>...all that know-how was stolen by China, who isn't interested in quarterly profits, but in global hegemony...
This seems a little simplistic? "China" isn't a monolith, and I'm pretty sure Chinese companies are just as interested in quarterly profits as Western ones. It's not like they're all state enterprises. And they didn't "steal" know-how - they earned it, by doing stuff (aside from the odd case of corporate espionage, which certainly cuts both ways). Nor is the United States any less interested in global hegemony than China.
I suggest that the reason for manufacturing moving to China is simply because labor is cheaper there (large population and weak labor laws). The Chinese government has played its hand well, but it doesn't represent some grand asymmetry in strategic planning - it's just the hand of the market as always.
Isn't it? If the companies all take orders from the state, and have state representatives on their boards, that seems pretty close.
> And they didn't "steal" know-how - they earned it, by doing stuff (aside from the odd case of corporate espionage, which certainly cuts both ways).
Espionage is asymmetric, and there are also cases of China seizing whole companies outright from foreign investors. Capital controls and controls on the ability of foreign companies to do business are very much asymmetric.
You do not need the whole china to do it. And you do not need the majority even. Just some and then recreate from parts to WeChat to TikTok … and it is one way street as well as not many steal anything back.
I still think the west is doomed. But both hk and Ukraine is a wake-up call. When they act very badly can you fight back or just be German. Too many dependence …
Good luck. You need it. We all need it. As only left thing is luck. I hope not. But your response …
> Nor is the United States any less interested in global hegemony than China.
In as far as United States is a democracy, it is not interested in global "hegemony". It is interested in Democracy spreading all over the world. Democracy is not hegemony but freedom for one person to have one vote and nobody being above the law. Of course that could change. A Nazi party could gain the power in US. Then you could say that US is interested in global hegemony for sure.
The US maintains the largest military in the world, despite the mainland being virtually unassailable by virtue of geography, and has overthrown numerous democratically elected governments while leaving brutal and regressive regimes intact. American financial interests are a much better predictor of foreign policy than "spreading democracy". As for nobody being above the law, that isn't even true in the US itself, never mind its satellite states.
Politicians love to assert as you do, but I'm afraid actions speak louder than words.
The simple fact of the matter is that if you want to live a self-determined life, or have a self-determining government, you must be better armed, better prepared, and better allied than the local bully or the autocracies.
If you are not better armed, prepared, & allied, the local bully WILL steal your lunch money every time, and your democracy WILL be overrun by an autocracy. Just speak to anyone with Baltic or Finnish heritage about their history with the Russians/Soviets/Russians.
The US just happens to be the largest democracy, so it leads. But if you think that the US could get away with a withdrawn isolationist policy because it is so "geographically unassailable", and let the other democracies fall, that would be a catastrophic failure. Hell, we are already under attack from inside with direct support from Russia.
And yes, no large organization will make every move without mistakes, even strategic errors. That does not mean that it is somehow equal, or even close to the autocracies (this will no longer be true if an autocratic party takes over US, which is a very real and present danger).
Please learn how the world really works before you spout simple-minded false equivalency.
The USA maintains military bases in all corners of the world. From Australia to Guam, Eastern Europe to Brazil. If they're not interested in hegemony and all they want is to spread democracy (sounds eerily similar to the jesuits in the 1500's trying to christen the savages) why would they do that?
If US is able to spread democracy all around the world, it will not be the "Hegemony of the US". It will be the "Hegemony of Democracy".
Consider Germany after WW2. Allied won over Germany but did US establish a "US Hegemony" in Germany? No. They established Democracy in Germany. Once you give people the freedom to self-govern, you can not have hegemony over them, unless you are a corrupt state. But assuming that US is a working democracy, corruption will be rooted out, because people will vote for its removal.
If you want a more recent example Iraq was crushed, but not put under the US’s boot. It may have failed nation building in Afghanistan, but it tried rather than adding more territory.
Right, only authoritarian governments are interested in conquering territory.
Russia is trying its best to annex Ukraine to itself. But it is not "Russia" that is doing it, it is the authoritarian government of Russia. When did US last annex territories?
The workhorse of authoritarian politics is tribalism. They try to say it is a competition between countries and or races and or religions. They get supporters by making them believe it is their tribe against other tribes that is threatening their very existence.
But the real fight is not between countries or "tribes". It is between Democracy and Autocracy, and that fight is happening in every country.
The simple fact is that, anyone who wants to live a self determined life, and have a self-determining country MUST be better armed, prepared, and allied than the local abusers and bullies or the global autocrats.
If you are not better armed, prepared, and/or allied, then the local bully will steal your lunch money every day, and the global autocrats will keep taking whatever they want, whenever they think they can get away with it. See China and Tibet, Hong Kong, "9-dashed line", Taiwan, etc. See Russia and Chechnya, georgia, Syria, Ukraine, Baltics, etc. Neither has EVER lived up to an agreement. They cannot be honestly bargained with.
They will not stop, unless they are stopped by an external power. That power must come from the democracies of the world. Without the US, EU, Australia, etc., being able to project power, we WILL soon find them on our doorsteps. Yes, the US has ended up being the 'worlds policeman' since WWII. This is literally what enables free trade (hint: the piracy problem off Africa kinda died once the US Navy started getting quietly involved, and that's just one example).
Please learn about how the world actually works before spouting false equivalence.
This seems a little simplistic? "China" isn't a monolith, and I'm pretty sure Chinese companies are just as interested in quarterly profits as Western ones. It's not like they're all state enterprises. And they didn't "steal" know-how - they earned it, by doing stuff (aside from the odd case of corporate espionage, which certainly cuts both ways). Nor is the United States any less interested in global hegemony than China.
I suggest that the reason for manufacturing moving to China is simply because labor is cheaper there (large population and weak labor laws). The Chinese government has played its hand well, but it doesn't represent some grand asymmetry in strategic planning - it's just the hand of the market as always.