of resistance, especially among young people, who are insisting that casino capitalism is an act of violence against them and destruction of their future. And if it does not come to an end, what we might experience a mass destruction of human life if not the planet itself.
Both Obama and Trump proved to be masters of the "bait and switch" maneuver, but the anger of population did not dissipated and at some point still can explode.
Rule of financial oligarchy also gradually comes under some (although very limited) scrutiny in the USA. Some measures to restrict appetites of financial oligarchy were recently undertaken in Europe (bank bonuses limitations).
HFT and derivatives still remain off-reach for regulators despite JP Morgan fiasco in May 2012 in London branch. Trade loss was around two billions, decline of bank value was around $13bn (The Guardian) At this stage most people around the world realized that as Warren Buffett's right-hand man Charlie Munger quipped in his CNBC interview Trusting banks to self-regulate is like trusting to self-regulate heroin addicts. At the meeting of the Group of 20 (G20) heads of states in the spring of 2009, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced the death of “the Washington Consensus” — the famous list of market-liberalizing policy prescriptions that guided the previous 20 or 30 years of neoliberal expansion into third world countries (Painter 2009).
Prominent economists in the United States and elsewhere pointed out that after decades of reform, market-liberalizing policies had not produced the promised benefits for either economic growth or social welfare of countries were those policies were applied (Stiglitz 2002, 2006; Rodrik 2006). These criticisms further undermined the legitimacy of neoliberal governance, exactly the same way as similar criticism undermined socialist model of the USSR and Eastern Europe. the problem is that while socialist experiment could be compared with the Western countries capitalism achievement, here there is no alternative model with which to compare.
Still a backlash directed at the USA is mounting even from the former loyal vassals. Even the UK elite starts to display the behavior that contradict its role of the US poodle. The atmosphere is which the USA is considered "guilty" of pushing though the throats of other countries a utopia that harmed them is a different atmosphere for the US oligarchy that the role of it accustomed to.
Everybody is now aware of the substantial costs that the modern financial system has imposed on the real economy and no amount of propaganda and brainwashing can hide this simple fact. It is questionable that the "financial innovations" of the last three-four decades can compensate for those huge costs and that they warrants those costs. Shocks generated within the financial system and transformation of economies imposed by international financial oligarchy as the core of neoliberal elite, implies that the rule of financial oligarchy creates negative externalities for societies and that some types of financial activities and some financial structures should be treated like an organized crime (as purely parasitic, extortionist type of players).
Still this stage preserves several attributes of previous stage and first of all push for globalization and aggressive foreign policy. While economic crisis of 2008 destroyed legitimacy of ideology of neoliberalism, neoliberalism as an ideology continue to exists as a cult, much like communism as an ideology continues to exist, despite the failure of the USSR. And being phony ideology from the very beginning, a smokescreen for the revanchism of financial oligarchy, it still can be promoted by unrelenting propaganda machine of the same forces which put it into mainstream albeit with les efficiency.
While no viable alternatives emerged, and inertia is still strong, and G7 block with the USA as the head is still the dominant world power, the crash are now visible in the global neoliberalism façade. Like in 20th failure the globalization and unrestrained financial markets (which produced the Great Depression) the financial crisis of 2008 led to the dramatic rise of nationalism, especially in Europe (France, Hungary, Ukraine). In some countries, such as Ukraine, the net result of neoliberal revolution was establishing far right regime which has uncanny similarities to the régimes which came to power in 30th such as Franco regime in Spain. The global neoliberal dominance as a social system still continues, it is just the central idea of neoliberalism, the fake idea of self-regulating market that was completely discredited by the crisis (it was discredited before during Great Depression, but the generation the remembered the lesson is now extinct (it looks like it takes approximately 50 years for humanity to completely forget the lessons of history ;-).
This rise of nationalism was also a feature of the USSR political space in 80th. Formally it was nationalist sentiments that buried the USSR.
Around the world, economists and policymakers now come to consensus that excessive reliance on unregulated financial markets and the unrestrained rule of financial oligarchy was the root cause of the current worldwide financial crisis. That created a more difficult atmosphere for the USA financial institutions to operate abroad. Several countries are now trying to limit role of dollar as the world currency (one of the sins Saddam Hussein paid the price).
Also internal contradictions became much deeper and the neoliberal regime became increasingly unstable even in the citadel of neoliberalism -- the USA. Like any overstretched empire it became hollow within with stretches on potholes ridden roads and decaying infrastructure visible to everyone. Politically, the Republican Party became a roadblock for any meaningful reform (and its radical wing -- the tea party even sending its representatives to Congress), the Party that is determined to rather take the USA the road of the USSR, then change its ideology. All this points to the fact that neoliberalism as an socio-economic doctrine is following the path of Bolshevism.
Neoliberalism failed to fulfill its promises for the bottom 80% of population. They became more poorer, job security deteriorated, good jobs disappear, and even McJobs are scare judging from the fact that Wall Mart and McDonalds are able to fully staff their outlets. McJobs are jobs that does not provide a living wages. Opiod epidemics reminds me epidemics of alcoholism in the USSR during Brezhnev period. Cannabis legalization belong to the same trend.
But its media dominance of neoliberalism paradoxically continues unabated. And this is despite the fact that after the crisis of 2008, the notion that finance mobilizes and allocates resources efficiently, drastically reduces systemic risks and brings significant productivity gains for the economy as a whole became untenable. We can expect that like was the case with Catholicism in middle ages and Bolshevism in the USSR, zombie phase of neoliberalism can last many decades (in the USSR, "zombie" state lasted two decades, say from 1970 to 1991, and neoliberalism with its emphasis on low human traits such as greed and supported by military and economic power of the USA, is considerably more resilient then Bolshevism). As of 2013 it is still supported by elites of several major western states (such as the USA, GB, Germany, France), transnational capital (and financial capital in particular) and respective elites out of the sense of self-preservation. That means that is it reasonable to expect that its rule in G7 will continue (like Bolshevism rule in the USSR in 70th-80th) despite probably interrupted by bursts of social violence (Muslim immigrants in Europe are once such force).
In the US, for example, income and wealth inequality continue to increase, with stagnating middle-class earnings, reduced social mobility, and an allegedly meritocratic higher education system, generously supported by tax exemptions, has been turned into the system whose main beneficiaries are the children of the rich and successful. Superimposed on this class divide is an increasingly serious intergenerational divide, and increases level of unemployment of young people, which make social atmosphere somewhat similar to the one in Egypt, although the pressure from Muslim fundamentalists is absent.
More and more neoliberalism came to be perceived as a ruse intended to safeguard the interests of a malignantly narcissistic empire (the USA) and of rapacious multinationals. It is now more and more linked with low-brow cultural homogeneity, social Darwinism, encroachment on privacy, mass production of junk, and suppression of national sentiments and aspiration in favor of transnational monopolies. It even came to be associated with a bewildering variety of social ills: rising crime rates, unemployment, poverty, drug addiction, prostitution, organ trafficking, and other antisocial forms of conduct.
While ideology of neoliberalism is by-and-large discredited, the global economic institutions associated with its rise are not all equally moribund. For example, the global economic crisis of 2008 has unexpectedly improved the fortunes of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), an organization long famous for the neoliberal policy conditions attached to its loans that served to incorporate countries into a global neoliberal economic system. In 2008, a cascade of financial crises in Eastern Europe and Iceland fattened the IMF’s dwindling loan portfolio.
World Trade Organization (WTO), the key US-used and abused universal opener of markets to US corporations and investments is in worse shape then IMF, but still is able to enforce Washington consensus rules. The Doha round of negotiations is stalled, mostly due to irresolvable disputes between developed and developing countries. Consequently, the current crisis of neoliberalism raises many important questions about the future path of the current international institutions promoting the neoliberal order. But still Russia joined WTO in 2012 which means that this organization got a new lease of life.
When ideology collapses the elite often reports to corporatism (and in extreme case to neo-fascism) That happened briefly in the USSR under Andropov, but he did not last long enough to establish a trend.
Trumps "bastard neoliberalism (neoliberalism without neoliberal globalization) mixed with economic nationalism can be called "neoliberalism in name only". Trump foreign economic policies look more and more like an economic aggression, economic racket, then a an economic platform. Nonetheless, that "neoliberalism in name only" is still a powerful global "brand" which the U.S. seeks to maintain at all costs for macro geopolitical reasons (The Great Crash, 2008: A Geopolitical Setback for the West , Foreign Affairs)
The financial and economic crash of 2008, the worst in over 75 years, is a major geopolitical setback for the United States and Europe. Over the medium term, Washington and European governments will have neither the resources nor the economic credibility to play the role in global affairs that they otherwise would have played. These weaknesses will eventually be repaired, but in the interim, they will accelerate trends that are shifting the world's center of gravity away from the United States.
A brutal recession is unfolding in the United States, Europe, and probably Japan -- a recession likely to be more harmful than the slump of 1981-82. The current financial crisis has deeply frightened consumers and businesses, and in response they have sharply retrenched. In addition, the usual recovery tools used by governments -- monetary and fiscal stimuli -- will be relatively ineffective under the circumstances.
This damage has put the American model of free-market capitalism under a cloud. The financial system is seen as having collapsed; and the regulatory framework, as having spectacularly failed to curb widespread abuses and corruption. Now, searching for stability, the U.S. government and some European governments have nationalized their financial sectors to a degree that contradicts the tenets of modern capitalism.
Much of the world is turning a historic corner and heading into a period in which the role of the state will be larger and that of the private sector will be smaller. As it does, the United States' global power, as well as the appeal of U.S.-style democracy, is eroding.
The USSR occupation of Afghanistan was actually a trap created by Carter administration in order to weaken and possibly destroy the USSR. They wanted that the USSR experienced its own Vietnam-style defeat. As a side effect they created political Islam and Islam fundamentalist movement (exemplified by former CIA asset Osama bin Laden) that later bite them in the back.
The US elite got into this trap voluntarily after 9/11: first via occupations of Afghanistan (the war continues to this day), then occupation of Iraq, Libya and initiating "color revolution" (and train and supply Sunni Islam fundamentalists, along with KSA and Turkey) to depose Assad government in Syria.
The USA still remains the most powerful country in the world with formidable military, and still can dictate it will military for small countries in a classic sense -- in a sense that "might makes right". It still can afford to behave as a word hegemon and the only source of justice ignoring the UN and other International organization, unless it is convenient to them.
But there are costs attacked and in case of Iraq war they are already substantial (to the tune of several trillion dollars). While effects on the USA economy of those set of wars of managing and expanding its neoliberal empire (and repartitioning ME, securing oil access and repartitioning the region in favor of Israel regional interests) are still in the future, military adventurism was a gravestone on many previous empires, which tend to overstretch themselves and this fasten their final day.
As Napoleon noted "You can do anything with bayonets, but you can't sit on them". having first class military weakens is not everything when you face guerilla resistance in occupied country. Running aggressive foreign policy on a discredited ideology and relying on blunt propaganda and false flag operations is a difficult undertaking as resistance mounts and bubble out in un-anticipated areas.
Ukraine is one recent example, when neoliberal color revolution, which was performed by few thousands trained by the West far right militants, including openly neo-fascist squads, led to civil war in the country. Syria is another case of unanticipated effects, as Russia did not want to repeat experience of Libya and intervened, interfering with the USA goal of establishing Sunni-based Islamist regime, subservant to KSA and Turkey, and/or dismembering the country and creating several weak Sunny dominated statelets with jihadists in power, the situation which greatly benefit Turkey and Israel. Israel correctly consider secular Assad régime as a greater threat and major obstacle in annexation of Golan Heights and eliminating Hezbollah in Lebanon. It would prefer weak islamist regimes, hopefully engaged in protracted civil war to Assad regime any time.
Unfortunately, the recent troika of "neoliberalized" countries -- Libya, Syria and Ukraine -- were not probably a swan song of muscular enforcement of neoliberal model on other countries. While sponsored by the USA and allies anti-Putin putsch in Russia (aka "white revolution") failed, events in Libya and, especially, Ukraine prove the neoliberalism still can launch and win offensives at relatively low, acceptable cost (via color revolutions mechanism ). The main cost carry the population of the target country which is plunged into economic and political chaos, in most cases including the civil war.
But in the USA those wars also somewhat backfire with broken domestic infrastructure, decaying bridges and angered, restless, and partially drugged by opioids population. As well as thousands of crippled young men healthcare for whom till end of their lives will cost large amount of money.
In such circumstances chances of raising to power of an openly nationalistic leader substantially increase. Which was already demonstrated quite convincingly by the election of Trump.
Analogy of current crisis of neoliberalism in the USA and the USSR collapse is demonstrably far from perfect. The USSR was always in far less favorable conditions then USA, operating is a hostile environment encircled by Western powers interested in its demise; also the collapse of the USSR happened during "triumphal march of neoliberalism" which provided ready-made alternative to Brezhnev's socialism and stimulated the betrayal of Soviet nomenklatura of their old ideology and "switching ideological camps"). But the key to collapse of the USSR was the collapse of Bolshevik's ideology, which has happened some time from 1945 to 1963.
Still it allows to point out some alarming similarities. Which does not bode well for the USA future, if the hypothesis that the same fundamental forces are in play in both cases. In this sense the collapse of neoliberal ideology ("free market fundamentalism"), which happened in 2008 is a bad sign indeed. .
There is still a chance that the US elite proves to be flexible and manage to escape this "ideological mousetrap" by switching to some new ideology, but they are pretty weak, if we look at the quality of Trump administration and the personalities in the USA Congress. Some of them too closely correspond to the depiction of sociopaths to stay comfortable. The same was true about certain parts of Soviet "nomenklatura", especially leaders of Komsomol (All-Union Leninist Young Communist League ), from which such questionable post-communist figures such a Khodorkovsky, in Russia (of "pipes and corpses" film fame), and Turchinov in Ukraine later emerged.
The recent humiliation of the US representative in the UN Nikki Haley by Bolivian representative also suggest that neoliberal propaganda lost large part of its effectiveness and unilateral military actions by the USA are now questioned more effectively: Bolivian UN Rep Sacha Llorenti Blasts U.S. for Attacking Syria, Educates Nikki Haley on Iraq, UN & U.S. History
Llorenti’s fourteen minute address to the UNSC was a tour de force – a critique of unilateral military action by the U.S. (it violates the UN charter), an analysis of previous emotional appeals for urgent action (think Colin Powell in 2003), as well as a reminder of the United States’ long history of interventionism in Latin America. Llorenti also called the UNSC to task for its internal structure, which grants considerably more power upon its five permanent members than it does its ten non-permanent members.
It was a remarkable anti-imperialist display. Read a partial transcript and/or watch the full video below.
That closely corresponds to what had happened with Bolshevism ideology around 1980 -- when it became the source of jokes both inside the USSR and abroad. Or a little bit later, if we remember "Tear down this wall!" -- a line from a speech made by US President Ronald Reagan in West Berlin on June 12, 1987. When Paul Craig Roberts claims that It Has Become Embarrassing To Be An American that is a symptom of a problem, yet another symptom of the demise of neoliberal propaganda, despite obvious exaggeration.
It would be too much stretch to state that neoliberal and especially globalist propaganda is now rejected both by population within the USA (which resulted in defeat of Hillary Clinton -- an establishment candidates and election of the "wild card" candidate -- Donald Trump -- with clearly nationalistic impulses) and outside the USA.
May 21, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
Oliver K , May 19, 2019 3:32:24 PM | 5" Why The Takedown Of Heinz-Christian Strache Will Strengthen The Right | Main May 19, 2019 The story in the American Conservative is very weak: that "the Americans" have already won the war is just due to the built-in superiority: the "land of the free" against "communist dictatorship" (so everybody knows who has to win). Or, a variation, "free market" against "state-owned".
A typical statement of that article: "China views commercial relations with other countries as an extension of the political conflict between Western democracies and itself -- that is, an extension of war." -- a very defining element of the "American" character, to project the own aggression onto others.
There was another opinion-piece somewhere, can't find it anymore, where the author argued that hopefully that "trade-war" will do really good for the Chinese economy -- forget about the US, and develop the home market.
As I believe that the sanctions are a great gift to Russia, I also believe that this "trade-war" is a (potential) great gift to China.
Kadath , May 19, 2019 4:21:27 PM | 0That was an interesting article on psychological vs sociological storytelling and it makes a good companion piece when thinking about how the US media personalizes US geo-political conflicts with the heads of rival state (Putin, Xi, Castro, Kim Jong-un, Khomeini, Gaddafi). If you believe the US media if they just removed Putin, Russia would go back to being a good little puppet state just like under Yeltins. Which is a shockingly naïve way to look at international relations. States have permanent interests and any competent head of State will always represent those interests to the best of their ability. True, you could overthrow the government and replace every senior government figure with a compliant puppet (which the US always tries to do), but the permanent interests that arise from the inhabitants of the State will always rise up and (re)assert themselves. When the State leadership is bribed or threatened into ignoring or acting against these needs it ultimately creates a failed State.KC , May 19, 2019 4:31:39 PM | 1
Even the US media seems to subconsciously understand this, when they talk of "overly ambitious US goals of remaking societies", however, they never make the logical next step of investigating why these States do not wish to be remade as per the US imagined ideal, what the interests of these actually are and how diplomacy can resolve conflicts. According to the US media everything boils down to the US = good, anyone who disagrees with our policies = bad and diplomacy is just a measure of how vulgar our threats are during talks. I'm specifically thinking of the US Ambassador to Russia, John Huntsman's boast of a US aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean as being 100,000 tons of diplomacy to Russia - of all the ridiculous and stupid things to says to Russia when supposedly trying to "ease" tensions (I still can't believe Huntsmen, former Ambassador to China under Obama, is regarded a "serious" professional ambassador within the State departments when compared to all the celebrity ambassadorships the US President for fundraiser).@WJ #8 - That's probably a daily occurrence there anyway.KC , May 19, 2019 4:35:35 PM | 2Somewhat on-topic, China's state media is broadcasting Anti-American movies .William Gruff , May 19, 2019 4:43:17 PM | 4Cresty @9Kadath , May 19, 2019 4:59:33 PM | 5
It is not just Chinese but Asian in general. Watch several seasons of the Japanese cartoon "Gundam" and get back to me about who the good guys are and who the bad guys are in it.
The whole notion that the "good guys" and the "bad guys" are set in stone is antithetical to any worldview founded in Buddhism/Confucianism, or influenced by the same. Can you imagine western children's programming teaching ambiguity between good and evil? That which is which depends upon the observer's perspective? This is the sort of concept that few western people get exposed to until graduate level ethics and philosophy courses.
Or maybe not. I have never seen a single episode of "Game of Thrones" and maybe that delves into ethical complexities that typical western mass media avoids. I wouldn't know. What I do know is that this moral and ethical complexity is something that most Asian children are introduced to before they hit their teens.Trump just tweeted "If Iran wants to fight, that will be the official end of Iran. Never threaten the United States again!". Needless to say, more ridiculousness, Trump is pretty close to plagiarizing himself with his prior comments regarding North Korean "North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un just stated that the "Nuclear Button is on his desk at all times." Will someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!". I think Trump is getting desperate now waiting by the phone for the Iranians to call him. Trump is certainly still smarting after the failed Venezuela coup and wants to avoid a second embarrassing defeat, however I doubt the Iranians will care that much about his latest threat by tweet.Nemesiscalling , May 19, 2019 5:18:09 PM | 6GOT was jarring this season. In the penultimate episode, a dragon wreaks havoc on a western capital city, brutally murdering most of its inhabitants.Sasha , May 19, 2019 5:26:49 PM | 7
It is impossible not to make the correlation of the dragon as China and kings landing (The city) as Washington d.c.
From this one can glean that they were attempting to show the ascendancy of China and the utter destruction of the U.S. With shades of gray thrown about as to if the people of the city deserved to be burned alive and as to whether the dragon and its rider, China, have become what they originally set out to vanquish. The old Nietzsche maxim...those who fight with monsters...
It was indeed unsettling because there are no moral winners. It is well realised for this reason but poorly written and produced in other aspects as noted above by other posters.On the alleged Arendt´s banality of evil, well, some more evil than others, if not because o of their clearly over the top ambitions:Jackrabbit , May 19, 2019 6:01:23 PM | 9
Interesting comment linking some sources and articles on US military strategy from decades ago , some of which I am not able to get to anymore, as the article at ICH numbered 3011:"First published From Parameters, Summer 1997, pp. 4-14: US Army War College: "There will be no peace. At any given moment for the rest of our lifetimes, there will be multiple conflicts in mutating forms around the globe. Violent conflict will dominate the headlines, but cultural and economic struggles will be steadier and ultimately more decisive. The de facto role of the US armed forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy and open to our cultural assault. To those ends, we will do a fair amount of killing."
"Excerpts From Pentagon's Plan: 'Prevent the Re-Emergence of a New Rival':
"Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union.
This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union, and Southwest Asia.
There are three additional aspects to this objective: First, the U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests.
Second, in the non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. Finally, we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role. An effective reconstitution capability is important here, since it implies that a potential rival could not hope to quickly or easily gain a predominant military position in the world."
... access to vital raw materials, primarily Persian Gulf oil"Nemesiscalling @16Maximus , May 19, 2019 6:09:55 PM | 1
GOT is an allegory that explores the nature of power. If you see China's destruction of Washington it says more about you than the show. Firebombing of Dresden might be a more apt analogy.
People always suffer when they allow corrupt sociopaths to gain power. That is as true today as it was in Germany in 1930's and 40's.
The complaints about poor writing are just fan sadness at unexpected horrors that actually make sense for the show. Loose ends created by these horrors will likely be resolved in the last episode tonight.Link not working above here it is: https://twitter.com/realgollumtrump?lang=enRoy G , May 19, 2019 7:12:22 PM | 3WJ @13 thanks for the link, I am eternally hopeful that this particular thread gets pulled on until it unravels.Dolores P Candyarse , May 19, 2019 7:30:47 PM | 4
One of my distinct memories of the immediate aftermath of 9/11 (I lived in NYC at the time), was the trumpeting of the Post and other tabloids about 'the Dancing Arabs,' which obviously fanned the flames of hatred towards the designated villains. Once it was revealed that they were actually Israelis, then crickets until the whole thing was shoved down the memory hole.I'm going out today to buy a couple of Huawei 'phones'.Uncoy , May 19, 2019 7:32:02 PM | 5
According to news reports since the moron in charge announced that he had signed an executive order 'blacklisting' Huawei, those lovely humans at Google are denying Huawei phones access to gmail and playstore. The android operating system is open source and still available to Huawei.
Doubtless FB and M$ will follow suit. Getting rid of all the nasty stuff that spies on users 24/7/365 now means that Huawei phones have all the advantages with none of the disadvantages.
They put their own chips in newer models and I have no doubt will find enough bright sparks to take over apps integration meaning that this divergence point will become a boon not a hurdle. Even better a Huawei costs 60% of a comparable korean model and half the price of the fbi backdoored american shit.
I really like thinking expressed by an un-named english politician in a Henry Jackson Society report: ""Huawei has long been accused of espionage" – a claim repeatedly denied by the firm – and notes that "while there are no definitely proven cases", a precautionary principle should be adopted."
All politicians are crooks and liars, everybody says so, lets lock em all up right now, no need for evidence or trial or any of that due process nonsense, the precautionary principle should apply.William Gruff wrote:Colin , May 19, 2019 7:39:27 PM | 6I have never seen a single episode of "Game of Thrones" and maybe that delves into ethical complexities that typical western mass media avoids. I wouldn't know.
Having suffered through four seasons of Game of Thrones, after a degree in philology and literature, I'd be happy to share my impressions with you. In Games of Thrones, the good characters are regularly disembowled, choked and drowned to death. Or turn evil. The evil characters grow in power and menace and rarely perish. The overwhelming message is that all people and all power are evil. There is no good in the world or what good there is will be quickly stomped out. Resistance is useless.
The main message is really that resistance is futile . If the powers that be can condition the contemporary (and naturally idealistic) Western youth to accept that hypothesis, any threat to their depredations and financial tyranny is rendered impotent. If resistance is futile, said youth will simply have to accept how things are and try to stay out of the way of tyrannical kings, rapacious queens, brutal captains of the guards and wanton dragons. I.e. sit down and shut up while HRC, John Bolton, John Brennan and James Clapper ruin the planet.
Despite impressive production values, excellent acting (for the most part) and majestic locations, Game of Thrones is truly the most evil large scale creative work I've ever seen. On a philosophical level, Game of Thrones has no redeeming features. At best an impressionable mind might come away with a hedonist mindset, i.e. the traditional salve of weak spirits, carpe diem .
PS. There's some very good comments at the tail end of the Takedown of Heinz-Christian Strache including one of my own covering in some depth the Austrian political background to this event. Worth revisiting if you only saw the early comments.Analysis from a poll sometimes cited by Chomsky.KC , May 19, 2019 8:21:46 PM | 0
See Gallup International poll pg 134
Using populations per country from '03 we get the following conclusions:
of the 36 countries outside the US we get 33% of the world population where
less than 8% supported unilateral military action by American and her allies
and 57% supported under no circumstances
this list excludes 42 additional countries with another 40% of world population who have had their governments overthrown or attempted to be overthrown by the US since WWII
In the US 33% supported unilateral action, 70% of congress voted for the unilateral military action
Being that the invasion was illegal and unpopular, the Bush admin invented a 'coalition of the willing to give the appearance of support.
The Trump admin needed to create a similar type of facade for the Venezuelan coup. Such things are needed specifically because the move is so unpopular and illegal.At least the alternative media is taking notice of the warmongering tactics ofNemesisCalling , May 19, 2019 9:03:28 PM | 4
John Bolton .@ Jen 29NemesisCalling , May 19, 2019 9:21:34 PM | 5
I suppose that is a valid theory. But as the viewer we know the motivations of Dany and why in some small regard the people in King's Landing deserve a little roughing up.
Thomas Jefferson said: "I tremble for my countrymen because I know God is just..."
The difference here is that we judge Assad even though we don't see what he is truly doing.
Here we see what Dany has done, mass slaughter, and think to ourselves...we kinda had it coming.@25 uncoypsychohistorian , May 19, 2019 9:51:22 PM | 7
Concerning your take on GoT: Isn't this really the thesis of Thucydides through and through reflected in GoT almost to a T?
"The powerful do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." GoT is not disturbing to be nihilistic and shocking. It is holding up a mirror to history. But the quality of the show has declined aince they have come to the end of the road in adapting the source material. The show has overtaken the books.Below is a link from Xinhuanet about the China financial sector opening upvk , May 19, 2019 10:06:03 PM | 8
China to further open up financial sector: central bank
The take away quote
As of the end of March, overseas investors bought a net of 1.77 trillion yuan (about 260.3 billion U.S. dollars) of bonds at the country's interbank bond market, up 31 percent from a year earlier, and held 5.4 trillion yuan of yuan-denominated financial assets, up 19 percent year on year, according to the central bank.
What us peasants don't know is the extent to which China will let foreign investment influence their socialistic ways. That said, China is the new empire, private or public is yet to be determined but guess where all the "smart" money in the world is going? The money movements are a giant sucking sound that will leave America under the global economic bus.
Or not and China maintains its socialistic ways including projecting them around the world.S , May 19, 2019 10:50:33 PM | 3The movies Hollywood produced are often telling psychological conflicts as the central story. Each character has a certain fixed attitude and the interacting of the characters create the story. It does not matter if the setting is in antic times or in the far future. In the end there are always the bad and the good guy slamming it out in a fistfight.
The historic Chinese drama which I currently favor are based on sociological storytelling. As they develop the stories form their characters. Their attitudes change over time because the developing exterior circumstances push them into certain directions. Good becomes bad and again good. The persons change because they must, not because the are genetically defined. I find these kind of movies more interesting.
That's the difference between materialism (marxism) and idealism (kantism, hegelianism and noekantism). Besides, an idealist tv series helps selling more merch and doing more sequels, hence the capitalist preference for idealism.@KC #12:Grieved , May 19, 2019 10:51:22 PM | 4China's state media is broadcasting Anti-American movies.
How are these movies "anti-American"? These movies are simply the truth.@36 Jen, @40 Peter AU 1, karlof1 - and otherspsychohistorian , May 19, 2019 10:55:01 PM | 6
I have really appreciated the discussions you've held regarding this US view that places the power of national impetus in the person of one leader - rather than seeing cultural, seasonal, historical, collegial, etc. causes for the way things move.
You and the commentators whom you've cited and drawn from have created a paradigm that we can use moving forward, and will now never fail to see in the future. It is a terrible weakness of the US within the course of global real life.
It seems to be similar to what this TV show is said to be doing by employing psychological causation rather than sociological causation for the flow of events.
In sum, thanks!Below is my final Xinhuanet link about China/US relationsben , May 19, 2019 10:58:49 PM | 7
Chinese FM urges U.S. to avoid further damage of ties in phone call with Pompeo
The take away quote
Wang also reiterated the principled stand against the "long-arm jurisdiction" imposed by the United States.
Empire is having its hand slapped back in Venezuela, Iran, Syria, ???
Where are they going to get their war on?
I see empire as a war junkie and they are starting to twitch in withdrawals which is dangerous but a necessary stage. Trumps latest tweets show that level of energy. The spinning plates of empire are not wowing the crowds like before.....what is plan Z?Hot tip, GOT is just a movie. Please, no more psychological insights.Grieved , May 19, 2019 11:21:32 PM | 8
What fans really need, is some REAL WORLD justice, something that's noticeably missing in today's world.@5 Oliver Kben , May 19, 2019 11:24:01 PM | 9
I agree that the American Conservative article was weak - as b obviously thought. It has the US trade war against China completely wrong. I side with b in his hunch that China will win. My own view is that, as with everything the US has done lately, it already lost the war before it even stepped into battle in the theater.
And let's counter the author's point, in the weak article, that China needs the US trade surplus more than the US needs the imports from China. The author says that China has no way to substitute for exports to the US. There's abundant recent analysis on this, showing the relatively small part of China's economy that hinges on this trade, but here's a good Sputnik interview that illustrates how easily China can simply absorb goods into its own domestic market:
Trade War: US to Pay Heavy Price for Underestimating China – Chinese Businessman
I especially liked this part:"...we have our colossal domestic market, which has no competitors throughout the world. Our consumer and innovation markets provide us with a large number of advantages and room, giving China an opportunity to make a manoeuvre. Therefore, their blockage gives China a chance to become even stronger. We must express our appreciation to our mentor, Trump, for this, for this lesson and for forcing China to figure out how to withstand the threats on its own."
The US used to be an important nation to do business with - commercial, diplomatic, military. But as it has become "agreement incapable", nations are forced to replace it. This takes a little time and readjustment, but then the change is permanent.
Strangest thing of all that the US itself would do the forcing out of itself from the world's trust.For those with a penchant for movie dissection, I offer this from Truthdig;Zack , May 19, 2019 11:50:54 PM | 0
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/game-of-thrones-an-american-parable/Trump, Saudi Arabia warn Iran against Middle East conflictKadath , May 20, 2019 12:41:41 AM | 2
Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman discussed regional developments, including efforts to strengthen security and stability, in a phone call with U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, the Saudi Media Ministry tweeted on Sunday.
"We want peace and stability in the region but we will not sit on our hands in light of the continuing Iranian attack," Jubeir said. "The ball is in Iran's court and it is up to Iran to determine what its fate will be."
He said the crew of an Iranian oil tanker that had been towed to Saudi Arabia early this month after a request for help due to engine trouble were still in the kingdom receiving the "necessary care". The crew are 24 Iranians and two Bangladeshis .
Is this a veiled threat on the lives of these crew members?Re@ 51 James, well Sputniknews is reporting that the Saudi's claim that the Houthis are planning to attack 300 critical infrastructure facilities in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates in the coming weeks so that might be the instigating event your concerned aboutkarlof1 , May 20, 2019 12:45:56 AM | 3Grieved @44--somebody , May 20, 2019 1:26:48 AM | 5
Thanks for your kudos! As I've written previously, the political philosophers of the nascent USA thought they would have a Natural Aristocracy ( here and here ) somewhat based on a meritocratic system instead of the Old World's Inherited Aristocracy based on blood relations and closed to anyone not within a very small circle. Yet it was still an Aristocracy with all it inherent evils, and it is that vast assortment of evils the US citizenry has yet to overcome in its supposed--idealized--quest for self-government.
Recall that George Washington was deemed safe to become the first president because he could be trusted not to proclaim himself king --something often forgotten by students of US History.
I've often lamented on the nature of the 1787 Constitution because it allows any POTUS to become a king with almost zero hindrances on the power wielded. Sure, compared with other systems of government at the time, the USA's was revolutionary, but only down to the waist to borrow a phrase from Gilbert & Sullivan. Madison's theory, IMO, was--other than being Aristocratic--okay until his most important check/balance was removed--that of the "dueling oval office" where the losing POTUS candidate was awarded the Vice-Presidency--imagine Hillary Clinton as Veep with Trump in the driver seat! IMO, the 12th Amendment fatally wounded Madison's construction of a government that arrived at great decisions based on a consensus of genuine national interests instead of partisanship.
Arguing that action is the great fault that must be corrected doesn't get much play nowadays. Indeed, it's very difficult to debate Constitutional Reform given the engineered political climate since the current situation suits the Ruling Oligarchy just fine.
I hope everyone had an opportunity to click the link I provided to the series of paintings known as The Course of Empire . ICYMI, here it is again . Please note which Empire's being copied and compare that with the predominant architectural theme in the Outlaw US Empire's Imperium. Creditors ruled and eventually destroyed that Empire. That's one historical lesson that's totally omitted from the historiography of the USA.
By and large, we know what and where the problems are. The fundamental question is, will we ever get the opportunity to fix them?Posted by: Grieved | May 19, 2019 11:21:32 PM | 48TJ , May 20, 2019 5:16:46 AM | 1
Their disadvantage is that they have to import energy. So they need export if they do not wish to run a trade deficit. They do not necessarily need the US for this though if they can trade in Yuan.Speaking of Chinese stories, here in the UK I grew up watching The Water Margin , from the opening titles 'The ancient sages said "do not despise the snake for having no horns, for who is to say it will not become a dragon?" So may one just man become an army.' and also Monkey , the opening titles gave us "The irrepressible spirit of Monkey" .Thirsty , May 20, 2019 7:55:53 AM | 5b, it is generally fund raising time during this time for some publishers (i.e. counterpunch etc) and I would like to send you something as well. Can you please post the payment information. Thanks.Jen , May 20, 2019 8:28:59 AM | 6Peter AU 1 @ 62:Chevrus , May 20, 2019 9:19:33 AM | 0
If you are interested in watching a film with a sociological approach to telling a story and you are close to a cinema, Mike Leigh's "Peterloo" just started screening last Thursday in Australia. The film is an exploration of British society during the Regency period (in the early 19th century), the class attitudes and opinions prevalent then, and the conditions and events that led to 60,000 - 100,000 labouring class people gathering at St Peter's Field in Manchester in August 1819, and how it was viciously broken up by cavalry and foot soldiers acting on orders of the aristocracy.
The film is at least 150 minutes long and is a highly immersive experience. There is not much plot in the Hollywood sense of the term. I believe reviews have been mixed with most film critics complaining about the film being too long and boring. But if you are prepared to watch a film that uses a sociological approach to telling a narrative, then you'll agree with me that the film actually isn't long enough.@Hmpf-59BM , May 20, 2019 9:26:11 AM | 1
Very interesting studies and the ideas that they might spawn. The near parallels of the micro and macro as well as the flow patterns.
The culture I am immersed in (USA) is heavily weighted toward the dramatic and two dimensional. Simply put, mass perspective engineering is geared to over simplify and reinforce these views with media imprinting via hollywood, madison ave. etc. The lenses through which impressions from the "outside world" pass through engineered to give the desired results rather than expand consciousness or engender critical thinking. In short, we are breeding for weakness and gullibility.
In regard to large scale dynamics resembling the physics of things like the laws of thermodynamics, I am wondering if phenomena like those alluded to above might be engulfed and influenced by these kinds of natural patterns. So for example: Looking past the drama of sanctions, trade wars, and good guys vs. bad guys, wont the large scale movements caused by these things begin to move according to a kind of physics?
I keep wondering what the result of this latest round of economic warfare will lead to. If the USA continues to sanction, embargo and blockade (at the behest of banking cartels?) will this not cause a mass exodus from dollar reserves, SWIFT, BIS and the like? I hear all sorts of opinions, bushels of dis-info and I'm mostly at a loss as to what to think. We are clearly nearing the end of the Bretton-Woods era so a reset is in order. The USA is a mere 6% of the world population and some would say at the end of it's due date as far an being an "international influencer".
So if they and their EU poodles go ahead and sanction every nation who refuses to bend the knee what's stopping these nations from simply bypassing these decrees and going about their business? I get the sense that this is already happening quietly. Russia, China and various partner nations are creating alternatives in many forms, be they interweb servers, financial networks, OBOR, SCO and more I have never heard of.
Perhaps the ratcheting up of tensions could also be swept up in the turbulence of thermodynamics? If sanctions become embargoes and then blockades, what happens to the "compressions ratios in the Straits of Hormuz?Re: Game of Thrones
Well, I've come across a few advertisements, but I always thought it was some kind of children's video game. I cannot imagine why anyone other than a socially stunted and mis-developed American or Americanised adolescent could want to watch such infantile deranged garbage.
If it is Hollywood, then you can be certain the intention is to manipulate the younger generation to supporting and idolising their permanent wars. On the face of it, that indeed appears to be the case.
OK, I've got that off my chest now!
May 21, 2019 | www.washingtonpost.com
With $105 billion in global sales last year, Huawei has a vast web of customers and suppliers on nearly every continent. The company is the world's largest provider of equipment used in 5G telecom networks, and the second largest seller of cellphones. Last week, Huawei said that it spends more than $1 out of every $7 of its annual $70 billion procurement budget buying equipment from U.S. companies.
Google said it would restrict Huawei's access to future updates of its Android operating software, which powers many of Huawei's phones. Other U.S. manufacturers also began suspending business dealings with the Chinese firm.
The markets punished many of those suppliers Monday, including Intel, Broadcom and Qualcomm, as well as Micron and semiconductor manufacturer Cypress. Chip makers Qualcomm and Broadcom fell 6 percent. Intel declined nearly 3 percent, and Lumentum Holdings shares fell more than 4 percent after the company said it would stop selling to Huawei.
The United States said last week it was adding Huawei to a trade blacklist because the company "is engaged in activities that are contrary to U.S. national security or foreign policy interest." That punishment means U.S. firms aren't allowed to sell to Huawei unless they get special approval from the government.
[ How China's Huawei took the lead over U.S. companies in 5G technology ]
On Monday evening, the Commerce Department slightly eased the timing of the restrictions, saying it would allow some transactions to continue for 90 days, to facilitate "certain activities necessary to the continued operations of existing networks and to support existing mobile services." The temporary reprieve will allow Huawei to receive U.S. equipment to service existing Huawei mobile phone users and rural broadband networks.
Kevin Wolf, a former senior Commerce Department and current partner at Akin Gump, called the reprieve "very narrow." "It's not relief for exporters. It really is to prevent unintended operational problems with existing networks," Wolf said.
The United States views Huawei as a security risk because it believes the company has close ties to the Chinese government, which Huawei has denied. U.S. officials have said Huawei could potentially tap into and monitor sensitive U.S. communications through its network technology.
Ren Zhengfei, the founder of Huawei, said that the U.S had underestimated his company as he sought to dismiss the impact of the ban.
"The current practice of U.S. politicians underestimates our strength," Ren said in a group interview with Chinese media Tuesday morning. Huawei had a stockpile of chips and "can't be isolated" from the world, he said.
The 90-day extension "doesn't mean much" and Huawei is fully prepared for the American actions, Ren said, even appearing to brag about luring workers away from U.S. companies.
"We are very grateful to the U.S. companies. They have made a lot of contributions to us," he said in the comments, which were shared in real time by state media. "Many of our consultants are from American companies like IBM."
Earlier, Huawei reacted to Google's decision to stop allowing updates by saying the Chinese company had "made substantial contributions to the development and growth of Android around theworld."
"As one of Android's key global partners, we have worked closely with their open-source platform to develop an ecosystem that has benefitted both users and the industry," said spokesman Joe Kelly, adding that Huawei would continue to provide security updates and after-sales services to its existingsmartphone and tablet products.
Google's announcement came at an awkward time for Huawei, which on Tuesday is expected to unveil its Honor 20 series of smartphones in London, and security experts were divided on how quickly and severely the ban could hurt Huawei.
Some said Huawei is bigger and better prepared for the blockade than its Chinese competitor ZTE was last year when the Trump administration restricted ZTE from doing business with U.S. firms. The U.S. later eased ZTE's punishment.
May 21, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
Washington announced last week that it would impose new prohibitions on Huawei, including a ban on US companies selling components or services to the telecoms giant. The seriousness of these actions is difficult to understate, as Rosenblatt Securities analyst Ryan Koontz explained. If Huawei is pushed to the brink of collapse, Beijing might label this 'an act of war'.
"The extreme scenario of Huawei's telecom network unit failing would set China back many years and might even be viewed as an act of war by China," Koontz wrote. "Such a failure would have massive global telecom market implications."
But bringing a massive global Chinese firm to its knees is one way to demonstrate to Beijing, and the rest of the world, which ignored Washington's warnings about Huawei, the true reach of American economic power. And it's one way to put a timer on talks with Beijing, ensuring that the trade skirmish won't drag on until the height of campaign season.
American firms weren't the only ones to act. In Europe, German chipmaker Infineon Technologies said it would suspend deliveries to Huawei, at least until it has had a chance to determine the significance of Washington's executive order (though company sources later denied these reports and said shipments to Huawei would continue).
Since hostilities with the US began, Huawei has been stockpiling components. It now has enough of a buffer supply to keep its business running without interruption for at least three months. Nikkei reported late last week that Huawei had reportedly asked suppliers to help it build up enough stockpiles to last it a year, but it's unlikely that Huawei has accumulated enough buffer stock to last it anywhere near as long.
If Washington refuses to back down, this three-month window might become the next critical deadline for the trade talks.
If it wasn't clear before, we now know that President Trump wasn't kidding when he said late last year that Huawei could become 'a bargaining chip' in the trade skirmish. Whether the prosecution of Meng Wanzhou factors into it remains to be seen, but President Trump did tell Fox News over the weekend that he wouldn't allow China to surpass the US on his watch.
Huawei's odds of finding replacement suppliers are slim, as Koontz explained. Huawei "is heavily dependent on U.S. semiconductor products and would be seriously crippled without supply of key U.S. components."
It's clear where Beijing stands on this. We wouldn't be surprised to see a 'consumer movement' emerge in China where middle-class consumers ditch foreign phones and proudly proclaim their support for Huawei.
pic.twitter.com/iAdB3MCJK7-- Hu Xijin 胡锡进 (@HuXijin_GT) May 20, 2019
On Sunday afternoon, President Trump threatened Iran with military intervention via tweet. Yet, analysts blamed the growing pressure on Huawei for the risk-averse trading atmosphere.
US stocks were on track to open lower. Meanwhile, Huawei's dollar-denominated corporate bonds tumbled again on Monday after one of their biggest declines in recent memory on Friday. The selloff comes as fears of a Huawei bankruptcy are beginning to intensify.
Beijing has maintained its aggressive posture, with its Ministry of Foreign Affairs warning in response to news of the Google ban that China would do what it needed to do to protect its companies' "legitimate rights", and also hinted at legal actions it might take. Over the weekend, Beijing compared the trade skirmish with its actions in the Korean War, about as clear a sign as any that we're in for a protracted conflict.
Whatever happens, it looks like the showdown over Huawei has eclipsed the broader trade-war narrative. So much for the Huawei crackdown being a 'separate issue' from the trade talks, like Trump officials had previously insisted.
Bottom line: If we don't get a deal by the end of June, this trade war is going to really heat up.
me or you , 2 minutes ago linkfrankthecrank , 5 minutes ago link
Imaging a phone without Google spyware or Intel backdoors...it's a win win for all of us.Herdee , 6 minutes ago link
So, Huawei is dependent upon Western semiconductor manufacturers. But I thought the Chinese were the leaders in innovation? That's all I hear on here and elsewhere. Seems to me that they should have invented and created their own semiconductor industry back in the 1800's when Westerners began to mess with them. One would think that the great and powerful and super duper intelligent Chinese would have discovered and invented it first in the first place. Certainly the Chinese or their pals in the USSR could have done so sometime in the '50s, '60s, '70s, '80s or '90s? No?giovanni_f , 13 minutes ago link
Christine Lagarde and the IMF team in China:
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2019-04/24/c_138005457.htmadmin user , 14 minutes ago link
The US might win this battle but it has already lost the war. It is in a position similar to Ukraine which was the richest and most developed Sovjet republic after the breakup - but which is now one of the biggest shitholes in the entire Galaxy, feasted upon by a bunch of Zionazi oligarchs. Think of the US as an Ukraine on steroids.
Trump and his diverse actions will hurt Huawei. Maybe even badly. Long term, maybe even short term, the US won't gain anything from it. It is in a position where it can only lose. Not because the potential of the US isn't "terrific" (actually it coud be the most promising country) - but because the US is designed to fail as it is basically a failed state already.cledus , 17 minutes ago link
Alphabet has announced that it will cut off Huawei Mobile's access to most of its Android operating system offerings
android is open source, anyone can download and modify it
you just wont get Google Play Store
What good is a phone call if you're unable to speak?Spaced Out , 19 minutes ago link
The real prob as I see it, Huawei can not be monitored or hacked into by the NSA, CIA and all the other US intelligence agencies.
They've been shut out and don't like it.Herdee , 27 minutes ago link
Lol, there are already better alternatives to android, such as /e/. This dumb move will only hasten the demise of google, etc. Mugs!HopefulJoe , 34 minutes ago link
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/home.htmTo Hell In A Handbasket , 44 minutes ago link
Google is EVIL, no way they are walking away from an evil company, have they walked away from China also? No, they are giving them code daily...CheapBastard , 33 minutes ago link
The beginning of USSA mercantilism being played out. The USSA simply cannot compete and lagging behind in 5G is only the start.Shockwave , 44 minutes ago link
We have some of the best software engineers in the world...ask Sameer and Raja in our IT department.silverwolf888 , 53 minutes ago link
Im confused, how would not choosing to do business with Huawei possibly be considered an act of war?
Especially when China largely keeps their markets closed to the west?
After speaking to some Chinese immigrrants... according to them, they'll never come to any kind of fair agreement with the west. They're not interested in a level playing field at all. All they care about is making sure the Chinese state gets all the benefits in order to further Chinas power and influence.yerfej , 45 minutes ago link
Great news. Huawei already has completed development of its own OS, no doubt an Android clone. This finally gives us a path off of the Goolag/ Android OS. In 19 months Rabbi Trump will be gone, which is good, but his destroying the Android monopoly may be his biggest achievement.DelusionsCrowded , 39 minutes ago link
An android clone? No way that would be stealing again. No they will make their own special sauce OS that will electrocute the citizen if they don't adhere to the state directives.
There are so many other better ways to run a phone interface , I wonder if these two systems have been kept as monopolies so that the Spooks at the NSA and CIA are able to find their way around easily
May 20, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
psychohistorian , May 19, 2019 10:55:01 PM | 6
Below is my final Xinhuanet link about China/US relations
Chinese FM urges US to avoid further damage of ties in phone call with Pompeo
The take away quote
Wang also reiterated the principled stand against the "long-arm jurisdiction" imposed by the United States.
Empire is having its hand slapped back in Venezuela, Iran, Syria, ???
Where are they going to get their war on?
I see empire as a war junkie and they are starting to twitch in withdrawals which is dangerous but a necessary stage. Trumps latest tweets show that level of energy.
The spinning plates of empire are not wowing the crowds like before.....what is plan Z?
May 20, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Indeed, the biggest cost may be imposed on investors, who for years have inflated the economic potential of communist China's state-directed economy. Major public companies in the United States, including Apple, Caterpillar, and Boeing, are among some of the leading exporters to China. Yet exports to China accounted for just 7.2 percent of overall American exports in 2018. According to the U.S. Trade Representative , the top export categories that year were: aircraft ($18 billion), machinery ($14 billion), electrical machinery ($13 billion), optical and medical instruments ($9.8 billion), and vehicles ($9.4 billion).
grumpy realist May 17, 2019 at 6:55 amHmmm. This sounds suspiciously like the arguments Brexiters have dragged out about the EU. Remember the "German car manufacturers will help us get everything we want because we're such a large market and they can't afford to lose us"?Dan Green , says: May 17, 2019 at 7:01 am
People of a country can decide to put up with a heck of a lot of economic pain if they decide they're defending their country.Base issue seems clear. Two large economies with very different models of governing. One a Totalitarian state run economy, and our economy based on greed and consumption, to support GDP. The theory that the world need be interconnected by trade, has run its course. We really don't even need a Nafta re done treaty. All 3 economies have exhausted what works for them, and can simply abandon what doesn't. If a cuntry has something to sell and the buyer country sees a price advantage the deal will go down.Kent , says: May 17, 2019 at 7:10 amTariffs do not get passed along into higher consumer prices unless the product has a very high inelasticity in demand.Slugger , says: May 17, 2019 at 9:58 am
Here's a thought experiment: suppose I sell an imported product for $10. The government imposes a 25% tariff, so I decide to up the price to $12.50. Here's your issue: if I could charge $12.50 for the product, why wouldn't I just have charged that in the first place? Charity? No, I didn't charge that because every time I tried, sales collapsed.
And if you understand retail, especially imports, gross margins are enormous. Sales prices can be 10 times cost of goods. So that $10 product probably just cost $1. And a 25% tariff on $1 is only 25 cents. Top of the line iPhones cost about $180 to make but retail for close to $1000.
Tariff expenses come out of some combination of negotiated lower prices with vendors, lost jobs as importers seek to cut costs, and lower profits. Consumer prices are the last thing to consider.Please excuse my ignorance. We hear about a war on this and a war on that all the time. Now a trade war which we are winning (or not). How will we know that we won? After victory do we buy more stuff from China or less? Will their prices for stuff be higher or lower? I am a financially comfortable retired person who has plenty of stuff that I have accumulated over the years; a trade victory might have a different meaning to a young couple starting a life. Who gets the spoils of victory, me or the youngsters?TheSnark , says: May 17, 2019 at 10:10 amChina has been running much the same economic model as Japan in the 1970's and 1980's, an export-led autarchy heavily dependent on debt financing. When Japan started to open its financial markets in the later 1980's, things started grinding to halt and by the early 1990's stagnation started.Jon Thaler , says: May 17, 2019 at 11:01 am
China is on much the same track, though Xi has been careful not to liberalize the financial markets too much, and has otherwise done a good job of keep growth on track. But it can't last, and if a trade war does not tip China into stagnation, something else will in the not-too-distant future.
Any downturn will bring the legitimacy of the CCP into question, and the traditional response of dictatorships in that situation is to find a foreign conflict to distract the population. With mutual distrust, and even dislike, growing on both sides, things could get very messy.In the 2017/2018 trade year, the US exported $12 billion of soy to China. That's. particularly important for two reasons:Joshua Xanadu , says: May 17, 2019 at 11:20 am
* China accounts for the majority of US soy exports, so the trade war affects that sector more that the others you mention.
* The people affected are one of the cores of Trump's base.
The latter point is particularly significant, because the success or failure of the war will be determined by political stamina, not by economics directly. Who can hold out longer, Xi or Trump, as his political position erodes. One of the "weaknesses" of a democracy is the greater sensitivity to the broader political environment (ie, not just the Politburo). Are you so sure that the US will win this war of attrition?@Kent – Thank you! Finally someone with actual understanding about retail and the ridiculous profit margins of imported goods, especially from Asia. As someone who worked first-hand at a shoe factory in China, managing the account, I was aghast at how low U.S. companies like Nike or even Wal-Mart drove down the production costs ($6-18 dollars landed), while selling the shoes for $30 – $120 dollars.Leroy Cabana , says: May 17, 2019 at 11:23 am
Theoretically all that juiced-up profits from outsourcing should have been reinvested to create new jobs for U.S. workers over the past 20 years. That's what economists and corporate lobbyists will argue. Empirically, however, those profits were reinvested to the stock market for fat quarterly bonuses.The underlying issue with China is their long standing demand to disclose all development info about any product doing trade in China. Take Apple, they butted heads with the FBI and refused to unlock an Iphone that belonged to a killer. Then they enter China and the government there demands all the tec info for phone development and Apple simply hands over their deepest secrets. Its the same for Ford, Cat or any others wanting to do business in China. I for one, can live without any China trade if these have to be the requirements. There is a long list of other cheap labor countries that would welcome our trade without being forced to provide trade secrets.Kent , says: May 17, 2019 at 11:37 am@FL TransplantSalt Lick , says: May 17, 2019 at 11:38 am
"So what happens in the next T-bill auction when China doesn't show up and instead sits on the sidelines–does the Treasury end up paying higher interest rates to sell the instruments necessary to finance our federal spending? And, if so, what does an increase in those interest rates do to our economy?"
Interest rates for treasuries are always set by the Federal Reserve. The secret sauce is the Primary Dealer banks. They are required, by law, to make the market for treasuries. Meaning they have to buy any treasuries that aren't sold. And they do so at the interest rate set by the Fed. And they always, always have all the money they need to do so. The Fed just prints it and adds it to their balances.
It's the beauty of a fiat currency. The USA cannot be held hostage to foreign financial agents.This trade war is about regime in change in China, as Bannon has said on many occasions. The Chinese are finally waking up to our true intentions. America can't allow a more successful economic model to exist anymore than they allow socialism in Venezuela.Archie1954 , says: May 17, 2019 at 12:49 pm
The only surprising outcome of the clash will be that American corporations will experience massive collateral damage due to supply chain disruption and being shut out of the largest consumer market in the world in China.
The U.S. Empire has decided if U.S. corporation can't run ruff shod over the Chinese government like they do here and everywhere else, they cannot be allowed to submit to Chinese government rule in exchange for the benefits of the Chinese market place.
It's probably the only time in recent history that the defense of market forces resulted in a direct hit on the "free" market itself. Like all front line troops, U.S. corporations will suffer many casualties in the battle ahead. They didn't volunteer for this trade war and they had no idea that this would be a hill that many would die on.
The paradox of this situation is not lost on them and most are paralyzed by what lies ahead.You are conveniently forgetting that much of the Chinese goods subject to the increased tariffs are goods manufactured by American corporations utilizing Chinese labour due to its much reduced costs. Those American companies are going to lose market share and profits because of these new tariffs. They will not be happy!workingdad , says: May 17, 2019 at 2:41 pmI wonder if they could by commodities? Buy surplus oil would be a logical choice. They could sell their treasuries, use dollars for oil, thereby drive up the price of oil for everyone, including the US.EarlyBird , says: May 17, 2019 at 2:44 pm
Granted that could eventually help the US, but in the short term could be a pain.Slugger , I don't think your question is ignorant at all. I think it's very wise. If only we asked the "Why?" and "What does a win look like?" of all these literal and figurative wars, we might get somewhere.SteveK9 , says: May 17, 2019 at 3:07 pm
I do not, ultimately, believe Trump's trade war with China is going to make the US into a manufacturing powerhouse again. Those days have come and gone. It will definitely increase the cost of a lot of junk we buy from China.
The hope, however, is that it will force China into a position wherein we could demand more fairness in terms of patents and technology theft.The time when it was beneficial for China to trade real goods for numbers in a computer was long since past. They keep doing it out of habit. Trump is doing both countries a big favor.Liam , says: May 17, 2019 at 3:28 pmHistorically, it has not been wise to discount China's capacity to overcome disruptions that would vivisect virtually any other civilisational hegemon on this planet. China survived the Mongols, the English, and the Japanese. And itself many many times over.Dakarian , says: May 17, 2019 at 4:33 pm
We're barely a blink in the eye of China's history. I would not be as sanguine about who "needs" whom more over the long term.
(Just to be clear: I have more than my share of criticisms of American trade policy of the past couple of generations, including our posture vis-a-vis China.)"Sluggerjack Meof , says: May 17, 2019 at 7:00 pm
May 17, 2019 at 9:58 am
Please excuse my ignorance. We hear about a war on this and a war on that all the time. Now a trade war which we are winning (or not). How will we know that we won? After victory do we buy more stuff from China or less? Will their prices for stuff be higher or lower? I am a financially comfortable retired person who has plenty of stuff that I have accumulated over the years; a trade victory might have a different meaning to a young couple starting a life. Who gets the spoils of victory, me or the youngsters?"
You. Definately you.
Youngsters need to be able find a job that pays for their basic needs and a path to be able to keep growing or stabilize that lifestyle.
This war bumps prices higher, but won't bring those jobs back. High skill jobs are already in high demand with few takers so more of those won't help the majority. The rest will either be automated, moved from China to other countries (which is already happening as China wants to move from sweatshops to a consumer middle class economy and places like India and Vietnam are taking up the slack), or abandoned due to a lack of profit margins.
I'm not saying we should or shouldn't do this with China. They haven't exactly been treating us or our companies well after all. But this is NOT going to benefit the regular American. Low skill, sustainable, reliable work is just Not going to be a thing.
What will help is encouraging the ability to gain high skills and mobility for those high skill jobs that are in desperate need of workers, aiding low skill workers so that they can afford the things they need and not be 100% exploited, and figure out what to do with the many many middle age and up folks who were trained to be middle class to transition them into one or the other and not hate life while doing so.
We can go fix or break our trading systems with other countries as we see fit, but we really need to stop thinking it's going to fix things. Same goes for immigration for that matter.The author shows his ignorance. The Bank of China is a commercial bank. Foreign reserves are held by the People's Bank of China. Different entities. I assume the rest of the article is full of inaccuracies.IssacNewton , says: May 17, 2019 at 7:47 pmIt is hard to know if China has already lost. Their published economic numbers are not very accurate. A key point is that the standard economic models of International Trade are wrong. "Free Trade" can have benefits, but does mandate optimal outcomes. For example, lower cost players can transfer economic production to their soil. There are many equilibrium points (vs. the one of standard economics) in international trade when productivity changes or there are economies of scale. With many of these points it would be better a nation not Trade. The US Trade with China fits this bill. This non-standrd was demonstrated by Baumol and See: https://www.amazon.com/Conflicting to -National-Interests-Robbins-Lectures/dp/0262072092/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1473299717&sr=1-5&keywords=Baumol+Trade We need to follow the actual Terrain of economic results vs. the incorrect map of standard economics.jk , says: May 17, 2019 at 8:43 pm
Organizational and Technological stage drives over 80% of economic growth (see Solow). The Chinese have latched on to US creativity to drive their economy (plus an investment rate of 45% vs. 20% for the US). In parallel the US went Crony Capitalist and its TFP went from 3% to .4%/year. Can a Crony capitalist US recover its productivity growth and can a State Capitalismt Chinese dictatorship be innovative without the West. The US under Trump is attempting to displace its currrent ruling elites. This will not happen in China. My guess is China has lost at trade and will lose at Economic productivity growth.Sounds more like a pointless Pyrrhic victory. Tit-for-tat trade wars have many unintended consequences, can easily expand into other sectors, and ultimately consumers and employees will bear the burden.david , says: May 17, 2019 at 8:51 pmAmericans' fear and hatred of China is so great that we are yearning for China's lost regardless of how it may harm Americans.
Take the latest "emergency order" to put Huawei in the "entity list" to ban it from purchasing American products. If implemented, it will cost American companies $11 billions of sales from Huawei, and lost of thousands of high tech and good quality jobs. If Huawei is destroyed, the 5G market will probably be picked up by Swedish and Finland companies, and the smart phones market by South Korean Samsung, not any US company. But who cares, as long as Huawei is destroyed, right?
Take a look of all opinion pages in the media and comments in the Internet, if the supply chain is moved from China to Vietnam, then it is a win for Americans, right? Who care whether Vietnamese can produce it as efficiently as Chinese or not, or whether Vietnam is also a communist country?
This *jihadic* style pursuit to destroy China is also blinding ordinary intelligent Americans of common sense about the relative strengths and weaknesses of both sides. This author, for example, ignores all the possible ways Chinese can hit back if they also decide to go the self-destructive ways or even "nuclear" (figuratively or literally) options. And yes, the options are not restricted to financial tool like US bonds only, e.g.
1. Stop selling rare earth to American companies – which means we can't even make F-35 fighters. The last congressional study finds that it will take at least 10 years for US to re-open our rare earth mine.
2. Start making the life of all American companies difficult in China – GM and Ford are selling more cars in China than in US, Apple has its 2nd largest market in China. The growth rate of China for these companies are higher than US.
3. Stop cooperating with US on geopolitical front, e.g. start helping North Korea to perfect their ICBM, or buying lots of oil from Iran, etc.
These are just random thoughts I come out from 2 minutes of brainstorming. I am very sure 1.4 billions people can think of many things much more deeply and creative than me. Have the author or any of the people in DC think through all the possibilities before shouting for war? Good luck if you think they do.
And rest assured when the dusk settles, ordinary Americans will NOT be any penny richer or our life any better.
This country has a long history of insecurity toward and racism against Asians. Sadly, the current fight proves that this ugly chapter has not close.
May 20, 2019 | turcopolier.typepad.comI don't think the Washington decision makers, as opposed to perhaps career Sinologists in the State Department, quite understand the dynamics of the Trump Administrations relationship with China and the risks America appears to be running. The bit that seems to be missing is a realistic appreciation of "Face".
A quick search of the internet reveals scholarly definitions of "Face" together with the description of it in socio - cultural terms that in my opinion do not do it justice. Couple that with Western insensitivity, NeoCon hubris and Trumps preference for believing everything is a negotiable transaction and we are set up for a monumental falling out with China that has lethal consequences for America.
I will give a few examples of Face, you can find plenty more on your own. Did you know it is an insult to request a Chinese to sign a written contract? If he has agreed to the terms and said as much in front of other Chinese then that is enough. "Face" does the rest. Did you know that in certain circumstances "Face" requires you to lie to, or ignore, authorities in support of family and friends? This last, in my opinion, is the reason for the current Chinese attempt at omnipresent surveillance; "we tremble at the power of the Emperor in Peking, but the mountains are high".
Col. Lang makes the point that the Japanese went to war to dispel the threatened perception that "they weren't the men they thought they were". Well with "Face' in China its more than that, you are your "Face". To damage someones "Face" is to create a lifelong mortal, implacable enemy. There is no way, short of death, to recover once you have given offense. Against that standard Trump, Bolton and Pompeo are playing with fire. "Just kidding" doesn't cut it.
It may surprise some of you to know that the West was trading with China right through the cold war - in US dollars only. Nixon didn't discover China either. It also may surprise some that China is perfectly capable of making very high quality reasonably priced sophisticated goods, and always has been. The reason that Walmart sells cheap Chinese schlock is because that's what they asked China to supply. As for "stealing intellectual property", don't make me laugh. We all do it and China has plenty of very smart people that create first rate IP of their own. I make the case that China is a sophisticated and capable economy, with its own amour propre, not some third world hole populated by leaders that can be bought or threatened, and Trump risks forgetting this at our peril.
To this end I note that the trade war is not going to Americas advantage, China has vast holdings of American debt, China buys Iranian oil, judging by reports of Sochi discussions, Russia AND China are likely to support Iran and both Korea and Taiwan are vulnerable. In my opinion President Trump has a very small window left in which to fire Bolton and perhaps Pompeo and embark on a more conciliatory line, before China becomes an irreversible, implacable enemy.
What says the Committee?
Procopius said in reply to Harlan Easley ... , 18 May 2019 at 10:43 AMjdledell , 18 May 2019 at 10:43 AMSo unless we economically surrender to them expect war?See, that's the attitude Trump and the Trade Representative display. It is impossible we could find a compromise that would be better for both sides. It is a purely binary zero-sum game. If we do not "win," then we "lose," which means surrendering to an implacable enemy who will destroy us. It's no wonder the majority of the world's people think America is the greatest danger to world peace. This is why Bolton is able to find support throughout the nomenklatura. Most Chinese still hold to Confucian concepts of honor, something the American elites abandoned decades ago as unprofitable.My son, Jason, is fluent in both Mandarin and Cantonese was headquarered in Hong Kong for years but now works out of Tokyo but spends a great deal of time in China conducting business. He would probably argue that, if anything, Walrus is understating the importance of Face in China. There are numerous rituals associated with interacting with Chinese that must be observed in order for communication and agreement to flow properly.EEngineer , 18 May 2019 at 10:43 AM
I think many in America, maybe even Trump, have an image of China as a backward country full of uneducated dumb people. Nothing could be further from the truth as a large segment of the population is not only eductated but intellectually the equal of Americans.
As far as handling the trade war between China and the U.S., I think in some ways China has an advantage in it's government directed relationship with business. It allows China to react quickly to adverse conditions, faster and with more cohesiveness than our capitalist system. Watch for China to move it's manufactured products through numerous other countries to avoid some of the impact of tariffs.
China is also not as responsive to consumer complaints as the U.S. democracy. As soon as Trump's base starts complaining about the higher prices at Walmart etc. Congress and Trump's re-election campaign officials will start to make China tariffs seem intolerable.I would think the Chinese see Trump as something to be persevered for a few years regardless of who he surrounds himself with at this point. I wonder if they have a term for "face incapable" as a parallel concept to the Russian "agreement incapable"? As such they probably see his administration as a no more sophisticated than a hornets nest, to be avoided if possible and swatted if necessary.ponderer , 16 May 2019 at 11:29 AMIt has always seemed to me that "Face" is the distant inferior cousin of Honor and a much closer sibling to Pride or even Hubris. That is, the Asian concept of Face has everything to do with how you are perceived and almost none with how you "are". Honor, meanwhile, demands a rigorous adherence to a code of conduct and force of will that places less emphasis on perception and more on "being". Westerners (myself included) tend to get those two confused.walrus -> ponderer... , 16 May 2019 at 06:13 PM
If the Chinese were bound by the authors concept of Face, China must be a paradise without corruption. Instead of polluted water land and air, wizened elders concerned over their stewardship and the lose of face from an environmental catastrophe, would provide a harmonious balance between man and nature. Instead, its a paradise and a ghetto where passerby's walk nonchalantly around the dieing. Where companies reluctantly provide netting to slow the steady suicide of their workers. They do tend to plan for the long term, and they can certainly hold a grudge I would agree. How far are you willing to bend-knee for someone else's concept of pride though? Tariffs, which have been around since antiquity, seem like a small infraction for all this talk of life-long mortal, implacable enemies. Yesterday I saw a Chinese TV program that roughly translated said Donald Trump was literally in the White House crying over soybean prices. POTUS literally crying over the Chinese governments response to our rising tariffs after decades of unfair trade practices that benefited the Chinese (elites anyway). So you shouldn't think that saving Face is a two way street or will result in a mutually beneficial deal.Face has nothing to do with Judeo Christian ethics. Corruption and pollution can earn you a bullet behind the ear in China.blue peacock , 16 May 2019 at 06:13 PM
The issue with Face is that duties don't extend much outside the family. That's why they can sell poisoned baby formula, etc.etc.
It also explains why the CCP is afraid of losing China's Face. They will be blamed.Walrus,walrus -> blue peacock... , 16 May 2019 at 06:16 PM
IMO, China has been "an irreversible, implacable enemy" for decades now. It just so happens that our own fifth column in the Party of Davos have aided and abetted this implacable enemy while making sure that we voluntarily disarmed and did not fight back a war that they are fully engaged in. The consequence has been that we are paying for our own destruction. China is more authoritarian & militaristic today than it was three decades ago and there are several people who believe they currently pose an existential threat to the US & the West in general.
While tariffs may not be the best strategy, we have to admire Trump's courage and determination to finally fight back in the face of massive internal opposition from our fifth column. When you look at the sheer scale at which the Chinese are buying think-tanks, academics, media, K-Street lobbyists & political influence it is staggering and only the Israeli influence operation is bigger in depth & breadth. Ever since Bill Clinton gave China Most Favored Nation status and the Party of Davos furthering their own narrow short-term financial interests, we have directly financed and transferred technology to China and dismantled our industrial base. China joined the WTO but has thumbed their noses at every adverse WTO ruling that showed they play not by the rules but are predatory.
You dismiss the scale of IP theft, forced technology transfer, product dumping, state subsidies and industrial espionage as everyone does it. That's typical of the China apologists in the West.
I think you over-estimate China's financial strength. There are several macro analysts with excellent long-term analytical track records who believe that China is desperately short USD. This theme that you note that China can crash the UST market is already proven to be false. China in fact sold hundreds of billions of UST in 2014-2016 with no perturbation in the UST market.
On the contrary the financial pressure on China is increasing as their debt-fueled malinvestments grow. I'm willing to bet you that we'll see this pressure manifest in a devaluation of the RMB.
I will leave you with a speech from your fellow countryman, John Garnaut. Chilling!!
https://sinocism.com/p/engineers-of-the-soul-ideology-inSo the Chinese are playing us at our own game and winning? Boo Hoo. Throwing over the chess pieces is not a useful response.blue peacock said in reply to walrus ... , 18 May 2019 at 02:36 AMSure, they've kicked our ass these past couple decades. Now they've got cocky and think they own us. Supply chains can re-orient.Harlan Easley , 16 May 2019 at 11:46 AM
As a red-blooded American I'd like my home team to seriously up their game and of course beat the Chinese at their own mercantilist game. A good start would be to put the squeeze on their massive USD short position. Eurodollar market is a perfect spot to begin. The Chinese have US$1.3 trillion debt maturing in 12 months. They've either got to redeem or rollover. Devalue & bleed reserves. Or else sell USD assets & lose collateral. Margin call time! Wake-up call time for BRI - if Trump chooses to squeeze at this immediate vulnerability. Trump can also take the next critical step - restrict their access to our capital markets. The SEC can also come down hard on all their fraudulent listings.
Maybe Australia is losing its best & brightest moving to China. Not here. In fact it is the opposite. Young Chinese techies whoever can get a visa are immigrating here. Wealthy Chinese including top CCP officials are using every mechanism that they can avail to get their capital out. Chinese capital controls are tightening. If they had an open capital account their trillion dollar reserve would vanish overnight as capital flees. You must know that China's domestic security budget is larger than their defense budget. The CCP fear their own people more than anyone else. Why do you think they're amping up their domestic surveillance expenditure?
I can also give you an anecdotal experience. Newly minted billionaire and founder of Zoom, Eric Yuan spoke to our tech analyst team a year ago. I happened to be in that meeting. He was categorical that if he had been in China and had half the success, CCP would effectively control his company. He said every Chinese techie dreams of moving to America.
Jack Ma, was banded out here in the west as the new breed Chinese tech entrepreneur. A billionaire on the Davos circuit. Did he really own Alibaba or was it the CCP? How come his shareholding was suddenly zeroed out?
Do you think any smart Chinese really trusts the CCP? Why would they? You talk about "face" & culture and the 3,000 year history of the Han people. What about the history & culture of the Tibetans? Or the culture & traditions of the Uyghurs with over 2 million of them currently undergoing brutal "re-education" in concentration camps in Xinjiang?
The authoritarian CCP have had a free ride on us for over two decades. It is time to suit up and give them a little taste of their own medicine. I hope Trump retains his resolve.I don't care one iota about their "Face". Not at the expense of deindustrializing large sections of the American Heartland. Which has already happened. Our trade relationship with China has been a disaster. The only people to benefit are large shareholders.ISL said in reply to Harlan Easley ... , 16 May 2019 at 11:19 PM
As for them holding our debt it's threat is non-existent. Let them sell all of the bonds. China currently owns $1.13 trillion in Treasurys, a fraction of the total $22 trillion in U.S. debt. The Federal Reserve if need be can buy them all up but even that won't be necessary due to insatiable demand for the bonds even at these ridiculous low interest rates.
In fact their obsession with "Face" indicates a psychopath. Defines as no sense of right and wrong and is generally bolder, more manipulative, and more self-centered than a sociopath. That sums up their dealings with us the last 25 years.
Only a fool continues to play this game of theirs. Stealing our technology at will, forced 50/50 partnerships, currency manipulation, dumping into our country to destroy industries, etc. etc. etc.
Plus they are expanding geographically now due to us making them rich. They are 1.3 million homogeneous Han for the most part. Especially compared to our country. I have to say their government has definitely improved the lives of their citizens as a whole and I respect that. But enough of our weak kneed leaders giving away the store.
I personally am being hurt by the tariffs due to many LVP flooring products I sell are sourced from China. I have no problem taking a hit for the greater good and have been working on sourcing from different locations.Harlan Easley,guidoamm said in reply to Harlan Easley ... , 18 May 2019 at 04:38 AM
Thanks for pointing the finger at China -looking out for their own interests - the bloody bas-ards.
I guess you believe that had China had remained insular, the US would not have de-industrialized to a different country? As if NAFTA wasn't a great sucking sound. Hmm. Me things the problem lies closer to home - but no finger pointing there.
Totally impressed with the TrumpTareef - Totally on top of everything.
Oh wait, the tax advantages that encourage de-industrialization remain. But I guess Trump doesn't understand taxes and how wealthy corporations and people use them to move production overseas and not pay taxes ....
Meanwhile, global de-dolarization accelerates. At some % the US loses its special status and there will be a reckoning.
I see a lot of hot air - not new policy: Manufacturing did not come back, US infrastructure is a joke and continues to crumble, workforce participation continues dropping, and hourly median wage remain stagnant. Why? Because it requires actual policies that lessen the profitability of some (very wealthy friends in the circle Trump wants to run).
Here's my prediction - Trump will fold by summer or sooner.Apologies for butting-in in an otherwise fascinating conversation... but....Robert L Groves , 16 May 2019 at 01:14 PM
There is considerable but misplaced talk of "capitalism" being thrown about in some threads, whilst Harlan worries about the deindustrialization of the West, ostensibly, due to China. China has little to do with deindustrialization. A centralized monetary system coupled with electoral politics, can only be sustained through the use of perpetual fiscal deficits.
In order for the political construct to be able to run perpetual fiscal deficits, national debt must necessarily expand. As debt conforms to the law of diminishing marginal utility however, this is a compounding strategy.
Thus, in order to compensate for the loss of purchasing power, government borrowing must progressively increase till eventually it goes parabolic. Hence the reason debt in the USA doubled between 2008 and 2016. This is the parabolic phase.
In order to sustain this strategy, fiscal revenue must ideally expand. In order to increase fiscal revenue however, legislation must be brought to bear. As legislation and fiscality become progressively more restrictive in one country, economic actors migrate to countries where they can achieve an economic advantage.
As a corollary, as legislation and fiscality become progressively more restrictive, barriers are raised in business and industry. As barriers rise, so does unemployment and/or under employment whilst business dynamism is proportionally stifled.
In this context therefore, artificially lowering interest rates to ostensibly kick start the economy, actually reinforces the offshoring dynamic to the detriment of SMEs and the benefit of large corporations.
If China can be blamed for anything therefore, it can only be blamed to have opened the doors wide open to Western corporations to allow them to shift their production technology out of Europe and the USA.
All the while, the finance industry is laughing all the way to the bank.... their own bank that is.. ..
gExcellent analysis by Chas Freeman on US/China relations.robt willmann said in reply to Robert L Groves... , 17 May 2019 at 12:05 PM
https://chasfreeman.net/on-hostile-coexistence-with-china/Robert Groves,Dave Schuler , 16 May 2019 at 01:31 PM
Chas Freeman was president Richard Nixon's senior interpreter for Nixon's visit to China. Here is an interesting description by Freeman of some of that trip--
Something to which not enough consideration is given is that China has a considerable volume of foreign loans, those are increasing, they are denominated in dollars (particularly since the yuan is not convertible), and must be serviced in dollars. That means that China needs a lot of dollars which it obtains via selling goods to the United States.Jack said in reply to Dave Schuler ... , 16 May 2019 at 04:28 PM
Said another way, China cannot reduce the amount it sells to the U. S. or buy more from the U. S. without a convertible currency or reducing its level of foreign debt.Kyle Bass on why China has to sell its US Treasury holdings. Twin deficits.MP98 , 16 May 2019 at 02:23 PM
https://twitter.com/Jkylebass/status/1129022386228146176"Did you know it is an insult to request a Chinese to sign a written contract?"Stueeeee , 16 May 2019 at 02:58 PM
So, assume that they are dishonest negotiators, as they just showed by walking away from 6 months of negotiations that they "agreed to?"Your commentary exudes the naivety that the Chinese have preyed on for the past 50 years. Their meekish and subservient mannerisms hide a ruthless and immoral inner nature. They would still be a backward country if not for our elite's insatiable greed. What have they produced organically that wasn't ripped off from developed countries? What do they offer cultural other than a social credit system with improved state surveillance techniques? They treat their own people like dogs and they still have dog eating festivals. China offers a way of life that is an antithesis of the West, so it is inevitable that there will be a clash. The question isn't if but when. The longer we delude ourselves into thinking that economics will change China, the more blood will be shed when the reckoning occurs.walrus -> Stueeeee... , 16 May 2019 at 06:22 PMDenial is not a strategy. For the record, I don't like eating dogs either. but i'm willing to make an exception for pit bulls.VietnamVet , 16 May 2019 at 03:33 PMChinese chauvinism puts American exceptionalism to shame. They've been the Celestial Empire thousands of years longer than the upstart Anglo-American Empire. In last 30 years the Western Elite dumped "noblesse oblige" for "get it while you can". China's entry into the WTO directly hallowed out manufacturing in the Mid-West ultimately resulting to Donald Trump's trade war.Fred -> VietnamVet... , 16 May 2019 at 10:34 PM
This was a result of CEOs and Wall Street Raiders moving manufacturing to low wage, no environmental regulation, nations to make a quick buck. China was a willing partner in the con in order to modernize.
China's retail sales are now greater than America's. Since the US declared an economic war, GM will have to drop Buick and Cadillac brands and market their cars in China as Chinese. But "Face" likely will make that ploy unsuccessful.VV,Joanna said in reply to Fred ... , 17 May 2019 at 06:09 AM
" GM will have to drop Buick and Cadillac brands and market their cars in China as Chinese."
You seem to be misinformed. China has required building those vehicle lines in China for some time now. GM moved all that production there with the intent of exporting from China to other markets in addition to what small portion of the Chinese car market they already have.
Look Fred, I agree VV seems a bit confused where to side on the issue or whom to blame beyond Wall Street. Thus good you put him on the right track.VietnamVet said in reply to Fred ... , 17 May 2019 at 08:45 PM
But China required or GM management found it convenient considering production conditions?Fred,Fred -> VietnamVet... , 18 May 2019 at 09:28 AM
GM sold over 4 million vehicles in China last year, even more than it sold in the North American market. The U.S. only exported 267,000 passenger vehicles to China. Apple sales declined 30% in China. In an economic war Chinese will avoid buying American branded products. They have alternatives. Americans don't have a choice at Walmart except to pay the higher prices due to the tariffs.VV,Jack , 16 May 2019 at 04:01 PM
Those GM vehicles were built in China by a JV with majority Chinese ownership. The product line sold at Wal-Mart has plenty of things made in countries other than China. We have a twenty trillion dollar economy with Chinese imports making up 500 billion. We've got plenty of options.China has been emboldened as the west moved their manufacturing base there and transferred their technology. They've been taking the next steps directly influencing our politics.catherine , 16 May 2019 at 04:25 PM
Huawei while it claims it is an employee owned company is controlled by the CCP as many "private" companies in China. The west would be foolish to not put an end to Chinese subterfuge that undermines their economy and national security.
https://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUKKCN1SM0VCI say if Face is important, respect their Face. After all written agreements are broken all the time so what difference does it really make.Ryan , 16 May 2019 at 04:39 PMI don't buy it at all. As others have pointed out China requires access to American markets to 1) make their dollar denominated loan payments and 2) keep foreign manufacturing located in the country. The cost of tariffs to the United States is finding alternative sources in supply chains and higher end cost to consumers. We're insanely rich, we can afford that without issue. The cost of tariffs to China, in the ultimate analysis, is foreign companies moving their manufacturing out of the country, which would utterly devastate them.walrus -> Ryan... , 16 May 2019 at 07:10 PM
So far as I understand the Trump administration is demanding nothing more than China play by the rules of the game as written. If they're not willing to do so, **** 'em.What rules? Who wrote them? Respect? Ask Iran. Poppycock.Joanna said in reply to Ryan... , 17 May 2019 at 08:11 AMturcopolier , 16 May 2019 at 05:23 PMWe're insanely rich, we can afford that without issue
That's a curious statement. You too? Insanely, that is.Catherinecatherine said in reply to turcopolier ... , 16 May 2019 at 09:45 PM
A well written contract contains enforceable penalties for non-performance with the money often held in escrow. That's the way I write them. Trump is using the balance of US/China trade to penalize the Chinese for reneging on the verbal and draft agreements they made with us.True. I am not familiar with the agreements so can't discuss it intelligently.fredw , 16 May 2019 at 06:14 PM
Just saying it seems hardly anyone lives up to agreements any more regardless of in writing or not.
And dealing with countries is dealing with the people who represent it ..I do believe you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. You can always swat them later if honey doesn't do the trick.This is a traditional problem deeply embedded in Chinese culture. Westerners in the 1800s concluded that it was impossible to write a binding contract in classical Chinese. There were hopes for Mandarin, but... I was reading about this as a college student studying Chinese in the 1970s and have never ceased running across complaints about it. Chinese contracts are only as good as the will of the contractors and the influence you can bring to bear. When you are dealing with government, a contract is good until the officials get replaced with new faces. Even big players like McDonald's are not exempt.walrus -> fredw... , 16 May 2019 at 07:07 PM
"...what was meant as the flagship of McDonald's planned expansion into the People's Republic of China (it already had outlets in Hong Kong and Taiwan) was destined for controversy. In 1994 -- only two years after opening -- a legal battle pitted the transnational corporation against Beijing's government in a land dispute symptomatic of China's no holds barred modernization.
"In question was McDonald's 20-year lease on the strategically located property at Wangfujing -- a busy central shopping district -- and the city's attempts to shutter the restaurant to make way for a new super sized shopping mall. McDonald's balked at the eminent domain order, which flattened the surrounding neighborhood. In the end the burger joint was the lone building standing amid acres of rubble. The dispute raised serious concerns among foreign investors over the efficacy of business contracts in China at a time when the Communist state was seen as the future of global markets.
"But in late 1996 McDonald's China president Marvin Whaley announced a reconciliation. "In a spirit of teamwork and partnership, we've developed a plan that will allow our strong expansion in the city to continue."
Note that it took two years for the "spirit of teamwork and cooperation' to kick in for a multi-billion dollar cooperation who could presumably have just been given another good spot for a hamburger stand. If the officials involved had been willing. Your mileage may vary, but you are unlikely to do better.
Thank you Fredw for an excellent example of how McDonalds came to grips with Face, to everyone's benefit.walrus , 16 May 2019 at 06:30 PMChinese will respect a verbal contract - the difficulty is getting them to say the terms in front of other Chinese. Lieing to you is permissible.walrus , 16 May 2019 at 07:37 PM
Our business solved the problem by using irrevocable letters of credit. That way we could both blame the banks and not accuse each other of skulduggery. Hence Face was always kept intact.For the record and to preclude pointless ad hominem attacks, the Chinese are intelligent hard working people for whom sophisticated business and finance was a way of life while we were still living in mud huts. They revere education. They do not subscribe to Modern Judeo Christian ethics but a much older Confucian creed. For that reason pleas for China to 'play by the rules" just do not compute.John Merryman -> walrus ... , 16 May 2019 at 10:07 PM
China is not some modern, fly by night, Westphalian creation. You are dealing with the Middle Kingdom - 3000 years old and the Chinese, after centuries of oppression now demand respect. The idea that once again the West can dictate to China is offensive to Chinese and, considering their economy, downright delusional.
China has its problems. Face as a concept does not extend beyond family and immediate friends, so the concept of higher loyalty to a Chinese nation (ie patriotism) is not strong. Neither is respect for national law, nor respect for institutions or companies. This is the source of all commercial crime (eg: fraud, adulterated products pollution).
The governments reaction to the tendencies of its population include draconian punishments and now attempts at nationwide surveillance.
The problem Trump fails to recognise is that the CCP and its leaders have Face. Threaten that and China will become an implacable and unbeatable enemy.The underlaying philosophies are in some ways diametrically opposed. We in the West are object and goal oriented, with an ideals based culture, while the East has more of a feedback oriented view, ie. Yin and Yang.Fred -> walrus ... , 16 May 2019 at 11:15 PM
Even the concept of time is different, as we think of ourselves as individuals, thus moving through our context, the future is in front and the past behind, traveling the events of our lives. While the Eastern view is the past is in front and the future behind, as they see themselves as part of their context and necessarily witness events after they occur, then the situation continues.
Both are valid in their own context. Though our presumption of moving toward some ideal is flawed. When some is good, more is not always better. Consider efficiency, which is to do more with less. Then the ideal of efficiency would be to do everything with nothing. Those most committed to this view see Armageddon as the door to their ideal state.
What should be kept in mind about the East is that with Communism and the Party system, then becoming China Inc, to global capitalism, they have adopted essentially Western ideas and tried framing them through their own lens. The reason would be that such an ideals, goal oriented paradigm is very effective in the short and medium term, but creates that much more blowback, in the long term. While China might seem a threat to the current American status quo, the real danger is our own social and economic breakdown. We have been living on the equivalent of a national home loan since Reagan, if not Roosevelt and if the holders of that debt try calling it due, say trading it for remaining public assets, we will be revisiting feudalism.
The Russian and the Chinese, as well as the Iranians, etc. are really just boogie men, being thrown up to distract us. This Iranian situation seems to have be a total disconnect with reality. Something is brewing, whether planned, or just the wheels really coming off the train.
Both we and the Chinese seem to be headed to our own versions of Brexit. The Russians went through it with the fall of the Soviet Union.walrus,Keith Harbaugh , 16 May 2019 at 08:33 PM
"...the concept of higher loyalty..." Sounds like the Chinese exclusion act might have been a good idea afterall. How many generations in the US will it take for a Chinese national to actually assimiate and become "American"?
"...unbeatable enemy." The PRC is not the Middle Kingdom. President Xi is not the subject of Master Po's "Everlasting Wrong" and he is well aware that China is certainly not "unbeatable". These are trade negotiations and right now they need us one hell of a lot more than we need them. Convincing his fellows in the CCP of that is probably going to be harder for him than for Trump to do the same with Congress.Any opinions on this?:The Twisted Genius , 16 May 2019 at 09:14 PM
"Former Trump Senior State Dept. Official Tells Beijing to Wait Until Trump is Removed " ,
by sundance at CTH , 2019-05-16Walrus, I find the most illuminating thing about your informative post is the reaction you elicited. Comment after comment, in my opinion, illustrates some degree of unwillingness or inability to acknowledge and tolerate a culture clearly different from ours. I am reminded of a South Park episode called "Toleration" in which the whole town wrongly assumes toleration of the other requires wholehearted celebration of the other. Nothing could be further from the truth. There's plenty many of us don't like about today's Chinese culture and society, but it's their culture and society. They don't have to conform to our ways anymore than we have to conform to theirs, but we should acknowledge the difference and deal with it.Jack said in reply to The Twisted Genius ... , 17 May 2019 at 11:42 AMTTG,The Twisted Genius -> Jack... , 18 May 2019 at 11:21 AM
In the name of tolerance of another culture are we going to surrender to their predatory behavior? Are we going to allow the Chinese to continue to "beat us at our own game" as Walrus alludes? Sure the Party of Davos have benefited from the current relationship but why should the US in it's national interest continue to allow an authoritarian state to steal our IP, subsidize their companies to dump products in our market and prevent our companies to sell into their market unless they transfer technology, only to have it stolen?
That type of predatory behavior is not about cultural difference but taking advantage of a situation that we allowed. Tariffs may not be the best strategy but at least Trump is saying the current arrangement no longer works. It makes no sense to say in order to protect Chinese "face" we should continue this arrangement where we have the short end of the deal. I hope that Trump doesn't back down in the face of Chinese influence operations in the US and his perception of what's best for his reelection. IMO, the Chinese threat is significantly larger than any threat from Russia or Iran, and saying we should walk on eggshells to not offend their cultural sensibilities is frankly ridiculous.
I believe Walrus over-estimates their strengths. There is a reason why their "best and brightest" continue to immigrate to Silicon Valley in droves. I know some of them personally as I have backed their entrepreneurial ventures. They will be the first to tell you that they have given up a lot in terms of familial connection to immigrate to the US as they don't share nor do they want their kid's futures to be subject to the capriciousness of Xi Jinping's authoritarian vision.Jack, why surrender to their predatory behavior? Just stop dealing with them. Stop allowing American nationalists to buy Chinese made goods and stop selling China our goods. Why not make the stuff ourselves or learn to do without? Why are those American farmers growing soybeans for the Chinese. Let them grow stuff for Americans. Sure this approach is even more extreme that the current tariff war, but it will make us immune to Chinese predatory practices, won't it? The isolation of Sakoku as the purest form of American nationalism. As an added benefit of implementing a policy of Sakoku, there would be no more American foreign adventurism.Jack said in reply to The Twisted Genius ... , 18 May 2019 at 09:47 PM
I say this tongue in cheek realizing it will never be implemented. But wouldn't this a better implementation of American nationalism than demanding that all other countries simply bend to our demands in all matters?TTG,Johnb , 16 May 2019 at 11:05 PM
I wholeheartedly agree with you that we should end our overseas interventionism. I've opposed it for a long time from Vietnam to Iraq & Syria. The costs in the trillions of dollars, the destabilization of fragile societies to the unnecessary sacrifices of our soldiers and their families have not provided any meaningful benefit to us.
As far as China is concerned I believe the situation is more complex. One thing I've noticed in general and exemplified by the comments on this thread is the conflation of the heritage and Confucian values of the Chinese people on the CCP. Let's not be under any illusion. The CCP is unabashedly totalitarian. I've no quarrel with the Chinese people. On the contrary they have my deepest sympathies for having to endure under the boot of the CCP.
Of course any change in their form of government is for them to effect just as our forefathers did here. The important point that I believe needs to be made is that we provided the finance, the technology and the markets to enable the economic development of an authoritarian regime. An argument can be made that those early decisions to bring in China into the global economic framework was in the belief it would enable them to reform. I was persuaded then by Sir James Goldsmith & Ross Perot and others that the GATT trade deal driven by Wall St would be a disaster for our working class. Neither Bill Clinton nor the Republicans asked the question then what if the CCP doesn't reform and instead intensifies their authoritarianism?
Of course the big transfer of our industrial base was completely our own doing as our political system is fully captured by the Party of Davos. In retrospect it should be clear that the CCP never intended to relinquish their monopoly on power and would become even more repressive to maintain it. The CCP is not our friend. They are an implacable enemy who are now using their growing economic and military strength to directly interfere and subvert our societies. The scale of their influence operations and the direct use of cash to purchase influence and espionage is something much larger than at the depth of the Cold War with the Soviet Union. It is high time we understand this threat and act. At least Trump in his own limited way gets that something needs to change even if in his mind it is purely transactional. I'd like to highlight a current example where the Trump administration is moving to ban Huawei from our market. Opeds are being furiously written and published in our national media in defense of Huawei, while the company hires the top cybersecurity official in the Obama administration with top secret clearance as their lobbyist. There are no Opeds here or in China that Google, Facebook, and other US companies are banned in China. Why is that? IMO, it's because we accept the authoritarianism of the CCP. The neocons made a lot of noise demonizing Sadam & Assad as brutal dictators, yet they're silent as Xi Jinping has millions of Uighurs in concentration camps. If we don't act to check the CCP now our grandchildren will regret it as they'll have to fight a war.Quote -"The idea that once again the West can dictate to China is offensive to Chinese and, considering their economy, downright delusional."Alves , 17 May 2019 at 02:10 AM
I believe this is the underlying driver to the individual Chinese acceptance of the cost to any conflict, it also links directly to what they see as a Century of Humiliation where China wasn't powerful. The very use of the word Humiliation in any translation directly links into their concept of Face.
Quote- "China has its problems, Face as a concept does not extend beyond family and immediate friends"
I believe to extend and change this cultural concept of what constitutes Face is behind the national introduction of Social Credit scores for all citizens and available on line to all citizens. It is in fact intended as a national reputation system whereby an unrelated Chinese can lose Face when interacting with other citizens. China is the elephant in the room in any Western political, defence and economic policy debate.IMHO, the USA holds most of the cards in this negotiation:Anon , 17 May 2019 at 09:11 AM
1. The USA trade deficit with China is huge and China needs to sell to the USA, as it will not find other countries to make up for the lost market.
2. It is not uncommon for supply chains to change. Goods that today are manufactured in China will likely be made in other asian countries which have even lower wages if the trade war really goes for a significant amount of time.
3. The inflationary and GDP contraction risk of a trade war is not that high, as the imported chinese goods make up only 2,3% of the USA GDP.
4. The fact that China has lots of USA sovereign debt is not something that can not be solved by the FED. A few economists have already pointed that in the past 5 or 10 years.
5. China already is an enemy of the USA. Worst case, it will be more active in the hotspots in the World, instead of only spying and hacking the hell out of the USA.
So, do not panic. The ones that should be panicking are the chinese.China gets our middle class and the west gets cheap socks in return.As our middle class disappears overseas our cheap socks become unaffordable because there are no jobs for our young workers.The only way to get our middle class back is to stop buying cheap socks.or to put the price up on our middle class.any idiot can make cheap socks but middle class is priceless.the backbone of a stable society.Secondly any society that lives beyond its means through over population is doomed and under no circumstances must it be allowed to expand.China's growing affluence will increase competition for resources as it's middle class expands and this will lead to conflict.Cheap socks might end up causing WWIIISRW , 17 May 2019 at 09:36 AM
Interesting article by David P. Goldman, Asia Times, about how to deal with China.jdledell , 17 May 2019 at 06:36 PM
https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/04/opinion/the-chinese-tortoise-and-the-american-hare/Just as a reminder - having run International businesses, I just want to clarify that U.S. Businesses are not saints. There is a certain amount of cheating, browbeating and stealing as long as we don't get caught and profits are increasing.Mightypeon , 17 May 2019 at 07:38 PM
We might not like the Chinese using our methods but that is the way the cookie crumbles. At this point about two-thirds of Prudential's profits come from overseas subsidiaries and one of the reasons for that success is our ability to mimic what works in their domestic companies and to do it somewhat better and cheaper.
Since the profits were repatriated to the U.S., I had to deal with a lot of government flack about hurting their domestic companies and their employees.From my own interactions with the Chinese:
1: Highly sophisticated Culture. They tend to react pretty well if one can show a more then basic degree of understanding of their history.
2: They greatly prefer nuance. Simple answers imply simple minds.
3: I have not been in the position to actually have to get formal contracts with them. I can certainly echo however that making a Chinese promise something in front of other Chinese about whose perception he cares is usually sufficient to have a pretty honorable commitment to something, it is often easier said then done.
4: I initially had some disdain for the Chinese way of not directly letting you know how annoyed they are at any given point (Russians are fairly straightforward in this), but essentially, their point of view is also that if you are incapable of assessing how annoyed they are you are not a valid negotiation partner.
5: Also, keeping annoyance beneath the radar does not create scenes, and if a scene is created reactions may have to be forced. Vengeance is a thing with the Chinese . My impression is that they can be mollified though, and generally regard vengeance as an expensive luxury item, I also got the impression that you need to go out of your way to seriously become a target of vengeance, just professional disagreements are not a cause for vengeance, especially not if you are a foreigner. They also have a pathway of not having to take vengeance to save their faces by asserting that the offender is insane/feebleminded/crazy and thus beneath vengeance. Its not a position you want to be in though.
6: It goes a pretty long way to be aware of some more imaginative things that especially state aligned business can do if you are in China. Things like precision weighing any electronic equipment you take there before and after are just best practice.
May 18, 2019 | www.zerohedge.comVia ChasFreeman.net, Remarks to the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies China Program
Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr. (USFS, Ret.)
Senior Fellow, Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, Brown University
Stanford, California, 3 May 2019
President Trump's trade war with China has quickly metastasized into every other domain of Sino-American relations. Washington is now trying to dismantle China's interdependence with the American economy, curb its role in global governance, counter its foreign investments, cripple its companies, block its technological advance, punish its many deviations from liberal ideology, contest its borders, map its defenses, and sustain the ability to penetrate those defenses at will.
The message of hostility to China these efforts send is consistent and apparently comprehensive. Most Chinese believe it reflects an integrated U.S. view or strategy. It does not.
There is no longer an orderly policy process in Washington to coordinate, moderate, or control policy formulation or implementation. Instead, a populist president has effectively declared open season on China. This permits everyone in his administration to go after China as they wish. Every internationally engaged department and agency – the U.S. Special Trade Representative, the Departments of State, Treasury, Justice, Commerce, Defense, and Homeland Security – is doing its own thing about China. The president has unleashed an undisciplined onslaught. Evidently, he calculates that this will increase pressure on China to capitulate to his protectionist and mercantilist demands. That would give him something to boast about as he seeks reelection in 2020.
Trump's presidency has been built on lower middle-class fears of displacement by immigrants and outsourcing of jobs to foreigners. His campaign found a footing in the anger of ordinary Americans – especially religious Americans – at the apparent contempt for them and indifference to their welfare of the country's managerial and political elites. For many, the trade imbalance with China and Chinese rip-offs of U.S. technology became the explanations of choice for increasingly unfair income distribution, declining equality of opportunity, the deindustrialization of the job market, and the erosion of optimism in the United States.
In their views of China, many Americans now appear subconsciously to have combined images of the insidious Dr. Fu Manchu, Japan's unnerving 1980s challenge to U.S. industrial and financial primacy, and a sense of existential threat analogous to the Sinophobia that inspired the Anti-Coolie and Chinese Exclusion Acts.
Meanwhile, the ineptitude of the American elite revealed by the 2008 financial crisis, the regular eruptions of racial violence and gun massacres in the United States, the persistence of paralyzing political constipation in Washington, and the arrogant unilateralism of "America First" have greatly diminished the appeal of America to the Chinese elite.
As a result, Sino-American interaction is now long on mutual indignation and very short on empirically validated information to substantiate the passions it evokes. On each side, the other is presumed guilty of a litany of iniquities. There is no process by which either side can achieve exoneration from the other's accusations. Guesstimates, conjectures, a priori reasoning from dubious assumptions, and media-generated hallucinations are reiterated so often that they are taken as facts. The demagoguery of contemporary American populism ensures that in this country clamor about China needs no evidence at all to fuel it. Meanwhile, Chinese nationalism answers American rhetorical kicks in the teeth by swallowing the figurative blood in its mouth and refraining from responding in kind, while sullenly plotting revenge.
We are now entering not just a post-American but post-Western era. In many ways the contours of the emerging world order are unclear. But one aspect of them is certain: China will play a larger and the U.S. a lesser role than before in global and regional governance. The Trump administration's response to China's increasing wealth and power does not bode well for this future. The pattern of mutual resentment and hostility the two countries are now establishing may turn out to be indelible. If so, the consequences for both and for world prosperity and peace could be deeply unsettling.
For now, America's relationship with China appears to have become a vector compounded of many contradictory forces and factors, each with its own advocates and constituencies. The resentments of some counter the enthusiasms of others. No one now in government seems to be assessing the overall impact on American interests or wellbeing of an uncoordinated approach to relations with the world's greatest rising power. And few in the United States seem to be considering the possibility that antagonism to China's rise might end up harming the United States and its Asian security partners more than it does China. Or that, in extreme circumstances, it could even lead to a devastating trans-Pacific nuclear exchange.
Some of the complaints against China from the squirming mass of Sinophobes who have attached themselves to President Trump are entirely justified. The Chinese have been slow to accept the capitalist idea that knowledge is property that can be owned on an exclusive basis. This is, after all, contrary to a millennial Chinese tradition that regards copying as flattery, not a violation of genius. Chinese businessfolk have engaged in the theft of intellectual property rights not just from each other but from foreigners. Others may have done the same in the past, but they were nowhere near as big as China. China's mere size makes its offenses intolerable. Neither the market economy in China nor China's international trade and investment relationships can realize their potential until its disrespect for private property is corrected. The United States and the European Union (EU) are right to insist that the Chinese government fix this problem.
Many Chinese agree. Not a few quietly welcome foreign pressure to strengthen the enforcement of patents and trademarks, of which they are now large creators, in the Chinese domestic market. Even more hope the trade war will force their government to reinvigorate "reform and opening." Fairer treatment of foreign-invested Chinese companies is not just a reasonable demand but one that serves the interests of the economically dominant but politically disadvantaged private sector in China. Chinese protectionism is an unlatched door against which the United States and others should continue to push.
But other complaints against China range from the partially warranted to the patently bogus. Some recall Hermann Göring's cynical observation at Nuremberg that: "The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." There is a lot of this sort of manipulative reasoning at play in the deteriorating U.S. security relationship with the Chinese. Social and niche media, which make everything plausible and leave no truth unrefuted, facilitate this. In the Internet miasma of conspiracy theories, false narratives, fabricated reports, fictive "facts," and outright lies, baseless hypotheses about China rapidly become firm convictions and long-discredited myths and rumors find easy resurrection.
Consider the speed with which a snappy phrase invented by an Indian polemicist – "debt-trap diplomacy" – has become universally accepted as encapsulating an alleged Chinese policy of international politico-economic predation. Yet the only instance of a so-called a "debt trap" ever cited is the port of Hambantota, commissioned by the since-ousted autocratic president of Sri Lanka to glorify his hometown. His successor correctly judged that the port was a white elephant and decided to offload it on the Chinese company that had built it by demanding that the company exchange the debt to it for equity. To recover any portion of its investment, the Chinese company now has to build some sort of economic hinterland for the port. Hambantota is less an example of a "debt trap" than of a stranded asset.
Then too, China is now routinely accused of iniquities that better describe the present-day United States than the People's Middle Kingdom. Among the most ironic of such accusations is the charge that it is China, not a sociopathic "America First" assault on the international status quo , that is undermining both U.S. global leadership and the multilateral order remarkably wise American statesmen put in place some seven decades ago. But it is the United States, not China, that is ignoring the U.N. Charter, withdrawing from treaties and agreements, attempting to paralyze the World Trade Organization's dispute resolution mechanisms, and substituting bilateral protectionist schemes for multilateral facilitation of international trade based on comparative advantage.
The WTO was intended as an antidote to mercantilism, also known as "government-managed trade." China has come strongly to support globalization and free trade. These are the primary sources of its rise to prosperity. It is hardly surprising that China has become a strong defender of the trade and investment regime Americans designed and put in place.
By contrast, the Trump administration is all about mercantilism – boosting national power by minimizing imports and maximizing exports as part of a government effort to manage trade with unilateral tariffs and quotas, while exempting the United States from the rules it insists that others obey.
I will not go on except to note the absurdity of the thesis that "engagement" failed to transform China's political system and should therefore be abandoned. Those who most vociferously advance this canard are the very people who used to complain that changing China's political order was not the objective of engagement but that it should be. They now condemn engagement because it did not accomplish objectives that they wanted it to have but used to know that it didn't . It is telling that American engagement with other illiberal societies (like Egypt, the Israeli occupation in Palestine, or the Philippines under President Duterte) is not condemned for having failed to change them.
That said, we should not slight the tremendous impact of America's forty-year opening to China on its socioeconomic development. American engagement with China helped it develop policies that rapidly lifted at least 500 million people out of poverty. It transformed China from an angry, impoverished, and isolated power intent on overthrowing the capitalist world order to an active, increasingly wealthy, and very successful participant in that order. It midwifed the birth of a modernized economy that is now the largest single driver of the world's economic growth and that, until the trade war intervened, was America's fastest growing overseas market. American engagement with China helped reform its educational system to create a scientific, technological, engineering, and mathematical ("STEM") workforce that already accounts for one-fourth of such workers in the global economy. For a while, China was a drag on human progress. It is now an engine accelerating it. That transformation owes a great deal to the breadth and depth of American engagement with it.
Nor should we underestimate the potential impact of the economic decoupling, political animosity, and military antagonism that U.S. policy is now institutionalizing. Even if the two sides conclude the current trade war, Washington now seems determined to do everything it can to hold China down. It seems appropriate to ask: can the United States succeed in doing this? What are the probable costs and consequences of attempting to do it? If America disengages from China, what influence, if any, will the United States have on its future evolution? What is that evolution likely to look like under conditions of hostile coexistence between the two countries?
Some likely answers, issue by issue.First : the consequences of cutting back Sino-American economic interdependence.
The supply chains now tying the two economies together were forged by market-regulated comparative advantage. The U.S. attempt to impose government-dictated targets for Chinese purchases of agricultural commodities, semiconductors, and the like represents a political preemption of market forces. By simultaneously walking away from the Paris climate accords, TPP, the Iran nuclear deal, and other treaties and agreements, Washington has shown that it can no longer be trusted to respect the sanctity of contracts. The U.S. government has also demonstrated that it can ignore the economic interests of its farmers and manufacturers and impose politically motivated embargoes on them. The basic lesson Chinese have taken from recent U.S. diplomacy is that no one should rely on either America's word or its industrial and agricultural exports.
For these reasons, the impending trade "deal" between China and the United States – if there is one – will be at most a truce that invites further struggle. It will be a short-term expedient, not a long-term reinvigoration of the Sino-American trade and investment relationship to American advantage. No future Chinese government will allow China to become substantially dependent on imports or supply chains involving a country as fickle and hostile as Trump's America has proven to be. China will instead develop non-American sources of foodstuffs, natural resources, and manufactures, while pursuing a greater degree of self-reliance. More limited access to the China market for U.S. factories and farmers will depress U.S. growth rates. By trying to reduce U.S. interdependence with China, the Trump administration has inadvertently made the United States the supplier of last resort to what is fast becoming the world's largest consumer market.
The consequences for American manufacturers of "losing" the China market are worsened by the issue of scale. China's non-service economy already dwarfs that of the United States. Size matters. Chinese companies, based in a domestic market of unparalleled size, have economies of scale that give them major advantages in international competition. American companies producing goods – for example, construction equipment or digital switching gear – have just been put at a serious tariff disadvantage in the China market as China retaliates against U.S. protectionism by reciprocating it. One side effect of the new handicaps U.S. companies now face in the China market is more effective competition from Chinese companies, not just in China but in third country markets too.Second : the U.S. effort to block an expanded Chinese role in global governance .
This is no more likely to succeed than the earlier American campaign to persuade allies and trading partners to boycott the Chinese-sponsored Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). That has isolated the United States, not China. Carping at the Belt and Road initiative and related programs from outside them does nothing to shape them to American advantage. It just deprives American companies of the profits they might gain from participating in them.
The United States seems to be acting out of nostalgia for the simplicities of a bipolar world order, in which countries could be pressured to stand with either the United States or its then rival. But China is not hampered by a dysfunctional ideology and economic system, as America's Soviet adversary was. What's more, today's China is an integral member of international society, not a Soviet-style outcast. There is now, quite literally, no country willing to accept being forced to make a choice between Beijing and Washington. Instead, all seek to extract whatever benefits they can from relations with both and with other capitals as well, if they have something to offer. The binary choices, diplomatic group-think, and trench warfare of the Cold War have been succeeded by national identity politics and the opportunistic pursuit of political, economic, and military interests wherever they can be served. Past allegiances do not anywhere determine current behavior.
The sad reality is that the United States, which led the creation of the Bretton Woods institutions that have been at the core of the post-World War II rule-bound international system, now offers these institutions and their members neither funding nor reform. Both are necessary to promote development as balances of supply, demand, wealth, and power shift. The new organizations, like the AIIB and the New Development Bank, that China and others are creating are not predatory intrusions into the domain of American-dominated international finance. They are necessary responses to unmet financial and economic demand. Denouncing them does not alter that reality.
Other countries do not see these organizations as supplanting pre-existing lending institutions long led by the United States. The new institutions supplement the World Bank Group and regional development banks. They operate under slightly improved versions of the lending rules pioneered by the Bretton Woods legacy establishments. China is a major contributor to the new development banks, but it does not exercise a veto in them as the U.S. does in the IMF and World Bank. The AIIB's staff is multinational (and includes Americans in key positions). The New Development Bank's first president is Indian and its principal lending activity to date has been in South Africa.
Washington has chosen to boycott anything and everything sponsored by China. So far, the sad but entirely predictable result of this attempt to ostracize and reduce Chinese influence has not curbed China's international clout but magnified it. By absenting itself from the new institutions, the United States is making itself increasingly irrelevant to the overall governance of multilateral development finance.Third : the U.S. campaign to block China's international investments, cripple its technology companies, and impede its scientific and technological advance.
The actions of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to prevent Chinese investment in American industry and agriculture are well publicized and are becoming ever more frequent. So are official American denunciations of Chinese telecommunications companies like Huawei and ZTE amidst intermittent efforts to shut them down. In an ominous echo of World War I's anti-German, World War II's anti-Japanese, and the Cold War's anti-communist xenophobia, the FBI has begun issuing loud warnings about the menace posed by the large Chinese student presence on American campuses. Washington is adjusting visa policies to discourage such dangerous people from matriculating here. It has also mounted a strident campaign to persuade other countries to reject Chinese investments under the "Belt and Road" initiative.
In the aggregate, these policies represent a decision by the U.S. political elite to try to hamstring China, rather than to invest in strengthening America's ability to compete with it. There is no reason whatsoever to believe this approach can succeed. China's foreign direct investments have more than doubled over the past three years. Third countries are openly declining to go along with U.S. opposition to intensified economic relations with China. They want the capital, technology, and market openings that Chinese investment provides. U.S. denunciations of their interest in doing business with China are seldom accompanied by credible offers by American companies to match what their Chinese competitors offer. You can't beat something with nothing.
It's also not clear which country is most likely to be hurt by U.S. government obstruction of collaboration between Chinese and American STEM workers. There is a good chance the greatest damage will be to the United States. A fair number of native-born Americans seem more interested in religious myths, magic, and superheroes than in science. U.S. achievements in STEM owe much to immigration and to the presence of Chinese and other foreign researchers in America's graduate schools. The Trump administration is trying to curtail both.
China already possesses one-fourth of the world's STEM workforce. It is currently graduating three times as many STEM students annually as the United States. (Ironically, a significant percentage of STEM graduates in the United States are Chinese or other Asian nationals. Around half of those studying computer sciences in the United States are such foreigners.) American loss of contact with scientists in China and a reduced Chinese presence in U.S. research institutions can only retard the further advance of science in the United States.
China is rapidly increasing its investments in education, basic science, research, and development even as the United States reduces funding for these activities, which are the foundation of technological advance. The pace of innovation in China is visibly accelerating. Cutting Americans off from interaction with their Chinese counterparts while other countries continue risks causing the United States to fall behind not just China but other foreign competitors.Finally : the U.S. military is in China's face .
The U.S. Navy and Air Force patrol China's coasts and test its defenses on a daily basis. U.S. strategy in the event of war with China – for example, over Taiwan – depends on overcoming those defenses so as to be able to strike deep into the Chinese homeland. The United States has just withdrawn from the treaty on intermediate nuclear forces in part to be able to deploy nuclear weapons to the Chinese periphery. In the short term, there is increasing danger of a war by accident, triggered by a mishap in the South China Sea, the Senkaku Archipelago, or by efforts by Taiwanese politicians to push the envelope of mainland tolerance of their island's unsettled political status quo . These threats are driving growth in China's defense budget and its development of capabilities to deny the United States continued military primacy in its adjacent seas.
In the long term, U.S. efforts to dominate China's periphery invite a Chinese military response on America's periphery like that formerly mounted by the Soviet Union. Moscow actively patrolled both U.S. coasts, stationed missile-launching submarines just off them, supported anti-American regimes in the Western Hemisphere, and relied on its ability to devastate the American homeland with nuclear weapons to deter war with the United States. On what basis does Washington imagine that Beijing cannot and will not eventually reciprocate the threat the U.S. forces surrounding China appear to pose to it?
Throughout the forty-two years of the Cold War, Americans maintained substantive military-to-military dialogue with their Soviet enemies. Both sides explicitly recognized the need for strategic balance and developed mechanisms for crisis management that could limit the risk of a war and a nuclear exchange between them. But no such dialogue, understandings, or mechanisms to control escalation now exist between the U.S. armed forces and the PLA. In their absence Americans attribute to the PLA all sorts of intentions and plans that are based on mirror-imaging rather than evidence.
The possibility that mutual misunderstanding will intensify military confrontation and increase the dangers it presents is growing. The chances of this are all the greater because the internal security and counterintelligence apparatuses in China and the United States appear to be engaged in a contest to see which can most thoroughly alienate the citizens of the other country. China is a police state. For Chinese in America, the United States sometimes seems to be on the way to becoming one.
It's hard to avoid the conclusion that, if Washington stays on its current course, the United States will gain little, while ceding substantial ground to China and significantly increasing risks to its wellbeing, global leadership, and security.
Economically , China will become less welcoming to American exports. It will pursue import substitution or alternative sourcing for goods and services it has previously sourced in the United States. With impaired access to the world's largest middle class and consumer economy, the United States will be pushed down the value chain. China's ties to other major economies will grow faster than those with America, adversely affecting U.S. growth rates. Any reductions in the U.S. trade deficit with China will be offset by increases in trade deficits with the countries to which current production in China is relocated.
China's role in global governance will expand as it adds new institutions and funds to the existing array of international organizations and takes a larger part in their management. The Belt and Road initiative will expand China's economic reach to every corner of the Eurasian landmass and adjacent areas. The U.S. role in global rule-making and implementation will continue to recede. China will gradually displace the United States in setting global standards for trade, investment, transport, and the regulation of new technologies.
Chinese technological innovation will accelerate, but it will no longer advance in collaboration with American researchers and institutions. Instead it will do so indigenously and in cooperation with scientists outside the United States. U.S. universities will no longer attract the most brilliant students and researchers from China. The benefits of new technologies developed without American inputs may be withheld rather than shared with America, even as the leads the United States has long enjoyed in science and technology one-by-one erode and are eclipsed. As cordiality and connections between China and the United States wither, reasons for Chinese to respect the intellectual property of Americans will diminish rather than increase.
Given the forward deployment of U.S. forces, the Chinese military has the great advantage of a defensive posture and short lines of communication. The PLA is currently focused on countering U.S. power projection in the last tenth or so of the 6,000-mile span of the Pacific Ocean. In time, however, it is likely to seek to match American pressure on its borders with its own direct military pressure on the United States along the lines of what the Soviet armed forces once did.
The adversarial relationship that now exists between the U.S. armed forces and the PLA already fuels an arms race between them. This will likely expand and accelerate. The PLA is rapidly shrinking the gap between its capabilities and those of the U.S. armed forces. It is developing a nuclear triad to match that of the United States. The good news is that mutual deterrence seems possible. The bad news is that politicians in Taiwan and their fellow travelers in Washington are determinedly testing the policy frameworks and understandings that have, over the past forty years, tempered military confrontation in the Taiwan Strait with dialogue and rapprochement. Some in Taiwan seem to believe that they can count on the United States to intervene if they get themselves in trouble with Chinese across the Strait. The Chinese civil war, suspended but not ended by U.S. unilateral intervention in 1950, seems closer to a resumption than it has been for decades.
As a final note on politico-military aspects of Sino-American relations, in the United States, security clearances are now routinely withheld from anyone who has spent time in China. This guarantees that few intelligence analysts have the Fingerspitzengefühl – the feeling derived from direct experience – necessary to really understand China or the Chinese. Not to worry. The administration disbelieves the intelligence community. Policy is now made on the basis of ignorance overlaid with media-manufactured fantasies. In these circumstances, some enterprising Americans have taken to combing the dragon dung for nuggets of undigested Chinese malevolence, so they can preen before those in power now eager for such stuff. There is a Chinese expression that nicely describes such pretense: 屎壳螂戴花儿 -- 又臭又美 – "a dung beetle with flowers in its hair still stinks."
All said, this does not add up to a fruitful approach to dealing with the multiple challenges that arise from China's growing wealth and power. So, what is to be done? 该怎么办？
Here are a few suggestions .
First , accept the reality that China is both too big and too embedded in the international system to be dealt with bilaterally. The international system needs to adjust to and accommodate the seismic shifts in the regional and global balances of wealth and power that China's rise is causing. To have any hope of success at adapting to the changes now underway, the United States needs to be backed by a coalition of the reasonable and farsighted. This can't happen if the United States continues to act in contempt of alliances and partnerships. Washington needs to rediscover statecraft based on diplomacy and comity.
Second , forget government-managed trade and other forms of mercantilism. No one can hope to beat China at such a statist game. The world shouldn't try. Nor should it empower the Chinese government to manage trade at the expense of market forces or China's private sector. Governments can and – in my opinion – should set economic policy objectives, but everyone is better off when markets, not politicians, allocate capital and labor to achieve these.
Third , instead of pretending that China can be excluded from significant roles in regional and global governance, yield gracefully to its inclusion in both. Instead of attempting to ostracize China, leverage its wealth and power in support of the rule-bound order in which it rose to prosperity, including the WTO.
Fourth , accept that the United States has as much or more to gain than to lose by remaining open to science, technology, and educational exchanges with China. Be vigilant but moderate. Err on the side of openness and transnational collaboration in progress. Work on China to convince it that the costs of technology theft are ultimately too high for it to be worthwhile.
Fifth and finally, back away from provocative military actions on the China coast. Trade frequent "freedom of navigation operations" to protest Chinese interpretations of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea for dialogue aimed at reaching common understandings of relevant interests and principles. Ratify the Convention on the Law of the Sea and make use of its dispute resolution mechanisms. As much as possible, call off military confrontation and look for activities, like the protection of commercial shipping, that are common interests. Seek common ground without prejudice to persisting differences.
In conclusion : both China and the United States need a peaceful international environment to be able to address long-neglected domestic problems. Doing more of what we're now doing threatens to preclude either of us from sustaining the levels of peace, prosperity, and domestic tranquility that a more cooperative relationship would afford. Hostile coexistence between two such great nations injures both and benefits neither. It carries unacceptable risks. Americans and Chinese need to turn from the path we are now on. We can – we must – find a route forward that is better for both of us.
MushroomCloud2020 , 7 hours ago linkMushroomCloud2020 , 7 hours ago link
The article presents itself as being forward thinking, yet no mention of the robot revolution and how destabilizing it will be for both sides. As it stands today, it seems the economic conflict is between the US and China-perhaps. But when these robots come on line the economic war is going to be between the laborer and the employee world wide.
The demise of the US economy and manufacturing base in the US is a direct result of cheap labor, so one has a clear picture of what cheap labor will do. Outside of stuff falling from the sky for free, there isn't anything that will be more devastating to the world labor market than a robot enhanced with AI. Sure, products may become cheaper due to reduced labor cost, but if people do not have a job to raise enough income, then how are they going to buy stuff? Clearly, the whole capitalistic system will collapse and then what? What will be our choices? Will we have to shun progress in order to save the current system that has brought us all this wonderful labor saving innovation? Will people choose the hard road over the easy road? It seems to me that things always take the path of least resistance.Smi1ey , 9 hours ago link
The only advantage China has is cheap labor.The robot revolution will upset the apple cart for both sides. It will be interesting, to say the least, when both sides realize that innovation is both a blessing and a curse.LEEPERMAX , 9 hours ago link
This is a pretty good article, I agree with a lot of it. The part I don't like is the author's extreme worship of property rights.
He ignores the commons, things held in common by the people, things like science and culture. For example, Disney's copyright on its films will never expire if Disney can help it. Even an American's personal data is now someone else's private property, probably including their genetic data since even genes can be patented.
Fmr Navy Intel Officer:
Chinese Spy Ministry Operates in Silicon Valley . . . Big Time.
May 19, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
Authored by Adam Dick via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity,
Former Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, who was chief of staff for Secretary of State Colin Powell in the George W. Bush administration, warns in a new The Real News interview with host Sharmini Peries that the United States government is driving down a "highway to war" with China -- a war for which Wilkerson sees no sound justification.
The drive toward war is not undertaken in response to a real threat posed by China to the people of America. Instead, argues Wilkerson, the US government is moving toward war for reasons related to money for both the military and the broader military-industrial complex, as well to advance President Donald Trump's domestic political goals.
Wilkerson, who is a member of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity's Academic Board, elaborates on the US military's money-seeking motivation to advance the new China scare, stating:
All of this right now, first and foremost, is a budget ploy. They want more money.
And that's largely because their personnel costs are just eating their lunch. And, second, it's an attempt to develop - and this has something to do with money too of course - another threat, another cold war, another feeding system .
The military just hooks up like it is hooking up to an intravenous, you know, an IV system and the money just pours out-slush fund money, appropriated money, everything else.
More broadly, Wilkerson pegs the ramping up of confrontation with China as "all about keeping the [military-industrial] complex alive" that Wilkerson explains "the military was scared to death would disappear as we began to pay the American people back" a peace dividend at the end of the cold war. US government efforts against terrorism, explains Wilkerson, have also been used to ensure the money keeps flowing.
Watch Wilkerson's complete interview here:
* * *
Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute
May 19, 2019 | www.rt.com
Google has reportedly suspended its licences and product-sharing agreements with Chinese communications giant Huawei, as Washington accuses the company of spying for Beijing. The Silicon Valley tech giant has cut its business deals with Huawei that involve the transfer of hardware and software, Reuters and The Verge report. Following the move, Huawei will lose access to Android operating system updates, and its forthcoming smartphones will be shut out of some Google apps, including the Google Play Store and Gmail apps. The Chinese firm however will still have access to the open source version of the Android operating system.
We have confirmed this is genuine.
Huawei will only be able to use the public version of Android, and won't get access to proprietary apps and services from Google
Huawei will have to create their own update mechanism for security patches https://t.co/7eTi4JvWsE-- Tom Warren (@tomwarren) May 19, 2019
Washington repeatedly accused Huawei of installing so-called 'backdoors' into its products on behalf of the Chinese government. The heads of six US intelligence agencies warned American citizens against using Huawei products last year, and the Chinese company's phones were banned from US military bases shortly afterwards.
May 19, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
With the trade war between the US and China suddenly erupting after a 5-month ceasefire, CCTV 6, the movie channel of China's leading state television broadcaster, aired three anti-American movies last week, reported What's On Weibo .
The three movies are Korean war films: Heroic Sons and Daughters (1964), Battle on Shangganling Mountain (1954), and Surprise Attack (1960), which aired about one week after President Trump raised an existing 10% tariff on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods to 25%.
All last week, anti-American propaganda flourished across the country, with the slogan "Wanna talk? Let's talk. Wanna fight? Let's do it. Wanna bully us? Dream on!" going viral on Chinese social media platforms.
... ... ...
China's government broadcasting anti-American movies to hundreds of millions of its people shows how officials are starting up the propaganda machines ahead of a potential armed conflict with the US...
Pioneer.Valley.Man , 24 minutes ago linkschroedingersrat , 43 minutes ago link
Sounds like the Chinese should just be watching MSNBC or CNN ...gro_dfd , 42 minutes ago link
The US citizens get fucked by their own establishment for decades instead blame chinese. Cant be dumber than that :)johnny two shoes , 7 minutes ago link
Chinese spokesperson Hu Xijin writes: "there's no equal negotiation without fighting." No need for negotiation (or fighting). Assuming Trump imposes the rest of the tariffs, US trade with China will recede to nothing. Inciting anti-American feelings in mainland China just makes the break in relations easier. Goodbye China!Smi1ey , 45 minutes ago link
China has no intention of going to actual war over trade with the U.S. - they have plenty of other potential markets, as is repeatedly alluded to here and elsewhere. This televised propaganda is about manipulating the attitudes of their own disillusioned, controlled populace.Dr Anon , 45 minutes ago link
China State Run Media Broadcasts Anti-American Movies To Millions Amid Deepening Trade War
Meanwhile, America's Mockingbird Media continues to lie about everything from 911 to Venezuela.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_MockingbirdTheRapture , 53 minutes ago link
So they're broadcasting regular American television? Those shows do a great job demeaning and shitting on average American men while holding up minorities and freaks as capable people. They didn't need to invent any propaganda; just use the same **** *** producers have been feeding us dumb goyim for decades.asadshah , 38 minutes ago link
ZH is proof, if any more were needed, that all these crudely racist Americans are just not the sharpest tools in the shed.
Maybe the real cause of all anti-Chinese hate by Americans is rooted in IQ jealousy.NA X-15 , 47 minutes ago link
Isage master of the The famous paper tiger threat of turning something into glass, empty fuckin threat from a country whose professional army has managed to lose every major conflict in the last 50 years to poorly equipped sometimes barefoot soldiers armed with nothing more that AK -47s.
please see Korean villagers, Vietnamese villagers, iraqi villagers, afghan villagers and Syrian Villagers.
and the vaunted Israelis who who only win against ancient armies with ancient gear, but faced with dedicated Hezbollah Lebanese villagers again .....lose.
Give it up, you are masters of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory... not much else.Tachyon5321 , 57 minutes ago link
Just to rub it in the PLA trolls faces:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Chinese+factory+dorms+have+anti-suicide+nets&t=h_&ia=images&iax=imagesmalek , 54 minutes ago link
Trump should ban Weibo, Baidu and Sogou apps on Google and Apple phones because they are foreign controlled propaganda
You prefer a diet of purely domestic controlled propaganda instead?
May 16, 2019 | seekingalpha.com
by: Shareholders Unite Shareholders Unite Small-cap, macro, value, momentum Shareholdersunite
(11,300 followers) Summary It is difficult to see the Chinese caving to the demands of the Trump government, which seem to involve a wholesale change of China's economic model.
Either some middle ground is found or we risk a serious escalation with multiple risks to the state of the world economy, with many known and unknown facilities.
The end state could be a wholesale decoupling of the American and Chinese economies, and while some would applaud such an outcome, it's unlikely to be better than what we've got.
The Trump administration seems to have the illusion that if you raise the stakes high enough, other countries will cave to US demands. There might also be an element of creating foreign adversary in order to unite the domestic front, we don't know.
Trade tensions have been taken way too far when the government slapped tariffs on Canadian steel exports because of national security concerns, but in the case of China, there are some legitimate concerns. Mind you, these concerns don't involve:
- China's mercantilism - its trade surplus has all but vanished (see below).
- The bilateral trade deficit the US has with China that's way overstated (much of the value added comes from other countries, most notably the US), meaningless and not amenable to change from deliberate policy measures (the US trade deficit is caused by a lack of savings with respect to investments; in so far as policy manages to reduce the bilateral trade deficit with China, the deficit will simply reappear elsewhere as long as the saving/investment balance isn't changed).
- While China has "manipulated" its currency in the past in order to keep it low, in recent years they've done exactly the opposite, trying to keep their currency from falling.
- China isn't paying for the tariffs, US importers and consumers are.
- Trade isn't a zero-sum game.
This doesn't look particularly mercantilist:
(Source: Trading Economics )
Negotiating with countries is different from the wheeling and dealing world of New York real estate. This should be especially clear with a nation-first politician like Donald Trump.
Where making maximum demands on other parties might work in New York, it's much less likely if one is dealing with proud, independent nations - that should have been the lesson from the North Korea fiasco.
Just as there is one thing worse than a severe economic recession, which is caving to US pressure for the Iranian ayatollas, the same holds for Chinese politicians in charge of policy.
It's true that the pain from the escalation in the trade war is probably significantly larger in China compared to the US, but that doesn't make them more likely to be the first to cave, especially considering that what the US administration seems to demand is a wholesale change of China's economic model . That's never going to happen. Since there are no free elections, they can endure the pain for longer, and much fewer people own stocks, so even while the sell-off in China might be worse, it's hitting much fewer people.
In fact, caving to US demands, or even being seen to be caving, might well be a one-way ticket to political oblivion. Which is why China's leaders called President Trump's bluff. Contrast this with the situation in the US.
Trade experts like Krugman argue that the short-term economic impact as such on the US economy is fairly moderate, and who are we to disagree? However, a further escalation isn't likely to go by unnoticed, and there is this ephemeral concept called "confidence", of which the stock market might be one of the best indicators:
The market is already reeling, and this could become uncomfortable pretty soon for a president who prides himself on the rally in the markets.The real danger
The risk is that this becomes a protracted conflict with each party digging in, egged on by heated domestic rhetoric. The longer this lasts, the greater the following risks:
- Sentiment spilling over in the real economy
- A large yuan depreciation
- Collateral damage
- A wholesale decoupling of the Chinese and American economies
Sentiment is turning, and at a certain point, this can very well start to affect consumption, investment, and lending decisions in the real world. We're not there yet, but look how the sell-off at the end of last year cowered the Fed into one of the more spectacular retreats in policy. This wasn't because of the market sell-off itself but because of the increasing signs that sentiment could hit the real economy, even if much of the more immediate risks were abroad.
Moreover, in a highly leveraged financial system, you never know what you're going to find when the investor flows recede. Things can go very fast here. Look how Argentina was able to sell a 100-year bond in 2016, only to be hit by the receding flows pretty soon after.
Another real risk is a substantial yuan depreciation . It's the most effective way the Chinese can absorb the direct tariff cost on their competitiveness, but it runs the risk of becoming a self-fulfilling prophesy.
The markets have already twice succumbed to yuan depreciation scares, in 2015 and at the start of 2016, and the PBoC spent $1 trillion of its $4 trillion reserves plus draconian capital controls to stop the rot.
We're not talking hypotheticals here - guess when that gap-up happened? On the day of the Trump tweets announcing the 25% tariffs:
A substantial yuan depreciation will risk inserting a major deflationary blow to the world economy as it exports the effects of the US tariffs on China to the rest of the world.
Given the shaky state of the eurozone, we're not relishing this prospect at all. We have long argued that the eurozone is one downturn away from disintegration, with Italy as its focal point.
Italy is already in a recession and has a dysfunctional government consisting of a left-wing and right-wing populist party which are constantly bickering. What's more, it has unsustainable debt dynamics and a potential banking doom loop, should the debt dynamics trigger a market selloff, and has no lender of last resort.
With all the debt and leverage in the world economy, it's a bit like riding a bicycle - you have to keep cycling to stop falling over.Decoupling
While the direct monetary impact of the tariffs is fairly moderate (it's a modest, albeit highly regressive, tax increase), another likely consequence is a further relocation of supply chains and decoupling of the US and Chinese economies.
We have already read numerous company CCs which described rerouting supplies from China, albeit not usually back to the US, and we're not imagining stuff. From Monday's issue of DigiTimes:
- ASEAN supply chains to develop fast as server, network equipment makers move production from China
- Taiwan memory module firms moving production away from China
If 10% tariffs can do that, 25% of tariffs will accelerate this and the next round, where the US levies tariffs on all Chinese imports even more.
Some within the US administration seems to relish this, as it weakens China economically, but a hard Chinese landing won't pass the US unnoticed, and the end result could very well be two competing economic blocks and a new sort of cold war.
One of the very first economic measures the Trump government took was to get the US out of the TPP, which not only gave up a lot of leverage over China, but the mostly ASEAN countries who are part of the TPP (without the US) are now firmer in China's orbit as a result, and they will have unenviable choices to make in terms of their future alignment.
It's also unfortunate that Trump has been waging trade wars on multiple fronts (see here for an overview ), alienating many partners in the process.
Now might be as good a time as any to remind people of the unpopular thesis that trade isn't a zero-sum game and that both the US and China have greatly benefited from their economic integration the past couple of decades.
The US got increased exports as well - not as spectacular as the Chinese exports to the US, but this is in part an optical illusion. Much of China's exports to the US contain value added produced elsewhere, even from the US itself:
(Source: BlackRock )
You see that less than half of the value added of Chinese electronics export to the US is actually produced in China itself. The iPhone is a classic example:
In the case of the Apple iPhone, this means that China's exports balance accounts for the full $500 iPhone value, when China adds only approximately $15 to $30 of the value to the phone. Most of the iPhone value accretes to Samsung in Korea ($150) and to Apple - the brand owner and engineer. This highlights how the normal accounting of trade flows is inherently distorted under the current trade-deficit estimates.
(Source: CNBC )
Yes, the US has lost manufacturing jobs as a result, but it failed to compensate those who lost from trade like other countries have (via massive active labor market policies, for instance in the Nordic countries, where there is little in the way of an industrial waste land as a result).
The US has also gained. It found willing buyers for its Treasuries, keeping interest rates low, cheap consumer goods, keeping inflation low - which allowed the Fed to keep low interest rates, and which in turn increased economic growth and employment.
It's not perfect, and we're not blind to China's IP theft and the conditions it places on American companies operating in the country. But China's rise has propelled half a billion people out of poverty and turned them into eager consumers of US agricultural, cultural and high-tech products.Conclusion
While a number of American grievances are right, the Trump administration seems to want a wholesale sellout of China, abandoning its economic model. That's not going to happen, and even less so because they also antagonized potential allies, like ASEAN countries, the EU and Canada.
There are two choices here: either some middle ground is found or this could spiral out of control, with major economic risks involved and a wholesale decoupling of the Chinese and American economies. Economics 101 argues quite clearly that that world is unlikely to be better than the one we have, despite all the imperfections of the latter.
Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.
Apr 29, 2019 | www.youtube.com
What if, instead of the U.S. and China battling it out on trade--it was two classes trading cards? We explain the trade war.
"Trade wars are good and easy to win," President Donald J. Trump famously tweeted. But how would one really impact everyday Americans?
May 16, 2019 | www.youtube.com
On Wednesday, U.S. President Donald Trump issued an executive order barring U.S. firms from using telecom equipment made by companies accused of being a national security risk; this includes Chinese tech giant Huawei. The U.S. Commerce Department questioned whether Huawei will be able to continue purchasing components from its American suppliers. In response, the Chinese Commerce Ministry said on Thursday
Philip Yap , 1 day agoFrancoise Loffler , 8 hours ago
Huawei will survive with supply chain alternatives and reengineering designs, it will make Huawei stronger with better products. American high tech products and parts suppliers can wait until American companies come up with design to utilise their products, hopefully not long enough to cripple all these high tech parts manufacturers.
Huawei is an EXCELLENT PHONE MUCH BETTER THAN APLE...I have both and can compare them...
May 16, 2019 | sputniknews.com
... ... ...
Dmitry Kiselyov, the general director of Rossiya Segodnya International Information Agency, discussed the recent escalation in the Sino-American trade war with Kong Dan, the former chairman of CITIC Group; Zhang Weiwei, a Chinese professor of international relations at Fudan University and a senior research fellow at the Chunqiu Institute; and Li Shimo, an investor and billionaire, founder and managing director of Chengwei Capital, owner of many US Silicon Valley companies.
US Tariffs Have Nothing to Do With Competition, These are Steps to Contain China
Dmitry Kiselyov: What resources does China have?
Kong Dan: Without a trade war, our view of the United States would be superficial; now we know the other side as well. I, as a representative of business circles, do not really understand the subtleties of what the Americans want. Do they just think that Chinese development is unacceptable for them?
Or do they want to cut off all opportunities for China's future development? In my opinion, the relevant measures that the Americans have been initiating since the very beginning of the trade war to the present day are most likely real steps to contain China rather than some form of sanctions. This is a desire to hinder China's development in various spheres, specifically in trade, economic development, industrial development, science and technology, in the financial sphere and even in the area of human resources in China. They want to hamper our development on all sides.
Dmitry Kiselyov: But is it hostile?
Kong Dan: I would call this approach competition. But competition can be different: hostile, non-hostile
READ MORE: Strategist: American Producers, Consumers to Pay for US-China Tariff Tit-for-Tat
China's Two Main Advantages in Trade War With US
Dmitry Kiselyov: Competition without rules is animosity
Kong Dan: You might know that we used to have the popular concept of the so-called "hybrid war" but I would not describe the behaviour of Americans using this term. They just want to cut off all of China's development opportunities. They want to limit our ability to thrive as much as possible.China May Regulate Energy Imports from US Amid Trade Row Competition has various forms or different aspects. I also have a counter-question for you, how do Russians assess the nature of those sanctions measures that the Americans have implemented against Russia?
The United States considers us its adversaries. They previously included Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea on their blacklist, a list of terrorist forces. And China is first on the list. Are we hostile to them?
Today I heard you talking about Russia, about the principles of preserving your development and sovereignty, I agree with that. The geopolitical situation is different for everyone, the history is different. There may be differences in how countries approach dealing with issues.
I previously worked as the head of the largest state-owned company in China, so, of course, I understand what kind of mission one carries on his/her shoulders. I am willing to make efforts to stimulate the development of the Russian-Chinese partnership as a whole; I think there is still a lot to do in this direction. The US underestimates the potential of President Putin and Russia, China and President Xi Jinping. They will pay a heavy price for it.
I would like to name two advantages of the trade war for us.
- First of all, we have an advantage in a unique, specific management system in the trade fight with the United States. I believe that the Americans do not want to minimize the trade deficit; they just want to eliminate our institutional advantage. Of course, we will not retreat from such a line. If the Americans want to cross the red line , then I am sure that President Xi and the Chinese government has a definite response to win the trade war.
- Secondly, we have our colossal domestic market, which has no competitors throughout the world. Our consumer and innovation markets provide us with a large number of advantages and room, giving China an opportunity to make a manoeuvre. Therefore, their blockage gives China a chance to become even stronger. We must express our appreciation to our mentor, Trump, for this, for this lesson and for forcing China to figure out how to withstand the threats on its own.
Why China is Likely to Emerge Victorious in Trump-Driven Trade War
Dmitry Kiselyov: You said you have confidence that China will emerge victorious in this trade war, what does this victory mean? When will it come?
Kong Dan: Trump has said many times that he can hit our stock market to destroy it. As for us, we are doing everything well, we are successfully organising work, and we are looking for ways for rapid development in recent years. Our goal of a 100-year-old rebirth of the nation can be achieved -- and that is our victory Of course, we understand that the United States wants to impede our development. If they want to destroy us then I think they will fail. Only in their dreams!
Zhang Weiwei: I support Mr Kong's view that the Chinese consumer market is the largest in the world! Especially, in the field of innovation. And if one leads the battle with such colossal markets, then the initiators will surely fail .
READ MORE: US Treasury Chief to Plan for Trade Meeting in China Soon
'If US Continues to Maintain Hegemony, It Will Suffer Heavy Losses'
Dmitry Kiselyov: What will then become of the defeated United States?
Kong Dan: It is very hard to explain all this only in military terms. China neither wants to seize the United States nor does it want to take a dominant position like the United States. We simply do not want the United States to cut off all the opportunities for our country's development.
Li Shimo: I would like to note that in the course of a trade war, each of the parties has its own strengths and weaknesses. Our advantage is that we have a strong political system. The second one is social cohesion. The third one, as has already been stated, China has quite large domestic markets. The fourth one, China is the world's largest trading country and also the largest trading nation in the history of mankind.China to Emerge Victorious From Trade War With US – Foreign Ministry Unlike ours, the American political system has fallen into disarray. American society is split ; the "social contract" has failed. The political and economic elite have gradually lost their credibility and reputation.
The advantage of the United States is its hegemony in the global financial system. The second advantage is the strong alliance system that was formed after the Second World War and the Cold War. And another one is a still high level of weapons development in the world.
However, the United States and China have different development goals. China is simply looking for suitable paths to future accelerated development. But the US has a dilemma. Previously, there was a different situation, there was hegemony -- a very important driving force, a very important pillar, the so-called "soft power", and particularly they had ideological dominance. Over the past decades, Americans have repeatedly initiated hostilities, and acute social inequality has flared up inside the country. Today, hegemony in the ideological system is being lost; and some countries and regions' confidence in the USA is being lost.© Sputnik / Marina Lisceva Boeing Calls For Limits to US Tariffs Over EU Subsidies
Therefore, if they now wish to continue to maintain hegemony, they will suffer heavy losses. But if they back down from it -- for instance, Trump wants to abandon ideological dominance -- it will turn into a power struggle in its purest form. This will lead to a loss of ideological advantage in the international arena.
How to assess the outcome of the battle? I would suggest that you read the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China report delivered by President Xi Jinping. In it, he outlined two challenges: the first one -- 2035, the second one -- 2049. These two goals are quite clear and realistic If we can complete these tasks, then the victory will be ours.
China's Three Future Milestones: 2021, 2035, 2049
Dmitry Kiselyov: What are these challenges?
Kong Dan: China has two development goals for the current century. The first is that by 2021 when the CPC will celebrate its 100th anniversary, it will fully and comprehensively build a moderately prosperous society in China. Another goal by 2049, when it will be 100 years since the founding of the PRC, China should reach the level of the most advanced developed countries. Moreover, there is another intermediate task between these two goals of the current century -- by 2035 China has to move into the category of moderately developed countries.
Zhang Weiwei: China borrowed its methodology and planning practices from the USSR. However, over the past decades, we have brought a lot of innovation into this process. Now it is no longer the old decision-making but strategic and guiding planning. The Americans could see that over the past 40 years China has been fulfilling all its five-year plans ahead of schedule, and that frightened them. If we are talking about how the China-US trade war will end, then personally I would like to quote Americans who say: "if you can't beat them, join them".
READ MORE: China May Regulate Energy Imports from US Amid Trade Row
China Presents New Model of Development as Western & Soviet Models Failed
Dmitry Kiselyov: How many fingers are needed to describe the Chinese model, and what in fact is that, if we are talking about the alternative?
Zhang Weiwei: The Chinese Model of Development has several features. First, the leading ideology must be based on real facts. "Practice is the sole criterion of truth". As a result, we found that a developing country, such as China, needs to carry out modernisation. Looking at the rest of the world, it becomes clear that the Western model is not successful. The Soviet model also did not prevail. Therefore, Deng Xiaoping said that we need to follow our own path. We did not fall into the trap of "colour revolutions", we were looking for the path we needed based on reality. That is the key thing.No US LNG Exports to China in Recent Months as Trade War Reaches Peak - Reports
I would like to add a little bit. If we talk about reforms in socialist countries, we can name two basic models.
- The first is the Gorbachev model, which is characterised by a radical nature. This is political and economic shock therapy. The cost of such reforms was very high and they were not quite successful.
- The Cuban Castro model implies supportive conservative therapy. They did not build a market economy; they were not included in the processes of globalisation but resorted only to spot adjustment and correction.
Reforms according to the Chinese model are characterised by balance, prudence, and sustainability. We have carried out bold economic reforms, built a market economy, and joined the process of globalisation. However, we treat political reforms with caution and prudence; everything should serve economic reforms, and, ultimately, improve people's living standards.
The American model provides for the concept of political equality "One person, one vote", a multiparty system for governing a country. Strictly speaking, it only started working in 1965. The Chinese model began to take shape in 1978. Their starting points are more than ten years apart. Of course, they can compete with each other but I consider the Chinese model to be more successful and attractive; and I have already been talking about this for 20 years.
The views and opinions expressed by the speakers and the contributor do not necessarily reflect those of Sputnik.
May 18, 2019 | www.bloomberg.com
China's state media signaled a lack of interest in resuming trade talks with the U.S. under the current threat of higher tariffs, while the government said stimulus will be stepped up to buttress the domestic economy.
Without new moves that show the U.S. is sincere, it is meaningless for its officials to come to China and have trade talks, according to a commentary by the blog Taoran Notes, which was carried by state-run Xinhua News Agency and the People's Daily, the Communist Party's mouthpiece. The Ministry of Commerce spokesman said Thursday he had no information about any U.S. officials coming to Beijing for further talks.
U.S. equities fell on concern that talks between the world's two largest economies have stalled. The Shanghai Composite Index also declined. "If the U.S. doesn't make concessions in key issues, there is little point for China to resume talks," said Zhou Xiaoming, a former commerce ministry official and diplomat. "China's stance has become more hard-line and it's in no rush for a deal" because the U.S. approach is extremely repellent and China has no illusions about U.S. sincerity, he said. No Rush for a Deal
According to Zhou, the commerce ministry spokesman on Thursday effectively ruled out talks in the near term. In comments to the media, ministry spokesman Gao Feng said that China's three major concerns need to be addressed before any deal can be reached, adding that the unilateral escalation of tensions in Washington recently had "seriously hurt" talks.
The U.S. has been talking about wanting to continue the negotiations, but in the meantime it has been playing "little tricks to disrupt the atmosphere," according to the Taoran commentary on Thursday night, citing Trump's steps this week to curb Chinese telecom giant Huawei Technologies Co.
"We can't see the U.S. has any substantial sincerity in pushing forward the talks. Rather, it is expanding extreme pressure," the blog wrote. "If the U.S. ignores the will of the Chinese people, then it probably won't get an effective response from the Chinese side," it added.
The blog reiterated China's three main concerns for a deal are tariff removal, achievable purchase plans and a balanced agreement text, as first revealed by Vice Premier Liu He. They mark the official stance as much as the will of the Chinese public, it wrote.
"If anyone thinks the Chinese side is just bluffing, that will be the most significant misjudgment" since the Korean War, it said.
Read: China Vows 'People's War' as Trade Fight Takes Nationalist Turn
In addition to putting the Taoran commentary on WeChat, the People's Daily newspaper had three defiant articles on the trade war in the physical newspaper Friday.
A front page commentary from the Communist Party's propaganda department headlined 'No Power Can Stop the Chinese People from Achieving Their Dream' said "the trade war will not cripple China, it will only strengthen us as we endure it," citing the hardships China has overcome from the Opium War to floods to the SARS epidemic in 2002-2003.
There were two editorials on page three, with one saying "China doesn't intend to change or replace the U.S., and the U.S. can't dictate to China or hold back our development." The other said claims from some officials in the U.S. that they have "rebuilt" China over the past 25 years are "outrageous" and shows their vanity, ignorance and distorted mentalities.
May 16, 2019 | www.youtube.com
US President Donald Trump declared a national emergency over Huawei, which he has deemed a national security threat. His new executive order makes it more difficult for US companies to do business with the Chinese tech giant. RT America's Manila Chan chats with investigative journalist Ben Swann, who says no evidence exists for the Trump administration's claim. #RTAmerica #InQuestionRT #QuestionMore
US Of Zion , 2 days agoriva2003 , 2 days ago
What US bans I will buy. Huawei has profited from Trump's tweets. 😂😂😂E Walker , 2 days ago (edited)
National emergency against one single company? What a promotion for HUAWEI! They must have paid US government a looooot of money! LOOOOOLBTV-Channel , 2 days ago div
U.S. cannot spy via Chinese made technology products. That is the problem. When did competition against American technology get to be a national security threat? It is about creating a monopoly of only certain products in America. I hope American companies fight back. Prices in American stores have already started to rise. Monopolies mean high prices.OGASI , 2 days ago
In the age of technology...any country who doesn't SPY on other countries or their own citizens is LYING thru their teeth! USA is NO DIFFERENT than CHINA.....they both are rogue nations, competing for the same thing, TECHNOLOGY LEADERSHIP! The problem is....HUAWEI just got the upper hand in 5G technology before the US can compete...so as such, the US threatens other countries with scare tactics until the US can develop and deploy 5G technology to compete with CHINA. It's all about MONEY and BUSINESS.
USA has dishonestly gathered more data on it's own civilians than it can access or understand in several lifetimes, they have the gaul to attack others without proof? UNREAL
May 18, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
S , May 18, 2019 8:47:15 AM | link@William Gruff #75: China is already producing world-class ARM chips. HiSilicon 's latest Kirin processors are on par with Qualcomm's Snapdragon and Samsung's Exynos processors. Apple's A-series is ahead of them all, but what does it matter if Apple's rising prices and falling quality are going to kill Apple anyway?
Schmoe , May 17, 2019 6:45:23 PM | linkPer Reuters, Huawei spends $11b on US components, and its ability to withstand this hit will vary by segment: "Huawei being unable to manufacture network servers, for example, because they can't get key U.S. components would mean they also stop buying parts from other countries altogether," said an executive at a Huawei chip supplier.Godfree Roberts , May 17, 2019 7:30:34 PM | link
"They can relatively better manage component sourcing for mobile phones because they have their own component businesses for smartphones. But server and network, it's a different story," the executive said.
Are there any articles on how dependent Apple and Boeing are on Chinese components? This strategy seems incredibly short-sighted.China has outspent the US on R&D since 2009 and now invests three times as much each year. That's why it's ahead technologically and scientifically.oglalla , May 17, 2019 7:34:09 PM | link
By 2028, if current ratios hold, China will also outspend the US on defense. Won't that be interesting?Remember the "Asian pivot"? Did Huawei and other critical tech companies start making independent chips back then? Or before? When were the tariffs planned? Speculation, anyone?Indrid Cold , May 17, 2019 8:15:00 PM | linkThe issue with these chips highlights just how ridiculous the American position is. The chips referred to are Intel processors they use in servers and qualcomm (arm core) processors in cell phones. Funny thing is, these processors are not even made in the US, and their replacement isn't that much of an issue, not for a company with the resources Huawei possesses.Don Bacon , May 17, 2019 10:59:03 PM | link
Huawei already has its own arm based soc's it uses in it's high end phones and they can replace processors in it's low end phones with lesser versions of these.
The Intel processors will be tougher to do for the commercial market because of software compatibility issues.
For government and other high security uses China has options like the MIPs based Loongson but that wouldn't work in the commercial environment so hopelessly devoted to x86 and windows. Probably the best solution would be to make an x86 analog like AMD markets, and it wouldn't take that long to do.from Market Realist. . .William Gruff , May 18, 2019 8:11:03 AM | link
The United States attacked China's largest telecom equipment maker Huawei. If China decides to retaliate, it could target chip giants like Qualcomm and Broadcom, which rely heavily on it for revenue, or tech giant Apple, which depends on them for iPhone manufacturing.
Huawei uses Qualcomm's modems in its high-end smartphones and has been in settlement talks with the chip supplier over a licensing dispute. Tensions between the United States and Huawei could delay this licensing settlement, sending Qualcomm's stock down 4.4% on May 16.
Huawei's competitors Nokia and Ericsson would stand to win from the above ban as the United States and its allies would resort to them for 5G deployment. Nokia's and Ericsson's stocks rose more than 4% and 2% in early trading on May 16. . . heredonkeytale , May 18, 2019 9:57:42 AM | link"Soon U.S. chip companies will have lost all their sales to the second largest smartphone producer of the world. That loss will not be just temporarily, it will become permanent." --b
This is a crucial and important development. So long as China is just developing their domestic chip designs as an academic exercise they will forever trail behind the market leaders by at least one technological iteration. Why try so hard with chip designs that will only ever just be used in college degree theses papers and proof of concept models? Real innovation comes from scratching an itch; from fulfilling an actual need. Chip fab is the only remaining significant technological lead that America retains anymore, but the raw engineering brainpower behind that industry in the US is mostly imported from China anyway. The Chinese have no shortage of brilliant engineers, they just have not really had the need to do without Intel and AMD before. Now they do.
In the short term the transition will be painful for China. The first few iterations of their replacement chip designs will be buggy and not have the features of chips they could have bought for cheaper from the US. They will also have problems ramping up capacity to meet their needs. Typical growing pains, in other words. In the long term, though, this will be seen as the point at which the end started for America's chip tech dominance. Within a year or so China will be producing chips as good as America's. Another year after that and America will be eclipsed in that industry. No longer will people be looking for "Intel Inside!" stickers on products but rather "Huawei Inside!" .Isnt it clear the US is globalist? Uhhm, well, yes, it's only been clear for the prior 75 years at least. In fact Lenin laid it all out during WWI so one could say it's been clear for 100 years.
What doesn't seem to be clear, or else ignored/excused here -- China is today just as globalist as the US and in fact the multinational corporations in control of both countries are inextricably linked, especially in the high tech sector currently under the intense MoA thread microscope.
Why aren't Huawei making making more smartphone chips in production? Because so many Chinese component manufacturers are still heavily invested in churning out product for Apple. These companies employ millions in "relatively high paying" factory jobs and account for a large slice of Chinese export income and stock market capitalization. These corporate oligarchs supported by the Chinese government retain a vested interest in the status quo.
This is not to minimize Huawei or Chinese growing ability to compete at the design and innovation level as well as production, it is simply rightsizing the perspective to fit the reality. Huawei production is growing worldwide but this doesn't mean Apple or Samsung will evaporate or fall by the wayside and the Chinese need Apple and its markets too . In fact, Huawei is now willing for the first time to sell microchips to third party cell phone producers including Apple. Successful capitalist growth for China depends on increasing production into new products, technologies and markets not replacing current platforms with new. The product cycle will take care of itself in time anyway.
By our standards exploitation of workers in China is a grim picture , which compares with the grim blue collar conditions in the US, the equal and opposite result of the globalist equation wrt offshoring factory jobs endemic to capitalist production.
China is still in the industrial growth phase of its capitalist development, although beginning to transition to the higher phase for sure. Of course.
MoA China "experts" should study the reality of globalization after removing the rose colored glasses if you wish to be considered analysts instead of merely wishful thinkers/cheerleaders of groupthink delusion.
May 18, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
jared , May 17, 2019 4:55:50 PM | linkThis article titled 'Face' by Walrus over at SST is well worth a read alongside b's piece. https://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2019/05/face-by-walrus.html
Also this Sputnik Article https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201905161075055767-china-us-trade-war/
Both these articles give a very clear picture of what the drunken louts 'Team Trump' are up against in their so called trade war. Very much like a drunken spectator climbing into the ring thinking he can take on a professional boxer.
@ Peter AU 1 | May 17, 2019 4:33:54 PM | 1 5 Trump
- demanded concessions on trade
- banned Huwei
- made military [plans with Taiwan
- saber rattled in the China Sea
Trump wants improved trade conditions for improved economic climate in the U.S. But there are others in the admin who want something else.
But still: "backup chips it has independently developed" That's a good one Mr Moon.
wagelaborer , May 17, 2019 5:05:18 PM | linkThe US attack on China did not start with Trump. This is what Obama's military "Pivot to Asia" was about, as was the TPP, which explicitly was designed to develop an economic alliance that left China out. Capitalist trade wars are also not new, as are hot wars. They are part of capitalism.uncle tungsten , May 17, 2019 5:12:28 PM | link
"Intellectual property" is a laughable assertion, an audacious attempt by the US to corner all human advances and claim them as the property of US capitalists, to be only used for their profits. As if!
What an appalling ruling elite in the USA. Blamers and punishers. Never take any responsibility for their murderous acts. Rise up people, these are dangerous, stupid leaders and elites.dh-mtl , May 17, 2019 5:13:10 PM | linkB says: Whatever face is at the top is only representing the layers below.Winston2 , May 17, 2019 5:18:30 PM | link
Yes, this is the case when complex governmental systems are functioning properly. In this case power is distributed throughout the system, based on the role each individual within the system. People must have a collaborative culture for complex systems to function properly.
People of an authoritarian nature hate complex systems and distributed power, as such systems limit the freedom of action of the authoritarian leader. The corollary to this is that systems must be kept simple to accommodate authoritarian leaders. And simple systems are much less powerful and effective than complex systems.
My observation is that, in the U.S., authoritarianism is the dominant culture, as opposed to a collaborative culture of the Chinese that is implied by B's comment.
Indeed we see many signs in these negotiations that the U.S. is operating based on a culture of authoritarianism, whereas China is operating based on a culture of collaboration. Among the signs:
- The tendency that B. noted of Americans to assign all power to the leader. (This is not the first time, and in fact it is a common mistake of the U.S. and one of the reasons that their regime change efforts almost never achieve a result that is favorable for the U.S.)
- The U.S. talks about winning and losing. China talks equity.
- The U.S. talks about pressuring China until they give in. China talks about a solution that respects the dignity of each party.
The principle behind negotiations for people of a collaborative culture is 'Win-Win or No-Deal'. For Authoritarians, Win-Win is a compromise, and compromise is the equivalent of a loss. My conclusion is that there is only a very low probability that the U.S. and China will successfully negotiate a trade deal. The cultures of the authoritarian Americans and the collaborative Chinese are too divergent. China will only accept Win-Win and the U.S. cannot accept Win-Win.Classic US empire strategy. Build up a supplier and when they start to be serious a competitor take them down. Asian Tiger crisis,forcing occupied Japan into the Plaza Accord etc. They left it too long with China, way too long. China has not recycled its trade dollars surplus into USTs since 2014. No replacement suppliers like Vietnam or Indonesia etc will do either, no more vendor finance for the US.uncle tungsten , May 17, 2019 5:19:11 PM | link
It will have to live within its means, no wonder the neocohens are going insane. We are watching the death of the $ as GRC first hand.@jared | May 17, 2019 4:55:50 PM | 18james , May 17, 2019 5:32:57 PM | link
NO jared, Trump is in charge, fully responsible and yet totally irresponsible. He hires and fires, he barks the orders, Trump is not captive. You may desperately wish to believe that but NO, Trump wants it like this and NO dissent.
This is Henry Kissinger's plan implemented by Trump. A war criminal implementing a sociopath war criminal's plan. Trump is a killer and an oligarchs stooge and he like the rewards.
See the fabulous Aaron Mate discussion previously linked in the last thread.thanks b... ditto peter au recommendation @16 on the article from walrus on face..Jen , May 17, 2019 5:47:54 PM | linkI'd be curious to know what other MoA barflies think of the US tendency to personalize other countries' governments and political systems and reduce them all to monarchies of one sort or another, and what this says about the American psychology generally. So much of the US slather and accusations against Russia and China and what those nations are supposedly doing look like psychological projection of the US' own sins and malevolent behaviour.Don Bacon , May 17, 2019 5:55:00 PM | link
I was in hospital nearly 20 years ago for a major operation and some of my recuperation there was spent watching a few old "Star Trek: Next Generation" episodes. Watching those shows, I was struck by how much "power" the Star Trek captain Jean-Luc Picard appeared to wield. Every one of his subordinates deferred to his decisions and very few challenged him.
I know this is an old TV show with scripts that emphasise individual action over collective action and delineating a whole culture on board the Starship fleet (this is a long time before "Game of Thrones") but I had the sudden realisation that US politics is essentially monarchist in its nature, for all the complicated legal and constitutional structures that have been built around it over the past 240+ years. US politics and culture are fixated on one individual with extreme powers; the superhero obsession in Hollywood is one symptom of that.
In a way the US now resembles the Ottoman empire during that empire's Sultanate of Women period (late 1500s to mid-1700s) when sultans' power was dominated by their mothers, viziers and sometimes the janissaries who became a hereditary class during that period.@ dh-mtl 21Lochearn , May 17, 2019 5:56:05 PM | link
You provided an excellent analysis of two very different kinds of people, westerners and Asians (Chinese). Americans who believe that Chinese are pretty much like them, and respond to people, to pressures and and to situations in the same way, are badly mistaken.
I would add another: Westerners want instant results and quick profits whereas Chinese take the long view. Heck, they've been around for five thousand years so why not.I'm glad you raise the issue of increased prices for US consumers, b. I have been looking in vain for a mention of this even in alternative media. Nobody appears to be talking about it.dh , May 17, 2019 5:59:06 PM | link
If I can go off track for a moment the events surrounding Boeing are highly significant and a parallel to what is happening generally in the US. Here is a something I wrote for naked capitalism but did not send - Yves is too fierce and I don't trust her. A bit like a feminine Colonel what's his name Laing...
Because of the prestige of Boeing Wall Street left its dimantling until quite late - 1997. GE and Ford had already produced their versions of the 737 Max in the 1960s with the Corvair and the Pinto respectively as finance people started to take over the running of US companies. There is something very sad in watching a once magnificent company reduced by bankers to a shadow of its former self.There has been a trade imbalance for quite a while but it didn't seem to matter much. The Chinese raised their standard of living, Americans got cheap stuff, surplus dollars went into treasuries to fund the deficit. It all worked pretty well until Trump and MAGA. Somehow he thinks he'll bring the jobs back but no Americans are going to make sneakers and circuit boards for $2 an hour.Ian , May 17, 2019 6:21:30 PM | link@Jen | May 17, 2019 5:47:54 PM | 25:Peter AU 1 , May 17, 2019 6:23:01 PM | link
Idolatry is universal. People always gravitate towards Alpha personalities.
dh | May 17, 2019 5:59:06 PM | 28:
Trump knows those manufacturing jobs aren't coming back and automation is the future. He's just parroting what his base wants to hear for votes.Jen 25OutOfThinAir , May 17, 2019 6:29:02 PM | link
I have just replied to Karlof1 in I think the previous thread and I link into this. In looking into US culture and why it gives rise the type of leadership it has, I think it may be the belief in exceptionalism. Exceptionalism may also carry with it the belief that all other peoples want to be like them and all they (Americans) have to do is free those peoples from the nasty dictators ruling over them.
Patrick Armstrong in one of his articles has said that in his dealings with US officials as Canadian ambassador or diplomat, is that American officials genuinely believed that all they had to do was overthrow the evil dictator and the people would welcome Americans or willingly join the US system.All the economic momentum is in Eurasia, centering on China, India, and Russia. China is spearheading this drive and re-assuming its historical status as the richest land in the world. Instead of resisting, Washington should be working with projects like the BRI that help enrich everyone. (Indeed, why doesn't Washington announce a BRI for North/South America, perhaps a Yellow Brick Road? But that's an aside...)wagelaborer , May 17, 2019 6:33:45 PM | link
And concerns about Chinese spying through their companies should be equaled with internal reflection about the practice in the United States. Perhaps it would be wise for both countries to develop and practice international standards that respect human rights in an Everything's Connected world.
Given how the US and China frequently treat "different" people with disdain, that's a lot to ask. But no country or people is spotless regarding abusing human rights and some wisdom with power would be welcome from both governments.Jen @25. Americans are good at Doublethink.snake , May 17, 2019 6:37:51 PM | link
You point out that our entertainment industry focuses its plots on strong leaders, and Good Guys vs Bad Guys, and we definitely internalize that, especially when our overlords want to demonize another country, and use our entertainment-induced perspective as a shortcut.
They tell us that the leader of the targeted country is a Bad Guy and we must kill the people in order to save them. And Americans nod and comply. Except for the 5% that prefers peace, and they argue that the leader is not a Bad Guy, so we shouldn't kill the people to save them.
No American ever thinks to argue international law or basic morality, we just argue about the plot lines.
But, at the same time, on another level, Americans understand that the president is a puppet and must obey orders, or have his brains blown out in bright daylight, in the town square.
We hold both these views simultaneously, hence, as Orwell called it, Doublethink.China has succeeded because it does not honor copyright and patent monopolies. Western civilization is failing because it imposes the feudal monopoly by rule of law system.. The state will make sure a few fat cats are lords and the masses are their slaves.frances , May 17, 2019 6:42:04 PM | link
The investment and salary classes have been screwing me since I was born. Now its time for all of us to feel the pain. And create a world that can benefit all of us. https://dedona.wordpress.com/2016/11/10/donald-trump-and-the-politics-of-resentment-john-michael-greer/ so @ 8 <== I agree..
It is almost asking the change of China's political system." <= no its not, the struggle today is freedom, human rights and the right to self determination not socialism vs capitalism.. it the struggle today is capitalism vs monopolism.. because monopolism aims to make every single human being alive its slave to a very few monopoly powered corporate giants.. China is a clear example of what can be if the masses are allowed to compete without the shackles of copyrights, patents and other thin air monopolies.
Some aspects of China's trade behavior can and should be criticized.
Why? Because of that "intellectual property" stuff? Japan basically built itself from the ground up in the post-war through allowed and unallowed intellectual property theft. Canon and Nikon, for example, essentially fac-similed Leica during that period; after the transition to digital, they erased their theft past, but it doesn't change the objective truth both wouldn't exist without stealing technology from a defeated country (Germany). It did the same with missile reentrance technology it stole from the USSR after the Cold War.
< Technology is a product of the human mind.. copyright and patents are thefts of the products of the human mind.. and human mind assets do not belong to anyone, to any country.. Instead, copyright and patents (intellectual property) are and should be in the public domain (but the scum that write the laws have created from thin air; rights which do not exist, and given the rights they fabricated to their feudal lords and the corporations owned by such lords. So the lawmaking scum have made it possible for a few (feudal lords) to establish and maintain a monopoly in the good life, over the masses in the world. .. Just as in the in England, France and Switzerland, where only the rich, corrupt politicians, and criminal few hung out and traded copyright and patent monopolies in the coffee houses, (much like stocks and bonds are traded today, monopoly trading was a game between fat cats (today's the fat cats are wall street barons), ..monopolies allow rich and wealth to support their royal life styles at the price of enslaving the masses to poverty. Luckily a court in England, threaten by an angry crowd of the masses, denied the wealthy their perpetual lifetime patents and copyright demands, no longer could the fat cats squeeze ownership of an intellectual creation from its creator, convert it to intangible property, and use the intellectual property to monopolize the world.
The British court said, no patent, no copyright and no monopoly can last longer than 7 years. that was 1787-89, and it explains the for a short time clause in the USA constitution.I don't think the US sees the world's nations as commanded by their senior politician. Far from it, but to keep the US public locked in a child's mentality, the govt and its MSM present every political event/action/reaction as between personalities. Can't have reason and logic breaking out among the minions can we?Peter AU 1 , May 17, 2019 6:54:13 PM | link
As for Trump being in charge, I rather doubt it, no US president has been "in charge" of any thing except possibly what is for lunch since Washington. Too many policies Trump began, such as negotiations with NK, have been trashed by his "teams" who I believe are actually his minders put in place by the Deep State.
Is Trump a great guy? A NY developer by their very nature is not a great guy. But I do think he wants to be seen as a great president. To do that he has to pull off some deals that will be remembered which is why he wanted the deal with NK, that Pompeo blew up.
I also think that the govt is preparing for the time when the dollar is no longer the reserve currency. And to do that you need to pull manufacturing back from abroad (from China), seize critical assets (from Venezuela),break any and all treaties that require you to spend money you won't have (making NATO (pay as you go).
All things the govt is doing, admittedly with the most horrific management team since Taft's. But they are moving on all fronts to circle the wagons of US commerce.
They know what is coming, some of them may see war as the way to bilk a few more trillions out of the treasury, but I don't think the military will let them. For they know that if they go up against a nation that Russia and China support and botch it, that R&C will go for the throat and that, more so than the currency crash would be the end of the US.
These moves we see are very serious because the end game is for the continued existence (or death)of the US. And many of these tactical moves are very high risk because they hasten the end of the dollar. I give the dollar five years more, tops. Then it will be just one in a basket of currencies until the yuan makes its way to the top.
And where that strange UN Agenda 21 fits in this I don't know, its plan for the US is for drastically reduced population (70% loss, from what?)the remaining population in mega cities and truly vast areas of no go set aside for the "environment." It reads like a National Parks program on crack with a side of Hunger Games.
The next five years are going to be really critical and I personally think the US will only make it by the skin of its teeth.@ Jen. Another thought. The era in which the current state of America was conceived. British colonies in a war of separation or independence against the British. Europe and Britain at that time mostly ruled by hereditary monarchs nobles and lords ect.Don Bacon , May 17, 2019 6:55:25 PM | link
Americans which I take it at that time would have been mostly British ancestry had done away with hereditary monarchs and so forth. It would have been somewhat exceptional at the time. In the targeting of the leader of a nation as the source of all evil, I wonder if that relates back to doing away with hereditary leadership especially monarch.
the grand chessboard. checkmate the king.President Trump has declared a national emergency due a threat to the US from "the ability of foreign adversaries to create and exploit vulnerabilities in information and communications technology or services, with potentially catastrophic effects, and thereby constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States," so various actions and prohibitions have been stipulated here .Lord H , May 17, 2019 7:07:00 PM | linkI particularly like this line: "where the propaganda weakens and journalism sneaks in"jared , May 17, 2019 7:37:06 PM | linkUncleTMichael Droy , May 17, 2019 8:09:49 PM | link
I dont mean to make excuses for Trump.
It all happens on his watch.
We will have other/better option soon - hopefully not too late.I think war reporting rules are in place with China, and Trade war has started. Every month that passes without a crisis is a success for China right now as it over takes US in GDP, tech, and trade links.lysias , May 17, 2019 8:15:14 PM | link
Key issues are bringing Europe in - the Huawei ban extended to Europe is battlefield #1, Northstream (gas link to Russia) is #2.
First get Europe on board, the US can up things a lot further. If Trump gets this right, he can delay outright defeat by China under well beyond his 8 years are up. (Bush or Obama early on could have won, or could have found a peaceful solution).A president doesn't have to obey the orders of the powers that be just because they threaten to kill him otherwise. A brave president would defy them to do their worst. If they went ahead and killed him, he would still have accomplished something important. By exposing the nature of the system, he would have robbed it of its legitimacy and brought a revolution much closer.Jackrabbit , May 17, 2019 8:32:10 PM | linkYou've all been trained very well to ignore the class warfare. China's "peaceful rise" was convenient when it enriched the Western elite.bevin , May 17, 2019 8:32:54 PM | link
But when China makes a play for equal footing, the must be smacked down. In each case (rise, smack-down) ordinary people (like yourselves) get f*cked. Kissinger's NWO? It's for the children.... No, not YOUR children. Welcome to the rabbithole.vk@13dltravers , May 17, 2019 8:55:12 PM | link
Best example of a country stealing foreign inventions and protecting its 'uneconomical' industries with tariffs is the USA. It was notorious that in the C19th American publishers pirated authors and musicians from Europe, particularly of course from Britain where the intellectual properties of Dickens and his contemporaries laid the basis for many an American publishing fortune.
Among the primary victims were American authors who couldn't compete against stolen imports.I am not so sure the conclusions of the article are correct. Tariffs on Chinese factories will force production to other countries in the area like Vietnam where costs are not going to be much higher than China.Zachary Smith , May 17, 2019 9:19:41 PM | link
Granted, the US may be pissed off that Huawei is placing back doors in their systems but I suspect that they are only copying what the US has done for years with US companies like Microsoft.
My daughter managed 5 factories located in China of a clothing manufacture based in the US some years ago. She said there was constant chaos as the workers were continually on strike. Bad air, dangerous machines, poor wages. few bathrooms, bad water, childcare is chaining you child to a fence for the day, and the like. Her boss flew to China and asked for the cheapest costs possible. They showed him a factory full of little children cranking out production. He left crying his eyes out. He was a cold hearted bastard but even that was too much for him to see.
I viewed first hand the destruction trade agreements like NAFTA caused to good union wages and benefits in the US. Hell, that is what got Trump elected. It is tough to watch your children go into the same profession and make 50% less in wages and fringes 30 years later.
Intellectual property and patents? No so sure about that, the views here are new to me. I always supported them but I guess I need to dig deeper on that one.
In the net I think China is the loser, fewer jobs, higher food costs, their markets are down 30%, ours are peaking and are seen as a safe haven for money. Export numbers for China are dropping as is the trade balance.
At this point it is not a trade war but a re balancing of markets IMHO. If it was a real trade war things would be far worse. Middle supplier countries will be hurt, US farmers, some markets win some lose. If it was business as usual then it would be business as usual. Trump is stirring the pot and what the endgame is is anyone's guess. Did anyone really believe China would just bend over and accept any demands from the US?
All that being said China can easily wait it out and hope Trump loses and the policy is reversed which I am sure his policies will be reversed if anyone else gets elected.@ jared 4:47:32 PM #17Cyril , May 17, 2019 9:24:52 PM | link
Your link about Boeing is a good one. Today at Naked Capitalism was a story about a possible 'payback' link between Huawei and Boeing. China has the option of causing a great deal of pain to both the US and Boeing in retaliation.
They could declare the recertified 737-MAX to be unsafe, so much so they're cancelling all orders and forbidding any landings in or overflights of China. If Canada hadn't screwed up so badly, the local Bombardier airplane might have been substituted for the 737. But Canada did goof in a major way.@ponderer | May 17, 2019 4:27:02 PM | 15Cyril , May 17, 2019 9:26:38 PM | link
There is no way that the US could subsidize the growth of a larger population base forever.
China sends vast amounts of manufactured goods to the United States; the US pays for all this with dollars it can effortlessly print. So who is subsidizing whom?A minor thing compared to the trade war, but possibly of interest to sports fans.Jackrabbit , May 17, 2019 9:35:47 PM | link
The National Basketball Association (NBA) has been very popular in China, but its profitable Chinese operations may become a casualty of the trade war. Presumably it fears this: the NBA is looking to hire someone who can talk to the Chinese government :The National Basketball Association Inc. is hiring its first head of government and public affairs in China as it seeks to protect its most important international market at a time of high tension in the U.S.-China relationship.What I don't like about Chas Freeman's article is his tone-deafness. He has been around government enough to know better. Smacking down China is a strategic priority for the Deep State. But Chas says:Don Bacon , May 17, 2019 11:06:15 PM | linkThere is no longer an orderly policy process in Washington to coordinate, moderate, or control policy formulation or implementation. Instead, a populist president has effectively declared open season on China.It's a bit disturbing to see people here read Kissinger's 2014 Op-Ed (finally) but say nothing about Chas Freeman's assertion that it's all made up by a "populist" President.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <>
If the above hurt your feeling please feel free to retreat to your happy place. We'd all be better off.Many trade war articles heredltravers , May 17, 2019 11:13:06 PM | linkJackrabbit at @ 58vk , May 18, 2019 12:01:02 AM | link
Not happy, just learned to live with it. I think I get your point. The policy really means little, the underlying issues will never change.
Been in the rabbit hole for a really long time. If more people jump in maybe things will really start to change.@ Posted by: dltravers | May 17, 2019 8:55:12 PM | 53ben , May 18, 2019 12:18:53 AM | linkI am not so sure the conclusions of the article are correct. Tariffs on Chinese factories will force production to other countries in the area like Vietnam where costs are not going to be much higher than China.
First of all, this is not a new phenomenon: low wages, low technology industries are already being transferred to India and SE-Asia. The Chinese know this and there are innumerous articles on the internet you can find about it.
But even if this process accelerates, that won't solve the manufacturing problem of the USA: it will continue to be abroad. Besides, China's "competitive advantages" are too big for a confederation of micro-countries in the Pacific to overcome. It has a socialist economy (centrally planified economy, under the hegemony of the working class); it has 1.5 billion people that will only peak in 2030; it is decades ahead in built infrastructure; it has a huge scale economy advantage (e.g. infrastructure projects that are required to reach a certain desired productive level, which are profitable in China, may not be profitable in e.g. Malaysia simply because it is too small); its financial sector is not dominant over production. But then, I repeat: even if the USA nukes China, manufacturing still won't go back to American soil.
America's problem is a secular fall of its profit rates, not manufacturing capacity: it can import whatever and how much products it needs simply because it can print world money (Dollar system).b said;" the U.S. economic system is based on greed and not on the welfare of its citizens." Bingo! Jrabbit @ 52 said;"US foreign policy has been remarkably consistent for over 20 years." Maybe the last 100 yrs.? Demonize countries people and rulers, and take their stuff, but why not? We are, don't ya' know, the exceptional nation, doing gods work. Manifest Destiny, isn't it great?Zachary Smith , May 18, 2019 1:31:30 AM | linkI know next to nothing about the "Huawei" business, so a new article about it is something to grab at. Pretty cut and dried, huh? Hauwei is pure evil, and no 'ifs' or 'buts' about it.Ian , May 18, 2019 4:30:33 AM | link
But who is this guy. A couple of quick searches turned up some more of his output.'It's now or never': The untold story of the dramatic, Canadian-led rescue of Syria's White Helmets
How Israel became a defender of the Syrian people
Just another neocon hack peddling BS, so I'm back to square one.dltravers | May 17, 2019 8:55:12 PM | 54:padre , May 18, 2019 5:06:23 AM | link
China will wait it out until Trump is out of office. The Chinese leadership is pretty smart and had at least three years to prepare for the worst case scenario. Once Chinese industries as a whole follow Huawei's footsteps (i.e. Plan B), there will be no turning back. They'll set off Plan B once they see Trump winning 2020.
dh | May 18, 2019 12:06:33 AM | 67:
Ugh...I almost leap for joy until I read the URL.Are we to asume from "Some aspects of China's trade behavior can and should be criticized" that the United States are shining example of trade (and all other) policies,all others to follow?S , May 18, 2019 6:02:26 AM | link@Indrid Cold #46:William Gruff , May 18, 2019 7:43:24 AM | linkFor government and other high security uses China has options like the mips based Loongson but that wouldn't work in the commercial environment so hopelessly devoted to x86 and windows. Probably the best solution would be to make an x86 analog like amd markets, and it wouldn't take that long to do.
Chinese-Taiwanese joint venture Zhaoxin has been making x86 processors since 2013, based on VIA Technologies' x86 license. These processors are manufactured by Taiwanese TSMC, but may switch to Chinese SMIC once it launches its 14nm process later this year."Whatever face is at the top is only representing the layers below." --bsnake , May 18, 2019 7:55:24 AM | link
The truth of this is also why so many in America hate Trump so much. He is too perfect a reflection of what America truly stands for. Trump accurately represents America, from America's bloated, over-inflated sense of self-importance and worth to America's pussy-grabbing foreign policy. Trump-hate is really self-hate.
Delusional American Russiagater Trump Derangement Syndrome victims will protest, but such people are incapable of taking a good hard look at themselves.
Hmm... "delusional" and "American" are redundant adjectives here. I should be more careful with my writing style.Mr. Gruff you have it almost correct, Americans and the USA are not one in the same and they never have been.therevolutionwas , May 18, 2019 8:08:39 AM | link
I still don't think you guys get it.. The 7 article constitution of the USA apportions the power to rule between two branches and separates the masses from their personal political powers and their human rights. Its result is not a democracy, but a few people rule republic. 100% of the authority to rule (operate and make decisions) is vested in one person (Art. II, rule and decide: President w/VP backup), subject only to the powers distributed to the two bodied legislative structure ( Art. I, pass law and raise money: 450 house+100 senate persons). Critical to understand => one person makes all decisions, and directs the day to day government. Article III thru VII defines the judiciary and clarifies various situations. (525 popularly elected + 2 electoral college appointed <=paid governors) vs. 350,000,000 powerless governed persons entitled only to 3 votes/voter [Senator(1), House members(2)] and allowed one vote/voter for each President(1) and VP(1) <=but both Art. II persons are appointed by the electoral college).
The USA is about delivering to the ownership of a very few, all of the assets, all of the power, and all of the services once possessed by the many. The demand for all of the possessions of the many, to be delivered to the few, has expanded over time from 13 colony America to earth and now space. No one but the few are entitled to anything and the USA and other governments are there to be sure of it. But how is 'total possession vested in the few' to be maintained? By rule of law!
But what law would transfer everyone's possessions into the ownership of a few? Ah, the laws of monopoly.. so rule of law, from thin air , generates=> monopoly powers and rights of ownership.. Examples of laws that bear monopoly powers and that transfer ownership rights are copyright laws, patent laws, as they convert monopoly powers that once the many shared (via governments) now belong to the few. The transfer is called privatization. Oil is controlled for the benefit of the private few by ownership laws and right to produce contracts. All in all the function of t he USA has been to make a few very wealthy at the expense of the many.
The trade issues, sanctions, wars, tariffs, race wars, oil wars, religious wars etc. are about which people are going to be the few. Until the form and function of governments are determined by the masses from the bottom, instead of by the few from the top, nothing will ever change. The masses will suffer or prosper according to which government is the winner.US factories moved to China because the US economy is based on greed?!! US government greed for the company's money maybe. US factories moved to China because it was cheaper to produce products there and then pay the expense to ship them all the way back. The US has one of the highest federal tax rates on earth, and add in high state taxes for an unacceptable situation. US fiat paper money is the base problem.Mark2 , May 18, 2019 8:24:01 AM | linkWilliam Gruff @ 72 & snake 71Joanna , May 18, 2019 9:30:24 AM | link
I was just about to say the very same thing ! Delusions of grandeur ! And now major self-harm systems ! But are these degenerates above the law ? They are after all genocidal mass murder's! String um up I say or shall we fry um ?
Right now the brain dead American public are like something out of -- - - 'The invasion of the body snatchers ' film@58, JackRabitt, Smacking down China is a strategic priority for the Deep State.DontBelieveEitherPropaganda , May 18, 2019 9:58:41 AM | link
the first time I got some type of glimpse of the average American Mind on China, as it filtered down from "the deep state" to the more fearfully ill-informed quarters of society no doubt, was in the post 9/11 universe. The person or persons pushing the meme, may have been a bit confused by all the conspiracy theories about 9/11 unfolding at the time.
Anyway, Chinese troops he/she/they asserted readers were close to the Mexican border approaching, advancing swiftly.
In hindsight, maybe accidentally, although I doubt, Trump combines the elements of that narrative perfectly. And it is not my intention to argue right or wrong here. But apparently down at the border there is this "invasion" on the other hand there's also the Yellow Peril.Well, the chinese system of power has always been the thoughest to understand for any outsider. It has been this way, but in the last years it seems the so called age of information has lead to erode the curtains of this complex mechanism. At least for those who want to look behind those curtains, and not use them to project their propaganda.. ;)daffyDuct , May 18, 2019 10:30:54 AM | link
And it is a good sign that while Xi tired to establish himself in such a unique position of power like Mao, and openly tried to put himself into the historic succession of the old emperors (like Mao did too), that the will of the people and party still tips the scale of power. It means the chinese confucian tradition and its consequences for a ruler even today still matter. Even though they are anyway lost on someone who is not of Asian origin.
What to westerners look like a dictator, is of a different nature as one can even imagine with western eyes. Every ruler has to strive for balance, for harmony, which in turns makes hearing of the peoples popular will be a necessity.
Even though many Chinese say, they like any other people only strive for what they need most ;) (like harmony and compromise). Though many also say, that the chinese will always choose stability and security over freedom. And i guess that is what many from the western world dont get about China, and also about the Putinists. I say let them and every one else have their choice. Just like i say let the US do theirs, and reap what they seeded.
For those able to read German check out the Books of Peter Scholl-Latour on China. The most telling and authorative books from a journalist who has reported first had for over 60 years, and has always defended and honored his own perspective; While the western so called reporters were trapt in their professional delusion of pro-NATO propaganda, and while the SDS praised the culture revolution as a democratic means, when whole china was terrorized and millions slaugtherd.
Hard to walk that middle ground, while being attacked from ideological drones from both sides i guess..
Anyway, the neocons in the US believes it is now or never to defend the USA unique position as world power. They believe, that if they don't fight now, they will have lost. I say, they already have.
Short of pulling a Hitler on China, meaning a total annihilation of the Chinese people, there is nothing they can do. And even Bolton will have a hard time trying to push through a clear cut genocide ;)
We will see China rise. Those who feared of this will see that china will not be half as bad as thought, and those who gloirfy china and put them into a good (vs bad US) black-wide scheme will learn of the faults of the Chinese power and its projection (Like its own believe of supremacy, of racism (a reason why china in the cold war was pretty unsuccessful in Africa, where most knew who deeply racist Chinese treated their fellows as workers, guest students,..).
All in all, what we need is a true and functional global community of nations and people, where goverments truely work together to balance out the stronger world powers. And with the pressure of Chinas rise and its strugle with the US, we may finally have a better chance for this to at least partially succed. I hope.. ;) Or of course it nuclear winter time. We will see.vk @ 13denk , May 18, 2019 10:39:59 AM | link
China now, Japan in the 1980s - it's "deja vu all over again!"
"AFTER ITS DEFEAT in World War II, Japan was content to take foreign inventions -- the transistor, the laser, the videotape player -- and convert them into products that it could market around the world. Japan acquired much of its base of Western technology, most of it American, perfectly legally through licensing, careful study of scientific papers and patents, and imitation. But when the U.S. wasn't willing to share, some Japanese companies simply copied with little regard for patents and other intellectual property rights that the courts have only recently begun to define in many areas of high technology.
The U.S., confident of its technical superiority, ''sold out to the Japanese,'' says G. Steven Burrill, head of the high-technology consulting group at Arthur Young, a Big Eight accounting firm. ''We let them share our brain.''
Now, belatedly awake to the recognition that Japan has been eating their breakfast, lunch, dinner, and bedtime snack, American companies are stirring. IBM vs. Fujitsu over computer software, Honeywell vs. Minolta over automatic focusing, Corning Glass vs. Sumitomo Electric over fiber optics -- these are only the latest, best-publicized complaints that Japan has stolen American technology.
Even as those legal battles are fought out, the copycat cliche is becoming obsolete. A series of studies financed by the U.S. government since 1984 warn that Japan has caught up with the U.S. or passed it in the development of integrated circuits, fiber optics, computer hardware engineering, and advanced materials like polymers. It is pressing hard in some areas of biotechnology, and lags primarily in computer software.
Already there are signs that the Japanese, buoyed by their new prowess, have assumed the arrogance of the U.S. along with its technology."
"A MEASURE of Japan's progress can be found in the number of patent filings in the U.S., Japan's most important export market. ..."
"THE FACT that Americans now worry about their access to Japanese technology is an acknowledgment of Japan's new scientific competence. When the Japanese were known primarily as copycats, the flow of technology was essentially in one direction. It was also cheap. Aaron Gellman, president of a consulting firm, says that for years U.S. firms licensed technology to the Japanese without asking for a grant-back, the right to use any improvements they made. Says Gellman: ''This was very arrogant and implied that no one could improve on our technology.''"
"U.S. scientists and companies have failed to take advantage of opportunities to tap Japanese academic research. ''What's wrong here is pure laziness,'' says Martin Anderson, an analyst with the MAC Group, a consulting firm in Cambridge, Massachusetts."
http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1987/12/21/69996/index.htmTrust the UnitedSnake to blame the Chinese for reneging on an agreement ! Fact is, Trump's team Add in last minute conditions that are totally unacceptable to China. Chinese commentators are fuming at the audacity of the demands. 'WTF, Do they think we'r their gawd damned 51st state ?'denk , May 18, 2019 10:49:38 AM | link
Typical UnitedSnake's 'negotiation' tactics, designed to fail ! Thats how Clinton justity his bombing of ex Yugo, by blaming Belgrade for the breakdown of negotiation ,to justify its 78 days of aerial arsons against Yugo.How the UnitedSnake destroyed Toshiba and took over its crown jewel chip tech,... Toshiba was severely punished for breaking fukus sanction on USSR, by selling state of art milling machine to the Soviets. the unitedsnake slapped a heavy fine, demanded the resignation of Toshiba CEO, imposed a ten years ban on Toshiba products, FORCED the Japs to share their latest chip tech with Merikkans. Toshiba never recovered from that disaster.vk , May 18, 2019 10:52:22 AM | linkTime to discard any illusions about the US ,source: Global Times Published: 2019/5/17 22:49:35JOHN CHUCKMAN , May 18, 2019 10:59:52 AM | linkAn excellent summary of many aspects of a serious and deteriorating situation. In the end, China has a lot of brainpower to apply to situations like this.They are used to speaking and writing one of the world's most difficult languages. They are used to playing Go, one of the world's most difficult board games. And their national endowment of analytical skills immensely surpasses that of the United States.vk , May 18, 2019 11:11:09 AM | link
They are said to have eight times as many students in math and science and engineering in their universities. Xi himself is very bright, having earned degrees in difficult subjects at demanding universities, and he is calm and very forward-thinking. Just consider that magnificent long-term Silk Road Project. When I think of Trump with his constant mock-heroic poses and foot-high signatures on every silly memo and his gang of noisy, pompous thugs in top appointments, I can't help thinking I know how this will turn out in the end.China's yuan slide risks trolling Trump It's good to remember that would not be the first time. After the first round of tariffs, China devalued the Renminbi and it basically wiped out the tariffs . In fact, it didn't even need to devalue that much: 1 Renminbi is now US$ 0.14 -- just a little over the Government max upwards band of 1:7.denk , May 18, 2019 11:24:04 AM | linkIn 2013, the CEO of French hi tech co Alstom was arrested by FBI, while changing flight at New York. His 'crime', breaking MERIKKAN anti corruptionNoirette , May 18, 2019 11:39:25 AM | link
law by bribing govn officials in INDONESIA ! Such is the LONG arm of merikkan extra territorial jurisdiction, rings a bell ... Ms meng ?
Just like Toshiba, the French paid a very heavy price. The CEO went to jail, Allstom, the crown jewel of French industry, was FORCED to sell off its core business to its main rival, GE. !
What did Ian Fleming's fundamental law of probability says.... ONCE IS HAPPENSTENCE, TWIC IS COINCIDENCE...US MegaCos. outsourced and 'globalised' with the blessing, nay encouragement! of the Pol. Class. Cheaper labor and lax environmental rules, in comparison with 'home' (US, W countries, etc.) is a mantra. That is of course good enough, and one can track, say, sh*t-clothes factories transiting from Bangladesh, to China, to Malaysia, to Mexico, etc.denk , May 18, 2019 11:56:20 AM | link
Other motives, the first is lack of responsibility and involvement which allows domineering and rapacious behavior. Foreign co. implant can just leave, relocate, if whatever. A random /racist term/ exploited worker in the 3rd world is not voting in US elections.
Deadly industrial pollution is outsourced, and energy use etc. at home while not curtailed or significantly diminished is not as high as one might see under condition of the industries returning home - a sort of 'greener' environment can be touted.
The PTB simply cannot grasp why some US citizens, who live high on the hog, house, 2 cars, 3 kids, endless dirt cheap consumer goods, etc. produced by 'slaves' abroad, complain. If the 'stuff' was produced at home, it would cost much more, the pay would be going to 'low-level' US labor -- in a more closed economic circuit there would be more 'equality' as things stand today in the US - *not* claiming it's a general rule.
Trump had some confused? thoughts about turning the present situation around, and relocating industrial - some extractive - manufacturing - jobs back home, say 1960s, with decent pay, to ppl who would then vote for him.
The stumbling block is that profits to shareholders, oligarchs, chief CEO's, asset trippers, usurers, Mafia types, Banks and other Fin, and Politicians who in the US are highly paid lackeys, etc. is set to diminish, as 'the pie' can no longer be grown much to accomodate all these grifters. Due to energy constraints, disruption of climate change, etc.Brit and Dutch spooks now concur with Trump the charlatan's claim of Huawei security risk ! Trust the Brits to doublecross the Chinese, after they've been given the huawei source codes to examine and declared it free of bugs. As for the Dutch , they seems to be the goto guys these days, whenever the 5liars need some loyal poodles to corroborate their B.S., cue the M17 'investigation'.
May 17, 2019 | threadreaderapp.com
1. A thread on why Trump decision to put Huawei on the entity list is a very big deal indeed, as @Dimi and others are arguing. ft.com/content/c8d6ca . This is a far bigger step than just excluding Huawei from the US market.
2. It requires any US company that wants to supply Huawei to first ask the US government for permission. This has obvious implications for Google's Android operating system, Qualcomm chips and a myriad of other suppliers
3. Dennis Wilder says that this is the "beginning of decoupling" in the telecommunications sector. It's the clearest sign yet that the basic assumptions of globalization are collapsing. As @ANewman_forward and I argue, interdependence is being weaponized Weaponized Interdependence - International Security final pre-edits.pdf Dropbox is a free service that lets you bring your photos, docs, and videos anywhere and share them easily. Never email yourself a file again! https://www.dropbox.com/s/27mnqcxrxwapkit/%20Weaponized%20Interdependence%20-%20International%20Security%20final%20pre-edits.pdf?dl=0 dropbox.com/s/27mnqcxrxwap
4. The globalization of the 1990s massively transformed the world economy. National economic systems that had previously been separate from each other became densely interpenetrated, and deeply dependent on financial, informational and trade networks that spanned borders.
5. These networks are structurally embedded. Supply chains have been globalized, in the pursuit of economic efficiencies. It's hard to imagine how the world economy could work without them. But the pursuit of efficiency created strategic vulnerabilities.
6. Some networks had hub structures meaning that states that could control the hub could control the network. Others relied on crucial components that were single sourced or sourced within an individual country.
7. The last decade has seen states move increasingly to exploit these vulnerabilities against others or to shore their own vulnerabilities up against outside attackers. That's the story of the use of SWIFT against Iran, and increasingly it's the story of fights over tech/networks
8. A world of networks built around the pursuit of economic efficiencies is becoming a world where these networks are being exploited (or at risk of being exploited) for strategic advantage. America's Misuse of Its Financial Infrastructure Delirium tilted over into imperial folly, as high officials began to think that they could use America's economic power to re-order the world better to their liking. https://nationalinterest.org/feature/america%E2%80%99s-misuse-its-financial-infrastructure-52707 nationalinterest.org/feature/americ
9. The Huawei move displays both US fears about vulnerabilities, and US efforts to exploit them. The US is worried that 5G networks could compromise US communications to surveillance.
10. US is not only moving to push Huawei out of existing markets - but to damage Huawei's core business by potentially preventing it from using core US components (such as Qualcomm chips or Android OS (it remains to be seen exactly which technologies will be listed). Chinese hawks are talking about retaliating through e.g. blocking sales of rare earths again.
11. This will also reinforce Chinese efforts to build "autonomous and controllable" technology and supply chains outside US control to decrease their vulnerability to future attack.
12. The old model of globalization is in serious trouble. The networks that tie the world economy together are being exploited for strategic gain. The US move is both a response to fears about its own vulnerabilities, and an effort to exploit China's vulnerabilities in return.
13. The result will likely be escalation - but we don't know for sure. We still don't have anything that approaches a strategic analysis of this new field of politics and how it works. Historical experience provides no good recent analogies.
14. During the Cold War, the US dominated parts of the global economy and Comecon were largely disconnected, with the exception of raw commodities such as grain. Now, the economies of US, Europe, China and Russia are deeply intertwined.
15. If you want to be pessimistic, you can resort to scorpions-in-bottles analogies. If you want to be optimistic, you can point to continued shared interests that states have in avoiding major economic disruptions. The willingness of the US to push this so far and so hard
16. suggests the skeptics may find their fears justified - but we'll be finding out. Interesting times for international political economy scholars, if frightening times for the international political economy. Finis.
May 17, 2019 | www.bloomberg.com
Trying to boycott U.S. entertainment and travel, as Beijing did with South Korea, will only backfire on Chinese companies and consumers.
By Adam Minter , May 17, 2019 8:00 PM Adam Minter is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He is the author of "Junkyard Planet: Travels in the Billion-Dollar Trash Trade" and the forthcoming "Secondhand: Travels in the New Global Garage Sale.
China may want to stand tough against Donald Trump's trade threats. It's going to have a hard time retaliating, though, and not only because it doesn't import enough goods to match the U.S. president tariff-for-tariff.
One obvious target would be the $58.9 billion in services the U.S. exports to China. These include everything from Hollywood blockbusters to tourism and education. In theory, Beijing could easily enough cut off the flow of American entertainment into China and Chinese students and tourists out of the mainland. Indeed, the nationalist editor-in-chief of the Global Times newspaper has already suggested such a strategy.
China has some experience with this. After South Korea agreed to deploy a U.S. anti-missile system on its soil in 2016, Chinese television stations were informed that programs involving South Korean stars wouldn't be approved for broadcast, while Chinese venues began canceling appearances by K-pop bands and other South Korean celebrities. On top of restrictions on outbound tourism, the measures helped knock 0.4% off South Korea's expected growth rate in 2017.
On the other hand, the unofficial boycott didn't persuade Seoul to reverse its decision. And there are many reasons to think a similar strategy directed at the U.S. would be even less effective.
The most obvious is the simple fact that the U.S. is much less dependent on its services exports to China than South Korea is. While certain sectors might feel some pain, it's not likely to be strong enough to force the White House to back down. (Indeed, Trump might not mind if liberal Hollywood takes a hit.)
The second reason is more important. Chinese businesses are often as dependent upon U.S. services as American retailers are on their mainland-based supply chains. Restricting Chinese tourism to the U.S., for instance, would damage China's airlines, many of which have been handsomely subsidized in a battle for dominance over hyper-competitive trans-Pacific air routes.
Similarly, many Chinese industries rely fundamentally upon licensed American services. In 2018, foreign films accounted for 38% of China's box office; the most lucrative among them were American. That trend continues: Over the weekend, "Avengers: Endgame" became the third-highest grossing film in Chinese history.
Chinese regulators are already worried about slowing box-office revenue . In 2016, they even temporarily lifted quotas on foreign films to help cinema owners. It's unlikely they'd seek to add new burdens now to the struggling industry.
In recent years, the most high-profile buyers of U.S. entertainment content have been China's celebrated tech champions. In 2015, Tencent Holdings Ltd. agreed to pay the National Basketball Association $500 million (potentially rising to $700 million) for the rights to stream the league's games, highlights and other content in China. It was a smart investment: The NBA is the most popular professional sports league among Chinese viewers. During the 2017 finals, more than 170 million people in China streamed the games live.
And Tencent isn't the only Chinese tech company leaning upon the NBA to boost user counts. The league has signed more than a dozen media partnerships in China, including a March 2019 agreement with Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. under which the NBA agreed to create content for Alibaba users. (Alibaba Vice Chairman Joseph Tsai owns 49 percent of the Brooklyn Nets NBA franchise.)
Ultimately, the biggest impediment to any Chinese boycott of U.S. services may be the Chinese public. Though there's no question that Chinese popular opinion is behind Beijing, there's little evidence so far that the trade war has diminished consumer enthusiasm for American movies and vacations. During the key Chinese New Year travel period, the U.S. was the most popular long-haul travel destination for Chinese tourists. Los Angeles reported a 6.9% boost in Chinese visitors last year.
While some Chinese might just switch to illegal streaming services and pirated downloads if cut off from their favorite American TV shows and movies, trying to bar them from visiting the U.S., sending their kids to university there or seeking medical treatment could quickly provoke a backlash among middle-class citizens. Especially at a time when growth is slowing at home, that's a constituency the government can't afford to alienate.
Of course, none of this means the Trump Administration should think its services exports are entirely immune. As American culture becomes more globalized, it becomes easier to emulate. China's film industry is getting more polished in spite of censorship. Yao Ming is steadily improving Chinese basketball in spite of China's state meddling in sport. And low-cost airlines give Chinese access to a wide variety of destinations just as compelling as Los Angeles. For now at least, though, China will have a hard time restricting what it can't replace.
May 16, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Warren (D)(1): "Trump backers applaud Warren in heart of MAGA country" [ Politico ]. West Virginia: "It was a startling spectacle in the heart of Trump country: At least a dozen supporters of the president -- some wearing MAGA stickers -- nodding their heads, at times even clapping, for liberal firebrand Elizabeth Warren . LeeAnn Blankenship, a 38-year-old coach and supervisor at a home visitation company who grew up in Kermit and wore a sharp pink suit, said she may now support Warren in 2020 after voting for Trump in 2016.
'She's a good ol' country girl like anyone else,' she said of Warren, who grew up in Oklahoma. 'She's earned where she is, it wasn't given to her. I respect that.'"
Also: "The 63-year-old fire chief, Wilburn 'Tommy' Preece, warned Warren and her team beforehand that the area was 'Trump country' and to not necessarily expect a friendly reception. But he also told her that ." ( More on West Virginia in 2018 .
Best part is a WaPo headline: "Bernie Sanders Supporter Attends Every DNC Rule Change Meeting. DNC Member Calls Her a Russian Plant." • Lol. I've been saying "lol" a lot, lately.)
Warren (D)(2): "Our military can help lead the fight in combating climate change" [Elizabeth Warren, Medium ]. "In short, climate change is real, it is worsening by the day, and it is undermining our military readiness. And instead of meeting this threat head-on, Washington is ignoring it -- and making it worse . That's why today I am introducing my Defense Climate Resiliency and Readiness Act to harden the U.S. military against the threat posed by climate change, and to leverage its huge energy footprint as part of our climate solution.
It starts with an ambitious goal: consistent with the objectives of the Green New Deal, the Pentagon should achieve net zero carbon emissions for all its non-combat bases and infrastructure by 2030 .. We don't have to choose between a green military and an effective one . Together, we can work with our military to fight climate change -- and win." • On the one hand, the Pentagon's energy footprint is huge, and it's a good idea to do something about that. On the other, putting solar panels on every tank that went into Iraq Well, there are larger questions to be asked. A lot of dunking on Warren about this. It might play in the heartland, though.
May 16, 2019 | stephenlendman.org
On Wednesday, DJT declared a national emergency by executive order over alleged threats to US technology.
He invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, giving the president authority to regulate commerce in response to alleged threatening emergency conditions.
According to White House press secretary Sarah Sanders:
The order "protect(s) America from foreign adversaries who are actively and increasingly creating and exploiting vulnerabilities in information and communications technology infrastructure and services in the United States (sic)."
Huawei responded saying: "Restricting (the company) from doing business in the US will not make the US more secure or stronger." i
"(I(nstead, this will only serve to limit the US to inferior yet more expensive alternatives, leaving the US lagging behind in 5G deployment, and eventually harming the interests of US companies and consumers."
"We are ready and willing to engage with the US government and come up with effective measures to ensure product security."
The Trump regime has been pressuring, bullying, and threatening other countries not to adopt Huawei's 5G technology.
Beijing's Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang responded to Trump's order, saying it's directed against "specific Chinese companies," calling it "disgraceful and unjust," adding:
"We urge the US side to stop oppressing Chinese companies under the pretext of security concerns and provide a fair, just and non-discriminatory environment for their normal investment and operation."
According to the Eurasia Group, the latest Trump regime action is "a grave escalation with China that at minimum plunges the prospect of continued trade negotiations into doubt," adding:
"Unless handled carefully, this situation is likely to place US and Chinese companies at new risk."
Beijing will surely react strongly to this latest action, making it all the harder to resolve major differences between both countries.
May 16, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
Uh, no, Tom, she won't be collecting a lot of voters, well, at least not near enough. Biden has already been "chosen" like Hillary was over Bernie last time. You should know by now Tom, we don't select our candidates, they're chosen for us for our own good. 2 hours ago
This is going to take a long time. You just can't turn this ship around overnight.
US Political System:
United States is neither a Republic and even less Socialistic. US, in the technical literature, is called a Polyarchy (state capitalism). Polyarchy (state capitalism) idea is old, it goes back to James Madison and the foundation of the US Constitution. A Polyarchy is a system in which power resides in the hands of those who Madison called the wealth of the nation. The educated and responsible class of men. The rest of the population is to be fragmented and distracted. They are allowed to participate every couple of years by voting. That's it. The population have little choice among the educated and responsible men they are voting for.
This is not an accident. America was founded on the principle, explained by the Founding Father that the primary goal of government is to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. That is how the US Constitution was designed sort of ensuring that there will be a lot of struggle. US is not as the same as it were two centuries ago but that remains the elites ideal.
Polyarchy (state capitalism) it is a system where small group actually rules on behalf of capital, and majority's decision making is confined to choosing among selective number of elites within tightly controlled elective process. It is a form of consensual domination made possible by the structural domination of the global capital which allowed concentration of political powers.
A republic is SUBORDINATE to democracy. Polyarchy can't be subordinated to any form of Democracy. 2 hours ago Is the author, to use an English term, daft? Tulsi Gabbard won't get out of the primaries, much less defeat Sanders or Biden. Farage achieved his goal (Brexit), then found out (SHOCK!) that the will of the people doesn't mean anything anymore.
If Luongo had wanted to talk about the people's uprising, he should've mentioned the Tea Party. 3 hours ago Gabbard appears to have some moral fibre and half a backbone, at least for a politician, regardless of their views, Farage is a slimy charlatan opportunistic populist shill 3 hours ago (Edited) I like Tulsi Gabbard on MIC stuff (and as a surfer in my youth - still dream about that almost endless pipeline at Jeffreys Bay in August), but...
On everything else?
She votes along party lines no matter what bollocks legislation the Democrats put in front of Congress. And anyone standing full-square behind Saunders on his socialist/marxist agenda?
Do me a favour. 1 hour ago (Edited) Farage left because he saw what UKIP was becoming...a zionazi party.
Also Gabbard is a CFR member. 3 hours ago Gold, Goats and Guns? Certainly not guns under President Gabbard! Here's her idea of "common sense gun control:"
I'm totally against warmongering, but I have to ask - what good is it to stop foreign warmongering, only to turn around and incite civil war here by further raping the 2nd Amendment? The CFR ties are disturbing as hell, too. And to compare Gabbard to Ron Paul? No, just...no! 3 hours ago Always been a fan of Bernie, but I hope Gabbard becomes president. The world would breathe a huge sigh of relief (before the assassination). 4 hours ago By this time in his 1st term, Obama had started the US Wars in Syria and Libya and has restarted the Iraq War.
Thus far Trump has ended the War in Syria, pledged not to get us dragged into Libya's civil wars and started a peace process with North Korea.
Venezuela and Iran look scary. We don't know what Gabbard would actually do when faced with the same events. Obama talked peace too.
May 16, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
Reuters reports that the U.S. Commerce Department is adding Huawei Technologies Co Ltd and 70 affiliates to its so-called "Entity List" - a move that will make it much more difficult for the telecom giant to buy parts and components from U.S. companies. U.S. officials said the decision would also make it difficult for Huawei to sell some products because of its reliance on U.S. suppliers.
Department of Commerce Announces the Addition of Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. to the Entity List
WASHINGTON – Today, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) of the U.S. Department of Commerce announced that it will be adding Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. and its affiliates to the Bureau's Entity List. This action stems from information available to the Department that provides a reasonable basis to conclude that Huawei is engaged in activities that are contrary to U.S. national security or foreign policy interest . This information includes the activities alleged in the Department of Justice's public superseding indictment of Huawei, including alleged violations of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), conspiracy to violate IEEPA by providing prohibited financial services to Iran, and obstruction of justice in connection with the investigation of those alleged violations of U.S. sanctions.
The sale or transfer of American technology to a company or person on the Entity List requires a license issued by BIS, and a license may be denied if the sale or transfer would harm U.S. national security or foreign policy interests. The listing will be effective when published in the Federal Register.
"This action by the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security, with the support of the President of the United States, places Huawei, a Chinese owned company that is the largest telecommunications equipment producer in the world, on the Entity List. This will prevent American technology from being used by foreign owned entities in ways that potentially undermine U.S. national security or foreign policy interests," said Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross. "President Trump has directed the Commerce Department to be vigilant in its protection of national security activities. Since the beginning of the Administration, the Department has added 190 persons or organizations to the Entity List, as well as instituted five investigations of the effect of imports on national security under Section 232 of the Trade Act of 1962." Additions to the Entity List are decided by the End-User Review Committee which is comprised of officials from the Department of Commerce, Department of Defense, State Department, and Department of Energy. Under § 744.11(b) of the Export Administration Regulations, persons or organizations for whom there is reasonable cause to believe that they are involved, were involved, or pose a significant risk of becoming involved in activities that are contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States, and those acting on behalf of such persons, may be added to the Entity List.
The Bureau of Industry and Security's mission is to advance U.S. national security and foreign policy objectives by ensuring an effective export control and treaty compliance system and promoting continued U.S. strategic technology leadership. BIS is committed to preventing U.S.-origin items from supporting Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) projects, terrorism, or destabilizing military modernization programs.
Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said in a statement President Donald Trump backed the decision that will "prevent American technology from being used by foreign owned entities in ways that potentially undermine U.S. national security or foreign policy interests."
Under President Trump's leadership, Americans will be able to trust that our data and infrastructure are secure. #ICTSupplyChain-- Sec. Wilbur Ross (@SecretaryRoss) May 15, 2019
* * *
Update (1645ET): Confirming what we previewed earlier, in a move that is seen as aimed at keeping the Chinese company Huawei out of the US market, President Trump has declared a "national emergency" to protect U.S. communications networks giving the federal government broad powers to bar American companies from doing business with certain foreign suppliers.
"The president has made it clear that this administration will do what it takes to keep America safe and prosperous, and to protect America from foreign adversaries who are actively and increasingly creating and exploiting vulnerabilities in information and communications technology infrastructure and services in the United States," the statement said.
The order authorizes the commerce secretary to block transactions involving communications technologies built by firms controlled by a foreign adversary that puts U.S. security at "unacceptable" risk -- or poses a threat of espionage or sabotage to networks that underpin the day-to-day running of vital public services... which would include the Chinese firm Huawei.
As WaPo details, Trump's executive order instructs the commerce secretary to develop an enforcement regime and permits the secretary to name companies or technologies that could be barred, according to officials.
The order acknowledges that, although an open investment climate is generally positive, the United States needs to do more to protect the security of its networks.
The national emergency declaration comes a day after a congressional hearing in which senators from both parties joined administration officials in calling out the risks of doing business with a company like Huawei. They emphasized that the problem was less about the company than the authoritarian country whose system of laws, which lacks due process and transparency, it must obey.
"It's not about overseeing Huawei. It's about overseeing China," said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee during the hearing on 5G security.
But, of course, "The executive order is company and country agnostic," replies a senior White House official when asked if the executive order targets Huawei and China (h/t @W7VOA)
* * *
As we detailed earlier, in what appears to be the US government's latest salvo in its war against Huawei, President Trump is reportedly preparing to sign an executive order that would prohibit American firms from using equipment made by foreign telecom companies that pose a 'security threat', according to Bloomberg , which sourced its report to administration insiders.
The official who spoke with Bloomberg insisted the order wasn't intended to single out any country or company, but anybody who has been following the ongoing spat with Huawei should instantly recognize that this simply isn't true (though, with the trade negotiations at a very delicate impasse, we understand why the administration needs to maintain this pretense). Though Huawei and its fellow Chinese telecoms giant ZTE already face serious restrictions on selling their products in the US, Huawei still maintains a US subsidiary in Texas.
The order, which could be signed as soon as Wednesday, wouldn't outright ban sales to US entities, but it would grant the Commerce Department more authority to review products and purchases made by firms with connections to adversarial countries (we doubt that's directed at Ericsson and Sweden).
China's foreign ministry has already lashed out at the US over reports of the executive order.
"This is neither graceful nor fair," ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said at a news briefing in Beijing. "We urge the U.S. to stop citing security concerns as an excuse to unreasonably suppress Chinese companies and provide a fair and equitable and non-discriminatory environment for Chinese companies to operate in the U.S."
Washington has been campaigning for months to stop its allies around the globe from allowing Huawei products to be used in their 5G networks, but to little avail. Yesterday, Huawei promised to sign a "no spy" pledge to governments like the UK that are still deciding how much reliance on Huawei they are willing to stomach.
As Huawei pushes to assume a global leadership position in 5G, the US's efforts to try and discredit the company have included successfully pushing for the arrest of its CFO, Meng Wanzhou, in Canada, on charges she helped the company violate US sanctions on Iran.
American lawmakers suspect Huawei's equipment could be used for spying - and not without reason.
Just last month, Ars Technica found a backdoor like vulnerability in Huawei's Matebook laptop series which could have allowed remote hackers to gain access to the system. Chinese law also could technically compel companies like Huawei to cooperate with authorities.
But even if the order is signed on Wednesday, it might not take effect for six months, as it would take time for the Commerce Department to "fashion an approach" to the order.
In the meantime, Verizon and other US telecoms firms are still way behind in the war to dominate the global market for 5G networking equipment.
waseda-anon , 4 minutes ago linkJoe A , 11 minutes ago link
"Stop suppressing our companies, you unreasonable, evil bullies! The Chinese people will not be treated with such indignity!" -China, as they suppress foreign companies.moon_unit , 5 minutes ago link
All the time back doors into Huawei equipment are found and all the time Huawei claims it was an accident and that they are complying with countries' privacy and telecommunication laws. Of course they spy! Everybody spies on everybody.
And do we really need faster internet? 5G is also rather intrusive. Due to the high frequencies involved, more base stations, repeaters and antennas need to be used, operating at higher output levels. Do we really want to expose our bodies to these kinds of frequencies and power?moon_unit , 14 minutes ago link
You mean the faulty Huawei laptop driver software that Microsoft found could be exploited by NSA's code? That kind?
Huawei patched it in January.wakeupscreaming , 15 minutes ago link
Apple CEO Tim Cook on Bloomberg's Lie-Chips fable:
" This did not happen . There's no truth to this ."
Apple's Tim Cook Calls For 'Bloomberg' To Retract Story About Chinese Spy Chips. The word from everyone willing to go on record about the Bloomberg spy chip story is that it didn't happen. U.S. National Intelligence Director, Dan Coats, added his voice to the chorus of officials denying any knowledge of the matter and finding no reason to believe the story.
The one named source for the story expressed extreme doubts about the story's validity . To spare their credibility, Bloomberg needs to produce evidence or a retraction. Tim Cook has made it abundantly clear what he thinks about Bloomberg 's only path forward.romanmoment , 18 minutes ago link
OMG Huawei's 5G could be used for SPYING! You know, sort of like what the U.S. government and private corporations are already doing. Seriously though, let's look into a crystal ball. Let's say China becomes the techno leader for alot more things in the coming future. So what is the U.S. going to do? Block a ton of new technology, while U.S. citizens remain in the stoneage, while China forges ahead?
All those millions of Mexicans the U.S. let in, will not be creating the newest tech for the world in the future. So get used to a lagging 3rd-world-like stance.hugin-o-munin , 14 minutes ago link
After the Iraq invasion of Kuwait there was a throng of viciously victimized people who claimed examples of Iraqi's bayoneting babies in incubators, raping nurses and killing patients in hospitals. It was all a lie and it was propagated by Western PR companies paid with the gold and silver coins of the Kuwaiti government.
Anyone who believes that Huawei is not an arm of the Chinese government is a fool. First of all, almost all companies in China serve as agents of the Chinese government, this is a fact. Second, some are more government than others and some are an inner working of the strategy, a key player...a knight. Huawei is a knight not a rook.
I have been there many times and I have spent a lot of time with Chinese people in business. Huawei is an agent of the government just like James Bond served Her Secret Service. Huawei is a stealth fighter, make no mistake.
"Doth lady protests too much, me thinks". That's the planned, contrived and paid for wailing of the PR industry that has been thrown the gold and silver coins by the Chinese. Those are Western companies selling their souls to deliver the virgin Huawei to the West. Buyer beware.Real Estate Guru , 21 minutes ago link
Since you have such insight perhaps you want to share with us fools the reason why Huawei is so dangerous? Being an arm of the Chinese government is a bit vague and it's easy to argue that Google and Facebook are arms of the US government.hugin-o-munin , 27 minutes ago link
Good. Trump should block these fools. Just another nail in the coffin of the Chinese machine. Enjoy your depression, China. You earned it. By the way folks...Barr has the IG Report by Horrowitz...and it is DEVASTATING!!!Asoka_The_Great , 38 minutes ago link
The US is becoming outright hostile. Soon companies will avoid the US altogether out of fear of being persecuted and accused of violating US national security without any proof or even venue to address the accusations. It's amazing how fast the US has gone from having been a freedom principled nation with the rule of law to a tyrannical police state with out of control lawmakers contradicting their own constitution.
The rest of the world may soon abandon the US because the risks outweigh the benefits of dealing with a country that behaves this way. I don't know if American lawmakers and leaders realize this because the standard notion seems to be that the US is number one in everything and the rest of the world who live in mud huts are all desperately trying to either reach the US or will do anything to do business with the US. That is a paranoid and self delusional notion and view.
Get your gddamn act together USA and stop going down this path of ever more conflict and war, it really doesn't suit you. The spirit of the Unites States was always that of individual freedom, liberty and opportunity. Where has that optimistic can-do attitude and zest for life gone?Canadian Gal , 29 minutes ago link
The Joke is on the Orange ****** .
I guess no one has told him that there are only 4 major Telecom Wireless Networking companies left in the world. They are Huawei (China), Ericsson (Sweden), Nokia (Finland), and ZTE (China) .
Lucent , formerly of AT&T Bells was brought out by Nokia, and Cisco has dropped out of Telecom equipment entirely, and is focused on Enterprise Networking Solutions.
Although, Ericsson (Sweden), Nokia (Finland) are not Chinese companies, but they have extensive sales and operations in China. About 20% of their sales are derived in the Chinese Telecom markets. They also have extensive research and manufacturing facilities in China, to take advantages of the local engineering talents and low cost electronic manufacturings.
Currently, 90% of Ericsson and Nokia telecom equipments are made in China. Cisco also has extensive manufacturing and suppliers in China.
I challenge the Orange Dotard to ban Ericsson, Nokia, and Cisco and their extensive networks of suppliers, affiliates, and associates in China.
I don't see why, they will not be a National Security Threat, if Huawei and its suppliers are a National Security Threat.
Asoka_The_Great , 21 minutes ago link
Totally agree. And the last time the US did this with chips, China simply obtained the equipment to make their own.......a permanent loss of what was a good business for the US.
"........ a move that will make it much more difficult for the telecom giant to buy parts and components from U.S. companies. U.S. officials said the decision would also make it difficult for Huawei to sell some products because of its reliance on U.S. suppliers. "
And if Chinese companies can't buy a part out of the US, do you suppose they will just do what they always do?........start making their own and cause US companies to lose even more business?
Trump and his minions never seem to think things through past the initial attack to the potential consequences of their actions. Wonder how long it will take for China to restrict sales of rare earths to the US.Canadian Gal , 2 minutes ago link
"And if Chinese companies can't buy a part out of the US, do you suppose they will just do what they always do?........start making their own and cause US companies to lose even more business?"
Huawei is not like other Chinese companies, such as ZTE, that relies on US Companies for their chips. They make their own chips.
Yes, Huawei has suppliers in US, but they are not unreplaceable. Trumpturd just killed their business with Huawei, that's all.Asoka_The_Great , 15 minutes ago link
Honest to god, Asoka, there are days where I think the real, true, unstated goal of Trump is to destroy the US one sector at a time. To what end, I truly don't know.
There is no way that these actions against Huawei will be good for US businesses affected. Every step Trump takes takes away one more piece of hard-earned profitable business from US companies, farmers, etc, with no end in sight.
Companies spend exorbitant amounts on building their businesses, sales, assembly lines and supply chains. Trump comes along and just wipes out years of work and profitability with the stroke of a pen. He doesn't seem to "get" that those products are still going to be built and sold, just not with US parts anymore and maybe not in the US, but sales will still increase throughout Asia, etc.........and by doing what he's done, those Asian markets will simply shun US products.
And, because of what he's done, more supply chains are going to move AWAY from US parts to mitigate risk of Trump doing this again to yet another industry.
Canadian Gal , just now link
"Totally agree. And the last time the US did this with chips, China simply obtained the equipment to make their own.......a permanent loss of what was a good business for the US."
Yes, O'Bomer banned the sales of high-performance chips for Supercomputers, to Chinese companies. But he didn't know that China already has high-performance chips, but they don't have the low price that comes from high volume to compete with Intel's Chips. So Chinese Companies just keep buying from Intel in huge quantities, like millions of them to make Supercomputers.
By banning the sales to China, O'Bomer has handed the Intel's Chinese Market (worth billions each year) to local Chinese Chip Companies. With half of their global market gone, Intel were forced to close down their Xeon chip production lines.hugin-o-munin , 18 minutes ago link
You are very likely right.Nassim , 55 minutes ago link
There are a few more large companies in the space like Intel, Qualcomm, Samsung and Hewlett Packard and a long list of smaller ones with 5G specialized niches. The space needs healthy competition especially to find solutions to the environmental and health concern that are associated with 5G systems and which are very valid.whatafmess , 59 minutes ago link
Another self-inflicted wound. Getting painful for US suppliers and consumers.He–Mene Mox Mox , 1 hour ago link
well hey the chinese are very patient but i'd say goodbye Starbuck, Apple, and of coz no rare earths for the US anymore. to begin with. Then liquidate US debt and see if Trump isnt assassinated by the MIC...ZeroBeek , 1 hour ago link
"Update (1645ET): Confirming what we previewed earlier, in a move that is seen as aimed at keeping the Chinese company Huawei out of the US market,...."
What's not said in this article, Huawei left the U.S. in 2013. Huawei announced at the end of April 2013 that it had given up trying to compete in the US telecoms equipment market. "We will focus on the rest of the world, which is reasonably big enough and is growing significantly."Koba the Dread , 1 hour ago link
" believe that "Huawei is engaged in activities that are contrary to US national security ."
" believe" and "national security" ? Then you know it is deep state FAKE NEWS!Baron von Bud , 1 hour ago link
Trying to stop unstoppable competition. Why didn't they do that with Honda and Toyota in the 1970s? Or with Volkswagen in the 1950s?OZZIDOWNUNDER , 1 hour ago link
Never underestimate the viciousness of the DC political-military core. Think John McCain but even more nuts.whatafmess , 1 hour ago link
My next phone is definitely Huawei. Apple will crash ! The USA is engaging in criminal behaviour -as usual.Blankone , 30 minutes ago link
just bought a Huawei and a sports band... beats Apple any dayKoba the Dread , 1 hour ago link
I am not a heavy cell phone user at all. Basic plan. But the Huawei model had the features at a lower price (bought on Ebay) with some performance better that the competition. I've been very pleased with it, but again I'm a basic user. Charges fast and holds the charge well.
Let's hope the Chinese imprison Hunter Biden in retaliation.OZZIDOWNUNDER , 39 minutes ago link
Baron von Bud , 1 hour ago link
"Waiting for China to impose heavy tariffs on Hollywood films. "
Why not ? They are total CIA inspired BS or Just pyrotechnic Nonsense. Plus Holly Wood is just a *** store front so why support those a$$holes. Frankly I'\d sooner watch a good European, Korean movie etc because I can read the sub titles. Much better quality acting.the artist , 57 minutes ago link
It must be terrible being Chinese and knowing you're smarter than those Americans. But those basetards always have a new scam to follow the last one. Fact is, the Chinese would do the NSA thing if they were on top. These people understand political history. A culture persists as long as it "provides for the national defense".
Lest you forget, great nations take liberties with the truth. Just ask the American Indians, Mexicans, Spanish, English, Black people and everybody else who got played to enrich the nation. Same thing today.OLD-Pipe , 1 hour ago link
Plenty of examples of rats within all the cultures you named that were willing to sell out their own for a buck. In fact it is probably the reason they are not on top in the first place.
That doesn't count the Subsidiaries already here in the state's, because selling and buying is a two sided coin....so now the Demopublicans can with hold licensing until the correct Tribute/Campaign Contribution is paid to some off shore account that only our Congressional Salons can manage to have...it's always only about the Benjamins Bro...next to come, Operation Iranian Liberation......
May 15, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
Submitted by Christopher Dembik of SaxoBank
Softer tone in the US vs tougher tone in China
Yesterday evening, senior Trump administration officials tried to appease tensions. US secretary of the Treasury Mnuchin confirmed, without giving much detail, that the US-China trade talks are still ongoing. The tone is clearly different in China where the official media, such as CCTV and People's Daily, adopted a tougher stance. It is interesting to note that in the previous rounds of trade disputes that occurred since Autumn 2018, People's Daily articles mostly used the term "trade friction" instead of "trade war" until now As of yesterday, all the articles and TV reports mention "trade war". This terminology change means a lot and confirms that the negotiations have entered a more dangerous phase.
In addition, China has tightened its "national security" review for foreign investments, which can be considered as another step in the retaliation process.
... ... ...
Trump's approval rate is still high
On the US domestic front, President Trump is now seeking $15 billion to bail out farmers in order to mitigate the negative impact of the trade war. Interestingly, more and more Republican Congressmen that were interviewed yesterday on US TV were very vocal against the latest measures decided by the Trump administration. It is, however, unlikely to have any influence on the ongoing process or to push the administration to comprise with Beijing. Trump is looking at polls and the message they send is bright and clear: as of yesterday, 42% of US voters supported Trump's policy (FiveThirtyEight). His electoral base has remained stable, faithful and very broad since he was elected.
- By May 18 -- Potential US tariffs on global auto sector.
- June 1 -- China's move to raise the rate of additional tariffs to 25% on 2,493 US products (representing $60 billion worth of US imports) will come into effect. In addition, list 3 tariffs from 10% to 25% decided by the USA against China will truly be implemented for all products. For the moment, an exemption applies to list 3 products exported before May 10 and arriving in the US before June 1. For these products, the duty rate is still at 10%.
- June 17 -- The USTR will hold a public hearing on potential duty of up to 25% tariffs on virtually all Chinese goods (list 4 tariffs) that are not currently covered by previous tariffs hikes. It will be followed by at least a week of discussions.
- June 28 -- Likely meeting between presidents Trump and Xi at the G20 meeting in Osaka to reach a compromise on trade issues.
TheRapture , 16 minutes ago linkrubiconsolutions , 1 hour ago link
"Trump just beat the Chinese massively"
By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; Second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest." -- Confucius
The US has been the biggest offender in trade wars for decades. The petrodollar conceived by Kissinger and Nixon forced countries to buy oil in USD. How is that not warlike? China and other countries are trying to unhitch themselves from the dollar and who can blame them? The problem is that when they are successful, and they will be, all those dollars will come home to mommy and inflation will run rampant.
WallHoo , 3 hours ago linkDeep Snorkeler , 4 hours ago link
The country that prints the money will always have the upperhand against the country that works hard and dirty to acquire the said money.
China is one of the cheapest producers,but that doesnt mean that the US cannot either import or manufacture its own product.
Case in point im a salesman from greece. I know for a fact that the chinese sell a t-shirt for 2 euros a piece (wholesale) and greek producers for 4 euros a piece. All the t-shirts are sold (retail) for 12-70 euros. So its not about costs but about profit.
If greece decides tomorow to take back its production from the sick ***** and impose tariffs on them literaly nothing will change.
Hit the chinese hard with no mercy.He–Mene Mox Mox , 4 hours ago link
What I Learned From Trump and G. W. Bush
- a rich father washes away stupidity, indolence and degenerate living
- an ivy league degree is not earned but purchased
- moronic speech is a sure sign of genius
- Caucasian genetics are in serious decline
- criminal behavior can be ethical if packaged correctlyCashMcCall , 4 hours ago link
Despite all the rhetoric about buying from other places than China, the facts remain, manufacturing is not returning to America. Nor are the jobs coming here to America, nor is the wealth. Conditions in America doesn't favor it. Agriculture was always America's strong suite. But, with the trade wars causing farmers to go bankrupt, you can be assured of losing that too. The question is now, who will feed all you American fat asses, when all your farmers go broke?
Consumer economies are the economies of third world countries, and that is what America has got. China, with its manufacturing economy, will go on to make investments in other countries, and leave America in the dust.LaugherNYC , 4 hours ago link
You have had tariffs for over a year and not one company has returned from Overseas or left China. In fact more US companies have moved manufacturing to China.
In the USA you have unions, the epa, osha, IRS... and the most litigious tort system and most unreliable employees in the world. You have the most disability claims, the most lawsuits against employers etc. Most absenteeism. Most employee theft. Gender issues, bathroom issues, diversity issues. Your gov continue to pack on the minimum wages eliminating any potential to make products to compete with the world.
In short the US is dying on the vine. Trump has caused so much bad blood with Asia, that US global businesses will have difficulty penetrating Asian markets which are the only thing that matters for the next 100 years. You Trumptard RACISTS are losers.CashMcCall , 3 hours ago link
Wrong, wrong and wrong.
500,000 manufacturing jobs added in Us in last two years.
Where’d they come from.
US companies leaving China accelerating - relocating elsewhere in Asia, and bringing back workers to US. Increasing location in US of foreign owned manufacturing plants to avoid trade issues and tariffs.
The US is not only not dying on the vine, growth ACCELERATED in last several quarters. Can’t hire skilled workers — no one available to take them. My daughter was approached by 3 recruiters to lure her away from her job - she moved for a big pay increase - they upped their offer 20% - and goit the job of her dreams, with all benefits at a major company - and she is an ARTIST!! The huge increase in content production has created a golden age even for liberal arts professions.
The US ONLY issue is its debt, which it can start to solve by simply retiring debt held by the Fed, and continuing open market purchases and retirements. Monetize while inflation is low and dollar strong. This will likely come with next rate drop (if we get one).
Chiona living on a MASSIVE consumer/mortgage debt bubble like the US faced in 2007. The tide will wash over their financial industry, as it has begun, and the central government will burn its reserves bailing them out. What goes up...
China hitting the wall of wage growth where it has become more expensive than its competitors in SE Asia and India.
The next decade will be a lot more difficult for China. It’s totalitarian state will need to become even more militant and oppressive to survive.Let it Go , 4 hours ago link
Manufacturing in US under Trump down 6%..
Every auto made in the world, every mower, every computer, every modem, every LED TV, every telco switch, every smart phone, virtually any product you can think of has Chinese Components or is manufactured in China. China is the largest semiconductor maker in the world. LED lights... CHINA.RealRussianBot99 , 4 hours ago link
As we view the global economy we should consider that much of the "free trade" movement is driven by mega companies desire for larger markets and greed. The desire of companies to both develop and control future rules has caused them to lobby individual governments into giving up control and becoming subservient to corporate “efficiency.”
This is probably not in the best interest of the average citizen as we can see by surging inequality. Those concerned that a trade agreement with low wage nations will not be a great job creator for America have history on their side. The piece below argues that fair trade trumps free trade!
https://Fair Trade Is Key To Global Economic Stability.htmlsheikurbootie , 4 hours ago link
anybody pointing the finger at China because of IP theft and not doing the same to the USSA is either brainwashed beyond repair, stupid like a piece of wood, a paid troll or any combination of these.
"accuse the enemy of doing what you secretly do"
- plenty of people in powerful positions all across historybesnook , 4 hours ago link
Most aren't paying attention to what Trump says.... he said a year ago that China was wanting to make a deal. Trump said, "BUT,they're not ready yet" , meaning that they wanted a small change to the imbalance like Canada and Mexico received.
China's trade imbalance is seriously astronomical compared to any other country we do business.
Canada's trade imbalance is $20,000,000,000 per year with US.
China's trade imbalance is $420,000,000,000 per year with US.
We have almost the same trade with each $660 B with China and $620 B with Canada.
Canada is ripping us off. China is not ripping us off, they're ******* us.
Worst case is we STOP trading with China. Best case they reduce the trade imbalance 90%.
China is NOT ready yet.Scipio Africanuz , 4 hours ago link
the other side of the coin is a chinese boycott of usa brands means a dollar devaluation in the form of a tanked market. the chinese market means not much. the usa equity/bond market is everything. a falling dollar takes a lot powder out of usa guns.Lazane , 4 hours ago link
If winning elections at the expense of the electorate is the main concern of politicians, might that suggest gross immorality amongst the political class?
On the other hand, if supporting politicians because they mouth soothing platitudes, while yet their policies and actions, defenestrate the quality of life of the electorate, suggests indoctrination, might that not be cause for serious concern?
Now, it's doubtless that leaders will be required to take unpopular stances sometimes, but ought not those stances be based on cogent analysis of reality, and the elimination or reduction of self contributory inputs?
All in all, leadership is about courage - to do what's right, and necessary, even if it requires declaring mea culpa. Humility, is often the true indicator of leadership abilities.
Which reminds us of Alexander, the Great that is, who had to turn back from his expedition in India, when his troops balked at going further. He could have razzmatazzed them no doubt, but he realized they were telling him that exhaustion was prevalent, pushing forward offered no additional gains, and better to return home to sex their wives, teach their sons horsemanship, give their daughters away in marriage, till their farms, chill out, smell the roses, party, and reminisce to their children and grandkids about their adventures..
Alexander, Great that he is, listened, and with a heavy heart, due to his adventurous nature, signaled the retreat, and homewards it was. That is why they called him Great, not because of his martial prowess which was indeed formidable, but because of his discerning prowess..
On the other hand, there was Marcus Crassus, who was so avaricious, he went East to war, and got as much gold as his heart desired..molten, and poured down his throat. He died rich, literally filled with gold, cheers...RealRussianBot99 , 4 hours ago link
Its real simple, if you don't like the cost of doing business in China along with being required by the twisted communist government to turn over your intellectual property as a requirement for doing your manufacturing there, then bring it home to America.
Not very long ago int he early 1990s I can still recall watching on the cable news programs Chinese rockets launching and blowing up just prior to achieving orbit. The Clintons then were at it full bore trading access to top secret rocket technologies from Loral Space and Technology (Bernie Schwartz) CEO for campaign cash. Clintons transferred Top Secret technologies from State Department to Commerce Department allowing them the access to Sell out America to the Communists. It is why they had to arrange for the liquidation of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown. Remember the video of Bill Clinton laughing and cajoling at the Ron Brown funeral, then when he sees the camera on him, he immediately turns on the bitter tears. These people are the phoniest crooks to ever come to power in America.lester1 , 5 hours ago link
lol. you have no idea what you're talking about.
ever been to China?
communism? in name only
Was at Wal Mart yesterday. Surprisingly there isn't any products made in China that I needed to buy. All the food, cleaning supplies, and toiletries are still made in the United States. The clothing section had made in Malaysia, Singapore, India, Mexico. So in reality, other countries can take market share from China. Some of the production will return to United States as well.
May 15, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
The 'play of the day' above comes against a backdrop of markets trying to accentuate the positive in the latest US-China trade war deterioration. Indeed, Moody's has declared a trade deal will still be done and a Bloomberg survey of US economists shows around two thirds think a deal will be signed by year-end, a fifth by 2020, and only 13% don't see a deal for at least five years. Field Marshall, please take these men and women out and have them shot, there's a good chap.
The rhetoric from China has turned starkly, aggressively nationalist. The Global Times is calling for a "People's War", a 1930's Mao reference to repelling Japanese imperialism; "trade war" now fills Chinese media, having been largely absent for months; and Tuesday's People's Daily mouthpiece posted an image of the Chinese flag with "Talk -- fine! Fight -- we'll be there! Bully us -- delusion!" superimposed on it. US President Trump is also not backing down in a further set of trade-related tweets, again stating tariff revenues will support 'patriot' farmers and adding: "China will be pumping money into their system and probably reducing interest rates, as always, in order to make up for the business they are, and will be, losing. If the Federal Reserve ever did a "match," it would be game over, we win! In any event, China wants a deal!"
A huge fiscal deficit; trade tariffs; a rapid increase in military expenditure; 'Patriot' farmers; and a political call for lower interest rates for a national struggle. It all sounds very Chinese, doesn't it? But that shouldn't be a surprise. Last year's ' The Rise and Fall and Rise of the Great Powers (and Great Currencies)' argued the historical lessons of the economics of past power struggles are that one must have low borrowing costs, spend a lot on a large military, and be mercantilist if your enemy is. True, one also needs to be economically vibrant, and that isn't assured with mercantilism, militarism and large fiscal deficits. Yet real free trade, pacifism, and austerity is *ruinous* for Great Power . Which is why the EU is not a Great Power but a Great Whinger.
Some in the markets are starting to get this.
Regular Bloomberg commentator Noah Smith yesterday published an article --'The Grim Logic Behind Trump's Trade War With China'-- that admits he was wrong to expect a trade deal, that Trump is doubling down, and concludes "There may be a grim sort of logic to this approach If Trump wants to slow China's ascent as a superpower, a trade war might be an effective way to do it. If the harm to the US is modest and the costs for China are severe and lasting, Trump might conclude that the former are acceptable losses. Geopolitical primacy, not maximum prosperity for Americans, might be the president's true objective . if weakening China really is the goal, then this could be just the opening rounds of a long and grinding trade war." That's' what I argued back in November 2017's 'On Your Marx' special reports, which stressed a New Cold War was likely ahead.
However, many in markets are still acting like a Treasury clerk telling Churchill that Badolf Hissler can offer him a great deal on cut-price bullets, ships, and planes .
On a related front, we see reports of an alleged Iranian drone attack on Saudi oil pipelines(!); also hear Iran's leader say there will be no war with the US; and Trump has stated reports of 120,000 US troops moving to the region are fake news -- because if he were to send troops it would " a hell of a lot more ." Mixed messages to put it mildly.
wadalt , 1 minute ago linkPGR88 , 2 minutes ago link
The REAL REASON behind the TRADE WAR: Israhell: "I want Iran embargoed and starved to death." China: "I will buy Iran's oil." BAM! Trade War!
Artist’s IMPRESSION of Satanyahoo Riding TrumpSeanInNYC , 2 minutes ago link
for 40 years, western liberals and capitalists have had a nebulous idea of China developing, opening and "liberalizing." It hasn't usually occurred in the ways they wanted, but China certainly has become a big market and has moved towards a more open economy and somewhat, more open society overall, while still maintaining a "fascist" structure.
But we can all agree - that process is done. China's economy, society and politics are what they are. The country is "grown-up." Do not ever expect the communist party to change the tight, top-down structure it has. Do not expect changes to politics, do not expect anyone in China to give up control, and certainly don't expect foreigners to have any say or influence within China. China will always do exactly what benefits China and the CCP.
Trump is merely being a realist. So accept that, and trade/invest/exchange accordingly.arby63 , 4 minutes ago link
Is it any surprise that a "Noah Smith" of Bloomberg would attribute all the wrong motives and strategy behind President Trump's and America's trade dispute with China's totalitarian regime?
That he sees the Chinese Communist Party as honest, good faith partners in this scenario?
There is nothing Trump could ever do to please the internationalist media.LaugherNYC , 4 minutes ago link
I seriously doubt if "weakening" China is Trump's primacy here. Perhaps a by-product but let's finally admit one thing: The US-China trade arrangement is egregious at best. What no one is willing to discuss yet is the fact that this "philosophy" of evening out trade with China will soon take on a life of its own: With the US consumer. We need to bring back a lot of jobs back to the US economy and that's not rocket science. It won't happen overnight but it will indeed happen.MalteseFalcon , 6 minutes ago link
What is the point of this piece? To demonstrate the author’s wit and historical knowledge (was that entire little playlet not invented)?
To maximize American prosperity long term, should the US simply allow China to cheat, manipulate and intimidate its way to the top? China has proven that, unlike the US, its growth is a zero sum game. It adds nothing to the equation of global growth except cheap labor, which subtracts wealth from other nations by taking away their well-paid manufacturing jobs. It contributes almost no raw materials, imports its food and energy, and has stolen most of its technology at enormous cost to Western innovators.
The US has always provided net inputs to the system of global growth. Natural resources, renewable materials (crops, renewable energy), and the relentless innovation and productivity increases of its workforce. China is an extractor. Thus it needs to expand its borders through exploitative economic imperialist initiatives under their One Belt One Road scam, and their militaristic imperialism in the South China Sea. The US is a machine that puts out far more than it takes in. China is the opposite. If the US directs its economic output away from China’s vast and relentless maw, China’s machine will slow and sputter.
The real point of the trade war is to end the vacuum of Western and Asian prosperity by China’s greedy and imperialist machine of economic destruction. China knows and implements that its economic growth by definition comes at the cost of others’ prosperity. That the US took 20 years to wake the **** up is astonishing.medium giraffe , 6 minutes ago link
You mean all this time the Chinese were nationalists?B-Bond , 7 minutes ago link
Mutual suicide. Outstanding.from_the_ashes , 8 minutes ago link
From doves to hawks: why the US’ moderate China watchers are growing skeptical about Beijing😲
- Constitutional amendment on presidential term limits as well as activity in the South China Sea have caused a shift in perceptions
- China’s ‘repression at home and aggression abroad’ have intensified the conflict with the US in recent years, observer says
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/2177506/doves-hawks-why-moderate-us-china-watchers-are-growingCharlie_Martel , 12 minutes ago link
Most news is somewhat depressing these days... But there are moments when the light shines through...
Learn to code Salon staffers...
The Internationalists are losing. Nationalism is the future.
May 15, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
Originally from: Pepe Escobar Warns Over US-China Tensions The Hardcore Is Yet To Come
... ... ...Where are our jobs?
Pause on the sound and fury for necessary precision. Even if the Trump administration slaps 25% tariffs on all Chinese exports to the US, the IMF has projected that would trim just a meager slither – 0.55% – off China's GDP. And America is unlikely to profit, because the extra tariffs won't bring back manufacturing jobs to the US – something that Steve Jobs told Barack Obama eons ago.
What happens is that global supply chains will be redirected to economies that offer comparative advantages in relation to China, such as Vietnam, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Cambodia and Laos. And this redirection is already happening anyway – including by Chinese companies.
BRI represents a massive geopolitical and financial investment by China, as well as its partners; over 130 states and territories have signed on. Beijing is using its immense pool of capital to make its own transition towards a consumer-based economy while advancing the necessary pan-Eurasian infrastructure development – with all those ports, high-speed rail, fiber optics, electrical grids expanding to most Global South latitudes.
The end result, up to 2049 – BRI's time span – will be the advent of an integrated market of no less than 4.5 billion people, by that time with access to a Chinese supply chain of high-tech exports as well as more prosaic consumer goods.
Anyone who has followed the nuts and bolts of the Chinese miracle launched by Little Helmsman Deng Xiaoping in 1978 knows that Beijing is essentially exporting the mechanism that led China's own 800 million citizens to, in a flash, become members of a global middle class.
As much as the Trump administration may bet on "maximum pressure" to restrict or even block Chinese access to whole sectors of the US market, what really matters is BRI's advance will be able to generate multiple, extra US markets over the next two decades.We don't do 'win-win'
There are no illusions in the Zhongnanhai, as there are no illusions in Tehran or in the Kremlin. These three top actors of Eurasian integration have exhaustively studied how Washington, in the 1990s, devastated Russia's post-USSR economy (until Putin engineered a recovery) and how Washington has been trying to utterly destroy Iran for four decades.
Beijing, as well as Moscow and Tehran, know everything there is to know about Hybrid War, which is an American intel concept. They know the ultimate strategic target of Hybrid War, whatever the tactics, is social chaos and regime change.
The case of Brazil – a BRICS member like China and Russia – was even more sophisticated: a Hybrid War initially crafted by NSA spying evolved into lawfare and regime change via the ballot box. But it ended with mission accomplished – Brazil has been reduced to the lowly status of an American neo-colony.
Let's remember an ancient mariner, the legendary Chinese Muslim Admiral Zheng He, who for three decades, from 1405 to 1433, led seven expeditions across the seas all the way to Arabia and Eastern Africa, reaching Champa, Borneo, Java, Malacca, Sumatra, Ceylon, Calicut, Hormuz, Aden, Jeddah, Mogadiscio, Mombasa, bringing tons of goods to trade (silk, porcelain, silver, cotton, iron tools, leather utensils).
That was the original Maritime Silk Road, progressing in parallel to Emperor Yong Le establishing a Pax Sinica in Asia – with no need for colonies and religious proselytism. But then the Ming dynasty retreated – and China was back to its agricultural vocation of looking at itself.
They won't make the same mistake again. Even knowing that the current hegemon does not do "win-win". Get ready for the real hardcore yet to come.
Tachyon5321 , 35 minutes ago linkBT , 46 minutes ago link
The Swine fever is sweeping china hog farms and since the start of 2019 200+ millions hogs have been culled. Chinese hog production is down from 2016 high of 700 million to below 420 million by the end of the year. The fever is not under control.
Soybeans from Ukraine are unloaded at the port in Nantong, in eastern China. Imports of soy used to come from the US, but have slumped since the trade war began. Should point out that the Ukraine soy production matures at a different time of the year than the US soybean. The USA planting season starts in Late april, may and june. Because of the harvest time differences worldwide the USA supplies 80% of the late maturing soybeans needed by October/Nov and December.
A propaganda story by the Asian TimesSon of Captain Nemo , 52 minutes ago link
Orange Jesus just wants to be re-elected in 2020 and MIGA.joego1 , 52 minutes ago link
Perhaps this is one of the "casualties" ( https://www.rt.com/news/459355-us-austria-embassy-mcdonalds/ ) of economic war given the significance of China and just how important it is to the U.S. in it's purchases of $USD to maintain the illusion of it's reserve currency status and "vigor"...
Surprised this didn't happen first at the U.S. Embassies in Russia and China?... Obviously Ronald McDonald has turned into a charity of sorts helping out Uncle $am in his ailing "health" these dayz!...
SUPER SIZE ME!... Cause I'm not lovin it anymore!... I'm needin it!!!!ElBarto , 1 hour ago link
If Americans want to wear shoes they can make them or have a robot make them. Manufacturing can happen in the U.S. **** what Steve Jobs told Oblamy .ZakuKommander , 1 hour ago link
I've never understood this "jobs aren't coming back" argument. Do you really think that it will stop tariffs? They're happening. Better start preparing.Haboob , 1 hour ago link
Oh, right, tariffs WILL bring back American jobs! Then why didn't the Administration impose them fully in 2017? Why negotiate at all; just impose all the tariffs!?! lolGonzogal , 41 minutes ago link
Pepe is correct as usual. Even if America tariffs the world the jobs aren't coming back as corporations will be unable to turn profits in such a highly taxed country like America would be. What could happen however is America can form an internal free market again going isolationist with new home grown manufacturing.
You VERY obviously have ZERO knowledge of Chinas history and its discoveries/inventions etc USED BY THE WEST.
I suggest that you keep your eyes open for "History Erased-China" on Y Tube. The series shows what would happen in todays world if countries and their contributions to the world did not happen.
here is a preview: https://youtu.be/b6PJxuheWfk
Apr 16, 2019 | www.youtube.com
He's a pathetic dork. I have never given audience to Beto except I heard him say he was going to end slavery. Did I miss the re-enactment of slavery
Deborah Kate , 3 weeks ago
I love Tucker.. Christopher Hitchens was right... the most brilliant Tucker Carlson...
Chris montgomery , 2 days agoHarry Brown , 16 hours ago
Rats always end up eating each other.Doctor BeBop , 4 weeks ago
this is just pure entertainmentRob Manzoni , 3 weeks ago
Tucker: YOU are on FIRE, my Brother! Keep up up the good work. You are nailing it!The Cold Poet , 4 weeks ago
Stop calling it the "Democratic" party - it's the "Democrat" party... "Democrat" is a NAME . "Democratic" is a description; and doesn't describe them at allOhSwaggerBadger , 3 weeks ago
"Every last drop of Buttigieg." Hilarious!GoogleModerator , 4 weeks ago
"He's like Beto's smarter brother, a little bit." Super savage 😂👊😂
Thank God for Tucker Carlson. Hilarious & Brilliant!
Jul 12, 2017 | www.youtube.com
Fox News contributor Ralph Peters suggested Tucker was like a Nazi sympathizer for wondering whether Russia and the US should work together against ISIS. Another critic mostly agrees with Peters - and Tucker takes him on
James Lamoureux , 2 weeks agoElijah Sims , 2 months ago
The "empire" Reagan warned us about was the Obama admin.Jordan Smith , 5 months ago
Max Boot is an example of someone who takes himself so seriously that they become a joke.TD TOPPDAWG , 1 month ago
I love tucker❤️Joseph Duplaga , 2 months ago
Wasn't it Ronald Reagan who said "if fascism comes it will come in the name of liberalism"jeroliver , 3 weeks ago
Keep up the good work Tucker a voice of reason in a room full of lunatics .Maverick Watch Reviews , 8 months ago
Who in their right mind would take advice about ANYTHING from Max Boot?Geoff M , 2 months ago
Tucker sure gave Max the boot in that segment.Gdurant , 2 months ago
Max Boot is never right! He had so many idiotic opinions! A man who wants to intervene in every part of the world and sod the consequences! He's a real neo con extremist! Dangerous!Francis Wargirai , 2 months ago
These idiots want us to go and start more wars?dagmastr , 3 weeks ago
Selling insurance, house painting, something you're good at. Hahaha.. Gold..jućub 111 , 5 months ago
One thing is Tucker is excellent in a debate. He just made max look very stupid.omar rashid , 2 months ago
Tucker rest of world love and support you...keep rollin 💪💪 regards from Serbia 🇷🇸Leonardo Espino , 1 week ago
Good God, you can feel the anger off this guy.D Redacted , 3 weeks ago
I have to say that... dam ... I love tucker and he's a good tv anchor and he's hilarious when he takes any opponentVani Vasil , 1 week ago
Max debates like a spoilt child.... Remind me of the Kurt Echinwald interviewJermano Mayfield , 1 week ago
who the hell established this guy as a foreign policy expert ??Kay Scott , 1 week ago
Tucker Rocks! Gets them triggered so THE TRUTH can come outJames Burton , 2 days ago
Flakes like this Boot guy has destroyed our foreign policyWilliam Miller , 2 days ago
I WOULD LIKE TO JUST KNOCK HELL OUTTA THAT BALD HEADED SUMBITCH.
When you don't have an answer, just attack the person asking the question. Nice goin' Max, you fool.
May 14, 2019 | consortiumnews.com
Originally from: Russia-gate’s Monstrous Offspring by Daniel Lazare
Besides Fox News – whose ratings have soared while Russia-obsessed CNN’s have plummeted – the chief beneficiary is Trump. Post-Mueller, the man has the wind in his sails. Come 2020, Sen. Bernie Sanders could cut through his phony populism with ease. But if Jeff Bezos’s Washington Post succeeds in tarring him with Russia the same way it tried to tar Trump, then the Democratic nominee will be a bland centrist whom the incumbent will happily bludgeon.
Former Vice President Joe Biden – the John McCain-loving, speech-slurring, child-fondler who was for a wall along the Mexican border before he was against it – will end up as a bug splat on the Orange One’s windshield.
Beto O'Rourke, the rich-kid airhead who declared shortly before the Mueller report was released that Trump, "beyond the shadow of a doubt, sought to collude with the Russian government," will not fare much better.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren meanwhile seems to be tripping over her own two feet as she predicts one moment that Trump is heading to jail , declares the next that voters don't care about the Mueller report because they're too concerned with bread-and-butter issues, and then calls for dragging Congress into the impeachment morass regardless.
Such "logic" is lost on voters, so it seems to be a safe bet that enough will stay home next Election Day to allow the rough beast to slouch towards Bethlehem yet again.
May 15, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
In Latest Move Against Huawei, Trump To Order New Restrictions On Foreign Telecom Companies
by Tyler Durden Wed, 05/15/2019 - 11:04 0 SHARES Twitter Facebook Reddit Email Print In what appears to be the US government's latest salvo in its war against Huawei, President Trump is reportedly preparing to sign an executive order that would prohibit American firms from using equipment made by foreign telecom companies that pose a 'security threat', according to Bloomberg , which sourced its report to administration insiders.
The official who spoke with Bloomberg insisted the order wasn't intended to single out any country or company, but anybody who has been following the ongoing spat with Huawei should instantly recognize that this simply isn't true (though, with the trade negotiations at a very delicate impasse, we understand why the administration needs to maintain this pretense). Though Huawei and its fellow Chinese telecoms giant ZTE already face serious restrictions on selling their products in the US, Huawei still maintains a US subsidiary in Texas.
The order, which could be signed as soon as Wednesday, wouldn't outright ban sales to US entities, but it would grant the Commerce Department more authority to review products and purchases made by firms with connections to adversarial countries (we doubt that's directed at Ericsson and Sweden).
China's foreign ministry has already lashed out at the US over reports of the executive order.
"This is neither graceful nor fair," ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said at a news briefing in Beijing. "We urge the U.S. to stop citing security concerns as an excuse to unreasonably suppress Chinese companies and provide a fair and equitable and non-discriminatory environment for Chinese companies to operate in the U.S."
Washington has been campaigning for months to stop its allies around the globe from allowing Huawei products to be used in their 5G networks, but to little avail. Yesterday, Huawei promised to sign a "no spy" pledge to governments like the UK that are still deciding how much reliance on Huawei they are willing to stomach.
As Huawei pushes to assume a global leadership position in 5G, the US's efforts to try and discredit the company have included successfully pushing for the arrest of its CFO, Meng Wanzhou, in Canada, on charges she helped the company violate US sanctions on Iran.
American lawmakers suspect Huawei's equipment could be used for spying - and not without reason.
Just last month, Ars Technica found a backdoor like vulnerability in Huawei's Matebook laptop series which could have allowed remote hackers to gain access to the system. Chinese law also could technically compel companies like Huawei to cooperate with authorities.
But even if the order is signed on Wednesday, it might not take effect for six months, as it would take time for the Commerce Department to "fashion an approach" to the order.
In the meantime, Verizon and other US telecoms firms are still way behind in the war to dominate the global market for 5G networking equipment.
Sign in to comment filter_list Viewing Options arrow_drop_down
- All Comments 130
buckboy , 50 seconds ago linkHopefulJoe , 6 minutes ago link
Trump is not good for Chinese business. China knows its coming. Can only make a deal with obama/clinton/bush. Clearer motive for China Collusion vs Russian Collusion.ExPat2018 , 8 minutes ago link
Good Job Mr President! MIGA!TheHappyCattle , 5 minutes ago link
Thanks to USA govt publicity, Huawei phones are selling like hot cakes in Europe. Apple fans are jumping shipeitheror , 15 minutes ago link
They are selling like hot cakes here in Murica too! But shhhh...don't tell anyone.buckboy , 16 minutes ago link
Huawei = CIA owned Qualcommcosta ludus , 19 minutes ago link
Sad to imagine the US technology security under obama/clintons/bush. USA will be up for sale while we sleep. Major credit to Pres. Trump is hard to swallow by the left.brazilian , 19 minutes ago link
ZH is thoroughly infested with Hasbara trolls trying to ensure that the Orange *** - aka Israel's Best Buddy - gets defended. There are at least 5 or 6 kikes on this thread alone.joyful-feet , 24 minutes ago link
When you just make junk you have to put tariffs on other countries!brazilian , 18 minutes ago link
"This is neither graceful nor fair," ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said at a news briefing in Beijing.
The irony of them saying it's not graceful or fair when they do the same thing to foreign companies in China. I mean they don't even allow youtube or instagram in China among many others. What is the big threat of instagram other than flat out protectionism? Then you expect other countries to be open?costa ludus , 26 minutes ago link
What screwed american workers are not cheap chinese goods but the sending of their jobs to china by the greedy, american scum companies.TheHappyCattle , 7 minutes ago link
First, the Orange Socialist doles out 10s of Billions to farmers and now he shuts down free trade.arby63 , 40 minutes ago link
You've been using the goat milk joke way to often. You should try to be moar original...like TheHappyCattle.TheHappyCattle , 36 minutes ago link
Trump is 100% correct. We need to simply do away with certain aspects of trade with China. Just eliminate it altogether.arby63 , 35 minutes ago link
But who will manufacture consumer crap when China stops selling it to us?LaugherNYC , 30 minutes ago link
Hopefully no one. The world doesn't need it. What is it about "we don't want your ****" that you don't understand? You going to force us to buy it? Give it a shot 李娜.arby63 , 6 minutes ago link
A recent exploration trip to the bottom of the Mariana Trench - the deepest spot on Earth, found human trash on the floor of the ocean - an old tire, metal pieces, plastic, even fabric that looked like men's pants. China's garbage is everywhere in the Earth's oceans. The US needs to stop exporting our trash for China to dump, and start controlling our production of plastic waste in particular. We are doing a far better job than China or India, but not enough.
scosta ludus , 25 minutes ago link
True. I saw those reports. I'm not even sure why this is a difficult concept for the Chinese. The US economy is not here to serve China. We're not "beholden" to buy Chinese products. The mood (and tide) has shifted.
Every trip to Walmart is another 20 gallons of paint for a Chinese warship. WTF is wrong with us? I avoid Chinese products whenever possible--even if it means I pay significantly more.
I had a Chinese neighbor when I was in college. He used to always leave his garbage outside his door. The dumpster was 50 feet away. Used to bug the **** out of me.He–Mene Mox Mox , 41 minutes ago link
Unless you mopes want to work for $5/day the Vietnamese or some other shitholers will do it.LaugherNYC , 33 minutes ago link
Ha,Ha!!! And to think American companies are not a security threat, like Cisco and others cooperating with NSA, which Edward Snowden has said to be.
This is just the latest continuation of America's war on Huawei since 2003. Huiwei saw this coming back in January, and has asked its compontent suppliers to move out of the U.S.,. I am sure that angered the Trump administration, but there is nothing Trump can do about that, if they leave. Not only do they take the technology with them, but also all those jobs. So, thinking he was going to retaliate against Huawei, Trump wants to sign an executive order from "using Huawei's equipment", which means, Trump has just encourage Huawei's suppliers to take Huawei's earlier advise and leave the U.S., if they want to stay in business. Trump's executive order is sort of like cutting your nose off to spite your face.
What's not said in this article, Huawei left the U.S. in 2013. Ren Zhengfei put the US's attitude down to jealousy at Huawei's technical superiority over US rivals such as Cisco. Huawei announced at the end of April 2013 that it had given up trying to compete in the US telecoms equipment market. "We will focus on the rest of the world, which is reasonably big enough and is growing significantly."
By discouraging US telecoms companies from buying Huawei equipment out of fear that it would open the country's key infrastructure up to cyberespionage, the government would deny domestic carriers access to market-leading technology.
Ren also said: U.S. concerns over cyber-espionage has been mounting at a time when Huawei has done next to no business with leading American carriers.
"If you look at Huawei's total market share in the US telecoms equipment market, it is close to 0%. Given that we have virtually no presence in the US telecoms infrastructure market, there is no connection between Huawei and any information security incident that has occurred in the country".
Again to remind you, Ren said this in 2013! Here it is, 6 years later, and the U.S. is still trying to put Huawei out of business, to satisfy its own spying needs. If anyone is worried about security, then it should be against the U.S., not Huawei.Idaho potato head , 29 minutes ago link
It has been proven over and over that Hulawei imbeds exploits in its hardware. Countries that were STUPID enough to install their equipment have been retrofitting and spending fortunes trying to test and close all the back doors and exploits that expose them to theft and much worse.
Yeah, Hulawei probably figured out the US was on to them - the FBI clearly was, and figured if they could infest our partner countries with their Trojan horses they could attack us through them.
Clever. But indefensible. They deserve to be sanctioned and punished under international law for cyber crimes of the highest order.
Just sayin.costa ludus , 24 minutes ago link
But muh FBI, wow just wow.LaugherNYC , 44 minutes ago link
You Israeli kikes should be the last ones to talk about spyingHerp and Derp , 48 minutes ago link
Back in early 2017 I attended a presentation by Bill Priestap, Deputy Director of Counterintelligence at the FBI (yes THAT Priestap) in which he laid out how the US Intelligence Community had been screaming at the Obama Administration for 8 solid years that China was the single greatest threat to the US and Western democracies, and they were achieving their goals through IP theft, backdoor spyware, commercial, industrial and military espionage, corruption, and massively imbalanced trade policies. He was stunned by the HRC/BHO/Kerry resistance to DO anything or even slow the train down, and said he HOPED the Trump Administration would pay attention. He laid out the 20 biggest threats.
Top of the list? ZTE and Hulawei.
Looks like DJT heard the screaming.DontBdecieved , 48 minutes ago link
Ugh. Might be too late. In certain tech like CCTV, you can't escape Huawei. They started cranking out hisilicon a few years ago and now those chips are in lots of application specific systems. Most Taiwanese, Korean, etc. brands now use them as designed from their Chinese partners. There are no other IP camera systems out there now.TheHappyCattle , 47 minutes ago link
Yeehhaa... No more free trade. US markets for US companies only.Rik Haines , 44 minutes ago link
Ummm...but the U.S. doesn't manufacture anything. Except for too many new cars.arby63 , 39 minutes ago link
We'll just have to have Americans start up new manufacturing companies to replace them. :)CatInTheHat , 49 minutes ago link
Watch.NPC0101 , 51 minutes ago link
'American lawmakers suspect Huawei's equipment could be used for spying - and not without reason."
American lawmakers are compromised by the Israeli government & the military security state. It's the US that wants a back door to China's 5G. China pays with smears but it won't matter. China has 5G and the US doesn't.Rik Haines , 42 minutes ago link
5G IS A CANCER MACHINE WE DONT NEED IT! FOR **** SAKE. WE GONA BE ZOMBIES WALKING DEAD IF 5G EMF IS NEAR US.Big Fat Bastard , 52 minutes ago link
I disagree that 5G is a "cancer machine" but I also don't see that it's much of an improvement over 4G.novictim , 50 minutes ago link
Huawei has never earned a profit.Deadwood Dick , 53 minutes ago link
ChiComs do not believe in Profit but they do believe in accepting billions of dollars from foolish global investors trying to "get in on the ground floor on a fantastic Asian investment opportunity!!" Suckers are going to lose their shirts as a result of their ChiCom lending. Good.me or you , 56 minutes ago link
Gotta get me a Huawei phone. Rather have the Chinese listening than the NSA.TheHappyCattle , 50 minutes ago link
Who is the spy here.:
- - Alexa listen on 27/7
- - Google scanning your emails and log in every where you go
- - Microsoft OS backdoors built-in
- - Intel backdoors built-in
- FB and Tweeter sharing all of you with the government.
- US telephone carriers sharing all you data with the government.gdpetti , 56 minutes ago link
The Russians did it!
In the immortal words of little Georgie Jr, 'bring it on'... right? Isn't this Trumpy's role in his puppet masters script of global chaos, regime change? to 'out their OWO and introduce us to their NWO before Mother Nature arrives?
Isn't it best if the puppets don't see those strings jerking them around stage? Isn't this why the saying exists here in 'purgatory', no pain, no gain? Isn't this how we learn, the hard way? We are witnessing the rug being pulled on the OWO... enjoy the show.
May 07, 2019 | www.youtube.com
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., became a household name in 2016 when he ran a progressive campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination -- and came close to securing it. He's back in the 2020 race, but this time up against more than 20 other candidates. Sanders sits down with Judy Woodruff to discuss trade with China, health care, student debt, Russian election interference and more.
May 14, 2019 | www.asiatimes.comHis gambit to conclude a deal with North Korea collapsed in failure in Hanoi in February, and it is a huge blow to his self-styled image of a master dealmaker. Trump also faces a flurry of congressional subpoenas at home from Democrats who now control the House of Representatives. Hence with mounting legal and political troubles, Trump is cornered and desperately needs a conclusion to the prolonged trade war with China, which has netted zero benefits for him.
The prospect of a trade deal with China remains as elusive as ever, despite Trump's increased tariffs to pressure China to come to the negotiating table with the list of concession that he wants. It is highly unlikely that China will grant Trump the concessions he wants. China remembers clearly the deal that Tokyo concluded with Washington in the 1990s that caused Japan to slip into economic stagnation for many years. That period has now been dubbed Japan's "lost decade."
China is not dumb and it will not concede to Trump.
Worse still, the move to increase tariffs took place while Chinese Vice-Premier Liu He was in Washington to negotiate with the Trump administration.
It is a blunder by Trump and will be perceived by the Chinese as a cheap shot against President Xi Jinping. The tariffs hike came despite Xi's "beautiful letter" to Trump, and it is a massive loss of face for the Chinese leader to see his group of officials return home from Washington with no deal to conclude the trade war.
Xi could not afford to look weak in front of his people and he knows that millions of Chinese netizens access information about the outside world by using virtual private networks (VPNs) to circumvent the Great Firewall. Many ordinary Chinese know about the trade war's latest developments and should any deal with Trump infringe on China's core interests, it will be political suicide for Xi.
One of the main reasons the US-China trade talks broke down was that Washington's demands were unpalatable to China. Some of the demands from the US, such as an end to government support for state companies in specific industries and a streamlined approval process for genetically engineered US crops, are a direct challenge to the Communist Party of China's control of the economy.
Since Xi took office, he has extended the party's reach into every corner of Chinese society, and every businessman in China who aspires to reach the top of the hierarchy knows that they must receive the blessing of the party. It is not surprising that even Jack Ma, who is one of China's most internationally recognizable figures, has been revealed to be a member of the CPC after years of denial.
Hence in the face of renewed pressure from Trump, Xi and the Chinese government have reached the conclusion that it is better to bear the consequences of increased tariffs than to concede to US demands.
Xi is in for the long haul and can well afford to ride out the storm. And based on Trump's past negotiations such as his failed bid to pressure House Democrats to fund his wall on the Mexican border, which led to the longest government shutdown in US history, Xi knows that the chances are good that Trump will blink first.
May 14, 2019 | www.youtube.com
V Philip ,