Fitzy wrote: ↑Tue Jun 19, 2018 8:12 am
Rip wrote: ↑Mon Jun 18, 2018 10:56 pm
Fitzy wrote: ↑Mon Jun 18, 2018 10:27 pm
I think the point people such as GreenGoo are trying to make, though I could be wrong, is that the American people will revolt over losing $0.99 toilet paper long before the people of China will revolt over hunger. And if they should revolt, the government of China is capable of brutally surpressing that revolt where we are not.
I agree with that viewpoint. But I am curious why you believe China will back down first over absolute numbers.
PS
$0.99 toilet paper is a metaphor and not meant literally, but meant as a funny standin for cheap goods.
Because it is in their interest to. The Chinese react to leverage. It is inherent to everything they do. That is why they like to negotiate one on one with countries. So they can exert leverage.
They respond to a strong position, not weak handed compromise. I'm all for free trade. What he have had is NOT free trade.
We can do better.
http://fortune.com/2015/08/13/pacific-r ... ree-trade/
Hypothetically assuming you are correct about the leverage, wouldn’t that be based on the effect of the tariffs on each countries population? So wouldn’t the Chinese have more leverage because increased prices will cause more dissatisfaction here than in China? Each job loss here will be reported heavily and felt heavily, whereas in China I would think they will be ignored or the people can be forceably reassigned. Or are you suggesting that China is more open to public pressure than reported?
Add to that, that Trump isn’t just fighting with China, he tossed in most of the rest of the wealthy countries, so we have the effects of multiple tariffs, across multiple sectors, hitting multiple people.
I’m just not seeing where this leverage is coming from.
No, in the end they don't give a shit about the people.
They care about expanding and increasing their military might. Period. The Chinese believe they will replace the US as the global superpower.
Robert Gates wrote about a Q&A at the Asia Security Summit in his book:
In the question and answer session, a retired PLA general aggressively pursued the Taiwan arms-sales issue. I replied the Chinese had known full well at the time we normalized diplomatic relations in 1979 that arms-sales to Taiwan would continue. Why, then, I asked
, did China still pursue this line? The general's response was as direct as it was revealing. China had lived with the Taiwan arms sales in 1979, he said, "because we were weak. But now we are strong."
Add to that the fact that the animosity between the Japanese and the Chinese not to mention many others the situation could easily become middle east like in the pacific were China to become powerful enough.
It makes no sense for us to accept any agreement that is skewed in China's favor.
Even more so for Europe. They don't even carry their military weight, no way in hell we should be giving them agreements skewed in their favor. If we are going to bear the brunt of providing military security for the free world we should not accept agreements that are any worse then equally balanced, and for those that crosslines, like Russia, Iran, NK, Syria, etc. We should only agree to trade that favors us if any at all.