If we lost a trade war, how long would it take us to find out? The vitality and flexibility of our financial system has obscured the degree to which we are living in the aftermath of a Chinese trade war victory—one in which the PRC not merely succeeded in subjecting the developed countries to trade…
Yet another article written by a western chauvinist who does some correct analysis of Chinese strength vs America, dances up to correct analysis of America’s weakness, but fails to articulate a correct prescription for America because of a mix of racism and ideological blinders. The following is the most correct excerpt:
It is hard to look at Wall Street trends over the past thirty years without drawing the perverse conclusion that the most effective use of capital, in Wall Street’s eyes, is to pour it into financial assets or the valuations of software companies.
For over thirty years, the PRC has consistently taken the other side of this bet. The PRC evidently believes that hard assets and manufacturing capabilities are good to own, not only for their immediate economic returns but because they bring many valuable intangibles and synergies with them: a highly skilled industrial workforce, faster prototyping cycles, and mastery of supply chains. Thirty years on, can anyone really argue that the PRC bet wrong?
Edit: also note that the negative externalities/antisynergies associated with financial capitalism/deindustrialization are not mentioned - increasing wealth inequality, erosion of democracy, increasing cost of living
Like look at this
Like many Asian countries after the Second World War, we need to discipline our capital and business institutions so that we do not sleepwalk into landlordism, crony capitalism, or disaster.
A little late for that, but sure let’s see what the author says about disciplining capital and business. Here’s the solution:
The PRC’s internal discourse makes it painfully clear to any serious American observer that peace with China can only be sustained if we stabilize our trade and restore our strength. Any incoming administration must therefore be ready to implement a reindustrialization plan that goes far beyond ad hoc subsidies to address the larger question of why we lost industrial capacity in the first place. This plan should use tariffs and waivers as precision tools for strategic products and industries, but it must also address larger questions of tax, accounting, and finance rules that have contributed to an anti-industry investment environment. Finally, this plan must be implemented with the will to reallocate federal spending to promote world peace through American strength.
What a bunch of empty, handwaving bullshit. This is what happens when an author can correctly identify the need to “discipline capital” but has absolutely no idea what that means, no willpower to do it, and is too chauvinist to learn because it would mean learning about and applying Marxism.
I think you’ve nailed it, serious analysts in the west have no choice but to acknowledge that Chinese approach is outpacing the west, but they simply can’t bring themselves to accept that this stems from fundamental systemic difference. That’s just a bridge too far.
In all of the articles like this, there’s a just barely unspoken but rock solid premise that the industrial policy approach of the West should be better than the Chinese as some natural law. There’s a real reluctance to engage with non-racist thinking.
Thanks for this. Honestly I probably won’t read this article - even if I should - but I think your write-up does a better job of breaking down the contradictions in the narrative than I would have. Hopefully it will help me look for these same problems in future!
I don’t disagree. If the alternative is playing candy crush or something then yeah maybe worth reading, but there are better ways to spend your time. I was getting pretty mad by the time I finished it.
Yet another article written by a western chauvinist who does some correct analysis of Chinese strength vs America, dances up to correct analysis of America’s weakness, but fails to articulate a correct prescription for America because of a mix of racism and ideological blinders. The following is the most correct excerpt:
Edit: also note that the negative externalities/antisynergies associated with financial capitalism/deindustrialization are not mentioned - increasing wealth inequality, erosion of democracy, increasing cost of living
Like look at this
A little late for that, but sure let’s see what the author says about disciplining capital and business. Here’s the solution:
What a bunch of empty, handwaving bullshit. This is what happens when an author can correctly identify the need to “discipline capital” but has absolutely no idea what that means, no willpower to do it, and is too chauvinist to learn because it would mean learning about and applying Marxism.
I think you’ve nailed it, serious analysts in the west have no choice but to acknowledge that Chinese approach is outpacing the west, but they simply can’t bring themselves to accept that this stems from fundamental systemic difference. That’s just a bridge too far.
In all of the articles like this, there’s a just barely unspoken but rock solid premise that the industrial policy approach of the West should be better than the Chinese as some natural law. There’s a real reluctance to engage with non-racist thinking.
indeed
Thanks for this. Honestly I probably won’t read this article - even if I should - but I think your write-up does a better job of breaking down the contradictions in the narrative than I would have. Hopefully it will help me look for these same problems in future!
I don’t disagree. If the alternative is playing candy crush or something then yeah maybe worth reading, but there are better ways to spend your time. I was getting pretty mad by the time I finished it.
Liberals are wholly incapable of recognizing flaws in the system they have built and the ideology that shapes it.