←back to thread

842 points putzdown | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.674s | 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 #
myrmidon ◴[] No.43693572[source]
Do you think that global hegemony by force is long-term (centuries) sustainable at all?

What makes you confident that this could ever work on a longer term? The US is only ~5% of people globally, and I would expect any industrial/technological lead to melt over the years unless there is a monumental, continuous difference in spending (like what the US military did since WW2).

But I see no indication that you can keep that situation stable over the long term, and I honestly think that attempts like the current tariff approach don't help one bit in the long run while having massive harmful side effects (price inflation, loss of planning stability/soft power/productivity).

replies(2): >>43694727 #>>43698184 #
iteratethis ◴[] No.43698184[source]
Global hegemony of the US is based not on 5% of people, rather the US sphere of influence. US, Canada, EU, Japan, Australia, South Korea, etc. The combination is immensely rich, powerful and advanced. Even more so when you keep India on board as well.

It at least stands a fighting chance if it wasn't the case that this alliance is being destroyed before our eyes.

I will admit that even an integrated alliance cannot push around China in the way it could decades ago.

replies(2): >>43704390 #>>43704988 #
CharlieDigital ◴[] No.43704390[source]
Yeah, but look at what GP is responding to:

    > America needs to increase manufacturing capacity if it wants to maintain hegemony and possibly world peace.
That does not make sense.

Low value manufacturing has been disappearing from the US for decades and arguably the US -- up until the recent turmoil -- has continued to maintain its hegemony.

replies(1): >>43705606 #
Teever ◴[] No.43705606[source]
Yes America needs to do this because the manufacturing capacity of allies in Korea, Japan, and Taiwan is under threat by China.

America is the only country with the military capacity to take on China, and Europe isn't going to get up to speed in time to defend Taiwan.

It must be America out of necessity not preference.

replies(1): >>43706177 #
CharlieDigital ◴[] No.43706177{3}[source]
Great, but as I said, it does not make sense for the US to chase low value manufacturing.

Apparel, shoes, things you might find in a big box store -- zero sense. Low value manufacturing - leave it to China, Vietnam, India.

Jet engines? Advanced polymer materials? Batteries? All make sense! CHIPS act was intended to accelerate US IC R&D and manufacturing...which was cancelled.

replies(1): >>43706283 #
Teever ◴[] No.43706283[source]
In an impending war with China who will manufacture the ammunition needed to win the war?

And the boots, the uniforms, the helmets?

replies(1): >>43707589 #
1. CharlieDigital ◴[] No.43707589[source]
You're assuming that China is manufacturing the ammo being used by the US armed forces? Gonna need some receipts.
replies(1): >>43718756 #
2. Teever ◴[] No.43718756[source]
You misunderstand.

I am concerned that the United States does not have the industrial capacity or institutional knowledge to make relatively simple but essential things for war.

In a protracted conflict with China will the US have the industrial capacity to produce enough ammunition? Does the US have a sufficient stockpile of ammunition to buy enough time to scale up the industrial capacity to manufacture more ammunition? Are there enough skilled people in the US who can teach more people to become skilled in this endeavour in time?

Does the US even have enough industrial capacity to produce enough iron, aluminum, nickel, copper and other such things to do this?