China
drewdevault.com
China
1–10 of 497 posts
Re: China
#2>”It’s economically productive for the 1% to maintain a trade relationship with China. The financial incentives don’t help any Americans, and in fact, most of us are hurt by this relationship...”
So true, since its inception with GHW, its execution and realization through Clinton and then once fully engaged the timid, supplicant responses from GW and BO, China has contributed to the stagnation of the blue collar worker on America with the full complicity of Democrats, Republicans and most of Industry and even unions who didn’t oppose their cozy politicians. They all only saw starry dollar signs...
That’s where we are now. People have had enough. That’s why they put up with the guy no one likes because he’s willing to sever that codependent relationship.
Now, if you ask any pol running for the nomination who the greatest threat to America is... it’s not going to be China...
Re: China
#3The conversation about China has shifted from being relatively peaceful during the Obama years to war like today.
The author of this article doesn’t understand how the presidential bully pulpit slowly changes the national conversation to war.
Not to say that China isn’t violating human rights. They are. But we, the Americans, are the ones who started this fight by goading them on.
Also: the crux of the argument in this article is “trade is bad for the little guy because our jobs are gone” which is one of the memes our political establishment is using to get us interested in war.
Dear author, can you go deeper into why trade is bad for anyone other than the 1%? Something beyond a ramble and some half baked repetitions of what we hear every day?
Re: China
#4>”It’s economically productive for the 1% to maintain a trade relationship with China. The financial incentives don’t help any Americans, and in fact, most of us are hurt by this relationship...” So true, since its inception with GHW, its execution and realization through Clinton and then once fully engaged the timid, supplicant responses from GW and BO, China has contributed to the stagnation of the blue collar work…
This upcoming presidential election is definitely more interesting due to this issue. My brother is a staunch Democrat, but he's made it clear that he's not voting for them if they put someone up who's soft on China. I suspect he'd be voting 3rd party in that scenario.
Re: China
#5Drew is a smart guy. It's cool that we get to hear his geopolitical views. I knew he had some when I saw his name in the Patreon of Caspian Report.
edit: DDOS on sr.ht starts in 3... 2... 1...
Re: China
#6>”It’s economically productive for the 1% to maintain a trade relationship with China. The financial incentives don’t help any Americans, and in fact, most of us are hurt by this relationship...” So true, since its inception with GHW, its execution and realization through Clinton and then once fully engaged the timid, supplicant responses from GW and BO, China has contributed to the stagnation of the blue collar work…
It’s one of the only issues I agree on with the current president. Unfortunately he doesn’t seem willing to actually be effective, and he doesn’t seem to care about the actual human rights issues. I’m hopeful that he might be willing to get things done though.
Re: China
#7>”It’s economically productive for the 1% to maintain a trade relationship with China. The financial incentives don’t help any Americans, and in fact, most of us are hurt by this relationship...” So true, since its inception with GHW, its execution and realization through Clinton and then once fully engaged the timid, supplicant responses from GW and BO, China has contributed to the stagnation of the blue collar work…
The guy "no one likes" isn't innocent of China-worship. Guiltier than most. On Jinping: "He is a great leader who very much has the respect of his people. He is also a good man in a 'tough business.'"
Misrepresenting him as "willing to sever that codependent relationship" is harmful. He's just as complicit if not more than most politicians, and most of his actions involving China have been inconsistent and self-serving.
Re: China
#8There are a lot of jobs dependent on trade with China (our company was affected by the Huawei ban, for example), and the fantasy that you can just cut-over to US manufacturing without huge transition job losses is unrealistic.
And if the US wants to get serious about the use of trade sanctions against human rights violations, there are a lot of places closer to home that it could look at. Not to mention the laws against boycotting a certain country for its human rights violations.
There's also the fantasy of assuming that China's next move after the trade sanctions would be a de-escalation. There's a lot of escalation opportunities for them. Like Taiwan.
(Let's be clear, this is not an apology for the human rights violations by China, which are very real especially in Xinjiang; what I am asking for is the same to be applied consistently and not driven by straightforward nationalism)
Re: China
#9The conversation about China has shifted from being relatively peaceful during the Obama years to war like today. The author of this article doesn’t understand how the presidential bully pulpit slowly changes the national conversation to war. Not to say that China isn’t violating human rights. They are. But we, the Americans, are the ones who started this fight by goading them on. Also: the crux of the argument in th…
> we, the Americans, are the ones who started this fight by goading them on
That depends on how you measure it. There's a good case to be made for the thesis that we've been in a trade war ever since opening trade with China, but it's only recently that we've actually started counter-attacking.
Also, while it's gained traction recently, the political scientists I know personally have been decrying China's human rights violations for the past 20 years. Some of them were hoping things would improve as trade continued and the Chinese economy forced liberalization on the political sphere. That doesn't seem to be the way things have played out.
Re: China
#10The conversation about China has shifted from being relatively peaceful during the Obama years to war like today. The author of this article doesn’t understand how the presidential bully pulpit slowly changes the national conversation to war. Not to say that China isn’t violating human rights. They are. But we, the Americans, are the ones who started this fight by goading them on. Also: the crux of the argument in th…
> The conversation about China has shifted from being relatively peaceful during the Obama years to war like today.
Just because the fight is now verbalized and on the forefront of the public's mind doesn't mean it wasn't already occurring, just not acknowledged. And I don't see the threat of war as being a serious one, given the nuclear deterrents of both sides.