The United States Will Miss China’s Money
foreignpolicy.com
foreignpolicy.com
EDIT: downvotes, really? I saw this firsthand in college, and much ink has been spilled on the matter in the press. It hurts not only the students who cheat, but students from China who don't cheat but get tarnished by the stereotype.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/foreign-students-seen-cheating-...
The united states is a republic whos purpose (in contrast) is "protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. "
As for externally the US does not have a track recorded of democracy promotion. My primary source is of course Noam chomsky but you can find research on this pretty much everywhere.
"While the U.S. claims to have a tradition of “promoting democracy” in Latin America, justification for U.S. intervention has been questionable and inconsistent. U.S. support for Latin American regimes has coincided with favorable economic policies rather than with the strength of democracy within a country"
https://commons.emich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1147&c...
EDIT: clarification.
It's true that James Madison was deeply concerned with a tyranny of the majority supplanting core constitutional rights, a flaw in democracy first identified by Aristotle.
> In a letter to Thomas Jefferson in October 1788 James Madison expresses lukewarm support for the idea of a bill of rights since “repeated violations of these parchment barriers have been committed by overbearing majorities in every State.”
> [...]
> He continues to believe that the real threat to liberty will come from “the majority of the Community” and not from “acts of Government”.
To say that the United State's purpose is to protect the minority is way off base. After all, the country was born as an opposition to the idea of people not being represented by its government and instead at the behest of a very small minority of royalty and aristocrats.
If you just wanted to post a Chomsky interview video, I of course have no issue with that.
Maybe "property speculators will miss China's money."
Foreign investment in our property drives up prices by increasing demand. If you forego the foreign investment so home prices are lower, but accept higher prices on durable goods, you'd come out ahead. Housing is the #1 expense for nearly all family budgets.
The Chinese had invested in US real-estate in order to move their cash to a "safer" jurisdiction, and China had bought US companies in order to acquire expertise, often to be transferred back to China.
Neither afford much leverage for the US. Real-estate is largely individuals, and companies are better off not drained of their IP.
I don't know about the quality of Chinese tourists to the US, but if it's as elsewhere, this is also not too much of a loss.
Is it preemptive? I've been hearing about their intellectual property theft issues for over 15 years.