Trump Will Aim For 60% Tariffs On China If Reelected

I’m well aware of the economic integration between our economies. This problem is a lot like treating cancer. It is possible to deal with it, but it must be dealt with in the same way that a serious infection or cancer is dealt with. You can’t sit on your laurels because chemo sucks or you don’t want your limb amputated. It is a lethal threat, and it is a lethal threat that must be eliminated.

 

I understand a bit about how cancer kill’s people, but I’m not as clear on the mechanism by which a wealthy China kills the US. Let’s say that China’s economy grows to meet their dream size. What happens then that leads to the death of the US?

 

If China gets the dream economy, then they become the new technological research hub on the planet outpacing every other nation in military related spending for R&D of new military technologies. They win the AI race, and subsequently the AI weapons race. They become the new technologically superior nation on the battlefield as a result of it.

Look at hypersonic missile tech, and how China beat us in R&D on that technology. China beating us in R&D of new technologies because of their ability to fund military related research is the issue. And you can’t say it is not an issue because China has the upper hand in some military technologies already. The US is trying to catch up in some areas such as hypersonic missile technology.

China’s dream is to take over the space domain. Build a military base on the moon. Have nuclear and non-nuclear armed satellites orbiting the entire globe threatening anyone who would defy the CCP.

The long term issue is technological superiority, and that is primarily a function of what a nation’s R&D budget is. No nation can threaten the US’s technological superiority without a comparable R&D budget. If China becomes so economically prosperous that they can essentially name their R&D budget, then they will most likely win in that area.

On the other hand if your economy sucks and you can’t fund military R&D as a result of it, then you fall behind militarily.

 

I hate it that you actually have to explain this concept to people. Meanwhile, did you hear what Nancy Pelosi said to the protestor in her driveway? Sounds like the former Speaker has some reservations of her own about China.

 

Thanks for the explanation. I think I see your argument now. You believe that the threat to the US is a direct one that stems from China evolving a superior military that would directly challenge the US in combat.

I certainly can’t say that this is impossible, but I am not sure this directly follows either. First, I wonder why the opposite might not occur? Ie If the US freely trading with China makes them superior, why wouldn’t China freely trading with the US make us superior?

Second, even if China developed a superior military, does this definitely mean they would annihilate the US? The US clearly had the superior military for most of the last century, but China was never annihilated. The US never even tried. What’s the value of even trying to take down the US in combat? And even where the US did try to take down heavily overmatched foes in Southeast Asia and the Middle East, they failed. And the US already has some capable tech and capable friends.

I do think we should keep some kind of peacetime military. However, in my view, most people want prosperity. At this point, the prosperity of the people of China is wrapped up in exchange with the US and vice versa. If China really wants to evolve technologically, they should liberalize their markets. The more they do so the wealthier they will become, and the higher cost would rise of closing back off. Beating up your own doctor or mechanic just doesn’t seem like a sensible long-term strategy.

 

Some of us need more explanation than others. When you find yourself more knowledgeable than others, it’s a moment that you can help people grow.

 

The opposite scenario does not follow because of values. World conquest is not a value or a feature of the secular west in the same way that it is in communist, fascist, and Islamist ideologies. The US seeks to uphold an international order of free nations. The person steeped in some kind of Marxist Frankfurt school style of critical analysis would contest this point, but in this moment in time it is generally true that western democracies do not have world domination as a goal.

The US for example could have invaded Mexico or Canada if we wanted to. Neither of those countries would stand a chance in a war against the US, but we have chosen not to be of that mindset. We could have invaded and taken over the entire Caribbean with little or no resistance, but we have not chosen to pursue that path despite the ability to do so. We have even had pretexts that could have been valid justifications for invading Cuba, and we have not done so.

South Korea also seems content at living in peace with North Korea, but all of the rhetoric beating the drum beats of war comes from the communist side of the border in North Korea.

China, like North Korea, threatens the nations surrounding it by making territorial claims on land owned by nations such as the Philippines, India, and Taiwan. If the US was not an obstacle China would do more than they have now. We do not know what China would do in a world where they possessed military superiority to the US, but their current rhetoric and posturing towards the Taiwan, the Philippines, and India is a pretty good indicator IMO.

 

Just on this point alone, you seem to lack understanding. There's a reason we import 3 times as much product as we export to China (and that's even with the tariffs). When you have 3 times as many buyers than you have sellers, that scenario generally benefits the seller (China in this case). It was never going to be a mutually beneficial relationship. When you factor in China's population being 4 times ours, yet we're only able to sell them a 3rd of what we buy from them in total $ value, that's not a mutually beneficial relationship. (ie we can take the meager hit to avoid China becoming a military juggernaut -- which some would argue they already have. The hypersonic nukes are no joke.)

 

Infographic: History of US interventions in the past 70 years.

 

Fair enough. Apologies. I may be a bit jaded by the TDS crowd who can't accept Trump was right about something.

 

I knew our resident Frankfurt school philosopher would chime in within minutes.

 

Try to say something remotely accurate for once and I will be less tempted. Like we literally did invade Mexico, several times. We occupied Haiti for nearly 2 decades! I could go on here. You dont have to read Adorno to know that, just history lol.

 

wow. free trade not a mutually beneficial relationship. seriously deep commie thinking.

 

Here's an idea. NEVER EVER use tariffs for national security reasons. NEVER

 

I would push back a bit on this and say western democracies have world domination as a goal, but they seek to accomplish it by way of spheres of influence rather than bombs and machine guns. We have the Monroe Doctrine, for example. It would be entirely too costly for the U.S. to conquer the entire Western hemisphere militarily, economically and otherwise.

 

Oh come on lol. The first modern genocide was done by the Germans in Africa. I beg anyone to read just one book about the 19th and 20th centuries in Africa and Asia.

Herero and Nama genocide - Wikipedia

 

The point is it was never free trade. If it was true free trade, yah, I'm with you, but we didn't have that with China before the tariffs. It's entirely disingenuous for you to act like we had true free trade with China before the tariffs.

 

there will always be some frictions & usually some taxes. But, trade with China is massively beneficial to the us. Saying otherwise is deeply ignorant.

 

Where have I indicated we don't benefit from trade with China?

 

Just above you wrote, "It was never going to be a mutually beneficial relationship." Perhaps you meant equally not mutually. Even then, if you are using the trade deficit to make that case, that is SUPER flawed.