Good analysis. Just want to reinforce the point that Russia is more like North Korea - a rogue dependency of China, dangerous mainly because it has nukes - than an important power in its own right.
This piece is missing the low-hanging fruit: near-shoring to North America.
Mexico is such an obvious complement to the US, in terms of labour structure and demographic structure, I'm not going to elaborate. Yes, it's more expensive than Altasia, but it's also closer, and in a safer neighbourhood. Enriching Mexico also pays enormous domestic dividends for the US.
But the real low-hanging fruit is Canada, which operates as an extension of the US's domestic market, increasing it's size by slightly under 10%. That 10% matters more as China's economic size approaches parity with the US. But current America First policies putting Mexico and Canada on the outside are doing enormous damage to North American relations and reversing the continent's economic integration, decreasing growth potential. The Biden administration's beggar-thy-neighbor policies have forced Canada to match US subsidies, which (a) it cannot afford to do, and (b) effectively outsources much of its foreign policy to the US, which is not what any sovereign nation does without building resentment.
The US largely takes its allies and economic partners for granted, has treated its allies very poorly the last decade, sometimes more poorly than its enemies. For US allies, Biden's policies are not an improvement over Trump's. Noah's strategies, and Jake Sullivan's 'Biden Doctrine', pay lip service to this. They underestimate the damage being done, and the enmity being engendered among allies by these industrial policies.
I would love to see a discussion between you and Peter Zeihan.
Peter seems to see the world breaking into blocks that sound a lot like what you're talking about, not just for the United States but for everybody. He also sees China as well on his way to collapse and he's not particularly optimistic about Germany's future.
The basis for his opinions seem to be the demographic issue of productive Generations aging out in some countries and just coming on stream in others and also geography.
I am just an economics fanboy but you and Paul Krugman make a lot of sense to me.
I have only been following Peter Z for a few months, but I have tried to catch every new video as it comes out and catch up on old ones, but I really don't have the expertise to tell if his reasoning is found.
But I'm sure that you do.
How many "Cronkites" you give him and other people who are free with their opinions in this area
Thanks for this post. Living in the UK, I think we should be aiming to share much of the same agenda. One thing I feel is missing is the critical importance of India. Your Altasia point is fine but India is much more than that. It is somewhat democratic and the largest population in the world with some of the same growth dynamics as China. And its right next door. A long term strategy that goes beyond trade and seeks to secure and enhance Indian democracy and turn the country into a full partner in the English speaking, EU and Japan alliance is vital. This might take 20 yeasr to come to fruition.
This Cold War 2 case is very important stuff, Noah. I don't see this view anywhere else, especially not with the case and the strategy fleshed out as you have done in your Feb 4th post and these last two. Have I missed it? Has anyone else been willing to make this case?
Beyond the Core Developed West, I just don't see "democracy" or so-called "shared values" are viable standards behind which all these countries are going to line up behind the U.S. as obedient followers in a struggle which is basically a US-China peer competition for power and influence. I don't see even "security" is a viable criteria, except for perhaps a few countries near China.
It's best to call it what it is and simply go head-to-head with China on a purely transactional basis that says "we can do more for you than China can, while increasing your internal well-being and security, as well as your standing in your region, with us, and with the world."
By nominal GDP the countries that have to see the advantage are: India, Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, S. Arabia, Turkey, Thailand, Argentina, Nigeria, S. Africa, Bangladesh, the UAE, Egypt.
It's a question of whether the US, the EU, and possibly the UK can jointly listen very carefully to how these countries express their national interests, how they critique the West, and take steps to meet them in mutually beneficial ways that surpass anything China might have to offer.
A well thought out approach that totally ignores the fact that our next President is likely to be authoritarian who despises our allies, identifies with the strongmen around the world, and sees amassing riches and power for himself and his family as the whole point of the Presidency. Take care of this problem first and then we’ll pay attention to plans for dealing with China.
As an American, I also would chose option A but only because I know the U.S. economy and what to avoid. If I was Chinese, I would most likely choose option B sticking with what I know. The average Chinese citizen is much more economically savvy than the average U.S. citizen and has more savings and investments. China’s current economy is only a few decades old and is revolutionary in concept. As they say in the art world, “It’s a work in progress.”
Such well written and explanatory words that are common sense solutions worthy of exploring. Time is of the essence.
Interesting, so Altasia won't even need to be allied, as long as it's there, it's not in China
As a Pearl Harbor baby I am up well past my bedtime, but it was worth it because I got a like from Noah!
Good analysis. Just want to reinforce the point that Russia is more like North Korea - a rogue dependency of China, dangerous mainly because it has nukes - than an important power in its own right.
This is one of your best columns ever Noah. The Administration should hire you.
This piece is missing the low-hanging fruit: near-shoring to North America.
Mexico is such an obvious complement to the US, in terms of labour structure and demographic structure, I'm not going to elaborate. Yes, it's more expensive than Altasia, but it's also closer, and in a safer neighbourhood. Enriching Mexico also pays enormous domestic dividends for the US.
But the real low-hanging fruit is Canada, which operates as an extension of the US's domestic market, increasing it's size by slightly under 10%. That 10% matters more as China's economic size approaches parity with the US. But current America First policies putting Mexico and Canada on the outside are doing enormous damage to North American relations and reversing the continent's economic integration, decreasing growth potential. The Biden administration's beggar-thy-neighbor policies have forced Canada to match US subsidies, which (a) it cannot afford to do, and (b) effectively outsources much of its foreign policy to the US, which is not what any sovereign nation does without building resentment.
The US largely takes its allies and economic partners for granted, has treated its allies very poorly the last decade, sometimes more poorly than its enemies. For US allies, Biden's policies are not an improvement over Trump's. Noah's strategies, and Jake Sullivan's 'Biden Doctrine', pay lip service to this. They underestimate the damage being done, and the enmity being engendered among allies by these industrial policies.
I would love to see a discussion between you and Peter Zeihan.
Peter seems to see the world breaking into blocks that sound a lot like what you're talking about, not just for the United States but for everybody. He also sees China as well on his way to collapse and he's not particularly optimistic about Germany's future.
The basis for his opinions seem to be the demographic issue of productive Generations aging out in some countries and just coming on stream in others and also geography.
I am just an economics fanboy but you and Paul Krugman make a lot of sense to me.
I have only been following Peter Z for a few months, but I have tried to catch every new video as it comes out and catch up on old ones, but I really don't have the expertise to tell if his reasoning is found.
But I'm sure that you do.
How many "Cronkites" you give him and other people who are free with their opinions in this area
Very good.
Thanks for this post. Living in the UK, I think we should be aiming to share much of the same agenda. One thing I feel is missing is the critical importance of India. Your Altasia point is fine but India is much more than that. It is somewhat democratic and the largest population in the world with some of the same growth dynamics as China. And its right next door. A long term strategy that goes beyond trade and seeks to secure and enhance Indian democracy and turn the country into a full partner in the English speaking, EU and Japan alliance is vital. This might take 20 yeasr to come to fruition.
This Cold War 2 case is very important stuff, Noah. I don't see this view anywhere else, especially not with the case and the strategy fleshed out as you have done in your Feb 4th post and these last two. Have I missed it? Has anyone else been willing to make this case?
Because you need to take it on the road!
Beyond the Core Developed West, I just don't see "democracy" or so-called "shared values" are viable standards behind which all these countries are going to line up behind the U.S. as obedient followers in a struggle which is basically a US-China peer competition for power and influence. I don't see even "security" is a viable criteria, except for perhaps a few countries near China.
It's best to call it what it is and simply go head-to-head with China on a purely transactional basis that says "we can do more for you than China can, while increasing your internal well-being and security, as well as your standing in your region, with us, and with the world."
By nominal GDP the countries that have to see the advantage are: India, Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, S. Arabia, Turkey, Thailand, Argentina, Nigeria, S. Africa, Bangladesh, the UAE, Egypt.
It's a question of whether the US, the EU, and possibly the UK can jointly listen very carefully to how these countries express their national interests, how they critique the West, and take steps to meet them in mutually beneficial ways that surpass anything China might have to offer.
"On today's episode... Liza, Warren, Brady, and Connor work together to drive a stake through the still beating heart of David Ricardo."
Wow, Noah, I had no idea you had such reactionary friends. I like them. :-)
Free trade for free people would lead to greater prosperity and be cheaper than this Rube Goldberg cross border regulation subsidy machine.
A well thought out approach that totally ignores the fact that our next President is likely to be authoritarian who despises our allies, identifies with the strongmen around the world, and sees amassing riches and power for himself and his family as the whole point of the Presidency. Take care of this problem first and then we’ll pay attention to plans for dealing with China.
Great piece, constructive.
As an American, I also would chose option A but only because I know the U.S. economy and what to avoid. If I was Chinese, I would most likely choose option B sticking with what I know. The average Chinese citizen is much more economically savvy than the average U.S. citizen and has more savings and investments. China’s current economy is only a few decades old and is revolutionary in concept. As they say in the art world, “It’s a work in progress.”