My word choice betrayed what I intended to get at and I didn’t realize how significantly I misunderstood the connotation of capitulated until more folks started voicing the same perspective as XiBuck. That is why I initially balked at what I saw as a significant extension beyond what I intended to say in his response.
Roof_Roach
joined 3 years ago
Capitulated probably has the wrong connotation, but I was responding to a comment I interpreted as asking what concessions the Chinese got from the US. Namely, nothing directly. All the surrounding stuff is fair enough and likely where the Chinese negotiators heads were at too but they did not even mildly press the US here. That’s all I’m trying to say.
Again, I’m not intending to make a value judgment or suggesting one course of action over another. If I intended to do that, I would have said something like “the Chinese should have punished the US”. But I never said that because I didn’t intend to make a value judgment or suggest a course of action over another, as though I’m better positioned to understand what’s going on than the people intimately involved.
I said the Chinese had an opportunity to significantly pressure the US economy and did not take it. You are arguing that they shouldn’t have taken the opportunity to pressure the US economy. We aren’t having the same conversation. I don’t know what the right choice would be in this situation and don’t claim to understand the situation better than the Chinese govt if that wasn’t clear.
So you agree that China is more interested in maintaining business as usual than putting pressure on the US? That is what I originally said. This is why you should respond to the argument someone makes, not what you assume they are saying by imagined extension.
Alright, how about you refrain from inventing a bunch of random stuff I never said to bolster your point?
China positively could have put the screws to the US but did not. They are being incredibly amicable with the US as they always are.
China had the US in a significantly compromised position and instead of pressing this, just decided to go back to business as usual without securing significant concessions as they likely could have. As anyone aware should know, being friendly to the US probably wont lead to the US later returning the favor, so the benefits of getting along don’t really exist. This is really just the US saying ‘let’s just pretend the last month where we significantly weakened our bargaining position didn’t happen’ and China says ok.
China did what many expected and pretty clearly ~~capitulated~~ ceased to resist the US’s unilateral attempt to start a damaging trade war and returned to the prior state of affairs while eating the damaging consequences that have already taken place. Probably the correct choice for their interest in fostering world trade but also majorly bailed out the US at a time where if they had wanted, they could have placed considerable pressure on the US economy. Any expectation we have of a Chinese conflict with the US needs to be considerably tempered after this. They still have no interest in serving as direct opposition to the US and when they do, it’s like with the Russians, only after they are forced by the west.
Edit: My wording led folks to believe I was admonishing the Chinese govt for their actions. That was not my intention and I do not claim to understand Chinese geopolitics better than the Chinese.
So what’s the current understanding of Trump’s tariffs? Was it simple market manipulation and they never intended to keep tariffs on long term? Or did the Trump govt really think this was a good idea to bring back manufacturing without understanding how this would impact the US economy and are now running from the consequences?