If trade stops (read, if the US trade policy starts giving a shit about its working class, trade is never going to 'stop'), it's certainly bad for Jack Ma.
So I would take what he says with a grain of salt.
So I would take what he says with a grain of salt.
Lol, did you even read the article? He used it during your typical anodyne corporate speech at some event in Australia. This sentiment is as old as trade itself - "If goods don't cross borders, armies do." Ma was speaking to the unifying power of globalization and trade, not some ultimatum he was giving the Trump administration.
[1]http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/29/us-china-war-increasingly-a-r...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/02/steve-bannon...
if it comes to real armed conflict, everybody lost, except perhaps a few elite types.
Worse, Trump supporters have followed nothing but a narrative of appeasement for Russia. Its amusing to see their hypocrisy with China. The bias here is obvious.
> giving a shit about its working class
The idea that the Trump administration is fighting for the middle class is asinine. From repealing Frank-Dodd, to putting in Goldman Sachs employees into cabinet positions, putting in billionaires into cabinet positions, removing regulations that protect workers, raising mortgages on FHA loans, etc its obvious that the middle class worker can only lose under Trump.
Can you explain what you mean by long tail in these circumstances? I started taking a course on stats and understand generally what a long tail is, but I can't parse what or how you're applying the concept here.
This is not as it appears. The 'peace' has come at a tremendous economic and social cost to the United States, and to the people of China. That Ma frames the alternative as war demonstrates how dire the situation must be in China, that stimulating domestic demand and rebalancing their economy is no longer a viable option. The long tail was a fog hiding a crisis.