Posted on 05/15/2019 8:41:39 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
News reports suggest that in the coming weeks, the United States and China might sign an agreement that repeals the tariffs the two nations have been levying on each other’s goods for the past nine months. If past behavior is any guide, Donald Trump will call it the greatest deal ever, and global markets will breathe a sigh of relief. But the deal will likely constitute only a modest pause in Washington’s growing hostility toward Beijing.
That’s partly because, for Trump, no agreement is truly final. The president, The New York Times recently observed, “has repeatedly agreed to new trade terms with foreign partners, then talked about undoing those deals to achieve additional goals.” Trump has already begun to renege on commitments made as part of the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement, which he hailed as “incredible” in October.
But the slide toward cold war with China will likely continue for reasons that go beyond Trump himself. While Trump’s language is particularly extreme—during the 2016 campaign, he portrayed the relationship between the Chinese and American economies in language of rape—describing Beijing’s economic behavior as predatory, and demanding that America respond with punishments and threats, has become commonplace in both parties. From Elizabeth Warren, who earlier this year claimed that China has “weaponized its economy,” to Marco Rubio, who last year tweeted that Chinese aim to “steal & cheat their way to world dominance,” leading Democrats and Republicans describe China’s economic practices as uniquely malevolent and getting worse. In fact, neither accusation is true.
The u.s.-china relationship is, of course, about more than economics.
Politically, Beijing is growing more authoritarian, as evidenced by its Orwellian domestic-surveillance policies, its mass internment of Muslim Uighurs, and the cult of personality now developing around Chinese President Xi Jinping. Militarily, China increasingly dominates the South China Sea.
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
The Atlantic is comparable to an oppositional defiant two-year old who will not only scream, No, but will argue and act out in a manner against its own best interests.
Orange man bad is the Atlantic’s ideology regardless of the subject.
It’s a good hunch.
In fact, I would bet a LOT that at a LOT of money flows into congress from China.
Have a good one.
That is how great nations fall...when everyone is corrupt and on the take for themselves. Ours has been a government of, by and for the sell outs for decades. Multi-Millionaires on 200K per year...sure. And yes the press has sold out, individually and en masse. It’s obvious...the Chinese weren’t the only buyers, but they had the most money to spread around. How much did DiFi get for employing her driver/contact/pass through? And that’s peanuts compared to the Clintons and Bidens.
A new turn on an old phrase...It’s the corruption, stupid.
The Atlantic probably exists solely due to Chinese investment in their parent/holding company.
Watch the “Arthur Jensen Speech” from Network.
As true today as it was then.
Not directly related to the issues in this thread, but the US should review the supply chains for all military equipment and materiel and remove China from those supply chains. Only a few decades ago most all, or all US military equipment and supplies were produced in the USA by law.
We should return to that, with maybe a few exceptions for our most trusted allies.
Atlantic owned by Lauren Powell widdow of Steve Jobs and notorious leftist.
Allowing Chinks and Muzzies to own/buy/and/or start a US company is a damn disgrace. Allowing China, any Chink, to buy Smithfield was a national disgrace. Hell, Obama and his liberal pals gave wealthy Chinks US citizenship if they’d open up a business in areas. I recall 500K. I may be off. Anyway it is sick to sell US citizenship.
Goebbels would be proud of The Atlantic.
Yeah that’s the ticket, support China against America. Ugh.
That is such a narrow and ignorant way to look at the problem that I am surprised the author had the gall to publish it!
Well, then again, we seem to have lots of such people in the public arena...
Author is a fool. Other than that, great read if you want to consider the time you took to read it something you’ll never get back.
Sarcasm.
...abetted by US companies.
I know that this is true.
I’m not so sure of the calculus behind it. Do US companies believe they can always stay a step ahead of the Chinese cos and will always have the latest & greatest; and thus whatever the Chinese steal, it will be a generation older?
And/or, do they simply not care and wish to capture or at least play in the Chinese market with its giant consumer base?
Certainly not mutually exclusive; indeed it probably IS a little (or a lot) of both.
No, they steal from tier one and two suppliers.
>>>For the 9,376th time, the tariffs are NOT about trade. They are about the $500-$800 billion annual theft of IP.
If China were to agree to new rules limiting IP transfer, might that actually encourage more firms to relocate there?
It might. Offhand I would think that any firms interested in relocating to China would have done so a decade or more ago.
I don’t know exactly how the current situation can be fixed. The Chinese government has massive armies of people dedicated to purloining industrial secrets, both from the US, and from cos already in China. They have armies of students in US universities looking to swipe larval research and in many cases more advanced going on there.
Lest you think this is entirely a high-tech deal; the latest instance of IP theft involved the theft of a technology to line soft drink cans such that the liner did not bleed into the product. Soft drinks are a stunningly enormous industry in China.
Note: this topic is from . Thanks SeekAndFind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.