←back to thread

842 points putzdown | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
pjc50 ◴[] No.43692988[source]
> China generates over twice as much electricity per person today as the United States. Why?

This appears to be completely wrong? All the stats I can find say that the US has about 4x the per capita electricity generation of China.

Other than that it seems to be mostly good points, especially the overall one: you cannot do this overnight.

> If you’re building a new factory in the United States, your investment will alternate between maybe it will work, and catastrophic loss according to which way the tariffs and the wind blows. No one is building factories right now, and no one is renting them, because there is no certainty that any of these tariffs will last

Policy by amphetamine-driven tweeting is a disaster.

> 12. Enforcement of the tariffs will be uneven and manipulated

Yup. The 145% level seems designed to create smuggling, and the wild variations between countries to create re-labelling. It's chicken tax trucks all over again.

> This is probably the worst economic policy I’ve ever seen

Per Simpsons: this is the worst economic policy you've seen so far. The budget is yet to come.

> If American companies want to sell in China, they must incorporate there, register capital, and name a person to be a legal representative. To sell in Europe, we must register for their tax system and nominate a legal representative. For Europeans and Chinese to sell in the United States, none of this is needed, nor do federal taxes need to be paid.

This is .. not a bad idea, really. It would probably be annoying for small EU and UK exporters but less so than 10% tariffs and even less so than random day of the week tariffs. Maybe one day it could harmonise with the EU VAT system or something.

(also I think the author is imagining that sub-par workers, crime, and drugs don't exist in China, when they almost certainly do, but somewhere out of sight. Possibly due to the internal migration control of hukou combined with media control?)

replies(11): >>43693137 #>>43693301 #>>43693319 #>>43693410 #>>43693431 #>>43693454 #>>43693553 #>>43693635 #>>43704244 #>>43705580 #>>43706047 #
tokioyoyo ◴[] No.43693137[source]
Once again, want to point out how this is simply American leadership not wanting to accept their loss and move on. For the first time in the history they're not being perceived as the "global leader", and that's not acceptable from their POV. Now it's just freaking out and hoping that some extreme policy changes will change the course. From my personal experience, most people act this way when they're in distress and can't think ahead because of all the externalities.
replies(3): >>43693313 #>>43693330 #>>43693397 #
Teever ◴[] No.43693330[source]
This isn't just ego. This is an impending existential issue.

America needs to increase manufacturing capacity if it wants to maintain hegemony and possibly world peace.

China will soon have the ability to take Taiwan and Korea and Japan. If that happens it's game over for any American interests and perhaps democracy as a whole.

Wargames[0] paint a grim picture of an upcoming conflict between China and America over Taiwan with the US barely winning at a great cost including the loss of many ships, aircraft, and the depletion of missile stocks.

The Chinese have a naval production of 260 times that of America and account for an ungodly amount of global steel production so they'll be able to bounce back faster than the US can. With a lead time for producing American missiles measured in months and years it will be just a matter of time before they take the countries in the region that are critical to American manufacturing if they're so inclined.

[0] https://selectcommitteeontheccp.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites...

replies(6): >>43693386 #>>43693415 #>>43693572 #>>43699164 #>>43704711 #>>43707113 #
esafak ◴[] No.43693415[source]
That is not an existential issue; many former hegemons, such as the United Kingdom, continue to exist. Coalitions exist to ward off hegemons.
replies(2): >>43693481 #>>43693890 #
Clubber ◴[] No.43693481[source]
>such as the United Kingdom, continue to exist

They were really close to not existing. France stopped existing, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, Yugoslavia, Greece, all stopped existing. China, Thailand, Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, Hong Kong, Cambodia, Laos, the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Myanmar, New Guinea, Guam, East Timor, and Nauru all stopped existing.

replies(2): >>43693593 #>>43693644 #
1. seanhunter ◴[] No.43693644[source]
Of your list I've been to France, Austria, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, The Netherlands, Luxembourg, France (you seem to have it twice for some reason), Hong Kong, the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore.

They all most definitely did not stop existing.

Also I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about when you say the United Kingdom came really close to not existing.

replies(1): >>43693690 #
2. Clubber ◴[] No.43693690[source]
>I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about when you say the United Kingdom came really close to not existing.

Battle of Britain, Battle of France?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France

>They all most definitely did not stop existing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German-occupied_Europe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_territories_acquired_b...

You didn't study WW2 in high school? It monumentally shaped the current world order.

replies(1): >>43695630 #
3. seanhunter ◴[] No.43695630[source]
I did. Austria, Belgium, France etc all existed during WW2. They were occupied, but they existed. Also lots of countries you listed definitely don't meet any sort of reasonable definition of "hegemon".

To pick another example, Singapore was a crown colony before the war, then they were occupied by Japan during WW2, then they were a single nation with what is now Malaysia, then in the 1960s they two countries became independent from each other. They didn't under any reasonable reading of the situation cease to exist and they also have never been a hegemon of any kind.

replies(1): >>43696060 #
4. Clubber ◴[] No.43696060{3}[source]
>They were occupied, but they existed.

So what's your criteria for existing, dirt in the same place? Their governments were dissolved. That means they don't exist anymore. Does the confederacy exist since the boarders are the same and the dirt is in the same place? I would argue not.

>Also lots of countries you listed definitely don't meet any sort of reasonable definition of "hegemon".

I agree, just pointing out countries that no longer existed.