American media project a depiction of life that is very attractive by design, and this raises expectations among consumers of this media. If Chinese people were not aware of the lifestyles of westerners, the Chinese government would be under less pressure to improve standards of living. And yes everyone in every country knows that popular culture depicts dreams and aspirations rather than reality, but even with this discounting of what people in the developing world see they become aware of the quality of life in the west.

This causes an expectations revolution that is putting tremendous pressure on the Chinese government, which is not necessarily a bad thing but can cause society to destabilize if growth stops.

Maybe I am reading too much in to it, but it felt like a shift influenced by the additional target market of the East, and I don't see Hollywood as a source of affecting moral/civic unrest.

Teamwork is a huge theme in countless Hollywood movies. A rag tag group of misfits who has to overcome their differences and learn to work together is a classic movie trope.

I don't think this has anything do with trying to appeal to Chinese audiences.

Less complex (and less overall) dialogue designed to make it easier to translate is an actual example of trying to succeed in China.

The film was written by long time fan of the series, so one of the central themes of the series being highlighted in the film is unsurprising.

I sincerely doubt it has anything to do with China.

e: Augh, I missed changing the Star Wars -> Star Trek edit and now I can't edit; I have permanently lost nerd cred for making that mixup ;_;

"Ordinary People" is a blue-blooded American Hollywood film.

No, i don't think that you're reading too much into it. In fact, i like your analysis. I'll have to rewatch it, again. LOL

especially concerning "unity" vs. "FREEDOMMM!"

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/21/words-...

http://fortune.com/hollywood-film-financing/

https://next.ft.com/content/2cb93908-2c65-11e6-bf8d-26294ad5...

A more mature approach would be to think what to learn and do(or not do) when someone is showing great signs of progress. Getting more products from China makes the whole richer. China's protectionis policies are probably harming them more than helping them, why play in the same game.

First of all, China and the US, besides their rivalry, are huge economic partners: china and the US trade from each other a lot. Either of them going into military conflict with the other would mean massive economic losses. Im not saying it cant happen, but it cannot be the goal to get richer so in the end you can get poorer.

Ofc is reasonable to think that being an economic power gives you also political power, and as an American you can perceive that the US benefits from that position today and doesnt want to lose it to China.

I would say that first of all, most of U.S. intervention in other countries has cost dearly both for the intervened countries and to the american taxpayer(and sometimes citizen or soldier). China as well as the US are a problem in that regard. Its true that it could have negative consequences, as it does for the US to have that power, but it feels to me secondary to economic power, and more relevant to how international institutions should work.

In any case, China doesnt have to surpass the US to do this, as today it already has a lot of questionable policies(like being an ally to north korea, or getting into borderline military conflicts for sea territory).

But as the US prospered, the Civil Rights movement kicked in. So perhaps the same will happen in China.

Were slaves not human back then? GP is right: the human rights standard was appalling, and this is before considering the Trail of Tears and other small-pox-related incidents

So the west only had to apply what human rights already existed universally to "develop," and there was already moral pressure to do so from unfairness. China already has "fairness", but no where to go after that; there is definitely no moral pressure from within to do better.

> While belief in the sanctity of human life has ancient precedents in many religions of the world, the idea of human rights, that is, the notion that a human being has a set of inviolable rights simply on grounds of being human, began during the era of renaissance humanism in the early modern period. The European wars of religion and the civil wars of seventeenth-century England gave rise to the philosophy of liberalism and belief in human rights became a central concern of European intellectual culture during the eighteenth-century Age of Enlightenment. These ideas of human rights lay at the core of the American and French Revolutions which occurred toward the end of that century. Democratic evolution through the nineteenth century paved the way for the advent of universal suffrage in the twentieth century. Two world wars led to the creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

> The post-war era saw human rights movements for special interest groups such as feminism and the civil rights of African-Americans. The human rights of members of the Soviet bloc emerged in the 1970s along with workers' rights in the West. The movement quickly jelled as social activism and political rhetoric in many nations put it high on the world agenda.[1] By the 21st century, Moyn has argued, the human rights movement expanded beyond its original anti-totalitarianism to include numerous causes involving humanitarianism and social and economic development in the Developing World.[2]

> Some notions of righteousness present in ancient law and religion is sometimes retrospectively included under the term "human rights". While Enlightenment philosophers suggest a secular social contract between the rulers and the ruled, ancient traditions derived similar conclusions from notions of divine law, and, in Hellenistic philosophy, natural law.

One can say "human rights" and still not have accomplished the goal yet, but if one cannot say "human rights" at all, there is no goal in sight. The Chinese media always complains that "human rights" is a western-biased concept, not appropriate for China, and at least we can agree on the first part. Human rights was a concept in the west, even if it had flaws, it was never even a concept in China (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_values).

And surely, the rich and connected people in China have those rights. They are treated fairly by the system and society.

It's just those poorer people that are hurt, but hey, the framework for it still exists.

People all have the same standards enshrined in the political system, but it is a low bar, and everyone makes out in the economic system instead. It's basically what a libertarian society would look like if they kept the government to a minimum (sans the occasional persecution of a dissident).

That's utterly hilarious. If there's a world in which that's even remotely possible, we'll all be long, long dead by the time it happens.

China's GDP per capita is currently about 14% of the United States [1]. That's roughly the same ratio that Japan faced in 1960, yet within 30 years Japan overtook the US in GDP per capita [2].

My view is that China has a number of economic and demographic disadvantages that mean in 30 years China is 'only' likely to reach 30-50% of US GDP per capita. But with a population projected to be 3 times the US [3], China's overall GDP will be greater than the US. In 30 years.

And once that happens, how long will it take for China's military power to exceed the United States? You might be dead, but your grandchildren will certainly see it happen.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(no...

[2] Based on the Google graph when you search "Japan GDP per capita", etc.

[3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_gr...

Second, even reaching parity is an immensely daunting proposition. If China were to start building ships and aircraft, the US would respond in kind. Right now there's a lot of overhead and waste in the procurement process, that waste would disappear if shit suddenly got real. Sure, we 'only' have 20 carrier groups right now, but there's no reason we can't have 40.

There's two main force multipliers I see that we have that China will never be able to catch up with us on. First, training and experience. The reason we keep a small military manpower-wise is because every US soldier is extremely well-trained. If China conscripted a percentage of their population, they could instantly have a larger army, but that army would then need to be trained in how to conduct modern warfare.

Second, alliances with other countries. The best air-to-air missile right now is the Meteor, it's being developed in Sweden and sold throughout Europe. If China started rising militarily, the US and Europe would immediately start cooperating to counter it by sharing technology.

The US has an enormous amount invested in its military dominance, it will not give that up at any cost. China could not reach parity slowly, as it would never catch up, and it can't reach it quickly, because we'd notice and respond appropriately. It would be such a huge drain on their economy that they'd abandon the effort.

The Soviets never even came close to parity in conventional force projection. The Chinese wouldn't either in a strategic arms race. Even if they did, they'd still never in a million years be able to conquer the US. As well try to conquer the Sun.

For China to some day have the ability to conquer the US, wouldn't they first have to reach parity? Seems to me the post was implicitly claiming that the China's military could reach parity with the United States. But I agree that the focus of the argument is on exceeding the US military power.

The generals of the First World War had training and experience, but technological change meant that training was useless and they had to re-learn how to fight on the battlefield. Future technology will have the same effect - for example, a swarm of drones might be more capable than a manned fighter aircraft. Air superiority might come down to who can write the better drone software, or perhaps simply who has the most drones. The old investment in manned fighter aircraft would count for nothing.

I agree that the US alliances with other countries is a benefit that China will not have. But China has its own unique benefit - its manufacturing industry. It already far exceeds the US in ability to mass produce smartphones. Couldn't it one day churn out military robots at a far greater rate than the US and Germany combined?

The Soviets never came close to achieving economic parity with the United States. A better analogy would be Britain in the 19th century - it lost its military dominance as the US grew its economy to be much larger than the British economy. In the 21st century China will do to the US what the US did to Britain the 19th century.

My logic is simple: (a) in 30 years China's economy will be bigger than the US economy; (b) in 60 years China's economy will be double the US economy; (c) A country will lose its military superiority to another country if that other country can afford to spend twice as much on its military.

None of these three statements seems particularly controversial to me.

Sure. But it's not enough.

To conquer a country you have to invade it. To invade it you have to move soldiers to it. A lot of them. China could destroy our entire navy and air force and still not be able to conquer us.

This is the reason we used nuclear weapons against Japan in WW2 rather than try to invade it. We could have, but the amount of resources and blood it would have taken was extreme. An operation of that scale conducted across an ocean has only been successful once, and that's because we had a friendly country to establish a base on. (DDay)

Should the Chinese want to invade us, their only real option would be through Mexico. No amount of conventional military dominance can overcome the sheer impossibility of trying to invade a country by sea. And the US and Canada are too close for them to go that route. Invading Canada would be just as hard as invading the US. They could maybe try overland across Russia, Alaska, and Canada, but that would be just as hard as an amphibious assault.

Should the US see that China was gearing up for such a plan, we'd send our army there to rebuff the attempt, ignoring Mexican sovereignty if we had to.

Without troops on the ground, there is no conquest. They could conceivably beat us in conventional conflict given a serious enough advantage, but they could never actually invade us, so complete neutralization is impossible.

But it doesn't really matter whether Japan got to 105% or 95% of US GDP in 1990 - my point that China could get to 30-50% of US GDP in 30 years stands.

The U.S. is far from guilt free.

Systems matter; it's not surprising that deeply colonized countries remain basket cases. It's likely that China will be the last nation to "re-industrialize" in the near term.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...

That isn't the issue.

The issue is protectionist policies and direct interference by the state in all sectors.

They can do that if they want, but we need to slap tariffs on their products and ban some Chinese companies from selling in the West.

Its like saying "my neighbor is stabbing himself, we should stab ourselves so they learn!"

China may (or may not, for all I know) have beaten the West in the game of getting the technology it wants but the country has enough structural problems that it's chances of getting ahead of the West broadly are looking very dim.

Problems: Horrific pollution, huge loans to inefficient state-run industries, massive real state and infrastructure mal-investment and bubbles, losing conventional factory jobs to even lower waged centered without gaining better jobs in compensation, having a first world demographic structure (lots of old people) without a first world standard of living, a government that's resorting to repression and ideology to solve problems and so-doubling down on all mistakes, the falsification of statistics can barely conceal an economy in stasis, etc.

So, there's little to fear from a Chinese economic "juggernaut" but the decline of China poses serious problems - especially, it seems to be what fueling the huffing and puffing over the South China sea.

http://www.economist.com/news/business/21696552-chinas-indus... http://www.economist.com/news/business/21693573-chinas-exces...

My first thought following reading that was "Yeah, and then the Farmer transfers that money into the stock market, and creates the bubble effect that is only corrected by direct intervention not allowing it to go down naturally."

    > Horrific pollution

China's going to get their Clean Air Act. Just give it some time.

Improper irrigation can even lead to salts rising up to the soil surface and making it permanently infertile barring major earth works. Falling water tables can allow the ground to compress (now-empty pores deflate) and significantly lower the ground's ability to carry groundwater (as has happened in California).

Some damage is permanent, and we were not capable of the worst back then.

Further, repression also make the equivalent of a Clean Air Act hard. The pattern currently is the central authorities issue a call to protect the environment (usually kind of ad-hoc) but local authorities ignore it and no one can complain because all the authorities are beyond criticism.

Just like the way you have the President start an anti-corruption campaign but the President's cronies exempt.

China boosters for years said these problems didn't matter. Maybe they didn't matter for those years but now, they are here in spades.

http://www.iol.co.za/motoring/industry-news/why-arent-foreig...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-fletcher/japan-the-forgott...

There are advantages to the way Asian economists do it. For example, not only in Japan, but especially in Korea, cell phones were standard even by the mid-90's....EVERYONE had one. And the rates were quite reasonable, too. (No contracts, either. IfIRememberRight.) But there are(/were) disadvantages to Asian Tiger economics too. After the Asian bubble burst, the Korean Wan [SouthKorean money] depreciated to the point that USArmy Sergeants were trying to buy cars (even Fords, not just Kias and Daewoos) made (or rather bought) in Korea. (The US Dollar-to-Wan rate was so out of wack that it was still more economical to buy AND ship a car back to the US across the Pacific on a boat. Unfortunately emissions standards were different; Korean cars didn't pass EPA muster.) ~circa 1998

What Should happen instead is quid pro quo trade agreements. But in Google and Uber's case Chinese industry isn't exploiting the US market, so the US companies have no right to complain.

I would say the US and communist party members got a great deal and the Chinese population is better off though still being stepped on.

This has been a great deal for the western citizen, who have been exchanging tons of currency for cheap goods(thanks to the low exchange rate), especially US citizens who have had their government's borrowing costs financed by the very money sent over there to buy things with. Not so great of a deal for the average Chinese, in comparison to what they might have had as a more westernized country.

Edit: Let's not even talk about the demographic collapse happening as a result of the one child policy. It will make any demographic problems in the west look like child's play.

US lower and middle class benefited from cheap goods, and suffered from continued automation and imports. However, the US produces more goods now than at any point in it's history so you can't really blame things on a lack of manufacturing.

IMO, I would blame 5 primary factors, massive undocumented population suppressing wages, developed economy making growth harder, tax policy's that harm workers directly and indirectly, unions shrinking, and rapid automation continuously disrupting the economy.

I can see why China is so keen on improving their military now.

These days, I think it is a bit better. At least China wants our airplanes/jet engines. And the ruling class is totally vested in overseas real estate. Military wars are just going to be bad for business at that point.

I always assumed that this was allowed because in turn, China gave American companies access to very, very cheap manufacturing labour.

The reason might be deindustrialization of the west coupled by an exploding globsl consumer goods market and large (and growing) home market. China effectively made itself the factory of the west, and a highly desirable market as well.

The TPP is an attempt to deal with China because the west can't directly confront China with a tit-for-tat strategy for practical purposes: Western countries would need to rebuild and retool consume-goods factories at a high cost that the profit-maximizing corps don't want to shoulder

Smoot-Hawley

Don't worry, the game is not over yet.

>For some reason, the West has let China get away with extremely protectionist trade policies the likes of which no one else in the world would dare even attempt.

Yes. But this could be changed by Trump in one day. (Sorry, I know that this is an extremely liberal board).

Chinese don't believe in win-win. They believe in win-lose. Thats great but in my experience there is a point where you run out of stupid people to screw over.

Also, it is difficult to do business with Chinese. Why? Because a lot of their decisions are irrational and it is extremely difficult to have an opponent that does irrational decisions. But this will backfire or is backfirering already. Why? With 10 or 12% growth you can afford to make irrational decisions. But try this at 6,5 or 4 percent growth. Good luck with that.

While I disagree in general, I downvoted because of that statement. The decisions of the Chinese government make sense in context. They are not an irrational actor just because some of us don't understand their motivations, or because they don't align with western interests. The process is obscure, which makes it frustrating, but there is logic and grand strategy involved.

Many Chinese (both in Private and SOE) are complaining that there is a "downturn" right now. This is NOT a downturn. It will never be 10% growth. They have not realized that the game has changed.

Not really on economic policy, based on what I've seen. However, logical thinking is highly valued; that is to say, connecting the dots and backing up your assertions with evidence. Trite, blasé solutions to complex problems will usually earn a down vote on most topics, which is the case here.

Asserting in advance that the board is extremely liberal and will therefore disagree with you based on a difference of opinion is I'm sure reassuring when you are down voted, as it insulates you from any responsibility in putting forth a poorly-considered case. You are just lying to yourself, though.

So if I make business decisions via ouija board or in a cocaine induced rage, I'll have a leg up?

Thomas Schelling's book The Strategy of Conflict has a focus on the ways that people can benefit in a conflict from being, or being perceived as, irrational or constrained in their choices or access to information. Clearly you can't be better off in all areas of life by making irrational or random decisions, but there are some specific situations of conflict where you might be, if others are aware of it.

One familiar example

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_(game)

where if people think you are very irrational, you're likely to win!

http://lesswrong.com/lw/dc7/nash_equilibria_and_schelling_po...

No, but you'll have a job on Wall Street or maybe be a hedge fund manager.

I think more of the scorpion and the frog: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog

OH really? How will he do that?

By slapping tit-for-tat policies.

+ Don't allow Chinese companies to invest in the US. + Control capital + Impose tariffs + Get the US gov to make it impossible for Chinese to do business in the US.

Could be done with the stroke of a pen.

I think there are many countries that can produce cheap shoes, clothes and electronics. By now all this stuff can already be manufactured in the US again due to automation and robotics (see Adidas producing shoes in Germany AGAIN).

This would be a minor problem for the US but a big problem for China, Germany and Japan.

By the way, I live in China.

Sorry, but complex problems don't have simple answers. Trump can't unilaterally force China to stop its protectionism, at least not without inflicting significant hurt on the American economy.

How do you think people will react to a 10% increase in prices for almost all goods?

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/protectionism-g...

A trade war would theoretically cause a deadweight loss in global GDP, but as long as the US is not at full employment it is likely losses would end up distributed almost entirely on the Chinese side. Domestic losses would only take place after the return to full employment. Restructuring costs would also be imposed disproportionately on China because they'd be the ones dealing with insufficient demand.

Sure, a better alternative from a conventional economic perspective would be having the United States ramp up spending. The problem is that just printing more USD to enable this causes its own set of problems given that the USD is the world's reserve currency. Having the government take on additional interest-bearing debt avoids this problem, but does not seem particularly attractive when the Chinese are the ones who will end up collecting interest on the loan.

Political outcomes? My sense is that we'd see an upsurge in nationalism in China, perhaps more aggression in the South China Seas, but also a rapid collapse in the Chinese economy that would make coming to terms with the trade deficit a political priority. And is it really crazy for the West to demand a level playing field in exchange for its willingness to keep China from economic collapse?

But the Chinese aren't the ones that will end up collecting interest on additional US debt; while they are the biggest current foreign holder of US debt, their total holdings are dropping; they not only aren't the biggest purchaser of new US debt, they aren't even a net purchaser of US debt. (And they are only the biggest foreign holder, most US federal debt is owed to...entities within the US; non-federal US entities hold 4 times as much US debt as China does.)

The best solution of course involves China recognizing that persistent trade deficits hurt its trade partners. The problem is that the Chinese political system is its own distributional game, and while there are direct costs for its participants associated with opening up markets and letting foreign businesses compete with domestic ones, there are no costs and only benefits associated with foreign dumping.

I think the US should demand that China reduce restrictions, not that we should increase them.

> government take on additional interest-bearing debt instead does not seem particularly attractive when the Chinese are the ones who will end up collecting interest on the loan

Why not? Personally, I find the obsession with debt entirely counterproductive. If the government can seemingly borrow endless sums of money with incredibly low interest, why not borrow as much as we can?

Especially since, as you said, we could actually benefit from a bit more inflation.

People don't understand why people manufacture in China - it's less about wages now, and more about logistics. Considering the global decline in demand, it's unlikely US (or any others in S. Asia / Africa) will be able to repeat the China/Asian Tiger story on such a mass scale.

WHAT supply chain? There is NO supply chain anymore. JIT (Just-In-Time) inventory has been replaced by BLTN (Better-Late-Than-Never) and AGNM (Ain't-Got-No-More) inventory.

Went to a large box store on the weekend. They had empty containers marked "Display" on the shelves. Two different employees explained that I should put empty containers for the desired items in my cart and, upon checking out, they would retrieve a full container of each item "from the back". Both assured me all displayed items were available.

Got my display containers and proceeded to check out. Was informed that two of three displayed items were not available. I suggested to the clerk "So now you'll take these two items off display?" He replied "No, they'll probably be back in stock next week."

I left the store w/o purchasing anything and they'll never see me again.

We may be in a recession right now because we can't buy quality goods AT ALL! I've bought five new fingernail clippers in the last six months and, for God's sake, they won't cut my nails! They're all made in China.

Many, if not most Chinese goods, especially machine tools, remain as they were 14 years ago: low quality and every item different with no standardization. And they've driven many good US manufacturers out of business. Why? Because workers buy shitty tools for one-time use, bill the customer for the work and for the tools and then throw away the tools when they're done. Of course no one's considering the external factors here: cost of shitty tools in poor workmanship, longer production times and accidents.

"How do you think people will react to a 10% increase in prices for almost all goods?"

If it convinces American manufacturers to produce quality products then it's great news.

I'm just here to help. May I suggest these: https://www.amazon.com/Seki-Edge-Stainless-Fingernail-Clippe...

If your concern is with quality a good place to browse is: https://www.reddit.com/r/BuyItForLife/

Generally you'll have a number of options with pros/cons of each to select from. Often things are a little on the pricier side - but that price is for quality. Not all items are meant "for life" unfortunately, but a good 5-10 years is better than 5-10 weeks.

Here's some bedside reading:

'What’s in a tool? A case for Made in USA':

http://hackaday.com/2016/01/18/whats-in-a-tool-a-case-for-ma...

Discussion of the same:

https://build.slashdot.org/story/16/01/18/213236/whats-in-a-...

"China & The Decline In Quality (And Soon In Profits)":

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-18/china-decline-quali...

And my favorite, just for fun: "Chinese Factory Worker Can't Believe The Shit He Makes For Americans":

http://www.theonion.com/article/chinese-factory-worker-cant-...

I think that outside the US, the reputation of US-made good has never been particularly strong. We see US cars, and compare them to Japanese cars and see mostly failings.

So far as Chinese goods go, I have no particular knowledge of wrenches.

However, I'd note that (Chinese made) Apple products are generally of pretty good quality.

I'd also point out that the ZeroHedge article doesn't really make a strong case that quality is decreasing at all. And you realize the Onion is a parody, right?

https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&complete=0&hl=en&...

But you don't need to do that. Instead observe!

Go to a hardware store and try out a few tools from various countries. You'll see what I mean. _Pay_ _attention_ to the world you live in and the tools you and others use every day. In my case, my fingernail clippers failing (not one, but two pair, from different Chinese manufacturers, within weeks of each other) was the straw that broke the camel's back.

Instead of asking me to provide hard statistical evidence on these forums, I expect you internet wunderkinds to write a one-off ML tool to scrape the internet for "anecdotal" evidence, collate it, translate it with your neural net NL software, correlate it, and finally analyze it as your own statistical evidence. Maybe you'd even share it with others, but that isn't necessary.

nl: "I'd also point out that the ZeroHedge article doesn't really make a strong case that quality is decreasing at all.":

I can only assume you read an article other than the one I linked to.

And yes, I intentionally put the Onion article in there, because it is funny. But some people have no sense of humour and are unable to resist pointing out the obvious.

This is false. China is not the sole or important supplier of most things.

Vietname, India etc. are becoming capable of providing labour and supply chain.

A 10% tariff would be fair.

Besides, something needs to be done to balance trade.

Right now China is cheating by claiming they are open, whey they are not.

The West should simply implement tit-for-tat policies.

China has scale, and the right value chains for certain things. But ultimately they are commodities. It's that hard to build simple factories and provide reliable electricity and cheap workers.

Indonesia, India, Malaysia, Vietnam etc. - there's a lot of people there waiting to pick up the slack.

The US does not import a lot of meaningful things from China.

China imports a lot of critical goods from the West, particularly Germany. Also - the trade balance is very lopsided.

A 'trade war' with China would be very painful for China, but the West would hardly skip a beat.

A) Consumer prices would rise a little bit. B) Some plants (smart factories) would open in the US C) Mexico would boon, and so would other areas in Asia.

In the long run, if other places pick up the slack, it would permanently damage China's competitive advantages - whereas Western nations would do just fine, save a few German tool makers.

Yea, that's not how the world works; the President isn't a CEO.

One example: Trump said he would refuse to honor US debts, just as he has successfully refused to honor his own debts so many times. Even the smallest credible threat of devaluing US Treasury bonds would be an economic disaster.