Is it inevitable China and the U.S. will get into a war?

There's probably not enough emphasis placed on actual geography when it comes to geo-political discussion. On this front, the United States possesses an extraordinary advantage over the rest of the world: it's filled to the brim with natural resources, has the most extensive natural network of waterways and more arable land than any other country in the world, with nearly incomparable built-in protection in the form of two massive oceanic bodies of water.

By comparison, China has limited agricultural land, scattered rivers, numerous frontiers (some hostile) and is hemmed in from a clean entry to the Pacific with limited projection capabilities by and due to countries aligned with US strategic interests. It almost adds insult to injury that America will be the most competitive manufacturing once nation again by 2020 as well as net energy exporter by 2022, a status it hasn't held since 1953.


So Trump was right? In his campaign he said that he will make America manufacture again and it seems that is what happening based on your sources.

Stuff from the USA is very expensive so I really dont know if we asians will benefit from a strong USA but on the other hand a very close super power like China makes me nervouse as they can steal our resources.

Looks like we are caught againts a rock and a hard case.
 
So Trump was right? In his campaign he said that he will make America manufacture again and it seems that is what happening based on your sources.

Stuff from the USA is very expensive so I really dont know if we asians will benefit from a strong USA but on the other hand a very close super power like China makes me nervouse as they can steal our resources.

Looks like we are caught againts a rock and a hard case.

Yeah, he was right but this has been picking up steam for a few years, and before he was elected President. The link on the first page of the thread cuts to the heart of it. It's quite frankly a magnificent development.

image.png


What’s behind America’s new place at the front of the manufacturing pack? It comes down to an ongoing economic boom that some analysts are calling “Manufacturing 4.0” or “Next Manufacturing.” Manufacturers are finding that the total cost of ownership (TCO) favors U.S.-based factory production, explains Harry Moser, founder and president of the Chicago-based Reshoring Initiative, a nonprofit think tank that supports U.S.-based manufacturing.

The domestic energy boom in natural gas and fracking has lowered the cost of materials and operations, prompting more factories to return to U.S. soil. Then there’s proximity to a growing field of local suppliers that provide raw materials. And keeping production in the country means there are no duties and tariffs, reduced inventory carrying costs and R&D innovations on the factory floor aren’t at risk of intellectual property theft. Also, the U.S. doesn’t have to lower its prices or wages to be competitive with China; it needs only “a lower total cost to produce that product,” Moser explains.


It’s also thanks to recent investments by companies like GE, Wal-Mart, General Motors, Ford and Caterpillar to bring factories back home to create Made in America products, Moser says. He cites GE’s revitalization of Appliance Park in Louisville, Kentucky, as “the best documented case of reshoring’s impact,” bringing back 1,300 jobs. Michigan and several Southern states currently attract the largest share of manufacturing and direct foreign investment, but the industrial boom is now reaching metro regions in the Pacific Northwest, California, Salt Lake City, the Midwest and the Great Lakes.

But it’s about big data and high-tech innovations, too. “The entire ecosystem of the factory floor is undergoing change,” explains Bob McCutcheon, an industrial products analyst for Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PwC). “The hard hat is being replaced by a person in a white coat.” Manufacturing is increasingly using predictive capabilities to generate value and create more efficient, lower-cost logistics to handle materials throughout the supply chain. U.S. labor costs are still higher than those of other nations, but the ability to create smart products and smart factories will make this less relevant over time, McCutcheon says.

There are potential obstacles in the United States’ race to No. 1. For one, the continued strength of the dollar could dampen international sales of U.S. industrial exports. Smart factories need skilled labor, and the number of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) graduates and “upskilled” workers who have received technical training may not be able to keep pace with demand. What’s not going to be a problem? Robots taking jobs. Thirty-seven percent of U.S. industrialists say their need for skilled labor will actually increase as physical production becomes automated, according to a recent survey by PwC.
 
What are the chances all those ultra rich who own mansions in California to house their ultra hot mistresses get together and bank roll some mercenaries for a democratic revolution?
 
I think only way we collide with china currently is if we invade or attack Iran.

China has invested billions in Iranian oil, and more than likely China will in some way protect their investment.

With Iran planning on pricing their oil in Euros, we may see shit hit the fan eventually.
 
Never say never. Technology could turn the odds in favor of one over other. Need are powerful but not as destructive as some think. Go play with thst nuke calculator thing on internet it gives logical estimates on what differnt nuke range do on cities and terrain.
I think it was Timequake

Def a Vonnegut book.... where the Chinese figured out how to become microscopic and bailed on this size scale

Might happen
 
I really hope not. It's not good for anyone IMO. I also think that China in it's current form is headed for an implosion based on demographics and local debt. I don't see how they push growth fast enough to get rich before they get old.

Not to mention the core of the PRC's economic development model is based on overbuilding, subsidization, product dumping, intellectual property theft and lack of reciprocity. For some reason, people seem to be under the impression that America is in some kind of desperate bid to maintain post-World War II international policy when it's actually what allows China in its current form to exist and its probably expired beyond its usefulness for the United States. In reality, there's also nearly zero leverage attached to China's "ace in the hole" of dumping their US treasury bills, for a variety of reasons. It's all scaremongering horseshite.
 
My dude Peter Zeihan - a geopolitical strategist out of Stratfor and advisor to the US state department - going IN here. Ouch.

In my opinion, folks convinced of the Chinese rise aren’t very good at math or reading maps. The Chinese financial system is the most overextended in history and every country that has followed its investment-led model has eventually crashed hard. The one-child policy has destroyed China’s future – it is now the world’s third-fastest aging demography. China’s strategic position is horrid – a line of islands parallels its coast, preventing it from projecting power into the sea lanes upon which its economy depends. It is utterly reliant on global energy imports and global merchandise exports – imports and exports which are under the thumb of the U.S. Navy.

The linkage the Americans are about to impose is the opposite of what the Chinese have become used to the Americans doing. It is precisely what the Chinese do to everyone else whenever the issue of Hong Kong or Taiwan or Tibet comes up. The Chinese are going to hate/fear this sort of strategic thinking in the United States because it cuts to the heart of the Chinese political system and strategic policy. And there’s far more to this than Beijing knowing they lack the leverage on the Americans to win. The Americans are in effect putting a dollar amount on their Korean alliance, and the same thing can now be done to any other aspect of American policy – including the China relationship.

The same general issue holds true for the European Union. Most of the European states are in terminal demographic decline, meaning that not only are they deeply dependent upon exports for their economic well-being, there is absolutely no hope their economic situation can be sustained, much less improved, without either the kindness of outsiders or a fundamental reshaping of how Europe defines the terms “economy” and “government.” Considering the European experimentation with those two terms in generations past, that last sentence should make everyone a bit twitchy.

And of course those are just some of Europe’s problem. There are also ongoing and deepening debt, banking, refugee, and political legitimacy crises. With neighboring powers – primarily Turkey and Russia – becoming more aggressive, the European choice is between once-again submitting themselves to American strategic goals, aggressively rearming in an era of terminal economic decline, or going through a regional… re-invention.

That means that either a) the major EU powers find ways outside of EU norms to crush the dissenters, b) the EU gets cut out of American and global markets which throws Europe into a long-lasting depression, or c) the Trump administration breaks the entire EU in order to get its deal with the members that matter. No matter the path, the strategic alignments that have made the EU the vehicle that have made Europe united, at peace, wealthy and free are over.
 
In the near future? I doubt it. Honestly we have a higher chance for a war with Russia over it's neighboring countries over geopolitics.

Until China becomes extremely aggressive in expansion I wouldn't worry about it.
 
Back
Top