Scott: As a long-time reader of your blogs, I think this is one of your finest blogs. There needs to be a healthy dose of a reality check when it comes to all the myths and misconceptions surrounding China and not fall back on the usual tropes about China. As you point out, the China of today is not the Maoist China that is still being portrayed. I think Deng Xiaoping set in motion the greatest economic liberation in history. And China has transformed, and is continuing to transform itself, and one might argue is better suited than most other states to prosper in the future. That said, I too wish that the the Chinese people get their political liberation too, in the near future.
"one might argue is better suited than most other states to prosper in the future."
This is an interesting point, which I plan to cover in a future post. I believe that current Chinese policy is suboptimal in many ways, and that without further reform China is likely to get stuck at a per capita GDP that is lower than some of its neighbors (like South Korea.) But I also believe that China is accomplishing some important things that could bode well for the future, with the right reforms in place. In some respects, China is doing the hardest part of economic development first (great infrastructure), and putting off the easier parts. The US is much better at doing the easy stuff.
Do you think it is better suited to prosper in the future? I can see arguments for it, but I do believe they are wasting a lot of capital, and it is unlikely if one looks out, say, 10, 20 years.
That said, I completely buy into the argument that prosperity isn't necessarily all it is cracked up to be once one reaches a certain level, which a good portion of China has already done. People care a lot more about their neighbors than about what is happening on the other side of the world.
I should have been more specific in the line about being positioned to prosper in the future even though I did use the phrase "one might argue." I meant prosperity in the sense that they are making investments in the kinds of technologies that may prove critical in the future, such as cleaner energy sources, AI, biotech etc. where China is funding a lot of cutting-edge research. It is no longer accurate to say they are mere imitators and not innovators. You raise an important question on the efficiency and productivity of some of these investments. And it is always much easier to identify new technologies when you are not at the frontier and the signals are clearer than it is to blaze a completely new path.
Completely agree. I don't know much about AI, but I do have some knowledge of the biotech industry, and they are doing things that I regard as positive. However, I do worry about lab safety and think that COVID originated from a lab. Not that I can prove it.
One of the reasons I think some level of decoupling is appropriate is to preserve our system, which has generated so much prosperity and I think stability. If they want to distort their economy, that is their choice to make. Some, such as clean energy, I appreciate, but I am not willing to introduce too much risk/disruption into ours.
Sure wish they'd leave their neighbors alone, too. With the right changes, I don't see why we couldn't partner on many things. However, for not entirely invalid reasons, I think the CCP views the US as an enemy, or at least more of a threat, than I do of them.
"Thus the US government claimed to have evidence that Covid escaped from a Chinese research lab, when in fact no such evidence exists. It was a lie."
If you'd said it was disputed or uncertain, I'd agree. But "no evidence"? "A lie"? No sir! There is plenty of evidence. There will never be certainty as long as the PRC blocks outside investigators, but that is on the PRC, not outsiders.
I recall an interview with Christian Dorsten, where he said that by now he would have expected that the origin of Covid is fully explained. That this has not happened, caused him to be more open to the possibility of lab origin.
Considerable -scientific- and global INTELLIGENCE SERVICES consensus surrounding this theory, Scott. I was actually ready to share this post - despite as MUCH as I disagree with your many claims surrounding the CCP until you made this one specific claim that the lab leak theory is a lie.
If that is the case then why do so many of the federal intelligence agencies now believe - and did at the end of 2024, when still controlled by the Biden Administration - that it is more likely than not that COVID’s origin was a lab leak?
Biden also promoted the lab leak theory, but most of his intelligence services disagreed with him. When one of the intelligence services eventually released an explanation for its views, it was completely unpersuasive. They don't have any evidence. They are using bad Bayesian reasoning--assuming the fact that it started in Wuhan is a suggestive coincidence. It isn't. Read Peter Miller's long report, and compare it to the report put out by our intelligence service (I forget which one it was.)
- “the short version is that they were doing lots of gain of function research.” in the lab
- “This matches Saar’s story above. The lab leaked to somewhere else in Wuhan, not the wet market. The virus spread undetected in the population for a while. During this time, it mutated to Lineage B. Then one of the people with Lineage B went to the wet market and started a superspreader event. The authorities sampled the patients, found Lineage B, then started looking elsewhere. Later they detected some of the earlier Lineage A cases.”
The market is unlikely to be the origin of the pandemic, because the original Lineage A strain wasn’t found there.”
- “ The most likely explanation for all these facts is that WIV went ahead and did the gain-of-function research they said they were going to do”
The point is not that the answer is clear that Lab Leak is more probable.
It’s merely that there is indeed plenty of *evidence* pointing towards it and against natural origin.
“Biden also promoted the lab leak theory, but most of his intelligence services disagreed with him.”
But this is untrue.
By the end of his administration, at least as many of his services did believe that the lab leak was more likely as believed natural origin.
Less importantly, I find no evidence that Biden himself ever promoted the lab leak theory. Though I have little doubt he might have accidentally mumbled that at some point in response to something.
Some of them said they couldn't find evidence either way, and Biden told them to try harder. In any case, the key issue is EVIDENCE. The evidence presented by the intelligence agencies was very weak--read the reports.
I have zero expectation that you will or even should believe that the lab leak theory is more likely. But your Trump-like claims of “no evidence” are just absurdly over-the-top. Especially from someone constantly berating Orange Man Bad for similar false claims.
Is the idea that we are supposed to take you seriously but not literally? 😏
The United States and Canada also went to the ICJ in the 1980s for arbitration over the maritime boundary in the Gulf of Maine. Although the US delegation complained that the eventual result was unfair, as it awarded the eastern portion of the Georges Bank, which had historically been fished by American fishermen, to Canada, we eventually accepted the proposed border, which remains valid today.
Scott, I'm not critical as I support your right to do so. You're posts are nearly always anti-Trump. How do you think you'd go applying the same criticism of President Eleven as a Chinese person in China? You don't mention Hong Kong, which was one of the most vibrant places on earth. Look at what the CCP has done to them. China is a fascist state and cannot be trusted.
OK, I'll cover Hong Kong. Here's the true part--China has crushed political liberalization in HK, which is bad. Here's the US media misinformation: "China has turned HK into just another Chinese city" which is laughably inaccurate. In all sort of important ways HK still has a very substantial degree of independence, and a far superior system to the Mainland. Do you agree?
HK had a very vibrant liberal society. The CCP broke the agreement to leave it alone “one country two systems”and crushed any form of dissent.
Jimmy Lai was jailed because he was one of the most high-profile pro-democracy voices in Hong Kong, and Beijing used the National Security Law to silence him.
As far as I know, Trump hasn’t closed down the NYTimes or MSNBC nor thrown the publishers in jail.
I disagree with this: "In all sort of important ways HK still has a very substantial degree of independence, and a far superior system to the Mainland. Do you agree?" Scott the place is a freaking jail. Perhaps HK's "superior system", although I don't know how it could be described that way, exists because of Eleven hasn't got rid of it yet.
Also, to suggest it's superior because it's not as bad as China during Mao's time is really stretching it.
As usual, this is an excellent post and one that I pretty much agree with. There are some nuances however. Some American industries went offshore because it was cheaper to manufacture in China than in the US and low cast movement of goods via container shipping made this a viable proposition. A good explanation of the furniture industry can be found in Beth Macy's book, "Factory Man" about how one of the Bassett brothers fought battle against furniture design piracy of Chinese produced products. The multi-year saga ended in a Pyrrhic victory as ultimately; he won but it was too late to rescue his small furniture company. It is a book well worth reading.
Furniture design is one area where I believe IP laws have gone overboard. Patents should be for new inventions, not new designs on existing products. You cannot patent a recipe for a restaurant dish. That principle should apply to more areas of life.
Design patents are completely separate from utility patents in other countries- they are called "industrial design rights". It is better conceptually to separate them from other patents because they are very different.
They protect the ornamental appearance of a product, not the function. They have a shorter term than utility patents. I don't think it is unreasonable that if you come up with a nonobvious new look for a product, other people can't immediately copycat the product and sell ones that look identical (at least if you consider it important enough to register the design)- and Chinese firms do that incessantly.
It used to be stated as "not obvious to someone skilled in the arts". I remember the Apple-Samsung design patent lawsuit over rounded corners.
I cooked up a scheme once on DIY patents. The patent had to include a royalty schedule. The patent royalty period didn't start until someone had produced a working copy from the patent description, and the royalty period length was proportional to that time. If no copy was produced within some time, the patent was voided.
It incentivized the patent owner to make his patent as clear as possible so it could be copied, to not waste time on simple obvious things which would be copied so quickly as to have a short royalty period, and to not have a scary royalty schedule which would deter all copycats.
It incentivized copycats to copy as soon as possible to limit the royalty period. If all copycats held off showing their copies because the royalty schedule was too onerous, it still encouraged internal copying so as to be ready for production as soon as the patent expired from lack of copycats.
It eliminated a lot of legal quibbling, but of course not all of it, and would still end up in the hands of juries trying to compare products.
It came out better than I had thought, but the devil is in the details, and there were too many arbitrary knobs for politicians to tweak.
State run enterprises account for about 50% of the Chinese economy. When the US approaches that, let us know. Although bad, owning 10% of Intel is not 50% of the US economy.
Your only mention of the Uyghur concentration camps is to gloss over them by saying Trump approves: "We are told that China has lots of concentration camps in Xinjiang, but few Americans know that our own president told Xi Jinping that he approved of that policy."
So what if that idiot Trump approves? They still have concentration camps!
Back in 2017, I complained that Trump supported the Philippine policy of murdering drug sellers. People said "Who cares what Trump thinks about the Philippines." Now we've adopted that policy. Still don't think it matters what Trump thinks about putting Muslims into concentration camps?
You are introducing a classic red herring argument, you logically and morally cannot defend China's treatment of the Uyghur so you try to divert attention from the issue with "But Trump said..."
For the record I am not defending Trump in his approval of this morally repugant policy hence I called him an idiot, but it also doesn't excuse China's genocide against the Uyghurs which should matter in how we view and treat them.
You misunderstood the entire purpose of this post. I know of no other blogger on the internet who has been more critical of authoritarianism than me. For the last decade, I've warned that authoritarianism is rising all over the world, including China. But I don't wish to see us go to war with China (or Russia.)
So why mention Trump's support for the Xinjiang concentration camps? It's precisely because they are an obviously evil policy, and you'd think that the American public would be interested in the fact that our president told Xi Jinping that he supports the policy.
I guess I'm the only one who cares that we have a president that supports concentration camps for Muslims, supported the Philippines policy of murdering drug sellers, and has now had our government adopt the plainly illegal policy of having our soldiers murder criminal suspects without a trial. But that's just me---you may disagree.
Oh, and I wonder how your argument would sound today in South Korea, where they've watched on TV as hundreds of their fellow countrymen are chained up like animals in Georgia.
I've never suggested human rights in the US are as bad as in China, but don't you think the press could at least show a bit more balance? A bit more curiosity?
To give you a sense of how badly the American public has been brainwashed, when I tell people I'm traveling to China they ask me "Aren't you afraid?" Believe me, the propaganda is having an effect. A Chinese person visiting the US is in far more danger than an American visiting China.
I find this attitude to be perplexing. You say the concentration camps are awful. That's true. Then you "gloss over" the fact that Americans elected a man who approves of the concentration camps. You don't think that's important? We elected a man that advocated a ban on Muslims traveling to America. Who is sending people to El Salvador concentration camps without any trial.
As I made very clear in my post, I have absolutely no problem with criticism of China's faults. What I object to is the one sided coverage. The press talks about China's bullying, but not our bullying of other countries. They talk about China's claims to the South China Sea, but not Taiwan's claims (and occupation of the most important island.) They talk about Xi's support for concentration camps but not Trump's. Now the US government has begun murdering suspected drug smugglers, with absolutely no trial, no proof of guilt, and it's treated like a minor story. China has many faults, as do lots of other countries. But why so little attention paid to what's happening in the US?
If you look at the size of the Xinjiang “Automous Region” and have taken a peek at what the CCP has been doing to the Uyghur Muslims I think you’ll find it’s of a great magnitudes worse than anything Trump is accused of doing. Even Benjamin Netanyahu in Gaza.
Banning Muslims from traveling TO the U.S.? First of all, that only applies to certain regions and not Muslim majority countries like Indonesia.
Second of all- it’s not comparable - AT ALL - to the truly hideous prison state the CCP has built up over the decades in Xinjiang. And immigration is not even an issue in China like it is in the U.S., Japan or the U.K.
Agree that the recent attack on the drug running boat is problematic- I’m just learning about the details, but it’s a single instance. Trump can be a bad president without being comparable to Xi Jinping, FFS. Same goes with the “Trump is literally Hitler.”
Bravo ! So rare to see this kind of clarity on China nowadays.
When trump reset US relations with China I was surprised how quickly almost all the intuitions, media and corporations in the US and the West fell in line. (especially the anglo west ) The defence industry led the charge.
It was shocking how quickly our relationship with China soured and how our government and MEDIA, turned from shining a favorable light on them, to turning them into a boogie man.
What was creepier was how the American people's view of China plummeted right along with it. People seemed to relish going after China. China bashing became a fun way to bond. It crossed party lines
The reality of what China was, hadn't changed so much. But the American people acted as if they had radically transformed, or that some dark secrets had been revealed. But it was us that had changed the most.
Before the media's tone turned on China, when Americans heard that their I-phones and Nikes were in part made by child labor, or some other workplace horror was connected to some other product, American consumers willingly got social amnesia. They kept buying their I-phones and Nikes in sheepish silence. Somehow China wasn't that bad.
But suddenly Americans were outraged over China's authoritarian tendencies. (Not that authoritarians don't deserve criticism. ) They said they created Covid ! They accused them of genocide with far more ease than they ever did with Israel. They depicted them as monsters using their "stolen" and "copied" military technology to spread evil all over the world. Still do.
Americans went there so fast. It's like we never look in the mirror. We've got some big blemishes. We would not appear especially favorably with honest light.
I was a long time believer in the idea that, the more international trade, the more interdependence, the less incentive for and chance of war. I thought that would end up paying big dividends by shrinking defence budgets. I still believe that trade has a positive effect; it makes war less likely.
I'd say it's still working well, and that war is not near as likely as the defence industry makes it out to be.
I used to believe that trade would shrink the need for defence spending , but now I see how international trade and large defence outlays can both exist indefinitely. The large defence budgets depend on bad arguments. Bad arguments created by the defence industry and their allies in government. The bad arguments will win as long as our institutions support them. I think they will, indefinitely.
Ike warned us.
Orwell did too. Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia never wanted to win. They waged war because it was mutually beneficial. War was waged to keep the elite in power. Peace no longer existed. Peace gave people a chance to think. So war was never ending. Forever wars.
We've been in a forever war since September 11, 2001. 'W" grabbed at the chance.
'Nothing in the following post should be construed as a defense of the China government'. I'm now curious what an actual defense of the Chinese government might look like.
"I'm now curious what an actual defense of the Chinese government might look like."
A MAGA-type might defend many Chinese actions that I oppose. They'd say "What's wrong with big countries like the US, Russia and China bullying smaller countries?" Or "What's wrong with the Chinese government bullying private businesses to do what the government wants?" Or "What's wrong with anti-Muslim policies?" I oppose these things, but Trump clearly has a different view. Trump bullies smaller countries, engages in state capitalism, and advocated a Muslim travel ban.
I don't disagree with most of the points made in the post - I just don't see how it can not be construed as a fairly strong defense of many of the Chinese government's policies.
I think if you read it more carefully you'll see it's a mixed bag. I defend some actions, but criticize others (bullying, authoritarianism, etc.). Then there's a third group of Chinese actions that I disagree with but don't regard as exceptional behavior for a great power. In my view, there's a vast difference between China breaking international law by taking a few uninhabited coral outcrops and Russia brutally invading a country of 40 million with the intent of annexing territory. And even with Covid, I disagree with the lab leak theory but do believe that China is covering up the animal market source of the pandemic. This post was not intended to be an overall appraisal of China, it was intended as a critique of criticism that has clearly been excessive and has poisoned relations. At Econlog, I did a post explaining why I much prefer Taiwan's system to Mainland China's system.
“China breaking international law by taking a few uninhabited coral outcrops and Russia brutally invading a country of 40 million with the intent of annexing territory. “
That’s not the only thing China is doing. The CCP claims 90% of the South China Sea, along with fishing rights. China expects commercial shipping to ask permission to sail through the waterway, disclose the cargo and allow interdiction at any time. China making daily threats against Taiwan and has promised to essentially take an identical path that Russia has with Ukraine.
"Taiwan and has promised to essentially take an identical path that Russia has with Ukraine."
Ukraine is an internationally recognized sovereign country, even Russia recognized it until recently. Taiwan is regarded as part of China by most countries. Again, I'd strongly oppose an invasion of Taiwan, but the cases are hardly comparable. In any case, there's a huge difference between an actual invasion and a threat. Trump has refused to rule out an invasion of Greenland.
Nuance is important. Many countries recognize Beijing's claim but they don't endorse Beijing's claim of sovereignty over Taiwan. It's not the same thing.
Your claim that Ukraine are "hardly comparable" does not in any way excuse the CCP's ongoing coercion against the Island nation. Taiwan is self governing, has democratically established institutions and its own currency. It's a nation for all intents, and because it's not officially recognized as such because most of the world doesn't want to offend CCP sensibilities, doesn't change this one iota.
The UN charter prohibits threats that China is making daily against the Island. Threats aren't nothing and expressly prohibited under international law.
The "Whataboutism" referring to Trump's claims on Greenland doesn't make a bad idea good in terms of legalizing Chinese coercion.
"Your claim that Ukraine are "hardly comparable" does not in any way excuse the CCP's ongoing coercion against the Island nation."
I totally agree.
The "Whataboutism" referring to Trump's claims on Greenland doesn't make a bad idea good in terms of legalizing Chinese coercion."
I totally agree.
More generally, I frequently see commenters telling me things that I already agree with, with the clear implication that I don't agree. In the post I clearly said I strongly opposed an invasion of Taiwan. I clearly said I opposed Chinese bullying.
"The UN charter prohibits threats that China is making daily against the Island. Threats aren't nothing and expressly prohibited under international law."
Maybe, but are you sure about this? The UN doesn't recognize Taiwan as an independent country. That said, I wish they didn't make frequent threats. But I still say that what Russia is doing in Ukraine is far worse.
I did reread the article. I see it is an attempt to correct many common misapprehensions about China - some deliberately spread by its enemies. It also acknowledges many of the "bad" things about China (though often drawing the conclusion that these things aren't actually as bad as people make out).
I enjoyed the article and it has in fact changed my perspective on China quite a bit.
I know from having followed you for many years that you have a very nuanced view on China and are not a supporter of the regime. That said, I still think that when one writes an article refuting allegations made against an entity, it is fair to recognize that—at least with respect to those particular claims—one is also providing a defense of that entity.
OK, I think we are agreeing about the substance, which is what is important. The phrase "defense of that entity" has certain connotations that differ from the literal meaning of the phrase. So I won't quibble over semantics.
OK, but the US also imports lots of commodities, even those (like oil) for which we are a net exporter. We also import metals, food, lumber, etc. One of our major imports from Switzerland is gold. So it's not 25% in China vs. zero in the US, it's 25% vs. whatever the US figure is.
But still the point remains that China’s imports of non-commodity goods and services is even lower relative to other countries than the 17.2% number vs. whatever suggests.
And yes, I am aware that, e.g. Massachusetts imports oil because New York won’t allow a pipeline from Pennsylvania to cross its borders…
Ok. but suppose that China's non-commodity imports are 13% of GDP and the US non-commodity imports are roughly 12% of GDP. Does that really change my argument?
Thank you for the counter balance to much of the excessive hysteria about China. The only point that you reference briefly but don’t delve deeply into is China’s support for Russia’s war in Ukraine. Do you think the Chinese government is actively supporting Russia? Or is any help (such as drone parts or other equipment) entirely incidental or accidental the way that European components sometimes end up in Russia. If China made a concerted effort to stop providing military equipment, that would go a long way to building good will. But I believe a Chinese diplomat recently told his EU colleagues that China “cannot let Russia lose.” Maybe something was lost in translation, but that sounds ominous to me.
I won’t address blood oil purchases because many countries (including Europeans) are guilty of that.
I wish China was more willing to oppose Russia's invasion. I don't think they supported the war, but they seem to feel the need to hang on to Russia as an ally. Note that many of the drones used by Ukraine are made in China, so they seem more motivated by profit than geopolitics.
The firewall is a very bad thing, but it's easily evaded by any Chinese person that wishes to do so. At universities in China they supply professors with VPNs so that they don't miss out on foreign research.
more in the sense of its successful protectionist consequences being a massive example of a non-tariff barrier. basically china is the other only other country that has a full domestic web ecosystem. if not for the great firewall they’d be mire integrated into the typical US web2/software giants
Since you mention gay rights, can you elaborate on how gay rights have evolved in China over time? I’ve been curious about this and unable to get reliable information on it.
Proper globalisation was kicked off by the application of steam power to transport—steamships and railways—in the 1820s. That had lots of effects, including trade reaching such heights that it affected the income of entire factors of production—hence all those free trade/protection arguments. It also meant that voluntary migration flows reached such a scale that they also generated lots of arguments.
It created the first globalisation maritime order, due to the Royal Navy’s pacification of the oceans. That fell apart in 1914-45.
The second great age of globalisation, post 1945, has created the contemporary maritime order based on the pacification of the oceans by the US Navy and its allies. The postwar maritime order has much more of an institutional commons than did the 1820-1914 version. A mixed blessing since highly unaccountable UN bodies can be very corrupt and are used to launder (often terrible) ideas.
The country that benefits most from the (positive-sum interactions) maritime order is China. But the CCP feels insecure as its rule is in tension with the principles of the maritime order.
The CCP’s instincts are more continental anarchy—we win even if everyone goes backwards, as long as our enemies go backwards more, and we will treat our bordering seas if they were (our) territories. (Putin and the Islamic regime in Iran very much operate on continental anarchy principles.)
So, up to around 1900, Britain looked as if it might align with Germany, as it had imperial tensions with both Russia and France. Its first post-1815 treaty of alliance with another Great Power—the Anglo-Japanese alliance of 1902—was an anti-Russia treaty.
Things did not turn out with Britain aligning with Germany. How does a Continental Power alienate a Maritime Order Power? Build a really big navy.
Scott: As a long-time reader of your blogs, I think this is one of your finest blogs. There needs to be a healthy dose of a reality check when it comes to all the myths and misconceptions surrounding China and not fall back on the usual tropes about China. As you point out, the China of today is not the Maoist China that is still being portrayed. I think Deng Xiaoping set in motion the greatest economic liberation in history. And China has transformed, and is continuing to transform itself, and one might argue is better suited than most other states to prosper in the future. That said, I too wish that the the Chinese people get their political liberation too, in the near future.
"one might argue is better suited than most other states to prosper in the future."
This is an interesting point, which I plan to cover in a future post. I believe that current Chinese policy is suboptimal in many ways, and that without further reform China is likely to get stuck at a per capita GDP that is lower than some of its neighbors (like South Korea.) But I also believe that China is accomplishing some important things that could bode well for the future, with the right reforms in place. In some respects, China is doing the hardest part of economic development first (great infrastructure), and putting off the easier parts. The US is much better at doing the easy stuff.
"I think Deng Xiaoping set in motion the greatest economic liberation in history."
Deng Xiaoping is one of the greatest leaders in human history.
I agree, but he was also responsible for Tiananmen and the one-child policy. In the long term, unexpected consequences almost always get in the way.
Not if you regard aborted children as even a fraction of a life, or support a non-Nazi foreign policy.
Do you think it is better suited to prosper in the future? I can see arguments for it, but I do believe they are wasting a lot of capital, and it is unlikely if one looks out, say, 10, 20 years.
That said, I completely buy into the argument that prosperity isn't necessarily all it is cracked up to be once one reaches a certain level, which a good portion of China has already done. People care a lot more about their neighbors than about what is happening on the other side of the world.
I should have been more specific in the line about being positioned to prosper in the future even though I did use the phrase "one might argue." I meant prosperity in the sense that they are making investments in the kinds of technologies that may prove critical in the future, such as cleaner energy sources, AI, biotech etc. where China is funding a lot of cutting-edge research. It is no longer accurate to say they are mere imitators and not innovators. You raise an important question on the efficiency and productivity of some of these investments. And it is always much easier to identify new technologies when you are not at the frontier and the signals are clearer than it is to blaze a completely new path.
Completely agree. I don't know much about AI, but I do have some knowledge of the biotech industry, and they are doing things that I regard as positive. However, I do worry about lab safety and think that COVID originated from a lab. Not that I can prove it.
One of the reasons I think some level of decoupling is appropriate is to preserve our system, which has generated so much prosperity and I think stability. If they want to distort their economy, that is their choice to make. Some, such as clean energy, I appreciate, but I am not willing to introduce too much risk/disruption into ours.
Sure wish they'd leave their neighbors alone, too. With the right changes, I don't see why we couldn't partner on many things. However, for not entirely invalid reasons, I think the CCP views the US as an enemy, or at least more of a threat, than I do of them.
"Thus the US government claimed to have evidence that Covid escaped from a Chinese research lab, when in fact no such evidence exists. It was a lie."
If you'd said it was disputed or uncertain, I'd agree. But "no evidence"? "A lie"? No sir! There is plenty of evidence. There will never be certainty as long as the PRC blocks outside investigators, but that is on the PRC, not outsiders.
All the so-called "evidence" has been refuted.
I recall an interview with Christian Dorsten, where he said that by now he would have expected that the origin of Covid is fully explained. That this has not happened, caused him to be more open to the possibility of lab origin.
The Chinese government didn't allow the sort of research that would have exposed the origin of Covid. The animals in the market were destroyed.
Exactly. It is likely that we will never know.
We'll never know for sure, but there is lots of evidence pointing to the market.
Considerable -scientific- and global INTELLIGENCE SERVICES consensus surrounding this theory, Scott. I was actually ready to share this post - despite as MUCH as I disagree with your many claims surrounding the CCP until you made this one specific claim that the lab leak theory is a lie.
Drosten, of course...
“All the so-called ‘evidence’ has been refuted.”
If that is the case then why do so many of the federal intelligence agencies now believe - and did at the end of 2024, when still controlled by the Biden Administration - that it is more likely than not that COVID’s origin was a lab leak?
Biden also promoted the lab leak theory, but most of his intelligence services disagreed with him. When one of the intelligence services eventually released an explanation for its views, it was completely unpersuasive. They don't have any evidence. They are using bad Bayesian reasoning--assuming the fact that it started in Wuhan is a suggestive coincidence. It isn't. Read Peter Miller's long report, and compare it to the report put out by our intelligence service (I forget which one it was.)
That you don’t find any of the evidence persuasive is different from your claim that there is no evidence.
You really don’t see you are either engaging in motivated reasoning, or else talking in the same ridiculous extremes as Orange Man Bad?
Please tell me what the evidence is?
Lots of evidence for the Lab Leak Theory described here:
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/practically-a-book-review-rootclaim
- “the short version is that they were doing lots of gain of function research.” in the lab
- “This matches Saar’s story above. The lab leaked to somewhere else in Wuhan, not the wet market. The virus spread undetected in the population for a while. During this time, it mutated to Lineage B. Then one of the people with Lineage B went to the wet market and started a superspreader event. The authorities sampled the patients, found Lineage B, then started looking elsewhere. Later they detected some of the earlier Lineage A cases.”
The market is unlikely to be the origin of the pandemic, because the original Lineage A strain wasn’t found there.”
- “ The most likely explanation for all these facts is that WIV went ahead and did the gain-of-function research they said they were going to do”
The point is not that the answer is clear that Lab Leak is more probable.
It’s merely that there is indeed plenty of *evidence* pointing towards it and against natural origin.
But I do give up (again) now.
“Biden also promoted the lab leak theory, but most of his intelligence services disagreed with him.”
But this is untrue.
By the end of his administration, at least as many of his services did believe that the lab leak was more likely as believed natural origin.
Less importantly, I find no evidence that Biden himself ever promoted the lab leak theory. Though I have little doubt he might have accidentally mumbled that at some point in response to something.
Some of them said they couldn't find evidence either way, and Biden told them to try harder. In any case, the key issue is EVIDENCE. The evidence presented by the intelligence agencies was very weak--read the reports.
🙄
I give up.
“Weak” evidence is still evidence!
You are now talking like Trump. Evidence you disagree with or find unpersuasive is still evidence.
There is tons of evidence for the Lab Leak Theory described in this link:
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/practically-a-book-review-rootclaim
I have zero expectation that you will or even should believe that the lab leak theory is more likely. But your Trump-like claims of “no evidence” are just absurdly over-the-top. Especially from someone constantly berating Orange Man Bad for similar false claims.
Is the idea that we are supposed to take you seriously but not literally? 😏
The United States and Canada also went to the ICJ in the 1980s for arbitration over the maritime boundary in the Gulf of Maine. Although the US delegation complained that the eventual result was unfair, as it awarded the eastern portion of the Georges Bank, which had historically been fished by American fishermen, to Canada, we eventually accepted the proposed border, which remains valid today.
Good example. I wonder how Trump would have felt about that procedure.
Scott, I'm not critical as I support your right to do so. You're posts are nearly always anti-Trump. How do you think you'd go applying the same criticism of President Eleven as a Chinese person in China? You don't mention Hong Kong, which was one of the most vibrant places on earth. Look at what the CCP has done to them. China is a fascist state and cannot be trusted.
"Look at what the CCP has done to them."
OK, I'll cover Hong Kong. Here's the true part--China has crushed political liberalization in HK, which is bad. Here's the US media misinformation: "China has turned HK into just another Chinese city" which is laughably inaccurate. In all sort of important ways HK still has a very substantial degree of independence, and a far superior system to the Mainland. Do you agree?
Jimmy Lai would certainly disagree with you. He’s in jail since 2020.
"China has crushed political liberalization in HK, which is bad."
Please explain to me why you think Jimmy Lai would disagree with this?
HK had a very vibrant liberal society. The CCP broke the agreement to leave it alone “one country two systems”and crushed any form of dissent.
Jimmy Lai was jailed because he was one of the most high-profile pro-democracy voices in Hong Kong, and Beijing used the National Security Law to silence him.
As far as I know, Trump hasn’t closed down the NYTimes or MSNBC nor thrown the publishers in jail.
Isn't that what I said? What exactly do you disagree with?
I disagree with this: "In all sort of important ways HK still has a very substantial degree of independence, and a far superior system to the Mainland. Do you agree?" Scott the place is a freaking jail. Perhaps HK's "superior system", although I don't know how it could be described that way, exists because of Eleven hasn't got rid of it yet.
Also, to suggest it's superior because it's not as bad as China during Mao's time is really stretching it.
The CCP is evil.
.
As usual, this is an excellent post and one that I pretty much agree with. There are some nuances however. Some American industries went offshore because it was cheaper to manufacture in China than in the US and low cast movement of goods via container shipping made this a viable proposition. A good explanation of the furniture industry can be found in Beth Macy's book, "Factory Man" about how one of the Bassett brothers fought battle against furniture design piracy of Chinese produced products. The multi-year saga ended in a Pyrrhic victory as ultimately; he won but it was too late to rescue his small furniture company. It is a book well worth reading.
Furniture design is one area where I believe IP laws have gone overboard. Patents should be for new inventions, not new designs on existing products. You cannot patent a recipe for a restaurant dish. That principle should apply to more areas of life.
Design patents are completely separate from utility patents in other countries- they are called "industrial design rights". It is better conceptually to separate them from other patents because they are very different.
They protect the ornamental appearance of a product, not the function. They have a shorter term than utility patents. I don't think it is unreasonable that if you come up with a nonobvious new look for a product, other people can't immediately copycat the product and sell ones that look identical (at least if you consider it important enough to register the design)- and Chinese firms do that incessantly.
It used to be stated as "not obvious to someone skilled in the arts". I remember the Apple-Samsung design patent lawsuit over rounded corners.
I cooked up a scheme once on DIY patents. The patent had to include a royalty schedule. The patent royalty period didn't start until someone had produced a working copy from the patent description, and the royalty period length was proportional to that time. If no copy was produced within some time, the patent was voided.
It incentivized the patent owner to make his patent as clear as possible so it could be copied, to not waste time on simple obvious things which would be copied so quickly as to have a short royalty period, and to not have a scary royalty schedule which would deter all copycats.
It incentivized copycats to copy as soon as possible to limit the royalty period. If all copycats held off showing their copies because the royalty schedule was too onerous, it still encouraged internal copying so as to be ready for production as soon as the patent expired from lack of copycats.
It eliminated a lot of legal quibbling, but of course not all of it, and would still end up in the hands of juries trying to compare products.
It came out better than I had thought, but the devil is in the details, and there were too many arbitrary knobs for politicians to tweak.
State run enterprises account for about 50% of the Chinese economy. When the US approaches that, let us know. Although bad, owning 10% of Intel is not 50% of the US economy.
How's about we pull off one of your little toe nails? Although bad, it is not like amputating your upper body from your lower.
Or would you rather no one complain until it reaches the 50% stage?
I have no idea what you’re suggesting other than making an effort to suggest 10% of intel is like owning 50% of the Chinese economy.
Slippery slope? Thin edge of the wedge? Camel's nose?
How about we just not do dumb, bad, wrong things, period, instead of trying a little socialism now and more later and whoops! too late back out now.
Well yes, a little socialism isn't as bad as full blown socialism. I don't know how you could disagree with that.
Your only mention of the Uyghur concentration camps is to gloss over them by saying Trump approves: "We are told that China has lots of concentration camps in Xinjiang, but few Americans know that our own president told Xi Jinping that he approved of that policy."
So what if that idiot Trump approves? They still have concentration camps!
Back in 2017, I complained that Trump supported the Philippine policy of murdering drug sellers. People said "Who cares what Trump thinks about the Philippines." Now we've adopted that policy. Still don't think it matters what Trump thinks about putting Muslims into concentration camps?
You are introducing a classic red herring argument, you logically and morally cannot defend China's treatment of the Uyghur so you try to divert attention from the issue with "But Trump said..."
For the record I am not defending Trump in his approval of this morally repugant policy hence I called him an idiot, but it also doesn't excuse China's genocide against the Uyghurs which should matter in how we view and treat them.
You misunderstood the entire purpose of this post. I know of no other blogger on the internet who has been more critical of authoritarianism than me. For the last decade, I've warned that authoritarianism is rising all over the world, including China. But I don't wish to see us go to war with China (or Russia.)
So why mention Trump's support for the Xinjiang concentration camps? It's precisely because they are an obviously evil policy, and you'd think that the American public would be interested in the fact that our president told Xi Jinping that he supports the policy.
I guess I'm the only one who cares that we have a president that supports concentration camps for Muslims, supported the Philippines policy of murdering drug sellers, and has now had our government adopt the plainly illegal policy of having our soldiers murder criminal suspects without a trial. But that's just me---you may disagree.
Oh, and I wonder how your argument would sound today in South Korea, where they've watched on TV as hundreds of their fellow countrymen are chained up like animals in Georgia.
I've never suggested human rights in the US are as bad as in China, but don't you think the press could at least show a bit more balance? A bit more curiosity?
To give you a sense of how badly the American public has been brainwashed, when I tell people I'm traveling to China they ask me "Aren't you afraid?" Believe me, the propaganda is having an effect. A Chinese person visiting the US is in far more danger than an American visiting China.
"So what if that idiot Trump approves?"
I find this attitude to be perplexing. You say the concentration camps are awful. That's true. Then you "gloss over" the fact that Americans elected a man who approves of the concentration camps. You don't think that's important? We elected a man that advocated a ban on Muslims traveling to America. Who is sending people to El Salvador concentration camps without any trial.
As I made very clear in my post, I have absolutely no problem with criticism of China's faults. What I object to is the one sided coverage. The press talks about China's bullying, but not our bullying of other countries. They talk about China's claims to the South China Sea, but not Taiwan's claims (and occupation of the most important island.) They talk about Xi's support for concentration camps but not Trump's. Now the US government has begun murdering suspected drug smugglers, with absolutely no trial, no proof of guilt, and it's treated like a minor story. China has many faults, as do lots of other countries. But why so little attention paid to what's happening in the US?
Where's the outrage?
“China has many faults, as do lots of other countries. But why so little attention paid to what's happening in the US?”
And you are “anti-totalitarian”?
“as do lots of other counties”?!
If you look at the size of the Xinjiang “Automous Region” and have taken a peek at what the CCP has been doing to the Uyghur Muslims I think you’ll find it’s of a great magnitudes worse than anything Trump is accused of doing. Even Benjamin Netanyahu in Gaza.
So what's your point? Are you saying my claims are false? Please be specific.
Banning Muslims from traveling TO the U.S.? First of all, that only applies to certain regions and not Muslim majority countries like Indonesia.
Second of all- it’s not comparable - AT ALL - to the truly hideous prison state the CCP has built up over the decades in Xinjiang. And immigration is not even an issue in China like it is in the U.S., Japan or the U.K.
So which claim did I make that is false?
The comparisons are idiotic.
Agree that the recent attack on the drug running boat is problematic- I’m just learning about the details, but it’s a single instance. Trump can be a bad president without being comparable to Xi Jinping, FFS. Same goes with the “Trump is literally Hitler.”
Bravo ! So rare to see this kind of clarity on China nowadays.
When trump reset US relations with China I was surprised how quickly almost all the intuitions, media and corporations in the US and the West fell in line. (especially the anglo west ) The defence industry led the charge.
It was shocking how quickly our relationship with China soured and how our government and MEDIA, turned from shining a favorable light on them, to turning them into a boogie man.
What was creepier was how the American people's view of China plummeted right along with it. People seemed to relish going after China. China bashing became a fun way to bond. It crossed party lines
The reality of what China was, hadn't changed so much. But the American people acted as if they had radically transformed, or that some dark secrets had been revealed. But it was us that had changed the most.
Before the media's tone turned on China, when Americans heard that their I-phones and Nikes were in part made by child labor, or some other workplace horror was connected to some other product, American consumers willingly got social amnesia. They kept buying their I-phones and Nikes in sheepish silence. Somehow China wasn't that bad.
But suddenly Americans were outraged over China's authoritarian tendencies. (Not that authoritarians don't deserve criticism. ) They said they created Covid ! They accused them of genocide with far more ease than they ever did with Israel. They depicted them as monsters using their "stolen" and "copied" military technology to spread evil all over the world. Still do.
Americans went there so fast. It's like we never look in the mirror. We've got some big blemishes. We would not appear especially favorably with honest light.
I was a long time believer in the idea that, the more international trade, the more interdependence, the less incentive for and chance of war. I thought that would end up paying big dividends by shrinking defence budgets. I still believe that trade has a positive effect; it makes war less likely.
I'd say it's still working well, and that war is not near as likely as the defence industry makes it out to be.
I used to believe that trade would shrink the need for defence spending , but now I see how international trade and large defence outlays can both exist indefinitely. The large defence budgets depend on bad arguments. Bad arguments created by the defence industry and their allies in government. The bad arguments will win as long as our institutions support them. I think they will, indefinitely.
Ike warned us.
Orwell did too. Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia never wanted to win. They waged war because it was mutually beneficial. War was waged to keep the elite in power. Peace no longer existed. Peace gave people a chance to think. So war was never ending. Forever wars.
We've been in a forever war since September 11, 2001. 'W" grabbed at the chance.
'Nothing in the following post should be construed as a defense of the China government'. I'm now curious what an actual defense of the Chinese government might look like.
"I'm now curious what an actual defense of the Chinese government might look like."
A MAGA-type might defend many Chinese actions that I oppose. They'd say "What's wrong with big countries like the US, Russia and China bullying smaller countries?" Or "What's wrong with the Chinese government bullying private businesses to do what the government wants?" Or "What's wrong with anti-Muslim policies?" I oppose these things, but Trump clearly has a different view. Trump bullies smaller countries, engages in state capitalism, and advocated a Muslim travel ban.
I don't disagree with most of the points made in the post - I just don't see how it can not be construed as a fairly strong defense of many of the Chinese government's policies.
I think if you read it more carefully you'll see it's a mixed bag. I defend some actions, but criticize others (bullying, authoritarianism, etc.). Then there's a third group of Chinese actions that I disagree with but don't regard as exceptional behavior for a great power. In my view, there's a vast difference between China breaking international law by taking a few uninhabited coral outcrops and Russia brutally invading a country of 40 million with the intent of annexing territory. And even with Covid, I disagree with the lab leak theory but do believe that China is covering up the animal market source of the pandemic. This post was not intended to be an overall appraisal of China, it was intended as a critique of criticism that has clearly been excessive and has poisoned relations. At Econlog, I did a post explaining why I much prefer Taiwan's system to Mainland China's system.
“China breaking international law by taking a few uninhabited coral outcrops and Russia brutally invading a country of 40 million with the intent of annexing territory. “
That’s not the only thing China is doing. The CCP claims 90% of the South China Sea, along with fishing rights. China expects commercial shipping to ask permission to sail through the waterway, disclose the cargo and allow interdiction at any time. China making daily threats against Taiwan and has promised to essentially take an identical path that Russia has with Ukraine.
"Taiwan and has promised to essentially take an identical path that Russia has with Ukraine."
Ukraine is an internationally recognized sovereign country, even Russia recognized it until recently. Taiwan is regarded as part of China by most countries. Again, I'd strongly oppose an invasion of Taiwan, but the cases are hardly comparable. In any case, there's a huge difference between an actual invasion and a threat. Trump has refused to rule out an invasion of Greenland.
Nuance is important. Many countries recognize Beijing's claim but they don't endorse Beijing's claim of sovereignty over Taiwan. It's not the same thing.
Your claim that Ukraine are "hardly comparable" does not in any way excuse the CCP's ongoing coercion against the Island nation. Taiwan is self governing, has democratically established institutions and its own currency. It's a nation for all intents, and because it's not officially recognized as such because most of the world doesn't want to offend CCP sensibilities, doesn't change this one iota.
The UN charter prohibits threats that China is making daily against the Island. Threats aren't nothing and expressly prohibited under international law.
The "Whataboutism" referring to Trump's claims on Greenland doesn't make a bad idea good in terms of legalizing Chinese coercion.
"Your claim that Ukraine are "hardly comparable" does not in any way excuse the CCP's ongoing coercion against the Island nation."
I totally agree.
The "Whataboutism" referring to Trump's claims on Greenland doesn't make a bad idea good in terms of legalizing Chinese coercion."
I totally agree.
More generally, I frequently see commenters telling me things that I already agree with, with the clear implication that I don't agree. In the post I clearly said I strongly opposed an invasion of Taiwan. I clearly said I opposed Chinese bullying.
"The UN charter prohibits threats that China is making daily against the Island. Threats aren't nothing and expressly prohibited under international law."
Maybe, but are you sure about this? The UN doesn't recognize Taiwan as an independent country. That said, I wish they didn't make frequent threats. But I still say that what Russia is doing in Ukraine is far worse.
I did reread the article. I see it is an attempt to correct many common misapprehensions about China - some deliberately spread by its enemies. It also acknowledges many of the "bad" things about China (though often drawing the conclusion that these things aren't actually as bad as people make out).
I enjoyed the article and it has in fact changed my perspective on China quite a bit.
I know from having followed you for many years that you have a very nuanced view on China and are not a supporter of the regime. That said, I still think that when one writes an article refuting allegations made against an entity, it is fair to recognize that—at least with respect to those particular claims—one is also providing a defense of that entity.
OK, I think we are agreeing about the substance, which is what is important. The phrase "defense of that entity" has certain connotations that differ from the literal meaning of the phrase. So I won't quibble over semantics.
I agree it was a quibble - thanks for taking the time to respond though as I definitely benefited from the second read!
“China’s import share is 17.2% of GDP, which is lower than for most other countries.”
But how much of this is energy and other non-food raw materials not available at quantity in China?
A quick ChatGPT query says it’s more than a quarter.
Yes those imports are technically trade too, but doesn’t feel right to count them equally with all other imports.
Which makes China’s import of non-commodities share even lower.
OK, but the US also imports lots of commodities, even those (like oil) for which we are a net exporter. We also import metals, food, lumber, etc. One of our major imports from Switzerland is gold. So it's not 25% in China vs. zero in the US, it's 25% vs. whatever the US figure is.
Agreed.
But still the point remains that China’s imports of non-commodity goods and services is even lower relative to other countries than the 17.2% number vs. whatever suggests.
And yes, I am aware that, e.g. Massachusetts imports oil because New York won’t allow a pipeline from Pennsylvania to cross its borders…
Ok. but suppose that China's non-commodity imports are 13% of GDP and the US non-commodity imports are roughly 12% of GDP. Does that really change my argument?
I never tried to suggest it changes your core argument at all.
It just weakens your “defense” of China’s trade policy, where you are trying to claim they are not acting differently than other major economies.
No more, no less.
Yes, it weakens the argument by a very small amount, I agree.
Thank you for the counter balance to much of the excessive hysteria about China. The only point that you reference briefly but don’t delve deeply into is China’s support for Russia’s war in Ukraine. Do you think the Chinese government is actively supporting Russia? Or is any help (such as drone parts or other equipment) entirely incidental or accidental the way that European components sometimes end up in Russia. If China made a concerted effort to stop providing military equipment, that would go a long way to building good will. But I believe a Chinese diplomat recently told his EU colleagues that China “cannot let Russia lose.” Maybe something was lost in translation, but that sounds ominous to me.
I won’t address blood oil purchases because many countries (including Europeans) are guilty of that.
I wish China was more willing to oppose Russia's invasion. I don't think they supported the war, but they seem to feel the need to hang on to Russia as an ally. Note that many of the drones used by Ukraine are made in China, so they seem more motivated by profit than geopolitics.
when talking about non tariff barriers to trade you need to include the great firewall. one of the most successful non tariff barriers of all time
The firewall is a very bad thing, but it's easily evaded by any Chinese person that wishes to do so. At universities in China they supply professors with VPNs so that they don't miss out on foreign research.
more in the sense of its successful protectionist consequences being a massive example of a non-tariff barrier. basically china is the other only other country that has a full domestic web ecosystem. if not for the great firewall they’d be mire integrated into the typical US web2/software giants
OK, I see your point. That is correct.
This is the by far best post about the US and China that I have read.
Tyler Cowen praised your 'Peak Cimema' post. This post is even better, and I look forward to see what he says.
Since you mention gay rights, can you elaborate on how gay rights have evolved in China over time? I’ve been curious about this and unable to get reliable information on it.
When I first went to China it was a criminal offense. By my 5th or 6th trip they had gay bars.
Condoleezza Rice does not agree with casting interactions with China as analogous to the Cold War.
https://youtu.be/8Kzn41PRFuM?si=lThluE82oJcQVko9
Proper globalisation was kicked off by the application of steam power to transport—steamships and railways—in the 1820s. That had lots of effects, including trade reaching such heights that it affected the income of entire factors of production—hence all those free trade/protection arguments. It also meant that voluntary migration flows reached such a scale that they also generated lots of arguments.
It created the first globalisation maritime order, due to the Royal Navy’s pacification of the oceans. That fell apart in 1914-45.
The second great age of globalisation, post 1945, has created the contemporary maritime order based on the pacification of the oceans by the US Navy and its allies. The postwar maritime order has much more of an institutional commons than did the 1820-1914 version. A mixed blessing since highly unaccountable UN bodies can be very corrupt and are used to launder (often terrible) ideas.
The country that benefits most from the (positive-sum interactions) maritime order is China. But the CCP feels insecure as its rule is in tension with the principles of the maritime order.
The CCP’s instincts are more continental anarchy—we win even if everyone goes backwards, as long as our enemies go backwards more, and we will treat our bordering seas if they were (our) territories. (Putin and the Islamic regime in Iran very much operate on continental anarchy principles.)
So, up to around 1900, Britain looked as if it might align with Germany, as it had imperial tensions with both Russia and France. Its first post-1815 treaty of alliance with another Great Power—the Anglo-Japanese alliance of 1902—was an anti-Russia treaty.
Things did not turn out with Britain aligning with Germany. How does a Continental Power alienate a Maritime Order Power? Build a really big navy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-German_naval_arms_race
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Liberation_Army_Navy