Hacker News Reader

Comment by 0x426577617265 | Hacker News Reader

I'm not sure how you could come to that conclusion based on my questions. China's place on the world stage is largely dependent on having customers. If there is no where for them to sell their manufactured goods, then they are not in a position of power.

View on HN

Triggers for war can become complex, and individual blame may be hard to find.

Prior to the First World War there was a view that economical interests would prevent war as well. http://blogs.reuters.com/anatole-kaletsky/2014/06/27/world-w...

Selling goods does not rely solely on competitive prices. It may also reflect the lack of alternative vendors, or the negative repercussions of defying political pressure -- as eastern European countries who rely on Russia for gas and oil to heat their houses have discovered, and near neighbors to China whos's fishing vessels now routinely cross into their waters have discovered.

Often the ability to sell is motivated by more than just economics.

You are making a common mistake of assuming rational behavior of a nation when it is controlled by consolidated power of one person. Their agenda may be driven by grandeur, or miscalculated attempt to eschew local optimum for global, or personal phobias and aspirations.

China could discourage export of components and tools while encouraging export of consumer products. The profit margins are better that way, too.

Are you suggesting that if trade with the US stops due to a US-China dispute or war there is literally nobody else in the entire world to trade with?

Pretty much that’s the case. US is #1 buyer.

US accounts for 16% of Chinese exports. 84% is the rest of the world.

So while it's the biggest trade partner, it's not the end all and be all. It's about as important as what the UK was to Ireland before Brexit. Stopping trade isn't helpful, but it's not a showstopper either.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com