US officials: "We realize that efforts, implied or explicit, to shape or change the PRC over several decades did not succeed" : worldnews

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Just a few weeks ago, Taiwan held historic elections without any major cross-Strait incident, in part because all sides — Washington, Beijing, and Taipei — worked to reduce miscommunication and misperception about their respective intentions. That is an outcome few may have foreseen in August of 2022, when most expected the cross-Strait situation to grow more tense, not less. But it’s no guarantee of future trends, and the risk remains real.

This approach has been the hallmark of Biden's foreign policy. They're working behind the scenes subtly and competently, making progress in ways that doesn't really track with the 24-hour news cycle and clickbait journalism. It's good to see the efforts paying off, but they really, REALLY need to work on their messaging.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

LMFAO imagine describing Biden's foreign policy as subtle and competent while this senile dumb fuck is driving the world towards WW3. 😂

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Your premise is the more ignorant of the two.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It's not a premise, it's an objective fact. Biden's support for the genocide that Israel is conducting is literally leading towards WW3. Anybody with even a couple of brain cells to bang together can see that.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

My brother, the entire world is sliding into ww3... with or without Biden. It would probably be sliding faster without him.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The reason the world is sliding into WW3 is literally because US keeps picking fights with everyone. Nobody like you and nobody wants you. Stop trying to play world police, shut down your occupation bases around the globe, and fix your shithole country that's falling apart. US is a blight upon humanity.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Lol. Sure sure.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Your empire is crumbling, and you'll probably get to enjoy a civil war soon as the standard of living in US collapses. Best of luck to you.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

reminder not to argue with sh.itheads. It's a cyptofash instance, they're not acting in good faith.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

you're absolutely right of course, it's so easy to get sucked into these pointless troll threads

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

You may limit yourself to [1] (one) clowning-on, but you gotta make sure it's an extra good one.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago

😄

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Sure sure. Ain't my empire, chief.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

If you live in the west you're living in the imperial core, and you're directly benefiting from the plundering the empire is doing. Once the plunder stops, then the imperial core will suffer.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Sure sure.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago

The fact that you don't get this makes it only funnier.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

We also saw something that really stood out, which is that the PRC believed the United States was in terminal decline — that our industrial base had been hollowed out, that our commitment to our allies and partners had been undercut, that the United States was struggling to manage a once-in-a-century pandemic, and that many in Beijing were openly proclaiming that “the East was rising and the West was falling.”

Sullivan can't get away with this. He can't just say a banger line like this and continue on without addressing it.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago

Some more absolute bangers in an earlier talk from Sullivan where he admits that the whole free market bullshit they've been promoting can't actually compete with what China is doing. It's an absolutely incredible read, Sullivan claims that the American economy lacks public investment, as it did after World War II. And that China is actively using this tool.

last few decades revealed cracks in those foundations. A shifting global economy left many working Americans and their communities behind.

The People’s Republic of China continued to subsidize at a massive scale both traditional industrial sectors, like steel, as well as key industries of the future, like clean energy, digital infrastructure, and advanced biotechnologies. America didn’t just lose manufacturing—we eroded our competitiveness in critical technologies that would define the future.

He also opined that the market is far from being able to regulate everything, and "in the name of overly simplified market efficiency, entire supply chains of strategic goods, along with the industries and jobs that produced them, were moved abroad."

Another problem he identified is the growth of the financial sector to the detriment of the industrial and infrastructure sectors, which is why many industries "atrophied" and industrial capacities "seriously suffered."

Finally, he admitted that colonization and westernization of countries through globalization has failed:

Much of the international economic policy of the last few decades had relied upon the premise that economic integration would make nations more responsible and open, and that the global order would be more peaceful and cooperative—that bringing countries into the rules-based order would incentivize them to adhere to its rules.

Sullivan cited China as an example:

By the time President Biden came into office, we had to contend with the reality that a large non-market economy had been integrated into the international economic order in a way that posed considerable challenges.

The People’s Republic of China continued to subsidize at a massive scale both traditional industrial sectors, like steel, as well as key industries of the future, like clean energy, digital infrastructure, and advanced biotechnologies. America didn’t just lose manufacturing—we eroded our competitiveness in critical technologies that would define the future.

In his opinion, all this has led to dangerous consequences for the US led hegemony:

And ignoring economic dependencies that had built up over the decades of liberalization had become really perilous—from energy uncertainty in Europe to supply-chain vulnerabilities in medical equipment, semiconductors, and critical minerals. These were the kinds of dependencies that could be exploited for economic or geopolitical leverage.

Today, the United States produces only 4 percent of the lithium, 13 percent of the cobalt, 0 percent of the nickel, and 0 percent of the graphite required to meet current demand for electric vehicles. Meanwhile, more than 80 percent of critical minerals are processed by one country, China.

America now manufactures only around 10 percent of the world’s semiconductors, and production—in general and especially when it comes to the most advanced chips—is geographically concentrated elsewhere.

At the same time, according to him, the United States does not intend to isolate itself from China.

Our export controls will remain narrowly focused on technology that could tilt the military balance. We are simply ensuring that U.S. and allied technology is not used against us. We are not cutting off trade.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Imagine if US spent all that effort changing itself and improving the lives of the people living in US. Maybe it could be half as good a country to live in as China today. 😂

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

But why would it do that, that'd be silly. The system is working fantastically for those who run it

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago

indeed it is, rich people are making money hand over fist

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

If the US had embraced FDR's vision of democratic socialism instead of letting Capitalists be unfettered Capitalist, I think we would have more people be way better off then China today since we wouldn't have out-sourced anything to China to begin with (Unions and DemSocs wouldn't have allowed the outsourcing.)

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Thing is that US did embrace FDR's vision and then capitalists dismantled it. As long as the country is ruled by capitalists then socialism is never going to be a long term option. You might get brief periods of sanity, but people at the top will work hard to revert these gains back.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I'm aware, but that's why it's a whatif. And honestly the Capitalists got way ahead of the Socialists before the 30's so Communism was never going to take root as long as the "evil" USSR existed. The best we could have hoped for was a more robust FDR style Social Democracy which has a high probability of leading to what you are saying.

But who knows, maybe things could have been different. Maybe Karl could have moved to Texas in the 1800's and the communist revolution could have kicked off once oil was discovered.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago

I'm sure history could've played out in many different ways. Capitalists at the time were smart enough to realize that they would have to give workers concessions to avoid a Soviet style revolution. It's not clear that the current crop of capitalists have that level of self awareness. The whole green new deal thing Bernie was proposing was a necessary measure to keep the system going in my opinion. Yet, the idea never got traction with the ruling class and things continue to spiral out of control now.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

China is great, yeah. I see a lot of Chinese people fleeing China and coming to the West, but, weirdly, the opposite is not true. I wonder why that is?

Could it be because they don't want to be overworked? Could it be that they don't thrive in an overly competitive environment? I don't have an answer to that question, and I'd love to hear the point of view of a Chinese person living there. Mind you, I do know a few Chinese immigrants that left the country but they might be a bit biased.

Do you live there yourself? Or are you just peddling tankie shit as usual?

[+] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

China is not the only implementation of socialism in the world. You can be for communism and also not think of China as the best model to implement communism. I'm talking about China specifically, though.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

This will be downvoted by some of the authoritarians who dominate this sub but China is not a socialist country. It is state capitalist. Maybe this will help you understand why it is not a good place to live unless you belong to the upper echelons of society. It’s not so different from the US, despite all the propaganda to convince people otherwise.

Actually you could argue that many Western countries are closer to socialism because they have stronger unions. Not that that makes them socialist on their own but it is at least in line with socialist ideals.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It helps to learn about the subject you're opining on. Here's a book you can read that explains in detail how China is very much a socialist country https://redletterspp.com/products/the-east-is-still-red

And if China was capitalist as people like you argue, then we'd expect China to follow the development path of actual capitalist countries.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I’m not spending 25 dollars to win an internet argument but I would consider reading it if you have a free way. But from my experience debating you previously, you have a tendency to post sources that do not support your claims at all, and often contradict them.

China is following the essentially the same development path as other capitalist countries so I’m not sure what you mean by this. In recent years it has become increasingly nationalistic, imperialist, expansionist, and staggering wealth inequality continues to develop and entrench. Barring a real bottom-up movement for equality I expect these types of governments to gradually slide towards fascism.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

If you can't figure out how to get the book for free on your own then I don't know what to tell you. Maybe ask your friends to teach you what bittorrent is. There are however plenty of other free resources explaining how Chinese system works. It's interesting that you decided to slander me here though. It suggests to me that you're not interested in having an constructive discussion.

Nevertheless, I'll address your misinformed claims for other people reading the thread. If China was following the same path as other capitalist countries than it would look like India or countries in Latin America today where standard of living isn't improving for workers in any meaningful way. China is pretty much the only developing nation where the standard of living is rapidly improving for the majority. This does not happen in any capitalist country. Here are a few concrete examples of what I'm talking about.

The real (inflation-adjusted) incomes of the poorest half of the Chinese population increased by more than four hundred percent from 1978 to 2015, while real incomes of the poorest half of the US population actually declined during the same time period. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w23119/w23119.pdf

From 1978 to 2000, the number of people in China living on under $1/day fell by 300 million, reversing a global trend of rising poverty that had lasted half a century (i.e. if China were excluded, the world's total poverty population would have risen) https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/China%E2%80%99s-Economic-Growth-and-Poverty-Reduction-Angang-Linlin/c883fc7496aa1b920b05dc2546b880f54b9c77a4

From 2010 to 2019 (the most recent period for which uninterrupted data is available), the income of the poorest 20% in China increased even as a share of total income. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.DST.FRST.20?end=2019&locations=CN&start=2008

By the end of 2020, extreme poverty, defined as living on under a threshold of around $2 per day, had been eliminated in China. According to the World Bank, the Chinese government had spent $700 billion on poverty alleviation since 2014. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/31/world/asia/china-poverty-xi-jinping.html

https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2022/04/01/lifting-800-million-people-out-of-poverty-new-report-looks-at-lessons-from-china-s-experience

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

I’m not slandering you, just expressing skepticism at your own interest in constructive conversation and explaining why I don’t value your book recommendation very highly.

As to the rest of this, it is again much too long to read in its entirety but it seems to come down to the same economic growth metrics that are used to justify neoliberal economics in every country. Yes, a small fraction of the wealth falls down to the poor and by some metrics this leaves them better off. This is not socialism in Western countries and it is not socialism in China. In fact, these are the same reasons people supported far right politicians like Trump or Hitler. If we concentrate power in the hands of the people who know better, they will grow the whole economy and we will all get richer, right? It doesn’t matter if the ruling class seizes most of the wealth and power, now you can buy two toys for your kids instead of one!

The global definition of poverty is an especially misleading metric since it doesn’t actually measure people’s material conditions, just “dollars per day” which is often only tangentially related to actual well-being. See this paper for more information: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X22002169

Notably:

The results of this method demonstrate there is often a significant divergence between the poverty rate as defined by the World Bank’s $1.90 method and the BNPL. Consider the case of China, for example. According to the $1.90 method, the poverty rate in China fell from 66% in 1990 to 19% in 2005, suggesting capitalist reforms delivered dramatic improvements (World Bank 2021). However, if we instead measure incomes against the BNPL, we find poverty increased during this period, from 0.2% in 1990 (one of the lowest figures in the world) to 24% in 2005, with a peak of 68% in 1995 (data from Moatsos, 2021).3 This reflects an increase in the relative price of food as China’s socialist provisioning systems were dismantled (Li, 2016). It is likely that something similar occurred across the global South during the 19th century, as colonial interventions undermined communal provisioning systems. As a result, the $1.90 PPP line likely reflects a changing standard of welfare during the period that the Ravallion/Pinker graph refers to.

But even if conditions did improve during some periods, none of this means there isn’t a better economic system, nor does it make any country where conditions improve socialist. There have been periods of economic improvement in many capitalist countries, partly because pure capitalism is extremely difficult to implement and maintain, so most capitalist countries do allow for some socialist practices to exist. Again, socialism means proletarian control of the means of production, something that no one in these conversations has even attempted to argue is happening in China. Workers in China, like workers in all capitalist countries, have very little say over their own working conditions and economic decision making. This is extremely obvious from the fact that corporate structures in China are very similar to elsewhere in the world; a structure that is incompatible with socialism.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago

TLDR you can't be bothered to read things that contradict your narrative, and just cherry pick things that fit it. I'm not going to bother arguing with you further since it's about as productive as banging ones head against a wall. You keep on believing whatever nonsense you want.

World News

Rules: