China and Trump: The Political Contradictions of Global Capitalism

Trump loves america so much he makes his products in china.

Trump doesn't believe in working for free, so he outsources production to China

While I agree that China needs America, I think the article understands the nature of global order, and how that order needs to include developing economies which are set to overtake Western economies. New global systems have to be developed to account for this, as the current systems don't, at least according to the author.

I disagree that they would go back to being 3rd world (which doesn't make sense in this context as China was 2nd world, referring to communist states), as they governmental structure of China affords itself the ability to think long term.

But again, the article is talking about the liberal world order developed specifically by the US in the post-War era, and how to account for developing economies, like China, into a global world order that assumed poor countries would stay poor and communist countries would stay communist.

quote:

---

The simplistic notion that Trumpism represents a return to protectionism and national trade rivalries conceals the real inner contradictions of global capitalism that are bringing the 21st-century world order to the breaking point. The system faces a structural crisis of extreme inequality and overaccumulation, as well as a political crisis of legitimacy and an ecological crisis of sustainability.

---

Ehhhh, the author totally misses the boat here. There is a structural crisis for the globalized economy, but it has almost nothing to do with "extreme inequality and overaccumulation" or "an ecological crisis of sustainability." Those are bullshite left-wing talking points.

As to the "political crisis of legitimacy", that's real. Bretton Woods, the IMF, and the World Bank are now obsolete. The GATT/WTO is a very positive thing overall, but it is outdated and creaking. Something new does need to take its place.

(The EU/EFTA/EMU is also problematic, but that's more of a regional experiment than a truly symptomatic issue of what's ailing global capitalism.)

quote:

---

But there is another dimension to the crisis that is escalating international tensions and, depending on the turn of events, could well spark world conflagration. The disjuncture between a globalizing economy and a nation-state system of political authority threatens to undermine the system’s ability to manage the crisis

---

Yes.

quote:

---

While academics now debate the decline of U.S. hegemony and the possible rise of the Chinese, what is certain is that the global economy is increasingly Sino-centered and the existing political scaffolding of world capitalism is hopelessly outdated.

---

Oh, for frick's sake. This is such horseshite. I'm not buying this at all.

Is the global economy increasingly Sino-centered? Yes, in a relative sense, but come on. The U.S. is not losing its so-called "hegemony" anytime soon.

Did the large supply shock of cheap global labor cause disruptions that are still wreaking havoc on Western democracies? Yes, of course, but this is becoming less and less of a Chinese issue every passing year, so why does the article focus on China? It makes no sense.

quote:

---

Yet Chinese capitalism has not followed the neoliberal route to global capitalist integration. The state retains a key role in the financial system, in regulating private capital, and in planning. This allows it to develop 21st-century infrastructure and to guide capital accumulation into aims broader than that of immediate profit making, something that the Western capitalist states cannot accomplish due to the rollback of public sectors, privatization, and deregulation.

---

quote:

---

A set of more balanced transnational state institutions that reflect the new realities of a multipolar and interdependent global capitalist system could de-escalate mounting international tensions and the threat of war.

---

No. What's needed is time to workout global arrangements on the cross-border mobility of goods, capital, and labor. The ideas motivating U.S.-led global arrangements are still valid. It's unfortunate when democratic nations feel constrained by undemocratic treaties and agreements, so more populist flexibility to suit the public mood needs to be added into the mix. At the same time, however, you don't want to mess too much with the anti-populist stabilizers that have been put into place that allow businesses to plan long-term investment projects.

The absolute worst possible thing that the world could do is give more say on governance over global arrangements to undemocratic regimes, who would shift the global system to their own authoritarian interests. That's especially true for hitching global institutions to a problematic nation like China that is about to hit the infamous wall separating middle-income economies from high-income economies.

quote:

---

Have you read Piketty's book?

---

I haven't.

quote:

---

He seems to imply that liberal notions appeared as if by chance in capitalist systems, which is fairly dishonest in my view.

---

I would probably tend to agree.

I will say that the article does touch on a very important topic about avoiding war with China. In my view, however, I think it's best to de-link this from global capitalist arrangements.

Any agreements between the U.S. and China are going to have to be ad hoc, because our governments will continue to evolve, and swing back and forth between competing factions.

The kind of trade war that some are worried about with Donald Trump would definitely tend to increase the risk of war, but the deal-making nature of Donald Trump probably more than offsets that risk.

I don't see where either side has any incentive to escalate tensions militarily, although I will admit that the Chinese military has some real hotdogs in it that need to be reined in. But still, this is not a case of Germany surpassing the U.K. and France in economic power, and being worried about Russia being the next growing giant. This is a case of China wanting to imitate the U.S., and gain mercantilistic advantages over its immediate neighbors. Thus, the trick is balancing concern for helping China's neighbors stick up for themselves, while simultaneously bringing China into the fold of becoming continually more closely tied to us.

Yes. In a general sense, both sides want it, so it should prevail. Emotions can flare up over tangential issues, but I tend to be optimistic about this, because the key to success is simple--convince China's leaders to believe what is actually true (i.e., that their ultimate success is more tied to a successful relationship with the U.S. than by trying to assert themselves against their immediate neighbors).

More fearmongering. Great