There are changes coming forth in our relationship with China and how the market will be approached as it relates to long-term strategies. There must be some change because we are losing our competitive advantages and being bested as an economic system. Its not so much that we don't have the way its that we don't have a unified will to compete. Our fundamental infrastructure components are still in tact and our innovative ingenuity is already present but that might not be the same case in a decade down the road as China begins to innovate as well. (Meaning lets capitalize on our current strengths, set course to a strategic destination, and hedge our weaknesses with our allies.)
Thus, focusing on our fundamentals (transactions) can create wider impact among many different paths in business development. This means infrastructure can impact the businesses that rely on it (i.e. shipping of resources in a couple of days vs a couple of months, and speeding transference of information through innovative networks, etc... that lead to flourishing industries and increased focus on R&D.) The market guides us and our policies encourages us but ultimately it is our competitive spirit that will save us (...depending on whether we enjoy competing with each other or competing globally.)
That doesn't mean we don't work with China and restore trading relationships but that the time for an open fair economy has come or otherwise we are going to have two major influential players that will carve up large parts of the global economy through exclusionary identities (It just means like the old Cold War we have areas of influence that impact trading, commerce, etc...). Trading relationships need to be fair, honest, and balanced (i.e. diverting public money into specifically chosen industries designed to bankrupt the industries of other countries via cheaper products so as to redraw the supply chains.
Use of significant public monies and technology transfer requirements are strategies designed to consolidate amazing wealth/power from the fundamental building blocks of economies. They would call that a monopoly on certain technologies needed in the digital era like CPUs, chips and semi-conductors.
An inability to innovate during a "window of opportunity" may mean being #2 in the development of products, services, and value emulation. The consequences will be dire not only for the U.S. but also for the current socio-political-economic structure of global business. I don't know...maybe? Its a big claim with only partial support.
This is where a little risky intuitive cognitive/mental leap/hop based on prior economic patterns becomes helpful in viewing and possibly solving an important problem. In laymen's, terms while we haven't put it all into an iron clad study we can say that the trends, based on prior situations, indicates that if we do not return the manufacturing of core advance industry components back to the U.S. soon we may lose that ability for a long long time thereby leading to a weaker competitive position on a global scale.
In such a case we weak cases the ability to act strategically as a single national organism to meet emerging/and nearly passed environmental challenges. Our system could weaken from an inability to work together and negotiate in good faith toward a beneficial end.
I may not be the expert but I think our leaders have a moral and fiscal responsibility to work together to put us in the best place possible. A focus on solving problems for the widest group of stakeholders seems appropriate in this case. Someday we have to look in our grandchildren's eyes and say, "I did the best job I could to give you the most opportunities in life." 🤷 )
BBC has a fairly solid description of the specific interview. 'US will 'take all steps necessary' to defend itself on China trade'
No comments:
Post a Comment