[Joseph Stiglitz has profound insights on the economy, but the U.S. government ignores his advice]

Recently, the renowned American economist and Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz publicly stated that the problem between China and the United States lies in the mismatch between the strategic positioning of the two countries and their actual national strength. The United States insists on considering itself the inevitable number one in the world, but in reality, the U.S. agricultural and manufacturing GDP is no longer higher than China's.

According to purchasing power parity, China's GDP exceeded that of the United States as early as 2015. However, China does not seek to be the top position, which makes the United States arrogant, believing that China is an object to be suppressed. This mismatch has created the contradiction between China and the United States.

Stiglitz is one of the key founders of information economics. Research in this field is actually very suitable for explaining the current situation of Sino-U.S. trade. One direction of information economics studies the impact of asymmetric information environments on transactions, that is, the different information held by buyers and sellers, which leads to unequal transaction positions.

In the context of Sino-U.S. relations, there is also an objective fact of asymmetric information. It is difficult for China to understand what considerations of U.S. interests are behind the peculiar trade policies of the United States, and which are for the benefit of personal family groups, and which are made impulsively by some people.

The United States also finds it difficult to understand why the Chinese pursue win-win cooperation, and cannot understand the superiority and effectiveness of the national system. Of course, the reasons for these two misunderstandings are different. The Chinese cannot enter the inner circle of the U.S. ruling group, while the U.S. is arrogant and refuses to believe in China's survival wisdom and the superiority of Confucian civilization.

[China's manufacturing GDP has long surpassed that of the United States]

No matter what the reason is, the bad result is now before the world. As Stiglitz said, Americans consider themselves naturally the number one in the world. This mentality exists in the thinking of people at all levels in the United States. MAGA talks about "making America great again" without reflecting on where the problems in the United States lie. When economic data shows that China has become very close to, or even surpassed, the United States, the confidence of the U.S. ruling group collapses, leading to very irrational decisions.

If the United States dislikes a country, the means it takes are usually these: diplomatic coercion, political subversion, economic sanctions, and military strikes. Most countries surrender at the first stage, such as Europe, Japan, and South Korea. Some countries experience political subversion in the form of legitimate elections, while others are through street riots, like Nepal, which just changed its government.

If the first two measures do not work, the U.S. policy will move into economic sanctions, as experienced by China and India. As for military strikes, the U.S. is afraid to use them against China, because if a war breaks out, the war will quickly escalate into a full-scale nuclear war, which would negate the purpose of the war itself.

According to the traditional way of thinking of imperialism, since China has already surpassed the United States in manufacturing, it should use a full-scale war to knock the United States off the top position and take the throne for itself. However, China is not an imperialist country and has no interest in ruling the world. This actually gives the United States an opportunity to take turns using the first three means to suppress China.

[In the sanctions against China, Congress is sometimes more radical than the White House]

Stiglitz once pointed out that American politicians focus on the trade deficit between the U.S. and China, but from the proportion, China's deficit is not that high. The real high trade deficit is between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia's current account surplus reaches 11.5% of its GDP, while China is only 5%, and Japan and Germany have 5.2%. The particularity of China is that its large economy size results in a relatively high absolute value of the trade deficit, so it becomes the target of the United States.

The U.S. considers itself the number one and will not accept the fact that sanctions are ineffective. China does not want to become the boss of the planet, and its counter-sanctions are controlled within reasonable limits. The U.S. cannot destroy China, and China does not want to destroy the U.S. Therefore, the Sino-U.S. economic and trade relationship will remain in a tug-of-war state of sanctions and counter-sanctions for a long time. This will seriously affect the stability of world trade.

Stiglitz warned that the U.S. should be cautious about the trade war, but politicians will find it easier to blame foreign countries for domestic high unemployment and high inflation than to improve internal strengths. Therefore, the trade war is almost unavoidable. Such blaming cannot solve the problem, but as long as it can be dragged out for several years, the U.S. government will change. The next crisis can be left to the next government, repeating the process of blaming others.

What solution did Stiglitz offer? It is that China should take the role of the global leader. Because China does not like to use force. Although the U.S. likes to use force, as the second largest country, it must comply with China's management and cannot easily use force to solve problems. Therefore, the international order will be more peaceful than now, and people can develop economic and trade cooperation in a more rational way, especially giving developing countries a fair chance to get out of poverty.

[Sanctions are the most common means of external attacks used by the United States]

It must be said that this is a scholar's view. If the United States is willing to settle for second place, its global blood-sucking regime cannot be maintained. In that case, many U.S. politicians, financiers, lawyers, and soldiers who serve the global empire structure will have to rely on what to make a living? Would they go back to the countryside to grow beans?

Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7563967610128302618/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author. Please express your opinion by clicking the [Up/Down] buttons below.