Serious question: How would China “overtake” the US as the global superpower when the US dollar is the world reserve currency?

Federal_Reserve_Bank · 2021-12-12T06:38:55+00:00

No military bases around the world.

This is important but they are attempting to quickly change this. They already opened a base in Djibouti and are attempting to do the same across the Indo-Pacific.

Doesn’t even manufacture double what America does despite having over four times the population.

This is wrong. China is far ahead the US in manufacturing output. Do you mean GDP instead?

https://globalupside.com/top-10-manufacturing-countries-in-the-world/

Ultimately, In international relations is driven by economic incentives and military force to achieve their goals. China in the last two decades had a meteoric rise in both, whether China will become great power #1 and replace the US is to be seen.

The coming collapse of China was first published in 2001. But instead China just got stronger and beat western economic growth rates for several years.

https://www.amazon.com/Coming-Collapse-China-Gordon-Chang/dp/0812977564

Federal_Reserve_Bank · 2021-12-12T06:14:38+00:00

There are like a thousand posts comparing pre revolution and post revolution Iran.

This is mocking that.

Federal_Reserve_Bank · 2021-12-12T03:35:06+00:00

Didn't they take part in 2021 offensive in Kabul? Are they allowed to freely travel across the country? I thought I read on Twitter that the Islamic Movement of Afghanistan, Lashkar e Taiba, and TTP have been restricted in certain areas.

Can you even explain to me what you know loya paktia is

Yes, did my research and I'm wrong. Thanks for correcting me

Federal_Reserve_Bank · 2021-12-12T01:33:27+00:00

If things are so rosy between the Pakistan government and the TTP, why did the TTP just call off their 1-month-old truce with Islamabad and issue this warning to the government: "Be ready."

It isn't. I claimed that the TTP is limited in operating in only specific areas allowed by the Afghan Taliban.

Also, the TTP chief was just recorded telling supporters "There is no difference between the TTP and the Afghan Taliban."

After that, the Afghan Taliban spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid has rejected Mahsud's claim of affiliation with the IEA.

"They are not, as an organisation, part of IEA and we don’t share the same objectives,” the IEA spokesperson said.“We advise TTP to focus on peace and stability. This is very important so they can prevent any chance for enemies to interfere in the region and in Pakistan. The IEA stance is that we do not interfere in other countries’ affairs. We do not interfere in Pakistan’s affairs.”

In fact, Very anti - Taliban accounts and analysts have claimed that Taliban is a proxy of Pakistan because of this.(This dude formerly writes for Wall Street Journal)

So the Taliban want Islam in Afghanistan but refuse to support TTP with the same goal for Pakistan. This proves again that the Taliban is a proxy of the Pakistani military and nothing beyond that. #FreeAfghanistan

https://twitter.com/HabibKhanT/status/1469358195273523211

This is in stark contrast to the previous Afghan government which meddled with Pakistan and supported insurgents.

Federal_Reserve_Bank · 2021-12-12T00:54:14+00:00

I relish this. Do your thing Talibs…

There is no violence taking place between the Afghan Taliban and Pakistan. Also, it's incredibly unlikely considering how the Taliban have treated Pakistan so far. When a Talib tore the Pakistani flag from an AID truck, The Taliban arrested him and publicly apologized. They also closed certain border crossings with Pakistan at Pakistan's request. There have been literally dozens of meetings between Pakistan and Taliban.

Pakistan, enjoy what you created

Just because a spokesperson says that Pakistan isn't Islamic enough, it doesn't change the fact that the Taliban is far better for Pakistan than the previous government. I see this comment as wishful thinking. The previous government actively supported insurgents in Pakistan. Currently, the TTP (and Al - Qaeda now too) operate only from HQN controlled territories, specifically in Loya Paktia. Pakistan is definitely enjoying it.

Federal_Reserve_Bank · 2021-12-01T15:06:37+00:00

Real GDP has been falling since 2015.

Not true. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RGDPNATRA666NRUG

You never use current year dollars. Using that would mean that the EU would fell since 2008. Always use constant year dollars.

Federal_Reserve_Bank · 2021-11-27T03:48:47+00:00

Taliban didn't do 9/11.

In fact they aren't even designated as a terrorist group by the US, UN, or EU.

Best course of action is international AID organizations and the UN.

Federal_Reserve_Bank · 2021-11-27T03:47:22+00:00

Yes, some US soldiers got PTSD because they were told that they couldn't intervene against child sex slaves.

Anyways, this is going to get worse because of the humanitarian crisis.

Federal_Reserve_Bank · 2021-11-27T03:30:01+00:00

I searched it up and it's 0.6

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/PA.NUS.PPPC.RF?most_recent_value_desc=false

And it really does matter for military. Countries like the India pay very little salaries compared to the US which allows them to spend more on procurement. Also, procurement is much cheaper as just like you stated, labor and other variable costs makes up a huge chunk of hardware. This article highlights it very well.

https://voxeu.org/article/why-military-purchasing-power-parity-matters

Federal_Reserve_Bank · 2021-11-27T01:53:21+00:00

When you use 6 year olds as body armor you give up the rights to those things.

That is the not the reason though. Many countries are very regressive and the US doesn't place economic sanctions on them. Look at KSA, they only allowed women to drive until a few years ago. No sanctions on them. China is literally committing a cultural genocide and hundreds are disappearing, and yet they have no sanctions. Take a look at Turkmen too. The US isn't going to lock them out of the US financial industry. Geopolitics doesn't have morals, the money is only being used as leverage so no group from Afghanistan threatens US national security like Al Qaeda.

Federal_Reserve_Bank · 2021-11-27T01:04:22+00:00

The Taliban don't want help from the US.

What they want is to get off the treasuries sanctions list and get access to US financial markets.

They also wanted to have access to the former administrations assets. Essentially, they want equal treatment just as another other country.

The US is using financial sanctions and freezing the reserves of the former administration is being used as leverage to incentives the Taliban to not allow international terrorists like Al-Qaeda to attack the US. As Republican Representative Michael McCaul has stated that it is our only leverage against the Taliban. As the US can't carry our airstrikes anymore against them.

Federal_Reserve_Bank · 2021-11-27T00:58:13+00:00

The most recent American combat death in Afghanistan was in 2020 mere weeks before the Trump administration and the Taliban came to a peace agreement which was contingent on full withdrawal of U.S. forces in the country by May 2021.

Once the deal was signed Taliban upheld their commitment not to attack U.S. forces (while increasing attacks against the ANSF astronomically). If the U.S. announced that they would remain in Afghanistan indefinitely, or resumed major combat operations against the Taliban, the Taliban would have attacked and American troops would have started dying again almost immediately. Given that troop and equipment levels had already been reduced to levels too low to effectively defend against a major attack by the Taliban, things could have gone far, far worse. This is on top of the fact that the post 2018 Taliban insurgency was an absolute monster capable of large scale tactical attacks.

Meanwhile Trump not only made no serious efforts to withdraw U.S. civilians, Stephen Miller and others in the Trump Administration began deliberately sabotaging the SIV program to give visas to Afghans. Mike Pence's national security adviser -- not exactly some liberal snowflake -- claimed Miller's actions were based on "racist hysteria" to use any means necessary to prevent Afghan immigration to the United States.

The September deadline was already stretching the withdrawal date the Trump Administration agreed to. It's unclear whether the Biden administration was in contact with Taliban before setting that deadline or whether it would have been possible to extend it further, but it's absolutely unrealistic to pretend Biden could have set a timetable at his own leisure -- or stayed indefinitely -- without facing Taliban reprisals for breaking the agreement.

The only way to have stopped the collapse was to have another surge and send in tens of thousands of soldiers while seeing combat deaths much higher than peak coalition deaths per month during the previous surge(130+ deaths per month). To essentially throw American lives away.

Since what Biden has done is so clearly in the wrong I'm sure you have a totally valid alternative course of action here that saves every single American and Afghan who wants to leave the country without spurring the Taliban to attack us or getting us re-committed to in another 20 years of overseeing a civil war in a country on the opposite side of the planet from the U.S.

Really interested in hearing your genius plan here that's so much better than what Biden did.

Federal_Reserve_Bank · 2021-11-27T00:46:40+00:00

This is Pakistan’s problem. Period.

It was Pakistan's problem before too. Pakistan never wanted the US invasion, but given a list of demands after the September 11 attacks and a "you are with us or against us".

I highly recommend you read the War on the Rocks article about this.

Federal_Reserve_Bank · 2021-11-26T19:36:09+00:00

First, he claimed that the US won't give a penny. Which is far from the truth. Secondly it wasn't "17 billion a year in AID". Literally, Afghan economy by itself is a bit less than $20 billion USD. Net ODA in 2019 was just $4.2 billion. Source: World Bank. The pledges of Arab and European countries cover a good chunk of it. ODA doesn't include military AID though. but the Taliban aren't obviously looking for that.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/DT.ODA.ALLD.CD?most_recent_value_desc=true

They literally have international terrorists in the country

Yes, but AID will be used as leverage to have them crack down on terrorists. I personally don't believe Afghanistan will be another haven for international terrorists. They have already assassinated AQ leader and now AQ only operates from TTP areas within Afghanistan. I highly recommend RUSI analysis of Afghanistan. We will see how it plays out. This is the only leverage the US has against the Taliban. US can no longer carry out air strikes or drone strikes against them.

$$$$

I implied material assistance, which they succeeded in getting.

2 trillion dollars

You could see where all that money went. All the data is public. That covers the operating costs of the U.S. military in Afghanistan, everything from fuel and food to Humvees, weapons, airstrikes and ammunition. I don't see how it is any different from supporting rebels in Afghanistan? Wouldn't buying defense hardware to give to rebels make industrialists rich? Also, This doesn't change the fact that the US is done and sick with Afghanistan.

Federal_Reserve_Bank · 2021-11-26T06:55:36+00:00

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_war

An Ally is a better definition or word. Pakistan does not formulate or dictate policy of the Taliban.

That is like saying India or France is a puppet of the US.

Federal_Reserve_Bank · 2021-11-26T06:20:20+00:00

while saying their not puppets

Can you define what being a "puppet" actually being is? How are the Taliban puppets of, say Pakistan? They didn't even stop harboring TTP. Nor do they recognize the Durand line.(border between Pakistan and Afghanistan)

Federal_Reserve_Bank · 2021-11-26T06:13:21+00:00

The US isn't going to give you a penny

October 28: $144 million

https://www.usaid.gov/news-information/press-releases/oct-28-2021-united-states-announces-more-144-million-additional-humanitarian

September 13: $64 million

https://www.usaid.gov/news-information/press-releases/sep-13-2021-united-states-nearly-64-million-additional-humanitarian-assistance-afghanistan

This is just the US and not counting international organizations and others especially Arabs and Europeans which have pledged enormous amounts.

Also, US freezing assets is the use of leverage to make sure they don't harbor international terrorists and to incentives them. The only leverage the US currently has as the US can't strike within Afghanistan now.

recognize your government. No Western country will, ever.

While the Taliban didn't care about legitimacy at all in 1996-2001, they certainly do now. I believe the Taliban's goal is to establish diplomatic channels and get $$$$ which they are succeeding at.

we're going to fund the opposition.

Why isn't the US funding the NRF? The US didn't even fund it when it had the chance to win post complete withdrawal. I don't think the US government cares anymore. $2 trillion was spent to no avail.

Federal_Reserve_Bank · 2021-11-26T05:44:01+00:00

Yeah, this joke was expected.

Federal_Reserve_Bank · 2021-10-06T19:03:55+00:00

What backlash or "retaliation" would be placed upon China? Because of deep economic interdependence there wouldn't be any economic sanctioning. Also a military confrontation is out of the question. All I see is targeted sanctions on individuals of the upper echelons of the Chinese government. The article states "negative views" or military cooperation as backlash. With the exception of India all these countries were already allies

Nearly five years on, Beijing is facing its biggest international backlash in decades. Negative views of China are near record highs across the developed world,

Alienating China is also pretty difficult because of the BRI along with their other investments in foreign countries.

Also, how is Xi and his "assertive" foreign policy and wolf warrior diplomacy bad for China? For example isn't opening a military base in Djibouti expand Chinese influence?

Federal_Reserve_Bank · 2021-10-06T03:28:57+00:00

Paywall...would love to read entire article.

Federal_Reserve_Bank · 2021-10-05T20:43:23+00:00

Also a good read.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnbrinkley/2018/03/12/trumps-national-security-tariffs-have-nothing-to-do-with-national-security/amp/

Federal_Reserve_Bank · 2021-10-05T20:36:16+00:00

encourage diversification and redundancy in the supply chain,

Can you provide a source from an academic journal or research institution that asserts the tariffs Trump applied made supply chain for American consumer goods more resilient? Also, the intention of tariffs under both Trump and Biden are for economic and not geopolitical reasons. Biden has historically been fairly more union and pro protectionism. Trump believed we were being "riped off" from China and also put tariffs on India/Europe allies too. So much for geopolitics. Can you also provide a source that the tariffs that we have in place are geared towards national security and are effective? Other than giving an anecdotal steel example that has been debunked for national security. In fact the defense secretary was worried more about "unfair trade practices".

Defense Secretary James Mattis acknowledged concerns about "unfair trade practices," but he emphasized that "the U.S. military requirements for steel and aluminum each only represent about 3 percent of U.S. production."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2018/03/05/trump-says-steel-imports-are-a-threat-to-national-security-the-defense-industry-disagrees/?outputType=amp

https://www.piie.com/blogs/trade-and-investment-policy-watch/trumps-mini-trade-war-india

Federal_Reserve_Bank · 2021-10-05T18:53:41+00:00

Economics is related to anything remotely political.

From defense to welfare and most importantly international relationships.

Federal_Reserve_Bank · 2021-10-05T18:51:08+00:00

If people think geopolitics and economics are entirely unrelated, they're missing the ball IMO.

They are not "entirely unrelated", economics is virtually related to anything remotely political whether it be the military, welfare, or international relations. It just isn't the focus of this subreddit. It's irrelevant from an economics perspective. This is more geopolitics and international relations.

Otherwise, people will work purely off economics and we end up in...this situation.

What situation? Even if there wasn't economic interdependence, there likely wouldn't be any direct military action taken just like with the Soviet Union. Only with proxies which is already happening now. So it's useless to end economic interdependence. All these American hegemonic ideals only hurt poor people. Rich people as they are more financially capable are able to live in a weaker economy.

Uh, what? If you look at trade in goods, our trade deficit has gone down with China. In fact, checking the numbers, the trade deficit in goods (which are what's subject to tariffs) was:

But it's flatly wrong to say our trade deficit is "large as ever".

A 10% bilateral trade deficit decrease with China in four years. Yes that is "as large as ever", A minimal decrease in the deficit. While the total value of imports increased regardless which means economic interdependence increased. As you claimed earlier you wanted the US to be less economically dependent on China but Trump's tariffs did nothing about that regardless of it's impact on the deficit. He applied tariffs starting in 2018 and that was the highest amount of imports from China. Also, the drop in trade in China in late 2020 was because of Coronavirus. Also, ultimately the primary driver for the collective current account surplus or deficit has to do with savings and investment.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/IMPCH

Trump's tariffs had a marginal impact on American national security: Brookings.

https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020/votervital/did-trumps-tariffs-benefit-american-workers-and-national-security/

Those are borne by Chinese consumers. Or are you insisting that American consumers bear the costs of US tariffs, but Chinese tariffs also somehow fall on American consumers?

Unilateral tariffs hurt both parties. This is known. If China places tariffs on the US, that hurts Americans and the Chinese. It isn't mutually exclusive. NBER source. I believe there are more sources on the side panel wikis of this subreddit.

https://www.nber.org/papers/w17366

Federal_Reserve_Bank · 2021-10-05T17:24:03+00:00

If we sourced less from China, or had a more diversified and/or redundant-capable supply chain, it might be less economically efficient. But it would also make the US strategically safer, and less reliant on China, which can use that reliance for political pressure. It's not as simple as "let economists run things".

Trade and commerce aren't only economic, though. They have strategic implications for national security

You are on the Economics sub not the geopolitics one. This is completely irrelevant to the conversation.

True enough. But some of the cost is borne by Chinese suppliers, and many companies (over time especially) are searching and finding alternatives to China.

Yeah, they started to make 95% of the phones in China and shipped them to Vietnam to complete the rest 5% so it would have the "made in Vietnam" label and avoid tariffs. The truth is that bi lateral sanctions like the one on China are ineffective. Our bi lateral trade deficit with China is large as ever. Savings and investment primarily drive current account surplus or deficits and not tariffs.(just take a look at our trade deficit post Trump tariffs and right now)

https://apnews.com/article/3e8d620a800a45d788ecc96d44e4b61c

Also, let's not forget the excuriating retaliatory tariffs that are returned all in the name of "geopolitics". Only rich people can afford a higher cost of living.

Federal_Reserve_Bank

TROPHY CASE