Trump Orders US companies out of China

[vi-va]

Trump threatened 'fire and fury' like the world has 'never seen before' every time NK tested a BM. A few months and some meetings later, KJU and Trump are best friends and share love letters whilst NK tests new missiles every week.

After Iran shot down $180m RQ-4 drone Trump threatened a harsh response ("you'll see"), then did nothing.

Everything Trump does is about escalating tensions to produce negotiations in a crazy way - the "mad man doctrine" and "the art of the deal". The problem is that he sucks at making deals and negotiating!

He made a deal with Mexico, then a few weeks later demanded more from them. Violated Iran deal, destroyed Paris Agreement, destroyed INF Treaty, etc.

Today he called Xi an "enemy" but if they have a nice meeting and Xi smiles at him a few times he will go back to saying how they have such a great relationship and how much he likes Xi.

He has no credibility and nobody wants to negotiate with him.

Very good summary.

 

[GumNaam]

american companies would be wise to first make room for their goods in global markets FIRST! no one wants to pay 10 times as much for a product when the same can be brought from China for 10 times LESS!

 

[Samlee]

Unprecedented escalation indeed but not a problem

Vietnam welcomes US companies!

Don't You Have Enough Companies Why You Want To Destroy Your Infrastructure

 

[Viet]

What make you so afraid of China? Vietnamese are relatives of Chinese ethnically, culturally and ideologically. We are just damn the same.


Its not about money, it's about capitalism. Are you a Vietnamese? Have you ever read Karl Marx's work?

Trump has no ground strategy. What's in his mind is all about reelection. And China will fight back and still hope he will be reelected.

The real problem of US can only be solved by political and economical reform. US is just wasting time on trade war. The longer US refused to reform, the bigger problem US has to face in the long run.

China is the inventor of Game Go. If you know Game Go, it's never about tactical winning, it's all about strategical winning.

Chinese Go is a very stupid game.
You play aggressive action and ask why Vietnam dislikes your taste.

Yes we are almost identical that is the root of the problem. Thailand, Cambodia don’t have problem with China because they are too different. Other have problems from Vietnam, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, HK to Singapore.

 

[tower9]

Trump threatened 'fire and fury' like the world has 'never seen before' every time NK tested a BM. A few months and some meetings later, KJU and Trump are best friends and share love letters whilst NK tests new missiles every week.

After Iran shot down $180m RQ-4 drone Trump threatened a harsh response ("you'll see"), then did nothing.

Everything Trump does is about escalating tensions to produce negotiations in a crazy way - the "mad man doctrine" and "the art of the deal". The problem is that he sucks at making deals and negotiating!

He made a deal with Mexico, then a few weeks later demanded more from them. Violated Iran deal, destroyed Paris Agreement, destroyed INF Treaty, etc.

Today he called Xi an "enemy" but if they have a nice meeting and Xi smiles at him a few times he will go back to saying how they have such a great relationship and how much he likes Xi.

He has no credibility and nobody wants to negotiate with him.

I agree for the most part. But I think Trump has initiated some trends that are unlikely to go away soon. The first is focusing American society on the threat posed by China to American dominance. Secondly, he's pretty much destroyed most standards of civility in American politics. Third, he has set in motion ever increasing tribalism in American racial politics.

I think a lot of these trends will be hard to reverse even after he is gone.

 

[mike2000 is back]

Its called having shame, they raped, killed and tortured your people and you say it was yesterday? You disgust me.

You might have a point. However, you forget that a country can still accept or tolerate being invaded/conquered/or even destroyed by a far away enemy, but for that country to be have the same thing(or even lesser) done to it by a neighbouring country that will have a far bigger impact/effect on them.
For example you can see the case of Vietnam, France(their former colonial master) had invaded and ruled Vietnam for a long time(also committing lots of crimes in the process to be honest) and were forced to leave the country after a bitter bloody fight of independence by the Vietnamese(funny enough aided by China back then). Same with the US who invaded Vietnam while supporting a parallel government to the Communist VCP and in the process also committing lots of atrocities( to be fair it was a total war as well, so such things happen during such brutal wars). However, today most Vietnamese don't care much about such past crimes committed by both France and the US. , since they have long moved on, but the same cant be said of their neighbour China. Vietnam considers them as their primary security threat and have long had a troubled relationship with them and this was made even worse by their brief but bloody war in 1978 with China and their subsequent territorial clashes at sea over the SCS islands . So it's normal that Vietnamese will be more emotional about their issues with their neighbour China than far way countries like U.S/West.
The same you Indians and Pakistanis will still be neutral with your views/impression towards Britain over each other since you have existential and territorial conflicts with each other and thus consider each other your greatest threats.

 

[Pakhtoon yum]

You might have a point. However, you forget that a country can still accept or tolerate being invaded/conquered/or even destroyed by a far away enemy, but for that country to be have the same thing(or even lesser) done to it by a neighbouring country that will have a far bigger impact/effect on them.
For example you can see the case of Vietnam, France(their former colonial master) had invaded and ruled Vietnam for a long time(also committing lots of crimes in the process to be honest) and were forced to leave the country after a bitter bloody fight of independence by the Vietnamese(funny enough aided by China back then). Same with the US who invaded Vietnam while supporting a parallel government to the Communist VCP and in the process also committing lots of atrocities( to be fair it was a total war as well, so such things happen during such brutal wars). However, today most Vietnamese don't care much about such past crimes committed by both France and the US. , since they have long moved on, but the same cant be said of their neighbour China. Vietnam considers them as their primary security threat and have long had a troubled relationship with them and this was made even worse by their brief but bloody war in 1978 with China and their subsequent territorial clashes at sea over the SCS islands . So it's normal that Vietnamese will be more emotional about their issues with their neighbour China than far way countries like U.S/West.
The same you Indians and Pakistanis will still be neutral with your views/impression towards Britain over each other since you have existential and territorial conflicts with each other and thus consider each other your greatest threats.

It's the samething.
Britain invaded by Argentina and Britain invaded by the Germans was the samething. They both killed your people.

Also what do you mean by "they have long moved on" does killing and destroying people mean the same as getting to a fistfight? You would be mad to think so.

 

[tower9]

If you really want a serious discussion, that's good start, although I doubt it.

Great power politics is about wining strategic advantage for long run. which includes:
economy, geo-politics, ideology, and military.

Cutting economy ties with China can hurt China but also hurt US. US will be losing China market which will be doubled in next decades. Capitalism is market driven, the growth rate of market is even more important.

China alone counted for 1/3 GDP growth of the world. If US companies completely withdraw from China, they will lose their scale and revenue as well as profit. tRump is not winning any strategic advantage, the trade war is double-edged sword.

tRump is nobody in Washington DC before elected, he has to reconcile his policy with the establishment's interest. If tRump keep hurting establishment interest and get nothing in return, he will be abandoned by Deep State.

The decay of US democracy has deep root. US is in big trouble, the longer tRump stay in power, the better for China. What US should do is political reform and economy reform, but tRump didn't do any of those, he is incapable.

Richard Wolff Explains How China Beats The West At Capitalism ft. Richard Wolff (TMBS 101)

I think you are making some major assumptions that are not necessarily true in Trump's presidency.

America's corporate community is no longer in the driver's seat. America's security community is.

Everyone understands that if the US were to continue it's current business relationship with China, it will lead to China eclipsing the US as the world's dominant superpower. The US has about 5-10 solid years left to prevent China from taking over because once China eclipses the US, they will only grow more and more powerful until China's power will overshadow the entire Western world.

Do you think a few corporation's balance sheets is going to change this calculus?

However, the catch is that the US is not an authoritarian state like China, there are many actors and Trump is not the sole actor. So there will be a lot of backtracking and contradictions, but I believe that the assumption of conflict will govern how the US moves forward for the foreseeable future.

 

[mike2000 is back]

It's the samething.
Britain invaded by Argentina and Britain invaded by the Germans was the samething. They both killed your people.

Also what do you mean by "they have long moved on" does killing and destroying people mean the same as getting to a fistfight? You would be mad to think so.

The main difference is that we don't have any territorial disputes or lingering issues with Germany, and Germany never invaded britain proper. Their troops never set foot on British soil per se. Was more of an air and sea battle for the battle of Britain which the German's found out they couldn't sustain during that period since the Royal Navy still had an advantage in British waters. So i think the fact that Britain was never occupied by the Germans has led to British people not really being as affected personally by the war as other European countries. As for Argentina, we still have lingering issues even though we are fully in control of the island which is a British territory. However, even so i'm sure Argentinians would be more wary of a neighbouring country they have a dispute with than a far flung one.
Same way Koreans/Japanese also have lingering disputes and have negative vies of each other compared to the way they view the U.S who also fought a bitter bloody war with Japan and also killed many Japanese during the war, idem with Korean war.

 

[vi-va]

I think you are making some major assumptions that are not necessarily true in Trump's presidency.

America's corporate community is no longer in the driver's seat. America's security community is.

Everyone understands that if the US were to continue it's current business relationship with China, it will lead to China eclipsing the US as the world's dominant superpower. The US has about 5-10 solid years left to prevent China from taking over because once China eclipses the US, they will only grow more and more powerful until China's power will overshadow the entire Western world.

Do you think a few corporation's balance sheets is going to change this calculus?

However, the catch is that the US is not an authoritarian state like China, there are many actors and Trump is not the sole actor. So there will be a lot of backtracking and contradictions, but I believe that the assumption of conflict will govern how the US moves forward for the foreseeable future.

What you just said contradicts with western democracy doctrine. I was told 1000 times in past decades that western democracy is way better than China's political system, and China will fall apart like USSR sooner or later.

Base on your theory, you had admitted that China can achieve much bigger progress in human history without western democracy. And you also predicted that China can sustain and will surpass US and even the whole western world combined. What's wrong with western democracy doctrine?

The real thing is not about western democracy at all. It's all about who will be in charge. The people or the plutocrats.

Throughout human history, people are ruled by elites which take bigger share of pie. Monarchy and capitalism are the same on economic term. Western democracy is the cover which give people the illusion that they are in charge, it never was. The western democracy use constitution, rule of law, fixed term election to grab legitimacy. After year by year propaganda, people believe in it, and stop challenging the SYSTEM. The SYSTEM is a machine to drain the wealth and redistribute. Of course, the plutocrats always get bigger share, that's the beauty of capitalism and it's rule of law, who can challenge?

What makes China different and makes West scared is that, the plutocrats are not on the driver seat. That's one of the most important reason why Soviet Union was under attack in 20th century.

If you go back to French Revolution in 1789, the Revolution overthrew the monarchy, established a republic. Those Monarchies quickly aligned to counter France. Holy Alliance is base on ideology to defend Monarchy.

History always repeat itself. When China has a more advanced, progressive political system and ideology, those plutocrats can't tolerate. Because China not only challenge their might, but also their legitimacy.

As we all knew, plutocracy can NOT sustain.

 

[Dark-Destroyer]

Pls don’t talk of the past, talk of today instead!

People who dont learn from their history havent learnt anything at all...

 

[tower9]

What you just said contradicts with western democracy doctrine. I was told 1000 times in past decades that western democracy is way better than China's political system, and China will fall apart like USSR sooner or later.

Base on your theory, you had admitted that China can achieve much bigger progress in human history without western democracy. And you also predicted that China can sustain and will surpass US and even the whole western world combined. What's wrong with western democracy doctrine?

The real thing is not about western democracy at all. It's all about who will be in charge. The people or the plutocrats.

Throughout human history, people are ruled by elites which take bigger share of pie. Monarchy and capitalism are the same on economic term. Western democracy is the cover which give people the illusion that they are in charge, it never was. The western democracy use constitution, rule of law, fixed term election to grab legitimacy. After year by year propaganda, people believe in it, and stop challenging the SYSTEM. The SYSTEM is a machine to drain the wealth and redistribute. Of course, the plutocrats always get bigger share, that's the beauty of capitalism and it's rule of law, who can challenge?

What makes China different and makes West scared is that, the plutocrats are not on the driver seat. That's one of the most important reason why Soviet Union was under attack in 20th century.

If you go back to French Revolution in 1789, the Revolution overthrew the monarchy, established a republic. Those Monarchies quickly aligned to counter France. Holy Alliance is base on ideology to defend Monarchy.

History always repeat itself. When China has a more advanced, progressive political system and ideology, those plutocrats can't tolerate. Because China not only challenge their might, but also their legitimacy.

As we all knew, plutocracy can NOT sustain.

You must be confusing me with someone else because I never really cared what system China has.

However, let's look at the facts, China has 1.4 billion people. It doesn't really matter if it was authoritarian or Western democratic, it would eventually surpass the US. The fact that China is authoritarian and nationalistic makes it 10x scarier than if it was democratic, which if it was, it would still be considered a threat.

What is astonishing is not that the US is now reacting hysterically, what is astonishing is that the US had set up a global system that allowed China to build the foundation to surpass it for three decades.

 

[vi-va]

You must be confusing me with someone else because I never really cared what system China has.

However, let's look at the facts, China has 1.4 billion people. It doesn't really matter if it was authoritarian or Western democratic, it would eventually surpass the US. The fact that China is authoritarian and nationalistic makes it 10x scarier than if it was democratic, which if it was, it would still be considered a threat.

What is astonishing is not that the US is now reacting hysterically, what is astonishing is that the US had set up a global system that allowed China to build the foundation to surpass it for three decades.

There are many countries with large population. Such as Brazil, Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Vietnam.

Population itself is nothing. Many countries with large population are not threat to US hegemony at all.

It's because of the system of China, the national character of Chinese, the civilization combined which can challenge US hegemony. Some other countries like Brazil, or India can NOT challenge US hegemony in foreseeable future even though they have large population.

Why is that? Because China system is progressive, makes US Deep State plutocrats scared.

 

[tower9]

There are many countries with large population. Such as Brazil, Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Vietnam.

Population itself is nothing. Many countries with large population are not threat to US hegemony at all.

It's because of the system of China, the national character of Chinese, the civilization combined which can challenge US hegemony. Some other countries like Brazil, or India can NOT challenge US hegemony in foreseeable future even though they have large population.

Why is that? Because China system is progressive, makes US Deep State plutocrats scared.

Yeah so obviously China is a massive threat to American dominance. Therefore, why would you think the US would simply stand back and allow China to usurp it's place without giving everything to stop China?

 

[Samlee]

All of these will go into india for sure.

But usa will loose alot of business

India Right Now Is An Economic Failure

Oh and Why India Why Not Pakistan??????