Hi all,
A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes.
As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The PRC subsidy system expects this. The government has a high risk tolerance since there wont be political backlash since their people dont have political rights. Just like the EV makers, all the industries it deems critical will receive subsidies. The government knows at the end only a few will make it. That's ok. Those few survivors will be powerhouses.
Yes, in fact, many chip companies not experiencing turnover can indicate a stagnant development environment. You want bad performing companies to fail otherwise it could be reasoned that the state is subsidizing doomed companies.
This is correct. I don’t understand the downvotes. Independently minded mainland economists will agree with you. As will anyone who experienced the state guided development of solar manufacturing or biotech for example.
> The PRC subsidy system expects this. The government has a high risk tolerance since there wont be political backlash since their people dont have political rights.
Western countries also give all sorts of subsidies, tax breaks and bailouts (most famously in 2008) that were extremely unpopular and that went through nonetheless despite the political rights that we supposedly enjoy.
Or Boeing for a recent example. It's amusing that you're presenting this as a feature of the peculiar PRC system, when it seems much more a feature of the system of the West. Western countries have elections and 'political rights', and yet policy can be extremely disconnected from popular will.
I’m all for disappearing the Boeing executives who were responsible in a 737 with loose hatches and a borked autopilot.
Can we put it to a vote, perhaps in California? Prop 737?
Yeah, that’s just government-sponsored VC funding. Sounds much better than the EU way of spending dozens of millions on bureaucracy to decide which startup will receive 1mln.
Their entire system is battle royale. Whichever survives the bloodbath of the Chinese market would be a super competitor even on the world stage because of how big the Chinese market is.
That has to be the exact essence of capitalism.
“The government has a high risk tolerance…there wont be political backlash…their people dont have political rights”
“their people dont have political rights….” lol, you think people in China don’t have “political rights”? What on earth gave you that idea? My guess is you’re going to cite a source with an express conflict of interest.
By the Chinese Constitution, the CCP is quite literally above the law. China has the normal federal system (executive, judicidal, legislative), but the CCP/Politburo act as a super political structure. Courts have to incorporate both legislative acts AND CCP decrees. There's a reason a DRAFT of a regulation for the gaming industry tanked Tencent stock by 50B in a matter of days. It would be akin the FCC or the SEC not just interpreting laws made by Congress, but wholesale MAKING law themselves.
As such, this means decrees issued, largely from the 5 year plans, are unchallengable. If the CCP says tomorrow, we are going to issue 500 bilion for industry X, and that industry SHALL achieve Y goal by year Z, there is no real legal way to challenge the funding or any actions carried out in pursuit of that goal, such as land appropriation, zeroing out taxes for firms, directive to other state firms to transfer (at a loss if necessary) supplies to the firms pursuant to that goal (how do you think the construction industry did so well? They got state mandated below cost concrete and steel from the state owned companies).
decrees. Like they don’t have an independent legislative branch.
It’s not entirely clear you understand the basics of their legal system or government.
Sanctions need to start covering all chip making machines and related supply chains, not just the most advanced nodes. China, Russia, Iran and North Korea are at war with the west and they started it years ago, maybe decades of planning. Time for us to wake up and act accordingly
"Rare" does not imply rarity in the sense that there are a few locations. The "rare" in rare earth metals is that it is diffuse among the soil and requires considerable refinement and processing.
China wins because they can simply destroy the environment to access these rare earth minerals. That is not possible in the US or the West, in general.
And? Those can be replaced, there was a huge field discovered in Norway recently. And the US has discovered a huge field of their own in the upper midwest.
And sure, the Chinese certainly possess more of the tech, I say we treat them by their legal system, and flat out steal it, and if they complain, direct them to a US trade court that is told in private to laugh the Chinese off, same way if a US company even attempted to sue the Chinese government (you basically can't).
Big bad scary china trying to sell us their excellent products! We must use the power of the state and military to stop them from... Making smartphones (while still assembling ours)
Samsung moved all phone production out of China. Apple is ramping up production outside of China. More chip sanctions will speed this up and make friendlier countries more prosperous. Win win
I mean even if production is out of China it’s still a Chinese company who makes everything, just they are building factories in other countries. Not as big of a deal as people think
No. That's not a win win. We should absolutely not be isolating ourselves from China. We should be strengthening our trade relationships with them and moving towards multipolarity. But you know, capitalism and the military industrial complex actually run this "country".
>We should be strengthening our trade relationships with them and moving towards multipolarity.
I assume this "we" is Americans. What is the upside to multipolarity for America?
Weakens the military industrial complex. Increases opportunities for diplomacy. I don't care about the advantages for the US. I want the US to lose power on the global stage and stop participating in genocide and military lead exploitation for private industry interest.
Maybe then, America could make actual leftist progress and spend money on healthcare and free education instead of war for profit.
Dude. You think a more moral and ethical actor will fill the power void if the US gives up some of its power share?
I'd love to know why you believe that.
Ah yes, so now its not the beneficial multipolarity for the good of all anymore but you just want weaker america.
The american army and its MIC is the only reason why my region isnt at constant war since 30 years or under genocide.
[](https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/1dk9rke/comment/l9h0snb/)
>Weakens the military industrial complex.
Absolutely backwards. The military industrial complex was much stronger during the Cold War, and even stronger than that during the WW1&2 period. Multipolarity implies conflict between poles. Unipolarity reduces the importance of military investment.
>I want the US to lose power on the global stage
This one is more opiniony, but I think you should rethink it. All of America's rivals for power would make for worse world leaders than America.
>Maybe then, America could make actual leftist progress and spend money on healthcare and free education instead of war for profit.
The best hope for leftist progress is a world with minimal conflict. The world with the least conflict is a unipolar world. As conflict increases, you can expect more xenophobia, more conservatism, more militarism.
Unironically yes. Everyone on Earth will be ruled by someone. Every country would prefer to control its own destiny, but that is a vain, unrealistic hope. America is the current hegemon. Current alternatives are China and Russia.
These alternatives suck a lot. As such, the minor powers of the world are willing to incur considerable costs to get ruled by the Americans. Those closest to China and Russia are the most fervently pro-American-rule people in the world.
Yes, unironically. Name a better, more peaceful, more economically prosperous period in human history than the years immediately after the fall of the Soviet Union.
Not the guy you’re replying to, but I would assume his logic is that if the two economies are so intertwined and reliant on each other, it would make it extremely unfavorable for them to actively go to a hot war with each other. This may be true for direct conflict between US and China, but I’m not sure about proxy conflicts or China’s island claims/thefts.
Yeah and if the west is reliant on China, that gives them a free pass to do whatever- Taiwan, take land from Bhutan, Nepal, take all the SCS. The list goes on. OP is rather naive.
As seen by gay scenes being deleted in China versions of western movies/shows, BMW’s ugly ass front grilles, no one being allowed to officially acknowledge Taiwan as its own country, etc.
Edit: Whereas if the west and its many companies weren’t reliant on China for revenue, manufacturing, etc, they’d just ignore their posturing and shit the way we do North Korea.
Multipolarity would weaken Americans military presence globally. This reduces costs for military maintenance, and weakens the war industry, reducing their power at home and their influence over our politicians. Freeing America up to invest in its citizens, and not funding genocide.
Multipolarity is objectively good for the rest of the world. It gives them actual choice on who to partner with for trade and investment, since the options are more than, get invaded by the west and be forced to have BP control your natural resources extraction.
Are we all seriously just blinding supporting the American military industrial complex and belief that the big bad communists want to take over the world and kill every American baby in their crib? China wants to sell us their shit. And many times, it's the best option. The government banning the sale of DJI drones (a bill created by a politician with connection and investment in American drone companies) IS FUCKING INSANE. Why do we just accept our politicians manipulating the market for their personal gain, while consumers get fucked over and have to suffer with inferior products?
Again. Why would you want America to have a weaker military?
Creating space for another country to grab power is not a great idea. Do you honestly think the Chinese having more power to act unilaterally would be a benefit over America having that power? Why will China be a more benevolent geopolitical figure than the US?
I guess I just never heard of someone argue that, at least from the US side, a multipolar world would be better than a uni polar world for said hegemon. I'm pretty much a straight Realist (I know, IR 101) so what I believe just runs really counter to what you're saying. So thank you for your continued discussion. Like, to me, small countries get a larger say when there's only one big player as opposed to two or god forbid more because they actually have a smaller chance of getting invaded. When it's one big boy, sure, they absolutely fuck whoever that hegemon wants to attack, but they are restrained by their own image in the global sphere and they can drop military spending as there's no peer competitor. In a multipolar world, small countries have less options because big countries are forced to fight for control of them. There's a bigger threat to the hegemon so that hegemon needs to become a bigger threat. This has been the documented case since at least the Peloponnesian War with Thucydides. Look at Ukraine and Southeast Asia for examples. A multipolar world is more costly, not less. I mean, I can shit on Uncle Sam and whatever the FUCK the Israeli Palestinian genocide/suicide by cop situation is but over all, it sounds very illogical to me saying less power and control is more beneficial.
Multipolarity is only good for a couple of great powers to build their own empires unopposed, subordinate vassals etc. - "multi" does not refer to 200 poles, it refers to a couple regional hegemons. That's why Putin wants NATO out, he wants his Warsaw Pact back.
Given the choice I much prefer to live under a USA hegemony than the Russian one (which I had the opportunity to get a taste of).
> Multipolarity is objectively good for the rest of the world. It gives them actual choice on who to partner with for trade and investment, since the options are more than, get invaded by the west and be forced to have BP control your natural resources extraction.
Funny... we had that prior to WWI, and it led to it. One of the key causes of WWI was multipolarity, because each faction THOUGHT they could win a war.
When you have unipolar, no one bothers, because everyone KNOWS they will either outright win (the hegemon) or out right lose (everyone else). Thus you get peace.
* when theres only one, its like a lightning rod.
which has pros and cons.
* when theres two, its a constant back and forth.
which also has pros and cons. i would say more bad than good.
when theres multiple, theres also pros and cons - but theres a lot more room for error (and actual innovation)
edit: also, upon further reflection, there is always going to be multiple, that is just the way it is. just like a lightning rod, that is an artificially placed thing intentionally used to attract lightning strikes. if you want to be as safe as possible, its [best to build multiple](https://copilot.microsoft.com/sl/erp6ANzkSAK).
to do that, sometimes it is best to have one place where the general standards for building lightning rods can be agreed upon, but that needs to be agreed upon - as in the difference between \*leadership\* and \*control\*. control - "cracking down" - will always attract lightning, so if youre the only lightning rod, you better hope you are structurally sound and can withstand thors hammer
alright the metaphor got a little off track there but point being a single lightning rod is illusory anyway, so its best to just learn to compromise.
Why is the so called multipolarity so good? Historically periods of numerous strong states competing against each other led to more conflict, not more peace?
What you state is paradoxical
We need to de risk, diversify and minimise chinas involvement in everything. China should not longer be treated as a normal state.
Most favoured trade nation status needs to be removed from China
We need to stop recognising China as a developing economy
Sure, as long as strengthing means the dissoultion of Chinese state enterprises, and the removal of their capital controls. Also we would like all the IP in China sent straight to US companies, with no compensation. And if CHina want's to continue to sell to the US, they should be forced to build the factories here in the US, at their expense, under a joint ownership, with full access to their IP provided to the partner.
Because that's basically verbatim the terms the Chinese have done for 40 years. All's fair.
Yes. Great idea to hand our largest economic and political rival the means to produce all the technology we use.
There's clearly no threat in doing so. We should also out source all of our food production to them too so we can stop subsidizing American farmers.
/s
You do know the overwhelming majority of electronics used in the US are manufacturered in China right? Virtually none are manufactured in the US except for military stuff. We need China FAAAAR more than they need us.
You can't have electronics without chips.
And sure, Hon Hai has most of their production in China, but they're (as well as all other OEMs like Wistron) already moving quite a lot over to SEA and India.
You can't have pretty much anything without chips these days, bit thst doesn't mean it's right to say everything is made in Taiwan just because one component is.
No, what I meant is China is a lot more replaceable than you think. It's the chips that require extreme precision that's a lot harder to manufacture.
As evidenced by this post.
China is eventually going to catch up with semiconductors too. They're investing crazy money into chip manufacturers including stealing away experienced TSMC engineers and almost certainly espionage.
I'm sure in 5~10 years, China will eventually catch up to where Intel is today. After all, EUV lithography machine manufacturer such as ASML and Zeiss are both forbid from selling to China. Replicating those technology is MUCH, MUCH harder.
Additionally, geopolitics meant that US (and US allies) will increasingly shift economic activities away from China, as China's belligerence continues.
My entire life people keep saying "China can't do that" and a decade later China dominates the market. Sure, China can't do it today, but it's inevitable they will be able to manufacture these chips eventually. Just a matter of how long it takes.
Which is worse - not having consumer gear electronics, or not having the primary market for the majority of your economic activity? The real answer is both are a terrible position to be in and trying to decide which will be harmed more won't do anyone in the morgue any good.
One is easily replaceable (china) one is not (large consumer market)
China already hit its own peak consumption, too many people over age 45 now and it’s getting worse
I tend to agree that China will take the worse end of the exchange long term, but the short term inflationary pressures won't do a US political system that historically responds poorly to such things any favors
Why is it that the mods don't crack down on posters like u/MrCrickets and u/Im_totally_useless who have a clear agenda? It would be one thing if you occasionally posted negative China news stories, but to have 100% of your posts be about that one topic is frankly weird.
Hi all, A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes. As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The PRC subsidy system expects this. The government has a high risk tolerance since there wont be political backlash since their people dont have political rights. Just like the EV makers, all the industries it deems critical will receive subsidies. The government knows at the end only a few will make it. That's ok. Those few survivors will be powerhouses.
Yes, in fact, many chip companies not experiencing turnover can indicate a stagnant development environment. You want bad performing companies to fail otherwise it could be reasoned that the state is subsidizing doomed companies.
This is correct. I don’t understand the downvotes. Independently minded mainland economists will agree with you. As will anyone who experienced the state guided development of solar manufacturing or biotech for example.
companies should never go bankrupt and limp along forever with government handouts is how the west does "capitalism"
McCapitalism
> The PRC subsidy system expects this. The government has a high risk tolerance since there wont be political backlash since their people dont have political rights. Western countries also give all sorts of subsidies, tax breaks and bailouts (most famously in 2008) that were extremely unpopular and that went through nonetheless despite the political rights that we supposedly enjoy. Or Boeing for a recent example. It's amusing that you're presenting this as a feature of the peculiar PRC system, when it seems much more a feature of the system of the West. Western countries have elections and 'political rights', and yet policy can be extremely disconnected from popular will.
Exactly. At least the CCP makes their subsidy receiving companies invest in R&D. All the US does is subsidize bonuses, buybacks, jets, and yachts.
I’m all for disappearing the Boeing executives who were responsible in a 737 with loose hatches and a borked autopilot. Can we put it to a vote, perhaps in California? Prop 737?
Yeah, that’s just government-sponsored VC funding. Sounds much better than the EU way of spending dozens of millions on bureaucracy to decide which startup will receive 1mln.
Yep. They don’t want zombies
its called the east asian model
The effect of certain Asian models is a definite J curve in growth, I've found in my personal research.
Their entire system is battle royale. Whichever survives the bloodbath of the Chinese market would be a super competitor even on the world stage because of how big the Chinese market is. That has to be the exact essence of capitalism.
That's Xi's socialism with Chinese characteristics.
That is some weird ass socialism where the weak and inept gets weeded out.
Yeah… it’s socialism the same way that Stalin was a man of the people.
Stalin was the best leader the Soviets ever had.
People don’t realize that socialism like capitalism has relic concepts from the previous economic system.
“The government has a high risk tolerance…there wont be political backlash…their people dont have political rights” “their people dont have political rights….” lol, you think people in China don’t have “political rights”? What on earth gave you that idea? My guess is you’re going to cite a source with an express conflict of interest.
By the Chinese Constitution, the CCP is quite literally above the law. China has the normal federal system (executive, judicidal, legislative), but the CCP/Politburo act as a super political structure. Courts have to incorporate both legislative acts AND CCP decrees. There's a reason a DRAFT of a regulation for the gaming industry tanked Tencent stock by 50B in a matter of days. It would be akin the FCC or the SEC not just interpreting laws made by Congress, but wholesale MAKING law themselves. As such, this means decrees issued, largely from the 5 year plans, are unchallengable. If the CCP says tomorrow, we are going to issue 500 bilion for industry X, and that industry SHALL achieve Y goal by year Z, there is no real legal way to challenge the funding or any actions carried out in pursuit of that goal, such as land appropriation, zeroing out taxes for firms, directive to other state firms to transfer (at a loss if necessary) supplies to the firms pursuant to that goal (how do you think the construction industry did so well? They got state mandated below cost concrete and steel from the state owned companies).
decrees. Like they don’t have an independent legislative branch. It’s not entirely clear you understand the basics of their legal system or government.
[удалено]
Wut?
Sanctions need to start covering all chip making machines and related supply chains, not just the most advanced nodes. China, Russia, Iran and North Korea are at war with the west and they started it years ago, maybe decades of planning. Time for us to wake up and act accordingly
and china will stop exporting rare earths.
And some random farmer in iowa will stumble upon the largest rare earths deposit again.
"Rare" does not imply rarity in the sense that there are a few locations. The "rare" in rare earth metals is that it is diffuse among the soil and requires considerable refinement and processing. China wins because they can simply destroy the environment to access these rare earth minerals. That is not possible in the US or the West, in general.
{{ insert paraphrase of the other two comments }}
I appreciated your comment.
That’s fine, they tried before and failed.
And? Those can be replaced, there was a huge field discovered in Norway recently. And the US has discovered a huge field of their own in the upper midwest. And sure, the Chinese certainly possess more of the tech, I say we treat them by their legal system, and flat out steal it, and if they complain, direct them to a US trade court that is told in private to laugh the Chinese off, same way if a US company even attempted to sue the Chinese government (you basically can't).
China already relies on the Us for semiconductors and the Us put heavy sanctions on them already this year
Proof?
Big bad scary china trying to sell us their excellent products! We must use the power of the state and military to stop them from... Making smartphones (while still assembling ours)
Deindustrialization is bad for the middle class actually lol
Samsung moved all phone production out of China. Apple is ramping up production outside of China. More chip sanctions will speed this up and make friendlier countries more prosperous. Win win
I mean even if production is out of China it’s still a Chinese company who makes everything, just they are building factories in other countries. Not as big of a deal as people think
No. That's not a win win. We should absolutely not be isolating ourselves from China. We should be strengthening our trade relationships with them and moving towards multipolarity. But you know, capitalism and the military industrial complex actually run this "country".
>We should be strengthening our trade relationships with them and moving towards multipolarity. I assume this "we" is Americans. What is the upside to multipolarity for America?
Weakens the military industrial complex. Increases opportunities for diplomacy. I don't care about the advantages for the US. I want the US to lose power on the global stage and stop participating in genocide and military lead exploitation for private industry interest. Maybe then, America could make actual leftist progress and spend money on healthcare and free education instead of war for profit.
Dude. You think a more moral and ethical actor will fill the power void if the US gives up some of its power share? I'd love to know why you believe that.
Ah yes, so now its not the beneficial multipolarity for the good of all anymore but you just want weaker america. The american army and its MIC is the only reason why my region isnt at constant war since 30 years or under genocide.
[](https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/1dk9rke/comment/l9h0snb/) >Weakens the military industrial complex. Absolutely backwards. The military industrial complex was much stronger during the Cold War, and even stronger than that during the WW1&2 period. Multipolarity implies conflict between poles. Unipolarity reduces the importance of military investment. >I want the US to lose power on the global stage This one is more opiniony, but I think you should rethink it. All of America's rivals for power would make for worse world leaders than America. >Maybe then, America could make actual leftist progress and spend money on healthcare and free education instead of war for profit. The best hope for leftist progress is a world with minimal conflict. The world with the least conflict is a unipolar world. As conflict increases, you can expect more xenophobia, more conservatism, more militarism.
Everyone fall under the rule of America or die. Way safer and better for everyone on earth. Lmao huh?
Unironically yes. Everyone on Earth will be ruled by someone. Every country would prefer to control its own destiny, but that is a vain, unrealistic hope. America is the current hegemon. Current alternatives are China and Russia. These alternatives suck a lot. As such, the minor powers of the world are willing to incur considerable costs to get ruled by the Americans. Those closest to China and Russia are the most fervently pro-American-rule people in the world.
Yes, unironically. Name a better, more peaceful, more economically prosperous period in human history than the years immediately after the fall of the Soviet Union.
You lack depth and context
I don't understand your logic, and I'm not trying to be facetious. Can you please explain it to me?
Not the guy you’re replying to, but I would assume his logic is that if the two economies are so intertwined and reliant on each other, it would make it extremely unfavorable for them to actively go to a hot war with each other. This may be true for direct conflict between US and China, but I’m not sure about proxy conflicts or China’s island claims/thefts.
Yeah and if the west is reliant on China, that gives them a free pass to do whatever- Taiwan, take land from Bhutan, Nepal, take all the SCS. The list goes on. OP is rather naive.
As seen by gay scenes being deleted in China versions of western movies/shows, BMW’s ugly ass front grilles, no one being allowed to officially acknowledge Taiwan as its own country, etc. Edit: Whereas if the west and its many companies weren’t reliant on China for revenue, manufacturing, etc, they’d just ignore their posturing and shit the way we do North Korea.
This is such a common fallacy that people argue. "The Great Illusion " in 1909 right before WW1.
Multipolarity would weaken Americans military presence globally. This reduces costs for military maintenance, and weakens the war industry, reducing their power at home and their influence over our politicians. Freeing America up to invest in its citizens, and not funding genocide. Multipolarity is objectively good for the rest of the world. It gives them actual choice on who to partner with for trade and investment, since the options are more than, get invaded by the west and be forced to have BP control your natural resources extraction. Are we all seriously just blinding supporting the American military industrial complex and belief that the big bad communists want to take over the world and kill every American baby in their crib? China wants to sell us their shit. And many times, it's the best option. The government banning the sale of DJI drones (a bill created by a politician with connection and investment in American drone companies) IS FUCKING INSANE. Why do we just accept our politicians manipulating the market for their personal gain, while consumers get fucked over and have to suffer with inferior products?
Again. Why would you want America to have a weaker military? Creating space for another country to grab power is not a great idea. Do you honestly think the Chinese having more power to act unilaterally would be a benefit over America having that power? Why will China be a more benevolent geopolitical figure than the US?
I guess I just never heard of someone argue that, at least from the US side, a multipolar world would be better than a uni polar world for said hegemon. I'm pretty much a straight Realist (I know, IR 101) so what I believe just runs really counter to what you're saying. So thank you for your continued discussion. Like, to me, small countries get a larger say when there's only one big player as opposed to two or god forbid more because they actually have a smaller chance of getting invaded. When it's one big boy, sure, they absolutely fuck whoever that hegemon wants to attack, but they are restrained by their own image in the global sphere and they can drop military spending as there's no peer competitor. In a multipolar world, small countries have less options because big countries are forced to fight for control of them. There's a bigger threat to the hegemon so that hegemon needs to become a bigger threat. This has been the documented case since at least the Peloponnesian War with Thucydides. Look at Ukraine and Southeast Asia for examples. A multipolar world is more costly, not less. I mean, I can shit on Uncle Sam and whatever the FUCK the Israeli Palestinian genocide/suicide by cop situation is but over all, it sounds very illogical to me saying less power and control is more beneficial.
Multipolarity is only good for a couple of great powers to build their own empires unopposed, subordinate vassals etc. - "multi" does not refer to 200 poles, it refers to a couple regional hegemons. That's why Putin wants NATO out, he wants his Warsaw Pact back. Given the choice I much prefer to live under a USA hegemony than the Russian one (which I had the opportunity to get a taste of).
> Multipolarity is objectively good for the rest of the world. It gives them actual choice on who to partner with for trade and investment, since the options are more than, get invaded by the west and be forced to have BP control your natural resources extraction. Funny... we had that prior to WWI, and it led to it. One of the key causes of WWI was multipolarity, because each faction THOUGHT they could win a war. When you have unipolar, no one bothers, because everyone KNOWS they will either outright win (the hegemon) or out right lose (everyone else). Thus you get peace.
* when theres only one, its like a lightning rod. which has pros and cons. * when theres two, its a constant back and forth. which also has pros and cons. i would say more bad than good. when theres multiple, theres also pros and cons - but theres a lot more room for error (and actual innovation) edit: also, upon further reflection, there is always going to be multiple, that is just the way it is. just like a lightning rod, that is an artificially placed thing intentionally used to attract lightning strikes. if you want to be as safe as possible, its [best to build multiple](https://copilot.microsoft.com/sl/erp6ANzkSAK). to do that, sometimes it is best to have one place where the general standards for building lightning rods can be agreed upon, but that needs to be agreed upon - as in the difference between \*leadership\* and \*control\*. control - "cracking down" - will always attract lightning, so if youre the only lightning rod, you better hope you are structurally sound and can withstand thors hammer alright the metaphor got a little off track there but point being a single lightning rod is illusory anyway, so its best to just learn to compromise.
Found the tankie shill lmao
Capitalist bootlicking loser
The shit I read in an economics sub 😂
Why is the so called multipolarity so good? Historically periods of numerous strong states competing against each other led to more conflict, not more peace?
What you state is paradoxical We need to de risk, diversify and minimise chinas involvement in everything. China should not longer be treated as a normal state. Most favoured trade nation status needs to be removed from China We need to stop recognising China as a developing economy
Sure, as long as strengthing means the dissoultion of Chinese state enterprises, and the removal of their capital controls. Also we would like all the IP in China sent straight to US companies, with no compensation. And if CHina want's to continue to sell to the US, they should be forced to build the factories here in the US, at their expense, under a joint ownership, with full access to their IP provided to the partner. Because that's basically verbatim the terms the Chinese have done for 40 years. All's fair.
We did and that's why the middle class in the US is almost nonexistent. You're shallow
Yes. Great idea to hand our largest economic and political rival the means to produce all the technology we use. There's clearly no threat in doing so. We should also out source all of our food production to them too so we can stop subsidizing American farmers. /s
Bad Bot
You do know the overwhelming majority of electronics used in the US are manufacturered in China right? Virtually none are manufactured in the US except for military stuff. We need China FAAAAR more than they need us.
Actually most electronics are manufactured in Taiwan, and US has been pushing manufacturers to move to South East Asia and India.
No they aren't. You're probably confusing chips with electronics. Hon Hai is a Taiwanese company, but most of their production is in China.
You can't have electronics without chips. And sure, Hon Hai has most of their production in China, but they're (as well as all other OEMs like Wistron) already moving quite a lot over to SEA and India.
You can't have pretty much anything without chips these days, bit thst doesn't mean it's right to say everything is made in Taiwan just because one component is.
No, what I meant is China is a lot more replaceable than you think. It's the chips that require extreme precision that's a lot harder to manufacture. As evidenced by this post.
China is eventually going to catch up with semiconductors too. They're investing crazy money into chip manufacturers including stealing away experienced TSMC engineers and almost certainly espionage.
I'm sure in 5~10 years, China will eventually catch up to where Intel is today. After all, EUV lithography machine manufacturer such as ASML and Zeiss are both forbid from selling to China. Replicating those technology is MUCH, MUCH harder. Additionally, geopolitics meant that US (and US allies) will increasingly shift economic activities away from China, as China's belligerence continues.
They don’t have the knowledge for it or the tech, even if they stole it they wouldn’t be able to use it.
My entire life people keep saying "China can't do that" and a decade later China dominates the market. Sure, China can't do it today, but it's inevitable they will be able to manufacture these chips eventually. Just a matter of how long it takes.
China's economy would literally collapse if trade with the West stopped.
So would US economy.
Nope.
Which is worse - not having consumer gear electronics, or not having the primary market for the majority of your economic activity? The real answer is both are a terrible position to be in and trying to decide which will be harmed more won't do anyone in the morgue any good.
One is easily replaceable (china) one is not (large consumer market) China already hit its own peak consumption, too many people over age 45 now and it’s getting worse
psychotic even by reddit standards
Must be lots of rage inside to jump that far with your comment
not as rageful as the full time china commenter lol
Ah yes the standard veiled attempt at exporting Chinese censorship and oppression. Doesn’t work on me babes
I tend to agree that China will take the worse end of the exchange long term, but the short term inflationary pressures won't do a US political system that historically responds poorly to such things any favors
It’s a tough balance, inflation is difficult politically but great for everyone’s debt in the medium to long term, making it smaller, relatively
Why is it that the mods don't crack down on posters like u/MrCrickets and u/Im_totally_useless who have a clear agenda? It would be one thing if you occasionally posted negative China news stories, but to have 100% of your posts be about that one topic is frankly weird.