The global trading system is starting to rearrange itself • Hacker News Board

Re: The global trading system is starting to rearrange itself

#141

Post by JumpCrisscross » Thu, Aug 31, 2023, 3:03 AM UTC

woooooo wrote: post #131

whats_a_quasar wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dude, this is blatant whataboutism. Puerto Rico is in no way equivalent to Taiwan, and I suspect you know that. Taiwan is a sovereign, independent, democratic nation. The Chinese Communist Party has never had political control over Taiwan. It just claims the right to overrule the right to self-determination of 23 million people because it feels like it. The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is an unincorporated U.S. territ…

Puerto Rico is a terrible example. Cuba is a much better one, it's not even hypothetical.

> Cuba is a much better one, it's not even hypothetical

America doesn't claim Cuba as its territory.

If China requested parity with Taiwan in respect of America's relations with Cuba (recognition of sovereignty, trade restrictions and no American military presence there), it would be a good deal for everyone.

Re: The global trading system is starting to rearrange itself

#142

Post by goodbyesf » Thu, Aug 31, 2023, 3:06 AM UTC

nonethewiser wrote: post #91

fnordpiglet wrote: post #54

My fear is decoupling just sets the stage for a global war. We’ve decoupled Russia, Iran, North Korea. With China we have a legitimate fully integrated axis capable of producing independently with legitimate and perceived global grievances, and the means and will to exercise force.

This was the thinking in the 1980s when the US invited China into their global trade network. The thinking was they would move away from communism and Russia and towards an open Democracy. That happened in some small ways but has since been completely undone. Such as the Democracy movements in the 80s that were ultimately crushed in Tiananmen square. Or more recently, market reforms undone by Xi. Basically we are bac…

> This was the thinking in the 1980s when the US invited China into their global trade network.

The US didn't invite china to anything. The US begged, threatened and cajoled china to open their immense and cheap labor force. China had what the US wanted. It was nixon that went to china, not mao that came to the US.

> The thinking was they would move away from communism and Russia and towards an open Democracy.

That's as stupid as saying we helped saudi arabia, kuwait, qatar, etc develop their oil and gas field so that they will become christian. If your assertion was true, we'd be trading with cuba and north korea today. If your assertion was true, we would have been top trading partners with the soviet union. Instead we isolated the soviet union and sanctioned them. Did we only want china to be a democracy? Not the north koreans, cubans and soviets?

> Such as the Democracy movements in the 80s that were ultimately crushed in Tiananmen square.

'Democracy' movement. Right. And look where china is today? I think china made the right decision to crush the 'democracy' movement. Don't you?

It's the same debunked propaganda I've been hearing from the likes of gordon chang since the early 2000s. Morons actually believed we invaded iraq to bring freedom and democracy. So it shouldn't be surprising that morons believe we exploited their cheap labor to bring democracy to china. It's cringe level propaganda.

Re: The global trading system is starting to rearrange itself

#143

Post by worrycue » Thu, Aug 31, 2023, 3:14 AM UTC

fasthands9 wrote: post #138

worrycue wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is already happening with more than ~80% of products that are "Made in Vietnam" and at least ~40% of products that are "Made in Korea." I wonder how long they are willing to do that. Those countries aren’t on the best terms with China either. Doubt they want a dependency on China if they can help it. Wouldn’t they want to take over the manufacturing (along with it the profit) too instead of just re-exporting f…

If they were able to build a toaster (or whatever) profitably than they would have already done it. Doing last stage assembly most likely requires very little capital investment and much less labor. I feel like that position is similar to being a middleman - in which case its clear the skillset to be the producer is not the same.

> If they were able to build a toaster (or whatever) profitably than they would have already done it.

For countries like Vietnam, that might be due to lack of investment.

For the last few decades, everyone was concentrating on China. This I believe has began to change - foreign investment in China is down if Im right.

On the other hand relationships between Vietnam and the West has been thawing the last decade or so - especially with the US.

Countries like Mexico are also looking to take on some of China’s manufacturing load - their proximity to the US is an advantage.

Tariffs on China effectively gives all their competitors a competitive advantage which will only help develop said competitors.

Re: The global trading system is starting to rearrange itself

#144

Post by lostapathy » Thu, Aug 31, 2023, 3:17 AM UTC

wewtyflakes wrote: post #109

davoneus wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I'm not convinced, given GM's (and most automakers) reaction to Covid and the continuing chip shortage. Maybe things have changed; I'd certainly be glad to hear it. But we all know of Wall Street's long history of hatred towards physical inventory.

When all countries shut down, it does matter? There is no alternate or backup. What could you have reasonably expected GM to do, even if they had perfect information?

Not cancel all their orders and end up at the end of the line for chips.

Re: The global trading system is starting to rearrange itself

#145

Post by vGPU » Thu, Aug 31, 2023, 3:18 AM UTC

jszymborski wrote: post #39

A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is all about dependency trees. The US decides to divert imports from China to other countries, which in turn may import from China. This is already happening with more than ~80% of products that are "Made in Vietnam" and at least ~40% of products that are "Made in Korea." Not only do the raw materials come from China, but most of the work is done in China. The product is shipped overland from a Chinese factory t…

> The product is shipped overland from a Chinese factory to Vietnam or Korea, then some screws are tightened, some paint is slapped on, or a label is applied, and the product is re-exported. The whole point of this article is to rebute the point you've made. From the article: > The Economist’s basic argument is that because many of the goods exported to the U.S. from countries like Vietnam contain a lot of parts and…

But Chinese exports to the US increased.

> In 2022, both U.S. exports to China and imports from China continued to grow for a third year in a row. U.S. exports totaled $153.8 billion, an increase of 1.6% ($2.4 billion) from 2021; U.S. imports from China totaled $536.8 billion, an increase of 6.3% ($31.8 billion); and the trade deficit with China was $382.9 billion, an increase of 8.3% of ($29.4 billion).

- dept. of commerce.

Re: The global trading system is starting to rearrange itself

#146

Post by pphysch » Thu, Aug 31, 2023, 3:27 AM UTC

whats_a_quasar wrote: post #84

diego_moita wrote: post #26

Funny how things change. In the 90s the U.S., EU and Japan were the champions of free trade for industrial products and services. However, when it would come to agricultural goods they were the champions of tariffs and protectionism. Why? Easy: because 3rd world countries were very competitive on agriculture. Egypt had better cotton, Argentina had beef, Brazil had orange juice, Cuba had sugar, etc, etc. 3rd world cou…

It's not protectionism. Most of that manufacturing is not moving back to the U.S., it's moving to U.S. allies like Vietnam or Mexico, that would also be called third world countries. It really is what it says on the tin. It's a risk for the U.S. to be economically dependent on a state whose government does not share American values, and that is threatening its neighbors with invasion.

Vietnam and Mexico are not "US allies"

Re: The global trading system is starting to rearrange itself

#147

Post by xeromal » Thu, Aug 31, 2023, 3:48 AM UTC

pphysch wrote: post #146

whats_a_quasar wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not protectionism. Most of that manufacturing is not moving back to the U.S., it's moving to U.S. allies like Vietnam or Mexico, that would also be called third world countries. It really is what it says on the tin. It's a risk for the U.S. to be economically dependent on a state whose government does not share American values, and that is threatening its neighbors with invasion.

Vietnam and Mexico are not "US allies"

What's your definition for an ally

Re: The global trading system is starting to rearrange itself

#148

Post by fnordpiglet » Thu, Aug 31, 2023, 3:56 AM UTC

goodbyesf wrote: post #142

nonethewiser wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was the thinking in the 1980s when the US invited China into their global trade network. The thinking was they would move away from communism and Russia and towards an open Democracy. That happened in some small ways but has since been completely undone. Such as the Democracy movements in the 80s that were ultimately crushed in Tiananmen square. Or more recently, market reforms undone by Xi. Basically we are bac…

> This was the thinking in the 1980s when the US invited China into their global trade network. The US didn't invite china to anything. The US begged, threatened and cajoled china to open their immense and cheap labor force. China had what the US wanted. It was nixon that went to china, not mao that came to the US. > The thinking was they would move away from communism and Russia and towards an open Democracy. That's…

No, I don’t think China was right to crush democracy. It doesn’t flow that their economic success was tied exclusively to authoritarianism. One might argue they would have a stronger domestic consumer economy if they hadn’t.

Re: The global trading system is starting to rearrange itself

#149

Post by dotnet00 » Thu, Aug 31, 2023, 4:10 AM UTC

nradov wrote: post #59

xvilka wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In theory it can be done by creating a new currency, with no capital controls.

No, that can't be done without some sort of political monetary union. India and China will never agree to join the same monetary union. Their interests aren't aligned. Russia has to maintain good relations with both India and China, and can't afford to piss off either one. And South Africa is rapidly collapsing into a failed state with a dysfunctional economy; lately they can't even keep the lights on. It's all just…

That's the funny thing about all the BRICS bluster, so many of the countries in (or soon to be in) the "group" either hate each other, are barely functioning or are just direct competitors in general. It's amazing anyone thinks they'll do anything that requires cooperation and mutual trust beyond making empty promises.

Re: The global trading system is starting to rearrange itself

#150

Post by kccqzy » Thu, Aug 31, 2023, 4:14 AM UTC

whats_a_quasar wrote: post #85

woooooo wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They weren't unfriendly until we decided to make them so about 5 years ago. Policymakers in the late 90s couldn't necessarily predict swings in American opinion 20 years later.

China's government wants to attack the people of Taiwan and occupy a sovereign, democratic nation. The U.S. didn't "make" Russia and China unfriendly, they decided to be unfriendly by belligerently threatening their neighbors.

China's intention to attack and occupy Taiwan has been known since its founding. If the U.S. thought it could use trade to talk China out of it, it was naïve.