What’s fueling the rise in anti-Chinese hysteria?
How do Americans form their views of China? I see two possibilities:
1. They look at Chinese behavior, and form their views on that basis.
2. They take their cue from American politicians and pundits, who try to whip up anti-Chinese hysteria.
There’s actually an easy way to distinguish between these views. Chinese behavior has not changed significantly in the last year or two, but anti-Chinese propaganda has increased dramatically. So if we look at the attitudes of Americans toward China over time, we should be able to figure out how those views are formed. The following graph is from an excellent Greg Ip article in the WSJ:
The graph speaks for itself.
Ip’s article is still a tad too Ameri-centric for my taste, but it’s probably the best one could expect from a reporter who didn’t want to get drawn and quartered by the thought police. Well worth reading.
This is a key paragraph:
There’s good reason for the hawkish turn. Advocates of engagement have been dismayed by China’s mistreatment of foreign companies—such as forced transfer of their technology—its more bellicose behavior toward its neighbors and President Xi Jinping ’s tightening grip over domestic dissent.
The authoritarianism in China is a completely valid issue. We should speak out. Ironically, I’m far more opposed to authoritarianism in China than is the anti-Chinese Trump administration, which actually prefers authoritarian governments around the world (Saudi Arabia, Russia, Philippines, etc.) to our democratic allies like Germany and Canada. Trump often lavishes effusive praise on Xi Jinping.
Technology transfer is none of our business. China shouldn’t force technology transfer, but that’s an internal policy decision of the Chinese government. Nobody’s forcing our companies to invest in China.
As far as “bellicose behavior”, the US government routinely invades nearby countries, overthrows their government, and replaces them with governments more to our liking. China does not.
China’s not perfect, and indeed their bases on tiny uninhabited islands in the South China Sea are a needless source of friction in Southeast Asia. But for the US to criticize Chinese aggression borders on the absurd. Those islands are a trivial issue.
The Democrats are particularly disappointing in this area. What credibility do they have in criticizing Trump’s nationalism if they are going to engage in the same mindless fear-mongering?
Why aren’t the economic policies of other countries our business? After all, bad policies reduce our exports. OK, in 2018 we exported less than $26 billion to India and almost $130 billion to China. Both countries have a bit under 1.4 billion people. The difference is explained by the fact that China has economic policies that are more favorable to our exporters. You say it’s because India is much poorer? Well, why the heck do you think India is much poorer? So why aren’t you demanding a trade war with India? Why shouldn’t we demand that India adopt Canada’s economic model? After all, we export $282 billion to Canada, which has only about 36 million people. Should we demand that India “shape up”, so that our multinationals can get even richer? This whole trade war is ridiculous.
PS. There are a lot of predictions of a Brexit disaster and a US recession. This plays into the hands of Johnson and Trump, both of whom are likely to be elected (or re-elected) when the more dire predictions don’t come true. Remember Y2K? Actually, a Johnson win doesn’t bother me, given the main alternative. (Maybe UK voters should consider the Liberal Democrats.) Look for the Dems to play into Trump’s hands by selecting someone like Warren. Given the choice between a real nationalist and a fake nationalist, Americans will choose the real nationalist every time.
PPS. I have a new piece at The Hill.
Tags:
30. August 2019 at 17:27
“Russia”
Sumner, you fucking idiot. Name ONE WAY -just ONE WAY- Trump in any way prefers Russia over China. Also, in what world are Russia and the Philippines non-democracies?
I find your Sinophilia combined with your Russophobia kind of bizarre, but I’m not the boss of your thoughts.
“What credibility do they have in criticizing Trump’s nationalism if they are going to engage in the same mindless fear-mongering?”
Uh, Sumner… you do realize the mindless fearmongering started in 2016 against Russia?
“both of whom are likely to be elected (or re-elected) when the more dire predictions don’t come true.”
No.
Corbyn and [Dem nominee here, probably Warren] will win in 2020.
What basis do you have for saying Trump will be re-elected? There isn’t any.
30. August 2019 at 18:21
“Given the choice between a real nationalist and a fake nationalist, Americans will choose the real nationalist every time.”
I’d like you to provide some support for that statement. I think Americans have elected plenty of phonies. Bryan Caplan would gratefully attribute “slack” in the political system to voters’ inability to ensure the views they espouse get enacted by the politicians they elect, particularly as they tend to be “rationally ignorant” of the track records of those pols and how policymaking works.
30. August 2019 at 19:13
Also, Sumner, more than three dozen countries express support for China’s Xinjiang policies:
https://ap.ohchr.org/documents/E/HRC/c_gov/A_HRC_41_G_17.DOCX
So many countries, of such diverse political institutions, religious backgrounds, histories, cultures, and development statuses all saying the same thing cannot be wrong.
30. August 2019 at 19:49
E Harding, Trump is actually very likely to win in 2020. Very few of the people who voted for him in 2016 are disappointed in how he’s performed. The criticism is all coming from people who didn’t vote for him last time. But the strong economy and Trump’s out-there personality are both going to help him get a bunch of votes he didn’t get last time around. Unless the economy goes south, Trump is likely to win by a comfortable margin.
30. August 2019 at 20:00
No. Trump’s approval rating is 42%, below the 46% that voted for him in 2016. There will be recession in 2020 and Trump, as shown in 2018, is not popular.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
30. August 2019 at 21:05
There may be hysteria about China, although when a nation puts 1.5 million people into re-education camps, and the direction from Beijing has been towards gathering repression for 30 years…well, maybe reservations are in order.
On the other hand, I think there is a great deal of hysteria about Trump’s tariffs on China imports, which are rather small potatoes in the scale of the US and global economies.
BTW, Trump’s tariffs do not apply to all importers. So if China steel is more expensive, there are substitutes from Japan, Vietnam, Korea and wherever (even domestic). The longer the tariffs are on, the more adjustments will be made.
Generally speaking, generally open economies are resilient to trade disruptions—-but can still be suffocated by zealous central bankers, especially if they feel their insights into the global order are not be adhered to.
Sheesh, when South Africa was subject to global trade sanctions, it developed its own exporting arms industry, and a successful coal-to-liquids program.
I do not support apartheid, nor Beijing.
31. August 2019 at 00:35
Scott, you have this one badly wrong. “Chinese behavior has not changed significantly in the last year or two, but anti-Chinese propaganda has increased dramatically.”
I live in Australia where ICAC (corruption investigator) has just found that the Chinese Communist Party dumped $100k in cash into the Labor Parties campaign in 2016. This is the tip of the iceberg. As the economist (hardly a propaganda machine for the anti-globalist movement) points out below, the Chinese are extremely active in interfering in Western media and universities. I have countless examples of prominent politicians (Bob Carr & Paul Keating the most high profile) who are explicitly paid to promote pro-Chinese positions within Australia. That you would accuse the largely free Western media of propaganda while ignoring the record of Authoritarian Communist Party in China is beyond absurd, it’s suspicious.
https://www.economist.com/briefing/2017/12/14/how-chinas-sharp-power-is-muting-criticism-abroad
31. August 2019 at 01:53
TGGP, That’s my impression; I haven’t done a scientific study.
Harding, You said:
“Also, Sumner, more than three dozen countries express support for China’s Xinjiang policies . . .
So many countries, of such diverse political institutions, religious backgrounds, histories, cultures, and development statuses all saying the same thing cannot be wrong.”
Thirty countries out of 200 cannot be wrong? Whatever you say Harding.
Ben, You said:
“I do not support apartheid, nor Beijing.”
Me neither.
Orwell, You said:
“That you would accuse the largely free Western media of propaganda while ignoring the record of Authoritarian Communist Party in China is beyond absurd, it’s suspicious.”
I’ve noticed that people with weak arguments tend to go for the ad hominem attack. But yours is “beyond absurd”. You think I’m being paid by the communists in Beijing? But it does sort of prove my point about how the thought police are trying to enforce the anti-Chinese hysteria. Americans who opposed the anti-Japanese hysteria in 1942 (Japanese-American internment camps, etc.) were treated even worse, so I guess I should be thankful for that.
31. August 2019 at 02:21
The point is, when the Chinese government is demonstrably influencing parts of the Western political process (via media, universities, donations etc), it will be seen as suspicious if people start accusing those that push back as “propagandists”.
All the “five eyes” countries are currently in the process of drafting bills to prevent Chinese interference in their political systems. It’s real, and it’s serious.
Perhaps it’s because of your wife, or your hatred of Trump, but you are very biased on this issue. Not even the most pro-globalist publications (or for that matter the vanilla leftist media) would say that there is “propaganda” in the West on this issue.
31. August 2019 at 02:22
PS I’m certainly not suspicious of you. I think you’re brilliant!
31. August 2019 at 02:30
This Pew poll was interesting; while Americans’ overall attitudes towards China have gotten strongly more negative, more specific questions show no change (https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/08/13/u-s-views-of-china-turn-sharply-negative-amid-trade-tensions/). If anything, there is a small upwards trend in the percent of Americans who think China’s economic growth is good for America and have confidence in Xi. This poll further supports the propaganda hypothesis; people are now more negatively inclined towards China in general but when asked about specific issues can’t think of as much negative stuff.
Another interesting thing is that foreign policy elites seem much more negative towards China than average Americans (even the Pew poll found more negative views of China among college graduates, though of course foreign policy elites are only a tiny subset of college graduates). Trump ran in part against foreign policy elites who manipulated Americans into wars in the Middle East; I would hope that supposed populists have learned from this mistake.
Orwell, what’s wrong about paying people to advocate your views? This is extremely common; in the US, there is a fossil fuel lobby, a pharmaceutical lobby, an Israel lobby, etc. Of course, one would expect China to have a lobby too. Our policies have a significant effect on China. Your accusation also buys into the frame that this is a contest between China and the West. That is the frame that the foreign policy elites’ propaganda promotes. The correct frame is to reject the propaganda on both sides. The true conflict is a tension between freedom and authoritarianism which runs within every country; if we become more authoritarian to counter China’s authoritarianism, then freedom loses.
31. August 2019 at 02:31
Actually, it’s the middle of the night on the West Coast. Where are you? Tell me you’re not in China…. I might have to retract my previous comment 😀
31. August 2019 at 02:38
Mark.
The US has just been through a 2 year investigation into foreign influence in an election. The fact that China is shadily dumping $100k donations into political parties in Australia is a huge concern. I know Americans are very partisan on the whole investigation, but surely agree that foreign influence is wrong. We’ve all read Ayn Rand, corrupt cronyism from certain AMERICAN special interests is part of the furniture that people just (rightly or wrongly) seem to accept. Foreign influence is very different, especially when it’s a strategic rival.
31. August 2019 at 02:44
How about this?
1. The closer China gets to catching/passing the west, the more likely it is that westerners will be anti-China. It’s not the so much the rate at which China is catching up, but the closeness. Closeness is the cumulative effect of constant policy and hence constant rate of catch up. Even if I grant you that China’s policy hasn’t changed, it’s not so surprising that the same actions are seen as more threatening the stronger China gets. Military build up in the South China Sea or hacking in Australia are more threatening now, even if they’ve been happening for a while.
2. Trump himself is personally more vocally anti-China than most US politicians, such as Obama, and he’s not afraid to share his views. No one in the republican party wants to go against him. So then it becomes a de facto Republican position and a hence mainstream issue that the press has to cover. A few of his tweets can move the window of acceptable opinion.
3. The Democrats don’t really have any objections to being anti-China either.
31. August 2019 at 02:57
The truth is there was a very high level decision from the military/industrial complex, made about 2.5yrs ago, to start pushing back on China as it became more of a strategic threat. The promoting of anti-China sentiment is a function of that. It’s not state driven propaganda, China is just very different to the West and as they become more powerful people will naturally become more anxious.
31. August 2019 at 03:32
I too have become angry with the IT theft and tech transfer wondering if the theory of competitive advantage takes into account bad actors.. and have been thinking about reading the new Applebaum book but the most interesting sentence here “nobody is forcing our companies to do business with China”. I guess China is destined to overtake the U.S. – what can we do?
31. August 2019 at 03:33
Scott,
I agree with the general thrust here, but point out that China’s actually liberalized in recent years, and even months. Tesla is able to build a factory there without a Chinese partner, and I believe J.P. Morgan Chase is now allowed to do business there, also without a partner.
For those interested, here’re some good comments by former Morgan Stanley economist Stephen Roach. He correctly points out that many people are accusing China of stealing intellectual property, for example, without even a single example as evidence.
https://youtu.be/CaK-C6h8GIg
31. August 2019 at 03:44
Mark, Great comment.
Geoffrey. You said my hatred of Trump may have led to my views on China. Does that explain why I posted similar arguments regarding China 5 years ago, before anyone even knew Trump was running? And my wife? If I could speak with you off the record for 5 minutes I’d be able to quickly disabuse you of that idea.
You said:
“All the “five eyes” countries are currently in the process of drafting bills to prevent Chinese interference in their political systems.”
Fine, but why does Trump say Russian election interference is not a problem? All the US intelligence services say Russia interfered in the 2016 election, favoring Trump. But Trump says his own intelligence services are wrong. And he appointed the leaders of these institutions! Is Trump being paid by the Russians? Why won’t Trump let us see his tax returns? He promised to release them, and then reneged on the promise. When asked why, he lied. He falsely claimed that tax returns under audit cannot be released. Why is he lying? What is he trying to hide?
People worry about the motives of some random blogger that no one cares about, and there’s 10 times as much evidence that our president is a Russian mole. I’m not saying he is, BTW (I doubt it), just that there’s far more evidence than the claim that the Chinese are paying me to support their position, which is laughable. I’ve always supported free trade. Trump often praises Putin; I’ve never praised Xi.
You asked:
Where are you?”
Haidian district, Beijing, PRC. Earlier today (true story) I received a severe blow to my head, and now there’s a big bump on my forehead. Very suspicious.
Seriously, I could respect a country responding to China over some specific outrage. Suppose China were to kidnap an ethnic Chinese in Australia, and bring them back to China. (I don’t know if this has ever happened, just a hypothetical.) Then Australia would want to respond in some way. But this Trump trade war is totally unfocused. Trump himself doesn’t even seem to know what he’s trying to achieve. He says he wants to eliminate the trade deficit, but he’s not proposing policies that would do so. He doesn’t care about human rights, Muslim rights, etc. So what’s this all about?
31. August 2019 at 03:49
rick, China is not going to overtake us in per capita GDP. They have already overtaken us in total GDP (PPP).
Mike, Obviously there is some Chinese IP theft, as there is in most developing countries. When the US was a developing country, we stole IP from the UK. I’d guess China is paying for a much higher share of the US IP that they use as compared to how much of the UK IP in the late 1700s and early 1800s that the US paid for.
31. August 2019 at 04:17
Scott,
I’m troubled by one thing: When you say forced technology transfer is an “internal issue”, isn’t that somewhat hand-wavey, akin to saying tariffs are an internal issue? After all, companies from EU/China/Canada/Mexico whatever aren’t forced to sell to the US so why should they care about Trump’s tariffs? The fact is, it’s a barrier to investment and US companies are rightly upset about it.
This problem gets amplified when you think about the National Security implications. Giving US high level tech (which, in some situations, can be turned into military tech) to an authoritarian regime opposed to US interests is not something the American Government should want to do.
31. August 2019 at 04:18
Orwell, what about the Israel lobby then? That’s a lobby on behalf of a foreign power, and a far more influential one than the Chinese lobby in the US. If we have policies that are going to affect other countries, other countries should have the right to advance their views here. There is nothing wrong with that, and we advance our views in other countries like through Radio Free Asia too (as we are in our rights to do). Concerns about Chinese influence are leading to calls for censorship, and that should be concerning. Also, what is the distinction you are trying to draw between the military/industrial complex pushing a narrative versus state propaganda? It seems that the military/industrial complex is a state entity so when they push a narrative it’s fair to call it state propaganda even if they are doing so through privately owned media.
31. August 2019 at 04:20
Something else I forgot to add about the technology transfer. In Tyler Cowen’s recent book Big Business, he mentions the “dark matter” of American companies. American companies’ innovation, consumer loyalty, and other things which don’t show up in the trade deficit but are very important in reality. These things allow the US to run a persistent trade deficit and not pay any net interest/dividend payments overseas because Americans earn a higher return on their investment overseas than other countries do. This is actually a really good thing for the US economy that we can run a persistent trade deficit. We basically get 600 billion a year of “free stuff”. The Chinese technology transfer could threaten this by undermining American competitive advantage overseas
31. August 2019 at 05:05
“China’s not perfect, and indeed their bases on tiny uninhabited islands in the South China Sea are a needless source of friction in Southeast Asia.”
As far as I know, China has one base on one tiny island and has had it since the 1950s. The rest don’t rise to tiny island status. I agree that China’s actions there have been a needless source of tension but this has been going on for decades and other countries have made claims on rocks as well. Interestingly, friction between Japan and China has decreased since 2014.
31. August 2019 at 05:11
“Thirty countries out of 200 cannot be wrong?”
Not what I wrote.
31. August 2019 at 05:22
“there’s 10 times as much evidence that our president is a Russian mole”
Ten times less, you surely mean (unless that blow to the head has gotten to you). There is several million times as much evidence our president is an Israeli mole, but you hardly ever focus on reality, rather than fiction.
“but why does Trump say Russian election interference is not a problem”
Because Trump, on occasion, tells the truth. But he never acts as if he believes the truth.
Why would anyone trust intelligence agencies, I have no clue. These people are paid to lie. And you have the temerity to complain about “thought police”?
31. August 2019 at 06:15
James, Tariffs are also an internal issue, and each country should unilaterally adopt a policy of no tariffs, regardless of what other countries do.
India has worse barriers to US companies—why aren’t we upset with India?
And what makes you think China is opposed to US interests?
On your second comment, why shouldn’t the Chinese also want to get some of that “free stuff”?
Todd, Thanks for that info.
Harding, I never said it’s what you wrote. I provided an EXACT quote of what you wrote. I’ll let the readers make up their minds.
31. August 2019 at 06:30
Scott – I hope you are ok and enjoy your trip.
Australian Citizens have been detained in China on spurious charges, we previously turned a blind eye because we like the money they pay for iron ore…https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-04/former-rio-tinto-executive-stern-hu-released-from-chinese-prison/9940820
31. August 2019 at 06:35
Trump is generally unfocused but the objective is clear: to weaken China economically, that is sponsored by the military and industrial complex who feel threatened by China’s rise.
Mark – Israel is not a rival, and shares US values and interests more closely than any other country.
31. August 2019 at 07:58
Scott, for every action there is an opposite reaction. Do you find the Chinese are getting more anti-American in their attitudes? The worst case scenario is a re-emergence of extreme xenophobia in China that will drive China back to Mao era darkness.
As for current American situation, well, bad strategic aims and incompetent execution of the strategy driven by foolish narcissistic leaders don’t end well (see pre-WWI Germany, Austria Hungary, Russia, etc, etc.)
31. August 2019 at 08:24
Didn’t China put a gun to Steve Jobs head, threaten him if he didn’t send Tim Cook to China to build a supply chain, force Apple to shift production to said supply chain, require Apple to evade U.S. tax on the enormous amount of income realized as a result of said supply chain by placing a piece of paper (i.e., a patent) in a file drawer in a tax haven and allocating the income to said file drawer, then orchestrate the election of Trump so Trump could pass a law that forgave Apple’s evasion of U.S. tax? If China didn’t force Apple to do it and Apple did it on its own, then why do so many Americans buy Apple products?
31. August 2019 at 12:34
@LC who wrote: “Do you find the Chinese are getting more anti-American in their attitudes?”
Percent of Chinese who have a favorable view towards the U.S.:
2005 40%
2006 22% <– what happened here?
2007 28%
2008 38%
2009 34% (BBC poll for 2005-2009)
2016 50% (Pew Poll)
I couldn't find anything more recent. Another BBC poll shows low 40% from 2014 to 2017 with only a 2% change over those years.
31. August 2019 at 14:58
Scott,
Yes, I happened upon some knockoff designer purses at the flea market today, and they were from China, but I just don’t see how this is a big deal for the US as a whole, or why ppor countries should expend resources to protect the property rights of rich countries. My guess is that there will be a natural evolution toward protecting IP as China develops more of its own.
31. August 2019 at 15:06
Geoffrey, You said:
“Trump is generally unfocused but the objective is clear: to weaken China economically,”
That’s exactly my point. Many if not most of Trump’s demands (such that China open its markets) would strengthen China economically. There’s no plan here—it’s all chaos.
I’d have no problem with Australia responding to its citizens being arrested. How about the Huawei executive that was arrested in Canada?
You said:
“Israel is not a rival, and shares US values”
It certainly shares Trump’s values that Muslims should be treated as second class citizens. I did not know those were America’s values.
LC, I expected that to occur, but I haven’t seen it so far. Not a big enough sample size. To be honest, I don’t think the average Chinese person is paying a lot of attention to the trade war, but I am not certain.
Rayward, 🙂
Todd, There are actually two issues here with public opinion. Don’t they respect us or view us as incompetent, and second, how do we treat China?
The Chinese tend to have favorable views of countries that have their act together.
31. August 2019 at 16:37
@Todd Kreider, thank you for the info.
31. August 2019 at 18:43
So does the Chinese public like Trump, or do they think he has his act together more than Obama? The explanation that I have heard is that Chinese folks understand, like, and respect nationalist rhetoric.
31. August 2019 at 23:01
Poor, partisan hypotheses. And then this artificial division of the hypotheses into a dichotomy that hardly exists in reality. Quite amazing. If you work like this all the time, one has to seriously question your scientific approach in general.
Yes, indeed. Your questionable way of graph reading is legendary.
One has to look at your analysis and then explain why this gigantic drop in 2012-2013 was happening. I got an idea but your partisan hackery ruled this option out already, so we have to pretend we don’t know once again. Okay Scott, you are right: it’s a mystery. American politicians maybe?
But let’s not discard your analysis right away (why should we?), it gets even better: Trump enters the big stage in 2015, but the graph rises significantly from 2015-2018, which is of course “wonderfully” compatible with your analysis once more.
Sorry Scott, 50-70% of your political analysis is poor and clouded by partisan hackery. Try to take a page from Tyler Cowen’s book now and then, it would do you good.
1. September 2019 at 02:55
you speak disingenuously of Israeli *values* towards its Muslim citizens.
Americans of different ethnic origins show vastly different outcomes — and always have — and racism was actually institutionalized, and it took violent civil strife to at least get rid of the institutions. All this in living memory.
Still, you seem to see some validity in American values.
Israeli Arabs are certainly poorer and enjoy less state investment than their Jewish compatriots. I challenge you to argue they’re comparatively worse off than, say, American inner city blacks.
They also don’t fall under the conscription. I challenge you to argue this is an Israeli values issue.
As to the NON-citizens in the ‘occupied territories’. How is the refusal to annex them denigrating them? It’s not like there was a broad popular movement to become Israeli. (Though it would seem rational to some of us.) Nor is there a broad popular movement — in fact, no indication of a will — to live in neighborly peace.
Quite plain: what do you DO when faced with such hatred? Give up and go back to where your ancestors of many generations came from (those that weren’t killed in genocide, that is)? How does that idea work for any other ethnic conflict? Not to harp on the Americans, but what would propose if there was more than a handful surviving indigenous in your country — and they were hostile?
Basically, the readiness to attribute nefarious values to Jews, when simple fear (justified) and egoism are enough, is antisemitism. I’m disappointed
1. September 2019 at 07:25
“China is not going to overtake us in per capita GDP. They have already overtaken us in total GDP (PPP).”
Scott, this sentiment strikes me as something that needs to be explored more. I suspect (pure speculation of course) that if you polled Americans on Per Capita wealth they’d place China in a significantly more ‘developed’ bracket. I suspect they’d mostly be shocked that it’s on par with Mexico.
I suspect (speculation again) that the correlation is much stronger between crazy stuff happening and GDP per Capita than it is for GDP. I’d also suspect it’s more difficult to navigate a country through crazy stuff when it’s 1.4B people, than (say) Mexico’s 130M.
None of this is to say they get Carte Blanche, in fact, I suspect we’d agree on most of the same critiques. But it seems like a relevant point that rarely gets discussed along side of ‘economic super power’.
Do you think this distinction is important? Or am I way off on that?
1. September 2019 at 13:22
Again, Scott shows a clear lack of knowledge.
1) Duterte is not a dictator. He was voted into office in a landslide, and currently holds over 80% support. Filipinos love him, and they support his agenda.
2) China is not an authoritarian government. But from a broader perspective, authoritarian governments are not all bad. There have been some great benevolent dictators who have done extraordinary things for their people.
3) People are NOT anti-china. They are anti-losing their jobs. China has taken a lot of US jobs, and it has made life very miserable for thousands upon thousands of people who are in the “unskilled labor” class. And now the service jobs are being outsourced too – the situation will only get worse and worse. 94% of all jobs currently created are contract/temp positions. Not a good sign for the economies long term growth prospects.
Another economist who fails to grasp reality…
1. September 2019 at 15:09
The taking over of Chairman Mao #2 is clearly visible in the chart. Hong Kong is clearly visible in the chart.
What (surprisingly) doesn’t really show up in the chart is the 4-year-rant of Trump, some pundits, and other politicians against China. The period 2015-2019 (and even 2012-2018) would have to look differently. Trump’s influence seems to be very limited in this respect. It might be surprising, but that’s how it is in the chart.
Take off your partisan glasses for once in your life, Scott.
Or China pays me as well, so that from now on I will write only comments that make the malicious regime in China appear in the best possible light. I think they can afford it, I’m not that expensive.
1. September 2019 at 15:53
Burgos, I think back in 2016 they wrongly assumed that he was a successful businessman and dealmaker, and their initial views formed on that basis. It’s possible they see him as a strong leader, I can’t say.
Christian, You are seeing what you want to see. The anti-Chinese hysteria in the media has surged in the past year with the trade war.
Plato, I’m not sure why you assume I’m anti-Israel. I’m not. I oppose the boycott of Israel, and vastly prefer Israel to its neighbors.
If you want to call our historical treatment of blacks “American values”, then I have no disagreement with you.
What do I recommend the Israeli’s do (in political terms)? Treat everyone individually, based on their behavior. Don’t divide people into groups. Don’t form governing coalitions with political parties that want to expel the Arabs from their own country. Don’t take land from the Arabs. Perhaps the two state solution is best, I’m not sure. (And don’t tell me the Arabs foolishly opposed than a few decades ago—I know that.)
Paul, Good point. Americans have never understood how poor China is. They had no idea back in 1980 that China was poorer than Africa and India, and they have no idea today that it’s on par with Mexico. They don’t know that the death toll from the Great Leap Forward was roughly 30 million. They know little about China today, or in the past. They think it’s a rich country, like Japan.
Xu, You said:
“China is not an authoritarian government.”
If you say so . . . .
1. September 2019 at 18:50
Scott, you support Bejing.
You do not want to see China forced to bend the knee to US, and it will happen.
Same way we toppled USSR (BTW, immediately making Russia a fine partner) and beat Japan (smaller China) years ago.
US hegemony is a real thing and you don’t want to suffer China being hated and Chinese not being trusted during this new tech cold war.
What’s happening is US companies being FORCED to be American, they don’t get to be global entities. You don’t get to be a global citizen.
I know, I know this sucks for you and I’m sorry, I truly am.
But I want low taxes and strong states’ rights and you don’t represent may votes and US natives have TENS OF MILLIONS to trade me, so you get toseed overboard.
Sorry!
1. September 2019 at 21:53
Scott wrote:
“They think it’s a rich country, like Japan.”
It’s wrong to think that, but I understand why. Japan’s GDP per capita (PPP) is $42,000 and Beijing and Shanghai are at about $40,000.
2. September 2019 at 18:55
Scott wrote
So what’s this all about?
Again, Trump is trying to cause a recession.
2. September 2019 at 19:34
How opposed are you to the Chinese authoritarianism? What do you think of the Uighur camps? Would you vacation in Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, too?
3. September 2019 at 05:30
Excellent Nikkei article on Xi’s recent attempts to consolidate power:
https://asia.nikkei.com/Editor-s-Picks/China-up-close/Xi-scores-coup-and-grabs-party-backing-to-be-people-s-leader
3. September 2019 at 13:45
Scott,
Unlike you, I’m completely open to any theory. But I need evidence. You have to bend your theory extremely to make it fit even a little bit, and then for just 1-2 years, and then it still doesn’t fit.
In addition, there is your propaganda: Chinese behavior has not changed significantly????
And always your belittlement of the Chinese expansion plans as tiny, trivial issues. It’s just sad.
3. September 2019 at 17:50
Todd, Yes, although keep in mind that Beijing is significantly poorer than Tokyo. And China is more unequal, so Beijing has more poverty.
Krzys, You asked:
“How opposed are you to the Chinese authoritarianism?”
There’s no one in the world more opposed to it than I am. I am 100% opposed, which is the maximum possible.
I don’t vacation in countries that invade their neighbors.
And how do you feel about the US imprisoning 400,000 people for “drug crimes”? Are you as opposed to that policy as I am (which is 100% opposed)? What are you doing about it?
Travis, Interesting, Another unintended consequence of Trump’s trade war.
3. September 2019 at 22:26
Scott,
In other words, you would vacation in Stalinist Russia. What’s a camp system with millions of inmates when the glorious future awaits.
Vast majority of drug crimes sentences are plead downs from violent crimes. There’s very few people in the US sitting in jail for non violent crimes. The US has a horrific violent crime problem.
4. September 2019 at 04:37
Krzys, You said:
“In other words, you would vacation in Stalinist Russia.”
Can you not read? I said I would not vacation in countries that invaded other countries, and that includes Stalinist Russia. In any case, I am not here on vacation, my primary purpose is visiting relatives.
4. September 2019 at 04:44
Kyzrs, You said:
“There’s very few people in the US sitting in jail for non violent crimes.”
I don’t agree with this.
4. September 2019 at 10:58
Scott – you are well meaning but sadly extremely naive. Here in Silicon Valley, Chinese espionage is a major, major issue. The main problem is that there’s an intense “culture clash” – highly educated white Americans are taught that nationalism is brutish and uncouth whereas Chinese are taught the complete opposite. The result is that the naive Americans are played like a fiddle.
What’s fascinating is that you can go on social media and find dozens and dozens of Chinese-Americans with 0 direct relationship to the mainland that are fiercely pro-Beijing. China is really, really good at frothing up these emotional sentiments.
As a side note, this is also why I believe that both parties are wrong about immigration. The U.S. needs massive immigration over he next decades to keep up with China – if China has a significantly larger population by the end of the century it’s game over. Unfortunately the Democratic strategy of resettling all of Central America in U.S. borders (in order to secure perpetual electoral victories) isn’t the right answer here. The focus should be massive high-skilled immigration from developed countries or countries that show promise in development (e.g. ex-Communist countries with high PISA scores). Unfortunately these types of people are not electorally advantageous to Democrats and so this will never happen.
4. September 2019 at 15:22
@sd0000
Why did you write “ The U.S. needs massive immigration over he next decades to keep up with China – if China has a significantly larger population by the end of the century it’s game over.” I would think that with increasing application of AI, pure manpower would be less, not more important by the end of this century.
4. September 2019 at 16:03
sd0000, Oh, I do understand why IP is really important to Silicon Valley. I just don’t care very much about the welfare of people in Silicon Valley, who are already fabulously rich. Why should I care if the Chinese take a bit of that technology? How do you think the American industrial revolution happened? We stole IP from the Brits. At least the Chinese are paying for some of the IP.
As far as immigration, why not both groups?
4. September 2019 at 17:44
@Carl – who do you think is developing that AI? You need a large populace that’s on your side (and unfortunately for the Dems they also need to be intelligent).
@Scott – Silicon Valley IP was just an example of how China is currently leveraging ethnic Chinese nationalism to take advantage of American self-hatred – if you don’t think this same playbook will be used by China in many other scenarios to absolutely crush its enemies’ living standards then you are naive.
Just imagine if China and the US had GDP per capita swapped today – would the world be a better or worse place? That’s the future we’re absolutely heading to.
4. September 2019 at 17:52
@Scott – missed your response on “why not both groups?”. My answer would be *why* both groups? The classic libertarian response is that comparative advantage says that high skilled folks are better off if lower skilled folks take the low-skill needing jobs. But there are countries that have solved this already! Look at Asian countries! Singapore has tons of low-skilled foreigners – the big difference is that they are *temporary* residents that are kicked out immediately if they get pregnant. This gives the best of both worlds – low skill folks filling the low skill jobs without the drain on society of these people being actual residents or citizens. Of course, westerners are too suicidally “empathetic” to take this common sense approach which leads to one political party advocating for the entire population of Central America to be given American citizenship (well that and the perpetual electoral victory it guarantees).
4. September 2019 at 21:42
@sd0000
Can you be more specific? What AI frameworks are owned by Chinese companies or institutions? What are the Chinese Tensorflows or CNTK’s etc? Do they have some superior technology already or are you projecting Chinese dominance in the field based on the goals of their industrial policy?
5. September 2019 at 09:07
I have no idea about AI.
But the Austrian newspaper “Der Standard” recently claimed that two thirds (!) of all high-speed rails exists in China.
They further claim that China didn’t really start building high-speed rails before 2007!
Both claims sound crazy, but I can’t rule it out.
They also claim that 1.38 million patents were filed in China in 2017 – more than in the US, the EU, Japan and South Korea combined.
They continue writing: “Since the mid-1990s, the number of patent applications in China has increased every year. According to them China overtook the EU and South Korea in 2005, Japan in 2010 and the USA in 2011.”
I see the alleged “IP theft” in a similar way as Scott. It doesn’t seem to be the biggest problem. And if you look at the patent registrations, we will soon have to steal from China instead of the other way around.
I’m not against China at all. China would be the perfect place, very good for the world – as soon as its vicious authoritarian regime has disappeared. But as long as this regime exists, China is a serious problem.
5. September 2019 at 11:49
Great article on the Hill. How about the slow creep and cost of climate change? Will that be nominal or real? What happens when insurance does not cover the coast? What happens when banks stop lending to buy expensive coastal property? I think climate change is not a real shock because it is too slow and will lead to a sudden collapse after a certain point. What will that point be? who knows? If the shock is sudden does that mean that it is real? But what about the slow and obvious destructive shadow of rising sea level woudl that long term impact push your analysis towards describing it as a nominal factor? I would love to hear your thoughts on this topic. Do you think your analysis is up to date for a man made crisis that is both sudden and long term like climate change?
5. September 2019 at 12:42
1. Hysteria is an emotionally laden word with a sexist origin, so it makes sense that it is one of those words that betrays it’s user. That is, when I see someone using it, it increases the odds that the user is increasingly hysterical rather more than it increases the odds that the subjects of the rant are increasingly hysterical.
2. Is it a macroeconomics problem that you are so much reasoning from the aggregate? That is, both countries, as political entities, are made up of a whole lot of diverse interests. You don’t get a change in policy by changing everyone’s opinion greatly, but by changing a small number of people’s opinion a little bit.
That is, there are a lot of reasons to be pro or anti China, and people can reasonably have conflicting, weak opinions.
Thus, you, visiting China at the moment, or me, having visited in April, might so things others don’t, and have a more reasons to be pro. On the other hand, you being in China right now, you have probably not been exposed to the depths of anger and protest against Chinese oppression that are evident to the rest of the world. Beyond that, some people care more or less about China specifically than human rights or national defense or whatever, and see it through those lenses. Those opinions are all valid and subject to change.
That is, a big change in favorability could be due to a change from “51% Pro to 49% Anti” on the internal opinions of lots of folks.
That’s my guess.
3. It’s also not evident that the proposed policy changes are expected to or possibly direct and straightforward. That is, outside of a rabble on both sides who think the other side would collapse and their side would be magically unhurt by a full scale trade war, most people recognize their are gains from trade. But, there’s no hard and fast rule for how the terms of trade should operate. Who is getting the bigger part of the gains? That’s not a question economics can answer. It’s a matter of negotiation.
And to negotiate, you have to be willing to take a harder line than you are truly ready to settle for. Thus, it’s reasonable that even some people who consider themselves “pro-China” to consider the possibilities that a harder line would bring about positive changes (better terms of trade, better conditions for Chinese, however you want to define it).
Beyond that, I think there’s a widely held view in both the US and China that prior US governments (and most Western governments in general) were willing to give ground on terms of trade (and every other issue) because, basically, they have become too timid to do anything. Because they are/were so afraid of any disagreement, any confrontation, China won most disputes of this sort. The current US regime is willing to push back.
By itself that’s a good thing, provided folks on both sides don’t miscalculate. Because while there’s risk in that, there are legitimate concerns that have gone unaddressed for a long time.
5. September 2019 at 14:16
“Treat everyone individually, based on their behavior.”
See this is the rub! Wisdom is discernment and there are many circumstances where this admirable ideal is bad policy, in the milder cases because it’s too expensive or there’s reason to believe the individuals in question won’t reciprocate, in the more extreme cases (intense organized hostility from another group) because it’s suicidal.
Instead of trying to grapple with this complex and opaque problem, it’s much easier in the short run to just steamroll those deemed insufficiently committed to the ideal. Obviously not a comment on Scott *individually* but certainly behavior I’m comfortable generalizing to adherents of extreme forms of this idea. This includes many (most?) of my own loved ones, and I’m very concerned over this behavior.
5. September 2019 at 14:55
sd2000, You said:
“if you don’t think this same playbook will be used by China in many other scenarios to absolutely crush its enemies’ living standards then you are naive.”
MikeDC objects to my use of the term “anti-Chinese hysteria, but he obviously has not read your comment. China is not trying to destroy its enemies living standards.
It doesn’t even regard the US as an enemy–it’s the US that started the cold war.
And unlike you, I’m not biased against groups like Central Americans just because they are, on average, less well educated than another group. Keep in mind that lots of successful Americans belong to groups that were regarded as “inferior” when they came over in the 1800s. And there’s no evidence that immigration helps the Democrats. Indeed throughout the world, immigration seems to be helping the right.
MikeDC, Governments don’t need to “negotiate” to get good trade deals, the best deal is free trade. Companies negotiate deals. Trump’s renegotiated NAFTA supposedly got tough with our neighbors but is worse than the original deal.
You said:
“That is, there are a lot of reasons to be pro or anti China”
What does that even mean? Everyone in the world should be pro-China. Everyone should be anti-Chinese government. There are no reasons at all to hold a different opinion.
These kind of vague generalities show a lack of clear thinking. We should all want the best for China (i.e., don’t be cruel), and we should all want the Chinese government to be less authoritarian.
“On the other hand, you being in China right now, you have probably not been exposed to the depths of anger and protest against Chinese oppression that are evident to the rest of the world.”
What does this even mean? Do you think i’m not keeping up with the news, just because I’m in China? I saw the HK government recently caved in to the protesters, for instance. And why do you assume that being in China would make me more “pro-Chinese”? Wouldn’t it just make me better informed?
5. September 2019 at 17:59
Scott, you said: “MikeDC, Governments don’t need to “negotiate” to get good trade deals, the best deal is free trade. Companies negotiate deals.”
I’m a true believer in free trade too. But the basic requirements for free trade and free markets are matters of political negotiation (both intra- and internationally). Stable property rights, factor mobility, perfect information. etc. And of course, trade is bundled in with all sorts of political issues up for negotiation.
============
“That is, there are a lot of reasons to be pro or anti China”
What does that even mean?
============
In the context of your post in which you posted and discussed a graph of favorable/unfavorable opinions of China, it means there are a lot of reasons to have favorable and unfavorable opinions about China.
The graph is the obstacle to clear thinking, because it is forcing a simplistic answer of dialing down the range of possibilities to favorable/unfavorable (or synonymously pro/anti, good/bad, etc) opinion of “China”.
My point was that the graph masks those sorts of complexities. Presumably “favorable” doesn’t mean “I want to move there!” and “unfavorable” doesn’t mean “I want to nuke them!”
===
Do you think i’m not keeping up with the news, just because I’m in China? I saw the HK government recently caved in to the protesters, for instance. And why do you assume that being in China would make me more “pro-Chinese”? Wouldn’t it just make me better informed?
===
I think it’s difficult to keep up with the news you are in a country that has the largest, costliest, and most sophisticated program of censorship in human history.
My experiences of being in China have definitely made me more “pro-Chinese” or at least more likely to say I have a “favorable” opinion of China if asked by Pew Research. Agree that one sees both the positives and negatives when immersed in a foreign country, but in my experience the favorables about China are often more obvious when you are there and experiencing them. Many of the things I deem “unfavorable” about China are things that one rarely experiences directly and that most people behind the GFW probably don’t even know about.
6. September 2019 at 06:13
That’s easy, it’s fuelled by Xi’s move back towards authoritarianism and nationalism. It isn’t just in the US or HK, either, remember THAAD?
–As far as “bellicose behavior”, the US government routinely invades nearby countries, overthrows their government, and replaces them with governments more to our liking. China does not.–
That’s a little off the deep end. CCP did in fact cross the Yalu to keep a Communist gov’t in power, remember? Millions of North Koreans still live with the tragic results. Quite a contrast with the governments the US set up in Japan and South Korea — even Iraq holds elections. So let’s not pretend there’s any moral equivalence to Xi blustering over whether Taiwan even has a right to exist.
China’s impotent bellicosity towards Taiwan and HK is a symptom of their fragile claim to power — CCP rejects 90% of applicants, so 100M people essentially rule 1.3B peasants with few rights. They cannot abide freedom on their doorstep.
9. September 2019 at 06:24
MikeDC, You said:
“I think it’s difficult to keep up with the news you are in a country that has the largest, costliest, and most sophisticated program of censorship in human history.”
Why? I can just read the US and UK media over the internet.
And we don’t need political negotiations to trade. Hong Kong has free trade with other countries, and doesn’t engage in political negotiations to do so.
TallDave, You are mixing up two completely different issues, moral equivalence and bellicosity. In my view, the US government is far superior to the Chinese government on moral grounds. (Indeed it’s even worse than you suggest, as the 100 million CCP members have little power.) So don’t waste time making that argument. I also think the US government is far more likely to invade other countries and overthrow their governments. I don’t see how any sane person could contest either claim. If you want to shift to a completely separate topic, that’s fine, but don’t pretend that your Yalu River comment has any bearing on my claims. China did not overthrow the North Korean government.
You seem to think you are debating Noam Chomsky, not me.
9. September 2019 at 13:46
“Technology transfer is none of our business. China shouldn’t force technology transfer, but that’s an internal policy decision of the Chinese government. Nobody’s forcing our companies to invest in China.”
Such technology transfer is an express violation of WTO rules to which China agreed when admitted. It is the companies’ business but China should be expelled from the WTO for failing to live up to the conditions of their admission.
10. September 2019 at 20:09
“I said I would not vacation in countries that invaded other countries, and that includes Stalinist Russia.”
China invaded Vietnam in 1979.
16. September 2019 at 10:34
Scott,
A bit silly. It’s also true that ISIL or Iran is much less likely to overthrow a government than the US, but (like China) that’s far more a function of their capability than their bellicosity.
Are you forgetting your history? CCP also invaded South Korea — Seoul changed hands more than once. CCP would have certainly overthrown the anti-Communist gov’t in the South as well as the North, had they been able, and they spent hundreds of thousands of of Chinese lives trying.
Let’s not pretend CCP doesn’t still claim, almost on a weekly basis, that it has the right to conquer Taiwan. And why? What threat does Taiwan pose?
16. September 2019 at 11:27
Going to assume moderation ate the response.
Again, a bit silly — there were dozens of countries in those US-led coalitions who “routinely” overthrew rogue gov’ts.
China did in fact invade South Korea and try to overthrow their gov’t (they took Seoul more than once). I guess we can take comfort in the fact they failed, but still, threatening Taiwan every week simply for the sin of existing is pretty darn bellicose even if they have basically no ability even to stage for an invasion across the Strait (the world would cut off trade), let alone get enough troops across the heavily mined waters during the only two months they are even passable.
16. September 2019 at 11:28
Going to assume moderation ate the response.
Again, a bit silly — there were dozens of countries in those US-led coalitions who “routinely” overthrew rogue gov’ts.
China did in fact invade South Korea and try to overthrow their gov’t (they took Seoul more than once). I guess we can take comfort in the fact they failed, but still, threatening Taiwan every week simply for the sin of existing is pretty darn bellicose even if they have basically no ability even to stage for an invasion across the Strait (the world would cut off trade), let alone get enough troops across the heavily mined waters during the only two months they are even passable.