In a way, it's better that this decoupling (which will not be a quick process) happens sooner rather than later, before that reliance can be used as an effective weapon against the US (turning off the industrial goods tap/sanctions could be pretty devastating).
The dragon is awake and it is natural for its competitors for resources to react.
The USA is not going to be #2 in 30 years. And to suggest the USA should sit back and passively accept that is will be is as crazy as suggesting China should stop expanding its economic power base and global influence because the USA doesn't like it.
These two behemoths will vye for power until an equilibrium is reached. If one wins its because the equilibrium was not in their favor, such as the USSR.
I was under the impression that those people were lifted out of poverty due to working higher-wage jobs in manufacturing rather than due to explicit wealth redistribution by the government.
If what I explained above is true, then it's time to rejoice. It means that the problems the middle class suffers from are temporary until every other country has been lifted out of extreme poverty. All we have to do is wait until the race to the bottom is over.
However if what I said is wrong, then it's time to be sad. There is no easy solution and the middle class might never get back on track.
But certainly true that American workers are being squeezed, having to compete against more and poorer workers because of globalization and free trade policies.
How and by what metric? China already has a larger GDP (PPP) than the US. And their economy has approximately doubled every decade for the past 3 decades.
There were worries that Japan would surpass the US and that didn't pan out. But Japan has 1/2 the US population. China has 4x the US population. This is also a big difference vs Russia.
I am sure the US does not want to "accept" a 4x bigger country ever having comparable influence. But does the US really have the power to keep China, another nuclear power, at 1/4 US GDP level forever?
You say accepting this is crazy, but escalating a conflict between two world powers in an attempt to permanently repress one of them seems a bit crazy to me (negotiating for a better trade deal is another matter).
There are plenty of countries that enjoy a high standard of living without being the undisputed #1 economic power. I'm skeptical that the US actually looking out for its own interests necessarily involves a big conflict with China, although I could easily imagine that outcome.
You don't come out and say it, but your implication is that this is not possible.
It is not obvious to me that that is the case.
1. China is a low trust country. There is a deep culture of fraud and deceit. This will be a difficult thing to change, which I believe is a precondition to being a tier 1 super power.
2. People like to extend trends into the indefinite future, but macroeconomics is superstition at best. The stagnation of Japan caught just about everyone by surprise. I think there's at least a 30% chance this happens to China, based on some of the reports I've seen coming about of China related to debt and real estate.
I think there is a good chance for China to reach tier 1 status, but it doesn't seem like a foregone conclusion to me. Given this level of uncertainty, it seems reasonable that some powerful Americans might not want the US to go gentle into that good night.
Is it racism? China is low trust. China cannot innovate. What makes you think so?
HN is not the forum for these types of discussions, there is a moral panic going on though and even the better educated are not immune to it. The same tropes get recycled until things we would never say about most countries are able to be said without supporting facts.
As per the comment guidelines some things just need to be flagged rather than flame-discussed. We went through the same phases with Japan, Korea and plenty other places. It is best to see the funny side of it and also tune in to the other side of the story.
It could even be said that the better educated have it worse. At least the less educated are fed some crappy fake news that are easy enough to see through.
The better educated are convinced they know the truth because they read fluff pieces in "trusted" newspapers and magazines (e.g. NYT, The Economist) promoting the financial and corporate interests du jour.
It's easier to trust this "high end" version of fake news (where the lies are told with nuance, and the pundits have been shown to be worse in predictions than random coin tosses).
This "Western..." thing is something that is used often in Chinese PRC propaganda, to discredit free press and the rule of law as "Western" ideas. Yet, China has no problems following the "Western" idea of communism ;-)
Well, I couldn't care less what China does. Not to mention that their "idea of communism" has little to do with the indeed western ideas of Marx.
As for the "Taiwanese and Hongkongers", those are not the best examples of freedom one could find. One was a dictatorship up until the 90s (under martial law and everything), and the other was under British occupation (with full blown riots against that rule during the 60s and 70s)...
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2013-02/18/content_162307... http://www.ssapchina.com/ssapzx/c_00000009000200010007/
I think most of the growth from the 90s to 2008 was generated by the continuous flow of western companies outsourcing to China, investing in the economy and opening factories. That flow dried in 2008 because anything there was to outsource has been moved already and if anything automation will rather repatriate production. Then to compensate that and the collapse in global trade caused with the financial crisis, China embarked in a massive debt bubble. In less than 10 years the size of Chinese banks balance sheets went from nowhere to become the largest in the world, well over US giant banks. This fueled a real estate bubble. But this debt bubble is coming to an end, and what will fuel the growth for the next 15 years? The past 30 years are not reproducible.
That's a low grade racism. China has issues, but is the #1 global manufacturer, and the biggest global companies (from Apple and BMW to Dell and Armani) rely on it for their production. That takes a lot of trust, not "fraud and deceit".
Sure there's "fraud and deceit" from small-timers, but then again the US cities also used to be full of small time crooks and hustlers in the better part of the 20th century, as people were getting out of poverty. In the case of China it's internal, not foreign immigrants, but the dynamics are the same.
>2. People like to extend trends into the indefinite future, but macroeconomics is superstition at best.
Well, the same argument could be said for the hegemony of the USA. Why would it extend to the "indefinite future" (especially since trends show the opposite)?
This is an often underappreciated point regarding the industrial and innovative ability of Western society. It remains to be seen whether it's a precondition to being the most powerful nation in the world in terms of technological development and industrial capability. (In the same way as the question of democracy/freedom of speech in general being such a precondition).
Or they might be simply diversifying because they've too much? It was not uncommon for Americans back in 80s to have a Holliday home in Europe for same reason.
We never say Apple manufacturing in China implies that Apple do not trust American government?
May be it is time to stop using the word Western, which is a word China likes to use. Both I don't see Japan, South Korea, Australia being in the West.
May be we should start using the world "International".
The original comment did not say that China is distrustful because they are of a different race or that their race makes them inherently distrustful. I think shutting down any argument with "that's racist" is disingenuous. If we go by your logic you can say "that's racist" to any criticism of China.
It can still be racist if its counter-factual and driven by a dismissal of China itself. In fact it can be racist even if the same person accepts e.g. Japan, as Japan and Korea faced the same dismissals in the 60s to 80s (as copiers, second rate quality places, corrupt states, etc) before being accepted.
The fact is that China has been trusted by almost all major global companies for their manufacturing, so China can't be said to be a "low trust country" as a blanket statement.
Of course China can have low trust businessmen or low trust state officials, or they might be losing trust now (with the trade war and co).
But for decades they have had the trust of almost all western companies. Enough trust that they have been doing their manufacturing there (even exclusively there) for 2+ decades.
It’s the low cost of human capital, and now the realization of lost non-Chinese suppliers, that continues to keep China thriving.
One does business in China because it’s the only way (currently) to stay afloat.
And yes, corruption is inevitable in China because of its inconsistent rule of law and inability of dedicated journalists and grassroots movements to expose, uproot, and punish said corruption.
Edit: China is at a crossroads, but whether those in power will step-up to greatness and allow its greatest resource (its people) be more than puppets and slaves remains to be seen.
They also had a democratic process, a lawful system ( bias or not ) in place where many of these issues can be solved diplomatically.
Not the same of China, everything is tangled together. CCP.
Not sure I follow. It's still China making those products, and American companies trust Chinese companies to make it under their (American) standards...
Japan stagnated after reaching approximate parity with the US in GDP/capita. China only has to reach one quarter the productivity of the United States in order to surpass the US in nominal GDP. If China reaches half the productivity of the US, its economy will be twice as large as that of the US. These are relatively low bars.
> Given this level of uncertainty, it seems reasonable that some powerful Americans might not want the US to go gentle into that good night.
I wouldn't call it "reasonable," but I might call it "predictable." A policy of trying to sabotage China's economic development would put the US and China on a definite collision course, and I don't want to see what the world looks like after that. The most concerning aspect of this is the apparent widespread support for this course of action among both Democrats and Republicans. A lot of people don't know what they're careening into.