More tariffs paid by US consumers

[Dill]

(06-10-2019, 10:52 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Trump deserves a lot of criticism for a lot of things, his stance on China is not one of them.  China has been growing at our expense for decades, I am thrilled that we are finally addressing this.  The Chinese have far more to lose in a trade war than we do, what they count on to keep things as is is the lack of long term strategy inherent in our democratic system and public sentiment turning against tariffs when people have to pay a $1 more for their cheap shit at Walmart.  China is not our friend, or anyone else's, and we need to be acting accordingly.  This is a good move on Trump's part and I hope whoever is POTUS for the next five years stays the course on this.

Two questions:

Was busting out of the TPP a good move? 

Can China be managed unilaterally?

[Belsnickel]

(06-10-2019, 11:21 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: How would you approach it differently?

In all seriousness, since geopoliticial trade strategy isn't my expertise, I don't know for certain. What I would like to know is what is Trump's goal with the tariffs? What defined goals have been put in place that are firm and not shifting?

[*bfine32*]

(06-10-2019, 01:53 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The post doesn't directly mention Mexico. We can infer that the post is referring to the deal worked out with Mexico, but the update doesn't change the OP's criticism of the tariff policy. Mentioning that the deal didn't end all tariffs isn't whataboutism. No "informal rules" that you have to keep track of.

Just stop it; everybody knows he was talking about Mexico as he mentioned it the prior post. These things work better when we are intellectually honest.

Dude obviously wondered why no one commented on Mexico being a success

A reply was What about China?

In my book that's "whataboutisim" or more correctly worded a  variant of The Appeal to Hypocrisy Fallacy. The variance being the intention of the reply was to slur the subject and not the messenger.   It was used to deflect from the success with Mexico

I shouldn't have said informal rules I should have said fluid.

WTS, I think "whataboutisim" can be used as long as it's intention is not to deflect from the point and it's a term I would only use in a facetious/ mocking manner.

Also I've derailed from the subject and for that I apologize. It appears Mexico is glad we didn't impose the tariffs and they appear to finally be acting on earlier promises because of them. As to China: Lets hope they bare similar fruit, instead of using them as a "whatabout".

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-10-2019, 02:57 PM)Dill Wrote: Two questions:

Was busting out of the TPP a good move?

The objections to the TPP were very bipartisan if I recall correctly.  It's been awhile so I don't recall specific issues, but, again if memory serves, there was a lot of concern about further job loss to low wage nations and inadequate copyright protection for US businesses. 

Quote:Can China be managed unilaterally?

BY the US, yes.  Of course, it would be much easier to have outside support, and in some areas, such as Huawei, there is multilateral support.  The simplest way to put it is that China needs the US, the US does not need China.  Please note I say need in the strictest sense, not implying that there would be no economic pain associated with a major trade dispute.  The problem with multilateralism right now is that Russia is on board with China to stick a thumb in our eye.  Europe is fast becoming financially dependent on China and Australia is having not insignificant concerns with a perceived infiltration of their nations governance by China.  Put simply, the US is the only nation in a position to put China in their place.  China has grown at the expense of other nations, they have never played fair.  They are also not a benevolent nation and I see them as a thousand fold greater threat to the free world than Russia.  We've had numerous administrations, both Dem and GOP, kick the can down the road on the China issue as no one wanted to be responsible for the possible recession that could ensue from actually calling them onto the carpet.  Trump, for all his faults, does not appear to be concerned by this.

(06-10-2019, 03:11 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: In all seriousness, since geopoliticial trade strategy isn't my expertise, I don't know for certain. What I would like to know is what is Trump's goal with the tariffs? What defined goals have been put in place that are firm and not shifting?

In a nutshell I'd think it would be for them to play on fair terms.  Our relationship, trade wise, is immensely one sided.  They also have been plundering US IP for decades without any consequence of note.  They are a less openly belligerent USSR and I have no doubt that their long term goals are not remotely peaceful.

[Benton]

(06-10-2019, 03:11 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: In all seriousness, since geopoliticial trade strategy isn't my expertise, I don't know for certain. What I would like to know is what is Trump's goal with the tariffs? What defined goals have been put in place that are firm and not shifting?

(06-10-2019, 04:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: In a nutshell I'd think it would be for them to play on fair terms.  Our relationship, trade wise, is immensely one sided.  They also have been plundering US IP for decades without any consequence of note.  

Yup, on both counts.

I'm no fan of corporations, but, according to CBNC, 1 in 5 report having their IP stolen by a Chinese company within the last year. 

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/28/1-in-5-companies-say-china-stole-their-ip-within-the-last-year-cnbc.html

We let China slide with a lot in hopes of keeping peace in the east, but it's gotten ridiculous. 

[Belsnickel]

(06-10-2019, 03:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Just stop it; everybody knows he was talking about Mexico as he mentioned it the prior post. These things work better when we are intellectually honest.

Dude obviously wondered why no one commented on Mexico being a success

A reply was What about China?

In my book that's "whataboutisim" or more correctly worded a  variant of The Appeal to Hypocrisy Fallacy. The variance being the intention of the reply was to slur the subject and not the messenger.   It was used to deflect from the success with Mexico

I shouldn't have said informal rules I should have said fluid.

Since the thread was a general discussion about the tariffs in place, using the potential Mexican tariffs as a launching point for the discussion, and since the post was commenting on the thread not being updated, I was simply pointing out how the recent news does not change the issue the thread was discussing.

(06-10-2019, 03:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: WTS, I think "whataboutisim" can be used as long as it's intention is not to deflect from the point and it's a term I would only use in a facetious/ mocking manner.

So what you're saying is that when you use the term you are mocking others, a behavior that very well could be perceived as trolling with the intent to instigate, a violation of the CoC.

Next time there is bitching about enforcement of the rules around here, keep in mind that you skirt by them on the regular.

(06-10-2019, 04:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: In a nutshell I'd think it would be for them to play on fair terms.  Our relationship, trade wise, is immensely one sided.  They also have been plundering US IP for decades without any consequence of note.  They are a less openly belligerent USSR and I have no doubt that their long term goals are not remotely peaceful.

I think that there needs to be more strategy in these actions. There was an article a year ago out of Brookings talking about how much Trump was moving the goalposts in the threats and the back and forth. This caused difficulty in getting usual allied countries to buy in to the effort, which is truly needed for a significant, lasting effect.

[BmorePat87]

(06-10-2019, 03:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Just stop it; everybody knows he was talking about Mexico as he mentioned it the prior post. These things work better when we are intellectually honest.

Dude obviously wondered why no one commented on Mexico being a success

A reply was What about China?

In my book that's "whataboutisim" or more correctly worded a  variant of The Appeal to Hypocrisy Fallacy. The variance being the intention of the reply was to slur the subject and not the messenger.   It was used to deflect from the success with Mexico

I shouldn't have said informal rules I should have said fluid.

WTS, I think "whataboutisim" can be used as long as it's intention is not to deflect from the point and it's a term I would only use in a facetious/ mocking manner.

Also I've derailed from the subject and for that I apologize.  It appears Mexico is glad we didn't impose the tariffs and they appear to finally be acting on earlier promises because of them. As to China: Lets hope they bare similar fruit, instead of using them as a "whatabout".

Just stop it indeed. Everyone knows it wasn't whataboutism. Be intellectually honest. For once. 

[*bfine32*]

(06-10-2019, 04:34 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Since the thread was a general discussion about the tariffs in place, using the potential Mexican tariffs as a launching point for the discussion, and since the post was commenting on the thread not being updated, I was simply pointing out how the recent news does not change the issue the thread was discussing.


So what you're saying is that when you use the term you are mocking others, a behavior that very well could be perceived as trolling with the intent to instigate, a violation of the CoC.

Next time there is bitching about enforcement of the rules around here, keep in mind that you skirt by them on the regular.

I use it as a mocking term because that's is what I am doing I am mocking a term I don't use but often see used in the Forum. I thought I explained that. I would provide a definition for mock "to mimic", but why bother.

I've already asked Pat to be intellectually honest and I'll ask the same of you. Do you think there is any doubt why the guys asked: Why hasn't this thread been updated? Especially after a post where he points to the good the threat of tariff did.

If either both of you do not truly believe dude was referring to the Mexico situation in his  post and was just wondering in general then I apologize; however, if you don't it is textbook "whataboutery".

You would further have to explain why you linked a 4 month old article about the negative effects of the Chinese Tariffs a general "update"

But we're getting nowhere.

Not bitching but it's like Kid Rock says:
"People poke fun and that's alright, but when I start poking back they get all uptight"

[*bfine32*]

(06-10-2019, 04:50 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Just stop it indeed. Everyone knows it wasn't whataboutism. Be intellectually honest. For once. 

2funny. You are now everybody. The purpose of the post was "Ok, Mexico might be a good think, but what about this..."

Do you think there was 0 doubt dude was referring to the Mexico situation?

[BmorePat87]

(06-10-2019, 05:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 2funny. You are now everybody.

Do you think there was 0 doubt dude was referring to the Mexico situation?

You can go back to my explanation of how this was in no way whatsboutism to find that this rhetorical question is irrelevant and was addressed. 

[*bfine32*]

(06-10-2019, 05:12 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You can go back to my explanation of how this was in no way whatsboutism to find that this rhetorical question is irrelevant and was addressed. 

I understand why you don't want to directly answer the question, disappointed as I expected you to be more forthright, but understood.

On to the next subject.

[BmorePat87]

(06-10-2019, 05:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I understand why you don't want to directly answer the question, disappointed as I expected you to be more forthright, but understood.

On to the next subject.

LOL

[*bfine32*]

Looks like Mexico might be balking a little bit:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-renews-mexico-tariff-threat-amid-row-over-175820332.html

Quote:Under the deal, Mexico agreed to bolster security on its southern border and expand its policy of taking back asylum-seekers as the United States processes their claims.

Ebrard said Friday that the promised deployment of 6,000 officers from Mexico's newly created National Guard to the southern border would begin Monday.

However, he appeared to backtrack Monday, saying the deployment would happen "as quickly as possible."

There was no sign of a new deployment in Tapachula, the entry point for the large caravans that have crossed Mexico in recent months, AFP correspondents said.

I do agree with Mexico's assertion that an agreement should be broader in scope

[Dill]

(06-10-2019, 04:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The objections to the TPP were very bipartisan if I recall correctly.  It's been awhile so I don't recall specific issues, but, again if memory serves, there was a lot of concern about further job loss to low wage nations and inadequate copyright protection for US businesses. 

There were bipartisan concerns, certainly.  E.g., the US wanted stronger digital copyrights than our partners, who felt this would stifle innovation (e.g. control 70 years after an author's death). I agree with our partners on most of that. The other major concern was that the U.S. would lose some thousands of manufacturing jobs in the first few years. I can't disagree with that, but it would be balanced by improving the US trade deficit. Now that the US is shut out the final form of the TPP, The Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership, that means that Australia, Canada and Mexico are selling beef and wheat to Japan's massive market, not to mention South Korea and Taiwan. The US would have lost jobs, now it will likely lose businesses in the agricultural sector. Trump has expressed a willingness to rejoin the CPTPP "if the deal is right," but it will clearly be on terms set by those who current own the deal.

I brought up the TPP because 1) China was not in it, and 2) in its current incarnation, even without the US, it controls 13% of the global gdp--an economy roughly the size of China's, whose constitutive members could work effectively to curb Chinese economic malpractice/dominance. I.e., it would be another effective counterweight to China. Were the US able to get the EU, NAFTA and the CPTPP all coordinated and setting conditions on Chinese trade, that would have tremendous effect. China would not want that, but they don't have to worry about since Trump took the US out of the TPP and is throwing steel. tariffs at the EU, many of whose members the president has called "deadbeats" and are looking for ways to become less reliant economically and military on the US. Chinese sell steel too, as the EU countries well know.

US papers may be full of bluster between Trump and Xi, but I don't see a high probability that any good will come from a unilaterally instigated tariff war which puts "losing face" front and center, and so could tank both the US and Chinese economies.  I also think the Chinese consumers would weather a trade-war/recession/depression much better than whiny 4th generation American consumers. And Xi won't have to stand for re-election as Trump will soon.

Potential trade partners won't see the US as "the only guy who can stand up to China." Rather they will worry about how a recession/depression would drag their economies down and look for individual or collective buttress against that. For the first time since 1945, international leadership will have to come from another country, or perhaps a coalition thereof, if China is to be effectively discouraged from bad behavior and continue its integration into the world economy.  More in my next post . . .

[Dill]

(06-10-2019, 04:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: BY the US, yes.  Of course, it would be much easier to have outside support, and in some areas, such as Huawei, there is multilateral support.  The simplest way to put it is that China needs the US, the US does not need China.  Please note I say need in the strictest sense, not implying that there would be no economic pain associated with a major trade dispute.  The problem with multilateralism right now is that Russia is on board with China to stick a thumb in our eye.  Europe is fast becoming financially dependent on China and Australia is having not insignificant concerns with a perceived infiltration of their nations governance by China.  Put simply, the US is the only nation in a position to put China in their place.  China has grown at the expense of other nations, they have never played fair.  They are also not a benevolent nation and I see them as a thousand fold greater threat to the free world than Russia.  We've had numerous administrations, both Dem and GOP, kick the can down the road on the China issue as no one wanted to be responsible for the possible recession that could ensue from actually calling them onto the carpet.  Trump, for all his faults, does not appear to be concerned by this.

I would dispute some of your characterization of China. Chinese, thinking of how they were violently colonized in the 19th century, could rightfully ask "when has 'the West' ever played fair with China?"  And they could point out how other nations have grown at their expense for 200 years, including the many corporations who still find beneficial the cheapness of Chinese labor.

The US seems to be needlessly strengthening Europe's ties to the Chinese economy, while needlessly stressing out its ties to ours. The US was, in 2016, the only nation that could have orchestrated the world economy to consistently reward China for good behavior and punish it for bad, but Trump appears to have trashed that opportunity by trashing alliance networks in favor of unilateral foreign policy with individual nations. His negotiating style is not recommended by his business record--the many bankruptcies and eventual refusal of US banks to loan him money--and I think that a global version of that is where the US is headed at present.

While I find warnings about the China threat laughable when formulated "Committee-on-the-present-danger" style, I agree it is a the potential superpower competitor/adversay with a political system incompatable with ours, as well as with current international norms. At the same time, though, many have come to regard them as a good world citizen, insofar as they have taken seriously UN obligations (rather than just taking advantage of the UN) and extended a great deal of aid to developing countries, greatly enhancing their soft power at the moment the US is pulling back from its once-held advantage in that area. They may be playing a better long game.

The assumption that integration into the world market would liberalize their government seems to have fallen short of expectation, but that doesn't mean that concerted diplomacy of many nations could not exact better behavior from them. 

Here is some reading you might like.  David Shambaugh is one of the US' foremost experts on China, and he makes the case that China is in an economic decline which the party cannot likely manage. He build's a case around China's "middle income trap" (which erodes China's comparative advantage in cheap labor) and assesses four possible future directions for the government/economy. He might agree with you that the US could weather a trade war better than China. (I don't agree, though).  http://www.iberchina.org/files/2016/TWQ_Fall2016_Shambaugh.pdf

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-10-2019, 10:52 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Trump deserves a lot of criticism for a lot of things, his stance on China is not one of them.  China has been growing at our expense for decades, I am thrilled that we are finally addressing this.  The Chinese have far more to lose in a trade war than we do, what they count on to keep things as is is the lack of long term strategy inherent in our democratic system and public sentiment turning against tariffs when people have to pay a $1 more for their cheap shit at Walmart.  China is not our friend, or anyone else's, and we need to be acting accordingly.  This is a good move on Trump's part and I hope whoever is POTUS for the next five years stays the course on this.

It is my understanding Trump inacted the tariffs on Chinese imports to combat a trade deficit. We have a trade deficit with China because we import more goods from China than we export. The reason we import more than we export is because corporations have moved the manufacturing jobs overseas. So how are Trump's tariffs on Chinese imports going to create manufacturing jobs in the US to reverse the US' trade deficit with China?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-10-2019, 09:57 PM)Dill Wrote: There were bipartisan concerns, certainly.  E.g., the US wanted stronger digital copyrights than our partners, who felt this would stifle innovation (e.g. control 70 years after an author's death). I agree with our partners on most of that. The other major concern was that the U.S. would lose some thousands of manufacturing jobs in the first few years. I can't disagree with that, but it would be balanced by improving the US trade deficit. Now that the US is shut out the final form of the TPP, The Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership, that means that Australia, Canada and Mexico are selling beef and wheat to Japan's massive market, not to mention South Korea and Taiwan. The US would have lost jobs, now it will likely lose businesses in the agricultural sector. Trump has expressed a willingness to rejoin the CPTPP "if the deal is right," but it will clearly be on terms set by those who current own the deal.

That's a lot of words to essentially agree with my assessment.  As for your perception of the perceived benefits, much like the detriments, they are exactly that, perceived.  Saying either position is/was definitive is speculative at best.

Quote:I brought up the TPP because 1) China was not in it, and 2) in its current incarnation, even without the US, it controls 13% of the global gdp--an economy roughly the size of China's, whose constitutive members could work effectively to curb Chinese economic malpractice/dominance. I.e., it would be another effective counterweight to China. Were the US able to get the EU, NAFTA and the CPTPP all coordinated and setting conditions on Chinese trade, that would have tremendous effect. China would not want that, but they don't have to worry about since Trump took the US out of the TPP and is throwing steel. tariffs at the EU, many of whose members the president has called "deadbeats" and are looking for ways to become less reliant economically and military on the US. Chinese sell steel too, as the EU countries well know.

None of which omits the fact that China has its claws deep in Europe and Australia.  You also suppose the other TPP nations would go along with any action against China, a monstrous, and unfounded IMO, assumption.

Quote:US papers may be full of bluster between Trump and Xi, but I don't see a high probability that any good will come from a unilaterally instigated tariff war which puts "losing face" front and center, and so could tank both the US and Chinese economies.  I also think the Chinese consumers would weather a trade-war/recession/depression much better than whiny 4th generation American consumers. And Xi won't have to stand for re-election as Trump will soon.

Correct Xi won't stand for election again, ever, because he's a despot of an autocratic nation that stands against every principle of free Western society.

Quote:Potential trade partners won't see the US as "the only guy who can stand up to China." Rather they will worry about how a recession/depression would drag their economies down and look for individual or collective buttress against that. For the first time since 1945, international leadership will have to come from another country, or perhaps a coalition thereof, if China is to be effectively discouraged from bad behavior and continue its integration into the world economy.  More in my next post . . .

You just did a perfect job of explaining why every previous administration has kicked the can down the road on this issue.  Moral cowardice is not a virtue, even when it avoids near term unpleasantness at the expense of the future.

(06-10-2019, 10:52 PM)Dill Wrote: I would dispute some of your characterization of China. Chinese, thinking of how they were violently colonized in the 19th century, could rightfully ask "when has 'the West' ever played fair with China?"  And they could point out how other nations have grown at their expense for 200 years, including the many corporations who still find beneficial the cheapness of Chinese labor.

Quite honestly, historical grievances mean absolutely nothing to me.  China's action in the present are unacceptable and I could give two shits what historical wrongs they choose to justify their current actions.

Quote:The US seems to be needlessly strengthening Europe's ties to the Chinese economy, while needlessly stressing out its ties to ours. The US was, in 2016, the only nation that could have orchestrated the world economy to consistently reward China for good behavior and punish it for bad, but Trump appears to have trashed that opportunity by trashing alliance networks in favor of unilateral foreign policy with individual nations.  His negotiating style is not recommended by his business record--the many bankruptcies and eventual refusal of US banks to loan him money--and I think that a global version of that is where the US is headed at present.

This is both intellectually dishonest and insanely overly simplistic.  To characterize any previous US action as holding China accountable for its consistent bad behavior, e.g IP theft, currency manipulation, straight up piracy and slave labor is inane.

Quote:While I find warnings about the China threat laughable when formulated "Committee-on-the-present-danger" style, I agree it is a the potential superpower competitor/adversay with a political system incompatable with ours, as well as with current international norms. At the same time, though, many have come to regard them as a good world citizen, insofar as they have taken seriously UN obligations (rather than just taking advantage of the UN) and extended a great deal of aid to developing countries, greatly enhancing their soft power at the moment the US is pulling back from its once-held advantage in that area. They may be playing a better long game.

You're the frog that gets stung by the scorpion and then wonders why it died.  Myopic shortsightedness is also not a virtue.

Quote:The assumption that integration into the world market would liberalize their government seems to have fallen short of expectation, but that doesn't mean that concerted diplomacy of many nations could not exact better behavior from them. 

Fallen short being an understatement of epic proportions.  I have to wonder why you strive so hard to defend such odious regimes/belief systems as communist China.

Quote:Here is some reading you might like.  David Shambaugh is one of the US' foremost experts on China, and he makes the case that China is in an economic decline which the party cannot likely manage. He build's a case around China's "middle income trap" (which erodes China's comparative advantage in cheap labor) and assesses four possible future directions for the government/economy. He might agree with you that the US could weather a trade war better than China. (I don't agree, though).  http://www.iberchina.org/files/2016/TWQ_Fall2016_Shambaugh.pdf

On this we agree, China's economy is a house of cards.  I have argued this since well before you started posting in PnR.  It is only a matter of time before that house of dry rot and corruption collapses in on itself.  I'm even in favor of anything, within reason, that will hasten this.  However, I see no reason to continue allowing them to rape the US economy in the interim.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-11-2019, 01:10 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: It is my understanding Trump inacted the tariffs on Chinese imports to combat a trade deficit. We have a trade deficit with China because we import more goods from China than we export. The reason we import more than we export is because corporations have moved the manufacturing jobs overseas. So how are Trump's tariffs on Chinese imports going to create manufacturing jobs in the US to reverse the US' trade deficit with China?

Short term, they don't.  Long term they force China to play by the same rules as everyone else.  There's a reason we don't lose manufacturing jobs to other first world nations.  Also, you completely ignore China's actions in the form of IP theft, outright piracy and currency manipulation.  Saying the deficit is solely based on China's pool of imprisoned/slave labor is over simplistic.

[Dill]

(06-11-2019, 02:25 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That's a lot of words to essentially agree with my assessment.  As for your perception of the perceived benefits, much like the detriments, they are exactly that, perceived.  Saying either position is/was definitive is speculative at best.

None of which omits the fact that China has its claws deep in Europe and Australia.  You also suppose the other TPP nations would go along with any action against China, a monstrous, and unfounded IMO, assumption.

Correct Xi won't stand for election again, ever, because he's a despot of an autocratic nation that stands against every principle of free Western society.

You just did a perfect job of explaining why every previous administration has kicked the can down the road on this issue.  Moral cowardice is not a virtue, even when it avoids near term unpleasantness at the expense of the future.

Quite honestly, historical grievances mean absolutely nothing to me.  China's action in the present are unacceptable and I could give two shits what historical wrongs they choose to justify their current actions.

This is both intellectually dishonest and insanely overly simplistic.  To characterize any previous US action as holding China accountable for its consistent bad behavior, e.g IP theft, currency manipulation, straight up piracy and slave labor is inane.

You're the frog that gets stung by the scorpion and then wonders why it died.  Myopic shortsightedness is also not a virtue.

Fallen short being an understatement of epic proportions.  I have to wonder why you strive so hard to defend such odious regimes/belief systems as communist China.

On this we agree, China's economy is a house of cards.  I have argued this since well before you started posting in PnR.  It is only a matter of time before that house of dry rot and corruption collapses in on itself.  I'm even in favor of anything, within reason, that will hasten this.  However, I see no reason to continue allowing them to rape the US economy in the interim.

Hmm. I thought I was having a conversation with you about China and US foreign policy options, not about my character.

Nothing in my post suggests continuing to allow China to "rape" us, rather I thought we disagreed on how best to stop that. Hence my reference to specific treaty issues, the composition and national interest of current CPTPP, the status of US international leadership, while attempting to view China from outside the new Cold War perspective developing on the US right. A diplomat or foreign policy advisor who "didn't give a shit" about how others view China or China its own view of world history would not be very effective.

In return I get a series of tweet-length "refutations," and learn that I am "inane," "intellectually dishonest," "striving hard to defend odious regimes," the "frog stung by the scorpion" and such like. 

So nevermind.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-11-2019, 01:09 PM)Dill Wrote: Hmm. I thought I was having a conversation with you about China and US foreign policy options, not about my character.

While I'll admit my responses came off stronger than I had intended I think you're also being a bit overly sensitive. 

Quote:Nothing in my post suggests continuing to allow China to "rape" us, rather I thought we disagreed on how best to stop that. Hence my reference to specific treaty issues, the composition and national interest of current CPTPP, the status of US international leadership, while attempting to view China from outside the new Cold War perspective developing on the US right. A diplomat or foreign policy advisor who "didn't give a shit" about how others view China or China its own view of world history would not be very effective.

I didn't really see anything from you about how best to stop it.  Maybe if you responded point by point instead of becoming offended we could determine where this occurred.  Your point about being a diplomat (which we aren't) or a foreign policy advisor (again) omits the obvious fact that everything you have mentioned has been tried with China before.  It is equally obvious that none of it has  come close to producing the desired result.  So, the answer is to continue as is, and persist in being taken advantage of in a significant manner, or you try something new.

Quote:In return I get a series of tweet-length "refutations," and learn that I am "inane," "intellectually dishonest," "striving hard to defend odious regimes," the "frog stung by the scorpion" and such like. 

I think you'd have to try really hard to equate almost everyone of those statements as a direct attack on you.  I can find your point inane without believing that you, yourself, are inane.  If I have offended your sensibilities I will retract the statement as that was not my intention.  Also, my "frog and scorpion" statement is a clear analogy of how trying the same thing multiple time will not get different results.  Again, not a personal insult and I'm not sure why you'd choose to view it as such.

Quote:Nevermind.

If you so choose.