FBI Director Wray: China is the “greatest long-term threat” to the US

[anatta]

"China’s systematic mercantilism is a threat to the U.S. economy and the very soul of the global trading system. America cannot respond with either flaccid appeasement or economic nationalism; it must assemble an international coalition that pressures China to stop rigging markets and start competing on fair terms."
https://itif.org/publications/2017/0...lliance-backed

China loves your passivity.

If you are going to post links to support- post something useful instead of making me dig thru it.

Here is the definition you are attempting to enunciate

Innovation-mercantilist strategies,

^ "seeking global dominance across a wide array of advanced industries that are key to U.S. economic and national security interests. And despite the claims of some apologists for Chinese behavior, it’s clear what the end game is: Chinese-owned companies across a range of advanced industries gaining significant global market share at the expense of American"

[anatta]

"Unless U.S. policymakers want to blithely accept Chinese innovation mercantilism and the damage it inflicts on the U.S. economy and its advanced industries as beyond their control, it’s time for a new approach that moves beyond the naïve push for further dialogue and instead makes it clear to Chinese leaders that such unfair, harmful policies cannot be practiced with impunity. But this fight cannot be about individual tactics, for the Chinese government has shown itself to be quite adept at abandoning certain tactics when they become discredited due to global pressure, only to adopt new and more effective ones in service of its overall mercantilist strategy. The focus needs to be not just on tactical wins, but on more broadly enlisting the global community to help roll back the entire Chinese innovation-mercantilist enterprise and getting China to finally become a responsible player in the global trading system. As such, the Trump administration has a unique opportunity to work with our allies to press Chinese leaders for a fundamental economic policy reset that will move the world economy back toward the rule of law and market-based policies."

This is what 'China First' looks like.

good luck with a "global community" approach. The TPP is really the only attempt,and that isn't good for the USA.
So we are doing trade agreements addressing the more vile of Chinese behaviors. Which is what I was saying from the beginning

[Jack]

If you are going to post links to support- post something useful instead of making me dig thru it.

Here is the definition you are attempting to enunciate

^ "seeking global dominance across a wide array of advanced industries that are key to U.S. economic and national security interests. And despite the claims of some apologists for Chinese behavior, it’s clear what the end game is: Chinese-owned companies across a range of advanced industries gaining significant global market share at the expense of American"

These aren't (what you seem to be confused about) 'State-owned Companies'. These are publicly traded companies. That millions of Americans own shares in.

"Baidu, Inc. is a Chinese multinational technology company specializing in Internet-related services and products and artificial intelligence, headquartered in Beijing's Haidian District. It is one of the largest AI and internet companies in the world. Wikipedia"

"Alibaba Group Holding Limited is a Chinese multinational technology company specializing in e-commerce, retail, Internet, and technology. Wikipedia"

"Tencent Holdings Ltd. is a Chinese multinational conglomerate holding company founded in 1998, whose subsidiaries specialise in various Internet-related services and products, entertainment, artificial intelligence and technology both in China and globally.Wikipedia"

Do you understand the meaning of 'China First' ?

[Jack]

good luck with a "global community" approach. The TPP is really the only attempt,and that isn't good for the USA.
So we are doing trade agreements addressing the more vile of Chinese behaviors. Which is what I was saying from the beginning

You seem to be missing the point. 'America First' DOESN'T rely on the 'global community'. 'America First' means fighting 'Fire with Fire'.

--->"Innovation-mercantilist strategies"<---

Yes. A planned strategy to make sure US Companies lead in 5G and Artificial Intelligence.
(of course, I realize you would rather go down with the ship clutching your Bible and Virginity, exclaiming 'But I'm right and they are wrong')

[Mott the Hoople]

.
New Europe has, in the past, sounded the alarm on multiple occasions in an effort to caution the public about China’s flagship projects, including its Belt and Road initiative, as well as its numerous financial and technological investments around the world, all of which are aimed at ensuring that the Chinese Communists’ vital interests become so irreversibly intertwined with the order of business in the community that they guarantee that Beijing replaces the United States and its allies to become the arbiter of a new, Chinese-model, world order.

While speaking to the Hudson Institute in Washington, FBI Director Christopher Wray confirmed what New Europe has been concerned about, saying that acts of espionage and theft by China’s government pose the “greatest long-term threat” to the future of the US.

https://www.neweurope.eu/article/fbi...eat-to-the-us/

So Tom, what do you think about the FBI Director emphasizing Liberal Internationalism as the most effective method of dealing with Chinas bad behavior?

[anatta]

You seem to be missing the point. 'America First' DOESN'T rely on the 'global community'. 'America First' means fighting 'Fire with Fire'.

--->"Innovation-mercantilist strategies"<---

Yes. A planned strategy to make sure US Companies lead in 5G and Artificial Intelligence.
(of course, I realize you would rather go down with the ship clutching your Bible and Virginity, exclaiming 'But I'm right and they are wrong')

jack I quoted your link and showed the problem with a "global approach"
Nations dont want to cooperate -they want to put their parochial interests prime.

Not saying we couldn't have a conference and agree on some particulars, but it doesnt work

[Mott the Hoople]

Do you have any ideas? Or will you just 'boo hoo' your circumstance.

Now, we could combat China, fighting 'Fire with Fire', but that might entail 'Central Planning' and 'Government working with Business' ... both contrary to our Conservative friends.
Government could decide 'Technological superiority' must remain in the Hands of the 'Freedom-Loving West'. A 'Manhattan Project' of securing Western Leadership in Technology, with a joint effort of Government and Business, would be created and funded by American Taxpayers and the Private Sector. The goal being, maintaining the Values of the West , like Personal Liberty and Freedom of Expression. Or, we face China and their 'Rating System of Citizens', your Party Allegiance determines your Job, School, Travel, Economic Station.

If it helps any, you do know the Government is giving trillions of dollars to Big Pharma to find a vaccine for coronavirus.

Well the FBI director said in the article that liberal internationalism is the most effective approach to dealing with China. Sounds like he’s learned the lessons of history as conservative isolationism isn’t effective at all in dealing with rouge nations. That and appeasement were the big lessons learned by the US and Britain from WWII.

[anatta]

Well the FBI director said in the article that liberal internationalism is the most effective approach to dealing with China. Sounds like he’s learned the lessons of history as conservative isolationism isn’t effective at all in dealing with rouge nations. That and appeasement were the big lessons learned by the US and Britain from WWII.

curious how you envision that working..criminal like INTERPOL?
or maybe a treaty against China?

what's the mechanism?

[Mott the Hoople]

is our infrastructure "central planning?" of course not.
Central planning is called a "command" economy. ( Like the old Chinese Great Leaps Forward")


State-owned Enterprises Around the WORLD as Hybrid Organizations
https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10....ournalCode=amp

China definitely has a market economy and not a command economy but that doesn’t change the fact that their government is a right wing totalitarian state.

[Mott the Hoople]

curious how you envision that working..criminal like INTERPOL?
or maybe a treaty against China?

what's the mechanism?

Didn’t you read the article?

[anatta]

China definitely has a market economy and not a command economy but that doesn’t change the fact that their government is a right wing totalitarian state.

realpolitik doesn t care about that of course -but their malign practices have to be confronted.
Considering COVID as well and their attempt to hog up PPE -we need to diversify our supply chains away from China

[anatta]

Didn’t you read the article?

I dont see much

With the help of our many foreign partners, we’ve arrested targets all over the globe.

but it's a clarion call and a good detailed indictment of China's tentacles

[Jack]

jack I quoted your link and showed the problem with a "global approach"
Nations dont want to cooperate -they want to put their parochial interests prime.

Not saying we couldn't have a conference and agree on some particulars, but it doesnt work

Well, I've given my opinion on the matter. I support a 'Free Western Civilization' versus a 'Authoritarian East Civilization'. My position is we fight 'Fire with Fire' and adopt a 'Mercantilist Strategy' to challenge China's rise to Global Supremacy. I'm not a 'Purist', so I'm not hamstrung with some ideology that some are fixated on.

[Jack]

Well the FBI director said in the article that liberal internationalism is the most effective approach to dealing with China. Sounds like he’s learned the lessons of history as conservative isolationism isn’t effective at all in dealing with rouge nations. That and appeasement were the big lessons learned by the US and Britain from WWII.

So. Everything is working out?

[anatta]

Well, I've given my opinion on the matter. I support a 'Free Western Civilization' versus a 'Authoritarian East Civilization'. My position is we fight 'Fire with Fire' and adopt a 'Mercantilist Strategy' to challenge China's rise to Global Supremacy. I'm not a 'Purist', so I'm not hamstrung with some ideology that some are fixated on.

we cant do mercantilism. (innovative mercantilism or WTF it's called).
w can diversify,and if we are smart will do that