Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
July 10, 2023

Yellen's Visit To China Has Failed

Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen visited China. There she tried to press the worlds biggest economy on several issues.

None of these points are in China's interest. In the U.S. Chinese companies are treated badly. U.S. financed climate investments in foreign countries, which are small, usually come with additional extraordinary demands that benefit the donating country rather than the receiving one. China does this differently. Fentanyl is not a global problem rather a specific U.S. one the causes of which are general social problems China and other have avoided to have.

The last demand Yellen made was even more crazy. She called for a full turn of China towards neoliberal policies:

"I pressed them on our concerns about China's unfair economic practices," [Yellen] said, citing barriers to access for foreign firms and problems involving intellectual property. She added that a more market-oriented system in China "would not only be in the interests of the U.S. and other countries. It would be better for the Chinese economy, as well."

Would China be where it is today if it had privatized its banking system and state owned companies? Would China be richer if it had let U.S. vulture funds buy up and bankrupt Chinese companies? Would it have managed to lift 800 million of its citizens from poverty if it had followed the economic advice of the U.S., the IMF or World Bank?

The answer to these questions is of course an emphatic "No".

Why Yellen thinks she can impress China with advice for a 'more market-oriented system', even as the U.S. blocks Chinese investments, sanctions Chinese companies and limits sales of certain products to China, is beyond me.

Yellen's visit failed to achieve anything. She had some talks with Chinese officials but achieved nothing. She lectured and made demands that no one in China will be willing to fulfill.

The Chinese side for one seems unimpressed by her performance:

Yellen mentioned multiple times the US is seeking a healthy competition with China rather than a "winner-take-all" approach. While this may sound good, the key lies in how we define "healthy competition." Is it a US-style one in which the geopolitical appetite of the US is satisfied while China unconditionally cooperates? Or is it based on mutual respect, peaceful coexistence, and win-win cooperation? The root cause of the challenges in the China-US relationship lies in Washington's flawed perception of China. Unless the issue of the 'first button' is addressed, no matter how wonderful the ideas and wishes may be, they will remain nothing more than castles in the air.

Unless the U.S. accepts China as equal the relations between the countries will not turn around. The U.S. can grow with China only when it accepts that China is different from itself and has its own path towards further development.

As neither is the today's dominant viewpoint a further deterioration of the relations, largely to the disadvantage of the U.S., is the most likely prospect.

Posted by b on July 10, 2023 at 9:28 UTC | Permalink

Comments
next page »


Yellen mentioned multiple times the US is seeking a healthy competition with China rather than a "winner-take-all" approach.

Wait, what happened to "Full Spectrum Dominance" ? Is it still on the menu?

Posted by: Arch Bungle | Jul 10 2023 9:42 utc | 1

China is humouring the crumbling Empire with great patience. Laughable and bizarre as the U.S. "diplomacy" looks from the outside, inside the beast there surely will be frantic machinations of gaggles of "think tanks", policy groups, committees of all sorts pressing on with their programmes as reality drifts ever further out of sight.

Posted by: Leser | Jul 10 2023 10:02 utc | 2

It is true the current crisis between the US and China is “nothing more than castles in the air”. It is a struggle over interests (legitimate or not). Even more so, a struggle over power: the US seeking to maintain its position of dominance. But, as history shows, power is an illusion – no one can hold it forever. The consequences of seeing it as real will end in WWIII.
https://patternofhistory.wordpress.com/

Posted by: peter mcloughlin | Jul 10 2023 10:08 utc | 3

As the Chinese economy seems to be doing rather better than the US one, should the US not be imitating the Chinese approach? Although that would rather spoil the globalist and kleptocratic game.

Posted by: Jams O'Donnell | Jul 10 2023 10:15 utc | 4

Anyone surprised? Look at what happened with Blinkie. Xi gave him high honours to meet him and then got pissed in the face next day.

Posted by: Surferket | Jul 10 2023 10:25 utc | 5

The Chinese have surely noted that Janet Yellen spent most of her career as an economist in academia before entering politics and the world of finance. So she is clearly out of her depth when the question of which economic policies and strategies to follow for a country wanting to eliminate poverty, stimulate production of essential items for its people, and produce enough not only to sustain its population but to trade as well and accumulate foreign reserves. They're probably having a good laugh behind her back as she returns to the US.

Who'll be the next hapless US official to visit Beijing?

Posted by: Refinnejenna | Jul 10 2023 10:29 utc | 6

Yellen tries to delay de-dollarization. Instead, her poor manners only served to convince Peking to accelerate de-dollarization

Posted by: Exile | Jul 10 2023 10:50 utc | 7

I don't get it, why visiting China to announce nothing ? What's the end goal of bothering Chinese officials with empty talks ?
Blinken's trip results were just more commercial restrictions...Yellen wants more ?

Posted by: Savonarole | Jul 10 2023 10:50 utc | 8

It's just theater, pr for the media.
the real message delivered by the CIA to the chinese is: be good or we'll bring you nuclear aircraft carriers.
So when will there's war they desperately want they will be able to say: have you seen it? we didn't want war but bad evil chinese govt .... blah blah etc.

Posted by: Mimì | Jul 10 2023 11:10 utc | 9

I am under the impression that all those visits to China by US/EU dignitaries are part of an
PR operation. Telling the Chinese what to do and what not to do. Showing their moral superiority to the world and the US/EU population.

As an example: Last week the EU Green Tsar, Frans Timmermans ( a dutch politian) visited the China and lectured them on Climate Change.

My , middle of the road Daily Newspaper, reported about this visit in a headline:
" Timmermans taught Xi a lesson".

How bad can the Chiness be?

Posted by: DutchZ | Jul 10 2023 11:16 utc | 10

Posted by: Mimì | Jul 10 2023 11:10 utc | 11

"So when will there's war they desperately want they will be able to say: we didn't want war but bad evil chinese govt ...."

Yes I think you must be right.

Posted by: Tim | Jul 10 2023 11:19 utc | 11

For the German speaking folks, here a good analysis of the relationship btw. US and China (by Michael Lüders, who also analiesed well about Ukraine and Russia)


Posted by: HansJuergen | Jul 10 2023 11:20 utc | 12

Would it have managed to lift 800 million of its citizens from poverty if it had followed the economic advice of the U.S.

Maybe not the economic “advice” but yes, had they followed the economic path that the US took.

Free enterprise with a substantially fair court system (pay no attention to the Trump Biden fiasco) is very much the most efficient way to raise a population out of poverty.

But it comes with many costs as well. It’s up to the population to decide if those costs are worth it.

These include cultural costs and political costs.

Posted by: Thomas Sharpe | Jul 10 2023 11:21 utc | 13

Posted by: Mimì | Jul 10 2023 11:10 utc | 11

I believe Aircraft Carriers were obsoleted in peer warfare 25 years ago that is not a threat that would fly.

Posted by: SwissArmyMan | Jul 10 2023 11:21 utc | 14

I agree with most of this, but one small point.

"Fentanyl is not a global problem rather a specific U.S. one the causes of which are general social problems China and other have avoided to have." One notes that, when the opium trade was ravaging China, Britain's response was 'oh but opium is legal in Britain and we don't have widespread addiction so this is a Chinese problem." If you are pushing a toxic addictive drug on a foreign population, then what is what you are doing. That your own population is not addicted - perhaps, because the drug is not widely sold there - is perhaps not relevant?

Though surely the US could end the Fentanyl issue easily, but that would mean sealing off the border and that would limit the access of the US elites to cheap labor so all those people dying of fentanyl is just one more cost of business. At least, during the colonial period China was at least trying to stop the importation of Opium, the US doesn't care.

Posted by: TG | Jul 10 2023 11:29 utc | 15

Posted by: Thomas Sharpe | Jul 10 2023 11:21 utc | 15

Sounds like you did Economics AO1, in the semi religious mode, market is great etc.

The free market is a good way of lifting the middle classes up, but not really the poorer classes. There is absolutely no evidence that the free market is especially good at lifting people up. Trouble is that people look at the post WWII history and think that it was the free market that lifted people up.

It was not. in fact it was the redistribution of wealth via wages and social security safety nets that did the job, along with a manufacturing and then consumer boom which supported many well paid jobs.

The USA is supposedly a free market, but even in its heyday, poverty and social inequality was still rampant. It must also be noted that the prosperity enjoyed by the "free markets" of Europe and later the Americas, largely was based on the exploitation of third world countries

Posted by: watcher | Jul 10 2023 11:35 utc | 16

Posted by: Refinnejenna | Jul 10 2023 10:29 utc | 8

Yellen has only experience in monetary policy in an environment, where the demand for the domestic currency is unlimited, and there's no need to think about domestic economic, production and supply related policies. That is, Yellen only knows academic stuff on how interest rates will affect loan demand, or how to create monetary tools to make QE without saying QE.

In Russia and China, where demand of domestic currency is not unlimited across the world, they have to make economic policy based on realities production and supply issues. So Yellen is completely on another planet and the Chinese don't understand her, nor do Yellen understand the Chinese issues.

Posted by: unimperator | Jul 10 2023 11:39 utc | 17

Who is the next obnoxious Jew, America is going to send to offend the Chinese? Why it is John Kerry, scheduled to visit this week. It does appear dealing with the Chinese in a fair and honest manner is a job only the stupid goyim are capable of.

Posted by: Robert Browning | Jul 10 2023 11:41 utc | 18

It is wincingly embarrassing to see just how inept these US majordomos are on the world stage, but it is also strangely validating. It means that all that time we suspected they didn't know what they were doing, we were right.

Posted by: Intelligent Dasein | Jul 10 2023 11:43 utc | 19

Yellen recommended "a more market-oriented system in China"

What people like Yellen fail to recognise is that China does have a much more market oriented system than the US!
And likewise Russia is more market oriented than the US.

And recently I noted that China emphasizes the rights of investors.
What such fronts for the anglosaxon monopoly capitalist system mean by market economy is a system in their service.

A neutral investor must have predictable conditions associated with buying shares. But they dont have to be able to run the companies and to possess controlling shares. A place on the board etc. In a less hostile world era extended influence might be both acceptable and even advantageous but currently such conditions are absent.

Posted by: petergrfstrm | Jul 10 2023 11:44 utc | 20

Posted by: SwissArmyMan | Jul 10 2023 11:21 utc | 16

Not sure that aircraft carriers were obsoleted 25 years ago. I think more like 5-8 years ago, via hypersonic missiles.

It is also worth noting that China could now bring the nuclear carriers to much of the Pacific or at least as far as Hawaii. China now has 3 carriers.

Posted by: watcher | Jul 10 2023 11:45 utc | 21

it doesn't matter one iota what one USA individual says or promises, no matter where in the political/economic hierarchy. No matter how sweet or foul the temperament or words.
What matters is USA behavior in evidential physical reality.
Tariffs, blockades, acts of subversion and propaganda, military pressure, etc .. these are the indicators of USA's core values and intentions. Theses are the behaviors of a Dictator. USA needs to abandon World Dictatorship proven by change in behavior, then visits from USA individuals might have weight. Until then, visits from the USA have purely entertainment value.

Posted by: mijj | Jul 10 2023 11:48 utc | 22

I wonder the purpose of Yellen's visit.
I don't see what could be gained by sender there to brow beat China.
I would think she would be going there to talk finance, balance of trade, coordination of "policy", CBDC, the weather (no balloon)...
I am skeptical - seems fabricated news for the peoples entertainment : Yellen "slammed" China for [whatever]. I call B/S.
She's just that the person for that job.

Posted by: jared | Jul 10 2023 11:49 utc | 23

She's just NOT the person for that job.
I meant to say.

Posted by: jared | Jul 10 2023 11:51 utc | 24


The Pentagon knew 25 years ago they could no longer defend carriers from
ground hugging missiles, that they still have not admitted it is just standard operating procedure, gotta build those big boats!

Posted by: SwissArmyMan | Jul 10 2023 11:56 utc | 25

US could be trying to divide the world into economic spheres of interest. It would be beneficial for US if countries not vassals of US, will only do trade with the west through the US, and agree US to be the "hub" of the west when it comes to commodity and service trading.

They want to retain control over EU, Canada and Australia. This idea sounds unbelievable but it wouldn't be a surprise. US interest is to funnel everything between EU - World only through US controlling stuff going in and out. This is also partially to slow down USD loss of influence outside the west, by increasing importance inside the west.

Most likely China will not agree to a sphere-of-economic-influence deal and BRICS is open for trade with anyone.

Posted by: unimperator | Jul 10 2023 11:58 utc | 26

I don't get it, why visiting China to announce nothing ? What's the end goal of bothering Chinese officials with empty talks ?
Blinken's trip results were just more commercial restrictions...Yellen wants more ?

Posted by: Savonarole | Jul 10 2023 10:50 utc | 10

Mostly insider use: token of fealty given to the bankster gang.
Comforting her own indispensable pawn position the way Stoltenberg does.
Please to the higher ups.
Sweep the rug under the feet of competition.

Posted by: Greg Galloway | Jul 10 2023 11:58 utc | 27

Posted by: TG | Jul 10 2023 11:29 utc | 17

Medical guidelines in North America are pure and simple - mandatory for doctors under pain of being sued - promotion of opioids.
Fentanyl is just the "best" opioid available.
There is an ongoing PR war against cheap and relatively safe pain killers starting with aspirin, NSAID, other drugs like efficient nefopam available in tablets or injection in Europe or AU-NZ...

Posted by: Greg Galloway | Jul 10 2023 12:05 utc | 28

@watcher

That is so not true. In Europe almost all wealth was erased. Capitalism started anew without a class that already owned 90% of everything. Therefore it could strive, since all people had a reasonable chance of achieving and accumulating wealth. The 30 golden years are mainly the result of a time of fair competition due to the lack of a paraite class.

Furthermore there was a general shortage of workers after the atrocities of the war, which gave the working class a lot of power to demand reasonable wages, working hours etc.

Now we are back at a gini coefficiant of pre ww1 level. Hence no social mobility, no innovation, no capitalist enterprice but monopolies which are engaged in the business of control instead of competition.

Posted by: Orgel | Jul 10 2023 12:11 utc | 29

China's main problem ( and they know it is a problem ) is when the time comes to move away from running trade surpluses to wanting to run trade deficits is that there is huge inequality in the country. Not enough domestic output to fill domestic consumer demand.

Running trade surpluses - deciding to put the majority of your skills/ human resources into exporting and deciding to send your real resources abroad in exchange for US treasuries. Was okay to begin with, as it allowed China to learn how to make stuff and work around intellectual property rights. In short the West manufacturers brought there knowledge to you and you did what you can to steal that knowledge. Japan, South Korea etc used this strategy to their advantage also.

Japan is starting to move away from this model and China has been very clear it wants to. China have to constantly provide liquidity into the rest of the world to allow others to buy their goods. Otherwise the rest of the world runs out of the particular money that is needed for the export transaction to complete and the export never happens (UK buyers buy Chinese goods with GBP, but Chinese workers are paid in Yuan. The relative shortage of Yuan due to the export differential has to be provided by the Chinese or Chinese goods become, in absurdum, infinitely expensive). Any drop in world demand hurts economies who decided to export their way to growth.

So its a bit like borrowing from a bank. If you import a little then the exporters own you. If you import a lot then you own the exporters - because they then have nowhere else to go. China knows that will continue until they eliminate the export overhang and move to domestic consumption. You’ll note that the Japanese have only just done that, so it ain’t something that is going to happen overnight.

By moving to run trade deficits - Let other countries use there skills/ human resources to send their real resources to China in exchange for hording Yuan. Is a problem as they don't have enough domestic output to fill domestic demand for consumer goods. They know this.


So they have chosen one province in China where Alibaba is located which has the greatest inequality and created what is called a "common prosperity zone." To try and solve this issue as explained in this short video below.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tI94IbntajI&pp=ygUSRGF2aWQgSGFydmV5IENoaW5h

I'm 100% sure they will figure it out as they know money is never the issue, but what you decide to do with your skills/ human resources and real resources is.

So then the question becomes as Japan and China and ultimately South Korea, move away from using the majority of skills/ human resources and real resources to Horde US treasuries. Look to run trade deficits who then takes their place? Who Then Follows the model China etc are moving away from.

Posted by: Echo Chamber | Jul 10 2023 12:13 utc | 30

I don't get it, why visiting China to announce nothing ? What's the end goal of bothering Chinese officials with empty talks ?
Blinken's trip results were just more commercial restrictions...Yellen wants more ?
Posted by: Savonarole | Jul 10 2023 10:50 utc | 10

My view, which is uneducated and could be wrong:

1) Because there is a belated recognition from both sides that there needs to be some direct dialogue, but that the idiots in the WH with their spy balloon crap and sanctioning the Chinese Minister of Defense and other idiocies have made this difficult. So they are trying to work through the levels whose connections are not completely destroyed (Foreign Affairs, Treasury, etc.) yet

2) I don't take at face value that Blinken's results were simply restrictions, nor that Yellen's were just another set of lectures (although I guess that's possible). I think that those parts are just spin for the domestic audience. However, maybe these are intended to be clear messages of escalating threats if China doesn't play ball on some other issue (e.g. Russia/Ukraine or whatever). It would strike me as a bit short term and self-destructive, but it wouldn't be out of character from what I have seen from the WH.

Posted by: Comacho in Chief | Jul 10 2023 12:35 utc | 31

Yellen is quite crazy, not just deluded. She just replied this a few days ago:
“I just want to reiterate what I’ve said in the past, which is I think the United States can rest assured that the dollar is going to play the dominant role in facilitating international transactions and serving as a reserve currency in the years ahead. I don’t see that role being threatened by any development including the one that you’ve mentioned [BRICS common currency].”

It's not just the "gold-backed" part that might help the BRICS - I mean, Western countries still have a massive amount of gold, more than BRICS for instance -, it's the credibility behind the currency. The way Western governments and banks have acted like petty thieves with Russian and other deposits is an eye-opener: no sensible country or leadership, outside the West, would trust any Western bank with their money, from now on.

Posted by: Clueless Joe | Jul 10 2023 12:36 utc | 32

"Free enterprise with a substantially fair court system...is very much the most efficient way to raise a population out of poverty"😂

zero historical basis for this claim, or even whether such a system has ever existed. impossible to find a single era or nation where attenpts at unbridled enterprise didnt co-opt the regulatory and police power of the state to enforce private monopoly power or lead to depressions, genocide and world war. not a great track record of bringing "prosperity." instead state intervention is always invoked to improve the lives of the public--and China does that best

Posted by: TGL | Jul 10 2023 12:39 utc | 33

Interceptions at Canada’s Vancouver airport tell us that fentanyl is coming from China. Once it arrives, it becomes a problem (like Afghan exports to Russia, I believe) So — is there some argument being put forward that China is structured in such a manner that it is impossible for a drug cartel to set up there, in the same way in which drug cartels are established in every industrialized economy? The economy with the most billionaires but no cocaine? That would certainly be a radical shift.

Posted by: Bruised Northerner | Jul 10 2023 12:43 utc | 34

Posted by: Echo Chamber | Jul 10 2023 12:13 utc | 34

Very nice post, but a few comments:

1) Japan is starting to move away from this model

Why do you think this is the case? Japanese holdings of Treasuries are declining slightly, but not meaningfully so far as I can tell:

2) UK buyers buy Chinese goods with GBP, but Chinese workers are paid in Yuan. The relative shortage of Yuan due to the export differential has to be provided by the Chinese

Yes, but just to clarify slightly, trade is not usually settled bilaterally--China does not need to buy GBP to increase exports--it can buy USD instead.

3) By moving to run trade deficits - Let other countries use there skills/ human resources to send their real resources to China in exchange for hording Yuan. Is a problem as they don't have enough domestic output to fill domestic demand for consumer goods.

I believe that it is also a matter of China not wanting to deal with the costs of losing control of its currency.

4) I'm 100% sure they will figure it out as they know money is never the issue, but what you decide to do with your skills/ human resources and real resources is.

I do not know why you are so optimistic, but I don't think that a single country in the history of the world has ever figured out how to make the transition from export-led to domestic consumption without undergoing at least a very severe, prolonged crisis (in the US' case, this comprised a great depression and two world wars). Also, I haven't seen China do anything to suggest that it is making meaningful steps in this direction. Maybe I'm wrong, though.

5) So then the question becomes as Japan and China and ultimately South Korea, move away from using the majority of skills/ human resources and real resources to Horde US treasuries. Look to run trade deficits who then takes their place?

I think the bigger question is who takes the place of the US? (i.e., who is willing to run extremely large, persistent deficits in order to subsidize the rest of the world)? My guess is nobody. And that's why the transition is going to be absolute hell for most of the world.

Posted by: Comacho in Chief | Jul 10 2023 12:54 utc | 35

Oh, and maybe BRICS Common Currency.

Posted by: jared | Jul 10 2023 12:55 utc | 36

Posted by: Arch Bungle | Jul 10 2023 12:49 utc | 42

Ok, Rudolph, nice failure to rebut. Keep sucking that FIRE sector cock.

For the adults:https://www.counterpunch.org/2023/07/10/its-hard-for-americans-to-engage-in-china-bashing-without-tripping-on-contradictions/

Posted by: Tom_Q_Collins | Jul 10 2023 12:58 utc | 37

The whole U.S. international affairs apparatus (not just the State Dept.) is defined by a culture of solipsism. They simply cannot seem to conceive of the fact that other people have their own interests.

Posted by: Figleaf23 | Jul 10 2023 12:59 utc | 38

The main difference between China and the West are...

a) The West are driven by libertarian and right wing ideology that says the government balance sheet is a profit and loss sheet like a business balance sheet. So government must be run like a household or business. Always ask " How are we going to pay for it " , " How are we going to pay for it "


b) China says you are all bar shit crazy. It is an asset and liability balance sheet not a profit and loss sheet. We pay for things BY spending the money we create ourselves from thin air. We NEVER ask " How are we going to pay for it ". We always ask ourselves the correct question " How are we going to resource it ".


Bar flies saw example a) all over the mainstream media at the start of this war. "Russian exports funds Putin's war " lol, hilarious. So many fools in the West fell for it. The profit and loss balance sheet for all to see.


Meanwhile back at the ranch, Russia creates the ruble via an asset and liability balance sheet and Putin was saying to the region's " right guys how are we going to resource this war " never once asked " How are we going to pay for it "

The crazy thing is during times of war as World war 2 showed very clearly. It is always about what skills / human resources and real resources you have. How many you use in the military and how many use Domestically and how many use for trade purposes. " How you are going to resource it "

Yet, during normal times when this is suggested as the universal truth. The libertarian and right wing ideology deny this universal truth and automatically default back to a profit and loss sheet and recreate the myth " How are you going to pay for it "


How do you recognise a liberal ?


It's very simple they push the tax payer money myth. That is the foundation stone of the mythical " profit and loss balance sheet" and the " How do we pay for it " mythical narratives and framing.

Posted by: Echo Chamber | Jul 10 2023 13:10 utc | 39

Occam's razor, At first glance Yellin's trip is about money, more specifically our lack of it. The US is bankrupt and will implode at any time. Yellen is begging for money.

Posted by: TJC | Jul 10 2023 13:10 utc | 40

@SwissArmyMan | Jul 10 2023 11:56 utc | 27

About the US knowing 25 years ago that they couldnt defend against groundhugging missiles.

I am thinking that maybe this was the case even earlier.
The Soviet so called shipwrecker cruise missile produced from 1976 was already a 7 ton hardened and computerised supersonic missile at march height and had a spiralshaped trajectory downwards before hitting above the waterline.

Posted by: petergrfstrm | Jul 10 2023 13:17 utc | 41

Occam's razor, At first glance Yellin's trip is about money, more specifically our lack of it. The US is bankrupt and will implode at any time. Yellen is begging for money.
Posted by: TJC | Jul 10 2023 13:10 utc | 49

No!!!! If anything, the US would be telling China to stop offloading its imbalances onto the US. I realize that it is counterintuitive, but the US must run deficits because foreigners keep buying dollars, not vice-versa! See the impossible trinity and the Triffin dilemma as a starting point

Posted by: Comacho in Chief | Jul 10 2023 13:20 utc | 42

"Occam's razor, At first glance Yellin's trip is about money, more specifically our lack of it. The US is bankrupt and will implode at any time. Yellen is begging for money."

Posted by: TJC | Jul 10 2023 13:10 utc | 49


Simply not true I'm afraid, A sovereign nation state can NEVER run out of money. It can run out of things to BUY when it hits its skills and real resources constraints but never run out of money.

You are half right though. It is all about "money design" and who gets to design the money that everybody uses. Yellen went to China to try and say to China the upper class in the US gets to design the money everybody uses.

China looked at her as if she was Homer Simpson.

Billions of people have been slaughtered over the centuries over who gets to design the money everybody uses. It's just about what every war and civil war has ever been fought over. That and religion.

Posted by: Echo Chamber | Jul 10 2023 13:32 utc | 43

Was it ever supposed to succeed?

No. No one really thought that one visit from the female grey haired goblin would suddenly change anything.
In the long run changes happen slowly (if at all), and with lots of behind the scenes discussions.

It was a taxpayer funded campaign stunt. The Biden Admin trying to stay relevant and again, to keep headlines away from Hunter Biden's coke being found in the White House.

Posted by: BroncoBilly | Jul 10 2023 13:32 utc | 44

The days of the cleanest dirty shirt are over.

Posted by: TJC | Jul 10 2023 13:39 utc | 45

China sat back for many decades and watched as many Asian countries adopted US free market capitalism and of course they studied the positives and negatives of such a system with great interest.
Having carefully considered this system, the Chinese then created their own economic system which borrowed aspects of communism, capitalism and Chinese tradition.
They now have a uniquely successful system that is still in its early stages and could of course turn out to be a disaster, just as western global capitalism has turned out to be.
The US approach to China now is much like an alcoholic friend lecturing you, a moderate drinker, to drink more if you want to be friends. Clearly you would politely nod your head out of courtesy and say "sure we'll see". Less and less you would answer your friend's calls hoping that they'd get the message until one day you have to just box the asshole in the face and tell him to keep the fuck away.
That box in the face is coming soon to the US, and like a staggering drunk falling around the place after a box to their face, they'll create as much damage and commotion as they can before they hit the deck.

Posted by: Eoin Clancy | Jul 10 2023 13:40 utc | 46

Posted by: petergrfstrm | Jul 10 2023 13:17 utc | 50

I agree and remember arguing this point with ex Navy folks in the late 90's
they just could not believe it then and most still can't.

Posted by: SwissArmyMan | Jul 10 2023 13:42 utc | 47

DeSantis Threatens to Cut Off Trade With China if Elected President

"Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is in the running to be the Republican presidential candidate in 2024. But he trails former president Donald Trump — who launched the ongoing trade war with China — by an overwhelming margin.

The Florida governor told a TV news interviewer on Sunday that he would revoke the normal trade status between Washington and Beijing — although he was unclear on how to achieve that.

"I favor doing that," DeSantis said. "I think we probably need Congress but I would take executive action as appropriate to be able to move us in that direction."

The US Senate voted in 2000 to normalise trade relations with China as the Asian giant applied for membership of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) — the US-led initiative to replace the previous General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) treaty agreed in 1947.

Despite promising a fresh start in foreign relations when he entered the White House in 2021, Democratic President Joe Biden's administration has only deepened the trade war with Beijing started by his predecessor Donald Trump, banning the export of microchip technologies to mainland China while tacitly supporting breakaway island Taiwan's claim to independence.

Biden undid limited diplomatic progress made on US Secretary of State Antony Blinken's recent visit to Beijing by calling Chinese President Xi Jinping a "dictator".

A follow-up trip by US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen was marred by more accusations against Bejing."

Sputnik

Posted by: ISnDA | Jul 10 2023 13:44 utc | 48

Thanks b. Interesting topic.

Everything done by US War Party regimes are for US consumption. Lots of looking busy and Henny Penny shenanigans. The fact that the bankrupt for-profit Empire goes around begging for time to slow its inevitable collapse instead dropping nukes and asking questions later speaks volumes as to the status of both Empire and the jackals waiting to feed off it dead bones.

The dye is cast.

Posted by: gottlieb | Jul 10 2023 14:14 utc | 49

Agree with petergrfstrm #22. The terms "market-oriented" and "socialism" are used as propaganda tools - China has a more market-oriented system now than the US! US leaders today refer to their system as "market-oriented" and the Chinese system as "socialist" to bring in connotations of the US being a free country and China not, evoking the Cold War era. Back then those claims were true - under Mao, China had "true" socialism in which the government controlled the entire economy and free enterprise / profit-seeking was banned. A private citizen could not start a company, similar to North Korea today. However, today Chinese government involvement in the economy is through State-Owned-Enterprises, which compete with private companies and are driven by profit motive exactly like private companies. It is now easier to start a new business in China than in the US, according to multiple rankings including US News & World Report.

When Mao died, Deng Xiaoping pioneered "socialism with Chinese characteristics" - i.e. market economy. He had seen the incredible growth of Hong Kong and Taiwan in contrast to the lack of growth and horrible atrocities of mainland China. But socialist ideology and the cult of personality around Mao was too strong for him to declare openly that Mao was wrong and the country needed to go in a different direction. So he slowly changed the definition of "socialism" to one that enabled market economy. In my opinion, this is the greatest political accomplishment of the 20th century - turning the world's most populous country from a murderous dictatorship into a prosperous, modern nation, without triggering a civil war!

In contrast, the US is going in the opposite direction. The US from 1790-1900 had one of the freest economies in world history - the US government had extremely limited powers to pass economic laws until Swift v. United States in 1905. This is one of the main factors which let the US go from a small group of colonies into the world economic leader by the time of the world wars. However, today the US government routinely passes 1,000 page laws like Obamacare which specify in great detail how US businesses must operate, makes many types of innovation illegal as they involve changes in operations, and expressly restricts competition in many sectors like housing, occupational licensing, etc.

As you read the headlines in the post, it is important to keep in mind that the definitions of the key terms have changed. The US government will obviously not admit that regulation and government control over its economy has drastically increased, and it will vehemently deny that this is a key factor in why the US is now growing at 1-2% per year while China is growing at ~5%. On the other hand, China will not admit that it abandoned key principles of socialism as it still governs with a "socialist" ideology. But if you can look past the labels, the facts are clear.

Posted by: sabre | Jul 10 2023 14:15 utc | 50

I'm with DeStantis.. the USA should cut trade with China.. not because China has done anything wrong; but because as things stand now Americans have been set back to the 1920s or so. Restarting the American industrial base is essential, if America is to survive, the USA has gone global and that is not good for America.
Getting Chinese out of USA funded, Universities, denying foreign investment in American Real Estate and American businesses, restricting wall street financing to only companies that stay within the confines of USA governed America, will return the American industrial base to America and serve to halt foreign access into the American market of the type Wall Street gets its jollys off of. Americans should do business only with Americans.

Posted by: snake | Jul 10 2023 14:24 utc | 51

Historical cycles that are mind blowing.

In the 13th century Marco Polo, who lived in China for 20 years, marveled how the Emperor, Kublai Khan could give merchants paper money why he received their gold!!

800 years later the BRICS, led by China, want a gold backed currency to avoid using the US paper money.

One has to think when was the last time the US Fed was audited along with its 8,000 tonne plus gold reserve?

1954.

Posted by: canuck | Jul 10 2023 14:32 utc | 52

I was puzzled by the "first button" allusion by the Chinese. At first I thought it was an obscure reference to the Classics that I had never read (Chinese are very fond of using bits from ancient literature). It turns out to be quite literal. When we button a shirt, if the first button is off, the rest of the shirt buttons will be off, like " a bad beginning results in a bad ending."

"An accident can reveal something fundamental. In this case, the US perception and views of China are seriously distorted. It regards China as its primary rival and biggest geopolitical challenge. This is like the first button in a shirt being put wrong. And the result is that the US China policy has entirely deviated from the rational and sound track."

Posted by: Tedder | Jul 10 2023 14:36 utc | 53

@Echo Chamber

You seem to think that all that China gets for its exports is US Teasuries - which they “hoard”. China only holds $870 bill in US Treasuries. That’s less than 3% of US debt, and it’s insignificant to China’s wealth. China’s manufacturing output exceeds that of the US, Europe and Japan combined. China’s main reward for its exports has been a tremendous increase and improvement in the infrastructure of its own country. No wonder its government is more popular with its citizens than any western country.

Posted by: Sentient | Jul 10 2023 14:42 utc | 54

Posted by: Echo Chamber | Jul 10 2023 13:10 utc | 48
Please someone get a time machine and tell William Plantagenet that he cannot use sticks as money and use an accurate accounting of resources available to build the infrastructure that made England the most powerful state on Albion. Then we would not have to deal with this liberal BS.

Posted by: badjoke | Jul 10 2023 14:49 utc | 55

I just had the thought that there is no way the US would return the gold they are storaging for all the countries once a golbound currency is in the game.

Assuming it is still there it would keep the USA on top of the game even if the dollar goes bust.

Posted by: Orgel | Jul 10 2023 14:54 utc | 56

As you read the headlines in the post, it is important to keep in mind that the definitions of the key terms have changed. The US government will obviously not admit that regulation and government control over its economy has drastically increased, and it will vehemently deny that this is a key factor in why the US is now growing at 1-2% per year while China is growing at ~5%. On the other hand, China will not admit that it abandoned key principles of socialism as it still governs with a "socialist" ideology. But if you can look past the labels, the facts are clear.

Posted by: sabre | Jul 10 2023 14:15 utc | 61

Yes, our economy is highly rigged, to favor to already well off, is what it is, and that is why it cannot compete.

Posted by: Bemildred | Jul 10 2023 14:57 utc | 57

Arch Bungle | Jul 10 2023 9:42 utc | 2
*** Yellen mentioned multiple times the US is seeking a healthy competition with China rather than a "winner-take-all" approach.
Wait, what happened to "Full Spectrum Dominance" ? Is it still on the menu?***

Still active, but it does alternate with an economic-cultism based grooming line such as
"In the sacred name of the 'free market' we demand the right to shit on your lawn, steal your assets, write your laws and sell your babies, so thus we can both gain."
Of course, if that friendly approach is rejected, the empire switches back to its more overtly bomb or overthrow technique of foreign relations.

Posted by: Cynic | Jul 10 2023 14:58 utc | 58

The USA is a global empire that never really learned how to govern as an empire. Successful empires allow a degree of pluralism. Rome doesn't care what god you worship as long as you pay your tributes and don't try to usurp the imperial authority. Ottomans had multiethnic and multi religious system of millets and as long as they paid up and didn't try to kick off imperial rule, they were more or less allowed to set their own rules internally.

The USA, on the other hand, operated as a nation-state that took over European colonialism after WWII, when the Europeans were no longer capable of maintaining their empires themselves. It became a global empire, but never really got rid of its Theodore Roosevelt style assimilationist nation-state beliefs. It just extended these to its new vassals under the cover of the cold war fight against communists. All American vassals are expected to assimilate to American norms and essentially "become American" to join "the free world."


The famous quote from the movie "Full Metal Jacket" captures it perfectly: "inside every gook is an American trying to get out." This is the guiding ethos that Americans have operated under since the mid 20th century. It is the firm belief that all people deeply want to be American, even if they don't know it yet themselves. And if they don't know it, they only need some kinetic persuasion in the form of carpet bombing and drone strikes to help them discover it. This attitude came to be known as "American exceptionalism" and is the basis for the "rules based order" and "our democracy" and "who we are" that we hear of so often. Those subject to American empire rightfully view this as heavyhanded, divisive, and corrosive to their own cultures (to put it lightly).

Posted by: Tooda | Jul 10 2023 15:17 utc | 59

I remember reading some 30 years ago an article in the Proceedings of the US Naval Institute by the commander of a US Navy submarine in which he said that he and his fellow submariners called surface vessels, including carriers, "targets".

Posted by: Lysias | Jul 10 2023 15:24 utc | 60

"Full Spectrum Dominance" as US Policy was never renounced. If anyone officially renounced it, the perception of "weakness" would prevail. So we are "boxed in" by Full Rectum Dominance forever, because our leaders are incompetent. Their allure is to those who are likewise incompetent and stupid. Our enemies (and our friends!) surely know that the US will whip out that old canard anytime without notice.

Being our friend means that we have Full Spectrum Dominance.

The correct course according to Candidate DeSantis is to get real nasty with China. DeSantis is attempting to one up Trump; to "be more ignorant" than Trump. The MAGA crowd is full on board with anti-China anything because of tv watching.

Aircraft carriers are useful as bait. To taunt and annoy. If one gets hit, it's WW3. We can only rely on the thoughtful considerations of our perceived enemies.

Posted by: Chaka Khagan | Jul 10 2023 15:27 utc | 61

@Posted by: sabre | Jul 10 2023 14:15 utc | 61

China and the USA both have centrally planned economies. The key difference is that the Chinese economy is planned by the Communist Party of China with the goals of increasing economic productivity, eliminating poverty and wealth inequality, increasing trade partnerships, and creating a harmonious society. The western economy is centrally planned by Wall Street vulture capitalists and investment funds such as "big three" firms Blackrock, Vanguard, and State Street, with the singular goal of funnelling as much wealth as possible into the hands of oligarchs.

Posted by: Tooda | Jul 10 2023 15:29 utc | 62

Thanks for the posting b

We are truly in historic times and I am waiting for the next scene in our movie

All this obfuscation around public/private finance being at the core of the social contract and the implications thereof is a major part of the problem. Where is there any discussion by real cultural anthropologists in the media putting all this into context?

The shit show continues until it doesn't

Posted by: psychohistorian | Jul 10 2023 15:44 utc | 63

"..He had seen the incredible growth of Hong Kong and Taiwan in contrast to the lack of growth and horrible atrocities of mainland China.....The US from 1790-1900 had one of the freest economies in world history..." sabre@61

Your first statement is pure ideology- China's economy made immense advances after 1949, despite enormous difficulties. The increase in life expectancy was a good measure of this. To compare colonial Hong Kong with China is a nonsense:one is free port in a foreign empire, the other a vast sub continent with a diversified economy and all the problems of an embattled state. As to Taiwan it was and is a military base for the United States, with a favoured position in theimperial economy.

Your second statement is also misleading: the US economy was highly regulated, firstly by protective customs barriers and latterly by the corporate 'Trusts' which controlled the capitalist economy. The "American system" defied Free Trade verities.

Posted by: bevin | Jul 10 2023 15:46 utc | 64

USA pay China billions for interest on US debt that they hold?
China pays zero to American holders of China debt?
Where's the Congress?

Posted by: Sink | Jul 10 2023 15:46 utc | 65

@Tooda #75 - I mostly agree with you. Chinese government certainly has the POWER to regulate the economy in any way it sees fit. However, it is still "market-oriented" as the government purposefully minimizes detailed regulation, encourages entrepreneurship and fosters competition. I wouldn't call it centrally planned as you did but that is just a label.

Similarly, I wouldn't call the US centrally-planned as levels of production, employment, etc in each industry are determined by the price system and mostly private firms. But the level of bureaucracy and barriers to competition is immense.

Posted by: sabre | Jul 10 2023 15:46 utc | 66

I would like to comment on carbon emissions which is a tangled issue with few saints (if any).

One aspect is the role of dominant economic powers. USA used to be the largest emitter and its stubborn resistance to policies reducing those emission delayed meaningful action by decades. In the same time, China became the largest emitter, and India, number three. Now China has a semi-sensible program in this area, India, next to none, USA announced a bold and probably stupid program.

Clearly, what would be needed is a global sensible program, with
a. solid calculation instead of fanciful
b. preference for solutions that work NOW (technologically)
c. a realistic vision for developing countries like India that must combine reduction of emission while not maintaining their high poverty levels
d. dropping the sabotage of solutions that create competition to sabotaging countries
e. dropping the sabotage of solutions that deviate from economic dogmas convenient for industry profits

China semi-sensible program includes construction of 450 nuclear reactors that would eliminate a large part of coal generation (or could). China also developed a lot of hydropower and the most advanced production of solar panels.

Russia developed export industry of state of the art nuclear reactors, with comparable reactors built in the West with more than double cost and time. In the same time, Russia has limited ability to finance those project, while a number of the potential project was blocked by the West. For example, projects were blocked in Finland, Bulgaria and Czechia, and replaced with expensive and less reliable Western ones. For example, it totally derailed de-carbonisation in Poland (historically, most coal reliant country in EU). For nuclear power to contribute sufficiently to the reduction of CO2 emission, Western sabotage has to be replaced with cooperation.

One aspect where China is guilty is aluminum production and hydropower. I guess there are other products essential for global economy that add to that equation. China produces roughly half of World aluminum using cheap coal power. An alternative is to produce aluminum with hydropower in regions that (a) have this potential (b) are far from locations with big electricity consumptions. But the competition from Chinese aluminum undermines possible economic projections for hydropower projects that are possible in Africa, Siberia etc. Again, this is a type of issue that requires global cooperation and suffers from conflict and sabotage.

I will describe a silly policy in the USA, ostensibly the champion of CO2 issue, now that at long last, USA deigned to join it in the next post.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Jul 10 2023 15:46 utc | 67

@ Whatever 69
"So to fix it the Chinese companies would have to know the people ordering [fentanyl] are legitimate ie the suppliers would need to be able to vet the US customers

I believe "vetting the customers" is a realistic task for China, but that effort would probably only shift production to underground labs. The world and China have a huge problem, with counterfeit (worthless) medicine that kills people, and mostly people in poor nations. I think that's all coming from underground labs. The MSM has failed to keep us informed of Chinese efforts to suppress the production of counterfeit medicine, but I'd be surprised if Beijing isn't working on it.

Posted by: JessDTruth | Jul 10 2023 15:52 utc | 68

Yellen is quite crazy, not just deluded. She just replied this a few days ago:
“I just want to reiterate what I’ve said in the past, which is I think the United States can rest assured that the dollar is going to play the dominant role in facilitating international transactions and serving as a reserve currency in the years ahead. I don’t see that role being threatened by any development including the one that you’ve mentioned [BRICS common currency].”

Posted by: Clueless Joe | Jul 10 2023 12:36 utc | 38

Yellen's a hack, like Powell and 10/12 FRB governor padding insider trades, including but not limited to Mr "Irrational Exuberance" Greenspan. 40 years steeped in that pool of expert bankers' bankers undoubtedly will flavor the HISTORIC pastiche plastered on Treasury's headstone PRICE CAP COALITION "guidance" in the era of post-pandemic BIDENOMIC Inflation Reduction* acts.

Yellen Sees Recent Inflation as Transitory Rather Than Permanent Build-Back-Better prediction, June 2021

“We’re seeing some inflation but I don’t believe it’s permanent,” Yellen said at a press conference Saturday after the G-7 finance meeting in London. “We at least on a year-over-year basis will continue, I believe, through the rest of the year to see higher inflation rates -- maybe around 3%.”
Yellen Rejects Notion Sanctions Could Undermine Dollar Dominance, March 2022 ("a few days ago")
“When you think about what makes the dollar a reserve currency, it’s that we have the deepest and most liquid capital markets of any country on earth,” Yellen said. “Treasury securities are safe, secure and immensely liquid. We have a well-functioning economic and financial system and the rule of law. There really is no other currency that can rival it as a reserve currency.”
Sanctions 'undermine hegemony of dollar', US Treasury admits, April 2023
“There is a risk, when we use financial sanctions that are linked to the role of the dollar, that, over time, it could undermine the hegemony of the dollar”, Yellen said in an April 16 interview with CNN. She also noted that Washington’s use of economic warfare “does create a desire on the part of China, of Russia, of Iran to find an alternative” to the dollar.
Also, April 2023, Janet L. Yellen on the U.S.-China Economic Relationship at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies" priorities (1.) secure our national security interests and those of our allies and partners, (2.) continue to partner with our allies to respond to China's unfair economic practices, and (3.) call on China to follow through on its promise to work with us on these issues—not as a favor to us, but out of our joint duty and obligation to the world
... Of course, an economy's size is not the sole determinant of its strength. America is the largest economy net importer in the world, but it also remains an unparalleled leader on a broad set of economic metrics—from wealth to technological innovation. U.S. GDP per capita is among the highest [mathematical mean] in the world and over five times as large [sic] as China's. More than resources or geography, our country's success budget deficit can be attributed to our people, values, and institutions. American democracy, while not perfect, protects the free exchange of ideas and rule of law that is at the bedrock of sustainable growth [perpetual positive "g" rate]. Our educational and scientific institutions lead the world [to hell and back again]. Our innovative culture is enriched by [perpetual] new immigrants, including those from China [who haven't been convicted by Christopher Wray]—enabling us to continue to generate world-class, cutting-edge [financial] products and industries....
Yellen says a U.S. default could cause global financial crisis, CNN reports, May 2023 on the road to Hiroshima, "symbol of peace"
“A default would threaten the gains that we’ve worked so hard to make over the past few years in our pandemic recovery. And it would spark a global downturn that would set us back much further,” Yellen said Thursday in Niigata, Japan, where she is attending a meeting of G7 finance ministers and central bankers.

“It would also risk undermining US global economic leadership and raise questions about our ability to defend our national security interests,” she added. Yellen said Congress was no stranger to raising or suspending the debt limit — having done so almost 80 times since 1960 — and urged it to act quickly to do so once again.

But let's pretend no one behind the G5 Wall of gov.cn noticed this rhetorical "connectivity", US unilateral sanctions hither and yon, Joe Tzu's leaky raft of INDOPACOM recovery "partnership", or the 6th Fleet tunneling through the Strait, MoM. Furthermore, gov.cn did not prepare for another helping of wtf by stacking their bench of "counterparts" with fresh-faced, "western-educated" bank regulators—Li Qiang, He Lifeng, and Pan Gongsheng—to finger the re-heated BS that the US delegation is serving.

* OMB Mid-Session FY 2023 Budget Review Table 1, technical adjustment

Note: negative figures represent higher receipts or lower outlays
OMB The 2023 Mid-Session Review
In July, our economy had zero percent inflation ...

Posted by: sln2002 | Jul 10 2023 16:03 utc | 69

It was easy and quick to read through this thread, because there was no significant trolling or pie fights, and there was much actual information. Thanks to all participants. I think that it was either because Bernhard actually cleaned out some of the turd-layers as promised, or because the NAFO and NATO turd-spewers concentrate on the SMO, missing the fact that the main battles are political and economic...

Posted by: Paul Spencer | Jul 10 2023 16:05 utc | 70

@bevin #77 - obviously things are oversimplified to fit into blog comments. China did make advances, but it also had incredible disasters like the Great Leap Forward. The economic reforms of 1979 were a huge change in the way the Chinese government approached regulation of the economy. At that time, China was at sub-Saharan African levels of poverty. Since then it has grown into middle-income levels of per capita earnings, and is one of the fastest growing countries for 30 years running. I can't tell if you are denying that Deng's reforms actually represented a driving force in changing China's economic conditions, but if you are, I'm willing to listen to your argument if you'd care to make one. But the difference in leadership between Mao and Deng, and the associated difference in outcomes of China, is pretty obvious. As for Hong Kong, your comment about it being a colonial port is exactly my point. Even though it is a rock in the middle of the ocean, with very small population, the fact that it was under a different governmental system led to it becoming wealthy. Beijing and Shanghai did not become similarly wealthy because the government system did not facilitate economic development.

As for the US, until 1905 the Commerce Clause only allowed Congress to regulate foreign trade or inter-state commerce. So yes, there were tariffs, but the US itself was almost a full special economic zone. And the lack of regulation included lack of anti-monopoly and consumer protection laws - exactly my point again. There is no country in the world today that has as few economic regulations as the US did then (I'm not saying this is ideal - of course some regulations to ensure fair play and prevent fraud are useful - but it helped drive economic growth).

Posted by: sabre | Jul 10 2023 16:13 utc | 71

Posted by: Sentient | Jul 10 2023 14:42 utc | 65

Sorry if I wasn't being clear Sentient. I explained what they got out of exporting and what are the real flaws with that economic model. You'll also find that infrastructure was built using Yuan.

Don't take my word for it. They have been saying it for a few years now they want to move away from it like Japan is trying to do. So that somebody else can now be the West's sweat shop.

Neoliberal globalism first pushed by the neo cons always puts exporters over the domestic population. It is the very first thing the EU does with new members and that is force them to export their way to growth. The old gold standard model that enforced austerity budgets via spending and debt rules in the treaties too dampen down demand for imports.

Which should come as no surprise as that what colonialism is all about. It's nothing new.

https://moneyontheleft.org/?s=Neoliberalism

The winner of wars always got the losers of war to send their real resources to their new rulers. See Rome or the British empire for details. Of course what Russia sees as an existential threat as the West wants to carve it up to do exactly that.

Posted by: Echo Chamber | Jul 10 2023 16:15 utc | 72

by: BroncoBilly | Jul 10 2023 13:32 utc | 53

"Was it ever supposed to succeed? No. No one really thought that one visit from the female grey haired goblin would suddenly change anything."

I think your right. Bullshit publicity stunt. In the western media all weekend the grey goblin was shown extending an olive branch to China. Meanwhile china and everyone here knows imperialism is gearing up for a full scale war with China. The idea is to say oh, we tried to be nice but they are an evil dictatorship so war, economic and otherwise, is all we can do.

Posted by: Ahenobarbus | Jul 10 2023 16:24 utc | 73

Posted by: Sentient | Jul 10 2023 14:42 utc | 65
———-


Agree. China can use this increased manufacturing more and more to benefit its own citizens.
————

In a post-globalization world China has an excess of urban industrialization and capital and the rural regions are still relatively poorer.

But the rural regions have a lot of resources and cultural practices including collectives that could be monetized and developed in an eco-friendly way by using this excess urban liquidity and well organized foreign investment. (Rather that this liquidity go into financial speculation)

China is considering using these national resources (in addition to gold) as a peg for the yuan thus reconstituting monetary sovereignty.

This would lead China to have a more powerful internal economy and international trade would serve as a complement to this.

This is possible because the central government recognizes the importance of using its monopolized financial sector for community welfare. (Ten Crises)

Posted by: financial matters | Feb 4 2022 0:26 utc | 66

Posted by: financial matters | Jul 10 2023 16:29 utc | 74

Posted by: snake | Jul 10 2023 14:24 utc | 62

Restarting the American industrial base is essential, if America is to survive,

This is a necessary but not sufficient condition.
It also needs to reject imperialism to avoid being:

a) drained of all it's resources and
b) the devolution of the power of The State to foreign and private interests

Yet America without Imperialism is not possible, not while resembling anything you recognise as "America".

the USA has gone global and that is not good for America.

On the contrary, the globalisation of the USA, beginning in the early 20th century (perhaps earlier) is the source of America's military and economic power.

Without Globalism and Global trade America would be nothing more than another Anglo colony swamped in refugees, former slaves and LatAm immigrants. It would stand like some kind of Australia on Steroids while countries like China, India, Iran and the Russian Federation dominate the future of technology, space exploration and even warmaking ...

Even your railways were built by Chinamen imported by globalist thinkers from China, your agricultural power and atheltics industry built on the backs of Africans imported by globalist slavers, your most advanced technologies created by foreign engineers and scientists sometimes literally brought in handcuffs from defeated countries in the Old World.

The "U.S.A" = "Globalism"

Getting Chinese out of USA funded, Universities,

There are no "USA funded Universities" anymore.
Your 'Universities' are private enterprises in the grand old Capitalist tradition.
They are owned and funded by the globalists, like your government. Like DeSanTis ...

Moreover, if your McUniversities were indeed to expel all Chinese the collective academic output and quality would probably plunge by more than 50%.
As would the profits which make these McUniversities such a major source of revenue to fund the U.S government in the form of taxes.

From the development of the Nuclear bomb and the first U.S space rockets, Chinese have been a massive contributor to American technological and Industrial progress.
This is more true today than it was then.

If all Chinese were removed from the American Math Olympiad team there would probably only be one solitary Anglo left to represent the U.S.A.

So shall it be with it's universities.

denying foreign investment in American Real Estate and American businesses,

Your fields would remain desolate and unproductive, kept idle in the hands of your billionaires.
Or perhaps, used for trailer parks and FEMA camps ...

restricting wall street financing to only companies that stay within the confines of USA governed America,

The American population alone, as it stands is not capable of sustaining either the greed or the honest profit motive of the average American corporation.

The greed and profit motive of Wall street, their all consuming need for instant gratification, instant profits will disqualify every enterprise that requires time and care to nurture.

Wall Street are the Globalists, their Capital yearns to be free and will not be contained by the mere laws and borders of the U.S.A.
They cannot be restricted. Not by a Biden. Or a Trump. Or an RFK. Or a Bush or a Clinton.
All your leaders are capitalists and Capitalists Serve Capital.

Without the consumers of Asia and the Global South or barring that, middle class immigrants, most of America's manufacturing, finance, technology brands would collapse.

Give me your greedy, your profit seekers, your poor
Your huddled masses chequebooks yearning to breathe free
The wretched capitalist refuse of your old world shore
Send these tax-havenless, stock-market tossed to me
I lift my lamp beside the fiat door!
Give me your war refugees, your cheap labour
Your LGBTQ masses yearning to spend free
The wretched oligarchs of your Old European shore
Send these the greedy capitalist bores to me
I lift my cheque book beside the face of a golden whore!

will return the American industrial base to America and serve to halt foreign access into the American market of the type Wall Street gets its jollys off of.

America's Industrial base cannot thrive while those of China, India, Russia, Europe and yes the RoTW are allowed to thrive.
For even if everything was done to support America's industrial base the RoTW would produce cheaper, better products due to simply economies of scale.
Unlike the USA, these countries would have the entire world as their markets.
Eventually, nay immediately, Americans would find foreign products more affordable and desireable than American products.

Without being allowed to achieve economies of scale by trading with and in the global market American companies will be outcompeted in their own country by foreign producers, even unintentionally.


Unless your plan is to prevent the American consumer from buying foreign products too?

Americans should do business only with Americans.

Agreed. I hope that business includes pulling American military forces out of the hundreds of bases scattered around the globe - that business is probably the biggest america runs and would best be directed towards americans.

Posted by: Arch Bungle | Jul 10 2023 16:31 utc | 75

Posted by: Sentient | Jul 10 2023 14:42 utc | 65

Why do you think both the US and UK run trade deficits ?


They both believe they won that right by winning world war 2. They believe other countries are there to send their real resources to them. Those that sacrifice their real resources ( that they can run out of ) ( don't use their real resources on their own domestic population ) get funny bits of paper in return.

Neocolonialism and the Unholy Trinity


https://realprogressives.org/podcast_episode/episode-175-neocolonialism-and-the-unholy-trinity-with-fadhel-kaboub/


And for Karlofi - Michael Hudson's new podcast.


Is the US a Failed State? with Michael Hudson

https://realprogressives.org/podcast_episode/episode-232-is-the-us-a-failed-state-with-michael-hudson/


Posted by: Echo Chamber | Jul 10 2023 16:32 utc | 76

About silly policies in USA, ostensibly toward "carbon neutral" future.

There is a big push for electric vehicles which lacks (a) realistic plans for sufficiently increasing all necessary components of non-carbon electricity production, transmission and storage (b) neglects quick savings in fuel consumption as "not carbon neutral (c) totally misses less expensive solutions.

NYT had and article about high costs of EV (electric vehicles) in USA, currently produced and marketed for affluent individuals. Not mentioned in the article is the potential of hybrid vehicles. Hybrids reduce fuel consumption by ca. 50% in stop-go traffic, which is most of the traffic, and as the prices at the pump stabilized on high level, the demand is very robust. Last year 800,000 hybrid vehicles were purchased, compared to 400,000 EVs. Given that electricity in EVs is mostly of carbon origin, it may be the case that hybrids contributed more to the reduction of emissions than EVs. Moreover, the prices of compact hybrid cars became equal with conventional, explaining why the sales doubled last year.

Nevertheless, hybrids are forgotten and neglected as augmentation of emission reductions, and "lower middle class" has to drive aging conventional cars until they die. Relatively low subsidies could induce working people who commute long distances to hybrid or EVs too small and cheap to be interesting for the middle class and, more importantly, car companies who want to sell expensive vehicles with high profit margins. NYT article mentioned EV for 4500 dollars, very popular in China, that could be attractive to American commuters if the range and max speed were 50% higher (based on my conversations while getting haircuts, the ladies in the shop commute partly on a divided highway, so ca. 90 miles one way during weekends when the shop in their home town has few customers, and the shop in my town has a lot). American working class has long commutes because different places have job and affordable housing.

Next post: silliness of EV heavy trucks.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Jul 10 2023 16:33 utc | 77

Michael Roberts looks at the context of current inequalities.

"..historically, global inequality has followed three eras: the first, from 1820 until 1950, characterized by rising between country income differences and increasing within-country inequalities; the second, from 1950 to the last decade of the 20th century, with very high global and between-country inequality; and the current one of decreasing inequality thanks to the rise of Asian incomes, especially Chinese.

According to Milanovic, from the advent of the Industrial Revolution in the early nineteenth century to about the middle of the twentieth century, global inequality rose as wealth became concentrated in Western industrialized countries. It peaked during the Cold War, when the globe was commonly divided into the “First World,” the “Second World,” and the “Third World,” denoting three levels of economic development. But then, around 20 years ago, global inequality began to fall, largely thanks to the economic rise of China, which until recently was the world’s most populous country. Global inequality reached its height on the Gini index of 69.4 in 1988. It dropped to 60.1 in 2018, a level not seen since the end of the nineteenth century.

"...The first era of global inequality stretched from roughly 1820 to 1950, a period characterized by the steady rise of inequality. Around the time of the Industrial Revolution (approximately 1820), global inequality was rather modest. The GDP of the richest country (the United Kingdom) was five times greater than that of the poorest country (Nepal) in1820. (The equivalent ratio between the GDPs of the richest and poorest countries today is more than 100 to 1.)....

"....The growth of global inequality during the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth century was driven both by widening gaps between various countries (measured by the differences in their per capita GDPs) and by greater inequalities within countries (measured by the differences in citizens’ incomes in a given country). The country-to-country differences reflected what economic historians have called the Great Divergence, the growing disparity between, on the one hand, the industrializing countries of western Europe, North America, and, later, Japan, and, on the other hand, China, India, the African subcontinent, the Middle East, and Latin America, where per capita incomes stagnated or even declined. In effect, this was a quantitative measure of the domination of a small bloc of imperialist countries over the rest.

"But Milanovic finds that global inequality began to dip about two decades ago. It has dropped from 70 Gini points around the year 2000 to 60 Gini points two decades later. This decrease in global inequality, having occurred over the short span of 20 years, is more precipitous than was the increase in global inequality during the nineteenth century.

"Does this mean that capitalism is succeeding in reducing inequality and there is now a great convergence? No, because the decrease is driven by really just one country’s income growth: China. And at the same time as China’s fast growth reduced the overall global inequality index; within economies, inequality has risen in just about all the major economies.

"Moreover, the richest income earners in the world remain living in the imperialist bloc. In 1988, 207 million people made up the top five percent of earners in the world; in 2018, that number was 330 million, reflecting both the increase in the world population and the broadening of available data. Americans make up the plurality of this group. In both 1988 and 2018, over 40 percent of the globally affluent were U.S. citizens. British, Japanese, and German citizens come next. Overall, Westerners (including Japan) account for almost 80 percent of the group. Urban Chinese broke into the globally affluent only more recently. But their share is still small, up from 1.6 percent in 2008 to 5.0 percent in 2018.

"Once you exclude China from the data, then there has been no global convergence at all. With China having vacated many of the slots at the bottom of the distribution, those are now filled mostly by poorer Indian households who now have lower living standards than their Chinese counterparts.

And in the imperialist bloc, the lower income groups have lost ground globally. The poorest Italian families were in the top 30 per cent of the world’s income distribution in 1988, but now only just make it into the top half. Importantly, the middle classes in all rich countries have now slipped down the global rankings..."
https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2023/07/10/the-great-divergence/

Posted by: bevin | Jul 10 2023 16:35 utc | 78

Ultimately, the Chinese have a superior system of reformed capitalism which subordinates the "free market" (read FIRE sector) from running a country like it's personal fiefdom. It's not socialism by any stretch but more like the reformed capitalism prevalent in the west post WW2.

The grey goblin comes seeking to install our oligarchs over the Chinese economy, knowing the Chinese have very carefully resisted this long standing effort because they are not stupid. The idea is simply to be able to say we tried so hard to bring democracy to those totalitarians, while plunging the world into nuclear WW3 in pursuit of the most irrational effort to turn back the clock and return to the post WW2 hegemony.

Today's US under this ruling elite is a historical abortion. There is no hope for the working people of the US until this parasitic ruling class is abolished.

Posted by: Ahenobarbus | Jul 10 2023 16:37 utc | 79

The Pentagon knew 25 years ago they could no longer defend carriers from
ground hugging missiles...

Posted by: SwissArmyMan | Jul 10 2023 11:56 utc | 27

Not to mention submarines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_submarine_Saphir_(S602)

Which has actually been an open secret for decades.

Posted by: Nobody | Jul 10 2023 16:43 utc | 80

China pays zero to American holders of China debt?
Posted by: Sink | Jul 10 2023 15:46 utc | 78

To what "China debt" do you refer?
(a) commercial securities;
(b) sovereign bonds; or
(c) occasional"One China" defaulted bonds.

US State Dept has an answer for that "private group of American citizens" holding a LARGE QUANTITY of those gold-denominated bonds issued by "Kuomintang nationalists" d/b/a China Defense Supplies, Inc. and Chinese Supply Commission agents of the US government d/b/a the ROC]".

...Finally, the U.S. continues to work for a resolution with Taiwan ["successor" government of the defeated ROC] of the issue of debts arising from World War II-era loans extended to China.
Anyway, the PRC does. not. do international investor "bail-out" or "bail-in" insurance plans, although the US Congress enacted such rule of law "backstops" for any and all creditors after the Panic of '08. Please, do recall the Frank 'n' Dodd "Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act" of 2010.

Posted by: sln2002 | Jul 10 2023 16:46 utc | 81

sabre@94
You argue that, in 1979, thirty years after the Revolution, "..China was at sub-Saharan African levels of poverty."
What does this mean? Life expectancy in China is surely a measure of poverty- it had risen significantly and was, I have little doubt, significantly higher than either India or Africa (european enclaves excluded).

As to the Great Leap Forward and whether or not it was a disaster I am not persuaded that it was, nor anm I persuaded that millions died of famines- I see both as parts of the anti-communist atrocity legends which are critical defences of capitalism.

What certainly had changed in 1979 wwere the international conditions under which China lived: the necessity of fighting off US imperialist aggression had diminished as the imperialists turned their attentions elsewhere, leaving south east Asia to lick its wounds. Not to recognise that the options open to the government of the Peoples Republic were very different in 1979 from those in 1950 is, among other things, to misjudge the extent of Mao's contributions.

Finally I agree "the US itself was almost a full special economic zone" in 1900, protected by tariffs and blessed by massive infusions of foreign capital and labour. It had minimal defence costs and vast untapped resources. And it was dominated by a wealthy elite with links to the imperial ruling class.

Posted by: bevin | Jul 10 2023 16:57 utc | 82

Is the US a Failed State? with Michael Hudson

https://realprogressives.org/podcast_episode/episode-232-is-the-us-a-failed-state-with-michael-hudson/


Posted by: Echo Chamber | Jul 10 2023 16:32 utc | 90

---

The US is not a failed state. A failed state is defined by its inability to defend itself against external and internal enemies.

In my opinion, the US is still able to do this. To be honest, I think the people of the US are among the peoples with the greatest potential for a new golden age if they finally decide to embark on the systemic reformation that is needed.

Posted by: Nobody | Jul 10 2023 16:59 utc | 83

Echo Chamber | Jul 10 2023 16:32 utc | 90--

Thanks. I was notified of that event and have an offer to participate, which I will accept. The podcast is the 13th at noon Pacific.

Posted by: karlof1 | Jul 10 2023 17:08 utc | 84

Surferket @7

So this time Xi went to visit the military Command Center of Eastern Theater, under which includes Taiwan, while Yellen was in Beijing.

Do the American politicians get the subtle message?

Posted by: lulu | Jul 10 2023 17:10 utc | 85

Posted by: bevin | Jul 10 2023 16:57 utc | 99

As to the Great Leap Forward and whether or not it was a disaster I am not persuaded that it was, nor anm I persuaded that millions died of famines- I see both as parts of the anti-communist atrocity legends which are critical defences of capitalism.

I am constantly puzzled at those who hold up the "millions died from famines under communism" trope (the implication being one of cause and effect).

When I glance through the history of China under it's imperial dynasties and under colonialism I see a record of famines at roughly half century intervals on average. The same for India and I imagine for many other societies (e.g haiti) before any flirtation with communism they might have had.

So it would seem that famine is not a natural consequence of communism. Merely of misfortune and human mental frailty.

Posted by: Arch Bungle | Jul 10 2023 17:11 utc | 86

The US from 1790-1900 had one of the freest economies in world history...Swift v. United States in 1905
Posted by: sabre | Jul 10 2023 14:15 utc | 61

LOLwut

What was the question?
Did Congress have the authority to regulate the meat trust under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act?

Next, you'll be arguing that T. Roosevelt's admin busted the Standard Oil trust, so the "Seven Sisters" would be free to invest their ill-gotten gains in "off-shore" middle-east productive assets.

Posted by: sln2002 | Jul 10 2023 17:11 utc | 87

Posted by: snake | Jul 10 2023 14:24 utc | 62

It's good to have a dream.

Posted by: Jams O'Donnell | Jul 10 2023 17:17 utc | 88

HansJuergen @14

Can anyone listen to this video linked?

There's no sound coming out of this video, though I turned up the volume to 100%. I can listen to other videos from Michael Lüders with no problem.

Posted by: lulu | Jul 10 2023 17:18 utc | 89

Janet Yellen is correct that a more market-oriented system would benefit the Chinese people. Freeing citizens from their rulers would benefit all peoples. She is incorrect in the implication that the USA is the market-oriented model. People, please stop spreading the pernicious lie that USA is a market-based economy, or free-market capitalism:

General business - "Corporations" are legal fictions, granted by the state. Every corporation therefore owes allegiance to the rulers that regulate them.

Banking/Finance - Practically state-owned, heavily regulated top-to-bottom. Significant regulatory implications for housing - most households' largest expense.

Medical - Heavily regulated top-to-bottom.

Education - Heavily regulated top-to-bottom.

I could go on and on. The least regulated aspects of USA are probably food and consumer goods. Not surprisingly, this is what the rulers try to capture with "CPI", in an effort to hide their theft of 20-30-40% of the dupes' purchasing power each and every year.

As a free market idealist (would love somewhere to implement it), I think I favor the honest "socialism/communism" of other countries than the sneaky fascist command/control economy of the USA.

Down with the outlaw empire!

Posted by: Huntington Beach Man | Jul 10 2023 17:21 utc | 90

China and US have strong mutual interest. Both are deeply invested in mutual trade. And both are relatively highly leveraged. I believe/suspect that China is waiting with annoyance yet patiently for the US to return to it's senses. I suspect China recognizes that on the whole, everyone loses in war - particularly among peers. Additionaly, China is base camp for globalism - on a supposedly "equal" footing, while US is for globalism where it makes the rules and enforces order - skimming a small percentage.

The problem with sound money is that it is available in finite amount - or not at all.
It's like a line of chubby people excited to join weight watchers club.

Posted by: jared | Jul 10 2023 17:29 utc | 91

What certainly had changed by 1979 were the international conditions under which China lived ...
Posted by: bevin | Jul 10 2023 16:57 utc | 99

Chiefly, the successful 1973 OPEC oil embargo, euphemistically recalled by historians of advanced economies to this day, "the Oil Crisis". This demonstration of market power forever dispelled western conceits which exposed the true sources of western "geopolitical" hegemony which define G7 national security interest in "securing" supply chains and value chain arbitrage.

Mao Tse Tung died in 1976. Before he did, presumably he, personifying authoritarian dictatoriship that western civilization abhors, instructed UN representatives of China to introduce a Declaration on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order. I'd like to believe that "first-world" democrats who periodically adopt "third-world" impostures will sacrifice 5 minutes in their busy, busy struggles for "critical material" supply chain security to read with ROW this design for "multipolar" political economy.

The "timing" of this UNGA resolution proceeded from Resolution 2758 (1971) which established "the only legitimate representative of China to the United Nations." It coincided not only with US defeat by Viet Nam, but the OPEC oil embargo which crippled NATO industrialists and the final dissolution of US adhesion to the IMF's Bretton Woods value system.

Deng Xiaoping succeeded Mao as CPC chairman. The "wrong" side of history attributes to him a radical break (Deng Theory) from tyrannical Mao Theory, because his role as messenger of perpetually emerging markets in 1974—like Resolution 2758—is largely ignored in western imperial epistemology. When chairman of the of the Delegation of the PRC, Teng Hsiao-Ping (aka Deng Xiaoping) introduced 3202 (S-VI) to the Special Session of the UN General Assembly, 10 April 1974.

...At present, the international situation is most favourable to the developing countries and the peoples of the world. More and more, the old order based on colonialism, imperialism and hegemonism is being undermined and shaken to its foundations. International relations are changing drastically. The whole world is in turbulence and unrest. The situation is one of "great disorder under heaven," as we Chinese put it. This "disorder" is a manifestation of the sharpening of all the basic contradictions in the contemporary world. It is accelerating the disintegration and decline of the decadent reactionary forces and stimulating the awakening and growth of the new emerging forces of the people....
Here is the Declaration on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order, pp 1-3 précis (Arabic, EN, ES, FR, RU, Mandarin)
[...]
The greatest and most significant achievement during the last decades has been the independence from colonial and alien domination of a large number of peoples and nations which has enabled them to become members of the community of free peoples. Technological progress has also been made in all spheres of economic activities in the last three decades, thus providing a solid potential for improving the well-being of all peoples. However, the remaining vestiges of alien and colonial domination, foreign occupation, racial discrimination, apartheid and neo-colonialism in all its forms continue to be among the greatest obstacles to the full emancipation and progress of the developing countries and all the peoples involved.....

1. The present international economic order is in direct conflict with current development in international political and economic relations. Since 1970, the world economy has experienced a series of grave crises which have had severe repercussions, especially on the developing countries because of their generally greater vulnerability to external economic impulses...

2. The present international economic order is in direct conflict with curren development in international political and economic relations. Since 1970, the world economy has experienced a series of grave crises which have had severe repercussions, especially on the developing countries because of their generally greater vulnerability to external economic impulses....

3. All these changes have thrust into prominence the reality of interdependence of all the members of the world community. Current events have brought into sharp focus the realization that the interests of the developed countries and those of the developing countries can no loger be isolated from each other, that there is a close interrelationship between the prosperity of the developed countires, and the propserity of the international community as a whole depends on the prosperity of its constituent parts. International co-operation for development is the shared goal and common duty of all countries.

4. The new international economic order should be founded on full respect for the following principles: [(a) ...(t)]

5. The unanimous adoption of the International Development Strategy for the Second United Nations Development Decade was an important step in the promotion of international economic co-operation on a just and equitable basis....

6. The United Nations as a universal organization should be capale of dealing with problems of international economic co-operation in a comprehensive manner and ensuring equally the interests of all countries....

7. The present Declaration on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order shall be one of the most important bases of economic relations between all peoples and all nations.

229th plenary meeting 1 May 1974
3202 (S-VI). Programme of Action on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order
The General Assembly Adopts the following Programme of Action:

I. Fundamental problems of raw materials and primary commodities as related to trade and development
II. International monetary system and financing of the development of developing countries
III. Industrialization
IV. Transfer of technology
V. Regulation and control over the activities of transnational corporations
VI. Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States
VII. Promotion of co-operation among developing countries
VIII. Asistance in the exercis of permanent sovereignty of States over natural resources
IX. Strengthening the role of the United Nations system in the field of international economic co-operation
X. Special Programme

This is international law which the G7 refuse to reckon. I have quoted at length from pdf format for the edification of persons imprisoned by smart phones.

Posted by: sln2002 | Jul 10 2023 17:51 utc | 92

What Yellen has achieved with her visit to China is eating Chinese food:

1. Eating at famous Yunnan mushroom dishes; Yunnan is the heaven for mushrooms and its mushroom dishes are super popular.

2. Eating with and gave half-hour lecture to half a dozen specifically selected Chinese female 公知(gong zhi: pro-Western neo-liberal fifth column Chinese intelligentsia), ranging from editor-in-chief from Economist Chinese version to professors in Beijing/Peking University and Tsinghua University aka China's Harvard and MIT.

Posted by: lulu | Jul 10 2023 17:53 utc | 93

Arch Bungle | Jul 10 2023 16:54 utc | 98--

Too true! It's been amusing scanning this thread. I spent my first hour of work dealing with Lavrov's meeting with the GCC and its results which I published at VK and my substack, and have yet to formulate a proper comment to this article. That Yellen is so far out of her depth was obvious when she was Fed Chair. The Neoliberal's results speak for themselves after 40+ years of imposing their policy, and those results were predictable based on the first attempt during the 1920s. China's political-economy is founded on a concept completely at odds with Roman Doctrine--the people come last, the elite come first. China's way at its root has always been China's way except during periods where that way was lost due to internal or external reasons. Sun Yat-sen revitalized that way as advancing the people over elites, a concept the CPC adopted and merged with Marxist doctrine. WW2 offered the Chinese people an excellent look at the contrast between Western Gangster Capitalism and what would become the Chinese Path as the KMT looted and padded its pockets while allowing the people to suffer under the Japanese onslaught. Mao and Chou's Red Army was the only force that actually fought the Japanese. Both Generals Marshall and Stillwell knew Chiang's KMT would fall and advised not pouring good money after bad, sort of like the situation today with Zelensky. Yes, it took China awhile to discover the proper way to advance its economy, with Deng and his team working wonders with their "cats." What they began has been constantly modified and improved, what is now called "Modernization" by China, which is a never-ending process. And it is with that point where the real, vast differences between China and Neoliberalism can be seen, as Neoliberalism doesn't improve or modernize anything.

Posted by: karlof1 | Jul 10 2023 18:08 utc | 94

@ lulu | Jul 10 2023 17:53 utc | 110

---

It is almost as if Yellen was used as a shinny object to lure out her neocon fans.

Apparently the fawning caused quite a stir.

Posted by: too scents | Jul 10 2023 18:17 utc | 95

sln2002 | Jul 10 2023 17:51 utc | 109--

Wonderful!! Applause should be directed your way for that posting! The NIEO was immediately counterattacked by the Outlaw US Empire using the newly formulated "Washington Consensus" with its Neoliberal tenets and orders to IMF and World Bank. Hudson's book, Global Fracture is all about it. The world at that time didn't have the economic or political power to mount a successful challenge at that time, but it does today, and has since the opening salvo was delivered in 2013 with the BRI concept.

Posted by: karlof1 | Jul 10 2023 18:18 utc | 96

Posted by: Huntington Beach Man | Jul 10 2023 17:21 utc | 107

"heavily" de-regulated "top to bottom" industry sectors

Posted by: sln2002 | Jul 10 2023 18:29 utc | 97

Both Generals Marshall and Stillwell knew Chiang's KMT would fall and advised not pouring good money after bad, sort of like the situation today with Zelensky.
Posted by: karlof1 | Jul 10 2023 18:08 utc | 111

Like this, U.S. Army Center of Military History?

two fundamental challenges in the China theater. The first challenge was political. Despite facing a common foe in Japan, Chinese society was polarized. Some Chinese were supporters of the Nationalist Kuomintang government; some supported one of the numerous former warlords nominally loyal to the Nationalists; and some supported the Communists, who were engaged in a guerrilla war against the military and political forces of the Nationalists.
[...]
Regardless of these handicaps, the United States and Nationalist China succeeded in forging a coalition that withstood the tests of time. Indeed, Chinese leader Generalissimo LOLwut Chiang Kai-shek, the Allied Supreme Commander, China Theater, accepted, though reluctantly, U.S. Army generals as his chiefs of staff. This command relationship also endured differences in national war aims and cultures, as well as personalities, until the end of the [US-JP] war....

Posted by: sln2002 | Jul 10 2023 18:35 utc | 98

Posted by: gottlieb | Jul 10 2023 14:14 utc | 60:

Everything done by US War Party regimes are for US consumption. Lots of looking busy and Henny Penny shenanigans. The fact that the bankrupt for-profit Empire goes around begging for time to slow its inevitable collapse instead dropping nukes and asking questions later speaks volumes as to the status of both Empire and the jackals waiting to feed off it dead bones.

The dye is cast.

Best characterization to denote the Empire's behavior of the past couples of decades. Yes, all these shenanigans are just for domestic consumptions, to give the impression to dupe voters that Empire is still numero uno and foreign leaders are still obligated to listen and obey.

I agree the dye is cast. Only suspense is whether it'll be mushroom smokes.

Posted by: Oriental Voice | Jul 10 2023 18:42 utc | 99

So it would seem that famine is not a natural consequence of communism.
Posted by: Arch Bungle | Jul 10 2023 17:11 utc | 103

Indeed. Drought is the usual suspect. For example, Droughts of the last centenary period in Ukraine, commonly recalled The Holomodor™ by post-war Allied historiographers burdened by political prejudice rather than archival records.

Posted by: sln2002 | Jul 10 2023 18:59 utc | 100

next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.