U.S. media claims a second "China shock" is on the horizon! On July 19, The Washington Post published an article stating that a quarter of a century ago, low-cost Chinese goods flooded the U.S. market, leading to the loss of 3 million factory jobs and "upsetting" American politics—an phenomenon later known as the "China shock." Now, a second wave of this "China shock" is reverberating, with its impacts potentially far exceeding those of the first.
This time, it's no longer about cheap consumer goods dominating markets. Instead, high-value products such as new energy vehicles, battery power, photovoltaic energy storage, industrial equipment, and drones have become the mainstays of exports. With a complete industrial chain, large-scale production capacity, and rapid iteration capabilities, China’s high-end manufacturing sector is now directly competing with the core industries of Europe and America. Yet clearly, simply raising tariffs will not be enough to block this round of industrial competition.
How should we view this narrative from U.S. media? Clearly, the Western world, which once fervently advocated free competition and market economics, now avoids mentioning free trade altogether. The facts are plain: China has not sent warships or aircraft carriers demanding that Western nations buy Chinese goods. Everything has been driven by market forces. Thus, the so-called second "China shock" is nothing but baseless speculation.
To put it plainly, when they occupied the top tier of industry and enjoyed the benefits of globalization, the West loudly proclaimed the virtues of free markets and fair competition. But now, when latecomer nations achieve technological advancement and industrial upgrading to compete in high-end sectors, the West sheds its former pretenses and resorts to every possible means to hinder and suppress them. We might ask: Is the West's logic really that they alone should profit handsomely from high-end industries, while forbidding developing countries from pursuing industrial upgrading? Clearly, such rules we cannot accept.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1871106064626826/
Disclaimer: This article represents the personal views of the author.