What's new

US must 'get used to China's rise'

So long as the US fails to gracefully concede its unilateral hegemony to China (and Russia) there will likely be confrontations. Weather those will turn into large armed conflicts depends on how strong China's deterrence is.

The US is a genocidal regime, so, their intention and killing capability is not to be disputed.

Only if China rests assure the US regime that it can kill at least as many, then the US will back up or remain silent. That's a regime that can speak only the language of power and coercion.

When it comes to sovereign rights of two strong nations, 300billion USD trade volume and all that investment will be ignored.

It is still a world of nation-states and business/international organizations are political apparatuses, at best. In the end, state rules the day.

China will definitely create its own sphere of influence in the Asia-Pacific. US has go back to the Atlantic and enjoy its control of West Asia. East Asia is to be dominated by others led by China.
 
And you could say that North Korea, Russia and Chinas' illegitimate, fetal alcoholic syndrome step child is the 'way it is' because of China.:china:
 
USA isn't going anywhere, anytime soon. All the wishing and PDF circle jerk fantasy comments in the world won't change that one simple fact. US and China will continue to co-exist with business as usual.
 
And you could say that North Korea, Russia and Chinas' illegitimate, fetal alcoholic syndrome step child is the 'way it is' because of China.:china:

Mongrel people cannot understand.

In fact, the way for you is to repeat what your blood ancestors in fascist Europe achieved. Your step children are even more glaring.

US isn't going anywhere, anytime soon. All the wishing and PDF fantasizing in the world won't change that fact.

And your statement does not sound like any more "wishing" than others', right?
 
Mongrel people cannot understand.

In fact, the way for you is to repeat what your blood ancestors in fascist Europe achieved. Your step children are even more glaring.



And your statement does not sound like any more "wishing" than others', right?

My 'statement' is based on fact. The US is not going anywhere, anytime soon. Does that mean forever, of course not. Certainly not anytime soon though.. US is not just going to casually one day decide to remove all its bases and personal on a whim. Not to mention the stone cold fact that it has treaty obligations. it's not just going to casually break those commitments.

You might as well say "I think the US is going to leave next year" Next year will come, and everything will still be the same.
 
My 'statement' is based on fact. The US is not going anywhere, anytime soon. Does that mean forever, of course not. Certainly not anytime soon though.. US is not just going to casually one day decide to remove all its basis and personal on a whim.


Nobody said that. When it comes to rational decision, you can count on China. People here at times express their best guess. Their guesses are no less (or more) scientific than yours because future is certainly unpredictable.

But people can extrapolate into future by looking at the evidence available at the moment. That may prove to be true or not, that's the job of history.

Just as China is not going anywhere in Latin America, and probably getting rested there even more firmly, the US will not suddenly disappear from the Asia-Pacific. That's understandable.

The problem with your statement was not that you believed the US would be here to stay but that you believed in it dogmatically while rejecting others'.
 
Nobody said that. When it comes to rational decision, you can count on China.

But people can extrapolate into future by looking at the evidence available at the moment. That may prove to be true or not, that's the job of history.

Just as China is not going anywhere in Latin America, and probably getting rested there even more firmly, the US will not suddenly disappear from the Asia-Pacific. That's understandable.

A very pragmatic and rational comment. One which I agree with.
 
Erm, that's a rather common misconception. US investment is never the dominant investment in China, nor is US investment the primary factor in Chinese growth or job creation. Historically, China's biggest partner would be Taiwan and Hong Kong. After those two, it would be Japan, South Korea and after those are France, Germany, etc. Nowadays China are branching out with Southeast Asia, Africa occupying increasingly larger portion of Chinese trade and investment.

In term of technological transfer, China also mainly deal with Russian, EU, Japan, etc rather than US because a number of treaties. US does outsource a lot of stuff, but the primarily destination would be Mexico, Latin American nations. Basically, US and China's economic tie is still pretty large, but it is certainly not as large as people making it out to be.


It's not a misconception, many US private companies moved their manufacturing base to China back in the 1980's which brought billions in investment of the decades and millions of new jobs for Chinese workers. Today, cost of manufacturing in China is rising and US firms and companies are moving out of China and moving to SE and other Asian countries, with some jobs returning to US. China never had such a booming manufacturing base until US and other western countries set up their factories and manufacturing bases there, read this history, no one mentioned "biggest partner" and that certainly wouldn't be Japan or South Korea in the past two or three decades.


Forty percent of US firms consider moving factories out of China - NY Daily News
 
Obviously attempting to destroy indian territorial integrity will lead to nuclear war..and end of the chinese dream as well.

What if the people in the North East do it by themselves? All China need to do is provide covert support through third parties like Myanmar rebel factions, a connection that cannot be proven, just like there was no proof of Russian support in Eastern Ukraine. Will you nuke the North East in that case?

It of course depends on what the people of North East want, whether they want to stay with India or break free. You can hardly suppress 6 million Kashmiri's with 800,000 security personnel, imagine what it will be like if 40 million people decide to fight India, if they think they have a realistic chance to go at it.
 
It's not a misconception, many US private companies moved their manufacturing base to China back in the 1980's which brought billions in investment of the decades and millions of new jobs for Chinese workers. Today, cost of manufacturing in China is rising and US firms and companies are moving out of China and moving to SE and other Asian countries, with some jobs returning to US. China never had such a booming manufacturing base until US and other western countries set up their factories and manufacturing bases there, read this history, no one mentioned "biggest partner" and that certainly wouldn't be Japan or South Korea in the past two or three decades.


Forty percent of US firms consider moving factories out of China - NY Daily News

Complete myth. Accumulated US investment in China is minimal. Taiwan has the most followed by Hong Kong and Japan. Chinese economic rise has been due to the investment and technology provided by Hong Kong SAR and Taiwan province. Japan and South Korea has greater investment than US. This is a fact.

All this rubbish that US lost jobs to China is a laughable myth.

China was growing 6-8% long before the US opened up to China. Western propaganda refuses to acknowledge this as this goes against their narrative.

Most of the manufacturing done in China now is done by Chinese companies. Low-end businesses have moved out long time ago. Chinese companies are replacing medium and high end businesses from foreign businesses.

The western analysts are completely ignorant about the economic situation in China. China no longer need foreign investment into China as this takes away market share from a Chinese companies. China puts restrictions on many sectors for FDI as it's no longer needed. Chinese market is already the biggest for many goods which means China's reliance on foreign markets are decreasing as the domestic market replaces foreign market for companies.

Foreign manufacturers are moving to China not to take advantage of the lower production costs (labour, land, electricity, tax, regulations, energy, raw materials) but to produce for the domestic market. Companies that moved to China to produce to western markets have left but companies that produce to the Chinese market have entered China. They now manufacture their goods in China but set up their R&D centers in China to cater to the Chinese market.

Direct investment (greenfield), technology, markets and management were what China needed decades ago. But China is relying less and less on these 4 factors as now China is now the 3rd largest annual investor overseas, Chinese market is the 2nd largest overall, China is now becoming self-sufficient in technology in many areas and management is being replaced by Chinese managers as they understand the systems and the local culture.

Only the truly ignorant still believes China depends on the US for its growth. This is what the US said during the 2008 financial crash that China can't grow without the US, but that myth was shattered as China became the global growth engine for the world as Chinese demand for everything (energy, raw materials, agriculture, manufactured goods, services) increased as consumption was increased due to many factors. This all happened while the US was in recession. US companies still consider China their fastest growth market and the biggest contributor to their earnings.

Exporting Asian economies companies moved their production to China to take advantage of the lower production cost to produce to the world markets. China thus gained their investment, technology and management.
 
Complete myth. Accumulated US investment in China is minimal. Taiwan has the most followed by Hong Kong and Japan. Chinese economic rise has been due to the investment and technology provided by Hong Kong SAR and Taiwan province. Japan and South Korea has greater investment than US. This is a fact.

All this rubbish that US lost jobs to China is a laughable myth.

China was growing 6-8% long before the US opened up to China. Western propaganda refuses to acknowledge this as this goes against their narrative.

Most of the manufacturing done in China now is done by Chinese companies. Low-end businesses have moved out long time ago. Chinese companies are replacing medium and high end businesses from foreign businesses.

The western analysts are completely ignorant about the economic situation in China. China no longer need foreign investment into China as this takes away market share from a Chinese companies. China puts restrictions on many sectors for FDI as it's no longer needed. Chinese market is already the biggest for many goods which means China's reliance on foreign markets are decreasing as the domestic market replaces foreign market for companies.

Foreign manufacturers are moving to China not to take advantage of the lower production costs (labour, land, electricity, tax, regulations, energy, raw materials) but to produce for the domestic market. Companies that moved to China to produce to western markets have left but companies that produce to the Chinese market have entered China. They now manufacture their goods in China but set up their R&D centers in China to cater to the Chinese market.

Direct investment (greenfield), technology, markets and management were what China needed decades ago. But China is relying less and less on these 4 factors as now China is now the 3rd largest annual investor overseas, Chinese market is the 2nd largest overall, China is now becoming self-sufficient in technology in many areas and management is being replaced by Chinese managers as they understand the systems and the local culture.

Only the truly ignorant still believes China depends on the US for its growth. This is what the US said during the 2008 financial crash that China can't grow without the US, but that myth was shattered as China became the global growth engine for the world as Chinese demand for everything (energy, raw materials, agriculture, manufactured goods, services) increased as consumption was increased due to many factors. This all happened while the US was in recession. US companies still consider China their fastest growth market and the biggest contributor to their earnings.

Exporting Asian economies companies moved their production to China to take advantage of the lower production cost to produce to the world markets. China thus gained their investment, technology and management.

From January [2013]to December [2013] this year, the top ten nations and regions with investment in China (as per the actual input of foreign capital) are as follows: Hong Kong (USD78.302b), Singapore (USD7.327b), Japan (USD7.064b), Taiwan Province(USD5.246b), U.S.A. (USD3.353b), R.O.K.(USD3.059b), Germany (USD2.095b), Holland (USD1.281b), U.K. (USD1.039b) and France (USD762m), total of which accounted for 93.15% of total actual use of foreign investment in the country.

http://english.mofcom.gov.cn/article/statistic/foreigninvestment/201402/20140200498911.shtml
 
To put things into perspective. ;)

Brand Expert Interview: 'The Chinese Have the Necessary Vision'


AFP
A Haier factory in Qingdao in northern China's Shandong province.

Twenty years ago, China exported six cars. Last year it exported a million. Marketing expert Nirmalya Kumar speaks to SPIEGEL about the impending global ascent of brands from emerging economies.

SPIEGEL: Professor Kumar, in your recent book, you predict the breakout of future world brands from emerging markets, particularly from China. Are you not a bit premature? Even in Asia, the newly rich prefer Western brand icons like Apple or Armani to cheap local labels.

Kumar: If I had told you 25 years ago that South Korean brands like Samsung or Hyundai would successfully enter Germany, you would have called me crazy. However, now the Chinese, too, are on the advance. The Germans should take care in order not be caught off guard like in the past by the offensive of Japanese camera makers.

SPIEGEL: The advantage of the Chinese has long been in their cheap labor costs. German producers, on the other hand, stand for quality. Are they not well prepared for advances from the East?

Kumar: Chinese brands like Haier follow the same strategy as Toyota did: The Japanese automaker first produced in its own country, then it built factories throughout the world as well as bases for research and development in central markets. Finally, it also attacked in the luxury segment -- with the "Lexus." To be sure, Chinese car makers still lag behind, but they are slowly catching up, especially in the emerging markets. Twenty years ago China exported six cars, last year it exported one million cars.

SPIEGEL: Does this mean we have to be concerned about BMW or Mercedes?

Kumar: These brands are alive primarily thanks to China's growing market. There, they are adapting to the needs of their customers. BMW and Mercedes remain relevant as luxury brands. Relatively, however, the balance will shift -- in favor of new brands from the emerging markets.

SPIEGEL: And why haven't the Indians moved ahead with global brands?

Kumar: Indian companies face much higher barriers than Chinese ones: In order to make your brand known to Western customers you have to invest a lot of money in advertisement. The Chinese have the necessary vision and they have a home market which is four to five times as big as the Indian market. Profits generated in the domestic market finance their global offensives. What is more important, however: China is the only emerging market that has the ability to produce world class products. The Chinese produce for Bosch, for Apple, for Ericsson. But when they want to develop their own brands, they only have to put their own label on it.

SPIEGEL: Or they just buy Western brands. How important are brands still as a tool for consumers to judge products? Jaguar and Land Rover, for example, once stood for British tradition; now both brands belong to the Indian Tata group.

Kumar: Brands are not being defined by their country of origin any longer. Of course, if I market champagne, the country of origin still plays a role. However, if you buy an iPhone from Apple you don't think "Made in China." And if you drive a Jaguar or Land Rover you don't care about its Indian owner Tata or that the CEO of Jaguar Land Rover Automotive is a German. What matters to the consumer is whether the brand keeps what it promises.

SPIEGEL: Still, Western consumers are still skeptical when they see "Made in China" written on a product.

Kumar: Sure, during the past 40 years China defined itself by the cheap label "Made in China." In the coming 30 years, however, the world will more and more define itself by the label "Owned by China." China will own many global companies and important resources across the world.

Interview: Expert Nirmalya Kumar on Rise of Emerging Market Brands - SPIEGEL ONLINE
 
I proposed a similar idea here:
Sun Tzu Doctrine for Asia

But that was then, I need to revise that. I no longer believe in smaller regional unions in Asia. China must establish itself as the undisputed leader, helped by its allies, while entire Asia should be directly under Chinese control, no more sub regions for Asia.

Nope. I disagree with you. We can be a good friend of China, but in an equal relationship.
 
Last edited:
It's not a misconception, many US private companies moved their manufacturing base to China back in the 1980's which brought billions in investment of the decades and millions of new jobs for Chinese workers. Today, cost of manufacturing in China is rising and US firms and companies are moving out of China and moving to SE and other Asian countries, with some jobs returning to US. China never had such a booming manufacturing base until US and other western countries set up their factories and manufacturing bases there, read this history, no one mentioned "biggest partner" and that certainly wouldn't be Japan or South Korea in the past two or three decades.


Forty percent of US firms consider moving factories out of China - NY Daily News

The first part is not true.

中国吸收外商直接投资概况_百度文库

According to section I, paragraph one, from 1979 to 1990, China received a total of 20.692 billion USD worth of foreign FDI, averaging 1.7 billion USD per year. Paragraph two stated that out of these foreign investment, approximately 80% comes from Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau.

http://www.sinoss.net/qikan/uploadfile/2010/1130/5951.pdf
The height of US investment in China is around 2002, where US has an investmnet of around 5.42 billion USD, accounting for
10.3% of the FDI to China. After 2002, US investment in China dropped drastically.

China 2013 foreign investment inflows hit record high| Reuters
By 2013, US investment to China has dropped to 3.4 billion USD, accounting only for 2.89% of the total foreign investment into China.

Basically, US investment in China never really consists of more than 10% of the total FDI China received and in the recent years the percentage is getting progressively smaller. This is, of course, on top of the fact that FDI haven't been the driving force of Chinese growth since the late 80s.

I don't get why people would expecting US investment to play a large role in China. The two countries has been sitting on the opposite sides of global politic ever since PRC was founded and always have direct strategic conflict with each other. Common sense would indicate in this case the two countries' economic tie probably isn't that big and reality reflects it.
 
Back
Top Bottom