This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
BlueVeins · 22-25
I don't much like free trade and all, but boycotting all made in China goods would almost certainly hurt human rights more than it would help, having seen the massive reduction in extreme poverty that the PRC's experienced over the past thirty years or so. Also, it's kinda weird to single out the PRC, given that there's no shortage of countries with shitty workers rights standards that we import from. Really, what we should be doing is selecting for the Fair Trade label and similar; that way, companies operating abroad have incentive to offer higher wages and better employee protections and people in developing countries still have an opportunity to provide for their families.
whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M
@BlueVeins I think you overestimate the impact US trade has on China. They have a DOMESTIC market four times the size of the US population..
whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M
@BlueVeins Now look at the hits the supply disruptions are causing and extrapolate forward. US manufacturing will take a bigger hit of its own making while China rebuilds.
whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M
@BlueVeins You will note that deliveries to Chinese manufacturers are getting there on time. They can export completed cars for sale while GM cant complete orders. And thats global. Thats how the game is played. And prices are rising. China can hold inflation by decree. Thats the beauty of central government. '22 is not going to be like '21. But its going to be different, rather than better for Americans. Worse than for many other countries.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@BlueVeins
Now why didn't Europeans use that as an excuse for defending trade with the Confederacy?
I don't much like free trade and all, but boycotting all made in China goods would almost certainly hurt human rights more than it would help, having seen the massive reduction in extreme poverty that the PRC's experienced over the past thirty years or so.
Now why didn't Europeans use that as an excuse for defending trade with the Confederacy?
BlueVeins · 22-25
@whowasthatmaskedman So can the US. 
That's kind of what the FED is for. We're also more than capable of subsidizing industries that are kind of failing and/or loosening regulation, and if that's the issue we're having with the PRC, we're more than capable of placing tariffs on that specific industry until they stop. To my understandinng, that's kinda what Trump was doing with steel dumping.
That's kind of what the FED is for. We're also more than capable of subsidizing industries that are kind of failing and/or loosening regulation, and if that's the issue we're having with the PRC, we're more than capable of placing tariffs on that specific industry until they stop. To my understandinng, that's kinda what Trump was doing with steel dumping.
BlueVeins · 22-25
@beckyromero Probably because it wasn't remotely applicable in that case. For one thing, the backbone of the Confederacy's economy was legalized chattle slavery, a system in which the workers were in no way a beneficiary of the economic activity they're participating in.
But all that ignores the sobering truth, that most of the European powers based their politics on geopolitical strategy at the time. The Confederacy, for all of its existance, was either teetering at the edge of or directly in a hot war with the Union. The Union was much more powerful, and understandably insisted that nobody neither trade with nor recognize the Confederate States. Thus, France and Britain were left with the choice of siding with one or the other, and the consequences of siding with the loser could be losing trade and diplomacy with the former colonies forever. Their tepid support for the Union was never based on humanitarian beliefs, only the desire to continue buying and selling shit to the winner of the war. Russia only supported the Union because it believed the US was a valuable counterbalance against the British Empire.
But even without all that cynical shit, failing to acknowledge that the civil war was a fundamentally different situation because of the whole 'war' part does a gigantic disservice to any and all moral calculus at the time. The Confederacy's existance was under direct threat from the day it formed; sanctioning the shit out of them would weaken their economy, and in turn reduce the probability of them and their shitty economic system surviving. This is untrue of cases like the PRC, which are very likely to actually fall due to outside interventions. All that'll happen to them is that they'll get poorer. And being in a hot war with a morally decent democracy means trading with them will increase their ability to do warfare, which is generally not a good thing.
But all that ignores the sobering truth, that most of the European powers based their politics on geopolitical strategy at the time. The Confederacy, for all of its existance, was either teetering at the edge of or directly in a hot war with the Union. The Union was much more powerful, and understandably insisted that nobody neither trade with nor recognize the Confederate States. Thus, France and Britain were left with the choice of siding with one or the other, and the consequences of siding with the loser could be losing trade and diplomacy with the former colonies forever. Their tepid support for the Union was never based on humanitarian beliefs, only the desire to continue buying and selling shit to the winner of the war. Russia only supported the Union because it believed the US was a valuable counterbalance against the British Empire.
But even without all that cynical shit, failing to acknowledge that the civil war was a fundamentally different situation because of the whole 'war' part does a gigantic disservice to any and all moral calculus at the time. The Confederacy's existance was under direct threat from the day it formed; sanctioning the shit out of them would weaken their economy, and in turn reduce the probability of them and their shitty economic system surviving. This is untrue of cases like the PRC, which are very likely to actually fall due to outside interventions. All that'll happen to them is that they'll get poorer. And being in a hot war with a morally decent democracy means trading with them will increase their ability to do warfare, which is generally not a good thing.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@BlueVeins
Slavery wasn't legal in Europe. But that didn't bother the Europeans.
A number of European states had no trouble profiting by it. About a half million bales of cotton managed to make it thru the Union blockage to Great Britain and other parts of Europe.
But as you said, Europeans "tepid support for the Union was never based on humanitarian beliefs."
Nonetheless, I think it best the Chinese remember how the won their freedom from Japanese butchery and occupation. The United States risked war with Japan - and when war occurred we spent our blood and treasure. All based on humanitarian beliefs - that what Japan was doing in China was wrong.
But PRC school books don't teach that.
the backbone of the Confederacy's economy was legalized chattle slavery
Slavery wasn't legal in Europe. But that didn't bother the Europeans.
A number of European states had no trouble profiting by it. About a half million bales of cotton managed to make it thru the Union blockage to Great Britain and other parts of Europe.
But as you said, Europeans "tepid support for the Union was never based on humanitarian beliefs."
Nonetheless, I think it best the Chinese remember how the won their freedom from Japanese butchery and occupation. The United States risked war with Japan - and when war occurred we spent our blood and treasure. All based on humanitarian beliefs - that what Japan was doing in China was wrong.
But PRC school books don't teach that.
BlueVeins · 22-25
@beckyromero It's a bit naive to imagine that the US embargoed and eventually fought Japan for purely or predominantly humanitarian reasons. Japan and the US had been rivals since the 1890s, when the US acquired various islands in the Pacific that Japan viewed as uncomfortably close to itself. China was also a US ally at the time, and the conquest of China represented a frightening rise to power that great powers must be sketched out by if they want to remain as such. Nevertheless, the US embargo started a chain of events that clearly improved the humanitarian situation in eastern Asia.
In any case, I somewhat doubt that sanctioning the PRC would succeed at persuading the Chinese public to start a nuclear war with their government. I mean, pretty much the best way to encourage unity and even obedience among a people is to rally behind a common enemy; all we'd be doing is becoming that common enemy. The Chinese people aren't stupid, they'd easily see that we're the ones attacking them.
Even if that strategy were effective, the Chinese government wouldn't be vulnerable to it because it's pretty popular as-is. Independent polling data from Harvard reveals that views of the central government have increased from 2003 to 2016, from 3.16 out of 4 to 3.3, with 3 being "fairly satisfied" and 4 being "very satisfied." All it would really do is increase the probability of a hot war between China and the US, since we'd be less reliant on trade from one another.
In any case, I somewhat doubt that sanctioning the PRC would succeed at persuading the Chinese public to start a nuclear war with their government. I mean, pretty much the best way to encourage unity and even obedience among a people is to rally behind a common enemy; all we'd be doing is becoming that common enemy. The Chinese people aren't stupid, they'd easily see that we're the ones attacking them.
Even if that strategy were effective, the Chinese government wouldn't be vulnerable to it because it's pretty popular as-is. Independent polling data from Harvard reveals that views of the central government have increased from 2003 to 2016, from 3.16 out of 4 to 3.3, with 3 being "fairly satisfied" and 4 being "very satisfied." All it would really do is increase the probability of a hot war between China and the US, since we'd be less reliant on trade from one another.
whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M
@BlueVeins You are on the right track with the complexities of the humanitarian situation through the mid twentieth century. Allow me to add a layer. China at that time was under the control of various colonial powers, notably Britain, through trade and commerce and the use of Opium. Similarly the majority of south east Asia was under various colonial flags, from the British, French, Dutch and Portuguese. (The Americans had recently dealt with the Spanish in the Philipines) So to many, Japan was just another colonial power to be tolerated and the fact that they were Asians meant some actually welcomed them. The Dutch in particular had a pretty harsh reputation in dealing with the locals in what is now Indonesia.
But on another angle, I wouldnt be taking too much out of a Chinese rating by the people of their own government. There is a closely monitors "good citizen" rating system that can get you bonuses and access to better housing and schools in return for being a good citizen and being seen to support the society at all levels. Just sayin....
But on another angle, I wouldnt be taking too much out of a Chinese rating by the people of their own government. There is a closely monitors "good citizen" rating system that can get you bonuses and access to better housing and schools in return for being a good citizen and being seen to support the society at all levels. Just sayin....
BlueVeins · 22-25
@whowasthatmaskedman I get the skepticism about polling in general, but we're talking about an anonymous survey from a U.S. organization, and it's worth noting that the social credit system was only implemented nationally as late as 2014 (and there were regional trials dating back to 2009). No polling is perfect, but it's the best we could hope for given the situation. Not that this means a ton, but it's consistant with my interactions with Chinese immigrants up at uni.
whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M
@BlueVeins Quite so.. However, voice of experience, the Chinese Governement does have plants in among those same overseas students who are there to "guide" any students they see deviating from good citizenship and report on others. Also the Chinese government are not above attemting direct influence through research funding to shut down any anti Party activities organised on Campus.
Just dont think they wont pull every lever they can..
Just dont think they wont pull every lever they can..
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@whowasthatmaskedman Britain's opium trade with China was more 19th than 20C; but China was never actually colonised by Britain or anyone else.
China and Japan were always independent, though Japan tried to be a colonial power herself with a disastrous attempt to invade China in the 1930; and of course China has annexed Tibet and is working on greatly expanding her sphere of influence.
Indeed, China is working towards being the world's Number One power, not by imposed direct rule as in the 19C heyday of European empires, but politically and economically. She is presently Number Two, and quite likely to succeed.
China and Japan were always independent, though Japan tried to be a colonial power herself with a disastrous attempt to invade China in the 1930; and of course China has annexed Tibet and is working on greatly expanding her sphere of influence.
Indeed, China is working towards being the world's Number One power, not by imposed direct rule as in the 19C heyday of European empires, but politically and economically. She is presently Number Two, and quite likely to succeed.
whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M
@ArishMell I have been saying exactly this for years. (Not that it isnt obvious) If you go back to the definition of war and "Diplomacy pursued by other means" the phrase Trade War " makes perfect sense. China now has parts of the Wests supply chain by the short and curlies and has a vice like grip on the prosperity of those it buys raw materials from. The next move is to get their currency recognised as the Global trade currency for all goods coming and going from China, which will knjock the foundations out from under the $US. Then its game over. They are already taking control of the UN, one micronation at a time as they default on loans and agree to vote with China and give up fishing and navigation rights
whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M
@ArishMell Its the Achilles heel of Capitalism that chasing lower cost is going to make you vulnerable. (That, and that if you cant see an immediate profit, you have no incentive to do it).
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@whowasthatmaskedman Interesting point that.
I'd not spotted it, because I'd naturally assumed lower cost sometimes at expense of quality is more of products for private not business end-customers, and in that area lower cost tends to mean higher sales.
I suppose the problem comes when excessively low sales price cuts both physical quality and the ability to invest.
I'd not spotted it, because I'd naturally assumed lower cost sometimes at expense of quality is more of products for private not business end-customers, and in that area lower cost tends to mean higher sales.
I suppose the problem comes when excessively low sales price cuts both physical quality and the ability to invest.
whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M
@ArishMell Conventional wisdom has it that labour unit cost (cost of labour) and volume of production can drive costs down without reduced quality. Thats the whole idea behind TQM. So China has the game sown up (for now) A controlled economy allows them to control the cost of living and therefore wages. And designing standardized components that are incorporated into many different brandings (Who cares who made the cmputer chip, flat screen or piston?) mean a single manufacturing plant can supply the world.. As long as you can ship them. A blocked Suez Canal. A global pandemic that disrupts import and export shipping or simply a superpoawer that decides not to supply unless demands are met and a nations economy grinds to a halt. Take a look at whats happening to Russia right now. That could just as easily be China and America in a couple of years.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@whowasthatmaskedman Conventional wisdom that's certainly helped China and some other nations, but there is another aspect there.
The Chinese make vast numbers of integrated-circuits or engine-parts, but they are astute enough to import a lot of the more specialist production machinery, which is very expensive to design and build for a relatively small market.
Even before the present war, Russia was not exactly as wealthy as it seems or might be expected; though it seems to find enough cash for its Armed Services. Well, for the equipment, if apparently not paying the personnel too generously. Its main income is from exporting oil, natural-gas, some metals and agricultural produce, mainly wheat I believe. The minerals will not last for ever, and what will happen then? This is already being addressed by Saudi Arabia, planning now for when its own oil reserves run dry.
There is another possibility and it's one that dwindling resources and rising populations with rising expectations will hasten. This is that countries and some blocs will become much more self-sufficient, even protectionist and insular; with international trade reducing to necessities that cannot be made or grown at home.
'
Even now it's hard to justify a lot of international trade on mere cost. For example, not ever so far from where I live (Southern England), the National Grid is installing a new electrical transmission-line with a new deign of tower ("pylon"). Not the familiar lattice-work of steel angle-section bolted together, but a tall pole with two arms, shaped like a shallow-angled 'Y', of welded steel tube. The design is Dutch or Danish. The manufacturer is in China.... They mean to say they could not find a British steel-fabricator capable of making these things to specification at sensible cost, to compete with making them some 8000 miles away? (I wonder how they arrive: probably by sea but I think that until the present war a lot of freight came to Western Europe from Asia by rail, across Russia.)
'
What this will mean for everyone I would not care to guess with any confidence; nor is it really safe to say who will be the Big Cheese in say, 50 years' time; and in what sort of economies. For example, in all the headlong dash to avoid using petroleum-based fuels, no-one stops to mention what else that dwindling mineral gives us... Such as the raw materials for the plastics in all those Chinese-made integrated-circuits and flat-screen TVs.
I wonder what my great- nieces' and nephews' world will be like when they reach retiring age. Somehow I think our own or maybe our children's generation will have seen the best of times - or more accurately, the "least-worst" of times.
The Chinese make vast numbers of integrated-circuits or engine-parts, but they are astute enough to import a lot of the more specialist production machinery, which is very expensive to design and build for a relatively small market.
Even before the present war, Russia was not exactly as wealthy as it seems or might be expected; though it seems to find enough cash for its Armed Services. Well, for the equipment, if apparently not paying the personnel too generously. Its main income is from exporting oil, natural-gas, some metals and agricultural produce, mainly wheat I believe. The minerals will not last for ever, and what will happen then? This is already being addressed by Saudi Arabia, planning now for when its own oil reserves run dry.
There is another possibility and it's one that dwindling resources and rising populations with rising expectations will hasten. This is that countries and some blocs will become much more self-sufficient, even protectionist and insular; with international trade reducing to necessities that cannot be made or grown at home.
'
Even now it's hard to justify a lot of international trade on mere cost. For example, not ever so far from where I live (Southern England), the National Grid is installing a new electrical transmission-line with a new deign of tower ("pylon"). Not the familiar lattice-work of steel angle-section bolted together, but a tall pole with two arms, shaped like a shallow-angled 'Y', of welded steel tube. The design is Dutch or Danish. The manufacturer is in China.... They mean to say they could not find a British steel-fabricator capable of making these things to specification at sensible cost, to compete with making them some 8000 miles away? (I wonder how they arrive: probably by sea but I think that until the present war a lot of freight came to Western Europe from Asia by rail, across Russia.)
'
What this will mean for everyone I would not care to guess with any confidence; nor is it really safe to say who will be the Big Cheese in say, 50 years' time; and in what sort of economies. For example, in all the headlong dash to avoid using petroleum-based fuels, no-one stops to mention what else that dwindling mineral gives us... Such as the raw materials for the plastics in all those Chinese-made integrated-circuits and flat-screen TVs.
I wonder what my great- nieces' and nephews' world will be like when they reach retiring age. Somehow I think our own or maybe our children's generation will have seen the best of times - or more accurately, the "least-worst" of times.
whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M
@ArishMell I share many of your concerns and you have looked at the future way longer than most governments are doing. Those who are beholding to Capital like America and Britain (and Russia right now) look only as far as the next balance sheet. While the more Socially minded governments look not much further than the next election cycle. China alone still has a long term view and it is starting to bog down with its own financial issues.. It will be interesting to see if they crack down on the money markets internally.
You touched on a shipping distance issue briefly I can clarify. The cost of shipping by sea per tonne or cubic is almost nothing compared to the cost of transshipping on and off or in and out. So bunging something massive and awkward to handle on a ship in Shanghai and sailing it via Suez to Liverpool may well be no more expensive than roading it down from Glasgow, as ludicrous as that sounds. I share yourconcern of the world my grandchildren will grow into.. While I dont believe they will face the Zombie Apocolyse, I am doing my part to see they have the practical research and financial skills to deal with the world they are likely to face. I cant save the world. But I can give them a chance..
One thing is certain.. Change will never be finished with us.. So stay on the board ahead of the wave.
You touched on a shipping distance issue briefly I can clarify. The cost of shipping by sea per tonne or cubic is almost nothing compared to the cost of transshipping on and off or in and out. So bunging something massive and awkward to handle on a ship in Shanghai and sailing it via Suez to Liverpool may well be no more expensive than roading it down from Glasgow, as ludicrous as that sounds. I share yourconcern of the world my grandchildren will grow into.. While I dont believe they will face the Zombie Apocolyse, I am doing my part to see they have the practical research and financial skills to deal with the world they are likely to face. I cant save the world. But I can give them a chance..
One thing is certain.. Change will never be finished with us.. So stay on the board ahead of the wave.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@whowasthatmaskedman Thank you for explaining how the transport costs work.
By the scale of things those towers are not very heavy, but fairly bulky, especially if moved with the arms fitted. (I don't know if they are.) Even so they can probably be transported by ship carrying cargoes other than containers.
Self-perpetuating systems like those of the Communist and hard-line theocratic nations have a big strategic advantage of having no elections. Well, they do but only for personalities of the same party; with any opposition sidelined or silenced into a minority.
A lot of China's financial problems seem connected to property speculation in their own country: too much money flowing in building too many properties of one sort or another. Any rapid expansion in any trade will reach a peak then decline to steadier progress though, because it has gone as far as it can for the time being. So I think China will recover fairly well, without much long-term damage.
I am not expecting an apocalypse either, but I think the overall standards of living and choices available to everyone now, will diminish over time.
The most worrying factor is the apparent lack of any effort to address what will happen without the minerals we rely on, especially petroleum. The desire to replace hydrocarbon fuels with electricity generated by other means, takes so much attention that those who should be looking beyond that, do not do so.
I suspect a lot of politicians and campaigners are simply and genuinely far more ignorant of anything technical than they like to think; and will not take the trouble to learn.
Oh yes - I agree about change! It's just that the rate of change is accelerating so much that it raises questions of humanity's coming ability to cope with it.
By the scale of things those towers are not very heavy, but fairly bulky, especially if moved with the arms fitted. (I don't know if they are.) Even so they can probably be transported by ship carrying cargoes other than containers.
Self-perpetuating systems like those of the Communist and hard-line theocratic nations have a big strategic advantage of having no elections. Well, they do but only for personalities of the same party; with any opposition sidelined or silenced into a minority.
A lot of China's financial problems seem connected to property speculation in their own country: too much money flowing in building too many properties of one sort or another. Any rapid expansion in any trade will reach a peak then decline to steadier progress though, because it has gone as far as it can for the time being. So I think China will recover fairly well, without much long-term damage.
I am not expecting an apocalypse either, but I think the overall standards of living and choices available to everyone now, will diminish over time.
The most worrying factor is the apparent lack of any effort to address what will happen without the minerals we rely on, especially petroleum. The desire to replace hydrocarbon fuels with electricity generated by other means, takes so much attention that those who should be looking beyond that, do not do so.
I suspect a lot of politicians and campaigners are simply and genuinely far more ignorant of anything technical than they like to think; and will not take the trouble to learn.
Oh yes - I agree about change! It's just that the rate of change is accelerating so much that it raises questions of humanity's coming ability to cope with it.