China quietly sets new 'buy Chinese' targets for state companies

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/china-quietly-sets-new-buy-chinese-targets-state-companies-us-sources-2021-08-02/

by mooreds • 5 years ago

146 140 5 years ago

reuters.com

villgax• 5 years ago

It's the same thing which India did in order to distract commonfolks from the border skirmishes.

manojlds• 5 years ago

I dont get the point you are making. It was not a distraction, it made the skirmishes front and center.

ksec2• 5 years ago

I am not sure what is new here. This has always been the case, written or non-written. X-Ray or not. State companies or not. On Smartphone Screen, NAND, and millions of other things.

mindtricks• 5 years ago

It's not about new, it's about highlighting progress against a plan that will likely create new competitors on a global stage while closing out any free market competition within their come country.

ksec2• 5 years ago

I know, what you state above isn't new either. Well to me at least. Not to mention how whey continue to dump money and capital in these new "competitors".

trasz8• 5 years ago

Sounds somewhat similar to USA’s Berry Agreement, but less radical.

JKCalhoun• 5 years ago

New to me, Berry Amendment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berry_Amendment

Learning about this now ... appears as though the Berry Amendment is based on a defense policy, China's perhaps is political/economic.

I think the U.S. has everything to lose with this new China policy and little chance of imposing a similar one for the U.S.

throwaway4good• 5 years ago

There is also this one:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-action...

Executive Order on Ensuring the Future Is Made in All of America by All of America’s Worker

trasz8• 5 years ago

There’s nothing “defense” about it; it applies even to things like plane tickets.

est31• 5 years ago

In the USA, the military industrial complex, beyond the defense aspect, fulfills similar roles which subventions/economic policies fulfill in other nations. They direct tax money back into the local economy. This isn't even a bad thing as it strengthens social cohesion. The defense contractors want to eat out, buy cars, etc.

Steltek• 5 years ago

The Berry Amendment (not agreement) applies to military spending with the focus on maintaining an industrial base. The Chinese list is much broader and you'd be crazy to argue that China needs to take steps to maintain its industrial base. The article has this (incomplete) list:

- medical equipment - ground-based radar equipment - testing machinery - optical instruments - items used for animal husbandry - seismic instruments - marine, geological and geophysical equipment

Free trade is a bit of a joke anyway when talking about China when so many businesses are owned, to varying degrees, by the state. Reciprocal restrictions against China should have been put in place a long time ago, especially around environmental sustainability.

trasz8• 5 years ago

Indeed, the Berry Amendment applies to everything sponsored by the military, including things like research grants. In comparison, the Chinese regulations discussed here only apply to fraction of its spending.

As for being state owned - there’s no real difference between state owned and “technically private, but entirely dependent on government funding”.

eptcyka• 5 years ago

Didn't the states try that at the start of Trumps presidency?

citilife• 5 years ago

I don't know if everyone's following what's going on, but China just pulled the rug out from under a lot of investment firms -- costing pension and hedge funds at least $400B.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/investors-rethink-china-bets-af...

That's a huge amount of money and will dramatically and negatively impact the public pension funds. For instance, Illinois pension fund already has a $100-$300B deficit.

https://www.illinoispolicy.org/moodys-report-illinois-pensio...

Combined with this effort, not only has billions of U.S. dollars just went to China without anything in return, but now they're only purchasing within their own country.

This economic war is accelerating.

Invictus0• 5 years ago

These investors were foolish to assume China would permit an unregulated free market in the same way the Western world does. I am entirely unsympathetic.

ok123456• 5 years ago

It's almost as if their system just isn't simply "state capitalism".

MichaelZuo• 5 years ago

Well to be fair it seems the current administration in the U.S. will not permit an unregulated free market either, in any major industry.

freeone3000• 5 years ago

The Chicago pension fund didn't think a VIE was actually ownership, right? Turns out the thing uses to circumvent capital controls was actually illegal, whoops.

refurb• 5 years ago

Ha, it’s funny cause it’s true. The risk was always there. The pension fund can’t play dumb.

My only question is China apparently doesn’t think it need foreign investment any more? I mean this latest move will scare a lot of foreign investment away (“that’s a nice valuation you have, would be a shame if we made all for-profit companies illegal”). No doubt the Chinese are smart enough to know this so I assume they have enough domestic wealth to supply any capital needs?

Still, scaring off the international markets seems like a bad move.

refenestrator8• 5 years ago

Reminds me of the people who got mad about the auto bailouts in 08 because the junk bonds they were holding didn't pay out. You bought the bonds! This is on you!

alexfromapex• 5 years ago

Meanwhile if you go to big US retail stores or shop online, a large majority of the merchandise is Chinese so US retail companies are helping China while China is actively hurting the US. If you don't believe it, try to shop for products that aren't made in China.

Here's the data to back it up: https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/highlights/t...

tomytosian3• 5 years ago

now its ok to say it right? because the guy who fought against it was deemed a racist for saying it.

DiogenesKynikos4• 5 years ago

If you go to China, you'll see that American and European brands are everywhere. These companies are making massive profits in China. The trade is by no means in one direction.

colinmhayes• 5 years ago

Buying Chinese goods isn't actively hurting the US... it's helping by providing Americans with cheaper goods.

seriousquestion• 5 years ago

Furthermore, how many US industries and companies are compromised? Hollywood, the NBA, Blizzard, are a few that come to mind.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/10/steph...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitzchung_controversy

silicon24012• 5 years ago

Yet any suggestion of avoiding Chinese products or supporting Chinese business is often attacked as racism or nationalism.

3pt14159• 5 years ago

This has been building for at least 5 years, but it's obvious now that the West needs to start acting. We didn't win the cold war by pretending it wasn't going on and China has certain advantages that we don't have. We have to coordinate on two separate levels that they do not. First, at the state level, where the game theory goes against us because it's typically rival factions (Democrats vs Republicans) and second at the alliance level where we need to coordinate between only semi-aligned nations.

We have some advantages, like our lead in technology, but few of them are natural advantages. So I actually think we're the long term losers of the second cold war. Especially if we try to ignore it as it starts.

BitwiseFool2• 5 years ago

"like our lead in technology"

True, and I don't know how much longer this can last. As an example, the rise of TikTok has certainly taken me by surprise. I've always seen world-class social media apps as a Silicon-Valley thing, something that only the US managed to produce. But now, not so much.

magpi32• 5 years ago

China (and Russia's) disadvantage is that they are autocratic nations that don't play nicely with others. The West's advantage is its alliances. If the U.S., Canada, Australia, Japan, Europe, etc. all move in lockstep, autocratic nations can't ignore them.

You talk about a cold war as in specifically U.S. vs China. If it is just U.S. vs. China (meaning the U.S. isolates itself further from its allies in the future), then the U.S. will lose. China has a quarter of the world's population, heavily invests in science and technology, and has a population that is intensely nationalistic and works its ass off. The need for self-censorship and the cultural resistance to individualism means that the Chinese will always struggle in the arts, but that's about it.

DiogenesKynikos4• 5 years ago

it's obvious now that the West needs to start acting

China's drive to reduce dependence on imports of high-tech goods is a reaction to the US' attempts over the last few years to use this dependence against China.

The US has used its central position in the world's financial system to force other countries to stop doing business with certain Chinese companies, such as Huawei. This can be a death sentence for these companies. Huawei can't buy 7nm chips from anyone - including Chinese companies - because those companies are afraid of US sanctions.

China has recognized that it is vulnerable to this type of economic aggression, and is taking measures to insulate itself. I expect to see China, Russia and other countries targeted by sanctions build up financial systems that bypass the US dollar, and for China to try to reduce dependence on high-tech imports.

This all goes back to the aggressive foreign policy that Trump initiated, and which Biden appears to be continuing.

nebula88044• 5 years ago

We have no good leadership coming to right this ship.

Biden is a bust and next time around we either get Trump or Kamala...I don't think any sane person would feel confident in either of them. The elite in this country caused this mess with China and they will end up finishing us off thanks to their election games.

Maybe leadership at the top doesn't matter. There is the rest of the government, a huge organization of mostly unelected life term bureaucrats many of whom have probably seen the last cold war. They may end up saving us or China stumbles massively and their disadvantages(aging population, badly built infrastructure) bite them enough for us to survive.

tarsinge• 5 years ago

Contrary to the Cold War that situation seems the be responsibility of the West. China wouldn’t have become that powerful if the west didn’t put so much assets and production there with the naive thinking that capitalism alone would erode dictatorship.

tablespoon3• 5 years ago

This has been building for at least 5 years, but it's obvious now that the West needs to start acting. We didn't win the cold war by pretending it wasn't going on and China has certain advantages that we don't have. We have to coordinate on two separate levels that they do not. First, at the state level, where the game theory goes against us because it's typically rival factions (Democrats vs Republicans) and second at the alliance level where we need to coordinate between only semi-aligned nations.

Don't forget Western business interests, which are politically powerful and will often succeed at blocking any action that interferes with their short-term profits. Their loyalty is to their shareholders, and they'll sell everyone else out for them. I actually see this as the biggest problem preventing the West from taking effective action.

The PRC doesn't have this problem, because its businesses are clearly subordinate to its political apparatus (e.g. they've been making examples out of very large and successful companies lately).

trasz8• 5 years ago

What we really have to do is to leave the US to itself and instead side with someone more peaceful instead.

magpi32• 5 years ago

not only has billions of U.S. dollars just went to China without anything in return

Genuine question: doesn't Chinese crackdown on its tech industry and private education industry have a greater impact on Chinese people (who are also investors) than it does Americans?

Your post seems to imply that both actions were designed almost specifically to harm American pension and hedge funds. I would think that is just a side effect of the real goal (whatever that exactly is).

I am in China currently, but I am as ignorant of the underlying motives behind the crackdowns. I just know some Chinese friends involved in after school education (which is a huge market here) who are worried right now. I do believe it is possible, however, that the crackdown on private education is because of the pressure that kids are put on over here. But maybe it's naive of me to think that.

ajross• 5 years ago

Exactly. There's a myopia here: people[1] prone to imagine global geopolitics as a zero sum war between superpowers imagine ever action by the superpower they're unfamiliar with as some kind of targetted attack.

But the PRC government doesn't see it like that. Historically, they are far, far more vulnerable to their own people than they are to the US, which at the end of the day just wants to buy cheap junk and sit around streaming movies.

So if I see the CCP moving against financial interests inside China, I'm going to assume that they view those financial interests as the threat they're trying to control.

[1] And there are a LOT of such people here on HN.

philliphaydon3• 5 years ago

This is my opinion: but my belief is that the crackdown on education is not about the health and well-being of children, it’s 2 different reasons.

1) it’s crazy expensive to have kids in china now. This is putting off people from having kids. Removing the one child policy hasn’t helped the birth rate and with a growing aging population, china needs more people to have kids. Removing things that cause having kids to be expensive will (their hope) make couples want to have kids.

2) the last couple of generations have worked their butt off to put their kids in higher education for the dream of a better life and a white collar job. Recently they tried to merge schools which would make some degrees useless and force graduates into blue collar jobs. After the recent protests the merging of schools got scrapped. I believe this move is a stepping stone to try and prevent some people from progressing to degrees and force more people into blue collar jobs and keep their manufacturing industry alive.

throwaway98211• 5 years ago

I am in China currently, but I am as ignorant of the underlying motives behind the crackdowns.

Why search for underlying motives when the overt motivates are clear; Chinese tech companies should 'come home' to mainland capital markets. The script is simple:

1) Ticket X is floated in an NYC-based exchange 2) China announces some regulatory crackdown affecting X, whose valuation falls precipitously 3) X goes private at a fraction of its original valuation 4) X is re-listed Shanghai / Hong Kong 5) The regulatory challenges affecting X miraculously dissipate

powerapple2• 5 years ago

Xi's thinking behind cracking down the after-school education sector started from 2018, he published an essay on this issue. From 2018, the ministry of education has been issuing orders to reduce the study pressure of school kids [1]. Chinese government set an objective, a few policies will lay out to achieve it, the current crackdown is just a follow-up when ministry of education's policy didn't work out, now four ministries are working together on this objective.

[1] http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A06/s3321/201802/t20180226_327...

cryptonector4• 5 years ago

This economic war is accelerating.

Surprise. Meanwhile the U.S. has no will to change anything.

The current global mercantilist scheme is not a good thing.

polskibus• 5 years ago

If true (can't access the second link), it didn't have much effect on top stock market indexes. Most of them are either at ATH or near it.

screye• 5 years ago

The US has been a spectator for 30 years, as the CCP has kept up an onslaught of economic attacks on the US.

The ban on Huawei was a good 1st step, which should be followed with an protectionist approach to trade with China. (as long as it refuses to act in good faith with the US.)

It will affect the US economy in the short term, but the US has felt like a frog being slow boiled for the last 30 years. The CCP is now accelerating because they finally have the leverage to twist the US's arm in economic retaliation. Globalist trade is based around bi-directional open channels. The way the west has resigned multiple industrial disciplines to China, cannot be defended under any economic school of thought.

Post WW2 America knew what was up. They knew to export low-margin industries to nations they could tie up in stringent trade rules and had the militaristic asymmetry to enforce said rules. (They weren't necessarily unfair either)

With Africa, India and SEA being at the point of 1980s China, now is the time to pump some money and get large-scale low-cost manufacturing setup in these nations. It would be a win-win arrangement of monumental proportions. It helps that some of these countries are either deeply suspicious or are already in an exploitative neo-colonialist arrangement with China, making them willing to look at alternatives. (I do not mean doing stupid things like Belt-and-road though)

Now like all tug-of-wars of power, this is going to appear quite 'unethical'. But, I can't think of a single instance in history where an 'ethical' player beat a motivated 'hook-or-by-crook' player in a competitive setup. Also, as far as war goes, this is the most peaceful way to engage in it.

captainredbeard• 5 years ago

Henry Kissinger's foreign policy blunders will be looked back on with the same disdain as Chamberlain's. He set us up for practically all of the FP problems we face today.

tablespoon3• 5 years ago

The ban on Huawei was a good 1st step, which should be followed with an protectionist approach to trade with China, as long as it refuses to act in good faith with the US.

That's a first step, but not a stopping condition, IMHO. I'd say it should continue until there's less ideological conflict (e.g. movement towards political liberalization instead of away from it).

Post WW2 America knew what was up. They knew to export low-margin industries to nations they could tie up in stringent trade rules and had the militaristic asymmetry to enforce said rules. (They weren't necessarily unfair either)

More than that, it knew not to become too economically dependent/entwined with ideological opponents. IIRC, there were significant restraints on trade with the Communist Bloc (off the top of my head: CoCom, tying trade policy to human rights (Jackson–Vanik_amendment), and requirements that trade be conducted with hard currency (e.g. no credit)).

grumblenum• 5 years ago

Do you think the folks with real decision making power (I'm thinking people invited to Davos, rather than people in mostly ceremonial political roles) in the United States actually want a future without global Chinese hegemony? As far as I can tell, our elites are overtly hostile to the American populace and actively undermine us.

I am reminded of 1940s US-Soviet relations where FDR & friends saw Stalin as the lovable rascal leading us all toward a lovely future of enlightened, global despotism under the new faith of dialectical materialism (nowadays otherwise named). Given the chummy trade relations we maintained with our 'enemies' throughout the 'Cold War', I suspect Soviet capitulation was kind of, like, an accident. I don't think our money-masters or politburo want Americans as we know them to survive.

silicon24012• 5 years ago

It's not helped by people who push for things like open borders and globalism. Being open and selfless only works if everybody else is, too. Otherwise the most selfless get taken advantage of by the most selfish

rasz• 5 years ago

Post WW2 America knew what was up

did they now? Frontline: Coming From Japan [The Fall Of The US Television Industry] (1992) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aesJTsZqm6c

"September 30, 1990. HOW DID Japan destroy the American television industry? The secret history of that strategy reveals how Japanese manufacturers and the Japanese government first created an anti-competitive cartel ..." https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:iVdEh3...

Direct assault on the entire American electronics industry as a form of revenge for ww2, and the late limp dick non responses leading to total collapse of whole sector https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1987-04-23-870131...

Japan even had foreign currency quota and ownership limits just like China does today. "MITI'S SUCCESSES AND FAILURES IN CONTROLLING JAPAN'S TECHNOLOGY IMPORTS" https://www.jstor.org/stable/43294946

grawprog3• 5 years ago

I've never understood what business and governments in the west thought was going to happen by investing so heavily in China. Did they really think China would just bend over backwards and take it like every other poor third world country they did this to?

Western governments and corporations underestimate China far too much. Western banking dynasties go back a few hundred years, Chinese history and culture is thousands of years old and they operate in time scales of multiple generations.

Western bankers and corporations are spring chickens compared to China.

China as a country and culture only cares about one thing. Making the entire world an empire for the Han. They see everyone else as inferior, barely human.

They will do anything to accomplish this, no matter how long it takes.

All these western corporations, investment bankers and governments who think China's the future are right and they're helping them along swimmingly, what they don't realize is, they have no place in the Chinese future and will be discarded.

kinghtown• 5 years ago

“ China as a country and culture only cares about one thing. Making the entire world an empire for the Han. They see everyone else as inferior, barely human.”

Easy does it MAGA. The PRC is a different animal than regular Chinese people.

koonsolo• 5 years ago

Hindsight is 20/20 of course. I guess they wanted to prevent a 2nd USSR, and thought that stimulating capitalism would also stimulate democracy.

Because in the end, let's face it, the real problem is the CCP and not China itself. If China was a democratic country, the threat would be way smaller.

asdff• 5 years ago

I've never understood what business and governments in the west thought was going to happen by investing so heavily in China. Did they really think China would just bend over backwards and take it like every other poor third world country they did this to?

To be fair a given business in the U.S. that produces something isn't going to care about geopolitics. They made things in the U.S. by underpaying immigrant laborers, then when they noticed wages were cheaper in mexico they moved manufacturing there, then did the same when China became even cheaper and higher quality than Mexico. All these business leaders care about is quarterly profits and getting bonuses to personally enrich themselves as fast as possible. They could care less about what happens in the world around them if they can afford to drink their cares away in utopian Napa.

azth• 5 years ago

I'm not sure why this is a surprise to anyone. Hopefully now people are smarter not to invest in China to support the CCP.

robomartin• 5 years ago

This economic war is accelerating.

This is the result of at least fifty years of incompetence from US political "leadership". This isn't about democrats or republicans. They have all been ignored their duty to look after national interests. Instead, they continue to play dumb-as-can be political games for self and party as opposed to acting with people and nation as objectives.

The most current example of this is the, again, dumb-as-can-be infrastructure spending proposal.

I dare anyone to make a list of ten companies who have chosen to locate their operations somewhere other than the US due to issues with our roads and bridges. Just ten. That's not much to ask, is it?

One would not spend this kind of money to "bring back" one company. No. You would want dozens. Well, name ten. Just ten.

You can't. You can't because the entire premise is dumb-as-can-be false. NOBODY is going to relocate or make a massive investments in the US because we spend trillions of dollars on redoing perfectly good roads, bridges and government buildings. Nobody.

This is unbelievably dumb at a time when we need to be incredibly smart.

Here's a list of 397 cities in the US:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...

I dare anyone to find ten companies who chose not to operate in the US because they could not find good roads and bridges in any one of these cities.

Frankly, I can't even think of a single company, much less ten. We are being told we need to spend unimaginable amounts of money on roads and bridges. Put simply, it's complete bullshit and it is the kind of decision someone makes to lose, not to win.

What do we need to spend money on?

My guess is that #1 has got to be education. The problem with this is that it is a long term investment. This decision should have been made twenty years ago. It takes that long for results to produce economic returns.

The Chinese were sending their kids to US universities twenty years ago. They are all running companies in China right now. While this was going on our educators focused on race, class and ideological warfare. While China is trying to be as entrepreneurial as possible our educators focused on producing brain-dead socialists, a great example of which is representative Ocasio-Cortez, probably the best example of just how far off the mark US education has gone. As someone who actually lived in the kind of thing this moron is pushing I cannot believe she was not laughed off the stage within microseconds of coming to the scene, much less reach the level she has.

If you are the product of the kind of brainwashing the US educational system has delivered over the last couple of decades you will disagree with this. Of course. However, that does not make the fantasies you believe true. Anyone who has lived and has been educated outside of this distortion field cannot believe the nonsense US some young adults actually believe. Things like supporting socialism and wearing a t-shirt with Che Guevara (a mass murderer) as a sign of who-knows-what, are baffling to anyone who was not subject to ideological elements in US education.

This is the first time I have, in the decades I have lived in the US, heard a major leader on the left (in this case, Biden) finally speak the truth on communism and socialism:

https://youtu.be/eL2ThTOaHXg?t=18

Will our educators now stop with the nonsense?

Instead of burning cash on roads we need to put businesses on those roads. Industry. We need to dump billions into industries such as electronics and semiconductors. Heck, we need to dump billions into ever single industry, because they are ALL GONE.

Try to buy US-made wire, screws or connectors for example. Some, sure, however, the overwhelming majority of everything that goes into consumer, commercial, industrial and military products is made in China.

How is that a formula for success? At all? We are setting up to spend trillions rebuilding roads and bridges. This will not attract or compel even a single company to bring a non-trivial amount of jobs to the US. And, while we are busy spending money we don't have on absolute bullshit, Chine is going to continue to invest money as fast as they can on what really matters. They will invest on and subsidize any business or business segment that can deliver true long term competitive advantages for their nation and people.

We will wake up, ten years later, with a bunch of nice new roads and bridges and twice the unemployment. On top of that, this year, so far, we have let over a MILLION people come through the southern border.

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/us-border-arrests-top...

At this run rate it is likely that this year alone that number will top a couple million. If we continue at this pace you are looking at five to eight million in four years.

BY DEFINITION and as a matter of cold-hard facts, 100% of these people are unemployed.

And, again, as a matter of cold-hard facts, we are NOT magically producing two million additional jobs per year to fully employ them.

And so, we have a situation where China is bound to take even more jobs out of the US while we invest in the wrong things and actively import millions of unemployed.

Despite what this might sound like, this isn't political at all. This is as common sense as things can get. If you give me the opportunity to damage a competitor by taking away business (China taking away jobs), driving them deeper into debt (waste money rebuilding roads and bridges) and increasing their baseline costs (importing millions of unemployed). Well, that's a dream. That's a competitive dream.

If your competitors insist on self destructing you take every possible opportunity to push them over the cliff. That's what China is doing. Not because they are evil. No. It's because we are stupid and we are doing it to ourselves.

Looking at it with detachment, from the perspective of a competitor, it's almost too easy. We have been consistently stupid for fifty years. What did people think would happen? You don't win a basketball game by giving your opponents free turnovers. You win by scoring more than they do and controlling the ball as much as possible. We have been giving it away for fifty years, and, just like in a baseball game, there comes a point beyond which reversing the score is simply impossible. If we don't demand more from our politicians the writing is on the wall, it has been there for all to see for quite some time.

trasz8• 5 years ago

See, that’s the thing about China: it seems to value their citizens more than some company’s money.

qwerty456127• 5 years ago

Why would they need to? Everybody all over the world buys everything Chinese unless there is an alternative of higher quality they need and can afford. Isn't it so?

mensetmanusman4• 5 years ago

This is equivalent to an infinity percent tariff. Of course no one deserves access to the China market, but China as a one way economic diode doesn’t benefit anyone.

cryptonector4• 5 years ago

economic diode

Great way to spell mercantilism.

doesn’t benefit anyone

Not even China! (At least not Chinese people.)

refenestrator8• 5 years ago

Citation needed given the poverty and gdp numbers over there the last 30 years.

You can compare/contrast with other impoverished nations that followed the IMF agenda, and how that worked out for them.

matttrotter• 5 years ago

China's in a great position to do this. Not many other countries could withstand the consequences. Westerners plan for 5-10 years ahead. China plans for 1-2 generations ahead.

mensetmanusman4• 5 years ago

The types of articles listed would be important supply chain-wise in the event of a hot war.

dotcommand2• 5 years ago

Are they supposed to loudly set it? It's ridiculous what blatant propagandists these wire services are.

But good for them. Hopefully they'll continue. They should target companies like reuters next. Why is Apple and Microsoft given preferential treatment in china?

Buy american in america. Buy chinese in china. I think we can all live with that.

cromwellian• 5 years ago

“When goods don’t cross borders, armies will.”

Increasing isolation is not good for world security.

mwcampbell• 5 years ago

“When goods don’t cross borders, armies will.”

Why must that be true? Why can't we be content to stay where we are and leave each other alone?

tomytosian3• 5 years ago

america has been doing that for years. pretty much everyone is doing national buyin but Europe (because it is controlled by unelected ex goldman sachs managers, mondialists that are promoting the idea of a free market)

elzbardico• 5 years ago

Party time with Biden

yarg• 5 years ago

Isn't that going to be a breach of damned near every FTA that they've signed?

China quietly sets new 'buy Chinese' targets for state companies

Related Stories