
Handling of U.S. trade dispute causes rift in Chinese leadership: sources - microdrum
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-china-politics-analysis/handling-of-u-s-trade-dispute-causes-rift-in-chinese-leadership-sources-idUSKBN1KU0TU
======
Latteland
One good thing that could change from the tariffs is finally breaking the
forced sharing of intellectual property with Chinese companies before allowing
production. That was supposedly going to end around the end of 2018 already. A
second positive change would be ending requiring selling a part of any foreign
venture to a local Chinese company, which I don't think was planned to change.
But the overall idea that trade deficits were generally bad for the us is a
silly idea, so wrong.

The us has done a terrible job helping workers find new employment when their
old factory or similar manufacturing jobs were lost to another country. It's
hard to see how we'll ever do a good job on that because half the country has
an ideological resistance to helping each other (social security, medical
insurance, a job, those are all things we should make on our own). I can't see
that these tariffs can ever bring back many factory jobs to the us. We need a
strategy to find new jobs and industries. The current plan is just not going
to accomplish much of anything.

But, and it's a big but, lets not forget that trade between countries has a
good chance of reducing the potential of wars between them. I really believe
that extensive international trade between the us and china will have a good
tampering effect on potential war between the two countries. Chinese building
of military bases in the south china sea against the wishes of your neighbors
and and asserting your power won't help anyone to trust china, but when there
was extensive and growing trade between the two powerful countries war should
be less likely.

~~~
denverkarma
Saying the other political party has “ideological resistance to helping each
other,” is ridiculous. That kind of bigoted dismissive ignorance just fuels
our bitter partisan gridlock and helps nothing.

Of course are fringe nutters in the world and unfortunately some of them even
get elected, but the vast majority of Americans, Republicans and Democrats,
are just ordinary people who care about their kids and their neighbors, want
to see everyone prosper, and even agree about a lot more than they disagree
about.

~~~
Latteland
But Paul Ryan, leader of the house, wants to cut social security, medicare and
medicaid. He's against unemployment. He's the titular leader of 1/3 of the
govt. That's not an exaggeration, those are his stated goals in multiple
interviews over many years. I agree that the vast majority of Americans want
those things but the leader of the house does not.

He's not just a fringe figure that managed to get elected but has no real
power.

~~~
kodablah
> half the country has an ideological resistance to helping each other

> I agree that the vast majority of Americans want those things

I had to double check that this was the same username. You seem to have
disagreements with yourself. Which comment is the accurate one in your eyes?
Either way, lumping half the country into one harmful ideal, then not
apologizing or explicitly admitting you were initially wrong to do this or
actually believing it, is not ok.

~~~
sgift
Half the country and half the people are not the same thing. Someone told me
that the US voting system is designed to make sure more populated regions
(e.g. big cities) don't overrule the less populated parts.

~~~
kodablah
There is no mention of "half the people" and definitely not worth the pedantic
differences here on a large generic statement.

------
TangoTrotFox
It seems to me that these tariffs really do make sense regardless of political
orientation. The big difference between Chinese and American labor is that we
place a much higher standard on human and worker rights. Chinese workers
manufacture e.g. $1000 iPhones earning literally a few dollars a day, living
in on-site dormitories, all the while surrounded by suicide nets to try to
deter the frequent suicides.

That's obviously not a great situation. Yet we, as in American companies,
vastly incentivize such systems by shipping trillions of dollars worth of
production to China. So we pride ourselves on more humane standards, yet send
trillions of dollars to the lowest common denominator on labor that's a hair's
breadth above slavery? This never made any sense to me.

I think free trade is a great idea when nations are comparably developed with
comparable values. But when you have asymmetric value systems, you just end up
greatly rewarding the lowest common denominator while hurting the nations that
place a greater value on labor rights.

Anyhow, glad to see the effect of these tariffs is almost certainly going to
end up favoring American interests, and perhaps even the Chinese people as
well if I can be allowed a bit of optimism.

~~~
throw272109
> The big difference between Chinese and American labor is that we place a
> much higher standard on human and worker rights.

I used to believe this until I read up on how prisoners in the US basically
work like indentured servants for pennies.

There's a few news articles and occasional "anger" at the situation, but I
read about it 15+ years ago and nothing has changed.

It's not like the average Chinese person is against human and worker rights.
If you talk to them, of course they will say they value it.

It's just those in power don't care. And those that do care, don't have the
power to change anything.

~~~
aeternus
Most of the prisoner work programs are optional. Same with foreign labor, yes
working conditions are not optimal and there are improvements that could be
made.

However having an an alternative option is almost always better than not
having that option. This problem may be best solved by actually making it
easier for companies to participate in prisoner work-release programs, thereby
increasing competition and driving up prisoner wages.

------
baybal2
My own view:

It is "a not a secret secret" that a lot of party higher ups covertly own big
parts of Chinese industry, including export oriented ones.

The squabble is about them being caught in the crossfire. Their message: "make
peace with USA for as long as we make money." Now the talk is over them being
thrown under the train. Naturally, they are frustrated by that.

I want to remember that Xi Jingping himself came to power on the promise of
"making party membership great again" and rode the wave of anger of minor and
midtier party bureaucrats over them being sidelined during Jiang and Hu's
eras. But now, he himself is busy throwing its own "powerbase" under the
train.

~~~
mc32
Maybe so, I don’t know. One thing is sure. Clinton’s and W’s and Obama’s
illusion that eventually China would follow the example of free trade some day
because that was the supposed natural progression has led to this dispute that
had been brewing unattended for decades.

~~~
anomatopoeia
Xi seems to have overplayed his hand over the past few years. Instead of China
quietly amassing power as it had done since the early 90s, Xi pushed China
into a much more assertive role before it was necessarily ready.

The US and others had looked the other way on China’s mercantilist actions in
the past on a strategic gamble that China would slowly evolve into a more
democratic state, with open markets, freedoms and rule of the law. This
strategy had worked out well with South Korea and Taiwan as they made their
transitions from poor dictatorships to wealthy democracies (and peaceful US
allies).

During the reign of Xi’s predecessors this did seem to be a possibility but
Xi’s policies and perhaps most importantly his ascension to President for Life
ended any illusion that China would make this sort of evolution.

The Made in China 2025 program for example explicitly codifies what many had
long assumed - that China is directly targeting the most advanced foreign
industries with a state backed industrial policy.

With China moving away from even playing lip service to liberalization and now
directly threatening US/European interests with Made in China 2025 and other
initiatives, there is no longer any reason for the US to play nice with China.

Frankly if China had simply continued quietly moving forward as they had under
Hu and made perhaps some nominal reforms or concessions they probably could’ve
continued their plans unabated.

~~~
throw272109
> ...South Korea and Taiwan as they made their transitions from poor
> dictatorships to wealthy democracies (and peaceful US allies).

If I'm not mistaken, both these countries became wealthy during the
dictatorship period. It was only after the stability and wealth that they
become democracies.

Taiwan's first democratic vote was in 1996 and South Korea's first public
election was in 1987.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Yep. They were also basically peaceful US allies at almost their onsets.

------
al_ramich
Interesting discussion on the topic.

[https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/opinion/article/2142568/us-
ch...](https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/opinion/article/2142568/us-china-trade-
war-not-about-trade-not-about-trump-heres-what-it)

~~~
striking
That article is interesting, but not very much so, given that it was written
before the full implications of the ZTE incident were made clear
([https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/10/technology/china-
technolo...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/10/technology/china-technology-
zte-sputnik-moment.html))

------
394549
> A backlash is being felt at the highest levels of the government, possibly
> hitting a close aide to Xi, his ideology chief and strategist Wang Huning,
> according to two sources familiar with discussions in leadership circles.

> A prominent and influential academic whose views have found favor in some
> party quarters has also come under attack for his strident views on Chinese
> power.

> Wang, who was the architect of the “China Dream”, Xi’s vision for China to
> become a strong and prosperous nation, has been taken to task by the Chinese
> leader for crafting an excessively nationalistic image for the country,
> which has only provoked the United States, the sources said.

> “He’s in trouble for mishandling the propaganda and hyping up China too
> much,” said one of the sources, who has ties to China’s leadership and
> propaganda system.

Wang Huning is a noted neo-authoritarian ideologue and a member of China's
most powerful leadership body, the Politburo Standing Committee. Understanding
his views gives a lot of insight into the Chinese government's current
outlook:

[http://www.judeblanchette.com/blog/2017/10/20/wang-
hunings-n...](http://www.judeblanchette.com/blog/2017/10/20/wang-hunings-neo-
authoritarianism-dream)

[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/13/world/asia/china-xi-
jinpi...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/13/world/asia/china-xi-jinping-wang-
huning.html)

~~~
jolesf
Huning is one of the most underrated and understudied people right now.

~~~
baybal2
Totally disagree, he survived so long just because he was near invisible,
while being to some extend useful.

He got great luck that his scholarly postulates happened to align with
prevailing winds during Jiang's era. From then and on, he was just an obscure
speechwriter and unofficial chief of propaganda, with some "strategy advisor"
cred.

------
teawithcarl
The best article on this matter, by the best journalist on China, John
Garnault.

[http://chinaheritage.net/journal/imminent-fears-immediate-
ho...](http://chinaheritage.net/journal/imminent-fears-immediate-hopes-a-
beijing-jeremiad/)

------
stephengillie
Just a subtle reminder that China isn't a monolithic entity, but is instead
made out of people, like all countries.

~~~
microdrum
Except that its business model IS being a monolithic entity.

~~~
throwaway0255
Yes. The world’s largest population is relying on an unsustainable economic
model, under a political system that is not beholden to or representative of
its people, propped up by western nations that aren’t going to need it anymore
in a post-robotics and post-automation world.

That really should worry people more than it seems to.

~~~
nopinsight
There is no reason a country of 1.4 billion people with strong work ethics and
good results on STEM education cannot have a self-sustaining economy when
organized with their largely capitalistic system. The only two critical
resources China still lacks are oil and state-of-the-art electronics. They
have alright homegrown alternatives to the latter, and those are improving
every year. They are also addressing the oil security issue using many
approaches in tandem.

"But China’s continental economy of 1.4 billion people could achieve almost
all possible economies of scale while still maintaining intense internal
competition; in principle, India could, too. The United States, with 300-plus
million people, would suffer only slightly if it exported and imported little
beyond its borders, and the same is true for the European Union’s single
market of 520 million.

Beyond some point, the potential benefits of wider trade between equally rich
countries inevitably decline. If there was less trade among the continental-
scale economies of China, the US, and Europe in 2050 than there is today, the
direct impact on living standards would be small." [1]

In addition, China's AI research is already the 2nd most advanced in the world
[2]. They are trading heavily with the west in order to grow faster, but they
would still be growing without trading.

[1] [https://www.project-
syndicate.org/commentary/protectionism-c...](https://www.project-
syndicate.org/commentary/protectionism-can-no-longer-stop-china-by-adair-
turner-2018-07)

[2]
[http://csrankings.org/#/fromyear/2015/toyear/2017/index?ai&v...](http://csrankings.org/#/fromyear/2015/toyear/2017/index?ai&vision&mlmining&nlp&world)

~~~
perl4ever
"The only two critical resources China still lacks are oil and state-of-the-
art electronics."

This seems like an odd thing to say.

China produces about 1/3 of the amount of oil Saudi Arabia does. So it's not
the top oil producer in the world, but it is a major one.

And Intel's Fab 68, which produces 3DXPoint, is in China. Then again, I'm not
sure how state-of-the-art electronics can be considered a "resource".

~~~
nopinsight
China still needs to import most of the oil it uses. _Any_ major economy would
be crippled if it needed to cut down oil consumption by half or more within a
short time frame.

~~~
perl4ever
Since oil is distributed all over the world, I don't think losing access is
something that China should worry about any more than the US. Historically,
the nations that had to worry about others cutting them off were the ones that
set out to conquer the world and got everybody to oppose them together.

~~~
nopinsight
Geopolitics is much more complex than that. The US is still the world's number
one power with global influence as well as allies and several bases in the
most important oil-exporting region in the world. China does cultivate
friendship with their big oil-exporting neighbor to the north but they do not
want to depend too much on that either.

In any case, less dependence on oil import is a major reason they push EVs and
renewable energy very hard.

------
icu
There is a real possibility of escalation as I doubt Trump will capitulate.

Trump seems to like the pomp of a 'win'... real or imagined.

I think it will come down to how quickly things escalate and if Trump runs or
wins in 2020. It's possible the Chinese will hold out until then and adjust
accordingly... I think the stakes are high on both sides. Thus far China has
had virtually no economic push back to the transfer of jobs and wealth from
the US. If the Chinese can break through, I doubt anything will stop China's
accent. Likewise, if Trump doesn't persist it's possible he'll lose his voter
base and it's unlikely that any other administration will have the stomach to
take on China.

I think it's possible that if a few other things go Trump's way (North Korean,
Iran, the wall) he'll have enough voter support for a second term. I don't see
a blue wave forming if that happens, nor do I see a large pool of credible
Democratic Party presidential candidates emerging no matter how uncouth
Trump's rhetoric. A perfect example is Ocasio-Cortez and her socialist
policies who I don't see appealing to a large enough voter base.

~~~
mc32
It's too early to predict outcomes. I will say the Dems putting out more
Ocasio-Corteses is a gift to the Reps. The afterberners have very specific
constituencies which only exist in special environments. They don't have any
broad appeal.

~~~
throw272109
Reading Nassim Taleb's article [1], I feel politics will become more and more
extreme in the coming years.

Where it will become the far-left vs the far-right. And honestly, the US "far-
left" isn't really that extreme compared to some European parties.

1\. [https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-
dict...](https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-
of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15)

~~~
mc32
But isn't that because the electorate itself doesn’t support such candidates?
The Dems going hard left will make it easier for Repubs to be electable.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Only to the degree that the Republicans _don 't_ go hard right.

------
Hasknewbie
Good. Anything that rattles Red Emperor Xi is a good thing.

~~~
dang
This is a bad HN comment, regardless of your views on geopolitics. Please
don't unsubstantive and flamebaity comments, especially not on divisive
topics.

If you'd review
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)
and follow the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.

------
bilbo0s
Basically the Chinese McCains vs the Chinese Trumps. This ought to be good!

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Anyone who follows Chinese politics will realize the CCP has factions just
like any other large political organization. However, factional divides are
usually restricted to smokey rooms and kept out of public eye. But when
personal wealth is at stake, they are bound to be more riled up.

~~~
rdlecler1
And those factions have economic ties. I would expect that the sanctions lists
would be exploiting those relationships. In China you have an entire village
producing something like patio umbrellas or golf carts. This creates systemic
risks because the US could wipe out industry of an entire village — takenit
offline for six months and you can do a lot of political damage. China may be
authoritarian but they are not immune to the will of the people. The Mandate
of Heaven is almost an early version of democratic ideals. Lose the people you
lose the mandate.

~~~
vfulco2
If you look at thousands of years of history, it is the power over-reach that
causes a swift loss of the Mandate of Heaven. Tied to human nature. Always has
been, always will be. There is no superiority to the system's design.

