|
LurkerJ said: Post removed due to length. See above. |
1) Vietnam: Vietnam has benefited, however this has been on a fairly small scale. We haven't really seen much of an increase in manufacturing in Vietnam over the last few years, although like you said, we may not truly see the full effect for several years. As of now, however, it doesn't seem like Vietnam is poised to take over any significant portion of China's exports to the US. As your article states, despite the fact that Vietnam's output is fairly small, it is already running into bottlenecks such as labor shortages, which put them in a situation where they are facing a ceiling of sorts to their capacity to take over Chinese production.
Additionally, this is a continuation of a trend, as your quote states. Companies had already been migrating away from China, and will continue to do so as pay continues to increase in China and it continues to develop. You could argue that any substantial hit to China's economy may slow its ability to continue to provide better conditions for its workers, which may actually deter the natural processes which are already diversifying global manufacturing. You talk about a situation where China becomes the only global manufacturer, but I believe market forces and the natural growth of China would largely prevent that from happening.
As a bit of a side note, the goal of having China drastically step up its imports, may create issues in the diversification of the US' export supply chains. From Fortune.com:
"Basically it would divert almost the entire soybean crop we export to everybody to China," said John Scannapieco, chair of the global business team at law firm Baker Donelson. "We're shrinking our markets. We should be helping farmers to diversify."
As the trade war has shown, without sufficient diversification, producers risk of a sudden reduction of purchases, for whatever reason, which can be disastrous.
2) "Building bridges" explanation: What I mean when I say that the US should have undertaken the task of diversification by building bridges instead of burning them, is that the US should not have sought diversification by attacking the supply chains that existed (which did damage to the global economy as well as US importers, etc), but instead should have sought to develop relationships with areas such as India and Vietnam. Make deals with these countries and with US companies to remove barriers. Create a system of positive reinforcement, which could benefit US companies, benefit the global economy and aid in diversification, instead of creating a system of punishment.
3) Technology: I agree that this is a positive step, however, I see no reason to think that the trade war was necessary to reach this point. From Business Insider:
"Graham Webster, who leads a joint initiative between Stanford university and the think tank New America, focused on China's digital policy, said that Wednesday's deal brought good news regarding intellectual property protection. The pact commits China to crack down on the theft of American technology and corporate secrets by Chinese firms and state-owned organizations.
But this was a small concession for China, and in its own self-interest, Webster said. "The Chinese government was already on a trajectory of becoming more rule-based, and [implementing intellectual property rights] has become a matter of self-interest for the Chinese economy as its companies have become more advanced," he said."
The article goes on to talk about how much wasn't handled in this deal in regards to Huawei, AI, hacking and more.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-china-deal-tech-cold-war-rages-on-experts-2020-1
Overall, this is a change which may benefit China the same as it may benefit the US. I welcome it, but I don't think the trade war was necessary to reach a deal that benefits China.
4) Other countries: Why did we not undertake these ventures with the aid of our allies instead of hoping they would take these steps individually? There was no reason that the US had to go into this trade war alone, but instead of developing a global, targeted strategy with the weight of the world, we chose to strike out at everyone simultaneously, weakening our position and hurting our allies. Instead of focusing on attacking the EU for the past several years, the US should have brought them to the table as we had trade discussions with China. Again, this lack of strategy and cooperation I think hurt the US' position. I don't think any of the damage inflicted over the past several years would have been necessary if we simply worked with our allies instead of against them.
5) "Worst deal ever": I want to emphasize, that I am not claiming that this is the worst deal ever, as you seem to imply. I am stating that it is a good, albeit fairly minor deal. It will likely have positive effects. My issues are primarily with how we got here.
| LurkerJ said: Trump thought he could bring back manufacturing jobs, it's not going to happen, the trade deficit is hardly an issue, it doesn't matter if Trump thinks otherwise. However, confronting China is a necessity. While I don't particularity like the world in which the USA is the ultimate superpower, it does seem like it's a better place to be live in that China would create. |
Interesting. I agree with you, but I didn't expect you to hold this perspective.
