| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17748
Location: Berkeley, California
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2020 10:24 am Post subject: China |
 |
|
Techno refuses to provide any reasoning for supporting Trump’s ineffective, chaotic, and corrupt approach to trade with China. Matty is satisfied with a few racist terms from the bigot in chief. If this is what “winning” looks like, I don’t want any more.
Data on U.S. energy exports for the month of May shows that China has so far only purchased a fraction ($2 billion) of what was promised in this year's trade deal, which included a 2020 target of around $25 billion in oil, natural gas, refined petroleum products and coal. China has kept better pace on its agreed-upon agricultural and manufactured goods purchases, a discrepancy that irks the energy industry, which is putting pressure on the U.S. Trade Representative to push China to reach its goal amid a pandemic-induced collapse in energy demand and prices. (The Wall Street Journal) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2020 12:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
China is on it's knees so praying, wishing, and hoping that their best American friend and defender gets elected, old uncle Joe, with his son by his side.
Choose your country. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17748
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2020 12:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nw30 wrote: | China is on it's knees so praying, wishing, and hoping that their best American friend and defender gets elected, old uncle Joe, with his son by his side.
Choose your country. |
Beyond denial, all the way to dementia. But as usual, no coherent argument. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2020 1:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Trying to equate me with uncle Joe?
As usual, when you have nothing, go low.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17748
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2020 1:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nw30 wrote: | Trying to equate me with uncle Joe?
As usual, when you have nothing, go low. |
Let's be clear on substance.
1. Trump is a con man who manufactured many of his failed businesses--like ties and MAGA hats in China. He secured a special consideration for Ivanka so she could have special access in China.
2. His tariffs have hammered many sectors in the US economy either because of unintended (not understood) consequences, or the Chinese response. It has particularly hammered the agricultural sector in the US.
3. He was willing to throw all of his Chinese efforts under the bus if Xi would just buy more soybeans and help his relection.
4. We could talk about the Chinese military buildup in the Eastern Pacific and China Sea, but I don't think you want to talk about it and Trump has done nothing about it.
5. As I posted above, China has not even been complying with the weak "deal" that Trump negotiated. More like capitulated. Worst negotiator ever. But if you don't pay attention to anything except Fox news and the White House web site, you wouldn't know that.
Hardly nothing. But I understand your desperation to divert attention to another shiny object. How Trumpian. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
boggsman1
Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 9120
Location: at a computer
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2020 1:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nw30 wrote: | China is on it's knees so praying, wishing, and hoping that their best American friend and defender gets elected, old uncle Joe, with his son by his side.
Choose your country. |
Just not true, at least not true for the reasons you think. If you do a little homework you'll learn that Senate Democrats have been even more anti-China than Trump. The main difference being the rampant use of tariffs, a blunt instrument with a terrible track record. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17748
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 02, 2020 12:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A thoughtful article.
| Quote: | Opinion by Dan Coats
July 28, 2020 at 11:53 a.m. PDT
Dan Coats, a former U.S. senator from Indiana, served as director of national intelligence from 2017 to 2019. He is a senior adviser to King & Spalding LLP.
China dominates current discussions of foreign policy, primarily because it poses the greatest challenges to our national interests. But China also dominates the discussion because the covid-19 pandemic emerged there, a fact that has become a major theme in the President Trump’s campaign for reelection. The trade relationship seems to be deteriorating along with the political relationship — which the Chinese foreign minister has described as worse than at any point since we established diplomatic relations in 1979.
All this has many observers — even in the White House — speaking of a new “Cold War” between the United States and China. Some even argue that this is desirable, presumably with the belief that our side will naturally emerge victorious.
Yet the phrase is a misleading one. It assumes that the terms of the old Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States, which we fought and won, are relevant, and that the tools used successfully then could be used again now.
This conceptual error ignores the many differences between then and now. It is worth recalling that the Soviet Union was not our major trading partner, was not a major holder of our debt and was not tightly interconnected in the supply chains critical to our (and the world’s) economy.
The Cold War was fought and won pretty much exclusively on military and cultural terms. The economic side was relevant only because the Soviets' doomed model inhibited any real competition. We were neither competitors nor partners in the economic space. A new Cold War between the United States and China would be something else entirely. It is difficult to see how it could be fought effectively, not to mention successfully.
This is by no means to question the need to respond to increasingly aggressive behavior by China. But the U.S. response must be coherent, disciplined and sophisticated. It must balance capabilities and objectives. Reverting to a Cold War mentality will drive us toward belligerent posturing that has little or no chance of changing Chinese behavior and could, on the contrary, provoke overreactions and dangerous miscalculations on both sides.
Above all, we must create a deliberate strategy that is aimed at managing this great-power conflict rather than vanquishing a foe. This is very hard work, requiring patience, conviction and broad political support. It also requires the full participation of our allies, both in the region and elsewhere. We must undertake these efforts with the imperative of preventing a downward spiral toward armed conflict.
Too often, U.S. policy toward China seems to be motivated by the urge to score points for short-term political benefit. Yet the Chinese are clearly pursuing their foreign policy goals according to a carefully calculated long-term strategy.
That Chinese long game was defined first by Xi Jinping’s successful internal campaign to secure the regime’s survival, which has now positioned him at the head of an explicitly totalitarian state. Beijing’s long-term strategy also includes an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda, aimed first at shifting the center of the world economy to Eurasia through the Belt and Road Initiative.
At the same time, China is pursuing increasingly aggressive territorial ambitions, including the clear intention to absorb Taiwan into the People’s Republic. Our decades-long coherent management of this issue is increasingly challenged.
China’s strategy also aims to encircle the West technologically, dominating all the advanced systems of data collection and manipulation, including artificial intelligence, robotics, aerospace and quantum computing, always taking into account potential military applications. China has recognized, far earlier and far more clearly than any of the rest of us, that technology is the determining factor in the decisive battle of this moment in history. Beijing is working hard to create an overwhelming Chinese advantage in this battle. We must win this conflict with coherent strategies and, crucially, by cultivating the support of allies.
In response to these and other challenges, the rest of the world, hopefully led once again by the United States, must respond with unity and long-range vision. Nearly spontaneous and seemingly unconnected irritations such as closing a consulate, imposing sanctions on a few officials, tweaking tariffs or sanctioning individual companies merely provoke countermeasures that will inhibit real management of this immense and complicated problem.
Most importantly, policies by the United States and our allies must be aimed at expanding the diplomatic and political space to work these issues creatively and productively. This will take time. And it will also require the rebuilding of alliance cohesion and multilateral institutions capable of responding to China’s long-term strategic vision with policies of comparable coherence and strength. As we know from the past, only the United States can forge those tools. Our allies and other like-minded nations are beginning to recognize the threats China poses to our common future. They will become increasingly receptive to enlightened leadership from the United States. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
