I got it backwards? You are the one for stability and cosistancy BS. So now you do not want it, you want a revolution and instability. So within one thread you stand for stability and for instability. I call it inconsistance.
You are arguing an overarching foreign policy view that isn't really about our issues with China and Chinese trade. Obama's policies in regards to China were more or less the same as Bush's, which were more or less the same as Clinton's. There has been a remarkable bipartisan agreement going on for decades that we should help China economically and technologically dominate, even at the expense of US technological and economic edge. Maybe that's all part of replacing "Super Power dominance with collective security." I don't know. But if that's the case, then you are arguing for a return to the pre-Trump status quo relative to China. As is typical on these forums, I ask direct questions and get obfuscated answers. I'm not sure how you can argue that you don't want to return to the pre-Trump consensus and then mention going back to Obama's policies, which were part of the pre-Trump consensus. I'm not going to ask you to clear this contradiction up, since I suspect it will just lead to more obfuscation, but if you make an attempt to actually address the issue we are supposedly talking about I'll give it a respectful hearing.
Why should I care? You don't seem to know much about U.S. foreign policy history or economics. What possibly could you have to say? But, no, the tactical alternative to Trump is not going back to pre-Trump, but moving forward within the broad strategy of collective security within a global framework. Come back when you have something of substance to say. Meanwhile, have a nice day.
you are kidding yourself if you think China will lose a trade war. China has 50-100 year economic plans, look at the belt road or Africa. They know trump is a blip that will have no long term impact.
Because your argument turned out to be exactly what I suspected it was in the beginning, you wanted to return to the pre-Trump status quo with China, and for some reason you were embarrassed by that and tried to hide it behind Obama policies that were...the pre-Trump status quo with China. Frankly, I'm not sure why you wanted to hide it. That does seem to be the Democratic consensus. If there is a third way it's not part of the current political debate on China policies.
I don't know of any candidate NOT complaining about China's trade policies. The issue is how to best get them to play by fair trade rules. One of the principal reasons militaristic Japan attacked us in the Pacific was over our embargo of oil to Japan. Trade wars often lead to shooting wars. I would not advocate going back to a status quo that did not involve gradual collective action to pressure the Chinese to follow "fair trade practices." Much of the infrastructure to accomplish that is already in place via various international organizations such as the WTO, the World Bank, the BIS, etc., etc. My point is that using this structure more effectively is a better course than a bi-lateral approach solely between the U.S. and China.
Again (sigh!)...that's going back to the pre-Trump status quo. Yes everyone said China wasn't playing fair, and it's really such a shame, and we would lodge complaints with the WTO, but we had no political will to have consequences for their actions, and I think it's the Trumpy consequences that you oppose which puts you right back... ...at the pre-Trump status quo.
Strategically...I suppose so...in the vein of "collective security." But, it would involve different "tactics," such as the Trans-Pacific Trade Pact, proposed by Obama, but opposed by some Democrats as well as Republicans and dropped by Trump.
Both sides lose in a trade war - and I was arguing against the position that China was losing more than the US - so am in agreement with your position.
You can either invade a country or leave them alone and trade with them. When goods cross borders, armies don't. John Stossel https://twitter.com › johnstossel › status
China wasn't supposed to be part of the talks. Why don't I give you a chance to catch up? I'll watch football, while you can go read a book.
China was not initially part of the pact, but could apply for membership. Ironically TPP protected IP which is what we really need.
Ah...and presumably China would have to agree to intellectual property rules in order to join. But, Trump prefers bi-lateral negotiations, because he thinks it gives him more leverage. I suspect he's about to discover the difference in American "leverage" between 1950 and 2019.
I already remember the discussion of TPP at the time. As I've said, that's a very pre-Trump status quo response.
“I’ve read hundreds of books about China over the decades. I know the Chinese. I’ve made a lot of money with the Chinese. I understand the Chinese." Donald Trump ln "The Art Of The Deal". If that were true, it wouldn't be my way or the highway. The Chinese have a long history of exploitation by the West, and a lead foot and heavy hand just doesn't fly with them. The only good thing about the trade war, from my point of view, is that it may give some of his base second thoughts.
Yes America is winning the Trade War, China have been sucking money out of the US economy, and if they don't act almost all their export industry will move elsewhere where there are no tariffs. In the meantime their Peer2peer shadow lending has collapsed, local governments are struggling to service debt forcing Beijing to open the credit tap once more... dismal...absolutely dismal of course they are trying to save face....and the only way they will be able to do that is to increase their imports from America.
Interesting...please explain how you see Beijing opening the credit taps to their local governments, in order to serve their debt, by purchasing more imports from the U.S.?
In 2018 China tried to ease debt, the result was the collapse of the Peer2Peer Market, at the end of 2018 they had to ease credit July 2018 - China’s central bank preparing further policy easing to counter credit squeeze https://www.scmp.com/business/china...-bank-preparing-further-policy-easing-counter August 2019 China Considering Increasing Local Debt Sales to Boost Stimulus https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...increasing-local-debt-sales-to-boost-stimulus July 2019 Breakneck growth in China’s credit-card debt since 2012 raises worries about a potential bust, says ratings agency S&P Credit-card debt has grown more than sixfold since 2012, according to S&P Increase mirrors similar booms in Hong Kong, Korea and Taiwan that ended badly https://www.scmp.com/business/banki...ck-growth-chinas-credit-card-debt-2012-raises China's debt to GDP is completely unknown... because they lie about their GDP figures... https://www.forbes.com/sites/panosm...e-war-is-chinas-biggest-problem/#7229ba14c4d0 26 September 2019... China's debt expected to climb...but by how much no one really knows because...fake financial data https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/22/chinas-debt-levels-to-worsen-in-2019-morgan-stanley.html
