But, the only option becomes Tariffs, the theft of IP and forced joint ventures (same as theft) are intolerable. They have had tariffs on our goods for years, same with Japan and Europe and then they complain when we do the same thing.
Exactly. They tax the hell out of American goods whenever a domestic competitor (copycat using stolen tech, mostly) exists. All we've seen in the past decade or so is LIP SERVICE. They'd wring their hands and then do nothing, as politicians and short-sighted executives alike were too busy lining their own pockets. China has almost single-handedly driven domestic production to a shadow of its former self, and they have practically written the book on dumping. Tariffs are far from ideal, but we're short on leverage and we should have done something DECADES ago. We waited too long and now a lot of the tools we have are all but useless. Even now they spit in our face and backpedal on their commitments to stop IP theft and blatant forced technology transfer. That doesn't even count all the backdoors and spying efforts. People need to open their eyes and look at China's meteoric rise over the past few decades. That has come largely at our expense, and yes they used our own greed and lack of foresight against us. They are playing the long game, they always have. But we can't change the past. We're either suffer now or we'll suffer tenfold later. They'll overtake us in terms of economic power, better to do something now than to wait until we are weaker and have even less industry.
That's really not true. All of the things that should've been tried first, were. Many cases have been brought to trade court and we've even had bilateral negotiations that people seem to forget.
Not all short-sightedness. China has a way of playing rope-a-dope, where they dangle the carrot of their growing domestic market in front of foreign companies and give them just enough of a taste to keep them interested and chasing after longer-term growth. However, as you said, once China has developed its own domestic competition, then the tariff and non-tariff barriers come into force. So, whether people engaged with China for short-term gains or long-term ambitions, China could usually tilt the tables to come out ahead.
China certainly didn't invent off-shoring of labor from US factories. It's a long-term trend that's been going on since at least the 1970's - long before China attained favored-nation status, in the WTO.
Actually, the biggest hammer we could wield would've been to form a multi-lateral coalition with other developed countries - who are basically all in the same boat as us. Don't forget that the EU's economy is even bigger than the US. If we got together with them, S. Korea, Japan, Canada, Australia, etc. we'd have way more negotiating power than what Trump is playing with. But, he doesn't believe in multilateralism, always preferring to go it alone.
I wasn't referring primarily to domestic firms outsourcing. More so talking about purely Chinese ventures (often government, uh, "partnerships") selling goods so cheaply that domestic production is eradicated. Domestic companies are then pushed to outsource, or risk collapse. They may outsource and die anyway, as a result of Chinese owned ventures still having lower overhead, less taxes, and a willingness to break even for as long as it takes. The end result is much the same regardless. Some industries are easier to break into than others, though.
TPP was bad enough it became a hot coal. It also didn't help with China's dealings in most of the world, but that's another issue I suppose. But it didn't just vanish... they ended up with the CPTPP. Not sure that it has really helped then a whole lot, and even the current CPTPP doesn't include Korea, or several other vital nations. Trump has said he'd be open to rejoining the CPTPP if they were willing to negotiate a better deal. None of it matters though if you leave the door open for China to shift goods via deals with neighboring nations.
No disagreement, here.
A lot of people disliked it, for various reasons. The business community wasn't one of them. Fact is, the US actually stood to gain the most from it, since most of the other signatories' markets had various tariff and other barriers to US products, yet our markets were already open to them. I had my own issues with it, but those were really on principled grounds, rather than commercial. For Trump to say this is all down to commercial concerns sounds like he's really not concerned with the reasons so many people didn't like it. He slammed the door shut on it about as firmly as he ever does.
Well, it's not worth a whole lot, in its current degraded form.
Here's an interesting thought experiment. If you're a developing country, you need infrastructure and access to foreign markets, and only China is knocking on your door - what do you do? You might be suspicious of China's long-term objectives, but you have more immediate concerns and no real alternatives.
Degraded how? Because it doesn't include the US which already has open trade with these nations? They don't even need a multi-nation trade agreement to improve trade relations with us, if they wanted to. TPP isn't and won't do much by itself, and if they really want us (or various other nations who ALSO didn't sign) involved they certainly can modify the agreement to please more parties.
Most of the nations I was concerned with should fall under the auspices of the EU or our closest Asian allies in the first place. Yet here we are, discussing how the US might come in and mop up. But in this case I don't know that we have the willpower to do anything. The bottom line is China doesn't just "invest" or provide aid, which often buys you little power past the short term. The Chinese on the other hand? They buy. They control. They even own businesses and property in the west (using our own openness against us). The Chinese don't share our delicate sensibilities, they don't have any issues with imperialism or closed markets. We are rather squeamish by comparison. Most in the West wouldn't like to hear the answer to the question of "How do we stand toe-to-toe with Chinese ambitions?"
I don't agree with this. First, trading blocks benefit from a network effect, where the value increases with more participants. Second, a lot of the original signatories had closed markets which would now be open to all participants. Without that, they have no alternative but to make nice with China. And the issue for the US was never that it didn't advantage us enough - why do you think a Republican-led congress gave Obama fast-track authority on it?
Well, Belt & Road seems mainly targeted at the developing world, which also comprises most of the fastest growing markets. I don't quite follow who you're talking about and why.
No, we're not. Or, at least I'm not. I'm talking about US access to markets and raw materials - things squarely in US national interests, which also happen to be in the national interests of most of our traditional allies and trading partners. There ought to be enough collective will to form some answer to Belt & Road, but the developed world has been driven to distraction while China is eating our lunch.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram