Not going through the WSJ comments, but it’s obvious how the problems with China’s approach will be dealt with should push come to shove after you’ve gone through the article.
China is a Communist state running a capitalist simulacra. The highest state of capitalism is imperialism, and the highest state of simulated capitalism is simulated imperialism.
If the trade barriers come up, for a lot of goods, China can effectively just increase military spending (currently at 1.3% of GDP official, or 1.7% according to SIPRI, compare 3%, 3.3%, and 6.8%, depending on who you trust, in the United States) to absorb excess capacity.
The problem with a lot of our concerns (genocide of Palestinians in Gaza, the mutual slaughter in Ukraine) is that the Chinese, in both cases, can get off their asses and intervene more aggressively. But they don’t, because they have trade ties with the West and still need to grow their economy. If a new Iron Curtain were to form, however, there’d be nothing stopping them from taking a harsh anti-Western position geopolitically.
Simulated imperialism essentially comes down to the anti-Western bloc having sufficient power to say: stop, this is stupid, or stop, this is obscene, and the West actually has to sit down and listen because it no longer has monopoly control of the world’s hard and financial power.
A second factor is capital goods exports. If China is cut off from the West through direct trade, there are a bunch of non-aligned countries that can import low-cost Chinese capital goods, then export them to Western consumers at lower prices than if the West were to sell the capital goods themselves.
Where these two things essentially combine is in greentech: this isn’t often mentioned in Western media, but the cost of Chinese battery storage is down to 5.6 cents per watt, or an effective cost of 2-3 cents per kWh generated. Chinese solar installed costs, at the largest scales, is currently about 20 cents per watt, which translates to half a cent or 1 cent per kWh of raw electricity.
Or, in other words, batt + solar is cheaper than frackgas or coal for new power generation. This essentially comes down to a neoconservative excuse to force countries off American frackgas or Western nuclear and make them buy solar + batt.
I think that western leaders are very willing to sit down at the discussion table, but that isn’t a good thing. This gives the west more opportunities and excuses to undercut and wage psychological and material warfare and sanctions against the Global South. The west isn’t as “insane” as it appears, and that’s not entirely a good thing.
I think the west will listen enough to make it seem like they are willing to play ball, but they will dismiss the forest for the trees and act like they are benevolent colonizers.
Not going through the WSJ comments, but it’s obvious how the problems with China’s approach will be dealt with should push come to shove after you’ve gone through the article.
China is a Communist state running a capitalist simulacra. The highest state of capitalism is imperialism, and the highest state of simulated capitalism is simulated imperialism.
If the trade barriers come up, for a lot of goods, China can effectively just increase military spending (currently at 1.3% of GDP official, or 1.7% according to SIPRI, compare 3%, 3.3%, and 6.8%, depending on who you trust, in the United States) to absorb excess capacity.
The problem with a lot of our concerns (genocide of Palestinians in Gaza, the mutual slaughter in Ukraine) is that the Chinese, in both cases, can get off their asses and intervene more aggressively. But they don’t, because they have trade ties with the West and still need to grow their economy. If a new Iron Curtain were to form, however, there’d be nothing stopping them from taking a harsh anti-Western position geopolitically.
Simulated imperialism essentially comes down to the anti-Western bloc having sufficient power to say: stop, this is stupid, or stop, this is obscene, and the West actually has to sit down and listen because it no longer has monopoly control of the world’s hard and financial power.
A second factor is capital goods exports. If China is cut off from the West through direct trade, there are a bunch of non-aligned countries that can import low-cost Chinese capital goods, then export them to Western consumers at lower prices than if the West were to sell the capital goods themselves.
Where these two things essentially combine is in greentech: this isn’t often mentioned in Western media, but the cost of Chinese battery storage is down to 5.6 cents per watt, or an effective cost of 2-3 cents per kWh generated. Chinese solar installed costs, at the largest scales, is currently about 20 cents per watt, which translates to half a cent or 1 cent per kWh of raw electricity.
Or, in other words, batt + solar is cheaper than frackgas or coal for new power generation. This essentially comes down to a neoconservative excuse to force countries off American frackgas or Western nuclear and make them buy solar + batt.
there is no way the current generation of western leaders ever do this. no chance at all.
they’ll burn the world to ash before they’ll consider listening to people they consider subhuman.
I think that western leaders are very willing to sit down at the discussion table, but that isn’t a good thing. This gives the west more opportunities and excuses to undercut and wage psychological and material warfare and sanctions against the Global South. The west isn’t as “insane” as it appears, and that’s not entirely a good thing.
oh they’ll sit down, sure. what they wont do is listen.
I think the west will listen enough to make it seem like they are willing to play ball, but they will dismiss the forest for the trees and act like they are benevolent colonizers.