Re <<But there’s not much evidence of China wanting to replace us
... If we have sound policies, we can out-compete anyone.
... But we’re not looking at sound policies; we’re looking at pulling down our competitor...>>
Sigh.
(1) So what does Team China want?
Would say Chas Freeman might have it right.
I observe that Team China wants commerce, with everyone, no strings, parameters, hindrance, hiccups, a/k/a free trade.
Team China can live with some rules that is applied to all and for the Greater Good, meaning for Team China and for all, when the time is right.
Carbon-trading? sure, why not. As long as per capita rules are applied, and not per nation machination.
Labour rules? absolutely, set at locally possible best-benchmark, as opposed to irrespective of 100-years head start.
IP rules? sure, as long as Team Huawei gets to collect royalties unhindered by rule-by-making-rules cabal.
Currency rules? which nation would want to deliberately cheapen own currency beyond that which the market would tolerate and keep at it until the inevitable happens?
Do not kill Moslems? Of course not, bad for commerce. All are welcome to visit Xinjiang, at least more than those visiting Iraq ... Syria ... Libya ... Yemen .... However oddly, all spinners refuse to visit.
Do not engage in wars? Makes good sense.
But of course what belonged to China historically shall revert to China, by endless conflict until done.
In the meantime, reversion to 35% of global GDP is a natural, and in line with history precedent, and not out of the question per population count.
etc etc etc
And no, China does not want to put boots on the ground anywhere, or to seize and keep-it oilfields of strangers w/o paying for it in by transaction signed and sealed.
China has no interest in bloc-politics that reduce customer count.
No freedom-of-navigation piracy-invasion shall be permitted ever again.
No tolerance for folks standing in the way for standing in the way.
No interference against folks working to pull ahead by honest work, for they make good customers, unless they are printing money unless that printing is supported by mineral extraction.
(2) Re <<If we have sound policies>>
Loaded words. Cannot have sound policy when the truth underlying facts are twisted to suit any number of false narratives.
(3) Re <<pulling down our competitor>>
No big deal, as unsustainable over historical time horizon. History deals with such in own particular way, and one way. Unity of purpose, scale of momentum, centre of gravity, mathematical logic, and such are not theoretical. 2026 / 2032 TikTok.
The MSM seems to believe that Team China minds any tinpot navy sending ships to the South China Sea to strut and show flag. I suspect China just taking numbers and the hawks (yes, there are hawks everywhere) are gleeful that arc-throwing an empty tin can into no-man's land in the middle of the night can expose where the counter-party's machine guns are.
Trade war? Sure, why not, let's get it on and over with, as distractors make matters more expensive for selves, and ultimately must surrender to cold mathematical logic.
etc etc etc
all good exercises, if the policies are right, based on science and logic, and in alignment w/ overarching objective, ... 35% of global GDP, whether relatively by way of growing faster and better than others, ideally, or by others shrinking, which is not good for commerce, less fortunately.
... is my read. |
