Unless that is an absolute certainty then and this is a game of high stakes chicken, then I would say the USA has more to lose.
While China has certainly developed in the last couple decades they are still relatively used to living with less. On the other hand, Ameicans lose their minds when Facebook goes down for an hour.
That is, there would be bedlam in the USA. China much less so.
China has zombie enterprises, their financial statements are lies, and cities built by bureaucratic maneuvering over market need.
I will always bet on the American private sector over the government-run towers of lies.
That's what's called entrepreneurship. People will get rich making these products that are in sudden demand.
American entrepreneurship doesn't mean all the manufacturing would take place in America. Entrepreneurial people are already moving to build more manufacturing in other countries where labor is less expensive and more plentiful than America. I don't think anyone was arguing that America would manufacture everything they currently import from China.
Can't those other countries start behaving like China? Sure, but doubtful it would go anywhere.
The cost to the USA would make the recent debt crisis look like a picnic.
If China decides it doesn't want to trade with the US, there are plenty of places that will.
And honestly, China had already reached the limit of an export-based economy. Growing your national economy on labor arbitrage only works up to a certain level of per capita wealth.
These can and do change, with a single city council meeting. There's nothing impregnable about existing zoning. As usual, the dollar dictates the rules (having been party to 2! eminent domain proceedings in Southern California).
People really seem to believe this, but it always takes them to wrong conclusions here. For instance, everyone thinks California esp. SF is expensive because of "rich developers" but it's not. It's expensive because armies of retired people come to city council meetings and shut down any development because it'll hurt their 60s nostalgia.
Now, those people are acting to raise their own property values, but that's not why they're doing it. They genuinely just hate people taking their parking spots and think cell phone towers will give them cancer.
> It's expensive because armies of retired people come to city council meetings and shut down any development because it'll hurt their 60s nostalgia.
Maybe in some areas, but in Southern California this is fantasy.
(California) Brea's mall expansion forced eminent domain on founding neighborhoods for commercial development. That never came and was sold back to new developers for gentrification. I had a property that I was paid well for, but I did not want to sell. So I bought into Santa Ana.
In 2009 The Irvine Company put out magazine that detailed the commercial expansion to the adjacent 2525 N. Main Street and eventually the Park Santiago neighborhood. That has been in progress for 2 years, after the necessary city council members were termed out of course. The NIMBYs there are of the aforementioned demographic, alongside their descendants. It's as ineffective. I have pre-emptively sold, but you can still attend the futile meetings if you like (https://park-santiago.com/)
The US can always find other countries that manufacture things for cheap. China can't find other customers. The domestic demand isn't remotely high enough to propel their mercantilist economy, ironically due to the fact that the currency manipulation of the yuan has suppressed the wealth of Chinese citizens by devaluing their savings.
The idea that Americans are too weak and whiny to tolerate inconveniences can be refuted by every natural disaster here. People band together, and grin and bear it. Just like every other nation.
How a nation where most of the older generation have only 1 child to support them will fare with an economic crash is uncertain, because the one-child policy was an experiment that's never been attempted before. I think it certainly boosted wealth, but I suspect it created a society that is less resilient.
On the other hand, USA cannot import enough copper, aluminium and iron... (It's mined in China and Chinese controlled territories...) And create and staff factories out of thin air.
In iron: Australia, Brazil (half of former), China (similar to Brazil).
In aluminium: China, Russia (similar to China), Canada (tenth of former).
So except for aluminium, this would be very problematic but not insurmountable. I bet Russians won't sell their aluminium to US without many strings attached.
Iron is incredibly abundant in the USA, and regarding copper, see here:
https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-much-copper-has-been-found-wor...
"Of the identified copper that has yet to be taken out of the ground, about 65% is found in just five countries on Earth -- Chile, Australia, Peru, Mexico, and the United States. "
Sure, it would mean lost economical potential for China, but by no means would it leave China with no place to send its manufactured goods.
Nothing is ever certain and that's not how people make decisions. What are you waiting for Chinese to use manipulated currency to buy local factories all over the world? It's already nearly too late.
That's exactly my point. I was pointing out that unless the previous comment was absolutely true (i.e., China would be wrecked and the USA would not be) then even if both fare badly the USA would __relatively__ be hurt more.