pretty much any projection, from consevative to optimistic implies that China will replace / supplement the United States on a 'several decades+' timeframe, so the aggressive stance taken by the US on a election cycle basis strikes me as unwise. At the end of the century Asia will be the center of the world.
This is one advantage that China always had over the US, politicians in the country are able to think in 40 instead of 4 year intervals. And given that broadened context, poking the bear now simply to delay their capabilities by a few years seems like not such a good idea.
China talks long-term, that's it. The USSR used to talk long-term in their propaganda too, it was a fraud. Watch their actions instead. There is a mountain of evidence that they aren't actually acting long-term. See: their taking on the greatest-fastest pile of debt in world history over the last 10-15 years. They did that to satisfy extremely short-term thinking about social instability. There can be no greater example of short-term thinking for such a system, than to trade extreme debt to fake faster growth for a bit longer, rather than plotting longer term in a financially healthy manner and accepting slower growth.
In terms of being unwise. The US doesn't need foreign countries, including on trade, nearly to the extent that China desperately needs foreign trade. When ranked globally, the US is among the least trade dependent major nations, and that provides an enormous bargaining position. China derives roughly 10x the growth impulse from each dollar of US economic growth, as compared to what the US derives from China.
It is in fact wise for the US to confront China right now, precisely because the US does not need China. There are dozens of countries that net can replace much of the manufacturing that China handles for the US today. China knows this, it's why they've responded very carefully to US tariffs, they recognize there is a vast imbalance.
China is in a precarious position today. They have all the debt of the US, with barely any social safety net (which will make their debt, tax and budget situation far worse), bad demographics, twin deficits (trade and budget), a smaller economy that is extremely rigid and one that is prone to frequent wrecks that must be constantly corrected by the central government with large stimulus programs. The system is clearly not working very well. There's zero proof thus far that Xi's new, highly regressive system will continue on the path of long-term economic expansion and success, now that Deng's system is formally dead. They may very well crash into a wall of stagnation under the new anti-Deng, anti-liberalization approach. It'll take many years yet to find out either way. I happen to not believe the new Xi system is compatible with furthering the success that the old system produced.
So to characterise a system as rigid that has shown the ability to absorb more shocks than just about any other political system on earth and still come out intact and relatively, if not highly functional is probably a huge mistake.
And it's true that all this thought control stuff and the Xi smartphone apps aren't serious long term politics, but they're also not really evidence for the opposite. Politically China has still a lot of old cadre who thinks they can brainwash the population with Soviet era propaganda, but in contrast to the USSR I'm not sure how seriously the leadership itself takes this or merely runs with it because it's the motions you go through in these authoritarian systems.
And concerning the last part about stagnation, how often have we heard this now? China is always five years away from being five years away of succumbing to its politics. It's almost an unfalsifiable belief at this point. You say that it'll take many years to find out, but is there a point in time at which you're open to change your outlook? The issue I have with this view is that it almost feels like the roles have reversed. People in liberal democracies want to exercise foreign pressure and maintain the system solely on belief in the system itself, rather than admit that we're in a phase of competition between political systems (which ironically was supposed to be the arena where liberalism wins on merits)
What I don't get, is what specifically will be achieved by doing this? How is the US coming out "on top"? I get that China has different values than the US, but I don't understand how restricting components fixes that.
The other scenario is that Trade War will lead to real war (possibly by proxy). The situation is quite similar to pre WWI with China being in a role of Imperial Germany with fast growing economy, teritorial demands and unstable ruler. That war could also stimulate the US economy.
These are pretty dim scenarios but surely someone in Washington is thinking in terms or real-politik. In Bejing they do.
I'm just speculating, but it could perhaps hurt the desirability of their advanced exports on the world market, and create space for other countries to fill the void. One of China's current political advantages is that it's the current "workshop of the world," and if that's reduced they may end up being less influential.
It's unlikely to affect the domestic political situation there, but that may be a lost cause for this generation.
That seems plausible, but also pretty speculative and it seems like there could be negative consequences too. For example, if the Chinese market switches over to Chinese chips, a lot more money will be invested in Chinese chips and they will probably develop more quickly. Normally the US complains about China blocking US products, the US blocking US products seems a bit less usual.
The article points out that there a problems with China, and points out that there is a policy available that will hurt US companies and Chinese companies. I feel like I am missing the part though, where this policy fixes the problems with China. I feel like I need to understand that part before I am convinced that this is a good idea.
Those negative consequences presume that the Chinese won't have the goal of switching over to domestic chips if they have access to American chips, but I think that's false. They've shown a strong desire to pursue import substitution and then turn those companies into international competitors. Denying the American supplies forces them to switch before they're ready, rather than when they're fully ready.
It's also not guaranteed that the Chinese investments will bear fruit. For instance, China has been trying to acquire modern jet engine technology for decades and decades, and still hasn't succeeded. IIRC, jet engines and microchips have a major characteristic in common: most of the magic is in the manufacturing techniques and those are difficult to reverse engineer from finished products.
Its all in the Art of the Deal. You should read it.
TLDR: They are negotiating points that Trump is using to advance the US position in the trade talks.
We can say the entire West started it during the Opium Wars, and China is merely trying to get back what it once had.
For all the insane crap happening in the U.S., it has healthiest demography among all (large that is, not counting say Israel) developed countries.
Granted, it's better than in China, yes. But life expectancy is declining in the U.S. And France has a healthy demography and a stable population.