China, Scott Spacing, Big Boys Club discussed on Jim Bohannon


Scott spacing. Author of China hand a thriller. And more calls here. First, let me simply note after Mao Zedong took power and of course we saw that the paranoia that existed during his reign and he died and son of a gun. It looked like reasonable people had taken over in Beijing. And so the powers that be in the world said, welcome to the big boys club. Here's your seat on the UN Security Council and membership in the World Trade Organization all the rest of this. Here are the agreements that you make sign here here and here. And I'm not sure that there is a single agreement they've ever signed that they didn't break. They're a pack of liars. I refer, of course, to the Chinese government. I don't see why we deal with them in any way, shape, or form. I mean, we've got to find another source for rare Earths. I don't see why we buy anything made in China. So a broom costs more made elsewhere. So what? I really see no reason why we deal with them at all Scott. Yes. You've raised a bunch of points there. I'll try and I'll try to comment. I'll try to link them going from mile to the present. I mean, what I'd say is look, I think there's no debate that Mao Mao is a disaster and that will culminate with the cultural revolution and complete disaster for China. And China was impoverished. You had hundreds of millions of people living very pre modern lives and that was very bad. I will say that really starting with Deng Xiaoping in 1980 two, you could say, well, for the last three, four decades, China was perceived to be moderating a lot, right? And they certainly took a more pragmatic course with regards to the economy. And there was a view and you could say it was a theory, but it was there was a view, and it's not unreasonable in my view. There was a view that the best thing to keep China on this peaceful course as they developed is to integrate them into the world economy, as you said. To allow them to continue to develop. I mean, like I said, I remember viscerally how poor China was, even in the 90s, right? And I don't think, and then I will say that the TO agreement and trade with China has helped and has helped lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and I think that's a good thing. And then it's although I don't particularly care, especially when they say they'll do one thing and then they violate the agreement. Well, so I'll get to that now, right? So on the one hand, what I'm trying to say, that's not to paint this with two finer brush. But on the one hand, it's a good thing for the Chinese to not be impoverished. Frankly, it's also benefited U.S. consumers because Chinese have a lot of talented and motivated people and skilled workers and they've built made a lot of things for the U.S. that's benefited U.S. consumers. So I'm all for that. But I do agree with you to your point about breaking agreements. What I had seen is certainly in the last two decades since the WTO agreement, China has on the one hand promised in many cases to open up their economy to reduce tariff barriers to provide licenses to operate in China to have a more fair and balanced kind of trading relationship with the U.S. and they largely have kind of dragged their drag their feet on that. And the U.S. has remained certainly until Trump and even with Trump, very open to Chinese goods and the trade imbalance is really out of control. And frankly, a lot of that or at least a big chunk of that is driven by the barriers that make it so difficult to sell into China from outside of China. So I'm all with you that on the one hand, where it makes sense where China has an advantage or where we don't want to make things. Of course, China should make it we should buy and we should have an equal trading relationship. But I also think if it's something that is critical, I don't care whether I agree whether we would prefer to make it if it's important, but then I go beyond brooms and we should just make it. Well, I agree. That's my other point, as I say, in cases where it doesn't logically make sense for China, if the only reason China is making it is because they're subsidizing it and blocking imports, of course, then that should not, we should not allow that. We also, to your point, we also should never allow ourselves to be held captive by China or coerced to do what they want simply because they are a monopoly producer of anything from pharmaceuticals to semiconductors to anything important by agree with you, the U.S. needs sulfur alliance in critical technologies and I believe we've let that go, currently. We have back in just a moment. This

Coming up next