Previous posts in this discussion:
PostUS-China Economics, Revisited (Tor Guimaraes, USA, 07/04/17 4:25 pm)
Once again Cameron Sawyer (June 30th) makes some truthful points which are impossible to deny. Commenting on his post, John Eipper also gave some excellent counterpoints. I agree with Cameron that China should not be blamed for America's problems. We are ultimately responsible as a nation for our social, political, economic decay.
John Eipper commented on my last post with "Improving China's standard of living can only be a good thing--correct? Or let's consider it this way: can anything be 'gained' by keeping the Chinese impoverished? For starters, they're now buying a lot of Buicks."
Clearly, improving Chinese standard of living would be a great thing for the Chinese. We Americans should concentrate on improving our nation's standard of living which has been going to the dogs for a few decades.
Also, clearly it would be counterproductive to make our objective keeping the Chinese people impoverished. I am sure they would not appreciate that and it would clearly distract us from accomplishing what should be our primary objective: improving our standard of living.
John sees a silver lining in the Chinese people's newly acquired wealth because they are buying "Buicks." That does not help our nation's standard of living. As I wrote earlier, the global corporations and the Chinese companies are making great profits, and the standard of living for most of the Chinese people got considerably better, but from the American people's perspective all we get are cheaper goods of lower quality (even poisonous) with reduced or no manufacturers responsibility, indecent labor practices and environment pollution, etc.
To me the potentially most devastating problem is that we have given our major rival and potential enemy a massive long-term economic and military strategic benefit. That is the utmost insanity for any country perpetually worried about national security. On top of everything, as part of the package we owe them a lot of money and seem to have no discipline to pay it back (the interest alone can become financially crippling in the long run). This situation is no laughing matter.
JE comments: Not impressed by Buicks? Another US "export" to China we haven't addressed in this discussion is education--precisely, the 300,000 Chinese studying in the US, and spending great deals of money to do so. That many of the best and brightest end up staying here is only icing on the cake.
"Alienation 101": Chinese Students in US Universities
(Rodolfo Neirotti, USA
07/06/17 4:10 AM)
John E wrote on July 4th: "Another US 'export' to China we haven't addressed in this discussion is education--precisely, the 300,000 Chinese studying in the US, and spending great deals of money to do so. That many of the best and brightest end up staying here is only icing on the cake."
Concerning the Chinese studying in the US as another US "export," I strongly recommend the article "Alienation 101" by Brook Lamer published in the April-May 2017 The Economist 1843 supplement. It is a good analysis of the situation, with a description of the frustrations and interactions of the students with the locals.
JE comments: Here's the link to the article, which focuses on the ambivalent experience of Chinese students at the U of Iowa. Iowa has heavily recruited Chinese students as a means to increase its all-important revenues. (Xi Jinping lived with a host family in Muscatine, Iowa in the 1980s, cementing the "special relationship" of the state with the PRC.)
Lamer highlights the "missed opportunities" of bringing Chinese to the US. At Iowa, a ghetto culture has emerged among the 2000+ Chinese population, who spend their days cruising in luxury vehicles and keeping to themselves.
Is the economic panacea of Chinese students in the US largely an example of mutual exploitation? Read on: