201–210 of 385 posts
My opinion is not a popular one but I'll reiterate-China will not overtake US at least for the next 100 years. I think this trade war has been very telling, it showed the underlying fragility of China's boasting as a superpower. All in all, I see USA recovering from the Trump blunder, and I believe that it will come out stronger than ever. If anti-fragile by Taleb holds true, the US Gov is relatively anti-fragile to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a poorly drawn equivalence as the winner take all system doesn’t imbalance vote value like the electoral college does. IE you’re just saying winner takes all disenfranchises people who don’t vote for the winner which is a tautology.
> doesn’t imbalance vote value like the electoral college does Of course it does - it imbalances them all the way to zero.
Disenfranchisement !== losing, it’s being denied the ability to have your vote count the same as anyone else’s.
Under the electoral college system, 50 voters for candidate A in Wyoming get more influence than 50 voters in California for the same candidate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every president has declared the ICJ irrelevant. The Pentagon would send tanks to the White House if a President so much as hinted at accepting ICJ jurisdiction. And in any event, the U.S. doesn't dispute the usefulness of the ICJ or its jurisdiction over other countries, it just disputes the usefulness of the U.S. being subject to ICJ jurisdiction. By contrast, the WTO deeply matters to the wealth and security of th…
> Every president has declared the ICJ irrelevant. The Pentagon would send tanks to the White House if a President so much as hinted at accepting ICJ jurisdiction. Uhm...as far as 'even hinting' goes President Clinton did sign on to The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court without any tanks being rolled out.
The United States should have the chance to observe and
assess the functioning of the court, over time, before
choosing to become subject to its jurisdiction. Given these
concerns, I will not, and do not recommend that my
successor, submit the treaty to the Senate for advice and
consent until our fundamental concerns are satisfied.
Nonetheless, signature is the right action to take at this
point. I believe that a properly constituted and structured
International Criminal Court would make a profound
contribution in deterring egregious human rights abuses
worldwide, and that signature increases the chances for
productive discussions with other governments to advance
these goals in the months and years ahead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Protecting elections may mean ending winner take all electoral college system. I think 2016 proved that the electoral college is not supplying the adult oversight that the founders intended.
The electoral college and winner-take-all are mutually exclusive ideas. Presently, the electoral college benefits rural voters (Wyoming and the like) by increasing vote value. Winner-take-all elections benefit urban voters by disenfranchising rural voters (every non-Democrat county in California).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even though the US are China's biggest trading partner, US trade "only" accounts for about ~18% of China's total trade. China is still trading with other countries. While it may take a hit from US companies pulling some manufacturing out of China, some of those will be replaced by other - both Chinese and foreign - companies. Especially other foreign companies operating in China will profit from reduced competition f…
"The US will have to bootstrap a lot of manufacturing to replace Chinese labor." They just have to move to cheaper countries to replace Chinese labor. One time upfront asset cost, but lower expense over time. "US trade "only" accounts for about ~18% China's total trade" Once China is not part of the trade flow between US and X country (Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, etc), the total trade for China will fall even more th…
If those are actually further up the value chain leading to exports to the US (as you seem to suggest), those would largely be imported goods.
Edit: Moot point really. Those would just be a consequence of manufacturing happening in China. It's better to have a direct look at the amount of manufacturing happening in China, instead of guessing at parameters directly which are actually a dependent on it. That would be like trying to guess whether a taxi company will buy less fuel if you're no longer a customer (maybe they'll have other customers instead), and on top of that wondering whether that's a bad thing. It's just the wrong aspect to focus on.
> US is the largest consumer market in the world. Japan is second at 1/3 of the size of US. EU consumer market is mostly fragmented. There is just not that much singular consumer demand outside of US.
Which apparently doesn't seem to mean much - as proven by the fact that plenty of brands have no trouble selling basically everywhere despite "fragmented" markets. Also what do you mean when you say the EU consumer market is fragmented? The main selling point of the EU is that it is literally a single market.
> Plus other countries are enacting tariffs on China as well - India for example.
India already appears to be backpedaling on their earlier posturing.
> There are lots of countries that have way cheaper labor costs than China, there's no reason for the foreign companies to go there in the face of increasing tariffs.
The most noteworthy tariffs are China US right now. There's little reason for non-US companies to go elsewhere, especially now that Chinese labor and manufacturing is going to become cheaper again - emphasis on manufacturing, not labor, since the infrastructure and know-how already exist in China.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The US will have to bootstrap a lot of manufacturing to replace Chinese labor." They just have to move to cheaper countries to replace Chinese labor. One time upfront asset cost, but lower expense over time. "US trade "only" accounts for about ~18% China's total trade" Once China is not part of the trade flow between US and X country (Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, etc), the total trade for China will fall even more th…
> Once China is not part of the trade flow between US and X country (Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, etc), the total trade for China will fall even more than 18%. If those are actually further up the value chain leading to exports to the US (as you seem to suggest), those would largely be imported goods. Edit: Moot point really. Those would just be a consequence of manufacturing happening in China. It's better to have a…
The Chinese factories that produce goods destined for US, also produce goods for other countries, leading to trade between China and those countries. When factories move to Malaysia or Vietnam, those trades disappear.
"as proven by the fact that plenty of brands have no trouble selling basically everywhere despite "fragmented" markets" . I was addressing your point "they can still manufacture goods intended for anywhere else in the world there - just not for the US" . You're basically losing 30%-40% of your sales. That's not something that can just be brushed off.
"India already appears to be backpedaling on their earlier posturing." Citation? a cursory search shows otherwise https://www.power-technology.com/comment/india-levies-safegu... https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/indl-goods/svs...
"especially now that Chinese labor and manufacturing is going to become cheaper again"
Why? Wage and rent inflation is skyrocketing in China. Yuan will drop dramatically, which means energy/resource imports will skyrocket.
It's a game of chicken. T is okay with the unpredictability of that game, for he thrives on, well, let's say "activity". China's gov't is, on the other hand, more conservative and cautious by nature. They must feel really rattled. (I'm not picking a winner yet.)
In game theory chicken the unpredictable one wins more often, as long as they don't self destruct.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The US will have to bootstrap a lot of manufacturing to replace Chinese labor." They just have to move to cheaper countries to replace Chinese labor. One time upfront asset cost, but lower expense over time. "US trade "only" accounts for about ~18% China's total trade" Once China is not part of the trade flow between US and X country (Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, etc), the total trade for China will fall even more th…
> Once China is not part of the trade flow between US and X country (Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, etc), the total trade for China will fall even more than 18%. If those are actually further up the value chain leading to exports to the US (as you seem to suggest), those would largely be imported goods. Edit: Moot point really. Those would just be a consequence of manufacturing happening in China. It's better to have a…
The EU is legally a single market, but culturaly and linguistically it's not.
This actually looks like the start of the disentanglement between the US economy and the Chinese economy. What will likely happens next (my best guess) is 1.) 40-60 percent of a company’s supply chain moves out of China 2.) China restricting the movement of capital/equipments out of China (similar to what happened with Korean companies last year) 3.) China growing homebrew competitors to the foreign companies leaving…
Are companies not subject to the existing money restriction? We can't move more than like 50k per year out or something. Maybe less now.
I have no idea how it works for companies, just individuals.
Extremely one sided comments, with a US centric view. The world is not the US, and HN readers are not only US citizens, so let me express a different point of view. Assumption: Trump wants fair trade. HN readers want fair trade. What is needed: fair trading rules, fair IP rules, fair capital structures, and a fair currency. Tackling some of the unfair trade practices does not address all those issues. In particular i…