> When deals like this are made, it makes it less likely China will do things to piss off the US, and vice-versa. The last thing we need are more tensions.
Eh, no. That's sounds like a version of the "Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lexus_and_the_Olive_Tree#G...), and it's bunk. China's leaders are nationalists, and it's likely they're looking to strengthen themselves to the point where they can do what they want without caring if the US is pissed off or not, and their actual behavior supports this view. They've actually shown themselves to be quite adept at exploiting sentiments like yours while they play a different game.
> Do you really want to hold people in other countries back from ever achieving the standards of living that you enjoy?
It's not that simple, obviously. Do you want knock people in your own country down (and have them stay down) so that can happen? We're not just talking about standards of living, either. How do you feel about assisting the ascent of an ideologically-incompatible competitor regime (https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/world/asia/chinas-new-lea...)?
Golden Arches Theory was intended as a joke. Trying to "debunk" a joke, does nothing to negate the trend of increased economic cooperation leading to decreased conflict.
I think the author's own response is fitting to the sentiment in your comment:
I was both amazed and amused by how much the Golden Arches Theory had gotten around and how intensely certain people wanted to prove it wrong. They...insisted that politics, and the never-ending struggle between nation-states, were the immutable defining feature of international affairs, and they were professionally and psychologically threatened by the idea that globalization and economic integration might actually influence geopolitics in some very new and fundamental ways.
The link you posted at the end is a great example of what I'm talking about. The NYT has an incentive to scare you into thinking China is going to take over the US and destroy your way of life and imprison you in some dystopian hellscape. And so we must oppose them at all costs to protect our way of life, and subscribe to the NYT to read more about this growing conflict!
Sounds exactly like the scary bedtime stories Hollywood told us about the USSR during the Cold War. Or the stories Newsweek told us of how Japan was going to dominate and overtake American business in the 1980s. Oh no!
Not saying history will necessarily repeat and China will implode in a USSR-like manor, but, could it be that maybe those fears are just a little overblown?
China is an aging, shrinking population with still a long way to go towards industrializing. And a dictatorship isn't usually a great way to organize a government if your goal is stability.
Are you even willing to consider the possibility that maybe this deal was a mutually beneficial fair trade, with upside for both parties?
> Golden Arches Theory was intended as a joke. Trying to "debunk" a joke, does nothing to negate the trend of increased economic cooperation leading to decreased conflict.
I think you misunderstand. I wasn't specifically referring to the Golden Arches Theory as bunk, but the more general one you describe. It's bunk because it makes assumptions about motivations and strategies that aren't necessarily true, not because of some specific counterexample to a jokey formulation.
In China's case, I don't think it's playing the same "economic cooperation" game you assume it is. If the "decreased conflict" result has any truth behind it, it's because if increased interdependency, but it's pretty clear (for them) that's not a desired end-state, but rather a transitory state on the way to more independence and greater strength.
Those I suppose you could still have "decreased conflict" even in that case, as long as other nations remain too dependent on them to be able to object or resist if they want to do something objectionable.
This is what people don't understand, the CCP is not playing a co-operation game. They will play a co-operation game until they get what they want from you. After that its the domination game.
It's like patriotism, nationalism have become bad words in the USA. The USA and its values are really worth fighting for (am not even from the US), but this thing about "lets not be nationalistic", and if you criticize the CCP you hear "oh let's not be sinophobic" needs to stop.
All the 3rd world countries who got into the Belt and Road "co-operation" are really getting belted now.
Haha, I have seen many speeches of the US presidents and they all come off as nationalist. I imagine it would be very hard to win an election in the US without mentioning that Americans are the coolest people on Earth or something like that.
> Haha, I have seen many speeches of the US presidents and they all come off as nationalist.
Who cares about speeches? It's policy that matters. Chinese leaders actually pursue nationalist economic policy, while the US leaders dress up globalization with nationalist rhetoric.
All of them since the 80s at least (except for Trump, but he's not representative of the class "US leaders").
> And china seems to be focused on free global trade as well. Trade embargos are more known for the US.
What do embargos have to do with anything? Chinese leaders might be OK with free global trade, given the kinds of controls they have on domestic market access, they aren't really committed to "free trade" like the US has been.
"except for Trump, but he's not representative of the class "US leaders""
He was the last elected US president and was almost elected a 2. time.
So like it or not, but to the world, he is a very strong current representative of a US leader.
And yes, a very nationalistic one at that. Who can be back to power very soon, or someone like him.
>> except for Trump, but he's not representative of the class "US leaders"
> He was the last elected US president and was almost elected a 2. time.
1) "US leaders" encompasses more than the presidency, and 2) at this point Trump is an n=1 aberration and no one can say if any patterns have changed.
The overall US leadership class has internalized the dogma of free trade, to the point of openly and uncritically accepting the national-level negatives (de-industrialization, etc.). I'm extremely skeptical that any other Republican besides Trump would deploy protectionist policies like tariffs or bully business leaders into doing something that puts the nation in front of their shareholders.
"The overall US leadership class has internalized the dogma of free trade, to the point of openly and uncritically accepting the national-level negatives "
I see, and this is why the US is enforcing so many global trade embargos?
And as for the collateral of them, here in eastern germany the economy suffered a lot by the embargos against russia - as did many other branches in europe. I doubt the US economy was hit by it in any significant way by comparison.
Or that the US was (and is) using massive pressure, so that germany abandones north stream (a pipeline to get russian gas directly) and rather buys cheap US fracking gas?
So sorry, but I can't really take the "free global trade" rhetoric much serious.
The US is pro free trade for sure, but only as long as US interests are not hurt too much.
> I see, and this is why the US is enforcing so many global trade embargos?
You're not getting it. Embargos are neither here nor there, what matters is how they treat the domestic economy. They've let important bits whither, get outsourced, or slip out of their control through foreign acquisitions (which are default-allow), all often with great negative effects for the actual citizens they represent. That shows you where their commitments are.
lol. Watched any of the previous president’s speeches, for example?
Most (all?) countries look after themselves, their borders, their people etc and don’t honestly care about others. Whether this is right or wrong - that is a different question. But let’s not pretend some political leaders are saints and others aren’t.
commitments to free trade and globalization.
Sure, because it helps their country and their economy. They aren’t doing it out of the goodness of their hearts.
Global politics is not about right and wrong or love and friendship - it is about profit and loss, strength and weakness, convenience and opportunity…
Eh, no. That's sounds like a version of the "Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lexus_and_the_Olive_Tree#G...), and it's bunk. China's leaders are nationalists, and it's likely they're looking to strengthen themselves to the point where they can do what they want without caring if the US is pissed off or not, and their actual behavior supports this view. They've actually shown themselves to be quite adept at exploiting sentiments like yours while they play a different game.
> Do you really want to hold people in other countries back from ever achieving the standards of living that you enjoy?
It's not that simple, obviously. Do you want knock people in your own country down (and have them stay down) so that can happen? We're not just talking about standards of living, either. How do you feel about assisting the ascent of an ideologically-incompatible competitor regime (https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/world/asia/chinas-new-lea...)?