Another interesting take from Fareed. I'm neither an economist or a historian to understand the context of all his points, but I always feel a little more educated after each of his takes. I hadn't considered the comparison of the trade war with China and it's possible similarities to the oil embargo with Japan that contributed to Pearl Harbor.
Fareed’s Take: US jumped into a huge trade war without planning ahead
- Thread starter Eppy99
- Start date
Another interesting take from Fareed. I'm neither an economist or a historian to understand the context of all his points, but I always feel a little more educated after each of his takes. I hadn't considered the comparison of the trade war with China and it's possible similarities to the oil embargo with Japan that contributed to Pearl Harbor.
But you are okay with China putting tariffs on US goods? And are you implying China is going to bomb Pearl Harbor?
No, I'm neither okay with the tariff war or the chance of any type of an embargo (I haven't heard if that's a possibilty). And I'm not suggesting China will go to war with us. I'm just saying I had never considered any military implications based on where we now stand. And I found the historical example of the the US/Japan embargo interesting. And he did even say it's a loose analogy. My listening to each weeks "Take" doesn't imply I agree with everything he says. I just like it's thoughtful and feel it's worthy of a cooler conversation.
Maybe this is a bad example, but with the Pacers currently winning I get real annoyed with bad commentary. It's usually just sound bites and not real analysis. Generally those come from bias points of view. I'm ok if my team isn't picked to win as they usually arent by the main media outlets. I'd rather listen to a Bill Simmons podcast where they might talk about a Pacers playoff series for a good 10-15 minutes. I'm ok if they have the Pacers losing, I just want real thoughtful analysis.
What does Fareed say about China's economy?
In all, Chinese officials have stopped publishing hundreds of data points once used by researchers and investors, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis.
In most cases, Chinese authorities haven’t given any reason for ending or withholding data. But the missing numbers have come as the world’s second biggest economy has stumbled under the weight of excessive debt, a crumbling real-estate market and other troubles—spurring heavy-handed efforts by authorities to control the narrative.
China’s National Bureau of Statistics stopped publishing some numbers related to unemployment in urban areas in recent years. After an anonymous user on the bureau’s website asked why one of those data points had disappeared, the bureau said only that the ministry that provided it stopped sharing the data.
Questions over China’s GDP figures go back years. Former Chinese premier Li Keqiang famously told the U.S. ambassador in 2007 that GDP data for a Chinese province he governed at the time were “man-made” and therefore unreliable, according to a leaked U.S. diplomatic cable. Instead, he said he kept track of electricity consumption, rail-freight volumes and new bank loans.
Official GDP figures were “for reference only,” he confided to the ambassador, according to the cable. Li died in October 2023.
China’s official GDP growth of 5% in 2024 exactly matched the target the government had set the previous year. Economists privately dismissed the figure, with one telling the Journal it would have been more credible if authorities had released something lower. Retail sales, construction activity and other data painted a considerably weaker picture, they noted.
Bank of Finland and Capital Economics have generally found bigger swings in GDP than what China reports—and its estimates are lower than official figures in recent quarters.
The video doesn’t specifically talk about China’s economy. It’s more about the relationship between the US/China and how it could be affected by a continued tariff war. Talks a little about how the US is reliant upon China for tech development (iPhone), while China’s biggest imports from the US are pork, soybeans and gas. Says China can easily find new suppliers. Talks about how China is not that far behind the US when it comes to AI. He doesn’t solely blame the US for this trade war. Towards the end he makes some references regarding the embargo placed on Japan prior to the war and how it might have led to Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor.
I didn't think there's any remaining question at all that the embargo led to Pearl Harbor. But there was quite a bit of history leading up to it, too. The story hardly began with the embargo itself.
The short story is that Japan wanted to pursue autarky -- and their way of getting it was military conquest within their "sphere of influence." There were two competing arguments -- the Northern and the Southern expansion doctrines. I think it was the Southern doctrine that won out -- but only after having earlier invaded Manchuria, going to war again with China, and all of that.
Well, the more influence they exerted over SE Asia and all the various island chains, the more contentious things got with other world powers -- us being included. And the embargo was a response to this.
I think the major relevant lesson of that whole thing really ought to be the folly of "self-sufficiency". Because that's what Japan was trying to secure.
A trade war is like any war. War plans go out the window when the first shot is fired.
Fareed is missing it if he thinks you can game plan China Tariffs. There are simply too many known and unknown moving parts many of which are non-economic.
CoH, from a strictly keep it simple political approach, the Trump argument is this...
Trump is turning the tables on a trade war whereby we have been for decades being ripped off.
Zakaria by contrast comes off sounding and looking like the kind of academic elitist who in the final analysis are too soft to stand up to our trade enemies who have been ripping us off.
Last edited:
Optics win elections.
After the election merits and demerits take time to surface.
Important in all this are occurrences beyond the winner's control working in his favor. Favorable forces which the winner, of course, takes all the credit for occuring.
When the forces prove to be unfavorable, the winner blames the other party.
Let us face it, with all too many voters, the optics depend on tribal loyalty. We see what we want to see. (Changed the above from "they" to "we" as I am not above having my loyalties).
Last edited:
Yes, it’s not surprising he would be critical of a Trump policy. I always appreciate his thoughtful analysis though. At least he’s not just giving a popular sound bite to please whichever that media outlet leans towards.
Sigh. I know.
One of the hardest parts of democracy is the power and appeal of bad ideas that sound like good ideas.
It’s frustrating…and so damaging to our well-being.
I think it's more reflexive than thoughtful, but to each his own.
I just can't take seriously anyone who was so wrong about so many things - i.e. "Russian Collusion".
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Call an autistic black kid the N word, win a million dollars.- Latest: Aloha Hoosier
-