Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Trump is correct about one thing: We already trade with Taiwan. It's stupid that we have to pretend they don't exist.
However, he misses the point as usual. There is a very good reason why we should pretend Taiwan doesn't exist: because it pisses off China, and China is much more powerful than Taiwan.
Yeah, if the status quo is America sitting atop the world in wake of Breton Woods, with the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency, with the U.S. having the world's most powerful and innovative economy, and with the U.S. having unrivaled military superiority, I'll take the status quo.
1 in 5 adults in the US need foodstamps to eat each month and 1 in 3 households are on some form of government assistance. And I could go on.
I'm thinking they will disagree with you on your characterization of how great things are in the USA.
But then again. It doesn't matter what either of us think. Trump won the election and he won it by changing this status quo.
Trump is correct about one thing: We already trade with Taiwan. It's stupid that we have to pretend they don't exist.
However, he misses the point as usual. There is a very good reason why we should pretend Taiwan doesn't exist: because it pisses off China, and China is much more powerful than Taiwan.
We don't pretend they don't exist. That's sort of like saying the U.S. government pretended that the Tamil Tigers didn't exist. We know they exist, we just don't formally recognize them, and we try to eschew any action that encourage them to seek formal recognition.
The second part of your post is spot on, though. And the bigger point is that it's not a good idea to run roughshod over established diplomatic protocol.
We don't pretend they don't exist. That's sort of like saying the U.S. government pretended that the Tamil Tigers didn't exist. We know they exist, we just don't formally recognize them, and we try to eschew any action that encourage them to seek formal recognition.
The second part of your post is spot on, though. And the bigger point is that it's not a good idea to run roughshod over established diplomatic protocol.
Especially when you have no clue what the established protocol actually is for that particular situation.
Especially when you have no clue what the established protocol actually is for that particular situation.
Protocol is whatever the President of the USA decides it should be. The rest is just noise.
Trump, unlike Obama, does not need to ask for China's permission before speaking to the President of Taiwan.
I can't imagine why anyone, who calls themselves American, would think otherwise unless they have been completely brainwashed by the deranged MSM. (who said that Trump would never be president)
Especially when you have no clue what the established protocol actually is for that particular situation.
Yeah, well, most people don't care about diplomatic protocol until it hits their pocketbook. It's too esoteric. Yet foreign policy impacts their pocketbook in important ways even if they may be sublimely ignorant of its effects.
That doesn't answer my question. My question was whether the U.S. could engage in military conflict with China without there being any downside for the U.S. economy.
The idea of balanced trade with China--where our exports and imports cancel each other out--is juvenile.
Why would that ever be the case? What goods are we supposed to sell them? The odd thing is that conservatives have often ridiculed the media for painting trade deficits in a perpetual negative light and they have always been right about that. It's not like you can manufacture underwear in Ohio paying workers $35 per hour and expect a Vietnamese family living off of $140 USD per month to buy them. There's simply no recognition that much of the world can't buy American-made products because they are extremely poor.
Now the good (or bad thing) is that China is becoming more and more prosperous, and they actually want the renminbi to rise relative to the US dollar, so that should go some distance in balancing things out as Chinese consumers purchase more iPhones, etc. But you are never going to get a situation where America has anything close to "balanced" trade with China simply because most Americans do not work in factories in the Midwest.
You are saying we go to war with China and still buy their goods? Probably not. China invades Taiwan. We go to the UN and work some plan to embargo their goods. Also getting other western powers to do the same. Do you think its worth it to them to lose 30% of their exports just to take back Taiwan? I think not.
Regarding balanced trade. China caps 34 foreign movies a year to be played in their country. To protect their own movie industry. Yet their goods flow in mostly unchecked. Part of the trade imbalance is they are more protectionist with their market than we are. Their economy is almost as big as ours. No reason we cannot achieve balanced trade with them.
I didn't say you were "uneducated." I simply asked you what you consider to be a very nuanced situation occurring in the world right now. It seems like people have a tendency to launch into discussions with very strong policy positions (or perhaps even not so strong) without being immersed in all of the policy arguments in the first place. That's why I said I wouldn't be surprised if many posters here also had strong positions on repeal of the Volcker Rule without having worked in the financial industry.
It seems like we're living more and more in a world where fewer people see anything in shades of gray. Everything is as easy as "slap a tariff on it" or "repeal Dodd-Frank" without really having enough knowledge to determine what the potential repercussions are.
I'm not getting crazy here and saying "Independence for Taiwan!" or "China F you!" All I'm saying is that I don't think a phone call or a few is or would or SHOULD be a big deal.
I just think it's funny that it's totally cool if we sell Taiwan weapons, trade with them, and maintain what's essentially an unofficial embassy there with employees from the State Department, but our president can't directly speak with Taiwan's president because at the same time that we do all these other things with Taiwan, we're not supposed to recognize its existence because China is more important and we can't **** off China. And yes this is all to appease China who threatens to invade Taiwan if they dare shoot for true official independence (if they even want to). Simultaneously we arm Taiwan so they have a chance at defending themselves, which is also a move intended to act as somewhat of a warning to China and funny enough is an attempt at keeping the peace. We got ourselves in a complicated mess didn't we? All because these two just can't agree on sovereignty.
I have seen plenty of articles in the past couple days where people who know what they're talking about are claiming this really isn't a big deal. I have also seen ones claiming this is very bad but that just shows that opinions are divided. It's probably far too early to tell what this actually means but I for one don't doubt that Trump knew exactly what he was doing. I'm sure many disagree.
You are saying we go to war with China and still buy their goods? Probably not. China invades Taiwan. We go to the UN and work some plan to embargo their goods. Also getting other western powers to do the same. Do you think its worth it to them to lose 30% of their exports just to take back Taiwan? I think not.
I didn't say go to war with China. I responded to some other poster who said a war with China would crush its economy as if there would be no far-reaching effects in global economy. If China's economy goes into a recession, our economy probably goes into recession too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackwinkelman
Regarding balanced trade. China caps 34 foreign movies a year to be played in their country. To protect their own movie industry. Yet their goods flow in mostly unchecked. Part of the trade imbalance is they are more protectionist with their market than we are. Their economy is almost as big as ours. No reason we cannot achieve balanced trade with them.
Who cares? Nobody has yet explained why a trade deficit is inherently a bad thing. Is it because the word "deficit" has a negative connotation while the word "surplus" has a positive one? I think the reason for people thinking trade deficits are just horrible really is that simple-minded.
The U.S. is a service-based economy. Engineers do not produce goods. Medical researchers do not produce goods. Architects do not produce goods. Software engineers do not produce goods. Most people do not do work that involves packing something into a box and sending it to a store. So no, we are not going to run trade surpluses with most nations. But FWIW, we *do* run trade surpluses with Brazil, which has some of the most protectionist trade policies of all our partners.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
