It's unsustainable. Trump's broader trade policy is protectionist. But the reason his China policy finds firmer footing than e.g. his Mexico tariffs come from China's abuse of several good-faith measures over the past 30 years (e.g. early accession to the WTO). It was plausible to assume the next leader would be another Deng. But when Xi ensconced himself as a "leader for life" [1], the timing calculus changed.
How so? It wasn't fake money being passed around, there was real production and real demand for trade with China.
> But when Xi ensconced himself as a "leader for life" [1], the timing calculus changed.
Xi is messed up for a lot of reasons, but this isn't really one of them.
It's unsustainable. Trump's broader trade policy is protectionist.
The US has become overly reliant on China, add on their Belt and Road Initiative, and we should be taking a more aggressive stance. Trade wont last forever with us and we will not have any industrial infrastructure left. this is trying to protect ourselves.
I find it funny half the US wants higher minimum wages and better standards of living here, but complain when prices go up for cheap stuff from China being made by near slave labor in oppressed conditions. I guess out of sight, out of mind.
Photographic film was making real money in the 1980s. Doesn't mean it was a sustainable business.
Sometimes, short-term tactical pain is necessary for strategic gain.
> Xi is messed up for a lot of reasons, but this isn't really one of them
Dictatorships, like it or not, are common in our world. So I agree, it's tough to objectively call it messed up. There are, however, patterns in dictatorships' behaviors. Common incentive structures priorities their mortal leader's interests over the immortal country's.
Before China was a dictatorship, it didn't make sense to treat it like one. One's strategy, however, must adapt when the board changes.