
China’s coming Austrian collapse - Zweihander
https://www.tbwns.com/2018/08/13/the-bears-lair-chinas-coming-austrian-collapse/
======
ahmedalsudani
There might be truth to this article but its bias and demeaning tone are off-
putting. It makes it hard to take the author seriously.

~~~
Recurecur
> There might be truth to this article but its bias and demeaning tone are
> off-putting. It makes it hard to take the author seriously.

What exactly about this article was "demeaning"?

The author does seem to feel that Trump is handling China well, which I'm sure
brings cognitive dissonance to some...

~~~
pasabagi
I don't really understand how Trump could be viewed to be handling China well.
One of China's big selling points as a negotiating partner is they're
consistent. The US has traditionally also had this virtue. Trump isn't even
consistent with his own state department. Why on earth would you rest anything
on a country that might elect somebody like that? If you were Qatar, why would
you agree to another US military base, knowing that the next president might
say you're harbouring Al-Qaeda, because some Saudi royals told him so? If you
were the Phillipines, why would you feel confident in US support?

I know some people like big tough guys in politics, and to some of those
people, Trump appears big and tough. But I think even if you have this
persuasion, Trump's no Kissinger, no Tito, not even a Putin.

~~~
MR4D
The Chinese came back to the negotiating table (after walking out in June)
[0]. Anytime the other guys walks out and then comes back, you have the upper
hand.

[0] - [https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/16/kudlow-confirms-trade-
talks-...](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/16/kudlow-confirms-trade-talks-to-
resume-with-china-later-this-month.html)

For the record, negotiations look messy while they're ongoing. I think you'll
find that the negotiations end up much better than most people think.

One of the key attributes of a good negotiator is to have a BATNA (Best
Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement). Without one, you're going to fail. The
last few administrations have not had that when negotiating with China, and
they failed (heck, they didn't really get started before they backed off).

Trump's style is certainly unorthodox, but he has several folks who actually
know how to negotiate (Robert Lighthizer & Wilbur Ross among others). I
wouldn't count them out just yet.

~~~
pasabagi
I think the US has the upper hand to a ridiculous degree with _any_ other
negotiating partner. It simply has a lot more chips than anybody else.

I don't really buy the idea that the US was getting 'bad deals', as Trump puts
it. To be honest, I think the only way the US _could_ get bad deals is if it
undercuts its own state department, and does everything it can to project an
image of instability, insanity, and dementia.

The thing is, in the normal run of things, there are no incentives for anybody
who isn't totally desperate to try and screw the US over. Unless the state
department is utterly braindead, they just have way more resources to screw
you back. Except, in the situation where you think that jeopardizing relations
with the US is acceptable, because it's a fading power, or because it forgets
its friends and enemies with the election cycle. Which are all things Trump is
really good at convincing people of.

~~~
mark212
As this article emphasizes, China steals an enormous amount of intellectual
property from other countries, the vast majority of which is created and owned
by US companies. That’s a “bad deal” by any measure.

I agree that the US has ample resources to “screw you back” but as with many
things, it isn’t a question of capability it’s a question of political will.
And without a doubt Trump has the will to flex on China, consequences be
damned (or so it seems).

------
mrpigeonpants
When an author is so confident in their assertions, it always raises red
flags. Also, the latter part of the article seems to posit that "in order for
the U.S. to win, China has to lose".

~~~
Fjolsvith
This wasn't what I got from the article. I believe it posits that if China is
given a paddle on the butt, it will start to behave, which will be in
everyone's best interests.

