Are we heading for war ?

[studiot]

Can we avoid war?

"So asking if the US and China can avoid Thucydides's trap is no mere academic question"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-47613416

[Ten oz]

The U.S. needs goods produced in China. Without them consumer prices would be several times higher and our own production would be stifled. China needs the U.S. purchasing their goods for similar reasons. Without the U.S. China's production would collapse, wages would fall, and etc. 

War between China and the U.S. wouldn't merely create recessions in each nation's economy it would create long depression which would fundamentally change how each economy operates. Technology sector in particular would possibly be set back decades. 

In previous eras war was often a means of economic growth. Nations were able to security resources, labor, land, or the needed leverage to influence others was won via war. It is hard for me to imagine a way war between the U.S. and China could improve either's position above the current quid que pro in place. Both sides can only lose. 

Between the U.S. and China the total population is 1.8 billion people. The U.S. is the wealthiest nation the world has ever seen and China the fastest developing the world has ever seen. Each controls armament capable of literally rendering the whole planet uninhabitable (to Humans). The situation is unique and has no historical comparison in my opinion. 

I suspect there will be increased tension in the coming decades. Power is seldom yielded quietly and China does threaten the the position of global power and influence the U.S. has held since the end WW2. I suppose there may be racial tension as well. The modern world hasn't dealt with a non-European global super power. I think outside of terrorism most clashes will be cyber and economic based where the nation chip at each other's edges careful not to go further than able without violence. 

That is how I see the next 15-20yrs anyway. 

[studiot]

39 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

In previous eras war was often a means of economic growth. Nations were able to security resources, labor, land, or the needed leverage to influence others was won via war. It is hard for me to imagine a way war between the U.S. and China could improve either's position above the current quid que pro in place

When was that golden era?

[Intrigued]

40 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

War between China and the U.S. wouldn't merely create recessions in each nation's economy it would create long depression which would fundamentally change how each economy operates. Technology sector in particular would possibly be set back decades.

I am no history expert, but nations do not appear to have a great track record for choosing wars that would be to their benefit. In WWII Germany's war aims failed completely, Britain accelerated the process that lost her an Empire and Russia, while it may have gained territory lost 20 million people. Counter examples can doubtless be found, but if you are implying, as you seem to be, that governments (nearly) always make wholly rational decisions in regard to war then the facts seem to be against your assertion.

[zapatos]

40 minutes ago, studiot said:

When was that golden era?

In the days of Imperialism certainly. I believe England was much involved in that era.

The Middle Ages of course. Again, England periodically did quite well economically waging war on the Continent.

And any time during the rise and fall of the Roman Empire.

Edited March 25, 2019 by zapatos

[Ten oz]

38 minutes ago, studiot said:

When was that golden era?

Most eras. It is essentially how the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, Chile, and etc, etc came to exist for example. 

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

In the days of Imperialism certainly. I believe England was much involved in that era.

The Middle Ages of course. Again, England periodically did quite well economically waging war on the Continent.

Right but not merely England of course. Most people in Japan trace their ancestry to Korea. The native population, Ainu, was forcibly displaced. 

[MigL]

As Ten oz has rightfully stated, China is the world's largest producer, and the US is the world's largest consumer.
You'd have to be pretty stupid to destroy this symbiotic relationship.

Also the US owes China trillions of dollars.
In case of war, this would all be lost.

I do see China 'pushing' her neighbors ( Japan, S Korea, Taiwan, etc ) until the US steps in, then backing off for the previously mentioned reasons.
China's biggest problem is that, although they have a flourishing economy and many billionaires, they also have over a billion people living in, what we would call, abject poverty. One of these days, those billion people are going to demand their share of the economic pie, and, even if they manage to avoid a revolution, they are going to take the whole world's economy down with them.

[studiot]

3 hours ago, Ten oz said:

 

In previous eras war was often a means of economic growth. Nations were able to security resources, labor, land, or the needed leverage to influence others was won via war.

 

I assume you actually meant 

"In previous eras war was often a means of economic growth. Nations Victors were able to security   secure resources, labor, land, or the needed leverage to influence others was won via war."

What did the loosers secure?

So let us look at a few victories in previous times and ask what economic growth they brought about, for either victors or loosers.

Trafalgar

The Armada

The Punic Wars (since Rome was mentioned) 

The 30 years war

The Crusades

The breakup of Yugoslavia

The American Civil War

 

 

 

[Ten oz]

44 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

I assume you actually meant 

"In previous eras war was often a means of economic growth. Nations Victors were able to security   secure resources, labor, land, or the needed leverage to influence others was won via war."

What did the loosers secure?

So let us look at a few victories in previous times and ask what economic growth they brought about, for either victors or loosers.

Trafalgar

The Armada

The Punic Wars (since Rome was mentioned) 

The 30 years war

The Crusades

The breakup of Yugoslavia

The American Civil War

 

 

 

I said "often". It wasn't an absolute statement encompassing all. Many nations lost a lot. It doesn't impact my point however. I wasn't claiming war is good or useful. Rather I was pointing out that it is something nations how often entered into for gain. That is a motivation not present currently between the U.S. and China. There is nothing to superficially gain and much to lose. 

Edited March 26, 2019 by Ten oz

[Ten oz]

11 hours ago, MigL said:

Also the US owes China trillions of dollars.
In case of war, this would all be lost.

Total National debt in the U.S. is about $22 trillion () China has purchased U.S. bonds totally about $1.2 trillion, Link. So while it is true that China owns trillions in U.S. debt the amount is actually small relative to the total amount of debt U.S. owes. Also China purchases those bonds as investments from themselves. They are loans from China to the U.S.. China's annual GDP is nearly $13 trillion. They could take a single $1.2 trillion loss in U.S. bonds without too much pain. That much changes hands per year in trade between the nations. However such a loss would hurt the U.S. Dollar. 

[Sensei]

17 hours ago, studiot said:

Can we avoid war?

...acceptance of Taiwan by China would be a good start to avoid the future conflict..

 

[Dune]

On 3/25/2019 at 3:48 PM, Ten oz said:

The U.S. needs goods produced in China. Without them consumer prices would be several times higher and our own production would be stifled. 

Horse feathers!

The US Golden age was BEFORE Nixon opened the door to China Trade.

We were fine economically until Chinese crap flooded the market and obliterated American manufacturing. 

Before China, only one parent had to work to raise a family, afford a house and a new Chevy and was only a high school graduate at that.

We "need" cheap Chinese goods because minimum wage service jobs don't pay like manufacturing did.

[swansont]

9 minutes ago, Dune said:

Horse feathers!

The US Golden age was BEFORE Nixon opened the door to China Trade.

We were fine economically until Chinese crap flooded the market and obliterated American manufacturing. 

Before China, only one parent had to work to raise a family, afford a house and a new Chevy and was only a high school graduate at that.

There's a bit of post hoc ergo propter hoc going on here. China (or China alone) didn't cause the changes you imply. And we used to blame Japan for these alleged woes, before China became the scapegoat.

Outsourced manufacturing jobs didn't just go to China.  And manufacturing jobs were basically flat (not declining) from ~1970 - 2000

https://www.cnccookbook.com/the-decline-in-us-manufacturing-is-more-recent-than-you-think-and-turning-around/

 

[zapatos]

21 minutes ago, Dune said:

We "need" cheap Chinese goods because minimum wage service jobs don't pay like manufacturing did.

I like cheap goods from China. Why should I subsidize 'your' manufacturing job just so you can have a better standard of living at my expense? That's just welfare for the middle class.

[Phi for All]

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

And we used to blame Japan for these alleged woes, before China became the scapegoat.

This is what I remember. The "Made in Japan" label was a joke for a while, synonymous with "junk" and "cheap crap" (and oh boy, it really was). Then they turned a corner. Their cars and electronics became sought after. They perfected miniaturization while the US was still making things huge and clunky. 

31 minutes ago, Dune said:

Before China, only one parent had to work to raise a family, afford a house and a new Chevy and was only a high school graduate at that.

China didn't do this, Chinese goods were a response to markets that had already been influenced by the new "extremist capitalism" being practised. Multinational monopolistic companies have been moving their operations towards a flat, generic worker that needs little money or training, and they've simply ceased worrying about customer service since they've been able to merge into bigger and bigger companies with fewer competitors. It's like Lily Tomlin's Bell System Operator character used to say, "We're the phone company. We don't care because we don't have to." 

China didn't restructure most of our largest megacorporations to exploit this model. Deregulation is at the heart of this fiasco. 

[StringJunky]

12 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I like cheap goods from China. Why should I subsidize 'your' manufacturing job just so you can have a better standard of living at my expense? That's just welfare for the middle class.

A lot of Americans need to realize they are part of an interdependent  global economy. Going back to to an island mentality - MAGA - is a losing strategy. Even China realized that.

[Phi for All]

2 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

A lot of Americans need to realize they are part of an interdependent  global economy. Going back to to an island mentality - MAGA - is a losing strategy. Even China realized that.

How would your government feel about working with the US and other major players on a global solar grid? I remember seeing something in The Economist about that being a fantastic way to build cooperation between the major countries (averting war), as well as helping smaller economies get a leg up with cheap electricity. It would help future manufacturing to bring costs down for everyone, especially if we can be better about keeping solar clean and green.

[Dune]

26 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

This is what I remember. The "Made in Japan" label was a joke for a while, synonymous with "junk" and "cheap crap" (and oh boy, it really was). Then they turned a corner. Their cars and electronics became sought after. They perfected miniaturization while the US was still making things huge and clunky. 

China didn't do this, Chinese goods were a response to markets that had already been influenced by the new "extremist capitalism" being practised. Multinational monopolistic companies have been moving their operations towards a flat, generic worker that needs little money or training, and they've simply ceased worrying about customer service since they've been able to merge into bigger and bigger companies with fewer competitors. It's like Lily Tomlin's Bell System Operator character used to say, "We're the phone company. We don't care because we don't have to." 

China didn't restructure most of our largest megacorporations to exploit this model. Deregulation is at the heart of this fiasco. 

I didn't say China enginéred the changes. 

[StringJunky]

4 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

How would your government feel about working with the US and other major players on a global solar grid? I remember seeing something in The Economist about that being a fantastic way to build cooperation between the major countries (averting war), as well as helping smaller economies get a leg up with cheap electricity. It would help future manufacturing to bring costs down for everyone, especially if we can be better about keeping solar clean and green.

I think we'd go with it in the long-term but I'm not sure at the moment due to Brexit making us rather insular atm.

 

 

6 minutes ago, Dune said:

I didn't say China enginéred the changes. 

The reality is, the US is losing the game of capitalism... ironic really.

[Phi for All]

7 minutes ago, Dune said:

I didn't say China enginéred the changes. 

No, but you blamed the restructuring on cheap Chinese goods, which were more of a reaction to the engineered business models. As swansont points out, that's a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument.

3 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

The reality is, the US is losing the game of capitalism... ironic really.

This is a big part of the problem, imo, treating ownership as if it's a lifestyle. Too much private ownership should scare the hell out of us, every bit as much as too much public or state ownership.

The US citizen is the real loser, since the extremist capitalists have already bought us out and marginalized us with our own political system (the one the founding fathers wanted us to guard from corporations at all costs). Billionaires know we don't judge them by their actions, only by what they pay to have us told.

12 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I think we'd go with it in the long-term but I'm not sure at the moment due to Brexit making us rather insular atm.

If I was wanting to push the world to war, I'd get the US and the UK to squabble amongst themselves, and spin it like half the population wants one thing, and the other half wants the opposite. I'd make it all look like shouting across a fence, because that might inspire some to lash out across the line.

I'd also sour the relationship between the US and the UK, and do everything to make them all forget we've been allies for a loooooong time. I'd criticize all our allies, and I'd praise our enemies for their strength, and how they prosper BECAUSE they're oppressive and dominant. 

[Sensei]

55 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Deregulation is at the heart of this fiasco. 

No. It's greed.. Greed of shareholders who demand steady growth of company stock value, steady growth of income, reliable dividend year by year. Management of companies is under pressure. They will give shareholders what they expect or else..

Who are these shareholders of US companies (who order outsourcing).. ? They are e.g. US retirement funds.. 30 the biggest have 2900 billions of USD assets according to this article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_pension_schemes_in_the_United_States

Is your retirement fund on the above list?

quid pro quo..

 

[Dune]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

I think we'd go with it in the long-term but I'm not sure at the moment due to Brexit making us rather insular atm.

 

 

The reality is, the US is losing the game of capitalism... ironic really.

No. Our politicians sold us out.

Purposely

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

No, but you blamed the restructuring on cheap Chinese goods, which were more of a reaction to the engineered business models. As swansont points out, that's a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument.

This is a big part of the problem, imo, treating ownership as if it's a lifestyle. Too much private ownership should scare the hell out of us, every bit as much as too much public or state ownership.

The US citizen is the real loser, since the extremist capitalists have already bought us out and marginalized us with our own political system (the one the founding fathers wanted us to guard from corporations at all costs). Billionaires know we don't judge them by their actions, only by what they pay to have us told.

If I was wanting to push the world to war, I'd get the US and the UK to squabble amongst themselves, and spin it like half the population wants one thing, and the other half wants the opposite. I'd make it all look like shouting across a fence, because that might inspire some to lash out across the line.

I'd also sour the relationship between the US and the UK, and do everything to make them all forget we've been allies for a loooooong time. I'd criticize all our allies, and I'd praise our enemies for their strength, and how they prosper BECAUSE they're oppressive and dominant. 

No, I clearly said Nixon opened trade with China.

[CharonY]

9 minutes ago, Dune said:

No. Our politicians sold us out.

Purposely

How? Or more specifically, what should they have done to avoid that situation? To explore this question further, how do you think has manufacturing output in the USA changed between say, the 80s and today? What should the trend look like and what political/policy measures could be implemented to change the actual outcome from the desired one?

[Sensei]

Dune, you are mistaken and misinterpreted their intentions. They did open to China to transform China from communistic country to capitalistic country...

The same proposition has been just recently given to North Korea when they said "NK can be rich country (...)"...

i.e. if country will open to western investors, they will arrive to the country, start creating companies producing "product" with their "know-how", and sell locally and for export. Country is gaining knowledgeable workers (taught by a western investor), well paid by western companies (better than local government at least). They will spend earned money on local services, so entire local community is gaining on such close location of western investor factory.. Year by year of such cooperation, entire community of outdated country is brought to newer level, the more modern, technological and western-friendly evolution... without any single shoot of fire between the sides...

...but some western politicians are just gun-sellers on XXI steroids...

Easily recognizable by their speeches..

 

 

Edited April 8, 2019 by Sensei

[Dune]

3 hours ago, CharonY said:

How? Or more specifically, what should they have done to avoid that situation? To explore this question further, how do you think has manufacturing output in the USA changed between say, the 80s and today? What should the trend look like and what political/policy measures could be implemented to change the actual outcome from the desired one?

There was a conscious decision to move capital out of this country. 

Everything that has happened since has worked to that effect. 

The government has been complicit from beginning to end.

How many factories did Mitt Romney buy and shutter and move to China?

Not out of need, but out of greed and that is just one man eliminating hundreds of thousands/ millions of jobs.

To stop it would have required the desire to stop it, rather than encourage it.

Since GovCo allows it's legislators to not just own stocks but trade inside as well, legally, unlike all other humans, how could they be expected to refrain from passing laws favorable to companies they own? Have you ever heard of the revolving door between Government and industry?