roach126_FREDERIC J. BROWNPOOLAFP via Getty Images_us china meeting alaska

Economics

Заданная предвзятость в отношении Китая

Mar 23, 2021 Stephen S. Roach

НЬЮ-ХЕЙВЕН – Не только погода была холодной, когда высокопоставленные официальные лица США и Китай приехали на встречу в Анкоридже (Аляска) в попытке произвести перезагрузку в отношениях двух стран после четырёх лет нараставшей напряжённости. К сожалению, эта встреча больше напоминала эпоху Холодной войны, чем новый старт. Сложившееся положение надо быстро менять – до того, как станет слишком поздно.

Команда президента Джо Байдена попала в политическую ловушку нарастающих антикитайских настроений в обеих партиях США. Похоже, что она продолжает курс, проложенный предыдущей администрацией. Более того, она даже усиливает торговый и технологический конфликт, поднимая вопросы прав человека и геополитики, которые предшественник Байдена игнорировал. Тем временем Китай попал в ловушку менталитета, определяемого концепцией «столетия унижения», и усугубляет проблему нахрапистой, оборонительной реакцией. Прямо на виду у прессы начало это встречи было отмечено обвинениями и контробвинениями, так что невозможно было различить какой-либо путь к деэскалации.

Обеим сторон следовало бы вернуться к азам – к экономическим и торговым вопросам, на которые давно опираются американо-китайские отношения. Это не значит, что им надо игнорировать другие серьёзные проблемы. Это значит, что им надо заново найти общую почву и взаимное доверие, прежде чем расширять повестку. И здесь администрации Байдена надо пересмотреть выбранный ею воинственный настрой. В вопросах экономики и торговли она оказалась связана торговым соглашением «первой фазы», о котором договаривались «прежние ребята», как Байден называет предыдущую администрацию. Именно здесь имеется самый мощный рычаг для изменений.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

Subscribe now to gain greater access to Project Syndicate – including every commentary and our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – starting at less than $5 per month.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 30 Comments on this article

B Wilds Apr 2, 2021

China is busy cutting a path forward even as much of the world is in economic turmoil due to covid-19. Its new trade deal with 15 Asian countries is a major victory in that it encompasses almost one-third of all global economic activity. It also gives the impression the United States is being left out in the cold.

This underlines the fact that despite economic problems popping up in countries across the world, China is hellbent on pursuing its goal of galvanizing itself as the leading global power.The bottom-line is, China is our rival. China's state-run economy is based on a business model that is geared to expand by crushing the competition. More on this subject in the article below.

https://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2020/11/china-has-plan-and-we-are-not-in-it.html
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Joe Ryan Mar 28, 2021

When the U.S. is eventually apprehended for shooting the people who were selling us things, we will no doubt claim that we were "addicted" to the stuff and that the ethnicity of the vendors was immaterial.

Anyway, Prof. Roach might have supplemented his excellent points about the balance of payments with some points about income distribution.

U.S. real income per capita has gone up, not down, during the period of globalization, so you can't blame Mexico or China if employees at fast foods and big-box retailers are paid less (in real terms) than the mid-1970s legal minimum wage.

And there's no reason to believe that employers at U.S.-located manufacturing plants would pay employees more if only the USG were to give them little monopolies through discriminatory taxes on their rivals. On the contrary, they would pay employees the same and charge them more for the output.

Part of the reason that employers behave this way is the pressure of competition within U.S. national economic institutions. So, part of the solution is changing institutions: higher legal minimum wages and other, much more complicated things.

But given that the pressure to minimize employee compensation is unlikely ever to go away altogether, part of the solution is to socialize access to basic necessities so that business competition does not compress employee consumption below this base.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Peter Chase Mar 28, 2021

It is alas always easier to blame "the other;" as Roach explains, this only detracts from addressing our own issues. BUT China too has major economic imbalances, which it has addressed to some extent in recent years by decreasing its current account surplus -- but the funds washing through the Chinese economy are a major cause for China's over-investment/over-capacity, a problem it seeks to export to others (including the US). So the US has imbalances it has to address; China too has imbalances (as Mr. Roach has long written about).
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Peter Chase Mar 28, 2021

Alas, both the US and China are indeed "trapped," and it will take political courage on both sides to escape that. A couple of possible starting points: The US and others can and should accept China's desire to be a great power; it's people have the intellectual power to do great things. But China needs as well to accept that being great means great responsibility -- including accepting (and thinking about) criticism from others. Beijing is skating close to ruining everything with its belligerence over Taiwan; this is a prefect example of how what it considers an "internal affair" has global repercussions (its overly provacative stance could well ruin its reputation as a leader for decades). It will take courage for Biden et al to try to re-establish a more "normal" US-China relationship; China needs first to signal that it understands that its desire to be great does not mean asserting hard power in the region, including in particular over Taiwan. This will not be easy given what it has already done in Hong Kong.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve M. Mar 28, 2021

Economically speaking, I fully agree that the trade war has only negative effects, both for China and above all for the USA. You cannot compare China and Japan, the latter was a submissive war victim defeated during WWII, after the so-democratic USA nuked it twice. Some economic cooperation might have been seen as bad conscience, maybe? However back to China, the whole question is not about trade deficit etc, it is about economic and military power and dominance in the region. China openly started challenging the USA, that lead to the open dispute. Sure, China also subsidises production (USTR publishes every year a report with tons of malpractices by China), it also stole IPR but also profited from blind and wild (ongoing) outsourcing from Europe and USA (now that they evolve they start to be interested to protect IP interestingly). But fact remains, where in the USA you would have the capacity to manufacture the trillion of products we get used to see in our supermarkets, electronic shops etc? Above all at the cheapest price, no union's rights or protests will drive production costs up, Chinese workers will perform much longer hours than the average American or European. But we shouldn't be blind on human rights, military expansion, South China sea annexations (incl. illegal fishing), suppression of Hong Kong (e.g. Mandarin is now official language, while the common language is Cantonese, Covid helped of course to eliminate opposition), not to speak what happens on the other side of China with Muslim minorities. Didn't we also have a blind eye on Tibet, and despite all efforts Taiwan is still menaced by invasion? We can only have again fair trade, if the countries offer fair democratic, social, environmental and economic justice. That's a global issue I agree, not just China. I would advocate the WTO might start discussion some serious issues again. As European I cannot see anymore how to compete with a Chinese, streamlined monobloc against a multi-cultural, multi-complicated setup like Europe.
- Yoshimichi Moriyama Mar 30, 2021
  
  Steve,
  I don't agree with you where you said about the nukes. Japan had been preparing for surrender months before August 1945. The United States and Great Britain had decided to use the nuke in the previous summer. This pact is known as the Hyde Park Agreement.
  
  John Lee is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. He wrote a commentary at an Australian online opinion forum, "Australia can't afford to bite its tongue on China." I (Michi) sent thirty-six comments on it. I'll appreciate if you read them.
  
  https://www.onlineopinion.com/au/view.asp?article=21233.
  
  I (Michi) also sent two comments at Amazon USA, one on Charles Beard/President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War: Appearances and Realities, 1st edition and one on Hamilton Fish/FDR, the other side of the coin: How we were tricked into World War II. I'm sure you'll be the closer to the truth if you read them. Thank you.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
David Punabantu Mar 28, 2021

"Going back to basics-the economics and trade" is critical to understanding the next move the US should take. The US must understand how China became prosperous and good at stimulating US dollar inflows.
A look at what the former editor of the Financial Times Mr Geoffrey Crowther wrote in his book "An Out Line of Money" gives a clear picture between the US and China. He wrote “if a purchaser is someone who wants D-marks in order to pay for German exports, the fact that he can get his D-marks cheap is equivalent to a reduction in the price of exports; it will stimulate sales in exactly the same way as an ordinary depreciation of the exchange rate” (Crowther (1951) p.260).
The US has focussed on currency depreciation to stimulate US dollar inflows, while China focussed on a reduction in the price of exports manifesting as cheap Chinese products.
However in Mr Geoffrey Crowther's example it is German D-marks buying German goods. The same condition exists in China, despite Chinese firms quoting in US dollars, their final payment settlement is in Chinese Yuan Renminbi as a result of their foreign currency regulations.
This is in line with the market doctrine of Supply and Demand Doctrine as propounded by Adam Smith.
Adam Smith's underlying axiom saw the doctrine place British goods being bought by the British Sterling pounds. If a German wanted British goods they would have to first change their German D-marks into British Sterling pounds and then use the changed British Sterling pounds to buy British goods, while the D-marks used to buy German goods.
This is the protocol observed when a US dollar wants to buy anything from the European Union (EU). The US dollar first has to be changed into a Euro.
However for most developing countries the US dollar directly purchases their commodities without necessarily purchasing the national currency of those commodities first to buy the commodities. This is know as the "exorbitant privilege".
This naturally undermine Adam Smith's Supply and Demand Doctrine and the true value of the US dollar.
This distortion of the US dollar value is further noted in the International Monetary Fund (IMF) fixed cross rates.
For example the IMF fixed cross rates on the 28th of May 2021 gave the exchange rate between the two trans-Atlantic nations as US$1 equal to £1.2284. When looking at the Euro the value of the US dollar and Sterling pound in Euro respectively is €0.91027 and €1.11826 giving a IMF fixed cross rate of 1.2284 which mimics the exchange rate of the two trans-Atlantic nations of the UK and USA.
The South African Rand shows a similar picture being ZAR17.4053 per US dollar, and ZAR21.3813 per British Sterling pound giving a cross rate when the two figures are divided of 1.2284. Similarly the North Korea Won with KPW165.848 per Sterling pound against KPW135 per US dollar gives a cross rate of 1.2284. South Korea gives a similar picture. KRW1,517.51 per Sterling pound against KRW1,235.32 per US dollar when divided together gives a cross rate of 1.2284. The Japanese Yen shows the same picture with JYP132.25 per Sterling pound and JYP107.65 per US dollar when divided together gives 1.2284. The Canadian dollar also shows the same image being CAD1.69181 per Sterling pound and CAD1.37721 per US dollar that gives a cross rate of 1.2284. The Indian Rupee at INR92.4590 per Sterling pound and INR75.2657 when divided gives 1.2284 which is the exchange rate between the US and UK.
Even the Chinese Renminbi at CNY8.9449 per Sterling pound against CNY7.15910 per US dollars gives a cross rate of 1.2284. Zambia with ZMK22.1715 per Sterling pound against ZMK17.925 per US dollar gives the same picture.
The question that arises from this is does North Korea have exactly in its money markets the same US dollar and Sterling liquidity to equal the cross rates as determined by the IMF? Does Zambia, Canada, Japan, South Korea, China, India to name a few countries have everyday day in and day out the same liquidity of Sterling pounds and US dollars in their money markets to justify the value given to the IMF fixed cross rates.
To create value free floating cross rates are needed whose value is actually based on existing currency liquidities within each country's money as a function of trade.
Such a condition existed as recounted by the IMF managing director Mr. M. Gutt at Harvard University on the 13th February 1948, when he presented a paper entitled The Practical Problem of Exchange Rates.
Then as Tew records, the official direct Sterling-US dollar rate ruling in Britain and the United States is one Sterling pound to US$4, but the Lira-Sterling and Lira-US dollar direct rates are such that the Sterling pound-US dollar cross-rate in Italy is one Sterling pound to US$2.6. (Tew Brain (1967) p.79)
Americans found it cheaper to purchase goods from the UK via Italy until the IMF stepped in and imposed the IMF fixed cross-rate system in favour of the UK and not Italy nor the US.
Therefore in a free floating cross rate system currency arbitrage would raise the amount of US dollars needed to buy US goods which in value terms would equally compete with China's cheap products.
The picture that emerges, for example, may see Zambia having trade surplus with Japan . This creates an exchange rate of ¥1,000 per K1 as Japan uses her Yen to purchase Kwachas, Zambia ’s national currency.
To this, Japan uses the purchased Kwachas to buy copper, against which Zambia accumulates Yen in its market as the Fund “[assists] in the establishment of a multilateral system of payments in respect of current transactions between members and in the elimination of foreign exchange restrictions which hampers the growth of world trade.” ((Articles of Agreement: Article I (iv) (2011))
Although the exchange rate in Zambia for the US dollar, based on Zambia' s market liquidity may be K8 per US dollar, in Japan it may well be ¥200 per US dollar as Japan trades more with United States of America than Zambia .
If a citizen in Zambia wanted to import an iphone X from the United States of America pegged at US$500, it would be cheaper to buy the iphone X via Japan , but this would in turn affect market liquidities in both the Zambia and Japan money markets and hence exchange rates as exchange arbitrage operations occur.
As the iphone X is valued at US$500 in Zambia in Kwacha terms based on its K8 per US dollar rate it would cost K4,000, but through Japan the cost of the iphone X would be ¥100,000 at ¥200 per US dollar, being through Zambia ’s Kwacha/Yen exchange rate at ¥1,000 per K1 be worth K100, which is equal in US dollars based on Zambia's US dollar/Kwacha exchange rate at US$12.50.
At US$12.50 for an iphone X, the United States of America would be on an equal footing to deal with another country called China with its cheap exports unless China’s cross-rates are lower in the countries China/ United States of America /Zambia exchange rate configurations.
It would then be a question of quality and finding the best value in currency arbitrage operations. The United States of America would still get its US$500 irrespective of the value step up or step down and the problem of external disequilibrium is addressed provided each country settled its exports in its national currencies.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
David Lentz Mar 28, 2021

This short article has engendered a lively discussion. The author did not mention the Triffin Dilemma although at least one commenter did. With reserve currency status, deficit spending is required and hence offshoring of some production of goods and services
So the reserve currency status although it gives one a printing press damages the health of the internal economy of production
It’s sort of like eating too much carbs it damages your endocrine system leading to metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes
Ancel Keys brought this about and gave science a bad reputation and created an epidemic of type 2 diabetes
And Harvard University supported it. Will Harvard be discredited
They are part of the elite don’t count on it
Where are the class action lawsuits as per type 2 diabetes and the FDA nutritional guidelines that destroyed American health

So don’t count on accountability for the American elite

But in any case the author’s analysis is incomplete and the USA not ready to give up sugar or the reserve currency
Haha
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
TS Low Mar 26, 2021

Forced transfers of IP, state support, etc. are non-negotiable for China. They are the payback for their “humiliation” recovery and the cost of doing business with their huge consumer market. That’s why there are no functional enforcement mechanisms to correct such behaviour and never will be.
- Robert Wolff Mar 26, 2021
  
  Exactement!
  
  Anahata:
  
  Interestingly, the Yogis of the Oriental Religions who meditated on the endocrine system and were able to control their body’s generation of neurotransmitters and other neurochemicals, identified Anahatta as the final resting place (Atman) of the “Soul”.
  
  The thymus (endocrine organ) they associated with Anahata (center of the breast) is the location of the Bindu chakra, the center for health which gives us the power for physical and mental recuperation and is the creator of T-Cells that attack intruding viruses (given we have no antibodies yet generated) which are our first defense against diseases that have invaded our physiological system.
  
  As the German philosopher Frederick Nietzsche explained, it was likely Saint Paul who identified this [chakra] center as the best center for Christians and associated it with Jesus as the “Healer” of Mankind.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Rodriguez Mar 25, 2021

Half the story. It is not just the US savings rate that leads to trade deficits. The goods and services made in China are primarily US companies which have outsourced the labor. Never more evident than with the outbreak of COVID, and our inability to provide the necessary PPE and pharmaceuticals. Trump was correctly forcing the return of that manufacturing and with it higher blue collar wages and therefore increased domestic savings from those jobs and wages. Our elites gave away productive capacity and the tax revenue that went with it. Nice little formula - middle income family in Ohio doesn't save enough, so it's their fault we run deficits. Deficits are from the criminality in DC.....saving money comes from wages and income - much of it lost thanks to elites sending those jobs to China. THAT is what must be addressed, and be reversed.
- Robert Wolff Mar 27, 2021
  
  Second that motion.
  
  The value of duplicating the functions of the human brain on computers has led to the power dominance of private companies in America and the government in China.
  
  Whoever owns and controls AI (US private corporations and Chinese governmental authorities) is able to control their own human populations for their own benefits.
  
  The question of who should own and control this power over their subordinates is answered differently by Chinese and Americans. Who do you trust? The question is, after the competition is complete and the winner decided, who will the ideological winner be?
  
  Or will the outcome be as George Soros has predicted in his philosophy of 'Reflexivity'?
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Susan Robinson Mar 25, 2021

All countries can co-exist.
In fact, all countries have to co-exist given that there are many races, cultures, languages, religions in the world. We should be celebrating the diversity of all the races, cultures, languages, religions in the world.

This is not a war and it must not be a war with cynical rhetoric. This is a multilateral world governed by UN Charter, so all countries (and their systems of governments) should co-exist mutually and peacefully and all countries are protected by UN Charter.

Any countries that attack/invade illegally (like US/NATO attacking Iraq, Libya, etc. which are war crimes) must be brought to justice to uphold the rule of law.

The 3 sources of long-term economic growth are physical capital, human capital, and technological progress, so encouraging and facilitating these 3 sources are a high priority.

We need to appreciate these determined efforts to end poverty and hunger to ensure that people can fulfil their potential through sustainable consumption and production, managing the natural resources sustainably so that we can support the needs of the present and future generations, ensuring that people can enjoy prosperous and fulfilling lives and that economic, social and technological progress occurs to bring shared prosperity.

Even at the best of times, economic developments, infrastructure building, human capital developments can be very difficult let alone in countries inflicted with violence/chaos or being undermined by others constantly.

No one will invest in a business if rioting mobs are destroying it. So we do need peace and stability to create certainty and confidence that will encourage investments, human capital developments, jobs creation to help to eradicate poverty and hunger, expanding the richness of human life in shared prosperity.

We also cannot ignore inequality between countries, within countries and between women and men if we truly want to eradicate poverty and hunger.
Moreover, there is enormous pressure of poverty-stricken people trying to escape poverty/hunger by moving to other countries/places creating severe problems (illegal immigrants, people trafficking, poverty/hunger pushing people to steal, commit crimes, child prostitution and all kinds of problems just trying to get food to survive…)

Why global trade?
The key is opportunity cost, specialization and trade that will make larger quantities of goods and services available to consumers, so we’ve more of more (and most) goods/services available which, on balance, will deliver more advantages than costs—lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty and benefiting consumers in countries rich and poor.

There are several billions people in the world, so it is practically impossible for everyone to have the same opportunity cost. As long as people have different opportunity costs, then everyone has a comparative advantage in something, and everyone has a comparative disadvantage in something, so there are many opportunities for people to specialize (based on individual’s respective lower opportunity cost) and then trade among themselves so that everyone is better off from trade.

The objective of economic policy is to improve the long-run well-being of all of the people especially poverty-stricken people to lift them out of poverty.

Global trade allows different countries to take advantage of their respective comparative advantage (a country's ability to produce a particular good or service at a lower opportunity cost than its trading partners bearing in mind that opportunity cost is the true cost of doing something) and then, by trading these goods/services among themselves, every trading partner is better off.

Indeed, knowing that there are gains from trade with increase of consumer surplus and producer surplus (the pie grows bigger and bigger) that make the trade-participating countries better off, all countries need to work cooperatively to achieve win-win outcomes, but there are some people (far too many) adopting antagonistic approach to scuttle these efforts to achieve win-win outcomes.

In the last few years, President Trump’s unilateralism and destructive behaviors have deliberately weakened the rules-based, multilateral trading system, making the WTO’s Appellate Body dysfunctional (refusal to approve new judges to fill vacancies), imposing illegal sanctions, etc.

Hence US (new President) and leaders of other countries must begin to address the systemic and underlying trade issues as soon as possible—for the good of the world as well as for individual affected countries rich and poor – through negotiations.

With market-economy reforms fuelling China economic growth, there will be more and more opportunities being created making China an economic engine complementing the US economic engine and this is a good thing as we’ve 2 big economic engines powering the global economy, enhancing global economic stability, creating opportunities for countries around the world to take advantage of these opportunities to trade among themselves based on individual country’s comparative advantage that will make every trade-participating country better off…

Given the large size of US economy (GDP 21 trillions USD) and China economy (GDP 14 trillions USD, this GDP is even bigger in purchasing power parity term), the US economic cycle is likely not the same as economic cycle in China, this is important as the complementarity of these 2 large economies will smooth out the overall global economy, avoiding extreme economic ups/downs (like global recessions).

If the Eurozone is able to overcome their difficulty and achieve good growth, the Eurozone will be the 3rd big economic engine powering the global economy which is even better as we’ll have 3 big economic engines driving the global economy (Ideally, Eurozone should have fiscal union but the rich Eurozone countries resent subsidizing poorer Eurozone members with high unemployment and government-debts. Without fiscal union, the Eurozone continues to face inherent risk and difficulty)…

India (population 1.4 billion, per capita GDP = 2000 USD), Indonesia (population 273 million, per capita GDP = 3900 USD), Nigeria (population 214 million, per capita GDP = 2000 USD), Brazil (population 212 million, per capita GDP = 8900 USD) also have large populations with very low per capita GDP, they also have a lot of room and potential for further GDP growth. If these countries can carry out the necessary reforms, embark on sustainable economic developments, build infrastructure, develop human capital, create jobs to lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty (with help of global trade), these countries will be the additional engines driving the global economy further complementing the 3 engines (US, EU and China) to smooth out the overall global economy

We need all countries to work cooperatively to accomplish win-win outcome, unilateralism and bullying will not work.

All countries should have good relationship with one another to create peace and stability to allow all countries to develop, to eradicate poverty and hunger, create wealth (growing the pie bigger) and to bring shared prosperity to the people.

So, indeed, there are many global problems (climate change, etc.) that need all countries accepting and respecting each other's system of government, and focus on cooperation and areas of global agreement that can be reached.

People must be objective, understanding and assessing things/issues based on facts.

Poverty is a serious problem in many countries (including US having problem of inequality, racism and poverty, among others).

After 42 years of economic developments, building infrastructure and developing human capital, China has a lot of experience/ knowledge to share and help other countries fighting poverty and this should be welcomed as there are more than 700 millions people in the world still live in poverty, so we cannot be complacent to fight and eliminate poverty around the world.

BRI is part of the initiatives to help to fight poverty in many countries in Asia and elsewhere (remember there are more than 700 millions people in the world still live in poverty and I hope everyone agrees that these 700+ millions people have every right to lift themselves out of poverty, so we cannot be complacent.)

With international cooperation and global efforts to combat poverty worldwide, we can look forward to the day when poverty is eliminated sooner rather than later.

There are many races, many cultures and many languages in the world, so it is important for all these peoples to co-exist peacefully (we do not want wars let alone nuke war) whilst not imposing one's own values/systems on others and not interfering internal affairs of other countries.

This is a multilateral world governed by UN Charter, so all countries (and their systems of governments) should co-exist mutually and peacefully and all countries are protected by UN Charter.

Any countries that attack/invade illegally (like US/NATO attacking Iraq, Libya, etc. which are war crimes) must be brought to justice to uphold the rule of law.

We need all countries to work cooperatively to accomplish peace and prosperity, unilateralism and bullying will not work.

All countries (and their systems of governments) can co-exist mutually without interfering internal affairs of another countries and they can work cooperatively to resolve their differences to accomplish peace and prosperity.

Given the global challenges that all countries are facing (combating terrorism, avoiding wars (including nuclear war); ending poverty, reducing economic inequality, cooperating to stave off the catastrophic consequences of climate change, etc. —all countries must cooperate and work together to create a better world in these respects. The ideal way to work together is not to increase tensions with one another but to increase global cooperation to find common interests with realism and idealism to achieve common goals that will lead to a better and healthier world.

For CO2 emissions, here are CO2 emissions (in tons per capita) for some countries:
Australia = 16.8, US = 16.1, Canada =16.1, South Korea = 13.6, Russia =12.1, Japan = 9.4, China = 8.0

For RE (Renewable Energy), here are some data:
United States: Total electricity = 4,322,038 GWh, Total RE = 637,076 GWh, RE % of total = 14.7%
Japan: Total electricity = 1,057,976 GWh, Total RE = 158,822 GWh, RE % of total = 15.0%
China: Total electricity = 7,142,200 GWh, Total RE = 1,739,400 GWh, RE % of total = 24.35%
Germany: Total electricity = 514,860 GWh, Total RE = 237,610 GWh, RE % of total = 46.2%
India: Total electricity = 1,550,564 GWh, Total RE = 261,790 GWh, RE % of total = 16.88%
Australia: Total electricity = 256,563 GWh, Total RE = 37,205 GWh, RE % of total = 14.5%
Canada: Total electricity = 667,438 GWh, Total RE = 433,597 GWh, RE % of total = 65.0%
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Robert Wolff Mar 25, 2021

A New Conspiracy Theory You Might Like:

Autocratic Rulers understand one thing: that people are just ‘Black Boxes”. The profession of AI (Artificial Intelligence) is to determine what is in that Black Box and exploit it to serve your own interests.

Human behavior is predictable because it repeats itself. A full set of descriptions of stimulus/response can be defined for each individual, given a sufficient number of Black Box tests of applying stimuli and recording the responses of each individual to various stimuli.

The set of matched stimuli/responses can be recorded and used to predict each individual’s behavior, which gives you control over them. You end up knowing which stimulus to apply to gain your desired response.

Military HUMINT is the historical precursor to corporate AI: it analyzes each enemy leader (especially each Military Leader) to determine their likely response to a specific stimulus and creates COA’s (courses of action) to subvert the intended aims of their predictable behavior to “fool” them to react to your contrived COA, unexpected by them, to respond IAW your knowledge of their programmed past responses to disserve their own interest and serve your own (“winning”) interest.

The analysis of the ‘Enemy’s’ behavior through black box analysis of applying a stimulus and recording their response (and its conclusions which give you information as to how to “fool” them to disserve their own interests and serve your own) is “Actionable Intelligence”, i.e. information you can rely upon to act to make your enemy behave in a manner that serves your own interests and disserves their own.

Corporate (Hi-Tech) dominance and control over the responses of their “Black Box” customers is nothing other than an adaption of Military Intelligence methodology to marketing their products to the general population.

The difficulty in applying this Method to the Chinese is that they are likely better at MI and AI than Americans, and therefore more suspecting of subversive behavior by Americans (since they were duped by Western Colonial powers during their ‘Century of Shame’) are able to decisively serve their own interests rather than being fooled into serving American interests.

The “Twisted Belief” of US capitalists that serving their own interests (outsourcing American capital and technology and production operations to China for higher profits than domestic operations could provide) would serve American National interests, ala the philosophy of Capitalism, given the Nixon-Kissinger China Policy, fell into the grasp of the advanced strategic thought of the Chinese to use the greed of US Capitalism to defeat the American Nation by luring US capitalists into a China Policy that served the interests of China (and greedy US capitalists) but subsequently/consequently undermined the economy and strength and social solidarity of the American nation/people while primarily serving Chinese interests.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Clair T Mar 24, 2021

Blaming China for the multilateral trade deficit caused by so many economic problems at home is absolutely absurd to even someone with limited economic literacy. I don't believe the US elites are unaware of it. It just served as a convenient measure among others to contain China.
- Robert Wolff Mar 26, 2021
  
  The best thing that can happen to America is the rise of the power of the Yuan. The power of the dollar has created the Triffin Dilemma, which has made the US financial industry the leader and subjugator of the American people (as Nikita Khrushchev said, "David Rockefeller is the leader of the American people")
  
  The US elites are certainly not unaware that it is the power of the dollar internationally that has made them the autocrats of America and allowed them to control the American people with their control over the international money system.
  
  Donald Trump was probably the worst President America ever had, but he understood the above quite well. He just didn't have the strategic intelligence or popular influence among the Elites to change the American System to serve all Americans. The US Banking Establishment is so strong it controls the US Congress and the American people despite significant moral ideological conflicts with its democratic opposition.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Public Mar 24, 2021

I think both sides are going for this because it suits their realpolitik to do so. In the case of the US, that is continued spending of every spare cent on the military. In the case of China, it suits them as a multi-people empire to have a powerful common enemy as it is the only reason to justify the continuation of the Han rulership over the others.
- Robert Wolff Mar 24, 2021
  
  "98% of the solution is defining the problem correctly."
  
  America's biggest problem with China is (and will continue to be) that Americans can achieve no consensus on the definition of their problem with China, due to ideological polarization in America among economic classes, races, religions and genders.
  
  The US has [only] a Military Plan to contain China, but no consensual US Economic Plan to maintain American economic power to stop the ultimate rise of China to world power over US ideologically, economically and ultimately militarily.
  
  The carefully laid out and executed 70 years of consecutive Chinese 5-Year Plans for economic superiority over the US by 2050 has no equivalent counterpart in a US Economic Plan to keep the Chinese Plan from succeeding.
  
  As Xi Jinping said, “There is no such thing as the so-called Thucydides Trap. “But should major countries time and again make the mistake of strategic miscalculation, they might create such traps for themselves.”
  - Robert Wolff Mar 24, 2021
    
    A little further down the road to Peace with China would be the discussion of the reasoning behind "Cancel Culture" in America. Its aim is to destroy icons associated with Annihilationism as the solution to Intertribal Competition.
    
    The ultimate goal of "Cancel Culture" is to recognize Rationalism as the only means to peace among ancient tribal cultures. In a World wherein tribal cultures/nations are mutually armed with WMD's, the concept of Annihilationism as the answer to intertribal competition (e.g. the Revelation of Jesus Christ by Saint John the Baptist on the Isle of Patmos that describes the annihilation of all the 'Bad People' as God and all his 'Good Followers' win rule of the Earth and the Heavens) is defunct as a modern solution to international competition.
    
    A return to the school of philosophical Modernism (Rationalism) from Post-Modernism (that there are no values, only no-holds-barred competition for power and that the only possible solution to international competition is for one nation to prevail over all others, as the US did in WWII and subsequently monitored and controlled all international competition for six decades under Pax Americana).
    
    Given that military powers consolidated under disparate nations/cultures/autocracies have equal Nuclear/WMD destructive powers to preclude loss of sovereignty over their territorial/cultural/political rule, the only possible survivable future for the Human Species (and the Ecology of Earth and the other Animals) is the subscription to Modernism/Rationalism and successful International Relations through Conflict Management (originally detailed in methodology by the rationalist philosopher Max Weber which was required reading by American Foreign Service and State Department leaders prior to the Trump Era.)
    
    A return to Modernism from the Post-Modern Era of the Trump Administration which supported no other national values than "Winning" (a reversion to the philosophical period of Romanticism of Nazi and Soviet Communist annihilationism of their enemies) is [mandatory] propitious for world peace and harmony.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Robert Wolff Mar 23, 2021

Americans don't understand the impact of the sacrifice of Chinese lives, 15M in WWII and up to 80M under Mao's disastrous policies, in making the Chinese very tough in refusing to comply with American trade and foreign policy. The American ideal under the Nixon-Kissinger China Plan that China would become a Capitalist Democracy seems absurd in retrospect. The Chinese suffered too much under the 100 Years of Humiliation by Western colonial powers and sacrificed too much to obtain their current independence and return to the nationalistic success of the Middle Kingdom of the Hans.

The idea that America has any influence over Chinese policies regarding trade, humanitarianism or China's military buildup, or that the West has any right to head off the rise of an independent and rapidly modernizing China is another error of 'American Exceptionalism' (that America is not subject to the criticisms which are validly made against other world nations).

The recent accusatory confrontation between Chinese and US diplomats in Alaska speaks for itself.

An America in decline politically, socially and economically has even less power to criticize China: "Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." — Matthew 7:1–5
- Godfree Roberts Mar 23, 2021
  
  Your criticisms of American policy are spot on, but 80M deaths under Mao's disastrous policies has no basis in fact.
  
  Between 1951 and 1974, Mao
  * ended death from starvation
  * doubled China’s population from 542 million to 956 million
  * doubled life expectancy
  * doubled caloric intake
  * quintupled GDP
  * quadrupled literacy
  * increased grain production three hundred percent
  * increased gross industrial output forty-fold
  * increased heavy industry ninety-fold.
  * increased rail lineage 266 percent
  * increased passenger train traffic from 102,970,000 to 814,910,000.
  * increased rail freight tonnage two thousand percent
  * increased the road network one thousand percent.
  * increased steel production from zero to thirty-five MMT/year
  * increased industry’s contribution to China’s net material product from twenty-three percent to fifty-four percent.
  * Put satellites into orbit
  * Developed the atomic bomb and the hydrogen bomb faster than anyone in history
  * Left China debt-free and independent.
  - Robert Wolff Mar 23, 2021
    
    There is no "basis in fact" about the number of Chinese lives lost due to Mao's cultural revolution and killing of landowners, because the Chinese have made no official study and statement of the facts. The estimates of academicians ranges from 30M to 80M.
    
    Nevertheless, my statement that the Chinese suffered death and humiliation in the past and that the impact of their past motivates their current nationalism doesn't change (it is qualitative and politically true) -- i.e. they are rising, have sacrificed a lot for their right to rise, and do not want to repeat the past (a tremendous motivator). The political power of the CPC rests a lot upon this presupposition.
    
    I would equate the political motivation of the Chinese CPC to the American propaganda that "Many brave Americans gave up their lives to secure the Freedom and Sovereignty of the nation, from the American Revolution against the British to the American Civil War to WWI/WWII and more recent American wars in Vietnam and SWA (Southwest Asia).
    
    I.e., we have already sacrificed too much for this moment to give up our drive for sovereignty and power and dominance in our future.
    - Godfree Roberts Mar 24, 2021
      
      Since Western attacks on China began 200 years ago, China has been vilified in every imaginable way.
      
      Had the current government attempted to dispute the Niagara of nonsense that has been poured on its head it would never have made the progress that it undoubtedly has.
      
      However, I have thoroughly investigated Western allegations about the cultural revolution and the killing of landowners (and many other charges) and find them to be without merit.
      
      You can read my findings in 'Why China Leads the World: Talent at the Top, Data in the Middle, Democracy at the Bottom,' at bookstores everywhere and online.
      - Robert Wolff Mar 24, 2021
        
        This is a war. The winners will be the best armed, as always. Ultimately the winners of this war will totally humiliate and then disarm the opposition, which is the only way to permanently Win the Peace.
        
        But we don’t know who the winners are yet, because both sides are still armed.
        
        If the losers already know who they are then they should unilaterally disarm, immediately!
        
        Robert Wolff Mar 24, 2021
        
        https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3124591/chinas-military-must-spend-more-meet-us-war-threat
        
        P.S. Your book is excellent, and I totally agree the US has been "fairly outdone" by China. But the Thucydides Trap is also a reality, and the US is not a nation that can be "fairly outdone". We must also be militarily outdone in order to capitulate.
        
        TS Low Mar 26, 2021
        
        The US doesn’t need to capitulate nor even lose in the military sphere. China only needs to overtake the US in key economic and diplomatic areas whereby only outrageous US aggression is able to counter, thereby losing both internal and allied moral authority, like what happened to the British and French in Suez and Algeria and India. Hegemony just slips away...
        
        Robert Wolff Mar 26, 2021
        
        Also true. Unfortunately the structure of the American System is not oriented towards internal improvement, but towards subverting the internal improvement of China that could lead it to besting the US economically, and eventually militarily (military dominance is ultimately subservient to economic dominance).
        
        john boveri Mar 29, 2021
        
        I believe said it best and simply in his press conference -- it is democracy vs autocracy. For democracy to prevail we will need to reverse the trade deficit for a start.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
      A new reply to this comment has been posted.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/YVlyuRiru

Заданная предвзятость в отношении Китая

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

New Comment

Contact us

Log in/Register

Заданная предвзятость в отношении Китая

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification