|Home||Switchboard||Unix Administration||Red Hat||TCP/IP Networks||Neoliberalism||Toxic Managers|
May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Bigger doesn't imply better. Bigger often is a sign of obesity, of lost control, of overcomplexity, of cancerous cells
|News||Neoliberalism as a New Form of Corporatism||Recommended Links||Brexit||Casino Capitalism||Secular Stagnation||Ayn Rand and Objectivism Cult|
|Financial Crisis of 2008 as the Crisis of Neoliberalism||Gangster Capitalism||Anti-globalization movement||Psychological Warfare and the New World Order||Key Myths of Neoliberalism||Globalization of Corporatism||Greenwald US|
|Elite Theory||Compradors||Fifth column||Color revolutions||The Great Transformation||Right to protect||If Corporations Are People, They Are Psychopaths|
|Super Capitalism as Imperialism||Neocolonialism as Financial Imperialism||America’s Financial Oligarchy||Inverted Totalitarism||Disaster capitalism||Neoliberalism as a Cause of Structural Unemployment in the USA||Neoliberalism and inequality|
|Corporatist Corruption: Systemic Fraud under Clinton-Bush-Obama Regime||Harvard Mafia||Friedman --founder of Chicago school of deification of market||Republican Economic Policy||Monetarism fiasco||Small government smoke screen||The Decline of the Middle Class|
|Libertarian Philosophy||Media domination strategy||Neoliberalism Bookshelf||John Kenneth Galbraith||Globalization of Financial Flows||Humor||Etc|
As the most recent transformation of capitalism, neoliberalism is a broad economic and political project of restoring class power of financial oligarchy it enjoyed in 20th of XX century (financial revanchism). It involved consolidation, globalization and rapid concentration of financial capital (Giroux 2008; 2014).
As an ideology, neoliberalism consider profit-making to be the final arbiter and essence of democracy ("market fundamentalism"). Like Fascism and Bolshevism neoliberalism relies on the power of the state for pushing neoliberal "reforms". Despite smoke screen of "free market" rhetoric neoliberal are statists par excellence.
From the late 1980s to 2016, neoliberal ideas held hegemonic sway among both the Democratic elite and the Republican elite in the USA. Election of Trump is the first sign of the crack in the neoliberal facade. And it was caused by the collapse of neoliberal ideology in 2008, but by Russian interference in the USA election like deceptively Clinton's wing of the Democratic Party with the help of intelligence agencies is trying to present it
Unlike fascism and bolshevism which both relied on population mobilization, neoliberalism tried to emasculate citizens suppressing political activity by treating them as just a consumers. In other words it promote political passivity and replacement of real political struggle by colorful spectacle like wrestling in WWE. Consumption is the only legitimate form of activity of citizens under neoliberalism and exercising of their choice during this consumption is the only desirable political activity. With the related religious belief that the market can both solve all problems and serve as a model for structuring all social relations (the idea of "self-regulating market," to use Karl Polanyi's phrase.) Grinding mass unemployment — with only tiny remnants of New Deal protection mechanisms to soften the blow — created political instability that destroyed any chances of Clinton Wing of Dems for reelection in 2016.
As the mode of governance, neoliberalism produces the ways of life driven by a survival-of-the fittest ethic, grounded in the idea of the free, predatory individual in economic jungles. And it declared the morality of the right of ruling groups and institutions to exercise power ignoring issues of ethics and social costs (variant of "might is right" mentality). This set of economic policies tend to produce an economy with highly unequal incomes, prevalence of monopolies and high business concentration, unstable booms, and long, painful busts.
As the political project, it involves the privatization of public services, the dismantling of the connection of private issues and public problems, the selling off of state functions, liberalization of trade in goods and capital investment, the eradication of government regulation of financial institutions and corporations, the destruction of the welfare state and unions, and the complete "marketization" and "commodification" of social relations.
Neoliberalism has put an enormous effort into creating a commanding cultural apparatus and public pedagogy in which individuals can only view themselves as consumers, embrace freedom as the right to participate in the market, and supplant issues of social responsibility for an unchecked embrace of individualism and the belief that all social relation be judged according to how they further one’s individual needs and self-interests.
Matters of mutual caring, respect, and compassion for the other have given way to the limiting orbits of privatization and unrestrained self-interest, just as it has become increasingly difficult to translate private troubles into larger social, economic, and political considerations. As the democratic public spheres of civil society have atrophied under the onslaught of neoliberal regimes of austerity, the social contract has been either greatly weakened or replaced by savage forms of casino capitalism, a culture of fear, and the increasing use of state violence.
One consequence is that it has become more difficult for people to debate and question neoliberal hegemony and the widespread misery it produces for young people, the poor, middle class, workers, and other segments of society — now considered disposable under neoliberal regimes which are governed by a survival-of-the fittest ethos, largely imposed by the ruling economic and political elite.
That they are unable to make their voices heard and lack any viable representation in the process makes clear the degree to which young people and others are suffering under a democratic deficit, producing what Chantal Mouffe calls “a profound dissatisfaction with a number of existing societies” under the reign of neoliberal capitalism (Mouffe 2013:119). This is one reason why so many youth, along with workers, the unemployed, and students, have been taking to the streets in Greece, Mexico, Egypt, the United States, and England.
Neoliberalism is the second after Marxism social system that was "invented" by a group of intellectuals (although there was not a single dominant individual among them) and implemented via coup d'état. ( Installed from above by a "quite coup") Although is formally only around 40 years old (if we could the edge of neoliberalism from the election of Reagan, which means from 1981) neoliberalism as ideology was born much earlier, around in 1947. And the first neoliberal US president was not Reagan, but Jimmy Carter.
In any case in 2008 it already reached the stage of discreditation of its ideology. When ideology became discredited, the social system based on it enters zombie state. That happened with Bolshevism after its victory on the WWII when it became evident that the working class does not represent the new dominant class and communist party is unable to secure neither higher productivity of economics, nor higher standard of living for people then the advanced capitalist societies. Soviet soldiers in 1944-1945 saw the standard of living in Poland (which was Russian province before the revolution, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Austria and started to suspect the dream of building communist society was just another "opium for the people", the secular religion which hides the rule of "nomenklatura".
Later the Soviet intelligencia realized that The Iron Law of Oligarchy in applicable to the USSR no less that to any Western country. We probably can assume that Soviet ideology entered zombies state in 1945, or may be later in 1963 (with Khrushchev Thaw) when it became clear that the USSR will never match the standard of living of the USA population and most of Western European countries. Illusions of the possibility of global Communist hegemony had evaporated with the collapse of Sino-Soviet relations (also the 1960s.) Around 1975, the Soviet Union entered a period of economic stagnation from which it never emerged. Due to this the USSR looked to Europe, primarily West Germany, to provide hard currency financing through massive loans, while the US became a major supplier of grain.
All in all the story of the USSR collapse suggests that after the ideology was discredited the society, which was based on it, can last several decades, or even half a century (The USSR lasted another 28-46 years (depending on the point at which you assume the ideology was completely discredited). But the sad story of the USSR after 1963 does suggests that if the ideology is "man made" like is both the case with Marxism and neoliberalism, the collapse of ideology is the prolog to the subsequent collapse of the society (even if with a substantial lag).
Neoliberal society probably has at least the same staying power as Bolshevism. Probably more. So we can expect that after 2008 -- when the ideology was discredited and neoliberalism entered zombie stage it will last around 50 years. If not more. The key fact that might speed up the collapse of neoliberalism is the end of cheap oil. As soon as the price of one barrel of oil exceeds some magic number (different researchers cite figures from $70 to $120; let's assume $100 per barrel) the USA like the USSR will enter the period of stagnation from which it might never emerge without dismantling neoliberalism first.
So the crisis of neoliberalism as ideology doers not signify the death of neoliberal as a social system. It will continue to exist in zombie state for some time. A development that some will indeed see as a curse, others as a blessing. Many people after 2008 declared that neoliberalism is dead or seen to be in its death throes. Many obituaries of finance capitalism and global free trade were written in 2008-2012. Nevertheless, neoliberalism has shown itself to be resilient and remains the dominant social system around the world( this resilience was called by Colin Crouch "the strange non-death of neoliberalism".)
The USSR managed to survive in a very hostile international environment more then 40 years (1945-1991) after Bolshevism was dead as an ideology. Absence of hostile environmt, as well as the lack of alternative social system might prolong the life of neoliberalism. Also one advantage neoliberalism enjoys is that collapse of the USSR was prompted by the ascendance of neoliberalism and betrayal of Soviet nomenklatura (which correctly decided that they will be better off under neoliberalism, then under Brezhnev socialism) is that socialism was discredited. Also unlike KGB brass, which was instrumental in transition of the xUSSR space from Brezhnev socialism to neoliberalism (with the first stage of gangster capitalism) the USA and GB intelligence agencies (actually all five eyes intelligence agencies) still is ready to defend neoliberalism, as color revolution against Trump had shown.
However, Brexit (and the election of Jeremy Corbyn as head of Labour) and the movements surrounding Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump in the United States are each in their own way symptomatic of a turning of the political tide against neoliberalims, especially such features as hyper-globalization and deregulation of financial markets. The benefits of free trade – of goods, services and capital – and outsourcing of labor to low-cost destinations are now being challenged across the political spectrum.
That means that the crisis of neoliberalism iturned from purely intellectual (collapse and discreditation of the ideology) to political challenges. Even "leading economists" like Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman, Jeffrey Sachs and Thomas Piketty started voicing concerns. Rising inequality lessen the cohesion of neoliberal societies and and created social tentions within them as we see in Marcon France. Even top economist from the IMF have recently acknowledged that neoliberalism has been “oversold”.
But we still do not see social system that will replace neoliberalism yet. And that might prolog the life neoliberalism to the upper limit of the suggested range Meantime the crisis of neoliberalism created preconditions for the rise of far right movements and switch to "national neoliberalism" (or neoliberalism without globalization). Much like Stalinism was socialism within one given country with Trotsky idea of permanent world revolution till final victory of socialism sent to the dustbin). It is an interesting theoretical question if "national neoliberalism" promoted by Trump can be viewed as a flavor of neoliberalism or a flavor of neofascism. If the latter then neoliberalism already died around 2016 and existed in its classic form just 30 years or so. I doubt that we can do such equivalence.
At the current stage collapse of neoliberalism, if we can use this word, is still very slow and almost invisible. Brexit and election of Trump in the USA are probably the first two most notable events after 2008 that can be interpreted as such. Both undermined "neoliberal globalization" -- one of the key components of neoliberalism, because like Communism before it is about building a global neoliberal empire (led by the USA financial oligarchy in close cooperation of other western oligarchies), without state borders.
Still "Great recession" which started in 2008 is the fact of life. Nations took various roads out of the Great Depression and that's probably will be true for the Great Recession. Some used deficit spending and the abandonment of the gold standard, which had to overcome resistance from business. In Germany, fascism removed "capitalist objections to full employment," wrote economist Michal Kalecki, by routing all deficit spending into rearmament and by keeping labor quiescent with political repression and permanent dictatorship.
We can envision the same process of the growing level of repression in the USA due to the growing gap between ideology postulates and the real life conditions, especially falling standard of living for most of the people (let's say, lower 80% in the USA. Top 20% including large part of "professional" class are doing just fine, much like nomenklarura in the USSR).
In the United States, the replacement ideology for unregulated capitalism on the early 20th was the New Deal. After some initial failed experimentation with planning, New Dealers settled on a framework of stimulus, regulation, unionization, progressive taxation, and anti-trust, heavily influenced by Louis Brandeis. To get people back to work and prime the economic pump, vast new public works were built, and millions were directly employed by the state. Business — especially finance — was regulated, above all to prevent concentration. Unions were protected under a new legal regime created by the National Labor Relations Act. Taxes on the rich were sharply increased, both to raise revenue and to deliberately prevent the accumulation of vast fortunes. Finally, world trade was managed under the Bretton-Woods system. New Deal ideology did not win at once and in 1937, FDR reversed the course and went back to austerity, instantly throwing millions out of work, and forcing him to return to deficit spending. It took the WWII war spending in 1941-1945 to entrench the New Deal and to eliminate mass unemployment. War also created the political space for Roosevelt to raise the top tax bracket to 94%. Think about it. Less then a century ago the top tax bracket in the USA was 94%. The erosion of the New Deal started almost immediately. For example, in 1847 trade union power was undercut by Taft–Hartley Act.
The New Deal framework held for about three decades after the end of the war — during which time the country also had the greatest economic boom in American history. Critically, this time the fruits of growth were also broadly shared. For all the many faults in the New Deal, in this period America was reformed from a country which functioned mostly on behalf of a tiny elite into one which functioned on behalf of a sizable chunk of population.
In this sense ascendance of neoliberalism was a counter-revolution against New Deal staged by financial elite: fundamental economic bedrock is quite similar: deregulation, tax and spending cuts, union busting, and free trade. Its adherents resurrected the idea of the self-regulating market, creating an elaborate mathematic model in which depressions were always the result of structural problems, the economy is always at full employment, and nothing could be changed without making someone else worse off. Once again, the political message was that regulations and taxation should be kept as low as possible.
A generation of economists centered around the Chicago School, including Friedrich von Hayek, Milton Friedman, and Robert Lucas, provided the intellectual backbone, gaining strength in the 1950s and '60s. They argued that New Deal structures were a drag on economic growth, and that taxes, regulation, and social insurance needed to be cut. America simply couldn't afford the strangling red tape and high taxes of the New Deal. And this time, they assured everyone, things would be different — no 1929-style crash would be in the cards.
Neoliberals' opportunity came in the 1970s, when the world economy ran into difficulties and at the center of those difficulties was the rising price of oil. War spending, the baby boom coming of age, and the oil shocks created serious inflation and pushed the U.S. into a trade deficit, which broke the Bretton-Woods system. Profits declined and big business mobilized against labor. The first wave of de-industrialization in the USA and offshoring of factories to Asia hit manufacturing.
I wonder if oil can serve as the grave digger of neoliberalism this time.
Like all analogies it far from being perfect. Here are major objections:
The main charge that may be laid against Gorbachev as leader is that he lacked an effective strategy of statecraft: the mobilization of resources to make a country more self-confident, more powerful, more respected and more prosperous. Instead, Gorbachev frittered away the governmental capital accumulated by the Soviet regime, and in the end was unable to save the country which he had attempted to reform.
There one, especially deep analogy between any neoliberal society and the USSR. Neoliberalism borrowed large part of its strategy and tactic of acquiring and maintaining power directly from Marxism, specifically from the flavor of Marxism, which partially originated (and remained popular until late 1940th) in the USA, and called Trotskyism (which Trotsky was a Russia émigré, he spend his formative years in the USA). Actually analogies with Marxism are to numerous to list.
The first notable analogy is the slogan "Dictatorship of "free markets"" instead of "dictatorship of proletariat." With the same idea that the driving force of this social transformation is the intellectual "vanguard" recruited mainly from "Intelligentsia" (mainly right wing economists and philosophers of the Mont Pelerin Society created in `947 with the explicit goal to oppose socialism and Bolshevism) will drive steeple to the "bright future of all mankind" -- global neoliberal empire led by the USA. And that the end justifies the means.
In short, neoliberalism is a kind of "Trotskyism for rich." And it uses the same subversive tactics to get and stay in power, which were invented by Bolsheviks/Trotskyites. Including full scale use of intelligence agencies (during WWII Soviet intelligence agency -- NKDV -- rivaled the primary intelligence agencies of Nazi Germany -- Abwehr; CIA was by-and-large modeled on Abwehr with Abwerh specialists directly participating in its creation ). It also process the ideal of World Revolution -- with the goal of creating the global neoliberal empire. The neoliberal USA elite is hell-bent on this vision.
Like Trotskyism neoliberalism generally needs a scapegoat. Currently this role is served by Islamic fundamentalist movements. But recently Russia emerged like more convenient scapegoat, at least for "CIA democrats" like Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Also like Bolshevism before, neoliberalism created its own "nomenklatura" -- the privileged class which exists outside the domain of capital owners. Which along with high level management and professionals include neoclassical academic economists. Who guarantee the level of brainwashing at the universities necessary for maintaining the neoliberal system. This "creator class" fight for its self-preservation and against any challenges. Often quite effectively.
Yet another strong analogy is that the deification of markets much like the idea of "dictatorship of proletariat" is "fools gold". This fact was clearly established after the Great Recession, and one of the most succinct explanation of the stupidity of the idea of self-regulating market remains Karl Polanyi's famous book The Great Transformation. Polanyi argued that the development of the modern state went hand in hand with the development of modern market economies and that these two changes were inextricably linked in history. And all talk about small state, state as "night watchman" are pure hypocrisy. Like Marxism, neoliberalism really provides "the great transformation" because it both changes the human institutions and human morality. The latter in a very destructive way. The book postulated that and "free market society" (where the function of social regulation is outsourced to the market forces) is unsustainable because it is fatally destructive to human nature and the natural social contexts humans need to survive and prosper.
Polanyi attempted to turn the tables on the orthodox liberal account of the rise of capitalism by arguing that “laissez-faire was planned”, whereas social protectionism was a spontaneous reaction to the social dislocation imposed by an unrestrained free market. He argues that the construction of a "self-regulating" market necessitates the separation of society into economic and political realms. Polanyi does not deny that the self-regulating market has brought "unheard of material wealth", but he suggests that this is too narrow a focus. The market, once it considers land, labor and money as "fictitious commodities" (fictitious because each possesses qualities that are not expressed in the formal rationality of the market), and including them "means to subordinate the substance of society itself to the laws of the market. This, he argues, results in massive social dislocation, and spontaneous moves by society to protect itself. In effect, Polanyi argues that once the free market attempts to separate itself from the fabric of society, social protectionism is society's natural response, which he calls the "double movement." Polanyi did not see economics as a subject closed off from other fields of enquiry, indeed he saw economic and social problems as inherently linked. He ended his work with a prediction of a socialist society, noting, "after a century of blind 'improvement', man is restoring his 'habitation.
But when 50 years passed and generation changed they manage to shove it down throat. Because the generation which experienced horrors of the Great Depression at this point was gone (and that include cadre of higher level management which still have some level of solidarity with workers against capital owners).
They were replaced with HBS and WBS graduates -- ready made neoliberals. Quit coup (in Simon Johnson terms) naturally followed ( https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/05/the-quiet-coup/307364/ ) and we have hat we have. In a sense neoliberalism and Managerialism ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Managerialism ) are closely related. Here is how he "reinvents" the concept of "Minsky moment" in the new conditions of neoliberal globalization"
Typically, these countries are in a desperate economic situation for one simple reason—the powerful elites within them overreached in good times and took too many risks. Emerging-market governments and their private-sector allies commonly form a tight-knit—and, most of the time, genteel—oligarchy, running the country rather like a profit-seeking company in which they are the controlling shareholders. When a country like Indonesia or South Korea or Russia grows, so do the ambitions of its captains of industry. As masters of their mini-universe, these people make some investments that clearly benefit the broader economy, but they also start making bigger and riskier bets. They reckon—correctly, in most cases—that their political connections will allow them to push onto the government any substantial problems that arise.
Unlike Bolshevism after 1945, neoliberalism in zombie state (which it entered after 2008) remains dangerous and is able to counterattack -- the US sponsored efforts of replacement of left regimes in LA with right wing neoliberal regimes were by-and-large successful. I two key LA countries neoliberalism successfully counterattacked and won political power deposing more left regimes (Brazil and Argentina ). That happened despite that this phase of neoliberal era has been marked by slower growth, greater trade imbalances, and deteriorating social conditions. In Latin America the average growth rate was lower by 3 percent per annum in the 1990s than in the 1970s, while trade deficits as a proportion of GDP are much the same. Contrary to neoliberal propaganda the past 25 years (1980–2005) have also characterized by slower progress on social indicators for the vast majority of low- and middle-income countries [compared with the prior two decades ( https://monthlyreview.org/2006/04/01/neoliberalism-myths-and-reality/ ) :
In an effort to keep growing trade and current account deficits manageable, third world states, often pressured by the IMF and World Bank, used austerity measures (especially draconian cuts in social programs) to slow economic growth (and imports). They also deregulated capital markets, privatized economic activity, and relaxed foreign investment regulatory regimes in an effort to attract the financing needed to offset the existing deficits. While devastating to working people and national development possibilities, these policies were, as intended, responsive to the interests of transnational capital in general and a small but influential sector of third world capital. This is the reality of neoliberalism.
The Soviet Union collapsed partially due to the fact that collapse of oil prices (which might be engineered event) deprived it of the ability to buy the necessary goods from the West (which at this point included grain, due to inefficiency of Soviet model of large centralized state owned agricultural complexes).
In case of the USA an opposite situation might also serve as a trigger: as soon as oil cross, say, $80 dollar per barrel mark most Western economies slide in "secular stagnation" and that means growing discontent of lower 80% of population. Also as globalization is inherently dependent on cheap hydrocarbons and disappearance of cheap oil will male the current international patterns of flow of goods across countries with China as world manufacture open to review.
This is the situation when the irresistible force of globalization hits the brick wall of high oil prices. Also high cost of hydrocarbons means "end of growth" (aka permanent stagnation), and neoliberalism financial schemes based on cheap credit automatically implode in the environment of slow of zero growth. So expect that the next financial crisis will shake neoliberalism stronger then the crisis of 2008.
A lot of debt becomes unplayable, if growth stagnates. That makes manipulation of GDP numbers the issue of political and economic survival because this is the method of "inspiring confidence". And the temptation to inspire confidence is too great to resists. Exactly like it was in the USSR.
It might well be that the consistent price of oil, say, over $120 is a direct threat to neoliberal project in the USA. Even with prices over $100 the major neoliberal economics tend to enter the stage of "secular stagnation". It also makes the US military which is a large consumer of oil in the USA much more expensive to run and virtually doubles the costs of neoliberal "wars for regime change", essentially curtailing neoliberal expansion.
Election of Trump is just testament that some part of the US elite is ready for "Hail Mary" pass just to survive. The same is true about financiering of color revolutions, which as a new type of neoliberal conquests of other countries, also require a lot of cash, although not at the scale of "boots on the ground".
The implosion of the entire global banking/mortgage industry in 2008 has essentially delegitimized neoliberalism as an economic and social model which the U.S. has been pleased to espouse as the royal road to prosperity for decades. It signified the end of Washington Consensus.
At this point ideology of neoliberalism was completely discredited in a sense that promise prosperity for all via "free market" mechanisms. The whole concept of "free markets" is from now on is viewed as fake. Much like happened with bolshevism in the USSR.
It actually was viewed as fake after the Great Depression too, but the generation that remembered that died out and neoliberalism managed to perform its major coup d'état in the USA in 1981. After trail balls in Chile and GB.
Also its fake nature became evident to large part of global elite (which probably never have any illusions from the very beginning) as well, which is even more dangerous, a large part of upper middle class in many developing countries, the social strata from which "fifth column of neoliberal globalization" is typically recruited.
Global neoliberal empire still is supported by pure military and financial power of the USA and its Western (and some Asian, such as Japan) allies as well as technological superiority of the West in general. So right now mainly ideological postulates of neoliberalism, especially as its "free market absolutism", started to be questioned. And partially revised (the trend which is visible in increase financial regulation in most Western countries). So "self-regulation free market model proved to be neither self-regulating, not really free -- it just transferred the cost of its blunders on the society at large. This form of neoliberalism with the core ideology intact but with modified one of several postulates can be called post-neoliberalism or zombie neoliberalism.
While indoctrination now reached almost all adult population, there are some instances of resistance, especially among young people, who are insisting that casino capitalism is an act of violence against them and destruction of their future. And if it does not come to an end, what we might experience a mass destruction of human life if not the planet itself.
Both Obama and Trump proved to be masters of the "bait and switch" maneuver, but the anger of population did not dissipated and at some point still can explode.
Rule of financial oligarchy also gradually comes under some (although very limited) scrutiny in the USA. Some measures to restrict appetites of financial oligarchy were recently undertaken in Europe (bank bonuses limitations).
HFT and derivatives still remain off-reach for regulators despite JP Morgan fiasco in May 2012 in London branch. Trade loss was around two billions, decline of bank value was around $13bn (The Guardian) At this stage most people around the world realized that as Warren Buffett's right-hand man Charlie Munger quipped in his CNBC interview Trusting banks to self-regulate is like trusting to self-regulate heroin addicts. At the meeting of the Group of 20 (G20) heads of states in the spring of 2009, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced the death of “the Washington Consensus” — the famous list of market-liberalizing policy prescriptions that guided the previous 20 or 30 years of neoliberal expansion into third world countries (Painter 2009).
Prominent economists in the United States and elsewhere pointed out that after decades of reform, market-liberalizing policies had not produced the promised benefits for either economic growth or social welfare of countries were those policies were applied (Stiglitz 2002, 2006; Rodrik 2006). These criticisms further undermined the legitimacy of neoliberal governance, exactly the same way as similar criticism undermined socialist model of the USSR and Eastern Europe. the problem is that while socialist experiment could be compared with the Western countries capitalism achievement, here there is no alternative model with which to compare.
Still a backlash directed at the USA is mounting even from the former loyal vassals. Even the UK elite starts to display the behavior that contradict its role of the US poodle. The atmosphere is which the USA is considered "guilty" of pushing though the throats of other countries a utopia that harmed them is a different atmosphere for the US oligarchy that the role of it accustomed to.
Everybody is now aware of the substantial costs that the modern financial system has imposed on the real economy and no amount of propaganda and brainwashing can hide this simple fact. It is questionable that the "financial innovations" of the last three-four decades can compensate for those huge costs and that they warrants those costs. Shocks generated within the financial system and transformation of economies imposed by international financial oligarchy as the core of neoliberal elite, implies that the rule of financial oligarchy creates negative externalities for societies and that some types of financial activities and some financial structures should be treated like an organized crime (as purely parasitic, extortionist type of players).
Still this stage preserves several attributes of previous stage and first of all push for globalization and aggressive foreign policy. While economic crisis of 2008 destroyed legitimacy of ideology of neoliberalism, neoliberalism as an ideology continue to exists as a cult, much like communism as an ideology continues to exist, despite the failure of the USSR. And being phony ideology from the very beginning, a smokescreen for the revanchism of financial oligarchy, it still can be promoted by unrelenting propaganda machine of the same forces which put it into mainstream albeit with les efficiency.
While no viable alternatives emerged, and inertia is still strong, and G7 block with the USA as the head is still the dominant world power, the crash are now visible in the global neoliberalism façade. Like in 20th failure the globalization and unrestrained financial markets (which produced the Great Depression) the financial crisis of 2008 led to the dramatic rise of nationalism, especially in Europe (France, Hungary, Ukraine). In some countries, such as Ukraine, the net result of neoliberal revolution was establishing far right regime which has uncanny similarities to the régimes which came to power in 30th such as Franco regime in Spain. The global neoliberal dominance as a social system still continues, it is just the central idea of neoliberalism, the fake idea of self-regulating market that was completely discredited by the crisis (it was discredited before during Great Depression, but the generation the remembered the lesson is now extinct (it looks like it takes approximately 50 years for humanity to completely forget the lessons of history ;-).
This rise of nationalism was also a feature of the USSR political space in 80th. Formally it was nationalist sentiments that buried the USSR.
Around the world, economists and policymakers now come to consensus that excessive reliance on unregulated financial markets and the unrestrained rule of financial oligarchy was the root cause of the current worldwide financial crisis. That created a more difficult atmosphere for the USA financial institutions to operate abroad. Several countries are now trying to limit role of dollar as the world currency (one of the sins Saddam Hussein paid the price).
Also internal contradictions became much deeper and the neoliberal regime became increasingly unstable even in the citadel of neoliberalism -- the USA. Like any overstretched empire it became hollow within with stretches on potholes ridden roads and decaying infrastructure visible to everyone. Politically, the Republican Party became a roadblock for any meaningful reform (and its radical wing -- the tea party even sending its representatives to Congress), the Party that is determined to rather take the USA the road of the USSR, then change its ideology. All this points to the fact that neoliberalism as an socio-economic doctrine is following the path of Bolshevism.
Neoliberalism failed to fulfill its promises for the bottom 80% of population. They became more poorer, job security deteriorated, good jobs disappear, and even McJobs are scare judging from the fact that Wall Mart and McDonalds are able to fully staff their outlets. McJobs are jobs that does not provide a living wages. Opiod epidemics reminds me epidemics of alcoholism in the USSR during Brezhnev period. Cannabis legalization belong to the same trend.
But its media dominance of neoliberalism paradoxically continues unabated. And this is despite the fact that after the crisis of 2008, the notion that finance mobilizes and allocates resources efficiently, drastically reduces systemic risks and brings significant productivity gains for the economy as a whole became untenable. We can expect that like was the case with Catholicism in middle ages and Bolshevism in the USSR, zombie phase of neoliberalism can last many decades (in the USSR, "zombie" state lasted two decades, say from 1970 to 1991, and neoliberalism with its emphasis on low human traits such as greed and supported by military and economic power of the USA, is considerably more resilient then Bolshevism). As of 2013 it is still supported by elites of several major western states (such as the USA, GB, Germany, France), transnational capital (and financial capital in particular) and respective elites out of the sense of self-preservation. That means that is it reasonable to expect that its rule in G7 will continue (like Bolshevism rule in the USSR in 70th-80th) despite probably interrupted by bursts of social violence (Muslim immigrants in Europe are once such force).
In the US, for example, income and wealth inequality continue to increase, with stagnating middle-class earnings, reduced social mobility, and an allegedly meritocratic higher education system, generously supported by tax exemptions, has been turned into the system whose main beneficiaries are the children of the rich and successful. Superimposed on this class divide is an increasingly serious intergenerational divide, and increases level of unemployment of young people, which make social atmosphere somewhat similar to the one in Egypt, although the pressure from Muslim fundamentalists is absent.
More and more neoliberalism came to be perceived as a ruse intended to safeguard the interests of a malignantly narcissistic empire (the USA) and of rapacious multinationals. It is now more and more linked with low-brow cultural homogeneity, social Darwinism, encroachment on privacy, mass production of junk, and suppression of national sentiments and aspiration in favor of transnational monopolies. It even came to be associated with a bewildering variety of social ills: rising crime rates, unemployment, poverty, drug addiction, prostitution, organ trafficking, and other antisocial forms of conduct.
While ideology of neoliberalism is by-and-large discredited, the global economic institutions associated with its rise are not all equally moribund. For example, the global economic crisis of 2008 has unexpectedly improved the fortunes of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), an organization long famous for the neoliberal policy conditions attached to its loans that served to incorporate countries into a global neoliberal economic system. In 2008, a cascade of financial crises in Eastern Europe and Iceland fattened the IMF’s dwindling loan portfolio.
World Trade Organization (WTO), the key US-used and abused universal opener of markets to US corporations and investments is in worse shape then IMF, but still is able to enforce Washington consensus rules. The Doha round of negotiations is stalled, mostly due to irresolvable disputes between developed and developing countries. Consequently, the current crisis of neoliberalism raises many important questions about the future path of the current international institutions promoting the neoliberal order. But still Russia joined WTO in 2012 which means that this organization got a new lease of life.
When ideology collapses the elite often reports to corporatism (and in extreme case to neo-fascism) That happened briefly in the USSR under Andropov, but he did not last long enough to establish a trend.
Trumps "bastard neoliberalism (neoliberalism without neoliberal globalization) mixed with economic nationalism can be called "neoliberalism in name only". Trump foreign economic policies look more and more like an economic aggression, economic racket, then a an economic platform. Nonetheless, that "neoliberalism in name only" is still a powerful global "brand" which the U.S. seeks to maintain at all costs for macro geopolitical reasons (The Great Crash, 2008: A Geopolitical Setback for the West , Foreign Affairs)
The financial and economic crash of 2008, the worst in over 75 years, is a major geopolitical setback for the United States and Europe. Over the medium term, Washington and European governments will have neither the resources nor the economic credibility to play the role in global affairs that they otherwise would have played. These weaknesses will eventually be repaired, but in the interim, they will accelerate trends that are shifting the world's center of gravity away from the United States.
A brutal recession is unfolding in the United States, Europe, and probably Japan -- a recession likely to be more harmful than the slump of 1981-82. The current financial crisis has deeply frightened consumers and businesses, and in response they have sharply retrenched. In addition, the usual recovery tools used by governments -- monetary and fiscal stimuli -- will be relatively ineffective under the circumstances.
This damage has put the American model of free-market capitalism under a cloud. The financial system is seen as having collapsed; and the regulatory framework, as having spectacularly failed to curb widespread abuses and corruption. Now, searching for stability, the U.S. government and some European governments have nationalized their financial sectors to a degree that contradicts the tenets of modern capitalism.
Much of the world is turning a historic corner and heading into a period in which the role of the state will be larger and that of the private sector will be smaller. As it does, the United States' global power, as well as the appeal of U.S.-style democracy, is eroding.
The USSR occupation of Afghanistan was actually a trap created by Carter administration in order to weaken and possibly destroy the USSR. They wanted that the USSR experienced its own Vietnam-style defeat. As a side effect they created political Islam and Islam fundamentalist movement (exemplified by former CIA asset Osama bin Laden) that later bite them in the back.
The US elite got into this trap voluntarily after 9/11: first via occupations of Afghanistan (the war continues to this day), then occupation of Iraq, Libya and initiating "color revolution" (and train and supply Sunni Islam fundamentalists, along with KSA and Turkey) to depose Assad government in Syria.
The USA still remains the most powerful country in the world with formidable military, and still can dictate it will military for small countries in a classic sense -- in a sense that "might makes right". It still can afford to behave as a word hegemon and the only source of justice ignoring the UN and other International organization, unless it is convenient to them.
But there are costs attacked and in case of Iraq war they are already substantial (to the tune of several trillion dollars). While effects on the USA economy of those set of wars of managing and expanding its neoliberal empire (and repartitioning ME, securing oil access and repartitioning the region in favor of Israel regional interests) are still in the future, military adventurism was a gravestone on many previous empires, which tend to overstretch themselves and this fasten their final day.
As Napoleon noted "You can do anything with bayonets, but you can't sit on them". having first class military weakens is not everything when you face guerilla resistance in occupied country. Running aggressive foreign policy on a discredited ideology and relying on blunt propaganda and false flag operations is a difficult undertaking as resistance mounts and bubble out in un-anticipated areas.
Ukraine is one recent example, when neoliberal color revolution, which was performed by few thousands trained by the West far right militants, including openly neo-fascist squads, led to civil war in the country. Syria is another case of unanticipated effects, as Russia did not want to repeat experience of Libya and intervened, interfering with the USA goal of establishing Sunni-based Islamist regime, subservant to KSA and Turkey, and/or dismembering the country and creating several weak Sunny dominated statelets with jihadists in power, the situation which greatly benefit Turkey and Israel. Israel correctly consider secular Assad régime as a greater threat and major obstacle in annexation of Golan Heights and eliminating Hezbollah in Lebanon. It would prefer weak islamist regimes, hopefully engaged in protracted civil war to Assad regime any time.
Unfortunately, the recent troika of "neoliberalized" countries -- Libya, Syria and Ukraine -- were not probably a swan song of muscular enforcement of neoliberal model on other countries. While sponsored by the USA and allies anti-Putin putsch in Russia (aka "white revolution") failed, events in Libya and, especially, Ukraine prove the neoliberalism still can launch and win offensives at relatively low, acceptable cost (via color revolutions mechanism ). The main cost carry the population of the target country which is plunged into economic and political chaos, in most cases including the civil war.
But in the USA those wars also somewhat backfire with broken domestic infrastructure, decaying bridges and angered, restless, and partially drugged by opioids population. As well as thousands of crippled young men healthcare for whom till end of their lives will cost large amount of money.
In such circumstances chances of raising to power of an openly nationalistic leader substantially increase. Which was already demonstrated quite convincingly by the election of Trump.
Analogy of current crisis of neoliberalism in the USA and the USSR collapse is demonstrably far from perfect. The USSR was always in far less favorable conditions then USA, operating is a hostile environment encircled by Western powers interested in its demise; also the collapse of the USSR happened during "triumphal march of neoliberalism" which provided ready-made alternative to Brezhnev's socialism and stimulated the betrayal of Soviet nomenklatura of their old ideology and "switching ideological camps"). But the key to collapse of the USSR was the collapse of Bolshevik's ideology, which has happened some time from 1945 to 1963.
Still it allows to point out some alarming similarities. Which does not bode well for the USA future, if the hypothesis that the same fundamental forces are in play in both cases. In this sense the collapse of neoliberal ideology ("free market fundamentalism"), which happened in 2008 is a bad sign indeed. .
There is still a chance that the US elite proves to be flexible and manage to escape this "ideological mousetrap" by switching to some new ideology, but they are pretty weak, if we look at the quality of Trump administration and the personalities in the USA Congress. Some of them too closely correspond to the depiction of sociopaths to stay comfortable. The same was true about certain parts of Soviet "nomenklatura", especially leaders of Komsomol (All-Union Leninist Young Communist League ), from which such questionable post-communist figures such a Khodorkovsky, in Russia (of "pipes and corpses" film fame), and Turchinov in Ukraine later emerged.
The recent humiliation of the US representative in the UN Nikki Haley by Bolivian representative also suggest that neoliberal propaganda lost large part of its effectiveness and unilateral military actions by the USA are now questioned more effectively: Bolivian UN Rep Sacha Llorenti Blasts U.S. for Attacking Syria, Educates Nikki Haley on Iraq, UN & U.S. History
Llorenti’s fourteen minute address to the UNSC was a tour de force – a critique of unilateral military action by the U.S. (it violates the UN charter), an analysis of previous emotional appeals for urgent action (think Colin Powell in 2003), as well as a reminder of the United States’ long history of interventionism in Latin America. Llorenti also called the UNSC to task for its internal structure, which grants considerably more power upon its five permanent members than it does its ten non-permanent members.
It was a remarkable anti-imperialist display. Read a partial transcript and/or watch the full video below.
That closely corresponds to what had happened with Bolshevism ideology around 1980 -- when it became the source of jokes both inside the USSR and abroad. Or a little bit later, if we remember "Tear down this wall!" -- a line from a speech made by US President Ronald Reagan in West Berlin on June 12, 1987. When Paul Craig Roberts claims that It Has Become Embarrassing To Be An American that is a symptom of a problem, yet another symptom of the demise of neoliberal propaganda, despite obvious exaggeration.
It would be too much stretch to state that neoliberal and especially globalist propaganda is now rejected both by population within the USA (which resulted in defeat of Hillary Clinton -- an establishment candidates and election of the "wild card" candidate -- Donald Trump -- with clearly nationalistic impulses) and outside the USA.
May 24, 2019 | theregister.co.uk
..and we're all going to be poorer for it. Americans, Chinese and bystanders.
I was recently watching the WW1 channel on youtube (awesome thing, go Indy and team!) - the delusion, lack of situational understanding and short sightedness underscoring the actions of the main actors that started the Great War can certainly be paralleled to the situation here.
The very idea that you can manage to send China 40 years back in time with no harm on your side is bonkers.
May 24, 2019 | theregister.co.ukMichael H.F. WilkinsonRe: DisgustingMichael H.F. Wilkinson
Currently everybody else is losing. Forcing other countries (supposedly friends and allies) to abandon equipment of one manufacturer for that of your own company is not very nice and for us quite expensive. And that is not even factoring in the known fact that some of these manufacturers had backdoors in their equipment - for which actual proof exists. So considering our own national security we should forbid companies to do business with e.g. Cisco...Powerful vs LawfulMichael H.F. Wilkinson
Powerful is not the same as lawful, no matter what those in positions of power might claim or like to imagine.
Is this a distinction worth making? Yes, because otherwise law enforcement officers come to think that their word is law, and that they are themselves above the law. The result of that is a police state.Re: DisgustingMichael H.F. Wilkinson , 1 day Michael H.F. Wilkinson , 1 day
Nothing here is really Huawei's fault
Probably true. Huawei are probably just collateral damage in the inevitable socio-economic conflict between the US and China. The US is used to running the world (not especially well if you ask me). China with four times the population and an economy about the same size as the US that is growing much faster doesn't actually seem to have that much interest in running the world. But since the US is run by folks with no principles, poor memories, few useful skills,and no planning ability whatsoever, I have to guess that the Chinese will "win" in the long run.
Welcome to the Chinese Century folks.Re: DisgustingMichael H.F. Wilkinson , 1 day Michael H.F. Wilkinson , 1 day Michael H.F. Wilkinson , 1 day
Pretty irritating that Huawei is simply leverage while the US and China thrash out a trade deal.
I have a Mate 10 Pro and the best phone I've had, was planning to go for the Mate 30 Pro when it comes out.
Reckon I still will, I've already been reducing dependence on Google before this happened anyway. I'll have to shift my business email over to ProtonMail like I already do with my personal accounts. I'm trying out OSM instead of gmaps. I've already ditched gplay music. Just need Proton calendar which is in development and that's another service binned off.
Not sure what's going to happen with apps I've bought through Google and have active subs though...Re: DisgustingMichael H.F. Wilkinson , 1 day Michael H.F. Wilkinson , 1 day Michael H.F. Wilkinson , 1 day
The problem isn't the apps you use, there certainly are equivalents of the Google ones. But they still mostly rely on the Google Play API to interface with your phones devices and storage mechanisms. OSM is a pretty good replacement for gmaps, but will be of little use without Google Location Services.Re: Disgusting
Will the ban actually prevent anyone using a Huawei device from accessing a Google service (eg. Gmail) or just prevent them from downloading the official Google apps to do so? I suspect the latter as the first would seem impossible to police. In which case there are better alternatives out there.
The ban might actually provide a bit of a boost to other software developers, if it prompts users to look beyond the Google offerings that came with their phone and seek out some alternatives. In most cases, the alternatives are far better.
For email, try AquaMail. Easily handles my many email addresses split across Gmail, own domains using Google's mailservers, Yandex and own domains using Yandex's mailservers.
OSMAnd+ provides as good mapping as Google Maps (better in remote and off-road areas), is much more customiseable and you can download entire country maps to your phone, without pissing about with Google Maps's silly area selection download. And its navigation is pretty decent, lthough it lacks the Googley stuff like weather and nearest junk food shop listings.
Wire is an encrypted messaging/video-calling/VOIP app, offering everything Hangouts (or whatever Google's offering is called this week) does.
Yandex browser or Kiwi browser are Chrome but with added support for extensions
PulseSMS is text messaging with built in backup and the ability to send and receive SMS through your phone from your laptop.
May 24, 2019 | theregister.co.ukRe: Technological silos
They're not necessarily silos. If you design a network as a flat space with all interactions peer to peer then you have set yourself the problem of ensuring all nodes on that network are secure and enforcing traffic rules equally on each node. This is impractical -- its not that if couldn't be done but its a huge waste of resources. A more practical strategy is to layer the network, providing choke points where traffic can be monitored and managed. We currently do this with firewalls and demilitarized zones, the goal being normally to prevent unwanted traffic coming in (although it can be used to monitor and control traffic going out). This has nothing to do with incompatible standards.
I'm not sure about the rest of the FUD in this article. Yes, its all very complicated. But just as we have to know how to layer our networks we also know how to manage our information. For example, anyone who as a smartphone that they co-mingle sensitive data and public access on, relying on the integrity of its software to keep everything separate, is just plain asking for trouble. Quite apart from the risk of data leakage between applications its a portable device that can get lost, stolen or confiscated (and duplicated.....). Use common sense. Manage your data.
May 24, 2019 | theregister.co.uk
Internet, phones, Android aren't the issue - except if the US is able to push China out of GSM/ITU.
The real issue is the semiconductors - the actual silicon.
The majority of raw silicon wafers as well as the finished chips are created in the US or its most aligned allies: Japan, Taiwan. The dominant manufacturers of semiconductor equipment are also largely US with some Japanese and EU suppliers.
If Fabs can't sell to China, regardless of who actually paid to manufacture the chips, because Applied Materials has been banned from any business related to China, this is pretty severe for 5-10 years until the Chinese can ramp up their capacity.
China has some fabs now, but far too few to handle even just their internal demand - and tech export restrictions have long kept their leading edge capabilities significantly behind the cutting edge.
On the flip side: Foxconn, Huawei et al are so ubiquitous in the electronics global supply chain that US retail tech companies - specifically Apple - are going to be severely affected, or at least extremely vulnerable to being pushed forward as a hostage.
May 24, 2019 | theregister.co.uk
Sic semper tyrannis
"Without saying so publicly, they're glad there's finally some effort to deal with longstanding issues like government favoritism toward local companies, intellectual property theft, and forced technology transfers."
The British aerospace sector (not to be confused with the company of a similar name but more Capital Letters) developed, amongst other things, the all-flying tailplane, successful jet-powered VTOL flight, noise-and drag-reducing rotor blades and the no-tailrotor systems and were promised all sorts of crunchy goodness if we shared it with our wonderful friends across the Atlantic.
We shared and the Americans shafted us. Again. And again. And now *they* are bleating about people not respecting Intellectual Property Rights?
And as for moaning about backdoors in Chinese kit, who do Cisco et al report to again? Oh yeah, those nice Three Letter Acronym people loitering in Washington and Langley...
May 24, 2019 | theregister.co.uk
A claimed deliberate spying "backdoor" in Huawei routers used in the core of Vodafone Italy's 3G network was, in fact, a Telnet -based remote debug interface.
The Bloomberg financial newswire reported this morning that Vodafone had found "vulnerabilities going back years with equipment supplied by Shenzhen-based Huawei for the carrier's Italian business".
"Europe's biggest phone company identified hidden backdoors in the software that could have given Huawei unauthorized access to the carrier's fixed-line network in Italy," wailed the newswire.
Unfortunately for Bloomberg, Vodafone had a far less alarming explanation for the deliberate secret "backdoor" – a run-of-the-mill LAN-facing diagnostic service, albeit a hardcoded undocumented one.
"The 'backdoor' that Bloomberg refers to is Telnet, which is a protocol that is commonly used by many vendors in the industry for performing diagnostic functions. It would not have been accessible from the internet," said the telco in a statement to The Register , adding: "Bloomberg is incorrect in saying that this 'could have given Huawei unauthorized access to the carrier's fixed-line network in Italy'.
"This was nothing more than a failure to remove a diagnostic function after development."
It added the Telnet service was found during an audit, which means it can't have been that secret or hidden: "The issues were identified by independent security testing, initiated by Vodafone as part of our routine security measures, and fixed at the time by Huawei."
Huawei itself told us: "We were made aware of historical vulnerabilities in 2011 and 2012 and they were addressed at the time. Software vulnerabilities are an industry-wide challenge. Like every ICT vendor we have a well-established public notification and patching process, and when a vulnerability is identified we work closely with our partners to take the appropriate corrective action."
Prior to removing the Telnet server, Huawei was said to have insisted in 2011 on using the diagnostic service to configure and test the network devices. Bloomberg reported, citing a leaked internal memo from then-Vodafone CISO Bryan Littlefair, that the Chinese manufacturer thus refused to completely disable the service at first:Vodafone said Huawei then refused to fully remove the backdoor, citing a manufacturing requirement. Huawei said it needed the Telnet service to configure device information and conduct tests including on Wi-Fi, and offered to disable the service after taking those steps, according to the document.
El Reg understands that while Huawei indeed resisted removing the Telnet functionality from the affected items – broadband network gateways in the core of Vodafone Italy's 3G network – this was done to the satisfaction of all involved parties by the end of 2011, with another network-level product de-Telnet-ised in 2012.
Broadband network gateways in 3G UMTS mobile networks are described in technical detail in this Cisco (sorry) PDF . The devices are also known as Broadband Remote Access Servers and sit at the edge of a network operator's core.
The issue is separate from Huawei's failure to fully patch consumer-grade routers , as exclusively revealed by The Register in March.Plenty of other things (cough, cough, Cisco) to panic about
Characterising this sort of Telnet service as a covert backdoor for government spies is a bit like describing your catflap as an access portal that allows multiple species to pass unhindered through a critical home security layer. In other words, massively over-egging the pudding.
Many Reg readers won't need it explaining, but Telnet is a routinely used method of connecting to remote devices for management purposes. When deployed with appropriate security and authentication controls in place, it can be very useful. In Huawei's case, the Telnet service wasn't facing the public internet, and was used to set up and test devices.
Look, it's not great that this was hardcoded into the equipment and undocumented – it was, after all, declared a security risk – and had to be removed after some pressure. However, it's not quite the hidden deliberate espionage backdoor for Beijing that some fear.
Twitter-enabled infoseccer Kevin Beaumont also shared his thoughts on the story, highlighting the number of vulns in equipment from Huawei competitor Cisco, a US firm:
For example, a pretty bad remote access hole was discovered in some Cisco gear , which the mainstream press didn't seem too fussed about. Ditto hardcoded root logins in Cisco video surveillance boxes. Lots of things unfortunately ship with insecure remote access that ought to be removed; it's not evidence of a secret backdoor for state spies.
Given Bloomberg's previous history of trying to break tech news, when it claimed that tiny spy chips were being secretly planted on Supermicro server motherboards – something that left the rest of the tech world scratching its collective head once the initial dust had settled – it may be best to take this latest revelation with a pinch of salt. Telnet wasn't even mentioned in the latest report from the UK's Huawei Cyber Security Evaluation Centre, which savaged Huawei's pisspoor software development practices.
While there is ample evidence in the public domain that Huawei is doing badly on the basics of secure software development, so far there has been little that tends to show it deliberately implements hidden espionage backdoors. Rhetoric from the US alleging Huawei is a threat to national security seems to be having the opposite effect around the world.
With Bloomberg, an American company, characterising Vodafone's use of Huawei equipment as "defiance" showing "that countries across Europe are willing to risk rankling the US in the name of 5G preparedness," it appears that the US-Euro-China divide on 5G technology suppliers isn't closing up any time soon. ®Bootnote
This isn't shaping up to be a good week for Bloomberg. Only yesterday High Court judge Mr Justice Nicklin ordered the company to pay up £25k for the way it reported a live and ongoing criminal investigation.
May 17, 2019 | www.ft.com
Gregory Travis and Marshall Auerback Anatomy of a Disaster – Why Boeing Should Never Make Another Airplane, Again naked capi
The White House and US Department of Commerce took steps on Wednesday night that would in effect ban Huawei from selling technology into the American market, and could also prevent it from buying semiconductors from suppliers including Qualcomm in the US that are crucial for its production .
The US Department of Commerce said it would put Huawei on its so-called Entity List, meaning that the American companies will have to obtain a licence from the US government to sell technology to Huawei. At the same time, US president Donald Trump signed an executive order declaring the US telecoms sector faced a "national emergency" -- giving the commerce department the power to "prohibit transactions posing an unacceptable risk" to national security .
Paul Triolo, a technology policy expert at Eurasia Group, a risk consultancy, said it was a "huge development" that would not only hurt the Chinese company but also have an impact on global supply chains involving US companies such as Intel, Microsoft and Oracle.
"The US has basically openly declared it is willing to engage in a full-fledged technology war with China," he said.
Huawei has few alternatives for critical semiconductors to Qualcomm, which would likely be denied an export license if the US follows through on its threat of putting Huawei on the "Entity List" (the second most stringent category, but still sufficient for the US to bar licensing). One is Murata, but Japan has joined the US ban on Huawei 5G products, and would presumably fall in line if the US were to ask Japan to tell Murata not to sell semiconductors to Huawei.
The advantages of China going after Boeing, as opposed to making life miserable for US technology companies, would be considerable. Targeting, say, Microsoft would be an obvious tit for tat. By contrast, China was the first country to ground the 737 Max, and its judgment was confirmed by other airline regulators and eventually the FAA. China does not have a credible competitor to Boeing, so it could wrap continued denial of certification of the 737 Max in the mantle of being pro-safety, even if independent parties suspected this was a secondary motive.
On top of that, Ethiopian Air's forceful criticism of the 737 Max gives China air cover. Unlike Lion Air, which is widely seen as a questionable operator, readers who fly emerging economy carriers give Ethiopian Air high marks for competence and safety. One even wrote, "I have flown Ethiopian Air. It's certainly far better than Irish-owned and operated Ryan Airlines (even though the latter has white pilots with nice Irish accents)."
Chinese interests have made large investments many countries in Africa, so it's conceivable it could get other countries on the continent to follow its lead. Admittedly, China plus those countries collectively may not be large enough to do considerable damage to Boeing. But this action would break the hegemony of the FAA as certifier for US manufacturers, and that could prove crippling in the long run.
Another issue that hasn't gotten the attention it warrants is that Boeing appears to lack the stringent software development protocols necessary for "fly by wire" operations. Boeing historically has relied on pilots being able to reassert control over automated functions'; Airbus has "fly by wire" systems as far more prominent and accordingly the expectation and ability of pilots to override these systems is lower.
However, many articles noted that MCAS took the 737 further into a fly-by-wire philosophy than it had been before. Yet Boeing was astonishingly lax, having only two angle of attack sensors, of which only one would be providing input to MCAS, and then on an arbitrary-seeming basis.
By contrast, the Airbus philosophy stresses redundancy, not only in hardware -- they use not three but four angle of attack sensors -- but in software, and even software development. "Two or more independent flight control computing systems are installed using different types of microprocessors and software written in different languages by different development teams" and verified using formal methods (" Approaches to Assure Safety in Fly-By-Wire Systems: Airbus Vs. Boeing ").
May 23, 2019 | www.unz.com
No other country in the Middle East is as important in countering America's rush to provide Israel with another war than Iraq. Fortunately for Iran, the winds of change in Iraq and the many other local countries under similar threat, thus, make up an unbroken chain of border to border support. This support is only in part due to sympathy for Iran and its plight against the latest bluster by the Zio-American bully.
In the politics of the Middle East, however, money is at the heart of all matters. As such, this ring of defensive nations is collectively and quickly shifting towards the new Russo/Sino sphere of economic influence. These countries now form a geo-political defensive perimeter that, with Iraq entering the fold, make a US ground war virtually impossible and an air war very restricted in opportunity.
If Iraq holds, there will be no war in Iran.
In the last two months, Iraq parliamentarians have been exceptionally vocal in their calls for all foreign military forces- particularly US forces- to leave immediately. Politicians from both blocs of Iraq's divided parliament called for a vote to expel US troops and promised to schedule an extraordinary session to debate the matter ."Parliament must clearly and urgently express its view about the ongoing American violations of Iraqi sovereignty," said Salam al-Shimiri, a lawmaker loyal to the populist cleric Moqtada al-Sadr .
Iraq's ambassador to Moscow, Haidar Mansour Hadi, went further saying that Iraq "does not want a new devastating war in the region." He t old a press conference in Moscow this past week, "Iraq is a sovereign nation. We will not let [the US] use our territory," he said. Other comments by Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi agreed. Other MPs called for a timetable for complete US troop withdrawal.
Then a motion was introduced demanding war reparations from the US and Israel for using internationally banned weapons while destroying Iraq for seventeen years and somehow failing to find those "weapons of mass destruction."
As Iraq/Iran economic ties continue to strengthen, with Iraq recently signing on for billions of cubic meters of Iranian natural gas, the shift towards Russian influence- an influence that prefers peace- was certified as Iraq sent a delegation to Moscow to negotiate the purchase of the Russian S-400 anti-aircraft system.
To this massive show of pending democracy and rapidly rising Iraqi nationalism, US Army spokesman, Colonel Ryan Dillon, provided the kind of delusion only the Zio-American military is known for, saying,
"Our continued presence in Iraq will be conditions-based, proportional to need, in coordination with and by the approval of the Iraqi government."
Good luck with that.
US influence in Iraq came to a possible conclusion this past Saturday, May 18, 2019, when it was reported that the Iraqi parliament would vote on a bill compelling the invaders to leave . Speaking about the vote on the draft bill, Karim Alivi, a member of the Iraqi parliament's national security and defense committee, said on Thursday that the country's two biggest parliamentary factions -- the Sairoon bloc, led by Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, and the Fatah alliance, headed by secretary general of the Badr Organization, Hadi al-Ameri -- supported the bill. Strangely, Saturday's result has not made it to the media as yet, and American meddling would be a safe guess as to the delay, but the fact that this bill would certainly have passed strongly shows that Iraq well understands the weakness of the American bully: Iraq's own US militarily imposed democracy.
Iraq shares a common border with Iran that the US must have for any ground war. Both countries also share a similar religious demographic where Shia is predominant and the plurality of cultures substantially similar and previously living in harmony. Both also share a very deep seeded and deserved hatred of Zio- America. Muqtada al-Sadr, who, after coming out first in the 2018 Iraqi elections, is similar to Hizbullah's Hassan Nasrallah in his religious and military influence within the well trained and various Shia militias. He is firmly aligned with Iran as is Fattah Alliance. Both detest Zio- America.
A ground invasion needs a common and safe border. Without Iraq, this strategic problem for US forces becomes complete. The other countries also with borders with Iran are Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Turkey, Afghanistan and Pakistan. All have several good reasons that they will not, or cannot, be used for ground forces.
With former Armenian President Robert Kocharian under arrest in the aftermath of the massive anti-government 2018 protests, Bolton can check that one off the list first. Azerbaijan is mere months behind the example next door in Armenia, with protests increasing and indicating a change towards eastern winds. Regardless, Azerbaijan, like Turkmenistan, is an oil producing nation and as such is firmly aligned economically with Russia. Political allegiance seems obvious since US influence is limited in all three countries to blindly ignoring the massive additional corruption and human rights violations by Presidents Ilham Aliyev and Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow .
However, Russian economic influence pays in cash. Oil under Russian control is the lifeblood of both of these countries. Recent developments and new international contracts with Russia clearly show whom these leaders are actually listening to.
Turkey would appear to be firmly shifting into Russian influence. A NATO member in name only. Ever since he shot down his first- and last – Russian fighter jet, Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan has thumbed his nose at the Americans. Recently he refused to succumb to pressure and will receive Iranian oil and, in July, the Russian S-400 anti-aircraft/missile system. This is important since there is zero chance Putin will relinquish command and control or see them missiles used against Russian armaments. Now, Erdogan is considering replacing his purchase of thirty US F-35s with the far superior Russian SU- 57 and a few S-500s for good measure.
Economically, America did all it could to stop the Turk Stream gas pipeline installed by Russia's Gazprom, that runs through Turkey to eastern Europe and will provide $billions to Erdogan and Turkey . It will commence operation this year. Erdogan continues to purchase Iranian oil and to call for Arab nations to come together against US invasion in Iran. This week, Turkish Defense Minister Hulusi Akar renewed Turkey's resolve, saying his country is preparing for potential American sanctions as a deadline reportedly set by the US for Ankara to cancel the S-400 arms deal with Russia or face penalties draws near.
So, Turkey is out for both a ground war and an air war since the effectiveness of all those S-400's might be put to good use if America was to launch from naval positions in the Mediterranean. Attacking from the Black Sea is out since it is ringed by countries under Russo/Sino influence and any attack on Iran will have to illegally cross national airspace aligned with countries preferring the Russo/Sino alliance that favours peace. An unprovoked attack would leave the US fleet surrounded with the only safe harbours in Romania and Ukraine. Ships move much slower than missiles.
Afghanistan is out, as the Taliban are winning. Considering recent peace talks from which they walked out and next slaughtered a police station near the western border with Iran, they have already won. Add the difficult terrain near the Iranian border and a ground invasion is very unlikely
Although new Pakistani President Amir Khan has all the power and authority of a primary school crossing guard, the real power within the Pakistani military, the ISI, is more than tired of American influence . ISI has propagated the Taliban for years and often gave refuge to Afghan anti-US forces allowing them to use their common border for cover. Although in the past ISI has been utterly mercenary in its very duplicitous- at least- foreign allegiances, after a decade of US drone strikes on innocent Pakistanis, the chance of ground-based forces being allowed is very doubtful. Like Afghanistan terrain also increases this unlikelihood.
Considerations as to terrain and location for a ground war and the resulting failure of not doing so was shown to Israel previously when, in 2006 Hizbullah virtually obliterated its ground attack, heavy armour and battle tanks in the hills of southern Lebanon. In further cautionary detail, this failure cost PM Ehud Olmert his job.
For the Russo/Sino pact nations, or those leaning in their direction, the definition of national foreign interest is no longer military, it is economic. Those with resources and therefore bright futures within the expanding philosophy and economic offerings of the Russo/Sino pact have little use any longer for the "Sorrows of Empire." These nation's leaders, if nothing more than to line their own pockets, have had a very natural epiphany: War is not, for them, profitable.
For Iran, the geographic, economic and therefore geo-political ring of defensive nations is made complete by Syria, Lebanon and Iraq. Syria, like Iraq, has every reason to despise the Americans and similar reasons to embrace Iran, Russia, China and border neighbour Lebanon. Syria now has its own Russian S-300 system which is already bringing down Israeli missiles. It is surprising that Lebanon has not requested a few S-300s of their own. No one knows what Hizbullah has up its sleeve, but it has been enough to keep the Israelis at bay. Combined with a currently more prepared Lebanese army, Lebanon under the direction of Nasrallah is a formidable nation for its size. Ask Israel.
Lebanon and Syria also take away the chance of a ground-based attack, leaving the US Marines and Army to stare longingly across the Persian Gulf open waters from Saudi Arabia or one of its too few and militarily insignificant allies in the southern Gulf region.
Friendly airspace will also be vastly limited, so also gone will be the tactical element of surprise of any incoming attack. The reality of this defensive ring of nations means that US military options will be severely limited. The lack of a ground invasion threat and the element of surprise will allow Iranian defences to prioritize and therefore be dramatically more effective. As shown in a previous article, "The Return of the Madness of M.A.D," Iran like Russia and China, after forty years of US/Israeli threats, has developed new weapons and military capabilities, that combined with tactics will make any direct aggression towards it by American forces a fair fight.
If the US launches a war it will go it alone except for the few remaining US lapdogs like the UK, France, Germany and Australia, but with anti-US emotions running as wild across the EU as in the southern Caspian nations, the support of these Zionist influenced EU leaders is not necessarily guaranteed.
Regardless, a lengthy public ramp-up to stage military assets for an attack by the US will be seen by the vast majority of the world- and Iran- as an unprovoked act of war. Certainly at absolute minimum Iran will close the Straits of Hormuz, throwing the price of oil skyrocketing and world economies into very shaky waters. World capitalist leaders will not be happy. Without a friendly landing point for ground troops, the US will either have to abandon this strategy in favour of an air war or see piles of body bags of US servicemen sacrificed to Israeli inspired hegemony come home by the thousands just months before the '20 primary season. If this is not military and economic suicide, it is certainly political.
Air war will likely see a similar disaster. With avenues of attack severely restricted, obvious targets such as Iran's non-military nuclear program and major infrastructure will be thus more easily defended and the likelihood of the deaths of US airmen similarly increased.
In terms of Naval power, Bolton would have only the Mediterranean as a launch pad, since using the Black Sea to initiate war will see the US fleet virtually surrounded by nations aligned with the Russo/Sino pact. Naval forces, it should be recalled, are, due to modern anti-ship technologies and weapons, now the sitting ducks of blusterous diplomacy. A hot naval war in the Persian Gulf, like a ground war, will leave a US death toll far worse than the American public has witnessed in their lifetimes and the US navy in tatters.
Trump is already reportedly seething that his machismo has been tarnished by Bolton and Pompeo's false assurances of an easy overthrow of Maduro in Venezuela. With too many top generals getting jumpy about him initiating a hot war with Iraq, Bolton's stock in trade-war is waning. Trump basks in being the American bully personified, but he and his ego will not stand for being exposed as weak. Remaining as president is necessary to stoke his shallow character. When Trump's limited political intelligence wakes up to the facts that his Zio masters want a war with Iran more than they want him as president, and that these forces can easily replace him with a Biden, Harris, Bernie or Warren political prostitute instead, even America's marmalade Messiah, will lose the flavor of his master's blood lust for war.
In two excellent articles in Asia times by Pepe Escobar, he details the plethora of projects, agreements, and cooperation that are taking place from Asia to the Mid-East to the Baltics . Lead by Russia and China this very quickly developing Russo/Sino pact of economic opportunity and its intentions of "soft power" collectively spell doom for Zio-America's only remaining tactics of influence: military intervention. States, Escobar:
"We should know by now that the heart of the 21 st Century Great Game is the myriad layers of the battle between the United States and the partnership of Russia and China. The long game indicates Russia and China will break down language and cultural barriers to lead Eurasian integration against American economic hegemony backed by military might."
The remaining civilized world, that which understands the expanding world threat of Zio-America, can rest easy. Under the direction of this new Russo/Sino influence, without Iraq, the US will not launch a war on Iran.
This growing Axis of Sanity surrounds Iran geographically and empathetically, but more importantly, economically. This economy, as clearly stated by both Putin and Xi, does not benefit from any further wars of American aggression. In this new allegiance to future riches, it is Russian and China that will call the shots and a shooting war involving their new client nations will not be sanctioned from the top.
However, to Putin, Xi and this Axis of Sanity: If American wishes to continue to bankrupt itself by ineffective military adventures of Israel's making, rather than fix its own nation that is in societal decline and desiccated after decades of increasing Zionist control, well
That just good for business!
About the Author: Brett Redmayne-Titley has published over 170 in-depth articles over the past eight years for news agencies worldwide. Many have been translated and republished. On-scene reporting from important current events has been an emphasis that has led to his many multi-part exposes on such topics as the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations, NATO summit, Keystone XL Pipeline, Porter Ranch Methane blow-out, Hizbullah in Lebanon, Erdogan's Turkey and many more. He can be reached at: live-on-scene ((at)) gmx.com. Prior articles can be viewed at his archive: www.watchingromeburn.uk
RealAmerican , says: May 23, 2019 at 11:40 pm GMTWhen Trump's limited political intelligence wakes up to the facts that his Zio masters want a war with Iran more than they want him as president, and that these forces can easily replace him with a Biden, Harris, Bernie or Warren political prostitute instead, even America's marmalade Messiah, will lose the flavor of his master's blood lust for war.Jim Christian , says: May 24, 2019 at 3:45 am GMT
I believe you are far too generous in your estimation of his ability to distinguish between flavors of any type. Otherwise, your analysis is insightful and thorough.The U.S. is in the same position today that we were aboard Nimitz back in 1980. Too far from Tehran to start a war or even to find our people. We are perhaps in even a far worse position in that today, Iran holds no hostages. There's nothing so 'noble' as 44 hostages to inspire war today. This here is merely at the behest of Israel and the deep state profit centers for mere fun and games and cash and prizes. Iran, overall, is nothing. Obama put Iran away for what, a billion-five? And Jared, Bolton and Pompeo dredged it all back up again? Care to guess the first-night expense of a shock and awe on Tehran? It's unthinkable.Alfred , says: May 24, 2019 at 4:56 am GMT
I used to like Israel. The Haifa-Tel Av-iv-Jerusalem-Galili loop was pretty cool. The PLO hadn't quite started their game, we could move freely about the country. It's where the whole thing started. And, unlike Italy and Spain, they treated us Americans ok. They were somewhat war torn. But now? They're a destructive monolith, they're good at hiding it and further, they make disastrous miscalculations. Eliminating Saddam was huge. Turns out, Saddam was the only sane one. The last vestiges of Saddam's nuclear program went up in the attacks on the Osirak reactor that Israel bombed in 1981. Why did they push for the elimination of Saddam afterwards? Why the lies? Miscalculation.
This here with Iran won't travel further than threats and horseshit. I hope. Lots of bleating and farting. Someone agrees. Oil dropped three or four bucks today."the resulting failure of not doing so was shown to Israel previously when, in 2016 Hezbollah virtually obliterated its ground attack, heavy amour and battle tanks in the hills of southern Lebanon."Ilyana_Rozumova , says: May 24, 2019 at 5:22 am GMT
2006 please!I do particularly agree that elimination of Sadam was the greatest mistake US committed in Middle East. Devastating mistake for US policy. In the final evaluation it did create the most powerful Shi_ite crescent that now rules the Levant. Organizing failing uprising in Turkey against Erdogan was probably mistake of the same magnitude. Everything is lost for US now in the ME.animalogic , says: May 24, 2019 at 7:10 am GMT
Threatening Iran is now simply grotesque.
Concerning the article. The article evaluating the situation in ME is outstanding and perfect. Every move of US is a vanity. There is no more any opportunity to achieve any benefit for US. Who is responsible for all those screw ups ? US or Israel?Great article, cheered me up enormously.Apex Predator , says: May 24, 2019 at 7:37 am GMT
However, the other side of the military coin is economic -- specifically sanctions on Iran (& China). Here ( I suspect) the US has prospects. Iran has said it has a "PhD" in sanctions busting. I hope that optimism is not misplaced. That US sanctions amount to a declaration of war on Iran is widely agreed. Sadly, it seems the EU in its usual spineless way will offer Iran more or less empty promises.Is the author unaware of the nation of Saudi Arabia and the fact that they are new BFFs with Israel. They have come out quite openly they'd like to see Iran attacked. That whole Sunni Wahabism vs. Shia thing is a heck of alot older than this current skirmish.peter mcloughlin , says: May 24, 2019 at 8:21 am GMT
Being that SA has a border w/ the Persian Gulf and that Kuwait who is even CLOSER may be agreeable to be a staging area, why the hand wringing about this nation & that nation, etc. The US would be welcome to stage an air and sea assault using Saudi bases followed up by amphibious troop deployment if need be. But given the proximity they could probably strong arm Kuwait to act as a land bridge, in a pinch.
So will we expect the follow up article discussing this glaring omission, or am I missing some great development re: S.Arabia's disposition and temperament regarding all this.The transformed relationship between Russia and Turkey illustrates perfectly the shifting sands of strategic alliances as we cross the desert towards destiny. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/The Alarmist , says: May 24, 2019 at 8:24 am GMTI don't know if Russia and China have been showing restraint or still don't feel up to taking Uncle on very publicly or even covertly. The author assumes they might be willing to step up now for Iran, but the action in places like Syria suggests they might not.joeshittheragman , says: May 24, 2019 at 9:47 am GMT
As for the costs of taking on Iran, while one cannot underestimate the cocksuredness of Uncle to take on Iran with a 2003 "Iraq will be a cakewalk" attitude, the resulting air war will likely not be as costly to Uncle as the author believes, but the thought of flag-draped coffins in the thousands will certainly deter a land invasion. If there is any action at all, it will be air interdiction and missile attack.
It is curious that Uncle has not already resorted to his favorite tactic of declaring a No-Fly zone already but instead merely hinted that airliner safety cannot be guaranteed; this is likely just another form of sanction since Iran receives money for each airliner that transits its airspace, and a couple of Uncle's putative allies supply Iran with ATC equipment and services.
Uncle's Navy has already demonstrated a willingness to shoot down an airliner in Iranian airspace, so it is no idle threat, kind of like the mobster looking at a picture of your family and saying, "Nice family you have there; it would be a shame if anything happened to them.""War is a Racket" by Gen Smedley Butler (USMC – recipient of two Medals of Honor – no rear echelon pogue) is a must read. As true today as it was back when he wrote it.Tom Welsh , says: May 24, 2019 at 11:18 am GMT"The Axis of Sanity" – I like it, I like it! Probably quite closely related to the "reality-based community".Amerimutt Golems , says: May 24, 2019 at 11:29 am GMTWalter , says: May 24, 2019 at 11:46 am GMT
If the US launches a war it will go it alone except for the few remaining US lapdogs like the UK, France, Germany and Australia, but with anti-US emotions running as wild across the EU as in the southern Caspian nations, the support of these Zionist influenced EU leaders is not necessarily guaranteed.
Stasi " Merkel muss weg " (Merkel must go) is too weak to even think about taking Germanstan into such a foolish adventure.
Maybe the Kosher Kingdom of simpletons, especially under American-born Turkish "Englishman" (((Boris Kemal Bey))), another psycho like (((Baron Levy's))) Scottish warmonger Blair.built-up in Iraq geewhiz!sarz , says: May 24, 2019 at 11:51 am GMT
Iraqi MP: US after Turning Ain Al-Assad into Central Airbase in Iraq
"Karim al-Mohammadawi told the Arabic-language al-Ma'aloumeh news website that the US wants to turn Ain al-Assad airbase which is a regional base for operations and command into a central airbase for its fighter jets.
He added that a large number of forces and military equipment have been sent to Ain al-Assad without any permission from the Iraqi government, noting that the number of American forces in Iraq has surpassed 50,000.
Al-Mohammadawi said that Washington does not care about Iraq's opposition to using the country's soil to target the neighboring states.
In a relevant development on Saturday, media reports said that Washington has plans to set up military bases and increasing its troops in Iraq, adding the US is currently engaged in expanding its Ain al-Assad military base in al-Anbar province."The prime minister of Pakistan is IMRAN Khan, not AMIR Khan. Makes you wonder about all the other assertions.The scalpel , says: Website May 24, 2019 at 12:03 pm GMT@Apex Predatorsally , says: May 24, 2019 at 12:25 pm GMT
The US would be welcome to stage an air and sea assault using Saudi bases followed up by amphibious troop deployment if need be. But given the proximity they could probably strong arm Kuwait to act as a land bridge, in a pinch.
Sea assault? Amphibious troop deployment? Are you serious? This is not WWII Normandy, Dorothy. That would be an unmitigated massacre. Weapons have improved a bit in the last 70 years if you have not noticed.
Also minor point, LOL, but Kuwait is a "landbridge" between Saudi Arabia and Iraq Unless you are proposing the US attacks Iraq (again!) which it would have to do to achieve a "landbridge" to Iran. Another good reason Iraq is acquiring the S-400.
More minor points: 1. South Iraq is ALL shiite. 2. Kuwait is SMALL i.e. a BIG target for thousands of missiles@Ilyana_Rozumova your question of responsibility is very intuitive.. two general answers.. both need deep analysis..follyofwar , says: May 24, 2019 at 12:28 pm GMT
first is a conspiracy of Israeli owned, Wall Street financed, war profiteering privatizing-pirate corporations These corporations enter, invade or control the war defeated place and privatize all of its infrastructure construction contracts from the defeated place or state (reason for massive destruction by bombing) and garner control over all the citizen services: retail oil and gas distribution, food supplies, electric power, communications, garbage and waste collection and disposal, street cleaning, water provisioning. traffic control systems, security, and so on.. Most of these corporations are privately owned public stock companies, controlled by the same wealthy Oligarchs that control "who gets elected and what the elected must do while in sitting in one of the seats of power at the 527 person USA.
2nd is the impact of the laws that deny competition in a nation sworn to a method of economics (capitalism) that depends on competition for its success. Another group of massive in size mostly global corporations again owned from Jerusalem, NYC, City of London, etc. financed at wall street, use rule of law to impose on Americans and many of the people of the world, a blanket of economic and anti competitive laws and monopoly powers. These monopolist companies benefit from the copyright and patent laws, which create monopolies from hot thin air. These laws of monopolies coupled to the USA everything is a secret government have devastated competitive capitalism in America and rendered American Universities high school level teaching but not learning bureaucracies.
Monopolies and state secrets between insider contractors were suppose to deny most of the world from competing; but without competition ingenuity is lost. Monopoly lordships and state secrets were supposed to make it easy for the monopoly powered corporations to overpower and deny any and all would be competition; hence they would be the only ones getting rich.. But China's Huawei will be Linux based and Tin not Aluminium in design, far superior technology to anything these monopoly powered retards have yet developed especially in the high energy communications technologies (like 5G, Artificial Intelligence, and Robotics). In other words copyrights, patents and the US military were suppose to keep the world, and the great ingenuity that once existed in the person of every American, from competing, but the only people actually forced out of the technology competition were the ingenious, for they were denied by copyright and patents to compete. Now those in power at the USA will make Americans pay again as the corporations that run things try to figure out how to catch up to the Chinese and Russian led Eastern world. Modi's election in India is quite interesting as both China and Russia supported it, yet, Modi says he is going to switch to the USA for copyrighted and patented stuff?
on the issue of continued USA presence in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, ..
"Our continued presence in Iraq will be conditions-based, proportional to need, in coordination with and by the approval of the Iraqi government." <that's a joke, first off, I never desired to be in Iraq, and I do not desire USA military or American presence in Iraq, do You? <blatant disregard for the needs of America.. IMO. Bring the troops home. If the USA would only leave Iraq to the Iraqis and get to work making America competitive again they would once again enjoy a great place in the world. But one thing i can tell you big giant wall street funded corporations, and reliance on degree credentials instead of job performance, will never be the reason America is great.This article by Mr. Titley is the most hopeful article I've yet read demonstrating the coming death of US hegemony, with most of the rest of the civilized world apparently having turned against the world's worst Outlaw Nation.
Trump has allowed madmen Bolton and Pompeo to get this country into an awful mess – all for the sake of Israel and the Zionists.
He needs to find a face-saving way to get out before Washington gets its long needed comeuppance. But how can Trump accomplish this as long as Bolton, in particular, continues to be the man who most has his ear? If Titley is correct, then Trump had better start listening to his military leaders instead.
Netanyahu and the Ziocons better think twice about their longed for dream of the destruction of Iran. The Jews always push things too far. Karma can be a bitch.
May 24, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
Microsoft will reportedly become the latest tech giant to 'suspend' its relationship with Huawei, according to the South China Morning Post .
One week after Washington first imposed strict limits on Huawei and its affiliates that will make it almost impossible for American firms buy Huawei products or sell American-made components to the company, a handful of chipmakers, telecoms companies and tech firms (Alphabet) have reportedly scaled back or severed their relationship with Huawe.
Though Microsoft said yesterday that it hadn't made a decision, the SCMP reported Friday morning that Microsoft had decided to stop accepting new orders from Huawei for operating systems and other content-related services: Windows operating systems for laptops and other content-related services. The US software giant has already removed Huawei laptops from its online stores.
CatInTheHat , 1 minute ago linkme or you , 11 minutes ago link
Yeah but Microsoft and Google aren't part of the military security apparatus and have nothing to do with foreign policy.
Funny Google and Microsoft have operations out of China .
Cant wait til China retaliated bigly on these assholes.CheapBastard , 29 minutes ago link
Just follow India steps.:
Indian State Saves Over $400 Million by Choosing LinuxGrosserBöserWolf , 38 minutes ago link
Feinstein and Biden are not going to like this.CashMcCall , 38 minutes ago link
Good by US monopoly on software. This will only accelerate new developments.john.b , 12 minutes ago link
Just one more prime example why no companies should use Microsoft software.
The issue is clear as a bell. Become dependent on a US supplier and the Gov of the USSA could cut off your contracts with impunity. That risk is too high for any manufacturing entity.
I am not a fan of Linux. I do not like the way it manages memory. Also while it has gotten better, it remains something of an unmade bed in that much of the software doesn't work particularly well. But the same cold be said for Microsoft. How many times does Windows OFFICE have to lock up before you comprehend the nightmarish patch system which has become Windows?
GNU meaning not Unix never developed into a GUI. Ghost BSD looks interesting, BSD PC has limited compatibility but UNIX is flatly superior in how it handles memory. Unix is brilliant. I also love Open Office, it is better than Microsoft Office and you can save all your files to the Microsoft format if you want. Open Office is perfect transitional software and FREE! Why are school districts paying microsoft instead of using Open Office.
Win 10 is invasive garbage. I don't want anything managing my computer "automatically".
Huawei is a real wakeup call for the world... the US is an unreliable trader. They can never be trusted. This is not just about that lunatic Turmp. If AOC ever got to the White House she could do the same under the New Green Deal NATIONAL SECURITY EMERGENCY.
The Constitution gave Congress the exclusive power over Commerce but over time, the Congress delegated more and more power to the Exec with this kind of dreadful outcome. Founding Fathers wanted checks and balances. But here you have one person, interrupting commerce and contracts with the stroke of a pen that has never been approved by Congress. That is simply too much risk.
The Chinese like anyone else make mistakes. BUT CHINA does not repeat the same mistake twice unlike the USSA that seems to be caught in the revolving door of mistakes.
Better that this happens early in the life of Huawei than much later. China could actually lead the world into the adaptation of open source destroying both Microsoft, Google and Apple at the same time. Remember Apple took BSD and then made proprietary changes. That is the APPLE OS which is much more stable than anything Windows ever made.
While people knock apple Iphone for cost, the Apple laptops are very stable and essentially virus and worm immune. For a novice users that's why Apples are great.
I have had Unix based machines run for years with never being turned off, always rock stable. It is head and shoulders above everything. FreeBSD
Here is a UNIX GUI. I know nothing about these guys but will check it out. A non power user only needs a solid browser, and a good word processor, Open Office works with BSD.
Personally I don't think Apple should be grouped with Google and microsoft. I don't see as Apple has done anything wrong other than selling their products at a premium to the novices. That's not a crime and novices benefit. So quit packaging Apple in with Google and Microsoft.
BTW, Blackberry OS is Unix based. It is a canadian company so likely a US poodle.SMD , 45 minutes ago link
Canada is a US puppet, but treated like a **** by US.Wild Bill Steamcock , 43 minutes ago link
Huawei were attacked because they are a threat to Apple, not to "our national security." The only thing Trump cares about are the profits of big companies.JailBanksters , 1 hour ago link
BuyDash cut ties with Microsoft years ago.
Yes, but the real question is did you cut ties with the NBA, Nike, grape Kool-Aid, McDonald's, Popeye's, your parole officer, KFC, crotch-grabbing, your six illegitimate children and the local welfare office?silverer , 40 minutes ago link
WHoAreWe made Microsoft's Phones, and Microsoft killed the Phone without any help from anyone.JailBanksters , 23 minutes ago link
I knew Nokia was doomed when it partnered with Microsoft. They should have instead partnered with and help fund the Open Source Software community. By now, we'd have spectacular phones, free of logjams of spyware, bloatware, and ads.dark fiber , 1 hour ago link
Now you have Windoze PC's with logjams of spyware, bloatware, and ads. Well, unless you hack it to make it a Workable PC. It's weird having to Hack your own PC to make it sane.Cassandra.Hermes , 1 hour ago link
EU take note. You are not even building or developing the damn things. But you want to dictate policy to the US. Asshats.Coin Techs , 1 hour ago link
Why shouldn't Corning glass or Micron flash memory be sold to Huawei for use in phones bound for Europe? Huawei sells 30 times more phone in Europe than USA. I bought Huawei phone in Norway and I think is my best phone ever, I use Samsung Galaxy Note 9 in USA, but I carry the Huawei for photos and for WiFi calls from Norway. Try to do wifi calls from the Galaxy using Starbucks wifi and then using the same wifi try Huawei, you would see the difference right away.Reality_checkers , 1 hour ago link
They were up to dirty tricks with the dirty dems and DT is shutting them down.
The US is going to sanction itself into economic irrelevance as the rest of the world says F you. We only have two friends now, Israel and KSA. Nice work, Donnie.
May 24, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
May, the second - but certainly not the last - female prime minister in the UK, will abandon her supremely unpopular withdrawal agreement instead of trying to force it through the Commons for the fourth time. May's decision to call for a fourth vote on the withdrawal agreement, this time packaging it in a bill that could have opened to door to a second confirmatory referendum, was more than her fellow conservatives could tolerate. One of her top cabinet ministers resigned and Graham Brady, the leader of the Tory backbenchers, effectively forced May out by rounding up the votes for a rule change that would have allowed MPs to oust her.
During her tumultuous tenure as PM, May survived two no-confidence votes.
Though May will stay on as caretaker until a new leader can be chosen, the race to succeed May begins now...odds are that a 'Brexiteer' will fill the role. Whatever happens, the contest should take a few weeks, and afterwards May will be on her way back to Maidenhead.
"It is and will always remain a deep regret for me that I was not able to deliver Brexit...I was not able to reach a consensus...that job will now fall to my successor," May said.
Between now and May's resignation, May still has work to do: President Trump will travel to the UK for a state visit, while Europe will also celebrate the 75th anniversary of D-Day.
It's fitting that May touted the virtues of her moderate approach to governance during her resignation speech, considering that her attempts to chart a middle path through Brexit ended up alienating hard-core Brexiteers and remainers alike. Her fate was effectively sealed nearly two years ago, after she called for a general election that cost the Tories their majority in Parliament and emboldened Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.
The pound's reaction was relatively muted, as May's decision to step down had been telegraphed well in advance.
CheapBastard , 18 minutes ago linkkeep the bastards honest , 39 minutes ago link
Crying May. What a Loser. Plus, she may have well co-conspired against Trump.
They should lock her up in the Tower.bluecollartrader , 45 minutes ago link
She didn't cry for syrians when she declared bombing Syria and using the firm her husband is involved in,. They made billion, and she didn't cry over her makeover afterwards new hair clothes and big jewels and cuddles with her husband in the media.HRClinton , 27 minutes ago link
She and John Boehner should start a therapy group.
There's no crying in politics.HRClinton , 16 minutes ago link
The plan was Merkel, May and Hillary.
That's a hell of a bullet we just dodged.
Riiiight. Instead, 10,000 Pentagram "Monitors" will be dodging bullets and bombs in the ME.
"(Bibi,) you'll be so tired of winning" - Candidate Trump
Why, you didn't think that he was talking about America's Main Street, did you? Sucker !
Many women in esteemed positions are just affirmative action or window dressing to placate the masses with supposed maternal love but they end up being wicked as heck.
Perhaps, but it's worse than that:
They are part of the Divide & Conquer strategy, while (((Global-lusts))) are plundering the Wealth Of Nations and taking over the real reigns of power.
Americants are easily distracted or fooled.
ps. "...wicked as heck." Wicked? Heck? What's up with the careful avoidance of "cuss words"? It's ok, you're safe... No "ladies or preachers" (bitches or scammers) nearby. And the Tylers or NSA won't rat you out.
May 23, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
However, nothing in the actual piece talks about security concerns. (I point this out because I perceive a trend towards such misleading summaries and headlines which contradict what the actual reporting says.)
The British processor company ARM, which licenses its design to Huawei, cites U.S. export controls as the reason to stop cooperation with Huawei:The conflict is putting companies and governments around the world in a tough spot, forcing them to choose between alienating the United States or China .
Arm Holdings issued its statement after the BBC reported the firm had told staff to suspend dealings with Huawei.
An Arm spokesman said some of the company's intellectual property is designed in the United States and is therefore " subject to U.S. export controls ."
Additionally two British telecom providers quote U.S. restrictions as reason for no longer buying Huawei smartphones:BT Group's EE division, which is preparing to launch 5G service in six British cities later this month, said Wednesday it would no longer offer a new Huawei smartphone as part of that service. Vodafone also said it would drop a Huawei smartphone from its lineup. Both companies appeared to tie that decision to Google's move to withhold licenses for its Android operating software from future Huawei phones.
These companies do not have security concerns over Huawei. But the casual reader, who does not dive down into the actual piece, is left with a false impression that such concerns are valid and shared.
That the Trump administration says it has security reasons for its Huawei ban does not mean that the claim is true. Huawei equipment is as good or bad as any other telecommunication equipment, be it from Cisco or Apple. The National Security Agency and other secret services will try to infiltrate all types of such equipment.
After the sudden ban on U.S. entities to export to Huawei, chipmakers like Qualcomm temporarily stopped their relations with Huawei. Google said that it would no longer allow access to the Google Play store for new Huawei smartphones. That will diminish their utility for many users.
The public reaction in China to this move was quite negative. There were many calls for counter boycotts of Apple's i-phones on social media and a general anti-American sentiment.
The founder and CEO of Huawei, Ren Zhengfei, tried to counter that. He gave a two hour interview (vid, 3 min excerpt with subtitles) directed at the Chinese public. Ren sounds very conciliatory and relaxed. The Global Times and the South China Morning Post only have short excerpts of what he said. They empathize that Huawei is well prepared and can master the challenge:
Andreas , May 23, 2019 10:00:52 AM | 1
It's really huge, that Huawei may no longer use ARM processors.
Huawei is thus forced to develop it's own processor design and push it into the market.
p , May 23, 2019 10:04:34 AM | 2@1Arioch , May 23, 2019 10:05:39 AM | 3
I do not believe this is precisely what will happen. Huawei already has its licenses purchased. In addition they could decide to disrespect the IP if this was the case.Huaweis's suppliers in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan (ROC), and Britain are examining if they can continue to make business with Huawei, while some have already declared a suspension in cooperation.Arioch , May 23, 2019 10:10:32 AM | 4
The issue is that these non-American companies nonetheless use some American components of technology, and if they proceed they will be sanctioned by the US themselves.
It is the same reason why Russia's Sukhoi did not in the end sell its SSJ-100 airliners to Iran -- East Asian tech companies can hardly be expected to be more gung-ho on defying the US than Russia's leading defense plant......
http://www.checkpointasia.net/big-blow-for-huawei-as-japanese-korean-british-firms-reconsider-or-suspend-cooperation-as-well/Arioch , May 23, 2019 10:14:28 AM | 5> the Trump administration has created discord where unity is urgently needed
IOW Trump keeps sabotaging USA global integration and keeps steering it into isolation as he long said it should beArioch , May 23, 2019 10:16:54 AM | 6@p #2 - Huawei surely has their processors *as of now*.
That - if USA would not ban Huawei (HiSilicon) processors, because of using that ARM technology. Thing is, Huawei would be isolated from next-generation ARM processors. They are locked now in their current generation.
Even Qualcomm today, for what I know, bases their processors on ARM's "default" schemes, instead of doing their development "from scratch", in a totally independent way. It would push for slow but steady decline as "top" smartphone vendor into "el cheapo" niche.At the same time Qualcomm would probably be forced to slash prices down for their non-Huawei customers. https://www.zdnet.com/article/qualcomms-licensing-practices-violated-us-antitrust-laws-judge-rules/Red Ryder , May 23, 2019 10:17:21 AM | 7Boeing is the counter-part in the contest to destroy Huawei. China has great leverage over Boeing's future. It is the nation with the biggest market now and downstream for 10-20 years. China need planes, thousands of them.oglalla , May 23, 2019 10:40:03 AM | 8
As for Huawei's chief doubting the prowess of the Chinese students, he only needs to look at the rapidity of the conversion of his nations' economy to a 98% digital economy. All that conversion was done by local, entrepreneurial innovators in the software and hardware tech sector. It happened only in China and completely by Chinese young people who had phones and saw the future and made it happen.
It has been Chinese minds building Chinese AI on Chinese Big Data.
Yes, they need Russian technologists and scientists. Those Russian minds in Russia, in Israel, in South Korea are proven difference makers.
The need China now has will meet the solution rapidly. For five years, the Double Helix of Russia-China has been coming closer in education and R&D institutes in both nations. China investors and Chinese sci-tech personnel are in the sci-tech parks of Russia, and Russians are in similar facilities in China. More will happen now that the Economic War against China threatens.
Huawei will have solutions to replace all US components by the end of the year. It will lose some markets. but it will gain hugely in the BRI markets yet to be developed.
In the long run, the US makers will rue the day Trump and his gang of Sinophobes and hegemonists took aim at Huawei and China's tech sector.Let's all boycott Most Violent, Biggest Brother tech. Don't buy shit.vk , May 23, 2019 10:46:37 AM | 9This move by Google-USG is mostly a propaganda warfare move. Huawei doesn't depend on smartphone sales to survive. It's American market was already small, while China's domestic market is huge. China is not Japan.
Besides, it's not like Europe is prospering either. Those post-war days are long gone.
And there's no contradiction between what the CEO said and the Government line: both are approaching the same problem from different points of view, attacking it from different fronts at the same time. "Patriotism" is needed insofar as the Chinese people must be prepared to suffer some hardships without giving up long term prosperity. "Nationalism" ("politics") is toxic insofar as, as a teleological tool, it is a dead end (see Bannon's insane antics): the Chinese, after all, are communists, and communists, by nature, are internationalists and think beyond the artificial division of humanity in Nation-States.
Ptb , May 23, 2019 11:09:35 AM | 0Ren Zhengfei's attitude is remarkable, considering his daughter ia currently held hostage.ken , May 23, 2019 11:15:25 AM | 1Talking Digital and security in the same sentence is laughable.... NOTHING Digital is 'secure',,, never has,,, never will.Jackrabbit , May 23, 2019 11:22:20 AM | 2
Digital destroys everything it touches. At present, excepting for now the low wage States, it is destroying economies ever so slowly one sector at a time. This has nothing to do with security and everything to do with the dying West, especially the USA which is trying desperately to save what's left of its production whether it be 5G, Steel plants or Nord Stream. The West created China when it happily allowed and assisted Western corporations to move the production there in order to hide the inflation that was being created for wars and welfare and now has to deal with the fallout which eventually will be their undoing.
A full-blown trade war was probably inevitable, driven by geopolitical concerns as much or more than economics.Red Ryder , May 23, 2019 11:24:39 AM | 3
One wonders what each of China and US has been doing to prepare. It seems like the answer is "very little" but since it's USA that is driving this bus, I would think that USA would've done more to prepare (than China has).
PS It's not just Boeing. China also supplies the vast majority of rare earth minerals.@10,Jackrabbit , May 23, 2019 11:26:33 AM | 4
Her captivity and probable imprisonment in the US explain his attitude. She is a high profile pawn. The US must convict her in order to justify what they have done to her so far. She may not serve time, in the US prisons, but she will be branded a guilty person, guilty of violating the Empire's rules (laws).
Imagine Ivanka in the same situation. Her daughter singing in Mandarin would be little help. The Trump Family will be a number one target for equal treatment long after "45" leaves office.
The US Empire is wild with Power. All of that Power is destructive. And all the globe is the battlefield, except USA. But History teaches that this in-equilibrium will not last long.
We've seen how Europe caved to US pressure to stop trading with Iran. Now Japan and others are caving to pressure to stop trading with China. There is already pressure and negotiation to stop Nordstream. And all of the above leads to questions about Erdogan's resolve.alaric , May 23, 2019 11:38:11 AM | 5Trump's heavy handed move against Huawei will backfire. The optic is unsettling; the US looks to be destroying a foreign competitor because it is winning.Jackrabbit , May 23, 2019 11:53:44 AM | 8
The ramifications of trade war with China (where the supply and manufacturing chain of most consumer electronics is these days) is disruptive. Trump has created uncertainty for many manufacturers since there is Chinese part content is just about everything these days. Some manufacturers might relocate production to the US but most will try to simply decouple from the US entirely.
Exposure to the US is really the problem not exposure to China.b: Why Trump's Huawei Ban Is Unlikely To Persistben , May 23, 2019 11:54:24 AM | 9
The trade war with Iran was also unlikely to persist. But it has persisted, and deepened as European poodles pretended to resist and then pretended not to notice that they didn't.
A new Bloomberg opinion piece agrees with that view
No, it doesn't b. You say USA trade war will fail because it lacks international support. Bloomberg says USA should get international support to make it more effective. The difference is that it is highly likely that USA will get international support. It already has support from Japan.
USA has proven that it can effectively manipulate it's poodle allies. Another example is Venezuela where more than two dozen countries recognized Guido only because USA wanted them to.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <>
It's not Trump but the US Deep State that causes US allies to fall in line. Any analysis that relies on Trump as President is bound to fail as his public persona is manipulated to keep Deep State adversaries (including the US public) off-balance.
Like President's before him, Trump will take the blame (and the credit) until another team member is chosen to replace him in what we call "free and fair elections".Until the reserve currency issue favoring the "exceptional" nation changes, the economic terrorism will continue..Jeff , May 23, 2019 12:00:34 PM | 0What is funny in all these stories, is that there is little to no Huawei equipment (not the end-user smart phone, home router and stuff, but backbone routers, access equipment,..) anywhere in the US -- they are forbidden to compete. Most telcos are quite happy to sell in the US, as the absence of these Chinese competitors allows for healthy margins, which is no longer true in other markets.bjd , May 23, 2019 12:00:38 PM | 1
So the Huawei ban hits first and foremost the US' partners.@ben (19)ben , May 23, 2019 12:02:59 PM | 2
China can only undo the US-exceptionalsim if and when it can visibly project military power. The only way to achieve that is tt has to make great haste in building a few fleets of aircraft carriers, fregats and destroyers, etc. It must build a grand, visibly magnificent Chinese Navy.
big time OT alert;Noirette , May 23, 2019 12:04:16 PM | 3
Modi wins in India, another victory for the world oligarchs. Exactly mimicking conditions in the U$A. Media and governmental capture by the uber wealthy...(Ignorant of tech aspects.)karlof1 , May 23, 2019 12:05:01 PM | 4
The US is trying desperately to quash tech success / innovation introduced by others who are not controlled by (or in partnership with) the US, via economic war, for now just politely called a trade war - China no 1 adversary.
Afaik, the entire smart-phone industry is 'integrated' and 'regulated' by FTAs, the WTO, the patent circuit, the Corps. and Gvmts. who collaborate amongst themselves.
Corps. can't afford to compete viciously because infrastructure, aka more encompassing systems or networks (sic) are a pre-requisite for biz, thus, Gvmts. cooperate with the Corps, and sign various 'partnerships,' etc.
sidebar. Not to mention the essential metals / components provenance, other topic. see
https://bit.ly/2K1pj3d - PDF about minerals in smarphones
Attacking / dissing / scotching trade between one Co. (e.g. Huawei) and the world is disruptive of the usual, conventional, accepted, exchange functioning, and throws a pesky spanner in the works of the system. Revanchard motives, petty targetting, random pot-shots, lead to what?
As I wrote in the Venezuela thread, major US corps are already belt tightening by permanently laying off managers, not already cut-to-the-bone production staff, and another major clothing retailer is closing its 650+ stores. And the full impact of Trump's Trade War has yet to be felt by consumers. As Wolff, Hudson and other like-minded economists note, there never was a genuine recovery from 2008, while statistical manipulation hides the real state of the US economy. One thing that cannot be hidden is the waning of revenues collected via taxes which drives the budget deficit--and the shortfall isn't just due to the GOP Congress's tax cuts.Arioch , May 23, 2019 12:05:34 PM | 5
The war against Huawei is only one small aspect within the overall Trade War, which is based on the false premise of US economic strength. Most of the world wants to purchase material things, not financial services which is the Outlaw US Empire's forte and most of the world can easily forego. Trump's Trade War isn't going as planned which will cause him to double-down in a move that will destroy his 2020 hopes.@vk #9
> Huawei's phones American market was already small, while China's domestic market is huge
Here is that data, for 2017, outside the paywall: https://imgur.com/a/8bvvX9B
Data for 2019 is probably slightly different, but the trends should keep on. That data also does not separate Android-based phones from non-Android phones. So, segmenting Android into Google and China infrastructures would mean
1) Huawei retains a $152B market - China
2) Huawei retains an unknown share in $87B market - APAC
3) Huawei loses a $163,9B market - all non-China world.
At best Huawei looses 40,7% of world market. That if all APAC population would voluntarily and uniformly drop out of Google services into Huawei/China services (which they would not). At worst Huawei retains 37,7% of the marker (if APAC population would uniformly follow Google, which they would not either).
May 23, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
... ... ...
So whoever chose to be Prime Minister and set the Brexit time bomb ticking (which would have to have happened at some point, although May's rush to send in the Article 50 notice was one of her major mistakes) would be destined to preside over a colossal mess. However, the distinguishing feature of May's time in No. 10, her astonishing ability to take pain and fight off challenges, was enabled by the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, which made it far more difficult to dissolve Parliament. Under the old rules, May would have been gone long ago. But the result may have been a series of coalition governments, or alternatively, a coalition that couldn't agree on anything regarding Brexit while that clock was ticking.
Even though I do feel a bit of sympathy for May, the flip side is that her record at Home Office, particularly with the Windrush scandal, means there is not likely to be much that historians will be able to find to cast her as anything other than relentless and exceptionally unimaginative, except in her idiot-savant genius at political maneuvering.
It was vlade who I believe typed her out as the sort of manager who won't change course even when circumstances make clearer that a revision in plans is necessary. Of course, May did in the end, witness her getting to a deal with the EU, but only after beating her head against the wall for many months.
I imagine May's one hope for near term solace is if Boris is indeed the next prime minister. Even she will benefit from being compared to him.
John A , May 23, 2019 at 8:12 am
"Watching Boris be utterly outclassed "
That's immaterial. Boris is exactly like Trump, he lies and lies and lies, and even when caught out lying, he simply does not care and carries on lying.
As for Leadsom saying a second referendum would be 'dangerously divisive', what planet is she on? The first referendum has proved incredibly dangerously divisive. To the extent, I doubt there can ever be any general acceptance of either leave or stay, whichever happens.
vlade , May 23, 2019 at 5:42 am
If turnout is high, and Farage polls > than LD+SNP+GREEN+TIG, it could be seen as a strong signal for no deal. Low turnout means little.
High turnout + result can mean something. But what exactly depends on the result. Even then, high turnout with Farage winning (even getting less votes than remain) could easily generate some pro no-deal headlines.
Best pro-remain result (but IMO extremely highly unlikely) would be high turnout (>50%), Farage +/- same as LD (say even with LD second but only by a few points), but significantly less than LD+G+SNP+TIG.
Ignacio , May 23, 2019 at 6:34 am
Thank you vlade! We will have to wait until Sunday. The results will be interesting anyway. This are not routine post-dem elections anymore. It migth mark the end of the end of history hahahahahah!
BIllS , May 23, 2019 at 6:48 am
I know this is anecdotal, but many of my European friends would like the Brits to stay in the EU. However, as vlade mentions, the EU elections are being viewed as a second referendum on Brexit as well as a test of populist parties in general. If the populist gains are weak in the EU elections and the Farage clique receives a mandate for hard Brexit, it is possible that the EU will severely punish the UK. Many European citizens want the Brits to stay, but are tired of their whinging and the anti-european propaganda being vomited forth by the UK tabloid press. Assaults on EU citizens speaking European languages are becoming all too common. If Farage is elected with a big turnout, EU citizens will demand punishment.
Synoia , May 23, 2019 at 3:28 pm
There is no mandate granted by the EU elections, because there is no method a small EU splinter faction (Farage's Faction, large only in his imagination) can achieve anything against the "we are in the EU to stay" majority in the European Parliament.
The Farage Faction in the EU parliament, will be less effective that the Lone Libertarian Senator in the US Senate, who is only there to demonstrate that the Republican Party are no completely crazy, and do have one of two realistic policies.
Synoia , May 23, 2019 at 3:44 pm
Two possible outcomes:
1. No GE, May for Ever, Brext limbo, EU Membership continues until the UK stops paying the EU, or the people over 50 die and the young eliminate this circus.
2. The Labor, Green, Scot's Nat's, and LibDems form a collision (intended) Government, and continue (1).
Parliament has clearly demonstrated the wishes of the British people: No to the EU, No to the EU EU dictated withdrawal agreement (aka the MAY (Make Everybody Yell in pain) agreement, and No Crash out (No British 2 fingered salute, equivalent to the US 1 fingered salute)*
What remains is Limbo, without flexibility – Remain but with Denial, and a change from a Badly Managed County, to a Badly Managed Country by a different set of Clowns.
As Maggie Thatched remarked: There Is No Alternative.
* The UK uses a two fingered salute, because British Men can consider two things at the same time, Beer and Women, unlike the French (Hereditary Enemies) who can only consider one thing at a time.
**Just to clarify – British men can CONSIDER two things at the same time. Actually performing two things at the same time runs into the standard limitations of the Male Brain.
The Rev Kev , May 23, 2019 at 4:45 am
And to think that it was only yesterday that yet another Brexit date went by. That was the one agreed to in March where the EU agreed to delay Brexit until May 22nd if British MPs back Prime Minister Theresa May's deal. The idea was that any later and a resentful UK would be taking part in the EU elections. Well, that didn't work out for anybody.
It turns out that Margaret Thatcher was wrong. There is such a thing as society. It is that which forms the bonds not only between people themselves but those who are supposed to run the country. The UK has cut those bonds and the results are so bad that the United Nations has come out with a report ( https://undocs.org/A/HRC/41/39/Add.1 ) saying that they have created a "harsh and uncaring" environment for people, that '14 million UK residents live in poverty, and that some 1.5 million of them were unable to afford basic essentials in 2017.' No wonder people feel little connection between themselves and those running the country
I was just listening to the news and it sounds like May was making all sorts of concessions in the deal that she was working on without consulting anybody else in government. There are so many people leaving her side now, that she may be the last person left standing in government. She is still clinging onto power but her own party members are busy stomping on her fingertips as a tipping point has been reached. Labour does not seem to be gaining by this either as they are bleeding votes to other parties due to their own Brexit position. This is going to get ugly when it comes time to choose a new leader. Prime Minister Nigel Farage anybody?
skk , May 23, 2019 at 11:07 am
Knickers ! No " underwear " please, we are British" ( with apologies to the British farce from the late 60s).
ambrit , May 23, 2019 at 1:23 pm
Yaargh for the "No Sex Please" reference!
Plus, "skidmarks" is a common reference of an insulting nature here Down South. Kudos!
The infamous joke ends with; " and the dude had skidmarks on the front of his drawers!"
So, 'skidmarks' is all too likely a result from the upcoming EU elections.
fajensen , May 23, 2019 at 6:47 am
I am pessimistic. She will never resign on her own volition. The Tories have no way of forcing her to resign. There is nothing they can offer to trade with her in return for her resigning because she won't listen, ever, to anyone so she simply won't hear the offer being made over the din of her own droning.
Maybe The Queen can legally send some heavy-booted people over to physically drag her out of parliament?
vlade , May 23, 2019 at 6:56 am
There were rumours yesterday that she blocked the door to No 10 with a sofa..
PlutoniumKun , May 23, 2019 at 9:11 am
I heard she is taking refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy.
vlade , May 23, 2019 at 9:23 am
Can she skateboard?
shtove , May 23, 2019 at 10:29 am
Dirty protest? Armoured cars and tanks and guns
Anders K , May 23, 2019 at 7:05 am
AFAIK, the 1922 Committee can change the rules to allow her to be challenged. The issue – just as with Trump – is that dealing with someone who breaks the informal consensus by breaking the formal consensus (changing the rules, even if it is just "for a special case") is not necessarily easy or sure to lead to the desired outcome (what if the special vote fails to oust May? Will the next leader be challenged early, too?).
After all, if the 12-month grace period has been set aside once, it can surely be done again, and no presumptive Tory PM is interested in being more restrained by the committee (for both noble and ignoble reasons, I'm sure, though I suspect the ratio to be tilted in the latter direction).
shtove , May 23, 2019 at 7:25 am
But she's the Queen's prime minister. Doesn't matter if she's not leader of her party. Or does it? There have been mixed rumours on HM's views on the EU, which I suppose shows her subtlety. But if she is subtle, HM will find a way not to get involved.
PlutoniumKun , May 23, 2019 at 9:11 am
Now there is a prospect – May refusing to relinquish No.10, even if she is thrown out of the Tory Party.
shtove , May 23, 2019 at 10:52 am
I hadn't considered that! What if May is summoned by the chief whip and suspended, just like Heseltine when he declared he was going to vote for the Lib Dems? Can she dismiss the chief whip with a click of her fingers? L'etat, c'est moi.
I've no idea about the formal route for expulsion from the party, but it seems Widdecombe was subjected to the rules when she declared for Whatever Nigel's Having.
ChrisPacific , May 23, 2019 at 5:06 pm
Now I have a mental image of a barricaded Theresa May taking to the airwaves and calling upon the military to come to her aid by suppressing her own party in the name of the Queen.
David , May 23, 2019 at 8:33 am
It's important to remember (and too easily forgotten) that the challenge to May's position is as leader of the Conservative party, not as Prime Minister. Of course historically the two have been coterminous, but they don't absolutely have to be. Normally, what happens is that a PM's political missteps result in forced resignation or a leadership challenge, and the winner of the ensuing competition becomes PM. Eden resigned after Suez, Heath was forced out after losing the 1974 election etc. But both of these cases (and indeed Thatcher in 1990) were rather like sacking the managing director of an unsuccessful company. The Tory Party wanted to get back in power, or make sure it stayed there, and internal political and personal divisions didn't matter that much. (The Tory Party was more Thatcherite in 1990 than it was in 1975 when she took over: it was simply that the party didn't think it could win another election with her in charge.)
What we have now is different. Not only has May made a disastrous mess of Brexit, she has also had to manage a bitterly divided party, full of people who hate each other and have completely irreconcilable political views and agendas. Whilst there have been Cabinets before with warring cliques, and PMs struggling to manage divided parties, I don't think there has ever been a situation like this, where the two are lethally combined, and the incumbent PM is not capable of dealing with either. It's possible to imagine another leader having done a better job in managing the politics and diplomacy of Brexit: it's hard to imagine anyone doing it worse. But it is also hard to imagine anyone else having done a less bad job of keeping a violently fractious party together.
Paradoxically, May's actual performance under both headings has had little impact on the strength of her position. It seems to be acknowledged that she has been as a disaster as PM, but the problem is that getting rid of her is not a solution. Indeed, it would probably make the situation worse, and destroy the Tory Party completely, which is why she is still where she is. I don't think even those who want to get rid of her most fervently believe that doing so would unite the party or make it more electable. It's all about personal and political agendas. Far from resolving the crisis, her departure, which can't now long be delayed, will only exacerbate it: the first time this has happened, I think, in modern British history.
Under all the normal rules of politics, May would have been gone months, if not years, ago. That's not in dispute. But in the past there were heavyweight challengers already waiting to take over from the PM of the day, and parties (especially the Tories) would rally round a new leader to stay in power or have a better chance of taking it. It's an index of how completely the Tory Party has been destroyed by Thatcher and her successors, that it's a talent-free zone made up of people who would happily destroy a party, a government and perhaps a country, out of ambition and jealousy. The situation now resembles the last days of a weak and discredited monarch, with no apparent successor and courtiers manoeuvring for advantage. Historically, that usually led to a civil war of some kind, and I expect that, mutatis mutandis , that's what we're in for now.
PlutoniumKun , May 23, 2019 at 9:02 am
I think your last two lines are highly significant. I've been trying to get my head around how it is that Johnson has suddenly become the favourite to become PM, when he is supposedly almost universally loathed within the party hierarchy and seemed to have blown what little chance he had last year. But it is, as you say, more like the lethal jostling when a monarch is dying without a successor – half the people around are trying to manoeuvre for the crown, the other half are trying to make sure they don't lose their head if the 'wrong' person gets selected. It has nothing to do with regular democratic politics anymore.
Whatever else, it will make the next Tory party conference rather entertaining viewing now that GoT is over.
flora , May 23, 2019 at 10:53 am
For forty years now the economic and political philosophy of Milton Friedman has dominated and guided politics in the UK and the US. Reading some of his most famous quotes makes clear why it has all ended so badly, failed so spectacularly. As long as enough of the old system held on to keep things working the con continued. That's over now, even if the current crop of "talent-free people who would happily destroy a party, a government and perhaps a country, out of ambition and jealousy. " don't realize it's over.
Matthew G. Saroff , May 23, 2019 at 9:20 am
Theresa May has made a dogs breakfast of everything that she has ever done.
How has she managed to fail upward in a manner that would make Dick Cheney blush?
shtove , May 23, 2019 at 11:00 am
The phrase is, "dog's Brexit". Smooth texture on the palate, then a little gagging, and a somewhat sour aftertaste. Mmm.
Pavel , May 23, 2019 at 10:29 am
I'm afraid I have absolutely zero sympathy for May, Yves. Apart from the Windrush scandal, she has always been absolutely horrific on civil liberties. And let's not forget she has approved the sales of arms to the Saudis for their genocide in Yemen. As a believer in Scottish independence, however, if she enables a second referendum in Scotland, that would be one accomplishment, though not an intended one for her!
PlutoniumKun , May 23, 2019 at 11:31 am
As someone who shares her physical clumsiness, I used to feel quite sorry for her when she was on the receiving end of so much abuse, she seemed to me to be admirable in the way she had made her way through such a pit of vipers to get to the top. But I think the cumulative evidence now is that, quite simply, she is a genuinely hateful person – she's been responsible for too many genuinely horrible policies, many of which were promoted solely for her personal ambition. There are many, many more people deserving of sympathy.
TG , May 23, 2019 at 11:28 am
Suggestion: watch carefully what happens to May when she finally leaves office (as the surgeons say, all bleeding stops eventually). Will May sink into a shabby retirement? Or will she be quietly feted by the big banks, put on the boards of directors of various companies, end up a multi-millionaire etc., like Tony Blair was?
In other words: was May merely stupid, or was she a useful agent of chaos? Follow the money, and eventually, we will know.
Joe Well , May 23, 2019 at 8:15 pm
skk , May 23, 2019 at 12:15 pm
The current crop of first-line politicians in the UK truly are a bunch of talentless gits. I've now watched several weeks of ITN news, Peston, BBC Question Time and I struggle for phrases to describe this bunch. I found some choice ones in this article – https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/news-analysis/eilis-ohanlon-judging-current-crop-of-politicians-by-those-of-the-past-is-like-comparing-x-factor-rejects-with-the-beatles-37907555.html
Now I'm all for changing one's mind when the facts change/emerge – as I did – from a BrExiter ( aka a kick up the arse to the EU ( for Greece ) and the UK establishment ) to 2nd referendum/remain as the complexities, particularly the N.I. / Eire border aspect, came into focus – but this continual changes in positions by ALL sort of main-party politicians amazes me – when you compromise and STILL fail to deliver, its truly hapless, inept.
As the Belfast Telegraph put it ( back in March at that ! ):
The repeated failure to make Brexit less of a shambles suggests that politicians on all sides share that lack of conviction in their own judgment.
What's more terrifying still is that it increasingly looks as if they are right to think so little of their own abilities.
The terrifying thing is this is only the first stage.
Paradoxically, as the mess unfolds, my regular conversations and emails with Brit family and friends, all always politically engaged, this is mygen, nextgen, + nextgen+1 are less and less about it. They are all just getting on with their daily lives. I'm perhaps more animated about this than they are ! Just yesterday, all we talked about was our booking for a 4 day narrow-boat/canal boat trip and how excited the nextgen+1 are. So there is that, I suppose.
Harry , May 23, 2019 at 12:21 pm
Treeza "Apres moi, le deluge" May. I often wonder why the BoE decided to put her in "Clearing Services".
Andy Raushner , May 23, 2019 at 5:51 pm
I bet she moves onto the Mayland of Europe.
RBHoughton , May 23, 2019 at 6:53 pm
I completely agree and fervently hope that Brexit is the end of Thatcherism in the UK. We want to return to government of the people, by the people, etc., and not this constant flow of concessions to merchants that the moneymen in parliament enact to profit from. It has never yet been the case that electors in UK vote for companies – that's just the Tories working their insidious evil through the Chambers of Commerce – off with their heads. Back to Keynes and caring government.
Joe Well , May 23, 2019 at 8:17 pm
This made me smile: Glenn Greenwald gloating over Theresa May's fall . Back in the day, she detained his future husband to pressure Greenwald over the Snowden docs.
May 22, 2019 | www.youtube.com
Axle Grind , 4 hours agoMary Czarnik , 6 hours ago
liz warren gains traction. she's built low to the ground for torque.G Watsittoyaa , 1 day ago
Dems only need few select states to campaign in and they will win elections all the time. Everybody is playing the racists card when they do not like what is said or done!!
Demoncrats run on Identity Politics ; thats all they see.
May 22, 2019 | www.unz.com
See also: The PRC Should Retaliate by Targeting Sheldon Adelson's Chinese Casinos Ron Unz December 13, 2018 1,800 Words 944 Comments Reply Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou
As most readers know, I'm not a casual political blogger and I prefer producing lengthy research articles rather than chasing the headlines of current events. But there are exceptions to every rule, and the looming danger of a direct worldwide clash with China is one of them.
Consider the arrest last week of Meng Wanzhou, the CFO of Huawei, the world's largest telecom equipment manufacturer. While flying from Hong Kong to Mexico, Ms. Meng was changing planes in the Vancouver International Airport when she was suddenly detained by the Canadian government on an August US warrant. Although now released on $10 million bail, she still faces extradition to a New York City courtroom, where she could receive up to thirty years in federal prison for allegedly having conspired in 2010 to violate America's unilateral economic trade sanctions against Iran.
Although our mainstream media outlets have certainly covered this important story, including front page articles in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal , I doubt most American readers fully recognize the extraordinary gravity of this international incident and its potential for altering the course of world history. As one scholar noted, no event since America's deliberate 1999 bombing of China's embassy in Belgrade , which killed several Chinese diplomats, has so outraged both the Chinese government and its population. Columbia's Jeffrey Sachs correctly described it as "almost a US declaration of war on China's business community."
Such a reaction is hardly surprising. With annual revenue of $100 billion, Huawei ranks as the world's largest and most advanced telecommunications equipment manufacturer as well as China's most internationally successful and prestigious company. Ms. Meng is not only a longtime top executive there, but also the daughter of the company's founder, Ren Zhengfei, whose enormous entrepreneurial success has established him as a Chinese national hero.
Her seizure on obscure American sanction violation charges while changing planes in a Canadian airport almost amounts to a kidnapping. One journalist asked how Americans would react if China had seized Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook for violating Chinese law especially if Sandberg were also the daughter of Steve Jobs.
Indeed, the closest analogy that comes to my mind is when Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia kidnapped the Prime Minister of Lebanon earlier this year and held him hostage. Later he more successfully did the same with hundreds of his wealthiest Saudi subjects, extorting something like $100 billion in ransom from their families before finally releasing them. Then he may have finally over-reached himself when Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi dissident, was killed and dismembered by a bone-saw at the Saudi embassy in Turkey.
We should actually be a bit grateful to Prince Mohammed since without him America would clearly have the most insane government anywhere in the world. As it stands, we're merely tied for first.
Since the end of the Cold War, the American government has become increasingly delusional, regarding itself as the Supreme World Hegemon. As a result, local American courts have begun enforcing gigantic financial penalties against foreign countries and their leading corporations, and I suspect that the rest of the world is tiring of this misbehavior. Perhaps such actions can still be taken against the subservient vassal states of Europe, but by most objective measures, the size of China's real economy surpassed that of the US several years ago and is now substantially larger , while also still having a far higher rate of growth. Our totally dishonest mainstream media regularly obscures this reality, but it remains true nonetheless.
Provoking a disastrous worldwide confrontation with mighty China by seizing and imprisoning one of its leading technology executives reminds me of a comment I made several years ago about America's behavior under the rule of its current political elites:
Or to apply a far harsher biological metaphor, consider a poor canine infected with the rabies virus. The virus may have no brain and its body-weight is probably less than one-millionth that of the host, but once it has seized control of the central nervous system, the animal, big brain and all, becomes a helpless puppet.
Once friendly Fido runs around foaming at the mouth, barking at the sky, and trying to bite all the other animals it can reach. Its friends and relatives are saddened by its plight but stay well clear, hoping to avoid infection before the inevitable happens, and poor Fido finally collapses dead in a heap.
Normal countries like China naturally assume that other countries like the US will also behave in normal ways, and their dumbfounded shock at Ms. Meng's seizure has surely delayed their effective response. In 1959, Vice President Richard Nixon visited Moscow and famously engaged in a heated "kitchen debate" with Premier Nikita Khrushchev over the relative merits of Communism and Capitalism. What would have been the American reaction if Nixon had been immediately arrested and given a ten year Gulag sentence for "anti-Soviet agitation"?
Since a natural reaction to international hostage-taking is retaliatory international hostage-taking, the newspapers have reported that top American executives have decided to forego visits to China until the crisis is resolved. These days, General Motors sells more cars in China than in the US, and China is also the manufacturing source of nearly all our iPhones, but Tim Cook, Mary Barra, and their higher-ranking subordinates are unlikely to visit that country in the immediate future, nor would the top executives of Google, Facebook, Goldman Sachs, and the leading Hollywood studios be willing to risk indefinite imprisonment.
Canada had arrested Ms. Meng on American orders, and this morning's newspapers reported that a former Canadian diplomat had suddenly been detained in China , presumably as a small bargaining-chip to encourage Ms. Meng's release. But I very much doubt such measures will have much effect. Once we forgo traditional international practices and adopt the Law of the Jungle, it becomes very important to recognize the true lines of power and control, and Canada is merely acting as an American political puppet in this matter. Would threatening the puppet rather than the puppet-master be likely to have much effect?
Similarly, nearly all of America's leading technology executives are already quite hostile to the Trump Administration, and even if it were possible, seizing one of them would hardly be likely to sway our political leadership. To a lesser extent, the same thing is true about the overwhelming majority of America's top corporate leaders. They are not the individuals who call the shots in the current White House.
Indeed, is President Trump himself anything more than a higher-level puppet in this very dangerous affair? World peace and American national security interests are being sacrificed in order to harshly enforce the Israel Lobby's international sanctions campaign against Iran, and we should hardly be surprised that the National Security Adviser John Bolton, one of America's most extreme pro-Israel zealots, had personally given the green light to the arrest. Meanwhile, there are credible reports that Trump himself remained entirely unaware of these plans, and Ms. Meng was seized on the same day that he was personally meeting on trade issues with Chinese President Xi. Some have even suggested that the incident was a deliberate slap in Trump's face.
But Bolton's apparent involvement underscores the central role of his longtime patron, multi-billionaire casino-magnate Sheldon Adelson, whose enormous financial influence within Republican political circles has been overwhelmingly focused on pro-Israel policy and hostility towards Iran, Israel's regional rival.
Although it is far from clear whether the very elderly Adelson played any direct personal role in Ms. Meng's arrest, he surely must be viewed as the central figure in fostering the political climate that produced the current situation. Perhaps he should not be described as the ultimate puppet-master behind our current clash with China, but any such political puppet-masters who do exist are certainly operating at his immediate beck and call. In very literal terms, I suspect that if Adelson placed a single phone call to the White House, the Trump Administration would order Canada to release Ms. Meng that same day.
Adelson's fortune of $33 billion ranks him as the 15th wealthiest man in America, and the bulk of his fortune is based on his ownership of extremely lucrative gambling casinos in Macau, China . In effect, the Chinese government currently has its hands around the financial windpipe of the man ultimately responsible for Ms. Meng's arrest and whose pro-Israel minions largely control American foreign policy. I very much doubt that they are fully aware of this enormous, untapped source of political leverage.
Over the years, Adelson's Chinese Macau casinos have been involved in all sorts of political bribery scandals , and I suspect it would be very easy for the Chinese government to find reasonable grounds for immediately shutting them down, at least on a temporary basis, with such an action having almost no negative repercussions to Chinese society or the bulk of the Chinese population. How could the international community possibly complain about the Chinese government shutting down some of their own local gambling casinos with a long public record of official bribery and other criminal activity? At worst, other gambling casino magnates would become reluctant to invest future sums in establishing additional Chinese casinos, hardly a desperate threat to President Xi's anti-corruption government.
I don't have a background in finance and I haven't bothered trying to guess the precise impact of a temporary shutdown of Adelson's Chinese casinos, but it wouldn't surprise me if the resulting drop in the stock price of Las Vegas Sands Corp would reduce Adelson's personal net worth were by $5-10 billion within 24 hours, surely enough to get his immediate personal attention. Meanwhile, threats of a permanent shutdown, perhaps extending to Chinese-influenced Singapore, might lead to the near-total destruction of Adelson's personal fortune, and similar measures could also be applied as well to the casinos of all the other fanatically pro-Israel American billionaires, who dominate the remainder of gambling in Chinese Macau.
The chain of political puppets responsible for Ms. Meng's sudden detention is certainly a complex and murky one. But the Chinese government already possesses the absolute power of financial life-or-death over Sheldon Adelson, the man located at the very top of that chain. If the Chinese leadership recognizes that power and takes effective steps, Ms. Meng will immediately be put on a plane back home, carrying the deepest sort of international political apology. And future attacks against Huawei, ZTE, and other Chinese technology companies would not be repeated.
China actually holds a Royal Flush in this international political poker game. The only question is whether they will recognize the value of their hand. I hope they do for the sake of America and the entire world.
May 22, 2019 | www.xinhuanet.com
The telecom company has long been accused by the United States of being able to use its network equipment to spy on foreign nations for the Chinese government. However, "no intelligence service has published clear evidence that Huawei inserted 'backdoors' for Chinese authorities to access the data that passes through its networks," according to a December 2018 article by U.S. media Politico.
Given the lack of proof that Huawei threatens U.S. security, last week's twin moves by Washington -- the use of state apparatus to oppress a company -- are a reflection of nothing but bullying.
The smearing campaign against Huawei aside, the United States has also been trying to rally Europe to abandon Huawei products, citing security threats. It was not welcome.
"Europe must not be dragged into the trade dispute between China and the United States," Germany's powerful BDI industrial lobby group was quoted by media reports as saying in a statement on Thursday.
France too refused to take orders from the United States. "Our perspective is not to block Huawei or any company," President Emmanuel Macron told the VivaTech conference in Paris on Thursday.Launching a tech war or a trade war against any country is not appropriate, nor is it the best way to defend national security, Macron said.
The ban on the supply of U.S.-made chips to Huawei is a lose-lose in any sense, as it poses a threat to Huawei's viability and U.S. companies also pay the price.Out of the total of 70 billion U.S. dollars Huawei spent on buying components in 2018, some 11 billion dollars went to U.S. companies, the Reuters reported Friday.
"The ban will financially harm the thousands of Americans employed by the U.S. companies that do business with Huawei," said Catherine Chen, a Director of the Board at Huawei, in a The New York Times article on Friday. "A total ban on Huawei equipment could eliminate tens of thousands of American jobs."
Although Huawei does not do much business in the United States, the company is the sole provider of networking equipment to many rural American internet providers, according to a CNN article on Tuesday.
"Those companies have said it will take time -- or may be impossible -- to replace their Huawei technology with a rival's," it added.
As a move to ease the repercussion of the ban, the U.S. Department of Commerce on Monday issued a 90-day temporary license loosening restrictions on business deals with Huawei.
Huawei doesn't intend to isolate itself from others, but wants to make as many friends as possible, its founder Ren Zhengfei told Chinese media on Tuesday when asked why Huawei didn't use substitutes before the United States took the latest aggressive measures.
"We don't want to do harm to friends," he said. "We want to help them achieve good balance sheets. Even if we make adjustments, we still ought to render help."The spirit of openness is what helped the United States develop. However, Washington's restrictions on Huawei, based on unfounded allegations and political speculations, fall foul of the golden rules it once embraced
For Washington to win in an era of cooperation and inter-dependence, it would be better to revive the spirit of openness.
May 22, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
Japanese-owned chip designer ARM Holdings has notified its staff to halt " all active contracts, support entitlements, and any pending engagements " with Huawei and its subsidiaries in order to comply with the recent US clampdown, according to the BBC . Based in the UK and owned by Japan's Softbank, ARM designs and licenses processors used in all types of electronic devices, including smart phones, tablets, laptops, televisions, automotive systems and more.
" ARM is the foundation of Huawei's smartphone chip designs, so this is an insurmountable obstacle for Huawei ," said Geoff Blaber of CCS Insight, adding: "That said, with an abundance of companies in Huawei's supply chain already having taken action to comply with the US order, Huawei's ability to operate was already severely affected ."
In a company-wide memo, ARM told employees that their designs contain "US origin technology," which would be affected by the Trump administration's May 15 Executive Order to "protect our country against critical national security threats."
The US has argued that the Chinese government could force companies such as Huawei to install backdoors on their devices to allow for spying on US networks - an accusation Huawei has repeatedly denied.
Softbank - which is also one of Japan's largest mobile carriers - has joined with Japan's largest carriers DoCoMo and KDDI in announcing that they will stop taking orders for Huawei handsets.
wadalt , 14 minutes ago linkbrokebackbuck , 1 minute ago link
ARM does not manufacture computer processors itself,
but rather licenses its semiconductor technologies to others.
This option gives chip-makers greater freedom to customise their own designs.
a) buy from other suppliers
b) continue using the already-paid-for blueprints and say F@#@ U
... ... ...
saldulilem , 21 minutes ago link
Seriously, like china isnt just going to stop sending money to ARMhooligan2009 , 20 minutes ago link
Huawei purchased licenses for ARM chip architecture (Cortex CPU and Mali GPU). If ARM is rescinding the licenses, it will mean a lawsuit.wadalt , 13 minutes ago link
good luck with that. which court? the court of "oh ****" in the hague?Ruler , 15 minutes ago link
They'll just keep using it. They already paid for it.
Pft!1033eruth , 23 minutes ago link
You need to read their licensing scheme. ARM reserves the right to cut you off at any point in time.medium giraffe , 26 minutes ago link
Blockade is inappropriate. Boycott is appropriate. Damn 25 year old journalists.
Let's have our 18 year olds line up in front of their 18 year olds and watch them all kill each other while we cheer them on.
What a ******* great plan that would be. Consider my consent manufactured. Let's do this!
Where the hell is my TV remote?free corn , 22 minutes ago link
free corn , 29 minutes ago link
also China could be stimulated put effort in their own IP house and win long term.Ruler , 22 minutes ago link
Would not work, as chines still can access required ARM component via other companies like i. e. NXP.
Also cunning thing would be to change brand name a bit like change/remove 1 letter.free corn , 6 minutes ago link
Nope, cross licensing is strictly forbidden under the licensing ARM uses. If uou want to use ARM based designs, you have two choices. Buy the chips already made, or license a core and fab the package yourself.
If you fab it yourself, you have to market the cores and chips as being nased on theirs.
That's it. I learned this when looking to have some Asics made up for compute decices and decided to review all of my options. I decided two things looking into that.
1 I wouldn't have anything made until I could have them made here in the US. Still waiting for a FAB with older equipment to for such things to pop up. I simply don't trust China.
2 I would start from scratch using a RISC design with MIT license to avoid the decades of no development by actually having a real open licensing scheme. The GPL crap sucks.Ruler , 3 minutes ago link
Licenses to independent third parties do not matter yet. "ARM Holdings has notified its staff to halt " all active contracts, support entitlements, and any pending engagements " with Huawei and its subsidiaries"johnny two shoes , 29 minutes ago link
Yet, they find out they are buying from another vendor that complies with China's demands and poof there goes another company.
I am 100% with Arm and TI on all of this.TotalMachineFail , 30 minutes ago link
KASHGAR, China -- A God's-eye view of Kashgar, an ancient city in western China, flashed onto a wall-size screen, with colorful icons marking police stations, checkpoints and the locations of recent security incidents. At the click of a mouse, a technician explained, the police can pull up live video from any surveillance camera or take a closer look at anyone passing through one of the thousands of checkpoints in the city...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/22/world/asia/china-surveillance-xinjiang.htmlBT , 32 minutes ago link
There's no such things a national security. This is U.S. corporate security protecting the corporate interests of the other telecom corporations that license to operate through the U.S. corporation. Comprendo?
The way this gloal fraud operates really is a laughable pathetic joke with what's hidden because is criminal. That includes everything globally that alleged to be classified or some level of so called top secret but none of it is. The sedtion and treason of the government saw to those eliminations along with the cancellation of all NDA's, or other similar docments to attempt to use threat, coercion, murder as a consequence.
When is there going to be a fully functional so called smart phone that is not hackable, trackable, fully compliant with all unalienable rights, usable globally, with a degree of voice and data encryption to ensure no possibility of interception or monitoring? Oh and free phone w/ $25 unlimited voice and data monthly.schroedingersrat , 32 minutes ago link
Xi should have listen to Deng Xiaoping. Keep your head down, go about your business and shut the **** up. But Xi the chest pounding panda declared Made in China 2025 and spooked everyone. China should de-robe him then hang him high!He–Mene Mox Mox , 26 minutes ago link
Thats a real stinger! Wonder how China retaliatesdunlin , 33 minutes ago link
Simple! Send the Chinese navy to Venezuela at the time when the U.S. is sending its naval forces to Iran. That should rattle Washington greatly. That should up the ante greatly too. Then see who blinks first.schroedingersrat , 31 minutes ago link
There has been a suspiciously sudden rise in China hawkishness among American citizens (e.g., commentators on these boards) coincident with what to outside observers has been a very obvious post-Russia tsunami of political and MSM anti-China propaganda (it's often easier to see propaganda from the outside than from the inside).
A good discussion of the opposing point of view has just aired on RT, among the host, an American living in Russia, Fred Teng, President of the America China Public Affairs Institute, and James Bradley (American), author of The China Mirage. You may think this is just propaganda from the opposite direction, but if so you will at least have two poles to position yourself between rather than just one side of the story. If you have an open mind.........it is well worth watching. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6C1kYnrm1cAjohnny two shoes , 22 minutes ago link
Americans are inherently white supermacist nazis. They don't need a lot of propaganda to rage against anyone the governments wants them to :)hoytmonger , 33 minutes ago link
Actually, the Chinese are contemptuous and xenophobic to the degree of paranoia, both towards "foreigners" and their own populace.aberfoyle_crumplehausen , 33 minutes ago link
Being that most electronic components are manufactured in China, I don't believe they're sweating at all.hooligan2009 , 31 minutes ago link
All I see here is insouciance.
All you ignorant fuckers need to take a one month vacation to China. Come back and lets talk then. Your world outlook will have been greatly humbled and you would be more willing to be of the cooperative model of world politics rather than this senseless belligerence I see here.EHM , 10 minutes ago link
no sane person would want to go to the Chinese equivalent of Disneyland
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/09/china-up-to-one-million-detained/Tachyon5321 , 35 minutes ago link
I remember being photographed at every highway underpass. I remember not being able to view You Tube or any video on Facebook because it was blocked...Kafir Goyim , 26 minutes ago link
This is an major O'sh2t because all of China's cell phones use ARM! China is now like African no internet village because they don't have smart phones... LOL
Yes, but not all of China is restricted from using ARM. Only Huawei. Other phone manufacturers will be unaffected.
May 21, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
If there was any lingering doubt that President Trump has treated Huawei like a 'bargaining chip' during trade talks with the Chinese, Bloomberg just put the issue to rest.
In a report sourced to administration insiders, BBG reported that the Trump administration waited to blacklist Huawei until talks with the Chinese had hit an impasse, because they were concerned that targeting Huawei would disrupt the talks. Plans to punish Huawei - including possible economic sanctions - had been kicking around for months. And prosecutors took their first tentative steps toward holding Huawei 'accountable' by convincing Canada to arrest Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou.
And once trade talks had broken down, there was a 'scramble' to implement the measures against Huawei.
Though BBG doesn't offer a definitive answer on this, it reports that some are suspicious that Trump is pressuring Huawei to 'gain a negotiating edge' with Beijing (meanwhile, the Chinese leadership are furious about the decision).
Timing of the U.S. action raised questions about whether President Donald Trump is punishing the company in part to gain a negotiating edge with Beijing in a deepening clash over trade. Talks between Beijing and Washington deadlocked this month as Trump accused China of backing out of a deal that was taking shape with U.S. officials, saying China reneged on an agreement to enshrine a wide range of reforms in law.
Another take on what happened suggested that the decision to hold back on Huawei actually came from the bureaucracy, as administration officials were worried President Trump would just scrap the measures as a favor to Xi, like he did last year with ZTE Corp. Those concerns haven't entirely abated.
Washington has offered Huawei some wiggle room by suspending the new restrictions for 90 days. The company has been stockpiling chips, and reportedly already has enough to keep its business running for three months.
But this report effectively confirms that the administration wasn't being entirely truthful when it said there was 'no link' between Huawei and the trade talks. Trump said back in December that he would go so far as to intervene in efforts to extradite Meng Wanzhou if it would help with the trade talks. And although that would be extreme, we should rule it out just yet.
AChinese , 22 minutes ago linkB-Bond , 9 minutes ago link
What the art of deal? When the talk hits an impasse, threat them!Teamtc321 , 47 minutes ago link
"impasse"? Who's Your Friend─ChiCom 🤔 N. Korea 😆
EU and China struggle over key concerns ahead of summit😲
Yet the summit might not produce a joint statement - as previous Chinese pledges on speeding-up talks on an investment agreement, plus opening up its markets more to European companies, have failed to materialise.
"We can certainly agree on a joint statement, the question is how substantive this will be," a senior EU official said. The EU wants to see concrete steps from China.
Failing to agree on a joint statement, however, is a sign of the EU's unsuccessful bid to commit China to give greater access of its markets to European companies, and engage seriously in reforming global trade rules within the World Trade Organisation (WTO).
The EU hoped to make China address longstanding European complaints, and to commit to concluding an investment agreement that aims to secure better market access and fair treatment for European companies in China by 2020.
The EU also hopes to achieve an agreement on indications of geographical origins to protect European brands in China by the end of the year.
An EU official said that the recent foreign investment law adopted in China, does not address all the issues of concern for Europeans, for instance on prohibited sectors, dual regime for foreign and domestic operations, and on forced technological transfer.
"We agree there has been a lot of promises, it is time for action, not only words. […] We want to make sure we have a modern framework for investment protection in a binding agreement with mechanism to solve disputes," the EU official added.
Why China is cozying up to Europe🤔
“While the [European] Commission is getting tougher on China, at least for now it does not seem to be aiming for a confrontation with China,” he said.
But even if the EU doesn’t fully align itself with the increasingly hawkish Trump administration , a shift in China-EU relations seems inevitable.
“The EU has no interest in cooling its China relationship, but if it does not act now to protect its economy from unfair state-owned enterprise competition in the EU market, then the citizens of Europe might ask for more protection,” Wuttke said.
“[There is] growing realism in Europe and the end of naivety when it comes to China.”
Exclusive: In China, the Party’s push for influence inside foreign firms stirs fears😲
BEIJING (Reuters) - Late last month, executives from more than a dozen top European companies in China met in Beijing to discuss their concerns about the growing role of the ruling Communist Party in the local operations of foreign firms, according to three people with knowledge of the discussions.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-congress-companies/exclusive-in-china-the-partys-push-for-influence-inside-foreign-firms-stirs-fears-idUSKCN1B40JUSickDollar , 1 hour ago link
China got fucked the minute they agreed to invest trillions into US debt securities in exchange for being given unlimited access to sell into the US market. This terrible arrangement set them up to be crushed economically if the US were to close its doors to Chinese exports, and to lose much of what they made from their trade surplus with the US if they ever tried to unload their holdings.
Their main stock market now is down over 30% since the tariffs went into force last June, and they are closing factories so fast that the price of oil to heat and power those factories has fallen by the same 30+% as the Chinese stock market. And now, were the Chinese to start off loading their US Treasury holdings, they would drive the bond market down about 10-20%, which would be another several hundreds of billions of dollars lost. A clean sweep mop up operation would be done by the Fed and Anointed Banks in a afternoon. Answer this, why is a good soldier to the PLA, HSBC advertising like crazy for deposit's in $ when they have unlimited access to the Yuan? BOOM !!!
China's future access to U.S. dollars via their exports is the sword hanging above their Chicom heads.
The Chinese were advised for a long time that they were going to have to make changes in their trade policies if they were to avoid their present troubles. They were told not to hold the US Treasury securities they were forced to buy, and instead sell them off slowly and re-invest the capital into domestic infrastructure projects that would expand the size of the Chinese middle class. And they were told to diversify their export markets, so that they would not be so dependent on the US consumer to buy Chinese products, The Chinese did little on the first initiative, and little on the second as well, although the second is difficult to accomplish since there are not many consumer markets that can buy anywhere near what the US can buy.
Not a pretty picture. But many saw this day coming. Unfortunately for China, not nearly enough of the decision makers in the Forbidden City did. Xi Jinping played the card to walk away from agreed upon section of the trade deal, he played his hand. Confusis say, you made your bed now sleep in it...............
China would go from having the largest overall trade surplus in the world to having a trade surplus smaller than Ireland if you take away the U.S. Trade Surplus China Steals……….
Xi Jinping has now lost Face and the Entire Globe now knows it.free corn , 1 hour ago link
I swear our politicians are so dumb, full of Hubris and excellent crooks
Aggression, Violence, and Threats never ever works
All you did is awaken the Dragon.CashMcCall , 1 hour ago link
Sure America is leader in Political Technology and has best politicians.CashMcCall , 1 hour ago link
Well that should end the extradition case of Ms Weng. Clearly politically motivated. Her attorney's Steptoe in DC are top drawer. This also means that Huawei may sue Trump for damages.Savvy , 1 hour ago link
That's because Steptoe never loses to the DOJ. There are three top firms in DC that are DOJ killers. Steptoe is one of them. Williams & Connolly another. The Ted Stevens Case was the greatest legal slaughter of the DOJ in history. 6 Gov attorney's sanctioned and threatened by the Judge for disbarment. That's the way to kick the Gov ***. All six counts dropped!
Meng is still in Canada so that is a Canadian Jurisdiction but the Canadian law is express that political motivation is insufficient grounds for extradition. This is evidence of precisely that.
All this over a charge of fraud... LOL. It doesn't get any weaker than that!CashMcCall , 46 minutes ago link
Canada isn't all that enamored of US trade policy atm. Like the rest of the planet. It's quite possible Canada's courts simply refuse the extradition.scaleindependent , 1 hour ago link
Trudeau is a wrist licking slime, hope your courts are apolitical.CashMcCall , 1 hour ago link
what would happen to apple and alphabet stock prices if China did the same thing to them, that we did to Huawei?
China will never do that. They are about business and they are not going to harm a customer over politics. Trump does this routinely. He puts sanctions on Venezuela to harm the women and children to soften up the Gov. He has done it with Russia. It is always indirect attacks to get something unrelated. The cowardly conduct of a bully. Hitler did the same sort of things. The siege of Stalingrad for example.
The damage Trump is doing to Google is incomprehensible. Huawei is one of Google's largest customers. Can you even imaging the implications?
If you were a manufacturer of smartphones and were licensing an OS from Google and Trump then blocks the license.... How many makers of smartphone do you think will want to be dependent on this kind of lunatic gov? No country should want to deal with the US for anything. Look at Russia, they were buying jet engines for their MC 21 and Trump Gov cuts them off. Now they are making their own engines not buying US made engines. How does that help the US manufacturer? Russia will make their engines and compete with the US makers.
None of what Trump does makes any sense at all.
www.zerohedge.comBanning one of China's most high-profile companies from US networks makes sense. Putting it out of business does not.
In its struggle with China over trade and national security, the US has many legitimate grievances, and a variety of weapons for seeking redress. That doesn't mean it should use all of them.
The nuclear missile the U.S. just launched at Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. is a case in point. Last week, the Commerce Department placed Huawei and nearly 70 of its affiliates on an " Entity List ," which means that U.S. suppliers may now need a license to do business with them. Both Huawei's mobile phones and its network equipment rely on American components, including advanced semiconductors. If the ban is applied stringently, it could drive one of China's most high-profile companies -- employing more than 180,000 people -- out of business.
That would be a serious mistake. The U.S. has long argued that Huawei poses a national-security threat. And there certainly are legitimate reasons to worry that incorporating Huawei gear into America's networks will leave them vulnerable both to spying and, in the event of a conflict, sabotage. But the U.S. is already taking other prudent steps to prevent Huawei equipment from being used domestically. Seeking to put the company out of business as well is both disproportionate and deeply unwise.
For one thing, it will impose collateral damage. Blameless companies around the world -- including Huawei's American suppliers -- could lose business, face disruptions and incur significant new costs. Allies that have resisted U.S. pressure to shun Huawei's equipment will resent being backed into a corner: Even if President Donald Trump loosens the noose a bit, they can hardly take the chance that restrictions won't be re-imposed later. China will only redouble its efforts to produce advanced technologies domestically.
As a negotiating strategy, the decision makes even less sense. U.S. officials claim it had nothing to do with stalled trade talks, but it certainly looks like Trump wants to use Huawei as leverage, just as he did last year with ZTE Corp. Trump has already invoked national security far too often in pursuing his scattered trade battles. Doing so here would set another terrible precedent while almost certainly backfiring: It will aggravate the current impasse and give Beijing little incentive to abide by any eventual agreement.
Worse, the decision undermines the implicit point of any U.S.-China trade deal: not just to increase commerce but to stabilize relations between the world's two most powerful nations. While tensions are inevitable, a healthy trading relationship should in theory restore ballance, reminding both sides of the benefits of cooperation and strengthening constituencies that have reason to prefer peace to war. By contrast, targeting Huawei so nakedly will only further marginalize the few moderates in the Chinese leadership and embolden hawks who see conflict as unavoidable. For ordinary Chinese, it will be hard to avoid the impression that the U.S. is simply trying to limit their economic possibilities.
Even on its own terms, finally, this gambit is likely to fail. To be effective, an assault on Huawei would need to be embedded in a larger strategy with a clearer endgame in mind. That's nowhere in evidence: Is the aim to cripple China's tech industry? Teach the country its place? Give a boost to non-Chinese suppliers? Provoke a conflict? End one? Without a more focused goal, Trump risks simply alienating U.S. allies, infuriating average Chinese and raising the chances of confrontation, all to no obvious end.
What the U.S. needs is a larger plan that seeks a healthier coexistence with China. That means building up America's defenses, leveraging its competitive strengths, working with allies to pressure China to conform to global norms, and taking the lead in writing new rules that can constrain its more disruptive behavior. Crushing Huawei, by contrast, simply looks like a strategic miscalculation -- and one with potentially disastrous consequences.
May 21, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
Oliver K , May 19, 2019 3:32:24 PM | 5" Why The Takedown Of Heinz-Christian Strache Will Strengthen The Right | Main May 19, 2019 The story in the American Conservative is very weak: that "the Americans" have already won the war is just due to the built-in superiority: the "land of the free" against "communist dictatorship" (so everybody knows who has to win). Or, a variation, "free market" against "state-owned".
A typical statement of that article: "China views commercial relations with other countries as an extension of the political conflict between Western democracies and itself -- that is, an extension of war." -- a very defining element of the "American" character, to project the own aggression onto others.
There was another opinion-piece somewhere, can't find it anymore, where the author argued that hopefully that "trade-war" will do really good for the Chinese economy -- forget about the US, and develop the home market.
As I believe that the sanctions are a great gift to Russia, I also believe that this "trade-war" is a (potential) great gift to China.
Kadath , May 19, 2019 4:21:27 PM | 0That was an interesting article on psychological vs sociological storytelling and it makes a good companion piece when thinking about how the US media personalizes US geo-political conflicts with the heads of rival state (Putin, Xi, Castro, Kim Jong-un, Khomeini, Gaddafi). If you believe the US media if they just removed Putin, Russia would go back to being a good little puppet state just like under Yeltins. Which is a shockingly naïve way to look at international relations. States have permanent interests and any competent head of State will always represent those interests to the best of their ability. True, you could overthrow the government and replace every senior government figure with a compliant puppet (which the US always tries to do), but the permanent interests that arise from the inhabitants of the State will always rise up and (re)assert themselves. When the State leadership is bribed or threatened into ignoring or acting against these needs it ultimately creates a failed State.KC , May 19, 2019 4:31:39 PM | 1
Even the US media seems to subconsciously understand this, when they talk of "overly ambitious US goals of remaking societies", however, they never make the logical next step of investigating why these States do not wish to be remade as per the US imagined ideal, what the interests of these actually are and how diplomacy can resolve conflicts. According to the US media everything boils down to the US = good, anyone who disagrees with our policies = bad and diplomacy is just a measure of how vulgar our threats are during talks. I'm specifically thinking of the US Ambassador to Russia, John Huntsman's boast of a US aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean as being 100,000 tons of diplomacy to Russia - of all the ridiculous and stupid things to says to Russia when supposedly trying to "ease" tensions (I still can't believe Huntsmen, former Ambassador to China under Obama, is regarded a "serious" professional ambassador within the State departments when compared to all the celebrity ambassadorships the US President for fundraiser).@WJ #8 - That's probably a daily occurrence there anyway.KC , May 19, 2019 4:35:35 PM | 2Somewhat on-topic, China's state media is broadcasting Anti-American movies .William Gruff , May 19, 2019 4:43:17 PM | 4Cresty @9Kadath , May 19, 2019 4:59:33 PM | 5
It is not just Chinese but Asian in general. Watch several seasons of the Japanese cartoon "Gundam" and get back to me about who the good guys are and who the bad guys are in it.
The whole notion that the "good guys" and the "bad guys" are set in stone is antithetical to any worldview founded in Buddhism/Confucianism, or influenced by the same. Can you imagine western children's programming teaching ambiguity between good and evil? That which is which depends upon the observer's perspective? This is the sort of concept that few western people get exposed to until graduate level ethics and philosophy courses.
Or maybe not. I have never seen a single episode of "Game of Thrones" and maybe that delves into ethical complexities that typical western mass media avoids. I wouldn't know. What I do know is that this moral and ethical complexity is something that most Asian children are introduced to before they hit their teens.Trump just tweeted "If Iran wants to fight, that will be the official end of Iran. Never threaten the United States again!". Needless to say, more ridiculousness, Trump is pretty close to plagiarizing himself with his prior comments regarding North Korean "North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un just stated that the "Nuclear Button is on his desk at all times." Will someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!". I think Trump is getting desperate now waiting by the phone for the Iranians to call him. Trump is certainly still smarting after the failed Venezuela coup and wants to avoid a second embarrassing defeat, however I doubt the Iranians will care that much about his latest threat by tweet.Nemesiscalling , May 19, 2019 5:18:09 PM | 6GOT was jarring this season. In the penultimate episode, a dragon wreaks havoc on a western capital city, brutally murdering most of its inhabitants.Sasha , May 19, 2019 5:26:49 PM | 7
It is impossible not to make the correlation of the dragon as China and kings landing (The city) as Washington d.c.
From this one can glean that they were attempting to show the ascendancy of China and the utter destruction of the U.S. With shades of gray thrown about as to if the people of the city deserved to be burned alive and as to whether the dragon and its rider, China, have become what they originally set out to vanquish. The old Nietzsche maxim...those who fight with monsters...
It was indeed unsettling because there are no moral winners. It is well realised for this reason but poorly written and produced in other aspects as noted above by other posters.On the alleged Arendt´s banality of evil, well, some more evil than others, if not because o of their clearly over the top ambitions:Jackrabbit , May 19, 2019 6:01:23 PM | 9
Interesting comment linking some sources and articles on US military strategy from decades ago , some of which I am not able to get to anymore, as the article at ICH numbered 3011:"First published From Parameters, Summer 1997, pp. 4-14: US Army War College: "There will be no peace. At any given moment for the rest of our lifetimes, there will be multiple conflicts in mutating forms around the globe. Violent conflict will dominate the headlines, but cultural and economic struggles will be steadier and ultimately more decisive. The de facto role of the US armed forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy and open to our cultural assault. To those ends, we will do a fair amount of killing."
"Excerpts From Pentagon's Plan: 'Prevent the Re-Emergence of a New Rival':
"Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union.
This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union, and Southwest Asia.
There are three additional aspects to this objective: First, the U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests.
Second, in the non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. Finally, we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role. An effective reconstitution capability is important here, since it implies that a potential rival could not hope to quickly or easily gain a predominant military position in the world."
... access to vital raw materials, primarily Persian Gulf oil"Nemesiscalling @16Maximus , May 19, 2019 6:09:55 PM | 1
GOT is an allegory that explores the nature of power. If you see China's destruction of Washington it says more about you than the show. Firebombing of Dresden might be a more apt analogy.
People always suffer when they allow corrupt sociopaths to gain power. That is as true today as it was in Germany in 1930's and 40's.
The complaints about poor writing are just fan sadness at unexpected horrors that actually make sense for the show. Loose ends created by these horrors will likely be resolved in the last episode tonight.Link not working above here it is: https://twitter.com/realgollumtrump?lang=enRoy G , May 19, 2019 7:12:22 PM | 3WJ @13 thanks for the link, I am eternally hopeful that this particular thread gets pulled on until it unravels.Dolores P Candyarse , May 19, 2019 7:30:47 PM | 4
One of my distinct memories of the immediate aftermath of 9/11 (I lived in NYC at the time), was the trumpeting of the Post and other tabloids about 'the Dancing Arabs,' which obviously fanned the flames of hatred towards the designated villains. Once it was revealed that they were actually Israelis, then crickets until the whole thing was shoved down the memory hole.I'm going out today to buy a couple of Huawei 'phones'.Uncoy , May 19, 2019 7:32:02 PM | 5
According to news reports since the moron in charge announced that he had signed an executive order 'blacklisting' Huawei, those lovely humans at Google are denying Huawei phones access to gmail and playstore. The android operating system is open source and still available to Huawei.
Doubtless FB and M$ will follow suit. Getting rid of all the nasty stuff that spies on users 24/7/365 now means that Huawei phones have all the advantages with none of the disadvantages.
They put their own chips in newer models and I have no doubt will find enough bright sparks to take over apps integration meaning that this divergence point will become a boon not a hurdle. Even better a Huawei costs 60% of a comparable korean model and half the price of the fbi backdoored american shit.
I really like thinking expressed by an un-named english politician in a Henry Jackson Society report: ""Huawei has long been accused of espionage" – a claim repeatedly denied by the firm – and notes that "while there are no definitely proven cases", a precautionary principle should be adopted."
All politicians are crooks and liars, everybody says so, lets lock em all up right now, no need for evidence or trial or any of that due process nonsense, the precautionary principle should apply.William Gruff wrote:Colin , May 19, 2019 7:39:27 PM | 6I have never seen a single episode of "Game of Thrones" and maybe that delves into ethical complexities that typical western mass media avoids. I wouldn't know.
Having suffered through four seasons of Game of Thrones, after a degree in philology and literature, I'd be happy to share my impressions with you. In Games of Thrones, the good characters are regularly disembowled, choked and drowned to death. Or turn evil. The evil characters grow in power and menace and rarely perish. The overwhelming message is that all people and all power are evil. There is no good in the world or what good there is will be quickly stomped out. Resistance is useless.
The main message is really that resistance is futile . If the powers that be can condition the contemporary (and naturally idealistic) Western youth to accept that hypothesis, any threat to their depredations and financial tyranny is rendered impotent. If resistance is futile, said youth will simply have to accept how things are and try to stay out of the way of tyrannical kings, rapacious queens, brutal captains of the guards and wanton dragons. I.e. sit down and shut up while HRC, John Bolton, John Brennan and James Clapper ruin the planet.
Despite impressive production values, excellent acting (for the most part) and majestic locations, Game of Thrones is truly the most evil large scale creative work I've ever seen. On a philosophical level, Game of Thrones has no redeeming features. At best an impressionable mind might come away with a hedonist mindset, i.e. the traditional salve of weak spirits, carpe diem .
PS. There's some very good comments at the tail end of the Takedown of Heinz-Christian Strache including one of my own covering in some depth the Austrian political background to this event. Worth revisiting if you only saw the early comments.Analysis from a poll sometimes cited by Chomsky.KC , May 19, 2019 8:21:46 PM | 0
See Gallup International poll pg 134
Using populations per country from '03 we get the following conclusions:
of the 36 countries outside the US we get 33% of the world population where
less than 8% supported unilateral military action by American and her allies
and 57% supported under no circumstances
this list excludes 42 additional countries with another 40% of world population who have had their governments overthrown or attempted to be overthrown by the US since WWII
In the US 33% supported unilateral action, 70% of congress voted for the unilateral military action
Being that the invasion was illegal and unpopular, the Bush admin invented a 'coalition of the willing to give the appearance of support.
The Trump admin needed to create a similar type of facade for the Venezuelan coup. Such things are needed specifically because the move is so unpopular and illegal.At least the alternative media is taking notice of the warmongering tactics ofNemesisCalling , May 19, 2019 9:03:28 PM | 4
John Bolton .@ Jen 29NemesisCalling , May 19, 2019 9:21:34 PM | 5
I suppose that is a valid theory. But as the viewer we know the motivations of Dany and why in some small regard the people in King's Landing deserve a little roughing up.
Thomas Jefferson said: "I tremble for my countrymen because I know God is just..."
The difference here is that we judge Assad even though we don't see what he is truly doing.
Here we see what Dany has done, mass slaughter, and think to ourselves...we kinda had it coming.@25 uncoypsychohistorian , May 19, 2019 9:51:22 PM | 7
Concerning your take on GoT: Isn't this really the thesis of Thucydides through and through reflected in GoT almost to a T?
"The powerful do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." GoT is not disturbing to be nihilistic and shocking. It is holding up a mirror to history. But the quality of the show has declined aince they have come to the end of the road in adapting the source material. The show has overtaken the books.Below is a link from Xinhuanet about the China financial sector opening upvk , May 19, 2019 10:06:03 PM | 8
China to further open up financial sector: central bank
The take away quote
As of the end of March, overseas investors bought a net of 1.77 trillion yuan (about 260.3 billion U.S. dollars) of bonds at the country's interbank bond market, up 31 percent from a year earlier, and held 5.4 trillion yuan of yuan-denominated financial assets, up 19 percent year on year, according to the central bank.
What us peasants don't know is the extent to which China will let foreign investment influence their socialistic ways. That said, China is the new empire, private or public is yet to be determined but guess where all the "smart" money in the world is going? The money movements are a giant sucking sound that will leave America under the global economic bus.
Or not and China maintains its socialistic ways including projecting them around the world.S , May 19, 2019 10:50:33 PM | 3The movies Hollywood produced are often telling psychological conflicts as the central story. Each character has a certain fixed attitude and the interacting of the characters create the story. It does not matter if the setting is in antic times or in the far future. In the end there are always the bad and the good guy slamming it out in a fistfight.
The historic Chinese drama which I currently favor are based on sociological storytelling. As they develop the stories form their characters. Their attitudes change over time because the developing exterior circumstances push them into certain directions. Good becomes bad and again good. The persons change because they must, not because the are genetically defined. I find these kind of movies more interesting.
That's the difference between materialism (marxism) and idealism (kantism, hegelianism and noekantism). Besides, an idealist tv series helps selling more merch and doing more sequels, hence the capitalist preference for idealism.@KC #12:Grieved , May 19, 2019 10:51:22 PM | 4China's state media is broadcasting Anti-American movies.
How are these movies "anti-American"? These movies are simply the truth.@36 Jen, @40 Peter AU 1, karlof1 - and otherspsychohistorian , May 19, 2019 10:55:01 PM | 6
I have really appreciated the discussions you've held regarding this US view that places the power of national impetus in the person of one leader - rather than seeing cultural, seasonal, historical, collegial, etc. causes for the way things move.
You and the commentators whom you've cited and drawn from have created a paradigm that we can use moving forward, and will now never fail to see in the future. It is a terrible weakness of the US within the course of global real life.
It seems to be similar to what this TV show is said to be doing by employing psychological causation rather than sociological causation for the flow of events.
In sum, thanks!Below is my final Xinhuanet link about China/US relationsben , May 19, 2019 10:58:49 PM | 7
Chinese FM urges U.S. to avoid further damage of ties in phone call with Pompeo
The take away quote
Wang also reiterated the principled stand against the "long-arm jurisdiction" imposed by the United States.
Empire is having its hand slapped back in Venezuela, Iran, Syria, ???
Where are they going to get their war on?
I see empire as a war junkie and they are starting to twitch in withdrawals which is dangerous but a necessary stage. Trumps latest tweets show that level of energy. The spinning plates of empire are not wowing the crowds like before.....what is plan Z?Hot tip, GOT is just a movie. Please, no more psychological insights.Grieved , May 19, 2019 11:21:32 PM | 8
What fans really need, is some REAL WORLD justice, something that's noticeably missing in today's world.@5 Oliver Kben , May 19, 2019 11:24:01 PM | 9
I agree that the American Conservative article was weak - as b obviously thought. It has the US trade war against China completely wrong. I side with b in his hunch that China will win. My own view is that, as with everything the US has done lately, it already lost the war before it even stepped into battle in the theater.
And let's counter the author's point, in the weak article, that China needs the US trade surplus more than the US needs the imports from China. The author says that China has no way to substitute for exports to the US. There's abundant recent analysis on this, showing the relatively small part of China's economy that hinges on this trade, but here's a good Sputnik interview that illustrates how easily China can simply absorb goods into its own domestic market:
Trade War: US to Pay Heavy Price for Underestimating China – Chinese Businessman
I especially liked this part:"...we have our colossal domestic market, which has no competitors throughout the world. Our consumer and innovation markets provide us with a large number of advantages and room, giving China an opportunity to make a manoeuvre. Therefore, their blockage gives China a chance to become even stronger. We must express our appreciation to our mentor, Trump, for this, for this lesson and for forcing China to figure out how to withstand the threats on its own."
The US used to be an important nation to do business with - commercial, diplomatic, military. But as it has become "agreement incapable", nations are forced to replace it. This takes a little time and readjustment, but then the change is permanent.
Strangest thing of all that the US itself would do the forcing out of itself from the world's trust.For those with a penchant for movie dissection, I offer this from Truthdig;Zack , May 19, 2019 11:50:54 PM | 0
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/game-of-thrones-an-american-parable/Trump, Saudi Arabia warn Iran against Middle East conflictKadath , May 20, 2019 12:41:41 AM | 2
Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman discussed regional developments, including efforts to strengthen security and stability, in a phone call with U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, the Saudi Media Ministry tweeted on Sunday.
"We want peace and stability in the region but we will not sit on our hands in light of the continuing Iranian attack," Jubeir said. "The ball is in Iran's court and it is up to Iran to determine what its fate will be."
He said the crew of an Iranian oil tanker that had been towed to Saudi Arabia early this month after a request for help due to engine trouble were still in the kingdom receiving the "necessary care". The crew are 24 Iranians and two Bangladeshis .
Is this a veiled threat on the lives of these crew members?Re@ 51 James, well Sputniknews is reporting that the Saudi's claim that the Houthis are planning to attack 300 critical infrastructure facilities in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates in the coming weeks so that might be the instigating event your concerned aboutkarlof1 , May 20, 2019 12:45:56 AM | 3Grieved @44--somebody , May 20, 2019 1:26:48 AM | 5
Thanks for your kudos! As I've written previously, the political philosophers of the nascent USA thought they would have a Natural Aristocracy ( here and here ) somewhat based on a meritocratic system instead of the Old World's Inherited Aristocracy based on blood relations and closed to anyone not within a very small circle. Yet it was still an Aristocracy with all it inherent evils, and it is that vast assortment of evils the US citizenry has yet to overcome in its supposed--idealized--quest for self-government.
Recall that George Washington was deemed safe to become the first president because he could be trusted not to proclaim himself king --something often forgotten by students of US History.
I've often lamented on the nature of the 1787 Constitution because it allows any POTUS to become a king with almost zero hindrances on the power wielded. Sure, compared with other systems of government at the time, the USA's was revolutionary, but only down to the waist to borrow a phrase from Gilbert & Sullivan. Madison's theory, IMO, was--other than being Aristocratic--okay until his most important check/balance was removed--that of the "dueling oval office" where the losing POTUS candidate was awarded the Vice-Presidency--imagine Hillary Clinton as Veep with Trump in the driver seat! IMO, the 12th Amendment fatally wounded Madison's construction of a government that arrived at great decisions based on a consensus of genuine national interests instead of partisanship.
Arguing that action is the great fault that must be corrected doesn't get much play nowadays. Indeed, it's very difficult to debate Constitutional Reform given the engineered political climate since the current situation suits the Ruling Oligarchy just fine.
I hope everyone had an opportunity to click the link I provided to the series of paintings known as The Course of Empire . ICYMI, here it is again . Please note which Empire's being copied and compare that with the predominant architectural theme in the Outlaw US Empire's Imperium. Creditors ruled and eventually destroyed that Empire. That's one historical lesson that's totally omitted from the historiography of the USA.
By and large, we know what and where the problems are. The fundamental question is, will we ever get the opportunity to fix them?Posted by: Grieved | May 19, 2019 11:21:32 PM | 48TJ , May 20, 2019 5:16:46 AM | 1
Their disadvantage is that they have to import energy. So they need export if they do not wish to run a trade deficit. They do not necessarily need the US for this though if they can trade in Yuan.Speaking of Chinese stories, here in the UK I grew up watching The Water Margin , from the opening titles 'The ancient sages said "do not despise the snake for having no horns, for who is to say it will not become a dragon?" So may one just man become an army.' and also Monkey , the opening titles gave us "The irrepressible spirit of Monkey" .Thirsty , May 20, 2019 7:55:53 AM | 5b, it is generally fund raising time during this time for some publishers (i.e. counterpunch etc) and I would like to send you something as well. Can you please post the payment information. Thanks.Jen , May 20, 2019 8:28:59 AM | 6Peter AU 1 @ 62:Chevrus , May 20, 2019 9:19:33 AM | 0
If you are interested in watching a film with a sociological approach to telling a story and you are close to a cinema, Mike Leigh's "Peterloo" just started screening last Thursday in Australia. The film is an exploration of British society during the Regency period (in the early 19th century), the class attitudes and opinions prevalent then, and the conditions and events that led to 60,000 - 100,000 labouring class people gathering at St Peter's Field in Manchester in August 1819, and how it was viciously broken up by cavalry and foot soldiers acting on orders of the aristocracy.
The film is at least 150 minutes long and is a highly immersive experience. There is not much plot in the Hollywood sense of the term. I believe reviews have been mixed with most film critics complaining about the film being too long and boring. But if you are prepared to watch a film that uses a sociological approach to telling a narrative, then you'll agree with me that the film actually isn't long enough.@Hmpf-59BM , May 20, 2019 9:26:11 AM | 1
Very interesting studies and the ideas that they might spawn. The near parallels of the micro and macro as well as the flow patterns.
The culture I am immersed in (USA) is heavily weighted toward the dramatic and two dimensional. Simply put, mass perspective engineering is geared to over simplify and reinforce these views with media imprinting via hollywood, madison ave. etc. The lenses through which impressions from the "outside world" pass through engineered to give the desired results rather than expand consciousness or engender critical thinking. In short, we are breeding for weakness and gullibility.
In regard to large scale dynamics resembling the physics of things like the laws of thermodynamics, I am wondering if phenomena like those alluded to above might be engulfed and influenced by these kinds of natural patterns. So for example: Looking past the drama of sanctions, trade wars, and good guys vs. bad guys, wont the large scale movements caused by these things begin to move according to a kind of physics?
I keep wondering what the result of this latest round of economic warfare will lead to. If the USA continues to sanction, embargo and blockade (at the behest of banking cartels?) will this not cause a mass exodus from dollar reserves, SWIFT, BIS and the like? I hear all sorts of opinions, bushels of dis-info and I'm mostly at a loss as to what to think. We are clearly nearing the end of the Bretton-Woods era so a reset is in order. The USA is a mere 6% of the world population and some would say at the end of it's due date as far an being an "international influencer".
So if they and their EU poodles go ahead and sanction every nation who refuses to bend the knee what's stopping these nations from simply bypassing these decrees and going about their business? I get the sense that this is already happening quietly. Russia, China and various partner nations are creating alternatives in many forms, be they interweb servers, financial networks, OBOR, SCO and more I have never heard of.
Perhaps the ratcheting up of tensions could also be swept up in the turbulence of thermodynamics? If sanctions become embargoes and then blockades, what happens to the "compressions ratios in the Straits of Hormuz?Re: Game of Thrones
Well, I've come across a few advertisements, but I always thought it was some kind of children's video game. I cannot imagine why anyone other than a socially stunted and mis-developed American or Americanised adolescent could want to watch such infantile deranged garbage.
If it is Hollywood, then you can be certain the intention is to manipulate the younger generation to supporting and idolising their permanent wars. On the face of it, that indeed appears to be the case.
OK, I've got that off my chest now!
May 21, 2019 | www.washingtonpost.com
With $105 billion in global sales last year, Huawei has a vast web of customers and suppliers on nearly every continent. The company is the world's largest provider of equipment used in 5G telecom networks, and the second largest seller of cellphones. Last week, Huawei said that it spends more than $1 out of every $7 of its annual $70 billion procurement budget buying equipment from U.S. companies.
Google said it would restrict Huawei's access to future updates of its Android operating software, which powers many of Huawei's phones. Other U.S. manufacturers also began suspending business dealings with the Chinese firm.
The markets punished many of those suppliers Monday, including Intel, Broadcom and Qualcomm, as well as Micron and semiconductor manufacturer Cypress. Chip makers Qualcomm and Broadcom fell 6 percent. Intel declined nearly 3 percent, and Lumentum Holdings shares fell more than 4 percent after the company said it would stop selling to Huawei.
The United States said last week it was adding Huawei to a trade blacklist because the company "is engaged in activities that are contrary to U.S. national security or foreign policy interest." That punishment means U.S. firms aren't allowed to sell to Huawei unless they get special approval from the government.
[ How China's Huawei took the lead over U.S. companies in 5G technology ]
On Monday evening, the Commerce Department slightly eased the timing of the restrictions, saying it would allow some transactions to continue for 90 days, to facilitate "certain activities necessary to the continued operations of existing networks and to support existing mobile services." The temporary reprieve will allow Huawei to receive U.S. equipment to service existing Huawei mobile phone users and rural broadband networks.
Kevin Wolf, a former senior Commerce Department and current partner at Akin Gump, called the reprieve "very narrow." "It's not relief for exporters. It really is to prevent unintended operational problems with existing networks," Wolf said.
The United States views Huawei as a security risk because it believes the company has close ties to the Chinese government, which Huawei has denied. U.S. officials have said Huawei could potentially tap into and monitor sensitive U.S. communications through its network technology.
Ren Zhengfei, the founder of Huawei, said that the U.S had underestimated his company as he sought to dismiss the impact of the ban.
"The current practice of U.S. politicians underestimates our strength," Ren said in a group interview with Chinese media Tuesday morning. Huawei had a stockpile of chips and "can't be isolated" from the world, he said.
The 90-day extension "doesn't mean much" and Huawei is fully prepared for the American actions, Ren said, even appearing to brag about luring workers away from U.S. companies.
"We are very grateful to the U.S. companies. They have made a lot of contributions to us," he said in the comments, which were shared in real time by state media. "Many of our consultants are from American companies like IBM."
Earlier, Huawei reacted to Google's decision to stop allowing updates by saying the Chinese company had "made substantial contributions to the development and growth of Android around theworld."
"As one of Android's key global partners, we have worked closely with their open-source platform to develop an ecosystem that has benefitted both users and the industry," said spokesman Joe Kelly, adding that Huawei would continue to provide security updates and after-sales services to its existingsmartphone and tablet products.
Google's announcement came at an awkward time for Huawei, which on Tuesday is expected to unveil its Honor 20 series of smartphones in London, and security experts were divided on how quickly and severely the ban could hurt Huawei.
Some said Huawei is bigger and better prepared for the blockade than its Chinese competitor ZTE was last year when the Trump administration restricted ZTE from doing business with U.S. firms. The U.S. later eased ZTE's punishment.
May 21, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
Washington announced last week that it would impose new prohibitions on Huawei, including a ban on US companies selling components or services to the telecoms giant. The seriousness of these actions is difficult to understate, as Rosenblatt Securities analyst Ryan Koontz explained. If Huawei is pushed to the brink of collapse, Beijing might label this 'an act of war'.
"The extreme scenario of Huawei's telecom network unit failing would set China back many years and might even be viewed as an act of war by China," Koontz wrote. "Such a failure would have massive global telecom market implications."
But bringing a massive global Chinese firm to its knees is one way to demonstrate to Beijing, and the rest of the world, which ignored Washington's warnings about Huawei, the true reach of American economic power. And it's one way to put a timer on talks with Beijing, ensuring that the trade skirmish won't drag on until the height of campaign season.
American firms weren't the only ones to act. In Europe, German chipmaker Infineon Technologies said it would suspend deliveries to Huawei, at least until it has had a chance to determine the significance of Washington's executive order (though company sources later denied these reports and said shipments to Huawei would continue).
Since hostilities with the US began, Huawei has been stockpiling components. It now has enough of a buffer supply to keep its business running without interruption for at least three months. Nikkei reported late last week that Huawei had reportedly asked suppliers to help it build up enough stockpiles to last it a year, but it's unlikely that Huawei has accumulated enough buffer stock to last it anywhere near as long.
If Washington refuses to back down, this three-month window might become the next critical deadline for the trade talks.
If it wasn't clear before, we now know that President Trump wasn't kidding when he said late last year that Huawei could become 'a bargaining chip' in the trade skirmish. Whether the prosecution of Meng Wanzhou factors into it remains to be seen, but President Trump did tell Fox News over the weekend that he wouldn't allow China to surpass the US on his watch.
Huawei's odds of finding replacement suppliers are slim, as Koontz explained. Huawei "is heavily dependent on U.S. semiconductor products and would be seriously crippled without supply of key U.S. components."
It's clear where Beijing stands on this. We wouldn't be surprised to see a 'consumer movement' emerge in China where middle-class consumers ditch foreign phones and proudly proclaim their support for Huawei.
pic.twitter.com/iAdB3MCJK7-- Hu Xijin 胡锡进 (@HuXijin_GT) May 20, 2019
On Sunday afternoon, President Trump threatened Iran with military intervention via tweet. Yet, analysts blamed the growing pressure on Huawei for the risk-averse trading atmosphere.
US stocks were on track to open lower. Meanwhile, Huawei's dollar-denominated corporate bonds tumbled again on Monday after one of their biggest declines in recent memory on Friday. The selloff comes as fears of a Huawei bankruptcy are beginning to intensify.
Beijing has maintained its aggressive posture, with its Ministry of Foreign Affairs warning in response to news of the Google ban that China would do what it needed to do to protect its companies' "legitimate rights", and also hinted at legal actions it might take. Over the weekend, Beijing compared the trade skirmish with its actions in the Korean War, about as clear a sign as any that we're in for a protracted conflict.
Whatever happens, it looks like the showdown over Huawei has eclipsed the broader trade-war narrative. So much for the Huawei crackdown being a 'separate issue' from the trade talks, like Trump officials had previously insisted.
Bottom line: If we don't get a deal by the end of June, this trade war is going to really heat up.
me or you , 2 minutes ago linkfrankthecrank , 5 minutes ago link
Imaging a phone without Google spyware or Intel backdoors...it's a win win for all of us.Herdee , 6 minutes ago link
So, Huawei is dependent upon Western semiconductor manufacturers. But I thought the Chinese were the leaders in innovation? That's all I hear on here and elsewhere. Seems to me that they should have invented and created their own semiconductor industry back in the 1800's when Westerners began to mess with them. One would think that the great and powerful and super duper intelligent Chinese would have discovered and invented it first in the first place. Certainly the Chinese or their pals in the USSR could have done so sometime in the '50s, '60s, '70s, '80s or '90s? No?giovanni_f , 13 minutes ago link
Christine Lagarde and the IMF team in China:
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2019-04/24/c_138005457.htmadmin user , 14 minutes ago link
The US might win this battle but it has already lost the war. It is in a position similar to Ukraine which was the richest and most developed Sovjet republic after the breakup - but which is now one of the biggest shitholes in the entire Galaxy, feasted upon by a bunch of Zionazi oligarchs. Think of the US as an Ukraine on steroids.
Trump and his diverse actions will hurt Huawei. Maybe even badly. Long term, maybe even short term, the US won't gain anything from it. It is in a position where it can only lose. Not because the potential of the US isn't "terrific" (actually it coud be the most promising country) - but because the US is designed to fail as it is basically a failed state already.cledus , 17 minutes ago link
Alphabet has announced that it will cut off Huawei Mobile's access to most of its Android operating system offerings
android is open source, anyone can download and modify it
you just wont get Google Play Store
What good is a phone call if you're unable to speak?Spaced Out , 19 minutes ago link
The real prob as I see it, Huawei can not be monitored or hacked into by the NSA, CIA and all the other US intelligence agencies.
They've been shut out and don't like it.Herdee , 27 minutes ago link
Lol, there are already better alternatives to android, such as /e/. This dumb move will only hasten the demise of google, etc. Mugs!HopefulJoe , 34 minutes ago link
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/home.htmTo Hell In A Handbasket , 44 minutes ago link
Google is EVIL, no way they are walking away from an evil company, have they walked away from China also? No, they are giving them code daily...CheapBastard , 33 minutes ago link
The beginning of USSA mercantilism being played out. The USSA simply cannot compete and lagging behind in 5G is only the start.Shockwave , 44 minutes ago link
We have some of the best software engineers in the world...ask Sameer and Raja in our IT department.silverwolf888 , 53 minutes ago link
Im confused, how would not choosing to do business with Huawei possibly be considered an act of war?
Especially when China largely keeps their markets closed to the west?
After speaking to some Chinese immigrrants... according to them, they'll never come to any kind of fair agreement with the west. They're not interested in a level playing field at all. All they care about is making sure the Chinese state gets all the benefits in order to further Chinas power and influence.yerfej , 45 minutes ago link
Great news. Huawei already has completed development of its own OS, no doubt an Android clone. This finally gives us a path off of the Goolag/ Android OS. In 19 months Rabbi Trump will be gone, which is good, but his destroying the Android monopoly may be his biggest achievement.DelusionsCrowded , 39 minutes ago link
An android clone? No way that would be stealing again. No they will make their own special sauce OS that will electrocute the citizen if they don't adhere to the state directives.
There are so many other better ways to run a phone interface , I wonder if these two systems have been kept as monopolies so that the Spooks at the NSA and CIA are able to find their way around easily
May 20, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
psychohistorian , May 19, 2019 10:55:01 PM | 6
Below is my final Xinhuanet link about China/US relations
Chinese FM urges US to avoid further damage of ties in phone call with Pompeo
The take away quote
Wang also reiterated the principled stand against the "long-arm jurisdiction" imposed by the United States.
Empire is having its hand slapped back in Venezuela, Iran, Syria, ???
Where are they going to get their war on?
I see empire as a war junkie and they are starting to twitch in withdrawals which is dangerous but a necessary stage. Trumps latest tweets show that level of energy.
The spinning plates of empire are not wowing the crowds like before.....what is plan Z?
May 20, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Indeed, the biggest cost may be imposed on investors, who for years have inflated the economic potential of communist China's state-directed economy. Major public companies in the United States, including Apple, Caterpillar, and Boeing, are among some of the leading exporters to China. Yet exports to China accounted for just 7.2 percent of overall American exports in 2018. According to the U.S. Trade Representative , the top export categories that year were: aircraft ($18 billion), machinery ($14 billion), electrical machinery ($13 billion), optical and medical instruments ($9.8 billion), and vehicles ($9.4 billion).
grumpy realist May 17, 2019 at 6:55 amHmmm. This sounds suspiciously like the arguments Brexiters have dragged out about the EU. Remember the "German car manufacturers will help us get everything we want because we're such a large market and they can't afford to lose us"?Dan Green , says: May 17, 2019 at 7:01 am
People of a country can decide to put up with a heck of a lot of economic pain if they decide they're defending their country.Base issue seems clear. Two large economies with very different models of governing. One a Totalitarian state run economy, and our economy based on greed and consumption, to support GDP. The theory that the world need be interconnected by trade, has run its course. We really don't even need a Nafta re done treaty. All 3 economies have exhausted what works for them, and can simply abandon what doesn't. If a cuntry has something to sell and the buyer country sees a price advantage the deal will go down.Kent , says: May 17, 2019 at 7:10 amTariffs do not get passed along into higher consumer prices unless the product has a very high inelasticity in demand.Slugger , says: May 17, 2019 at 9:58 am
Here's a thought experiment: suppose I sell an imported product for $10. The government imposes a 25% tariff, so I decide to up the price to $12.50. Here's your issue: if I could charge $12.50 for the product, why wouldn't I just have charged that in the first place? Charity? No, I didn't charge that because every time I tried, sales collapsed.
And if you understand retail, especially imports, gross margins are enormous. Sales prices can be 10 times cost of goods. So that $10 product probably just cost $1. And a 25% tariff on $1 is only 25 cents. Top of the line iPhones cost about $180 to make but retail for close to $1000.
Tariff expenses come out of some combination of negotiated lower prices with vendors, lost jobs as importers seek to cut costs, and lower profits. Consumer prices are the last thing to consider.Please excuse my ignorance. We hear about a war on this and a war on that all the time. Now a trade war which we are winning (or not). How will we know that we won? After victory do we buy more stuff from China or less? Will their prices for stuff be higher or lower? I am a financially comfortable retired person who has plenty of stuff that I have accumulated over the years; a trade victory might have a different meaning to a young couple starting a life. Who gets the spoils of victory, me or the youngsters?TheSnark , says: May 17, 2019 at 10:10 amChina has been running much the same economic model as Japan in the 1970's and 1980's, an export-led autarchy heavily dependent on debt financing. When Japan started to open its financial markets in the later 1980's, things started grinding to halt and by the early 1990's stagnation started.Jon Thaler , says: May 17, 2019 at 11:01 am
China is on much the same track, though Xi has been careful not to liberalize the financial markets too much, and has otherwise done a good job of keep growth on track. But it can't last, and if a trade war does not tip China into stagnation, something else will in the not-too-distant future.
Any downturn will bring the legitimacy of the CCP into question, and the traditional response of dictatorships in that situation is to find a foreign conflict to distract the population. With mutual distrust, and even dislike, growing on both sides, things could get very messy.In the 2017/2018 trade year, the US exported $12 billion of soy to China. That's. particularly important for two reasons:Joshua Xanadu , says: May 17, 2019 at 11:20 am
* China accounts for the majority of US soy exports, so the trade war affects that sector more that the others you mention.
* The people affected are one of the cores of Trump's base.
The latter point is particularly significant, because the success or failure of the war will be determined by political stamina, not by economics directly. Who can hold out longer, Xi or Trump, as his political position erodes. One of the "weaknesses" of a democracy is the greater sensitivity to the broader political environment (ie, not just the Politburo). Are you so sure that the US will win this war of attrition?@Kent – Thank you! Finally someone with actual understanding about retail and the ridiculous profit margins of imported goods, especially from Asia. As someone who worked first-hand at a shoe factory in China, managing the account, I was aghast at how low U.S. companies like Nike or even Wal-Mart drove down the production costs ($6-18 dollars landed), while selling the shoes for $30 – $120 dollars.Leroy Cabana , says: May 17, 2019 at 11:23 am
Theoretically all that juiced-up profits from outsourcing should have been reinvested to create new jobs for U.S. workers over the past 20 years. That's what economists and corporate lobbyists will argue. Empirically, however, those profits were reinvested to the stock market for fat quarterly bonuses.The underlying issue with China is their long standing demand to disclose all development info about any product doing trade in China. Take Apple, they butted heads with the FBI and refused to unlock an Iphone that belonged to a killer. Then they enter China and the government there demands all the tec info for phone development and Apple simply hands over their deepest secrets. Its the same for Ford, Cat or any others wanting to do business in China. I for one, can live without any China trade if these have to be the requirements. There is a long list of other cheap labor countries that would welcome our trade without being forced to provide trade secrets.Kent , says: May 17, 2019 at 11:37 am@FL TransplantSalt Lick , says: May 17, 2019 at 11:38 am
"So what happens in the next T-bill auction when China doesn't show up and instead sits on the sidelines–does the Treasury end up paying higher interest rates to sell the instruments necessary to finance our federal spending? And, if so, what does an increase in those interest rates do to our economy?"
Interest rates for treasuries are always set by the Federal Reserve. The secret sauce is the Primary Dealer banks. They are required, by law, to make the market for treasuries. Meaning they have to buy any treasuries that aren't sold. And they do so at the interest rate set by the Fed. And they always, always have all the money they need to do so. The Fed just prints it and adds it to their balances.
It's the beauty of a fiat currency. The USA cannot be held hostage to foreign financial agents.This trade war is about regime in change in China, as Bannon has said on many occasions. The Chinese are finally waking up to our true intentions. America can't allow a more successful economic model to exist anymore than they allow socialism in Venezuela.Archie1954 , says: May 17, 2019 at 12:49 pm
The only surprising outcome of the clash will be that American corporations will experience massive collateral damage due to supply chain disruption and being shut out of the largest consumer market in the world in China.
The U.S. Empire has decided if U.S. corporation can't run ruff shod over the Chinese government like they do here and everywhere else, they cannot be allowed to submit to Chinese government rule in exchange for the benefits of the Chinese market place.
It's probably the only time in recent history that the defense of market forces resulted in a direct hit on the "free" market itself. Like all front line troops, U.S. corporations will suffer many casualties in the battle ahead. They didn't volunteer for this trade war and they had no idea that this would be a hill that many would die on.
The paradox of this situation is not lost on them and most are paralyzed by what lies ahead.You are conveniently forgetting that much of the Chinese goods subject to the increased tariffs are goods manufactured by American corporations utilizing Chinese labour due to its much reduced costs. Those American companies are going to lose market share and profits because of these new tariffs. They will not be happy!workingdad , says: May 17, 2019 at 2:41 pmI wonder if they could by commodities? Buy surplus oil would be a logical choice. They could sell their treasuries, use dollars for oil, thereby drive up the price of oil for everyone, including the US.EarlyBird , says: May 17, 2019 at 2:44 pm
Granted that could eventually help the US, but in the short term could be a pain.Slugger , I don't think your question is ignorant at all. I think it's very wise. If only we asked the "Why?" and "What does a win look like?" of all these literal and figurative wars, we might get somewhere.SteveK9 , says: May 17, 2019 at 3:07 pm
I do not, ultimately, believe Trump's trade war with China is going to make the US into a manufacturing powerhouse again. Those days have come and gone. It will definitely increase the cost of a lot of junk we buy from China.
The hope, however, is that it will force China into a position wherein we could demand more fairness in terms of patents and technology theft.The time when it was beneficial for China to trade real goods for numbers in a computer was long since past. They keep doing it out of habit. Trump is doing both countries a big favor.Liam , says: May 17, 2019 at 3:28 pmHistorically, it has not been wise to discount China's capacity to overcome disruptions that would vivisect virtually any other civilisational hegemon on this planet. China survived the Mongols, the English, and the Japanese. And itself many many times over.Dakarian , says: May 17, 2019 at 4:33 pm
We're barely a blink in the eye of China's history. I would not be as sanguine about who "needs" whom more over the long term.
(Just to be clear: I have more than my share of criticisms of American trade policy of the past couple of generations, including our posture vis-a-vis China.)"Sluggerjack Meof , says: May 17, 2019 at 7:00 pm
May 17, 2019 at 9:58 am
Please excuse my ignorance. We hear about a war on this and a war on that all the time. Now a trade war which we are winning (or not). How will we know that we won? After victory do we buy more stuff from China or less? Will their prices for stuff be higher or lower? I am a financially comfortable retired person who has plenty of stuff that I have accumulated over the years; a trade victory might have a different meaning to a young couple starting a life. Who gets the spoils of victory, me or the youngsters?"
You. Definately you.
Youngsters need to be able find a job that pays for their basic needs and a path to be able to keep growing or stabilize that lifestyle.
This war bumps prices higher, but won't bring those jobs back. High skill jobs are already in high demand with few takers so more of those won't help the majority. The rest will either be automated, moved from China to other countries (which is already happening as China wants to move from sweatshops to a consumer middle class economy and places like India and Vietnam are taking up the slack), or abandoned due to a lack of profit margins.
I'm not saying we should or shouldn't do this with China. They haven't exactly been treating us or our companies well after all. But this is NOT going to benefit the regular American. Low skill, sustainable, reliable work is just Not going to be a thing.
What will help is encouraging the ability to gain high skills and mobility for those high skill jobs that are in desperate need of workers, aiding low skill workers so that they can afford the things they need and not be 100% exploited, and figure out what to do with the many many middle age and up folks who were trained to be middle class to transition them into one or the other and not hate life while doing so.
We can go fix or break our trading systems with other countries as we see fit, but we really need to stop thinking it's going to fix things. Same goes for immigration for that matter.The author shows his ignorance. The Bank of China is a commercial bank. Foreign reserves are held by the People's Bank of China. Different entities. I assume the rest of the article is full of inaccuracies.IssacNewton , says: May 17, 2019 at 7:47 pmIt is hard to know if China has already lost. Their published economic numbers are not very accurate. A key point is that the standard economic models of International Trade are wrong. "Free Trade" can have benefits, but does mandate optimal outcomes. For example, lower cost players can transfer economic production to their soil. There are many equilibrium points (vs. the one of standard economics) in international trade when productivity changes or there are economies of scale. With many of these points it would be better a nation not Trade. The US Trade with China fits this bill. This non-standrd was demonstrated by Baumol and See: https://www.amazon.com/Conflicting to -National-Interests-Robbins-Lectures/dp/0262072092/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1473299717&sr=1-5&keywords=Baumol+Trade We need to follow the actual Terrain of economic results vs. the incorrect map of standard economics.jk , says: May 17, 2019 at 8:43 pm
Organizational and Technological stage drives over 80% of economic growth (see Solow). The Chinese have latched on to US creativity to drive their economy (plus an investment rate of 45% vs. 20% for the US). In parallel the US went Crony Capitalist and its TFP went from 3% to .4%/year. Can a Crony capitalist US recover its productivity growth and can a State Capitalismt Chinese dictatorship be innovative without the West. The US under Trump is attempting to displace its currrent ruling elites. This will not happen in China. My guess is China has lost at trade and will lose at Economic productivity growth.Sounds more like a pointless Pyrrhic victory. Tit-for-tat trade wars have many unintended consequences, can easily expand into other sectors, and ultimately consumers and employees will bear the burden.david , says: May 17, 2019 at 8:51 pmAmericans' fear and hatred of China is so great that we are yearning for China's lost regardless of how it may harm Americans.
Take the latest "emergency order" to put Huawei in the "entity list" to ban it from purchasing American products. If implemented, it will cost American companies $11 billions of sales from Huawei, and lost of thousands of high tech and good quality jobs. If Huawei is destroyed, the 5G market will probably be picked up by Swedish and Finland companies, and the smart phones market by South Korean Samsung, not any US company. But who cares, as long as Huawei is destroyed, right?
Take a look of all opinion pages in the media and comments in the Internet, if the supply chain is moved from China to Vietnam, then it is a win for Americans, right? Who care whether Vietnamese can produce it as efficiently as Chinese or not, or whether Vietnam is also a communist country?
This *jihadic* style pursuit to destroy China is also blinding ordinary intelligent Americans of common sense about the relative strengths and weaknesses of both sides. This author, for example, ignores all the possible ways Chinese can hit back if they also decide to go the self-destructive ways or even "nuclear" (figuratively or literally) options. And yes, the options are not restricted to financial tool like US bonds only, e.g.
1. Stop selling rare earth to American companies – which means we can't even make F-35 fighters. The last congressional study finds that it will take at least 10 years for US to re-open our rare earth mine.
2. Start making the life of all American companies difficult in China – GM and Ford are selling more cars in China than in US, Apple has its 2nd largest market in China. The growth rate of China for these companies are higher than US.
3. Stop cooperating with US on geopolitical front, e.g. start helping North Korea to perfect their ICBM, or buying lots of oil from Iran, etc.
These are just random thoughts I come out from 2 minutes of brainstorming. I am very sure 1.4 billions people can think of many things much more deeply and creative than me. Have the author or any of the people in DC think through all the possibilities before shouting for war? Good luck if you think they do.
And rest assured when the dusk settles, ordinary Americans will NOT be any penny richer or our life any better.
This country has a long history of insecurity toward and racism against Asians. Sadly, the current fight proves that this ugly chapter has not close.
May 20, 2019 | turcopolier.typepad.comI don't think the Washington decision makers, as opposed to perhaps career Sinologists in the State Department, quite understand the dynamics of the Trump Administrations relationship with China and the risks America appears to be running. The bit that seems to be missing is a realistic appreciation of "Face".
A quick search of the internet reveals scholarly definitions of "Face" together with the description of it in socio - cultural terms that in my opinion do not do it justice. Couple that with Western insensitivity, NeoCon hubris and Trumps preference for believing everything is a negotiable transaction and we are set up for a monumental falling out with China that has lethal consequences for America.
I will give a few examples of Face, you can find plenty more on your own. Did you know it is an insult to request a Chinese to sign a written contract? If he has agreed to the terms and said as much in front of other Chinese then that is enough. "Face" does the rest. Did you know that in certain circumstances "Face" requires you to lie to, or ignore, authorities in support of family and friends? This last, in my opinion, is the reason for the current Chinese attempt at omnipresent surveillance; "we tremble at the power of the Emperor in Peking, but the mountains are high".
Col. Lang makes the point that the Japanese went to war to dispel the threatened perception that "they weren't the men they thought they were". Well with "Face' in China its more than that, you are your "Face". To damage someones "Face" is to create a lifelong mortal, implacable enemy. There is no way, short of death, to recover once you have given offense. Against that standard Trump, Bolton and Pompeo are playing with fire. "Just kidding" doesn't cut it.
It may surprise some of you to know that the West was trading with China right through the cold war - in US dollars only. Nixon didn't discover China either. It also may surprise some that China is perfectly capable of making very high quality reasonably priced sophisticated goods, and always has been. The reason that Walmart sells cheap Chinese schlock is because that's what they asked China to supply. As for "stealing intellectual property", don't make me laugh. We all do it and China has plenty of very smart people that create first rate IP of their own. I make the case that China is a sophisticated and capable economy, with its own amour propre, not some third world hole populated by leaders that can be bought or threatened, and Trump risks forgetting this at our peril.
To this end I note that the trade war is not going to Americas advantage, China has vast holdings of American debt, China buys Iranian oil, judging by reports of Sochi discussions, Russia AND China are likely to support Iran and both Korea and Taiwan are vulnerable. In my opinion President Trump has a very small window left in which to fire Bolton and perhaps Pompeo and embark on a more conciliatory line, before China becomes an irreversible, implacable enemy.
What says the Committee?
Procopius said in reply to Harlan Easley ... , 18 May 2019 at 10:43 AMjdledell , 18 May 2019 at 10:43 AMSo unless we economically surrender to them expect war?See, that's the attitude Trump and the Trade Representative display. It is impossible we could find a compromise that would be better for both sides. It is a purely binary zero-sum game. If we do not "win," then we "lose," which means surrendering to an implacable enemy who will destroy us. It's no wonder the majority of the world's people think America is the greatest danger to world peace. This is why Bolton is able to find support throughout the nomenklatura. Most Chinese still hold to Confucian concepts of honor, something the American elites abandoned decades ago as unprofitable.My son, Jason, is fluent in both Mandarin and Cantonese was headquarered in Hong Kong for years but now works out of Tokyo but spends a great deal of time in China conducting business. He would probably argue that, if anything, Walrus is understating the importance of Face in China. There are numerous rituals associated with interacting with Chinese that must be observed in order for communication and agreement to flow properly.EEngineer , 18 May 2019 at 10:43 AM
I think many in America, maybe even Trump, have an image of China as a backward country full of uneducated dumb people. Nothing could be further from the truth as a large segment of the population is not only eductated but intellectually the equal of Americans.
As far as handling the trade war between China and the U.S., I think in some ways China has an advantage in it's government directed relationship with business. It allows China to react quickly to adverse conditions, faster and with more cohesiveness than our capitalist system. Watch for China to move it's manufactured products through numerous other countries to avoid some of the impact of tariffs.
China is also not as responsive to consumer complaints as the U.S. democracy. As soon as Trump's base starts complaining about the higher prices at Walmart etc. Congress and Trump's re-election campaign officials will start to make China tariffs seem intolerable.I would think the Chinese see Trump as something to be persevered for a few years regardless of who he surrounds himself with at this point. I wonder if they have a term for "face incapable" as a parallel concept to the Russian "agreement incapable"? As such they probably see his administration as a no more sophisticated than a hornets nest, to be avoided if possible and swatted if necessary.ponderer , 16 May 2019 at 11:29 AMIt has always seemed to me that "Face" is the distant inferior cousin of Honor and a much closer sibling to Pride or even Hubris. That is, the Asian concept of Face has everything to do with how you are perceived and almost none with how you "are". Honor, meanwhile, demands a rigorous adherence to a code of conduct and force of will that places less emphasis on perception and more on "being". Westerners (myself included) tend to get those two confused.walrus -> ponderer... , 16 May 2019 at 06:13 PM
If the Chinese were bound by the authors concept of Face, China must be a paradise without corruption. Instead of polluted water land and air, wizened elders concerned over their stewardship and the lose of face from an environmental catastrophe, would provide a harmonious balance between man and nature. Instead, its a paradise and a ghetto where passerby's walk nonchalantly around the dieing. Where companies reluctantly provide netting to slow the steady suicide of their workers. They do tend to plan for the long term, and they can certainly hold a grudge I would agree. How far are you willing to bend-knee for someone else's concept of pride though? Tariffs, which have been around since antiquity, seem like a small infraction for all this talk of life-long mortal, implacable enemies. Yesterday I saw a Chinese TV program that roughly translated said Donald Trump was literally in the White House crying over soybean prices. POTUS literally crying over the Chinese governments response to our rising tariffs after decades of unfair trade practices that benefited the Chinese (elites anyway). So you shouldn't think that saving Face is a two way street or will result in a mutually beneficial deal.Face has nothing to do with Judeo Christian ethics. Corruption and pollution can earn you a bullet behind the ear in China.blue peacock , 16 May 2019 at 06:13 PM
The issue with Face is that duties don't extend much outside the family. That's why they can sell poisoned baby formula, etc.etc.
It also explains why the CCP is afraid of losing China's Face. They will be blamed.Walrus,walrus -> blue peacock... , 16 May 2019 at 06:16 PM
IMO, China has been "an irreversible, implacable enemy" for decades now. It just so happens that our own fifth column in the Party of Davos have aided and abetted this implacable enemy while making sure that we voluntarily disarmed and did not fight back a war that they are fully engaged in. The consequence has been that we are paying for our own destruction. China is more authoritarian & militaristic today than it was three decades ago and there are several people who believe they currently pose an existential threat to the US & the West in general.
While tariffs may not be the best strategy, we have to admire Trump's courage and determination to finally fight back in the face of massive internal opposition from our fifth column. When you look at the sheer scale at which the Chinese are buying think-tanks, academics, media, K-Street lobbyists & political influence it is staggering and only the Israeli influence operation is bigger in depth & breadth. Ever since Bill Clinton gave China Most Favored Nation status and the Party of Davos furthering their own narrow short-term financial interests, we have directly financed and transferred technology to China and dismantled our industrial base. China joined the WTO but has thumbed their noses at every adverse WTO ruling that showed they play not by the rules but are predatory.
You dismiss the scale of IP theft, forced technology transfer, product dumping, state subsidies and industrial espionage as everyone does it. That's typical of the China apologists in the West.
I think you over-estimate China's financial strength. There are several macro analysts with excellent long-term analytical track records who believe that China is desperately short USD. This theme that you note that China can crash the UST market is already proven to be false. China in fact sold hundreds of billions of UST in 2014-2016 with no perturbation in the UST market.
On the contrary the financial pressure on China is increasing as their debt-fueled malinvestments grow. I'm willing to bet you that we'll see this pressure manifest in a devaluation of the RMB.
I will leave you with a speech from your fellow countryman, John Garnaut. Chilling!!
https://sinocism.com/p/engineers-of-the-soul-ideology-inSo the Chinese are playing us at our own game and winning? Boo Hoo. Throwing over the chess pieces is not a useful response.blue peacock said in reply to walrus ... , 18 May 2019 at 02:36 AMSure, they've kicked our ass these past couple decades. Now they've got cocky and think they own us. Supply chains can re-orient.Harlan Easley , 16 May 2019 at 11:46 AM
As a red-blooded American I'd like my home team to seriously up their game and of course beat the Chinese at their own mercantilist game. A good start would be to put the squeeze on their massive USD short position. Eurodollar market is a perfect spot to begin. The Chinese have US$1.3 trillion debt maturing in 12 months. They've either got to redeem or rollover. Devalue & bleed reserves. Or else sell USD assets & lose collateral. Margin call time! Wake-up call time for BRI - if Trump chooses to squeeze at this immediate vulnerability. Trump can also take the next critical step - restrict their access to our capital markets. The SEC can also come down hard on all their fraudulent listings.
Maybe Australia is losing its best & brightest moving to China. Not here. In fact it is the opposite. Young Chinese techies whoever can get a visa are immigrating here. Wealthy Chinese including top CCP officials are using every mechanism that they can avail to get their capital out. Chinese capital controls are tightening. If they had an open capital account their trillion dollar reserve would vanish overnight as capital flees. You must know that China's domestic security budget is larger than their defense budget. The CCP fear their own people more than anyone else. Why do you think they're amping up their domestic surveillance expenditure?
I can also give you an anecdotal experience. Newly minted billionaire and founder of Zoom, Eric Yuan spoke to our tech analyst team a year ago. I happened to be in that meeting. He was categorical that if he had been in China and had half the success, CCP would effectively control his company. He said every Chinese techie dreams of moving to America.
Jack Ma, was banded out here in the west as the new breed Chinese tech entrepreneur. A billionaire on the Davos circuit. Did he really own Alibaba or was it the CCP? How come his shareholding was suddenly zeroed out?
Do you think any smart Chinese really trusts the CCP? Why would they? You talk about "face" & culture and the 3,000 year history of the Han people. What about the history & culture of the Tibetans? Or the culture & traditions of the Uyghurs with over 2 million of them currently undergoing brutal "re-education" in concentration camps in Xinjiang?
The authoritarian CCP have had a free ride on us for over two decades. It is time to suit up and give them a little taste of their own medicine. I hope Trump retains his resolve.I don't care one iota about their "Face". Not at the expense of deindustrializing large sections of the American Heartland. Which has already happened. Our trade relationship with China has been a disaster. The only people to benefit are large shareholders.ISL said in reply to Harlan Easley ... , 16 May 2019 at 11:19 PM
As for them holding our debt it's threat is non-existent. Let them sell all of the bonds. China currently owns $1.13 trillion in Treasurys, a fraction of the total $22 trillion in U.S. debt. The Federal Reserve if need be can buy them all up but even that won't be necessary due to insatiable demand for the bonds even at these ridiculous low interest rates.
In fact their obsession with "Face" indicates a psychopath. Defines as no sense of right and wrong and is generally bolder, more manipulative, and more self-centered than a sociopath. That sums up their dealings with us the last 25 years.
Only a fool continues to play this game of theirs. Stealing our technology at will, forced 50/50 partnerships, currency manipulation, dumping into our country to destroy industries, etc. etc. etc.
Plus they are expanding geographically now due to us making them rich. They are 1.3 million homogeneous Han for the most part. Especially compared to our country. I have to say their government has definitely improved the lives of their citizens as a whole and I respect that. But enough of our weak kneed leaders giving away the store.
I personally am being hurt by the tariffs due to many LVP flooring products I sell are sourced from China. I have no problem taking a hit for the greater good and have been working on sourcing from different locations.Harlan Easley,guidoamm said in reply to Harlan Easley ... , 18 May 2019 at 04:38 AM
Thanks for pointing the finger at China -looking out for their own interests - the bloody bas-ards.
I guess you believe that had China had remained insular, the US would not have de-industrialized to a different country? As if NAFTA wasn't a great sucking sound. Hmm. Me things the problem lies closer to home - but no finger pointing there.
Totally impressed with the TrumpTareef - Totally on top of everything.
Oh wait, the tax advantages that encourage de-industrialization remain. But I guess Trump doesn't understand taxes and how wealthy corporations and people use them to move production overseas and not pay taxes ....
Meanwhile, global de-dolarization accelerates. At some % the US loses its special status and there will be a reckoning.
I see a lot of hot air - not new policy: Manufacturing did not come back, US infrastructure is a joke and continues to crumble, workforce participation continues dropping, and hourly median wage remain stagnant. Why? Because it requires actual policies that lessen the profitability of some (very wealthy friends in the circle Trump wants to run).
Here's my prediction - Trump will fold by summer or sooner.Apologies for butting-in in an otherwise fascinating conversation... but....Robert L Groves , 16 May 2019 at 01:14 PM
There is considerable but misplaced talk of "capitalism" being thrown about in some threads, whilst Harlan worries about the deindustrialization of the West, ostensibly, due to China. China has little to do with deindustrialization. A centralized monetary system coupled with electoral politics, can only be sustained through the use of perpetual fiscal deficits.
In order for the political construct to be able to run perpetual fiscal deficits, national debt must necessarily expand. As debt conforms to the law of diminishing marginal utility however, this is a compounding strategy.
Thus, in order to compensate for the loss of purchasing power, government borrowing must progressively increase till eventually it goes parabolic. Hence the reason debt in the USA doubled between 2008 and 2016. This is the parabolic phase.
In order to sustain this strategy, fiscal revenue must ideally expand. In order to increase fiscal revenue however, legislation must be brought to bear. As legislation and fiscality become progressively more restrictive in one country, economic actors migrate to countries where they can achieve an economic advantage.
As a corollary, as legislation and fiscality become progressively more restrictive, barriers are raised in business and industry. As barriers rise, so does unemployment and/or under employment whilst business dynamism is proportionally stifled.
In this context therefore, artificially lowering interest rates to ostensibly kick start the economy, actually reinforces the offshoring dynamic to the detriment of SMEs and the benefit of large corporations.
If China can be blamed for anything therefore, it can only be blamed to have opened the doors wide open to Western corporations to allow them to shift their production technology out of Europe and the USA.
All the while, the finance industry is laughing all the way to the bank.... their own bank that is.. ..
gExcellent analysis by Chas Freeman on US/China relations.robt willmann said in reply to Robert L Groves... , 17 May 2019 at 12:05 PM
https://chasfreeman.net/on-hostile-coexistence-with-china/Robert Groves,Dave Schuler , 16 May 2019 at 01:31 PM
Chas Freeman was president Richard Nixon's senior interpreter for Nixon's visit to China. Here is an interesting description by Freeman of some of that trip--
Something to which not enough consideration is given is that China has a considerable volume of foreign loans, those are increasing, they are denominated in dollars (particularly since the yuan is not convertible), and must be serviced in dollars. That means that China needs a lot of dollars which it obtains via selling goods to the United States.Jack said in reply to Dave Schuler ... , 16 May 2019 at 04:28 PM
Said another way, China cannot reduce the amount it sells to the U. S. or buy more from the U. S. without a convertible currency or reducing its level of foreign debt.Kyle Bass on why China has to sell its US Treasury holdings. Twin deficits.MP98 , 16 May 2019 at 02:23 PM
https://twitter.com/Jkylebass/status/1129022386228146176"Did you know it is an insult to request a Chinese to sign a written contract?"Stueeeee , 16 May 2019 at 02:58 PM
So, assume that they are dishonest negotiators, as they just showed by walking away from 6 months of negotiations that they "agreed to?"Your commentary exudes the naivety that the Chinese have preyed on for the past 50 years. Their meekish and subservient mannerisms hide a ruthless and immoral inner nature. They would still be a backward country if not for our elite's insatiable greed. What have they produced organically that wasn't ripped off from developed countries? What do they offer cultural other than a social credit system with improved state surveillance techniques? They treat their own people like dogs and they still have dog eating festivals. China offers a way of life that is an antithesis of the West, so it is inevitable that there will be a clash. The question isn't if but when. The longer we delude ourselves into thinking that economics will change China, the more blood will be shed when the reckoning occurs.walrus -> Stueeeee... , 16 May 2019 at 06:22 PMDenial is not a strategy. For the record, I don't like eating dogs either. but i'm willing to make an exception for pit bulls.VietnamVet , 16 May 2019 at 03:33 PMChinese chauvinism puts American exceptionalism to shame. They've been the Celestial Empire thousands of years longer than the upstart Anglo-American Empire. In last 30 years the Western Elite dumped "noblesse oblige" for "get it while you can". China's entry into the WTO directly hallowed out manufacturing in the Mid-West ultimately resulting to Donald Trump's trade war.Fred -> VietnamVet... , 16 May 2019 at 10:34 PM
This was a result of CEOs and Wall Street Raiders moving manufacturing to low wage, no environmental regulation, nations to make a quick buck. China was a willing partner in the con in order to modernize.
China's retail sales are now greater than America's. Since the US declared an economic war, GM will have to drop Buick and Cadillac brands and market their cars in China as Chinese. But "Face" likely will make that ploy unsuccessful.VV,Joanna said in reply to Fred ... , 17 May 2019 at 06:09 AM
" GM will have to drop Buick and Cadillac brands and market their cars in China as Chinese."
You seem to be misinformed. China has required building those vehicle lines in China for some time now. GM moved all that production there with the intent of exporting from China to other markets in addition to what small portion of the Chinese car market they already have.
Look Fred, I agree VV seems a bit confused where to side on the issue or whom to blame beyond Wall Street. Thus good you put him on the right track.VietnamVet said in reply to Fred ... , 17 May 2019 at 08:45 PM
But China required or GM management found it convenient considering production conditions?Fred,Fred -> VietnamVet... , 18 May 2019 at 09:28 AM
GM sold over 4 million vehicles in China last year, even more than it sold in the North American market. The U.S. only exported 267,000 passenger vehicles to China. Apple sales declined 30% in China. In an economic war Chinese will avoid buying American branded products. They have alternatives. Americans don't have a choice at Walmart except to pay the higher prices due to the tariffs.VV,Jack , 16 May 2019 at 04:01 PM
Those GM vehicles were built in China by a JV with majority Chinese ownership. The product line sold at Wal-Mart has plenty of things made in countries other than China. We have a twenty trillion dollar economy with Chinese imports making up 500 billion. We've got plenty of options.China has been emboldened as the west moved their manufacturing base there and transferred their technology. They've been taking the next steps directly influencing our politics.catherine , 16 May 2019 at 04:25 PM
Huawei while it claims it is an employee owned company is controlled by the CCP as many "private" companies in China. The west would be foolish to not put an end to Chinese subterfuge that undermines their economy and national security.
https://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUKKCN1SM0VCI say if Face is important, respect their Face. After all written agreements are broken all the time so what difference does it really make.Ryan , 16 May 2019 at 04:39 PMI don't buy it at all. As others have pointed out China requires access to American markets to 1) make their dollar denominated loan payments and 2) keep foreign manufacturing located in the country. The cost of tariffs to the United States is finding alternative sources in supply chains and higher end cost to consumers. We're insanely rich, we can afford that without issue. The cost of tariffs to China, in the ultimate analysis, is foreign companies moving their manufacturing out of the country, which would utterly devastate them.walrus -> Ryan... , 16 May 2019 at 07:10 PM
So far as I understand the Trump administration is demanding nothing more than China play by the rules of the game as written. If they're not willing to do so, **** 'em.What rules? Who wrote them? Respect? Ask Iran. Poppycock.Joanna said in reply to Ryan... , 17 May 2019 at 08:11 AMturcopolier , 16 May 2019 at 05:23 PMWe're insanely rich, we can afford that without issue
That's a curious statement. You too? Insanely, that is.Catherinecatherine said in reply to turcopolier ... , 16 May 2019 at 09:45 PM
A well written contract contains enforceable penalties for non-performance with the money often held in escrow. That's the way I write them. Trump is using the balance of US/China trade to penalize the Chinese for reneging on the verbal and draft agreements they made with us.True. I am not familiar with the agreements so can't discuss it intelligently.fredw , 16 May 2019 at 06:14 PM
Just saying it seems hardly anyone lives up to agreements any more regardless of in writing or not.
And dealing with countries is dealing with the people who represent it ..I do believe you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. You can always swat them later if honey doesn't do the trick.This is a traditional problem deeply embedded in Chinese culture. Westerners in the 1800s concluded that it was impossible to write a binding contract in classical Chinese. There were hopes for Mandarin, but... I was reading about this as a college student studying Chinese in the 1970s and have never ceased running across complaints about it. Chinese contracts are only as good as the will of the contractors and the influence you can bring to bear. When you are dealing with government, a contract is good until the officials get replaced with new faces. Even big players like McDonald's are not exempt.walrus -> fredw... , 16 May 2019 at 07:07 PM
"...what was meant as the flagship of McDonald's planned expansion into the People's Republic of China (it already had outlets in Hong Kong and Taiwan) was destined for controversy. In 1994 -- only two years after opening -- a legal battle pitted the transnational corporation against Beijing's government in a land dispute symptomatic of China's no holds barred modernization.
"In question was McDonald's 20-year lease on the strategically located property at Wangfujing -- a busy central shopping district -- and the city's attempts to shutter the restaurant to make way for a new super sized shopping mall. McDonald's balked at the eminent domain order, which flattened the surrounding neighborhood. In the end the burger joint was the lone building standing amid acres of rubble. The dispute raised serious concerns among foreign investors over the efficacy of business contracts in China at a time when the Communist state was seen as the future of global markets.
"But in late 1996 McDonald's China president Marvin Whaley announced a reconciliation. "In a spirit of teamwork and partnership, we've developed a plan that will allow our strong expansion in the city to continue."
Note that it took two years for the "spirit of teamwork and cooperation' to kick in for a multi-billion dollar cooperation who could presumably have just been given another good spot for a hamburger stand. If the officials involved had been willing. Your mileage may vary, but you are unlikely to do better.
Thank you Fredw for an excellent example of how McDonalds came to grips with Face, to everyone's benefit.walrus , 16 May 2019 at 06:30 PMChinese will respect a verbal contract - the difficulty is getting them to say the terms in front of other Chinese. Lieing to you is permissible.walrus , 16 May 2019 at 07:37 PM
Our business solved the problem by using irrevocable letters of credit. That way we could both blame the banks and not accuse each other of skulduggery. Hence Face was always kept intact.For the record and to preclude pointless ad hominem attacks, the Chinese are intelligent hard working people for whom sophisticated business and finance was a way of life while we were still living in mud huts. They revere education. They do not subscribe to Modern Judeo Christian ethics but a much older Confucian creed. For that reason pleas for China to 'play by the rules" just do not compute.John Merryman -> walrus ... , 16 May 2019 at 10:07 PM
China is not some modern, fly by night, Westphalian creation. You are dealing with the Middle Kingdom - 3000 years old and the Chinese, after centuries of oppression now demand respect. The idea that once again the West can dictate to China is offensive to Chinese and, considering their economy, downright delusional.
China has its problems. Face as a concept does not extend beyond family and immediate friends, so the concept of higher loyalty to a Chinese nation (ie patriotism) is not strong. Neither is respect for national law, nor respect for institutions or companies. This is the source of all commercial crime (eg: fraud, adulterated products pollution).
The governments reaction to the tendencies of its population include draconian punishments and now attempts at nationwide surveillance.
The problem Trump fails to recognise is that the CCP and its leaders have Face. Threaten that and China will become an implacable and unbeatable enemy.The underlaying philosophies are in some ways diametrically opposed. We in the West are object and goal oriented, with an ideals based culture, while the East has more of a feedback oriented view, ie. Yin and Yang.Fred -> walrus ... , 16 May 2019 at 11:15 PM
Even the concept of time is different, as we think of ourselves as individuals, thus moving through our context, the future is in front and the past behind, traveling the events of our lives. While the Eastern view is the past is in front and the future behind, as they see themselves as part of their context and necessarily witness events after they occur, then the situation continues.
Both are valid in their own context. Though our presumption of moving toward some ideal is flawed. When some is good, more is not always better. Consider efficiency, which is to do more with less. Then the ideal of efficiency would be to do everything with nothing. Those most committed to this view see Armageddon as the door to their ideal state.
What should be kept in mind about the East is that with Communism and the Party system, then becoming China Inc, to global capitalism, they have adopted essentially Western ideas and tried framing them through their own lens. The reason would be that such an ideals, goal oriented paradigm is very effective in the short and medium term, but creates that much more blowback, in the long term. While China might seem a threat to the current American status quo, the real danger is our own social and economic breakdown. We have been living on the equivalent of a national home loan since Reagan, if not Roosevelt and if the holders of that debt try calling it due, say trading it for remaining public assets, we will be revisiting feudalism.
The Russian and the Chinese, as well as the Iranians, etc. are really just boogie men, being thrown up to distract us. This Iranian situation seems to have be a total disconnect with reality. Something is brewing, whether planned, or just the wheels really coming off the train.
Both we and the Chinese seem to be headed to our own versions of Brexit. The Russians went through it with the fall of the Soviet Union.walrus,Keith Harbaugh , 16 May 2019 at 08:33 PM
"...the concept of higher loyalty..." Sounds like the Chinese exclusion act might have been a good idea afterall. How many generations in the US will it take for a Chinese national to actually assimiate and become "American"?
"...unbeatable enemy." The PRC is not the Middle Kingdom. President Xi is not the subject of Master Po's "Everlasting Wrong" and he is well aware that China is certainly not "unbeatable". These are trade negotiations and right now they need us one hell of a lot more than we need them. Convincing his fellows in the CCP of that is probably going to be harder for him than for Trump to do the same with Congress.Any opinions on this?:The Twisted Genius , 16 May 2019 at 09:14 PM
"Former Trump Senior State Dept. Official Tells Beijing to Wait Until Trump is Removed " ,
by sundance at CTH , 2019-05-16Walrus, I find the most illuminating thing about your informative post is the reaction you elicited. Comment after comment, in my opinion, illustrates some degree of unwillingness or inability to acknowledge and tolerate a culture clearly different from ours. I am reminded of a South Park episode called "Toleration" in which the whole town wrongly assumes toleration of the other requires wholehearted celebration of the other. Nothing could be further from the truth. There's plenty many of us don't like about today's Chinese culture and society, but it's their culture and society. They don't have to conform to our ways anymore than we have to conform to theirs, but we should acknowledge the difference and deal with it.Jack said in reply to The Twisted Genius ... , 17 May 2019 at 11:42 AMTTG,The Twisted Genius -> Jack... , 18 May 2019 at 11:21 AM
In the name of tolerance of another culture are we going to surrender to their predatory behavior? Are we going to allow the Chinese to continue to "beat us at our own game" as Walrus alludes? Sure the Party of Davos have benefited from the current relationship but why should the US in it's national interest continue to allow an authoritarian state to steal our IP, subsidize their companies to dump products in our market and prevent our companies to sell into their market unless they transfer technology, only to have it stolen?
That type of predatory behavior is not about cultural difference but taking advantage of a situation that we allowed. Tariffs may not be the best strategy but at least Trump is saying the current arrangement no longer works. It makes no sense to say in order to protect Chinese "face" we should continue this arrangement where we have the short end of the deal. I hope that Trump doesn't back down in the face of Chinese influence operations in the US and his perception of what's best for his reelection. IMO, the Chinese threat is significantly larger than any threat from Russia or Iran, and saying we should walk on eggshells to not offend their cultural sensibilities is frankly ridiculous.
I believe Walrus over-estimates their strengths. There is a reason why their "best and brightest" continue to immigrate to Silicon Valley in droves. I know some of them personally as I have backed their entrepreneurial ventures. They will be the first to tell you that they have given up a lot in terms of familial connection to immigrate to the US as they don't share nor do they want their kid's futures to be subject to the capriciousness of Xi Jinping's authoritarian vision.Jack, why surrender to their predatory behavior? Just stop dealing with them. Stop allowing American nationalists to buy Chinese made goods and stop selling China our goods. Why not make the stuff ourselves or learn to do without? Why are those American farmers growing soybeans for the Chinese. Let them grow stuff for Americans. Sure this approach is even more extreme that the current tariff war, but it will make us immune to Chinese predatory practices, won't it? The isolation of Sakoku as the purest form of American nationalism. As an added benefit of implementing a policy of Sakoku, there would be no more American foreign adventurism.Jack said in reply to The Twisted Genius ... , 18 May 2019 at 09:47 PM
I say this tongue in cheek realizing it will never be implemented. But wouldn't this a better implementation of American nationalism than demanding that all other countries simply bend to our demands in all matters?TTG,Johnb , 16 May 2019 at 11:05 PM
I wholeheartedly agree with you that we should end our overseas interventionism. I've opposed it for a long time from Vietnam to Iraq & Syria. The costs in the trillions of dollars, the destabilization of fragile societies to the unnecessary sacrifices of our soldiers and their families have not provided any meaningful benefit to us.
As far as China is concerned I believe the situation is more complex. One thing I've noticed in general and exemplified by the comments on this thread is the conflation of the heritage and Confucian values of the Chinese people on the CCP. Let's not be under any illusion. The CCP is unabashedly totalitarian. I've no quarrel with the Chinese people. On the contrary they have my deepest sympathies for having to endure under the boot of the CCP.
Of course any change in their form of government is for them to effect just as our forefathers did here. The important point that I believe needs to be made is that we provided the finance, the technology and the markets to enable the economic development of an authoritarian regime. An argument can be made that those early decisions to bring in China into the global economic framework was in the belief it would enable them to reform. I was persuaded then by Sir James Goldsmith & Ross Perot and others that the GATT trade deal driven by Wall St would be a disaster for our working class. Neither Bill Clinton nor the Republicans asked the question then what if the CCP doesn't reform and instead intensifies their authoritarianism?
Of course the big transfer of our industrial base was completely our own doing as our political system is fully captured by the Party of Davos. In retrospect it should be clear that the CCP never intended to relinquish their monopoly on power and would become even more repressive to maintain it. The CCP is not our friend. They are an implacable enemy who are now using their growing economic and military strength to directly interfere and subvert our societies. The scale of their influence operations and the direct use of cash to purchase influence and espionage is something much larger than at the depth of the Cold War with the Soviet Union. It is high time we understand this threat and act. At least Trump in his own limited way gets that something needs to change even if in his mind it is purely transactional. I'd like to highlight a current example where the Trump administration is moving to ban Huawei from our market. Opeds are being furiously written and published in our national media in defense of Huawei, while the company hires the top cybersecurity official in the Obama administration with top secret clearance as their lobbyist. There are no Opeds here or in China that Google, Facebook, and other US companies are banned in China. Why is that? IMO, it's because we accept the authoritarianism of the CCP. The neocons made a lot of noise demonizing Sadam & Assad as brutal dictators, yet they're silent as Xi Jinping has millions of Uighurs in concentration camps. If we don't act to check the CCP now our grandchildren will regret it as they'll have to fight a war.Quote -"The idea that once again the West can dictate to China is offensive to Chinese and, considering their economy, downright delusional."Alves , 17 May 2019 at 02:10 AM
I believe this is the underlying driver to the individual Chinese acceptance of the cost to any conflict, it also links directly to what they see as a Century of Humiliation where China wasn't powerful. The very use of the word Humiliation in any translation directly links into their concept of Face.
Quote- "China has its problems, Face as a concept does not extend beyond family and immediate friends"
I believe to extend and change this cultural concept of what constitutes Face is behind the national introduction of Social Credit scores for all citizens and available on line to all citizens. It is in fact intended as a national reputation system whereby an unrelated Chinese can lose Face when interacting with other citizens. China is the elephant in the room in any Western political, defence and economic policy debate.IMHO, the USA holds most of the cards in this negotiation:Anon , 17 May 2019 at 09:11 AM
1. The USA trade deficit with China is huge and China needs to sell to the USA, as it will not find other countries to make up for the lost market.
2. It is not uncommon for supply chains to change. Goods that today are manufactured in China will likely be made in other asian countries which have even lower wages if the trade war really goes for a significant amount of time.
3. The inflationary and GDP contraction risk of a trade war is not that high, as the imported chinese goods make up only 2,3% of the USA GDP.
4. The fact that China has lots of USA sovereign debt is not something that can not be solved by the FED. A few economists have already pointed that in the past 5 or 10 years.
5. China already is an enemy of the USA. Worst case, it will be more active in the hotspots in the World, instead of only spying and hacking the hell out of the USA.
So, do not panic. The ones that should be panicking are the chinese.China gets our middle class and the west gets cheap socks in return.As our middle class disappears overseas our cheap socks become unaffordable because there are no jobs for our young workers.The only way to get our middle class back is to stop buying cheap socks.or to put the price up on our middle class.any idiot can make cheap socks but middle class is priceless.the backbone of a stable society.Secondly any society that lives beyond its means through over population is doomed and under no circumstances must it be allowed to expand.China's growing affluence will increase competition for resources as it's middle class expands and this will lead to conflict.Cheap socks might end up causing WWIIISRW , 17 May 2019 at 09:36 AM
Interesting article by David P. Goldman, Asia Times, about how to deal with China.jdledell , 17 May 2019 at 06:36 PM
https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/04/opinion/the-chinese-tortoise-and-the-american-hare/Just as a reminder - having run International businesses, I just want to clarify that U.S. Businesses are not saints. There is a certain amount of cheating, browbeating and stealing as long as we don't get caught and profits are increasing.Mightypeon , 17 May 2019 at 07:38 PM
We might not like the Chinese using our methods but that is the way the cookie crumbles. At this point about two-thirds of Prudential's profits come from overseas subsidiaries and one of the reasons for that success is our ability to mimic what works in their domestic companies and to do it somewhat better and cheaper.
Since the profits were repatriated to the U.S., I had to deal with a lot of government flack about hurting their domestic companies and their employees.From my own interactions with the Chinese:
1: Highly sophisticated Culture. They tend to react pretty well if one can show a more then basic degree of understanding of their history.
2: They greatly prefer nuance. Simple answers imply simple minds.
3: I have not been in the position to actually have to get formal contracts with them. I can certainly echo however that making a Chinese promise something in front of other Chinese about whose perception he cares is usually sufficient to have a pretty honorable commitment to something, it is often easier said then done.
4: I initially had some disdain for the Chinese way of not directly letting you know how annoyed they are at any given point (Russians are fairly straightforward in this), but essentially, their point of view is also that if you are incapable of assessing how annoyed they are you are not a valid negotiation partner.
5: Also, keeping annoyance beneath the radar does not create scenes, and if a scene is created reactions may have to be forced. Vengeance is a thing with the Chinese . My impression is that they can be mollified though, and generally regard vengeance as an expensive luxury item, I also got the impression that you need to go out of your way to seriously become a target of vengeance, just professional disagreements are not a cause for vengeance, especially not if you are a foreigner. They also have a pathway of not having to take vengeance to save their faces by asserting that the offender is insane/feebleminded/crazy and thus beneath vengeance. Its not a position you want to be in though.
6: It goes a pretty long way to be aware of some more imaginative things that especially state aligned business can do if you are in China. Things like precision weighing any electronic equipment you take there before and after are just best practice.
May 18, 2019 | www.zerohedge.comVia ChasFreeman.net, Remarks to the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies China Program
Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr. (USFS, Ret.)
Senior Fellow, Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, Brown University
Stanford, California, 3 May 2019
President Trump's trade war with China has quickly metastasized into every other domain of Sino-American relations. Washington is now trying to dismantle China's interdependence with the American economy, curb its role in global governance, counter its foreign investments, cripple its companies, block its technological advance, punish its many deviations from liberal ideology, contest its borders, map its defenses, and sustain the ability to penetrate those defenses at will.
The message of hostility to China these efforts send is consistent and apparently comprehensive. Most Chinese believe it reflects an integrated U.S. view or strategy. It does not.
There is no longer an orderly policy process in Washington to coordinate, moderate, or control policy formulation or implementation. Instead, a populist president has effectively declared open season on China. This permits everyone in his administration to go after China as they wish. Every internationally engaged department and agency – the U.S. Special Trade Representative, the Departments of State, Treasury, Justice, Commerce, Defense, and Homeland Security – is doing its own thing about China. The president has unleashed an undisciplined onslaught. Evidently, he calculates that this will increase pressure on China to capitulate to his protectionist and mercantilist demands. That would give him something to boast about as he seeks reelection in 2020.
Trump's presidency has been built on lower middle-class fears of displacement by immigrants and outsourcing of jobs to foreigners. His campaign found a footing in the anger of ordinary Americans – especially religious Americans – at the apparent contempt for them and indifference to their welfare of the country's managerial and political elites. For many, the trade imbalance with China and Chinese rip-offs of U.S. technology became the explanations of choice for increasingly unfair income distribution, declining equality of opportunity, the deindustrialization of the job market, and the erosion of optimism in the United States.
In their views of China, many Americans now appear subconsciously to have combined images of the insidious Dr. Fu Manchu, Japan's unnerving 1980s challenge to U.S. industrial and financial primacy, and a sense of existential threat analogous to the Sinophobia that inspired the Anti-Coolie and Chinese Exclusion Acts.
Meanwhile, the ineptitude of the American elite revealed by the 2008 financial crisis, the regular eruptions of racial violence and gun massacres in the United States, the persistence of paralyzing political constipation in Washington, and the arrogant unilateralism of "America First" have greatly diminished the appeal of America to the Chinese elite.
As a result, Sino-American interaction is now long on mutual indignation and very short on empirically validated information to substantiate the passions it evokes. On each side, the other is presumed guilty of a litany of iniquities. There is no process by which either side can achieve exoneration from the other's accusations. Guesstimates, conjectures, a priori reasoning from dubious assumptions, and media-generated hallucinations are reiterated so often that they are taken as facts. The demagoguery of contemporary American populism ensures that in this country clamor about China needs no evidence at all to fuel it. Meanwhile, Chinese nationalism answers American rhetorical kicks in the teeth by swallowing the figurative blood in its mouth and refraining from responding in kind, while sullenly plotting revenge.
We are now entering not just a post-American but post-Western era. In many ways the contours of the emerging world order are unclear. But one aspect of them is certain: China will play a larger and the U.S. a lesser role than before in global and regional governance. The Trump administration's response to China's increasing wealth and power does not bode well for this future. The pattern of mutual resentment and hostility the two countries are now establishing may turn out to be indelible. If so, the consequences for both and for world prosperity and peace could be deeply unsettling.
For now, America's relationship with China appears to have become a vector compounded of many contradictory forces and factors, each with its own advocates and constituencies. The resentments of some counter the enthusiasms of others. No one now in government seems to be assessing the overall impact on American interests or wellbeing of an uncoordinated approach to relations with the world's greatest rising power. And few in the United States seem to be considering the possibility that antagonism to China's rise might end up harming the United States and its Asian security partners more than it does China. Or that, in extreme circumstances, it could even lead to a devastating trans-Pacific nuclear exchange.
Some of the complaints against China from the squirming mass of Sinophobes who have attached themselves to President Trump are entirely justified. The Chinese have been slow to accept the capitalist idea that knowledge is property that can be owned on an exclusive basis. This is, after all, contrary to a millennial Chinese tradition that regards copying as flattery, not a violation of genius. Chinese businessfolk have engaged in the theft of intellectual property rights not just from each other but from foreigners. Others may have done the same in the past, but they were nowhere near as big as China. China's mere size makes its offenses intolerable. Neither the market economy in China nor China's international trade and investment relationships can realize their potential until its disrespect for private property is corrected. The United States and the European Union (EU) are right to insist that the Chinese government fix this problem.
Many Chinese agree. Not a few quietly welcome foreign pressure to strengthen the enforcement of patents and trademarks, of which they are now large creators, in the Chinese domestic market. Even more hope the trade war will force their government to reinvigorate "reform and opening." Fairer treatment of foreign-invested Chinese companies is not just a reasonable demand but one that serves the interests of the economically dominant but politically disadvantaged private sector in China. Chinese protectionism is an unlatched door against which the United States and others should continue to push.
But other complaints against China range from the partially warranted to the patently bogus. Some recall Hermann Göring's cynical observation at Nuremberg that: "The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." There is a lot of this sort of manipulative reasoning at play in the deteriorating U.S. security relationship with the Chinese. Social and niche media, which make everything plausible and leave no truth unrefuted, facilitate this. In the Internet miasma of conspiracy theories, false narratives, fabricated reports, fictive "facts," and outright lies, baseless hypotheses about China rapidly become firm convictions and long-discredited myths and rumors find easy resurrection.
Consider the speed with which a snappy phrase invented by an Indian polemicist – "debt-trap diplomacy" – has become universally accepted as encapsulating an alleged Chinese policy of international politico-economic predation. Yet the only instance of a so-called a "debt trap" ever cited is the port of Hambantota, commissioned by the since-ousted autocratic president of Sri Lanka to glorify his hometown. His successor correctly judged that the port was a white elephant and decided to offload it on the Chinese company that had built it by demanding that the company exchange the debt to it for equity. To recover any portion of its investment, the Chinese company now has to build some sort of economic hinterland for the port. Hambantota is less an example of a "debt trap" than of a stranded asset.
Then too, China is now routinely accused of iniquities that better describe the present-day United States than the People's Middle Kingdom. Among the most ironic of such accusations is the charge that it is China, not a sociopathic "America First" assault on the international status quo , that is undermining both U.S. global leadership and the multilateral order remarkably wise American statesmen put in place some seven decades ago. But it is the United States, not China, that is ignoring the U.N. Charter, withdrawing from treaties and agreements, attempting to paralyze the World Trade Organization's dispute resolution mechanisms, and substituting bilateral protectionist schemes for multilateral facilitation of international trade based on comparative advantage.
The WTO was intended as an antidote to mercantilism, also known as "government-managed trade." China has come strongly to support globalization and free trade. These are the primary sources of its rise to prosperity. It is hardly surprising that China has become a strong defender of the trade and investment regime Americans designed and put in place.
By contrast, the Trump administration is all about mercantilism – boosting national power by minimizing imports and maximizing exports as part of a government effort to manage trade with unilateral tariffs and quotas, while exempting the United States from the rules it insists that others obey.
I will not go on except to note the absurdity of the thesis that "engagement" failed to transform China's political system and should therefore be abandoned. Those who most vociferously advance this canard are the very people who used to complain that changing China's political order was not the objective of engagement but that it should be. They now condemn engagement because it did not accomplish objectives that they wanted it to have but used to know that it didn't . It is telling that American engagement with other illiberal societies (like Egypt, the Israeli occupation in Palestine, or the Philippines under President Duterte) is not condemned for having failed to change them.
That said, we should not slight the tremendous impact of America's forty-year opening to China on its socioeconomic development. American engagement with China helped it develop policies that rapidly lifted at least 500 million people out of poverty. It transformed China from an angry, impoverished, and isolated power intent on overthrowing the capitalist world order to an active, increasingly wealthy, and very successful participant in that order. It midwifed the birth of a modernized economy that is now the largest single driver of the world's economic growth and that, until the trade war intervened, was America's fastest growing overseas market. American engagement with China helped reform its educational system to create a scientific, technological, engineering, and mathematical ("STEM") workforce that already accounts for one-fourth of such workers in the global economy. For a while, China was a drag on human progress. It is now an engine accelerating it. That transformation owes a great deal to the breadth and depth of American engagement with it.
Nor should we underestimate the potential impact of the economic decoupling, political animosity, and military antagonism that U.S. policy is now institutionalizing. Even if the two sides conclude the current trade war, Washington now seems determined to do everything it can to hold China down. It seems appropriate to ask: can the United States succeed in doing this? What are the probable costs and consequences of attempting to do it? If America disengages from China, what influence, if any, will the United States have on its future evolution? What is that evolution likely to look like under conditions of hostile coexistence between the two countries?
Some likely answers, issue by issue.First : the consequences of cutting back Sino-American economic interdependence.
The supply chains now tying the two economies together were forged by market-regulated comparative advantage. The U.S. attempt to impose government-dictated targets for Chinese purchases of agricultural commodities, semiconductors, and the like represents a political preemption of market forces. By simultaneously walking away from the Paris climate accords, TPP, the Iran nuclear deal, and other treaties and agreements, Washington has shown that it can no longer be trusted to respect the sanctity of contracts. The U.S. government has also demonstrated that it can ignore the economic interests of its farmers and manufacturers and impose politically motivated embargoes on them. The basic lesson Chinese have taken from recent U.S. diplomacy is that no one should rely on either America's word or its industrial and agricultural exports.
For these reasons, the impending trade "deal" between China and the United States – if there is one – will be at most a truce that invites further struggle. It will be a short-term expedient, not a long-term reinvigoration of the Sino-American trade and investment relationship to American advantage. No future Chinese government will allow China to become substantially dependent on imports or supply chains involving a country as fickle and hostile as Trump's America has proven to be. China will instead develop non-American sources of foodstuffs, natural resources, and manufactures, while pursuing a greater degree of self-reliance. More limited access to the China market for U.S. factories and farmers will depress U.S. growth rates. By trying to reduce U.S. interdependence with China, the Trump administration has inadvertently made the United States the supplier of last resort to what is fast becoming the world's largest consumer market.
The consequences for American manufacturers of "losing" the China market are worsened by the issue of scale. China's non-service economy already dwarfs that of the United States. Size matters. Chinese companies, based in a domestic market of unparalleled size, have economies of scale that give them major advantages in international competition. American companies producing goods – for example, construction equipment or digital switching gear – have just been put at a serious tariff disadvantage in the China market as China retaliates against U.S. protectionism by reciprocating it. One side effect of the new handicaps U.S. companies now face in the China market is more effective competition from Chinese companies, not just in China but in third country markets too.Second : the U.S. effort to block an expanded Chinese role in global governance .
This is no more likely to succeed than the earlier American campaign to persuade allies and trading partners to boycott the Chinese-sponsored Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). That has isolated the United States, not China. Carping at the Belt and Road initiative and related programs from outside them does nothing to shape them to American advantage. It just deprives American companies of the profits they might gain from participating in them.
The United States seems to be acting out of nostalgia for the simplicities of a bipolar world order, in which countries could be pressured to stand with either the United States or its then rival. But China is not hampered by a dysfunctional ideology and economic system, as America's Soviet adversary was. What's more, today's China is an integral member of international society, not a Soviet-style outcast. There is now, quite literally, no country willing to accept being forced to make a choice between Beijing and Washington. Instead, all seek to extract whatever benefits they can from relations with both and with other capitals as well, if they have something to offer. The binary choices, diplomatic group-think, and trench warfare of the Cold War have been succeeded by national identity politics and the opportunistic pursuit of political, economic, and military interests wherever they can be served. Past allegiances do not anywhere determine current behavior.
The sad reality is that the United States, which led the creation of the Bretton Woods institutions that have been at the core of the post-World War II rule-bound international system, now offers these institutions and their members neither funding nor reform. Both are necessary to promote development as balances of supply, demand, wealth, and power shift. The new organizations, like the AIIB and the New Development Bank, that China and others are creating are not predatory intrusions into the domain of American-dominated international finance. They are necessary responses to unmet financial and economic demand. Denouncing them does not alter that reality.
Other countries do not see these organizations as supplanting pre-existing lending institutions long led by the United States. The new institutions supplement the World Bank Group and regional development banks. They operate under slightly improved versions of the lending rules pioneered by the Bretton Woods legacy establishments. China is a major contributor to the new development banks, but it does not exercise a veto in them as the U.S. does in the IMF and World Bank. The AIIB's staff is multinational (and includes Americans in key positions). The New Development Bank's first president is Indian and its principal lending activity to date has been in South Africa.
Washington has chosen to boycott anything and everything sponsored by China. So far, the sad but entirely predictable result of this attempt to ostracize and reduce Chinese influence has not curbed China's international clout but magnified it. By absenting itself from the new institutions, the United States is making itself increasingly irrelevant to the overall governance of multilateral development finance.Third : the U.S. campaign to block China's international investments, cripple its technology companies, and impede its scientific and technological advance.
The actions of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to prevent Chinese investment in American industry and agriculture are well publicized and are becoming ever more frequent. So are official American denunciations of Chinese telecommunications companies like Huawei and ZTE amidst intermittent efforts to shut them down. In an ominous echo of World War I's anti-German, World War II's anti-Japanese, and the Cold War's anti-communist xenophobia, the FBI has begun issuing loud warnings about the menace posed by the large Chinese student presence on American campuses. Washington is adjusting visa policies to discourage such dangerous people from matriculating here. It has also mounted a strident campaign to persuade other countries to reject Chinese investments under the "Belt and Road" initiative.
In the aggregate, these policies represent a decision by the U.S. political elite to try to hamstring China, rather than to invest in strengthening America's ability to compete with it. There is no reason whatsoever to believe this approach can succeed. China's foreign direct investments have more than doubled over the past three years. Third countries are openly declining to go along with U.S. opposition to intensified economic relations with China. They want the capital, technology, and market openings that Chinese investment provides. U.S. denunciations of their interest in doing business with China are seldom accompanied by credible offers by American companies to match what their Chinese competitors offer. You can't beat something with nothing.
It's also not clear which country is most likely to be hurt by U.S. government obstruction of collaboration between Chinese and American STEM workers. There is a good chance the greatest damage will be to the United States. A fair number of native-born Americans seem more interested in religious myths, magic, and superheroes than in science. U.S. achievements in STEM owe much to immigration and to the presence of Chinese and other foreign researchers in America's graduate schools. The Trump administration is trying to curtail both.
China already possesses one-fourth of the world's STEM workforce. It is currently graduating three times as many STEM students annually as the United States. (Ironically, a significant percentage of STEM graduates in the United States are Chinese or other Asian nationals. Around half of those studying computer sciences in the United States are such foreigners.) American loss of contact with scientists in China and a reduced Chinese presence in U.S. research institutions can only retard the further advance of science in the United States.
China is rapidly increasing its investments in education, basic science, research, and development even as the United States reduces funding for these activities, which are the foundation of technological advance. The pace of innovation in China is visibly accelerating. Cutting Americans off from interaction with their Chinese counterparts while other countries continue risks causing the United States to fall behind not just China but other foreign competitors.Finally : the U.S. military is in China's face .
The U.S. Navy and Air Force patrol China's coasts and test its defenses on a daily basis. U.S. strategy in the event of war with China – for example, over Taiwan – depends on overcoming those defenses so as to be able to strike deep into the Chinese homeland. The United States has just withdrawn from the treaty on intermediate nuclear forces in part to be able to deploy nuclear weapons to the Chinese periphery. In the short term, there is increasing danger of a war by accident, triggered by a mishap in the South China Sea, the Senkaku Archipelago, or by efforts by Taiwanese politicians to push the envelope of mainland tolerance of their island's unsettled political status quo . These threats are driving growth in China's defense budget and its development of capabilities to deny the United States continued military primacy in its adjacent seas.
In the long term, U.S. efforts to dominate China's periphery invite a Chinese military response on America's periphery like that formerly mounted by the Soviet Union. Moscow actively patrolled both U.S. coasts, stationed missile-launching submarines just off them, supported anti-American regimes in the Western Hemisphere, and relied on its ability to devastate the American homeland with nuclear weapons to deter war with the United States. On what basis does Washington imagine that Beijing cannot and will not eventually reciprocate the threat the U.S. forces surrounding China appear to pose to it?
Throughout the forty-two years of the Cold War, Americans maintained substantive military-to-military dialogue with their Soviet enemies. Both sides explicitly recognized the need for strategic balance and developed mechanisms for crisis management that could limit the risk of a war and a nuclear exchange between them. But no such dialogue, understandings, or mechanisms to control escalation now exist between the U.S. armed forces and the PLA. In their absence Americans attribute to the PLA all sorts of intentions and plans that are based on mirror-imaging rather than evidence.
The possibility that mutual misunderstanding will intensify military confrontation and increase the dangers it presents is growing. The chances of this are all the greater because the internal security and counterintelligence apparatuses in China and the United States appear to be engaged in a contest to see which can most thoroughly alienate the citizens of the other country. China is a police state. For Chinese in America, the United States sometimes seems to be on the way to becoming one.
It's hard to avoid the conclusion that, if Washington stays on its current course, the United States will gain little, while ceding substantial ground to China and significantly increasing risks to its wellbeing, global leadership, and security.
Economically , China will become less welcoming to American exports. It will pursue import substitution or alternative sourcing for goods and services it has previously sourced in the United States. With impaired access to the world's largest middle class and consumer economy, the United States will be pushed down the value chain. China's ties to other major economies will grow faster than those with America, adversely affecting U.S. growth rates. Any reductions in the U.S. trade deficit with China will be offset by increases in trade deficits with the countries to which current production in China is relocated.
China's role in global governance will expand as it adds new institutions and funds to the existing array of international organizations and takes a larger part in their management. The Belt and Road initiative will expand China's economic reach to every corner of the Eurasian landmass and adjacent areas. The U.S. role in global rule-making and implementation will continue to recede. China will gradually displace the United States in setting global standards for trade, investment, transport, and the regulation of new technologies.
Chinese technological innovation will accelerate, but it will no longer advance in collaboration with American researchers and institutions. Instead it will do so indigenously and in cooperation with scientists outside the United States. U.S. universities will no longer attract the most brilliant students and researchers from China. The benefits of new technologies developed without American inputs may be withheld rather than shared with America, even as the leads the United States has long enjoyed in science and technology one-by-one erode and are eclipsed. As cordiality and connections between China and the United States wither, reasons for Chinese to respect the intellectual property of Americans will diminish rather than increase.
Given the forward deployment of U.S. forces, the Chinese military has the great advantage of a defensive posture and short lines of communication. The PLA is currently focused on countering U.S. power projection in the last tenth or so of the 6,000-mile span of the Pacific Ocean. In time, however, it is likely to seek to match American pressure on its borders with its own direct military pressure on the United States along the lines of what the Soviet armed forces once did.
The adversarial relationship that now exists between the U.S. armed forces and the PLA already fuels an arms race between them. This will likely expand and accelerate. The PLA is rapidly shrinking the gap between its capabilities and those of the U.S. armed forces. It is developing a nuclear triad to match that of the United States. The good news is that mutual deterrence seems possible. The bad news is that politicians in Taiwan and their fellow travelers in Washington are determinedly testing the policy frameworks and understandings that have, over the past forty years, tempered military confrontation in the Taiwan Strait with dialogue and rapprochement. Some in Taiwan seem to believe that they can count on the United States to intervene if they get themselves in trouble with Chinese across the Strait. The Chinese civil war, suspended but not ended by U.S. unilateral intervention in 1950, seems closer to a resumption than it has been for decades.
As a final note on politico-military aspects of Sino-American relations, in the United States, security clearances are now routinely withheld from anyone who has spent time in China. This guarantees that few intelligence analysts have the Fingerspitzengefühl – the feeling derived from direct experience – necessary to really understand China or the Chinese. Not to worry. The administration disbelieves the intelligence community. Policy is now made on the basis of ignorance overlaid with media-manufactured fantasies. In these circumstances, some enterprising Americans have taken to combing the dragon dung for nuggets of undigested Chinese malevolence, so they can preen before those in power now eager for such stuff. There is a Chinese expression that nicely describes such pretense: 屎壳螂戴花儿 -- 又臭又美 – "a dung beetle with flowers in its hair still stinks."
All said, this does not add up to a fruitful approach to dealing with the multiple challenges that arise from China's growing wealth and power. So, what is to be done? 该怎么办？
Here are a few suggestions .
First , accept the reality that China is both too big and too embedded in the international system to be dealt with bilaterally. The international system needs to adjust to and accommodate the seismic shifts in the regional and global balances of wealth and power that China's rise is causing. To have any hope of success at adapting to the changes now underway, the United States needs to be backed by a coalition of the reasonable and farsighted. This can't happen if the United States continues to act in contempt of alliances and partnerships. Washington needs to rediscover statecraft based on diplomacy and comity.
Second , forget government-managed trade and other forms of mercantilism. No one can hope to beat China at such a statist game. The world shouldn't try. Nor should it empower the Chinese government to manage trade at the expense of market forces or China's private sector. Governments can and – in my opinion – should set economic policy objectives, but everyone is better off when markets, not politicians, allocate capital and labor to achieve these.
Third , instead of pretending that China can be excluded from significant roles in regional and global governance, yield gracefully to its inclusion in both. Instead of attempting to ostracize China, leverage its wealth and power in support of the rule-bound order in which it rose to prosperity, including the WTO.
Fourth , accept that the United States has as much or more to gain than to lose by remaining open to science, technology, and educational exchanges with China. Be vigilant but moderate. Err on the side of openness and transnational collaboration in progress. Work on China to convince it that the costs of technology theft are ultimately too high for it to be worthwhile.
Fifth and finally, back away from provocative military actions on the China coast. Trade frequent "freedom of navigation operations" to protest Chinese interpretations of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea for dialogue aimed at reaching common understandings of relevant interests and principles. Ratify the Convention on the Law of the Sea and make use of its dispute resolution mechanisms. As much as possible, call off military confrontation and look for activities, like the protection of commercial shipping, that are common interests. Seek common ground without prejudice to persisting differences.
In conclusion : both China and the United States need a peaceful international environment to be able to address long-neglected domestic problems. Doing more of what we're now doing threatens to preclude either of us from sustaining the levels of peace, prosperity, and domestic tranquility that a more cooperative relationship would afford. Hostile coexistence between two such great nations injures both and benefits neither. It carries unacceptable risks. Americans and Chinese need to turn from the path we are now on. We can – we must – find a route forward that is better for both of us.
MushroomCloud2020 , 7 hours ago linkMushroomCloud2020 , 7 hours ago link
The article presents itself as being forward thinking, yet no mention of the robot revolution and how destabilizing it will be for both sides. As it stands today, it seems the economic conflict is between the US and China-perhaps. But when these robots come on line the economic war is going to be between the laborer and the employee world wide.
The demise of the US economy and manufacturing base in the US is a direct result of cheap labor, so one has a clear picture of what cheap labor will do. Outside of stuff falling from the sky for free, there isn't anything that will be more devastating to the world labor market than a robot enhanced with AI. Sure, products may become cheaper due to reduced labor cost, but if people do not have a job to raise enough income, then how are they going to buy stuff? Clearly, the whole capitalistic system will collapse and then what? What will be our choices? Will we have to shun progress in order to save the current system that has brought us all this wonderful labor saving innovation? Will people choose the hard road over the easy road? It seems to me that things always take the path of least resistance.Smi1ey , 9 hours ago link
The only advantage China has is cheap labor.The robot revolution will upset the apple cart for both sides. It will be interesting, to say the least, when both sides realize that innovation is both a blessing and a curse.LEEPERMAX , 9 hours ago link
This is a pretty good article, I agree with a lot of it. The part I don't like is the author's extreme worship of property rights.
He ignores the commons, things held in common by the people, things like science and culture. For example, Disney's copyright on its films will never expire if Disney can help it. Even an American's personal data is now someone else's private property, probably including their genetic data since even genes can be patented.
Fmr Navy Intel Officer:
Chinese Spy Ministry Operates in Silicon Valley . . . Big Time.
May 19, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
Authored by Adam Dick via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity,
Former Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, who was chief of staff for Secretary of State Colin Powell in the George W. Bush administration, warns in a new The Real News interview with host Sharmini Peries that the United States government is driving down a "highway to war" with China -- a war for which Wilkerson sees no sound justification.
The drive toward war is not undertaken in response to a real threat posed by China to the people of America. Instead, argues Wilkerson, the US government is moving toward war for reasons related to money for both the military and the broader military-industrial complex, as well to advance President Donald Trump's domestic political goals.
Wilkerson, who is a member of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity's Academic Board, elaborates on the US military's money-seeking motivation to advance the new China scare, stating:
All of this right now, first and foremost, is a budget ploy. They want more money.
And that's largely because their personnel costs are just eating their lunch. And, second, it's an attempt to develop - and this has something to do with money too of course - another threat, another cold war, another feeding system .
The military just hooks up like it is hooking up to an intravenous, you know, an IV system and the money just pours out-slush fund money, appropriated money, everything else.
More broadly, Wilkerson pegs the ramping up of confrontation with China as "all about keeping the [military-industrial] complex alive" that Wilkerson explains "the military was scared to death would disappear as we began to pay the American people back" a peace dividend at the end of the cold war. US government efforts against terrorism, explains Wilkerson, have also been used to ensure the money keeps flowing.
Watch Wilkerson's complete interview here:
* * *
Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute
May 19, 2019 | www.rt.com
Google has reportedly suspended its licences and product-sharing agreements with Chinese communications giant Huawei, as Washington accuses the company of spying for Beijing. The Silicon Valley tech giant has cut its business deals with Huawei that involve the transfer of hardware and software, Reuters and The Verge report. Following the move, Huawei will lose access to Android operating system updates, and its forthcoming smartphones will be shut out of some Google apps, including the Google Play Store and Gmail apps. The Chinese firm however will still have access to the open source version of the Android operating system.
We have confirmed this is genuine.
Huawei will only be able to use the public version of Android, and won't get access to proprietary apps and services from Google
Huawei will have to create their own update mechanism for security patches https://t.co/7eTi4JvWsE-- Tom Warren (@tomwarren) May 19, 2019
Washington repeatedly accused Huawei of installing so-called 'backdoors' into its products on behalf of the Chinese government. The heads of six US intelligence agencies warned American citizens against using Huawei products last year, and the Chinese company's phones were banned from US military bases shortly afterwards.
May 19, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
With the trade war between the US and China suddenly erupting after a 5-month ceasefire, CCTV 6, the movie channel of China's leading state television broadcaster, aired three anti-American movies last week, reported What's On Weibo .
The three movies are Korean war films: Heroic Sons and Daughters (1964), Battle on Shangganling Mountain (1954), and Surprise Attack (1960), which aired about one week after President Trump raised an existing 10% tariff on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods to 25%.
All last week, anti-American propaganda flourished across the country, with the slogan "Wanna talk? Let's talk. Wanna fight? Let's do it. Wanna bully us? Dream on!" going viral on Chinese social media platforms.
... ... ...
China's government broadcasting anti-American movies to hundreds of millions of its people shows how officials are starting up the propaganda machines ahead of a potential armed conflict with the US...
Pioneer.Valley.Man , 24 minutes ago linkschroedingersrat , 43 minutes ago link
Sounds like the Chinese should just be watching MSNBC or CNN ...gro_dfd , 42 minutes ago link
The US citizens get fucked by their own establishment for decades instead blame chinese. Cant be dumber than that :)johnny two shoes , 7 minutes ago link
Chinese spokesperson Hu Xijin writes: "there's no equal negotiation without fighting." No need for negotiation (or fighting). Assuming Trump imposes the rest of the tariffs, US trade with China will recede to nothing. Inciting anti-American feelings in mainland China just makes the break in relations easier. Goodbye China!Smi1ey , 45 minutes ago link
China has no intention of going to actual war over trade with the U.S. - they have plenty of other potential markets, as is repeatedly alluded to here and elsewhere. This televised propaganda is about manipulating the attitudes of their own disillusioned, controlled populace.Dr Anon , 45 minutes ago link
China State Run Media Broadcasts Anti-American Movies To Millions Amid Deepening Trade War
Meanwhile, America's Mockingbird Media continues to lie about everything from 911 to Venezuela.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_MockingbirdTheRapture , 53 minutes ago link
So they're broadcasting regular American television? Those shows do a great job demeaning and shitting on average American men while holding up minorities and freaks as capable people. They didn't need to invent any propaganda; just use the same **** *** producers have been feeding us dumb goyim for decades.asadshah , 38 minutes ago link
ZH is proof, if any more were needed, that all these crudely racist Americans are just not the sharpest tools in the shed.
Maybe the real cause of all anti-Chinese hate by Americans is rooted in IQ jealousy.NA X-15 , 47 minutes ago link
Isage master of the The famous paper tiger threat of turning something into glass, empty fuckin threat from a country whose professional army has managed to lose every major conflict in the last 50 years to poorly equipped sometimes barefoot soldiers armed with nothing more that AK -47s.
please see Korean villagers, Vietnamese villagers, iraqi villagers, afghan villagers and Syrian Villagers.
and the vaunted Israelis who who only win against ancient armies with ancient gear, but faced with dedicated Hezbollah Lebanese villagers again .....lose.
Give it up, you are masters of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory... not much else.Tachyon5321 , 57 minutes ago link
Just to rub it in the PLA trolls faces:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Chinese+factory+dorms+have+anti-suicide+nets&t=h_&ia=images&iax=imagesmalek , 54 minutes ago link
Trump should ban Weibo, Baidu and Sogou apps on Google and Apple phones because they are foreign controlled propaganda
You prefer a diet of purely domestic controlled propaganda instead?
May 16, 2019 | seekingalpha.com
by: Shareholders Unite Shareholders Unite Small-cap, macro, value, momentum Shareholdersunite
(11,300 followers) Summary It is difficult to see the Chinese caving to the demands of the Trump government, which seem to involve a wholesale change of China's economic model.
Either some middle ground is found or we risk a serious escalation with multiple risks to the state of the world economy, with many known and unknown facilities.
The end state could be a wholesale decoupling of the American and Chinese economies, and while some would applaud such an outcome, it's unlikely to be better than what we've got.
The Trump administration seems to have the illusion that if you raise the stakes high enough, other countries will cave to US demands. There might also be an element of creating foreign adversary in order to unite the domestic front, we don't know.
Trade tensions have been taken way too far when the government slapped tariffs on Canadian steel exports because of national security concerns, but in the case of China, there are some legitimate concerns. Mind you, these concerns don't involve:
- China's mercantilism - its trade surplus has all but vanished (see below).
- The bilateral trade deficit the US has with China that's way overstated (much of the value added comes from other countries, most notably the US), meaningless and not amenable to change from deliberate policy measures (the US trade deficit is caused by a lack of savings with respect to investments; in so far as policy manages to reduce the bilateral trade deficit with China, the deficit will simply reappear elsewhere as long as the saving/investment balance isn't changed).
- While China has "manipulated" its currency in the past in order to keep it low, in recent years they've done exactly the opposite, trying to keep their currency from falling.
- China isn't paying for the tariffs, US importers and consumers are.
- Trade isn't a zero-sum game.
This doesn't look particularly mercantilist:
(Source: Trading Economics )
Negotiating with countries is different from the wheeling and dealing world of New York real estate. This should be especially clear with a nation-first politician like Donald Trump.
Where making maximum demands on other parties might work in New York, it's much less likely if one is dealing with proud, independent nations - that should have been the lesson from the North Korea fiasco.
Just as there is one thing worse than a severe economic recession, which is caving to US pressure for the Iranian ayatollas, the same holds for Chinese politicians in charge of policy.
It's true that the pain from the escalation in the trade war is probably significantly larger in China compared to the US, but that doesn't make them more likely to be the first to cave, especially considering that what the US administration seems to demand is a wholesale change of China's economic model . That's never going to happen. Since there are no free elections, they can endure the pain for longer, and much fewer people own stocks, so even while the sell-off in China might be worse, it's hitting much fewer people.
In fact, caving to US demands, or even being seen to be caving, might well be a one-way ticket to political oblivion. Which is why China's leaders called President Trump's bluff. Contrast this with the situation in the US.
Trade experts like Krugman argue that the short-term economic impact as such on the US economy is fairly moderate, and who are we to disagree? However, a further escalation isn't likely to go by unnoticed, and there is this ephemeral concept called "confidence", of which the stock market might be one of the best indicators:
The market is already reeling, and this could become uncomfortable pretty soon for a president who prides himself on the rally in the markets.The real danger
The risk is that this becomes a protracted conflict with each party digging in, egged on by heated domestic rhetoric. The longer this lasts, the greater the following risks:
- Sentiment spilling over in the real economy
- A large yuan depreciation
- Collateral damage
- A wholesale decoupling of the Chinese and American economies
Sentiment is turning, and at a certain point, this can very well start to affect consumption, investment, and lending decisions in the real world. We're not there yet, but look how the sell-off at the end of last year cowered the Fed into one of the more spectacular retreats in policy. This wasn't because of the market sell-off itself but because of the increasing signs that sentiment could hit the real economy, even if much of the more immediate risks were abroad.
Moreover, in a highly leveraged financial system, you never know what you're going to find when the investor flows recede. Things can go very fast here. Look how Argentina was able to sell a 100-year bond in 2016, only to be hit by the receding flows pretty soon after.
Another real risk is a substantial yuan depreciation . It's the most effective way the Chinese can absorb the direct tariff cost on their competitiveness, but it runs the risk of becoming a self-fulfilling prophesy.
The markets have already twice succumbed to yuan depreciation scares, in 2015 and at the start of 2016, and the PBoC spent $1 trillion of its $4 trillion reserves plus draconian capital controls to stop the rot.
We're not talking hypotheticals here - guess when that gap-up happened? On the day of the Trump tweets announcing the 25% tariffs:
A substantial yuan depreciation will risk inserting a major deflationary blow to the world economy as it exports the effects of the US tariffs on China to the rest of the world.
Given the shaky state of the eurozone, we're not relishing this prospect at all. We have long argued that the eurozone is one downturn away from disintegration, with Italy as its focal point.
Italy is already in a recession and has a dysfunctional government consisting of a left-wing and right-wing populist party which are constantly bickering. What's more, it has unsustainable debt dynamics and a potential banking doom loop, should the debt dynamics trigger a market selloff, and has no lender of last resort.
With all the debt and leverage in the world economy, it's a bit like riding a bicycle - you have to keep cycling to stop falling over.Decoupling
While the direct monetary impact of the tariffs is fairly moderate (it's a modest, albeit highly regressive, tax increase), another likely consequence is a further relocation of supply chains and decoupling of the US and Chinese economies.
We have already read numerous company CCs which described rerouting supplies from China, albeit not usually back to the US, and we're not imagining stuff. From Monday's issue of DigiTimes:
- ASEAN supply chains to develop fast as server, network equipment makers move production from China
- Taiwan memory module firms moving production away from China
If 10% tariffs can do that, 25% of tariffs will accelerate this and the next round, where the US levies tariffs on all Chinese imports even more.
Some within the US administration seems to relish this, as it weakens China economically, but a hard Chinese landing won't pass the US unnoticed, and the end result could very well be two competing economic blocks and a new sort of cold war.
One of the very first economic measures the Trump government took was to get the US out of the TPP, which not only gave up a lot of leverage over China, but the mostly ASEAN countries who are part of the TPP (without the US) are now firmer in China's orbit as a result, and they will have unenviable choices to make in terms of their future alignment.
It's also unfortunate that Trump has been waging trade wars on multiple fronts (see here for an overview ), alienating many partners in the process.
Now might be as good a time as any to remind people of the unpopular thesis that trade isn't a zero-sum game and that both the US and China have greatly benefited from their economic integration the past couple of decades.
The US got increased exports as well - not as spectacular as the Chinese exports to the US, but this is in part an optical illusion. Much of China's exports to the US contain value added produced elsewhere, even from the US itself:
(Source: BlackRock )
You see that less than half of the value added of Chinese electronics export to the US is actually produced in China itself. The iPhone is a classic example:
In the case of the Apple iPhone, this means that China's exports balance accounts for the full $500 iPhone value, when China adds only approximately $15 to $30 of the value to the phone. Most of the iPhone value accretes to Samsung in Korea ($150) and to Apple - the brand owner and engineer. This highlights how the normal accounting of trade flows is inherently distorted under the current trade-deficit estimates.
(Source: CNBC )
Yes, the US has lost manufacturing jobs as a result, but it failed to compensate those who lost from trade like other countries have (via massive active labor market policies, for instance in the Nordic countries, where there is little in the way of an industrial waste land as a result).
The US has also gained. It found willing buyers for its Treasuries, keeping interest rates low, cheap consumer goods, keeping inflation low - which allowed the Fed to keep low interest rates, and which in turn increased economic growth and employment.
It's not perfect, and we're not blind to China's IP theft and the conditions it places on American companies operating in the country. But China's rise has propelled half a billion people out of poverty and turned them into eager consumers of US agricultural, cultural and high-tech products.Conclusion
While a number of American grievances are right, the Trump administration seems to want a wholesale sellout of China, abandoning its economic model. That's not going to happen, and even less so because they also antagonized potential allies, like ASEAN countries, the EU and Canada.
There are two choices here: either some middle ground is found or this could spiral out of control, with major economic risks involved and a wholesale decoupling of the Chinese and American economies. Economics 101 argues quite clearly that that world is unlikely to be better than the one we have, despite all the imperfections of the latter.
Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.
Apr 29, 2019 | www.youtube.com
What if, instead of the U.S. and China battling it out on trade--it was two classes trading cards? We explain the trade war.
"Trade wars are good and easy to win," President Donald J. Trump famously tweeted. But how would one really impact everyday Americans?
May 16, 2019 | www.youtube.com
On Wednesday, U.S. President Donald Trump issued an executive order barring U.S. firms from using telecom equipment made by companies accused of being a national security risk; this includes Chinese tech giant Huawei. The U.S. Commerce Department questioned whether Huawei will be able to continue purchasing components from its American suppliers. In response, the Chinese Commerce Ministry said on Thursday
Philip Yap , 1 day agoFrancoise Loffler , 8 hours ago
Huawei will survive with supply chain alternatives and reengineering designs, it will make Huawei stronger with better products. American high tech products and parts suppliers can wait until American companies come up with design to utilise their products, hopefully not long enough to cripple all these high tech parts manufacturers.
Huawei is an EXCELLENT PHONE MUCH BETTER THAN APLE...I have both and can compare them...
May 16, 2019 | sputniknews.com
... ... ...
Dmitry Kiselyov, the general director of Rossiya Segodnya International Information Agency, discussed the recent escalation in the Sino-American trade war with Kong Dan, the former chairman of CITIC Group; Zhang Weiwei, a Chinese professor of international relations at Fudan University and a senior research fellow at the Chunqiu Institute; and Li Shimo, an investor and billionaire, founder and managing director of Chengwei Capital, owner of many US Silicon Valley companies.
US Tariffs Have Nothing to Do With Competition, These are Steps to Contain China
Dmitry Kiselyov: What resources does China have?
Kong Dan: Without a trade war, our view of the United States would be superficial; now we know the other side as well. I, as a representative of business circles, do not really understand the subtleties of what the Americans want. Do they just think that Chinese development is unacceptable for them?
Or do they want to cut off all opportunities for China's future development? In my opinion, the relevant measures that the Americans have been initiating since the very beginning of the trade war to the present day are most likely real steps to contain China rather than some form of sanctions. This is a desire to hinder China's development in various spheres, specifically in trade, economic development, industrial development, science and technology, in the financial sphere and even in the area of human resources in China. They want to hamper our development on all sides.
Dmitry Kiselyov: But is it hostile?
Kong Dan: I would call this approach competition. But competition can be different: hostile, non-hostile
READ MORE: Strategist: American Producers, Consumers to Pay for US-China Tariff Tit-for-Tat
China's Two Main Advantages in Trade War With US
Dmitry Kiselyov: Competition without rules is animosity
Kong Dan: You might know that we used to have the popular concept of the so-called "hybrid war" but I would not describe the behaviour of Americans using this term. They just want to cut off all of China's development opportunities. They want to limit our ability to thrive as much as possible.China May Regulate Energy Imports from US Amid Trade Row Competition has various forms or different aspects. I also have a counter-question for you, how do Russians assess the nature of those sanctions measures that the Americans have implemented against Russia?
The United States considers us its adversaries. They previously included Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea on their blacklist, a list of terrorist forces. And China is first on the list. Are we hostile to them?
Today I heard you talking about Russia, about the principles of preserving your development and sovereignty, I agree with that. The geopolitical situation is different for everyone, the history is different. There may be differences in how countries approach dealing with issues.
I previously worked as the head of the largest state-owned company in China, so, of course, I understand what kind of mission one carries on his/her shoulders. I am willing to make efforts to stimulate the development of the Russian-Chinese partnership as a whole; I think there is still a lot to do in this direction. The US underestimates the potential of President Putin and Russia, China and President Xi Jinping. They will pay a heavy price for it.
I would like to name two advantages of the trade war for us.
- First of all, we have an advantage in a unique, specific management system in the trade fight with the United States. I believe that the Americans do not want to minimize the trade deficit; they just want to eliminate our institutional advantage. Of course, we will not retreat from such a line. If the Americans want to cross the red line , then I am sure that President Xi and the Chinese government has a definite response to win the trade war.
- Secondly, we have our colossal domestic market, which has no competitors throughout the world. Our consumer and innovation markets provide us with a large number of advantages and room, giving China an opportunity to make a manoeuvre. Therefore, their blockage gives China a chance to become even stronger. We must express our appreciation to our mentor, Trump, for this, for this lesson and for forcing China to figure out how to withstand the threats on its own.
Why China is Likely to Emerge Victorious in Trump-Driven Trade War
Dmitry Kiselyov: You said you have confidence that China will emerge victorious in this trade war, what does this victory mean? When will it come?
Kong Dan: Trump has said many times that he can hit our stock market to destroy it. As for us, we are doing everything well, we are successfully organising work, and we are looking for ways for rapid development in recent years. Our goal of a 100-year-old rebirth of the nation can be achieved -- and that is our victory Of course, we understand that the United States wants to impede our development. If they want to destroy us then I think they will fail. Only in their dreams!
Zhang Weiwei: I support Mr Kong's view that the Chinese consumer market is the largest in the world! Especially, in the field of innovation. And if one leads the battle with such colossal markets, then the initiators will surely fail .
READ MORE: US Treasury Chief to Plan for Trade Meeting in China Soon
'If US Continues to Maintain Hegemony, It Will Suffer Heavy Losses'
Dmitry Kiselyov: What will then become of the defeated United States?
Kong Dan: It is very hard to explain all this only in military terms. China neither wants to seize the United States nor does it want to take a dominant position like the United States. We simply do not want the United States to cut off all the opportunities for our country's development.
Li Shimo: I would like to note that in the course of a trade war, each of the parties has its own strengths and weaknesses. Our advantage is that we have a strong political system. The second one is social cohesion. The third one, as has already been stated, China has quite large domestic markets. The fourth one, China is the world's largest trading country and also the largest trading nation in the history of mankind.China to Emerge Victorious From Trade War With US – Foreign Ministry Unlike ours, the American political system has fallen into disarray. American society is split ; the "social contract" has failed. The political and economic elite have gradually lost their credibility and reputation.
The advantage of the United States is its hegemony in the global financial system. The second advantage is the strong alliance system that was formed after the Second World War and the Cold War. And another one is a still high level of weapons development in the world.
However, the United States and China have different development goals. China is simply looking for suitable paths to future accelerated development. But the US has a dilemma. Previously, there was a different situation, there was hegemony -- a very important driving force, a very important pillar, the so-called "soft power", and particularly they had ideological dominance. Over the past decades, Americans have repeatedly initiated hostilities, and acute social inequality has flared up inside the country. Today, hegemony in the ideological system is being lost; and some countries and regions' confidence in the USA is being lost.© Sputnik / Marina Lisceva Boeing Calls For Limits to US Tariffs Over EU Subsidies
Therefore, if they now wish to continue to maintain hegemony, they will suffer heavy losses. But if they back down from it -- for instance, Trump wants to abandon ideological dominance -- it will turn into a power struggle in its purest form. This will lead to a loss of ideological advantage in the international arena.
How to assess the outcome of the battle? I would suggest that you read the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China report delivered by President Xi Jinping. In it, he outlined two challenges: the first one -- 2035, the second one -- 2049. These two goals are quite clear and realistic If we can complete these tasks, then the victory will be ours.
China's Three Future Milestones: 2021, 2035, 2049
Dmitry Kiselyov: What are these challenges?
Kong Dan: China has two development goals for the current century. The first is that by 2021 when the CPC will celebrate its 100th anniversary, it will fully and comprehensively build a moderately prosperous society in China. Another goal by 2049, when it will be 100 years since the founding of the PRC, China should reach the level of the most advanced developed countries. Moreover, there is another intermediate task between these two goals of the current century -- by 2035 China has to move into the category of moderately developed countries.
Zhang Weiwei: China borrowed its methodology and planning practices from the USSR. However, over the past decades, we have brought a lot of innovation into this process. Now it is no longer the old decision-making but strategic and guiding planning. The Americans could see that over the past 40 years China has been fulfilling all its five-year plans ahead of schedule, and that frightened them. If we are talking about how the China-US trade war will end, then personally I would like to quote Americans who say: "if you can't beat them, join them".
READ MORE: China May Regulate Energy Imports from US Amid Trade Row
China Presents New Model of Development as Western & Soviet Models Failed
Dmitry Kiselyov: How many fingers are needed to describe the Chinese model, and what in fact is that, if we are talking about the alternative?
Zhang Weiwei: The Chinese Model of Development has several features. First, the leading ideology must be based on real facts. "Practice is the sole criterion of truth". As a result, we found that a developing country, such as China, needs to carry out modernisation. Looking at the rest of the world, it becomes clear that the Western model is not successful. The Soviet model also did not prevail. Therefore, Deng Xiaoping said that we need to follow our own path. We did not fall into the trap of "colour revolutions", we were looking for the path we needed based on reality. That is the key thing.No US LNG Exports to China in Recent Months as Trade War Reaches Peak - Reports
I would like to add a little bit. If we talk about reforms in socialist countries, we can name two basic models.
- The first is the Gorbachev model, which is characterised by a radical nature. This is political and economic shock therapy. The cost of such reforms was very high and they were not quite successful.
- The Cuban Castro model implies supportive conservative therapy. They did not build a market economy; they were not included in the processes of globalisation but resorted only to spot adjustment and correction.
Reforms according to the Chinese model are characterised by balance, prudence, and sustainability. We have carried out bold economic reforms, built a market economy, and joined the process of globalisation. However, we treat political reforms with caution and prudence; everything should serve economic reforms, and, ultimately, improve people's living standards.
The American model provides for the concept of political equality "One person, one vote", a multiparty system for governing a country. Strictly speaking, it only started working in 1965. The Chinese model began to take shape in 1978. Their starting points are more than ten years apart. Of course, they can compete with each other but I consider the Chinese model to be more successful and attractive; and I have already been talking about this for 20 years.
The views and opinions expressed by the speakers and the contributor do not necessarily reflect those of Sputnik.
May 18, 2019 | www.bloomberg.com
China's state media signaled a lack of interest in resuming trade talks with the U.S. under the current threat of higher tariffs, while the government said stimulus will be stepped up to buttress the domestic economy.
Without new moves that show the U.S. is sincere, it is meaningless for its officials to come to China and have trade talks, according to a commentary by the blog Taoran Notes, which was carried by state-run Xinhua News Agency and the People's Daily, the Communist Party's mouthpiece. The Ministry of Commerce spokesman said Thursday he had no information about any U.S. officials coming to Beijing for further talks.
U.S. equities fell on concern that talks between the world's two largest economies have stalled. The Shanghai Composite Index also declined. "If the U.S. doesn't make concessions in key issues, there is little point for China to resume talks," said Zhou Xiaoming, a former commerce ministry official and diplomat. "China's stance has become more hard-line and it's in no rush for a deal" because the U.S. approach is extremely repellent and China has no illusions about U.S. sincerity, he said. No Rush for a Deal
According to Zhou, the commerce ministry spokesman on Thursday effectively ruled out talks in the near term. In comments to the media, ministry spokesman Gao Feng said that China's three major concerns need to be addressed before any deal can be reached, adding that the unilateral escalation of tensions in Washington recently had "seriously hurt" talks.
The U.S. has been talking about wanting to continue the negotiations, but in the meantime it has been playing "little tricks to disrupt the atmosphere," according to the Taoran commentary on Thursday night, citing Trump's steps this week to curb Chinese telecom giant Huawei Technologies Co.
"We can't see the U.S. has any substantial sincerity in pushing forward the talks. Rather, it is expanding extreme pressure," the blog wrote. "If the U.S. ignores the will of the Chinese people, then it probably won't get an effective response from the Chinese side," it added.
The blog reiterated China's three main concerns for a deal are tariff removal, achievable purchase plans and a balanced agreement text, as first revealed by Vice Premier Liu He. They mark the official stance as much as the will of the Chinese public, it wrote.
"If anyone thinks the Chinese side is just bluffing, that will be the most significant misjudgment" since the Korean War, it said.
Read: China Vows 'People's War' as Trade Fight Takes Nationalist Turn
In addition to putting the Taoran commentary on WeChat, the People's Daily newspaper had three defiant articles on the trade war in the physical newspaper Friday.
A front page commentary from the Communist Party's propaganda department headlined 'No Power Can Stop the Chinese People from Achieving Their Dream' said "the trade war will not cripple China, it will only strengthen us as we endure it," citing the hardships China has overcome from the Opium War to floods to the SARS epidemic in 2002-2003.
There were two editorials on page three, with one saying "China doesn't intend to change or replace the U.S., and the U.S. can't dictate to China or hold back our development." The other said claims from some officials in the U.S. that they have "rebuilt" China over the past 25 years are "outrageous" and shows their vanity, ignorance and distorted mentalities.
May 16, 2019 | www.youtube.com
US President Donald Trump declared a national emergency over Huawei, which he has deemed a national security threat. His new executive order makes it more difficult for US companies to do business with the Chinese tech giant. RT America's Manila Chan chats with investigative journalist Ben Swann, who says no evidence exists for the Trump administration's claim. #RTAmerica #InQuestionRT #QuestionMore
US Of Zion , 2 days agoriva2003 , 2 days ago
What US bans I will buy. Huawei has profited from Trump's tweets. 😂😂😂E Walker , 2 days ago (edited)
National emergency against one single company? What a promotion for HUAWEI! They must have paid US government a looooot of money! LOOOOOLBTV-Channel , 2 days ago div
U.S. cannot spy via Chinese made technology products. That is the problem. When did competition against American technology get to be a national security threat? It is about creating a monopoly of only certain products in America. I hope American companies fight back. Prices in American stores have already started to rise. Monopolies mean high prices.OGASI , 2 days ago
In the age of technology...any country who doesn't SPY on other countries or their own citizens is LYING thru their teeth! USA is NO DIFFERENT than CHINA.....they both are rogue nations, competing for the same thing, TECHNOLOGY LEADERSHIP! The problem is....HUAWEI just got the upper hand in 5G technology before the US can compete...so as such, the US threatens other countries with scare tactics until the US can develop and deploy 5G technology to compete with CHINA. It's all about MONEY and BUSINESS.
USA has dishonestly gathered more data on it's own civilians than it can access or understand in several lifetimes, they have the gaul to attack others without proof? UNREAL
May 18, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
S , May 18, 2019 8:47:15 AM | link@William Gruff #75: China is already producing world-class ARM chips. HiSilicon 's latest Kirin processors are on par with Qualcomm's Snapdragon and Samsung's Exynos processors. Apple's A-series is ahead of them all, but what does it matter if Apple's rising prices and falling quality are going to kill Apple anyway?
Schmoe , May 17, 2019 6:45:23 PM | linkPer Reuters, Huawei spends $11b on US components, and its ability to withstand this hit will vary by segment: "Huawei being unable to manufacture network servers, for example, because they can't get key U.S. components would mean they also stop buying parts from other countries altogether," said an executive at a Huawei chip supplier.Godfree Roberts , May 17, 2019 7:30:34 PM | link
"They can relatively better manage component sourcing for mobile phones because they have their own component businesses for smartphones. But server and network, it's a different story," the executive said.
Are there any articles on how dependent Apple and Boeing are on Chinese components? This strategy seems incredibly short-sighted.China has outspent the US on R&D since 2009 and now invests three times as much each year. That's why it's ahead technologically and scientifically.oglalla , May 17, 2019 7:34:09 PM | link
By 2028, if current ratios hold, China will also outspend the US on defense. Won't that be interesting?Remember the "Asian pivot"? Did Huawei and other critical tech companies start making independent chips back then? Or before? When were the tariffs planned? Speculation, anyone?Indrid Cold , May 17, 2019 8:15:00 PM | linkThe issue with these chips highlights just how ridiculous the American position is. The chips referred to are Intel processors they use in servers and qualcomm (arm core) processors in cell phones. Funny thing is, these processors are not even made in the US, and their replacement isn't that much of an issue, not for a company with the resources Huawei possesses.Don Bacon , May 17, 2019 10:59:03 PM | link
Huawei already has its own arm based soc's it uses in it's high end phones and they can replace processors in it's low end phones with lesser versions of these.
The Intel processors will be tougher to do for the commercial market because of software compatibility issues.
For government and other high security uses China has options like the MIPs based Loongson but that wouldn't work in the commercial environment so hopelessly devoted to x86 and windows. Probably the best solution would be to make an x86 analog like AMD markets, and it wouldn't take that long to do.from Market Realist. . .William Gruff , May 18, 2019 8:11:03 AM | link
The United States attacked China's largest telecom equipment maker Huawei. If China decides to retaliate, it could target chip giants like Qualcomm and Broadcom, which rely heavily on it for revenue, or tech giant Apple, which depends on them for iPhone manufacturing.
Huawei uses Qualcomm's modems in its high-end smartphones and has been in settlement talks with the chip supplier over a licensing dispute. Tensions between the United States and Huawei could delay this licensing settlement, sending Qualcomm's stock down 4.4% on May 16.
Huawei's competitors Nokia and Ericsson would stand to win from the above ban as the United States and its allies would resort to them for 5G deployment. Nokia's and Ericsson's stocks rose more than 4% and 2% in early trading on May 16. . . heredonkeytale , May 18, 2019 9:57:42 AM | link"Soon U.S. chip companies will have lost all their sales to the second largest smartphone producer of the world. That loss will not be just temporarily, it will become permanent." --b
This is a crucial and important development. So long as China is just developing their domestic chip designs as an academic exercise they will forever trail behind the market leaders by at least one technological iteration. Why try so hard with chip designs that will only ever just be used in college degree theses papers and proof of concept models? Real innovation comes from scratching an itch; from fulfilling an actual need. Chip fab is the only remaining significant technological lead that America retains anymore, but the raw engineering brainpower behind that industry in the US is mostly imported from China anyway. The Chinese have no shortage of brilliant engineers, they just have not really had the need to do without Intel and AMD before. Now they do.
In the short term the transition will be painful for China. The first few iterations of their replacement chip designs will be buggy and not have the features of chips they could have bought for cheaper from the US. They will also have problems ramping up capacity to meet their needs. Typical growing pains, in other words. In the long term, though, this will be seen as the point at which the end started for America's chip tech dominance. Within a year or so China will be producing chips as good as America's. Another year after that and America will be eclipsed in that industry. No longer will people be looking for "Intel Inside!" stickers on products but rather "Huawei Inside!" .Isnt it clear the US is globalist? Uhhm, well, yes, it's only been clear for the prior 75 years at least. In fact Lenin laid it all out during WWI so one could say it's been clear for 100 years.
What doesn't seem to be clear, or else ignored/excused here -- China is today just as globalist as the US and in fact the multinational corporations in control of both countries are inextricably linked, especially in the high tech sector currently under the intense MoA thread microscope.
Why aren't Huawei making making more smartphone chips in production? Because so many Chinese component manufacturers are still heavily invested in churning out product for Apple. These companies employ millions in "relatively high paying" factory jobs and account for a large slice of Chinese export income and stock market capitalization. These corporate oligarchs supported by the Chinese government retain a vested interest in the status quo.
This is not to minimize Huawei or Chinese growing ability to compete at the design and innovation level as well as production, it is simply rightsizing the perspective to fit the reality. Huawei production is growing worldwide but this doesn't mean Apple or Samsung will evaporate or fall by the wayside and the Chinese need Apple and its markets too . In fact, Huawei is now willing for the first time to sell microchips to third party cell phone producers including Apple. Successful capitalist growth for China depends on increasing production into new products, technologies and markets not replacing current platforms with new. The product cycle will take care of itself in time anyway.
By our standards exploitation of workers in China is a grim picture , which compares with the grim blue collar conditions in the US, the equal and opposite result of the globalist equation wrt offshoring factory jobs endemic to capitalist production.
China is still in the industrial growth phase of its capitalist development, although beginning to transition to the higher phase for sure. Of course.
MoA China "experts" should study the reality of globalization after removing the rose colored glasses if you wish to be considered analysts instead of merely wishful thinkers/cheerleaders of groupthink delusion.
May 18, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
jared , May 17, 2019 4:55:50 PM | linkThis article titled 'Face' by Walrus over at SST is well worth a read alongside b's piece. https://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2019/05/face-by-walrus.html
Also this Sputnik Article https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201905161075055767-china-us-trade-war/
Both these articles give a very clear picture of what the drunken louts 'Team Trump' are up against in their so called trade war. Very much like a drunken spectator climbing into the ring thinking he can take on a professional boxer.
@ Peter AU 1 | May 17, 2019 4:33:54 PM | 1 5 Trump
- demanded concessions on trade
- banned Huwei
- made military [plans with Taiwan
- saber rattled in the China Sea
Trump wants improved trade conditions for improved economic climate in the U.S. But there are others in the admin who want something else.
But still: "backup chips it has independently developed" That's a good one Mr Moon.
wagelaborer , May 17, 2019 5:05:18 PM | linkThe US attack on China did not start with Trump. This is what Obama's military "Pivot to Asia" was about, as was the TPP, which explicitly was designed to develop an economic alliance that left China out. Capitalist trade wars are also not new, as are hot wars. They are part of capitalism.uncle tungsten , May 17, 2019 5:12:28 PM | link
"Intellectual property" is a laughable assertion, an audacious attempt by the US to corner all human advances and claim them as the property of US capitalists, to be only used for their profits. As if!
What an appalling ruling elite in the USA. Blamers and punishers. Never take any responsibility for their murderous acts. Rise up people, these are dangerous, stupid leaders and elites.dh-mtl , May 17, 2019 5:13:10 PM | linkB says: Whatever face is at the top is only representing the layers below.Winston2 , May 17, 2019 5:18:30 PM | link
Yes, this is the case when complex governmental systems are functioning properly. In this case power is distributed throughout the system, based on the role each individual within the system. People must have a collaborative culture for complex systems to function properly.
People of an authoritarian nature hate complex systems and distributed power, as such systems limit the freedom of action of the authoritarian leader. The corollary to this is that systems must be kept simple to accommodate authoritarian leaders. And simple systems are much less powerful and effective than complex systems.
My observation is that, in the U.S., authoritarianism is the dominant culture, as opposed to a collaborative culture of the Chinese that is implied by B's comment.
Indeed we see many signs in these negotiations that the U.S. is operating based on a culture of authoritarianism, whereas China is operating based on a culture of collaboration. Among the signs:
- The tendency that B. noted of Americans to assign all power to the leader. (This is not the first time, and in fact it is a common mistake of the U.S. and one of the reasons that their regime change efforts almost never achieve a result that is favorable for the U.S.)
- The U.S. talks about winning and losing. China talks equity.
- The U.S. talks about pressuring China until they give in. China talks about a solution that respects the dignity of each party.
The principle behind negotiations for people of a collaborative culture is 'Win-Win or No-Deal'. For Authoritarians, Win-Win is a compromise, and compromise is the equivalent of a loss. My conclusion is that there is only a very low probability that the U.S. and China will successfully negotiate a trade deal. The cultures of the authoritarian Americans and the collaborative Chinese are too divergent. China will only accept Win-Win and the U.S. cannot accept Win-Win.Classic US empire strategy. Build up a supplier and when they start to be serious a competitor take them down. Asian Tiger crisis,forcing occupied Japan into the Plaza Accord etc. They left it too long with China, way too long. China has not recycled its trade dollars surplus into USTs since 2014. No replacement suppliers like Vietnam or Indonesia etc will do either, no more vendor finance for the US.uncle tungsten , May 17, 2019 5:19:11 PM | link
It will have to live within its means, no wonder the neocohens are going insane. We are watching the death of the $ as GRC first hand.@jared | May 17, 2019 4:55:50 PM | 18james , May 17, 2019 5:32:57 PM | link
NO jared, Trump is in charge, fully responsible and yet totally irresponsible. He hires and fires, he barks the orders, Trump is not captive. You may desperately wish to believe that but NO, Trump wants it like this and NO dissent.
This is Henry Kissinger's plan implemented by Trump. A war criminal implementing a sociopath war criminal's plan. Trump is a killer and an oligarchs stooge and he like the rewards.
See the fabulous Aaron Mate discussion previously linked in the last thread.thanks b... ditto peter au recommendation @16 on the article from walrus on face..Jen , May 17, 2019 5:47:54 PM | linkI'd be curious to know what other MoA barflies think of the US tendency to personalize other countries' governments and political systems and reduce them all to monarchies of one sort or another, and what this says about the American psychology generally. So much of the US slather and accusations against Russia and China and what those nations are supposedly doing look like psychological projection of the US' own sins and malevolent behaviour.Don Bacon , May 17, 2019 5:55:00 PM | link
I was in hospital nearly 20 years ago for a major operation and some of my recuperation there was spent watching a few old "Star Trek: Next Generation" episodes. Watching those shows, I was struck by how much "power" the Star Trek captain Jean-Luc Picard appeared to wield. Every one of his subordinates deferred to his decisions and very few challenged him.
I know this is an old TV show with scripts that emphasise individual action over collective action and delineating a whole culture on board the Starship fleet (this is a long time before "Game of Thrones") but I had the sudden realisation that US politics is essentially monarchist in its nature, for all the complicated legal and constitutional structures that have been built around it over the past 240+ years. US politics and culture are fixated on one individual with extreme powers; the superhero obsession in Hollywood is one symptom of that.
In a way the US now resembles the Ottoman empire during that empire's Sultanate of Women period (late 1500s to mid-1700s) when sultans' power was dominated by their mothers, viziers and sometimes the janissaries who became a hereditary class during that period.@ dh-mtl 21Lochearn , May 17, 2019 5:56:05 PM | link
You provided an excellent analysis of two very different kinds of people, westerners and Asians (Chinese). Americans who believe that Chinese are pretty much like them, and respond to people, to pressures and and to situations in the same way, are badly mistaken.
I would add another: Westerners want instant results and quick profits whereas Chinese take the long view. Heck, they've been around for five thousand years so why not.I'm glad you raise the issue of increased prices for US consumers, b. I have been looking in vain for a mention of this even in alternative media. Nobody appears to be talking about it.dh , May 17, 2019 5:59:06 PM | link
If I can go off track for a moment the events surrounding Boeing are highly significant and a parallel to what is happening generally in the US. Here is a something I wrote for naked capitalism but did not send - Yves is too fierce and I don't trust her. A bit like a feminine Colonel what's his name Laing...
Because of the prestige of Boeing Wall Street left its dimantling until quite late - 1997. GE and Ford had already produced their versions of the 737 Max in the 1960s with the Corvair and the Pinto respectively as finance people started to take over the running of US companies. There is something very sad in watching a once magnificent company reduced by bankers to a shadow of its former self.There has been a trade imbalance for quite a while but it didn't seem to matter much. The Chinese raised their standard of living, Americans got cheap stuff, surplus dollars went into treasuries to fund the deficit. It all worked pretty well until Trump and MAGA. Somehow he thinks he'll bring the jobs back but no Americans are going to make sneakers and circuit boards for $2 an hour.Ian , May 17, 2019 6:21:30 PM | link@Jen | May 17, 2019 5:47:54 PM | 25:Peter AU 1 , May 17, 2019 6:23:01 PM | link
Idolatry is universal. People always gravitate towards Alpha personalities.
dh | May 17, 2019 5:59:06 PM | 28:
Trump knows those manufacturing jobs aren't coming back and automation is the future. He's just parroting what his base wants to hear for votes.Jen 25OutOfThinAir , May 17, 2019 6:29:02 PM | link
I have just replied to Karlof1 in I think the previous thread and I link into this. In looking into US culture and why it gives rise the type of leadership it has, I think it may be the belief in exceptionalism. Exceptionalism may also carry with it the belief that all other peoples want to be like them and all they (Americans) have to do is free those peoples from the nasty dictators ruling over them.
Patrick Armstrong in one of his articles has said that in his dealings with US officials as Canadian ambassador or diplomat, is that American officials genuinely believed that all they had to do was overthrow the evil dictator and the people would welcome Americans or willingly join the US system.All the economic momentum is in Eurasia, centering on China, India, and Russia. China is spearheading this drive and re-assuming its historical status as the richest land in the world. Instead of resisting, Washington should be working with projects like the BRI that help enrich everyone. (Indeed, why doesn't Washington announce a BRI for North/South America, perhaps a Yellow Brick Road? But that's an aside...)wagelaborer , May 17, 2019 6:33:45 PM | link
And concerns about Chinese spying through their companies should be equaled with internal reflection about the practice in the United States. Perhaps it would be wise for both countries to develop and practice international standards that respect human rights in an Everything's Connected world.
Given how the US and China frequently treat "different" people with disdain, that's a lot to ask. But no country or people is spotless regarding abusing human rights and some wisdom with power would be welcome from both governments.Jen @25. Americans are good at Doublethink.
You point out that our entertainment industry focuses its plots on strong leaders, and Good Guys vs Bad Guys, and we definitely internalize that, especially when our overlords want to demonize another coun