Yves right here. The far-too-widely-read Tom Friedman has turn into a parody of a know-nothing American exhibiting off his case of Dunning-Kruger impact. I have to confess to missing the motivation to learn his items for the aim of shellacking them, so hats off to Megan Russell for taking on the duty.
Russell mentions a key level in passing, and it bears repeating. Friedman can dole out nonsense-posturing-as-insight as a result of his readers are no less than as ignorant and lack curiosity. And I don’t even imply going to China, though it could be good (absent carbon prices) for extra Individuals to see for themselves that the US will not be the middle of the world and usually has a poor high quality of life. As with our navy, loads of our spending goes to overpriced and never terribly match for objective objects similar to bloated greater schooling, an extortive well being care system, gradual and dear bandwidth, and supersized homes.
Individuals typically and the New York Occasions in typically must be embarrassed about what Friedman’s standing as a member in good standing of punditocracy says about them.
By Megan Russell, CODEPINK’s China is Not Our Enemy Marketing campaign Coordinator. Initially revealed at Frequent Desires
Thomas Friedman in all probability thought he was being intelligent when he titled his most up-to-date article How Elon Musk and Taylor Swift Can Resolve U.S.-China Relations. It’s a headline meant to catch your consideration– interesting to the Swifties, who assume Taylor can save the world, the Musketeers, who’re sure Elon can save the world, and, in fact, their anti-fans who comply with their each transfer with simply as a lot zeal, and maybe even extra. It was the New York Occasions model of clickbait, as a result of why hassle with stable journalism when you may piggyback off the success of billionaires?
It was clickable, but it surely was hardly readable.
Friedman begins his piece off with a kernel of fact, simply sufficient to shock the common NYT’s readers who’re very not often fed a optimistic bit of reports about China:
“I simply spent per week in Beijing and Shanghai, assembly with Chinese language officers, economists and entrepreneurs, and let me get proper to the purpose: Whereas we have been sleeping China took an incredible leap ahead in high-tech manufacturing of every part.”
No one that is aware of something about China can argue with that, although a majority of Individuals definitely nonetheless view the far-away nation via the lens of Soviet communism and rural backwardness. The correlation is that almost all of Individuals know nothing about China, have by no means been, and can by no means go.
He then goes on to specific how Donald Trump’s tariffs and anti-China rhetoric jump-started China’s manufacturing prowess, mentioning how Trump’s title on Chinese language social media is “Chuan Jiaguo” which means “Nation Builder.”
No. It was not Donald Trump that ushered in China’s “Sputnik second,” as quoted by enterprise advisor Jim McGregor. Trump is merely an amusement to China’s common public—a wierd American enigma whose laborious strains are overshadowed by sudden candor and comical conduct. For China, the final 40 years has been a steady Sputnik second—from the elimination of utmost poverty to unprecedented shift to renewable vitality, China has been on the rise, and Donald Trump has by no means been the yeast making that occur.
After which comes the meat of Friedman’s concept, what he calls the “Elon Musk-Taylor Swift paradigm.” As a substitute of all of a sudden elevating US tariffs in opposition to China, which is able to lead us right into a form of supply-chain warfare that advantages no one, Friedman counsel a gradual rise in tariffs, that will enable the US to “purchase time to elevate up extra Elon Musks” which he describes as “extra homegrown producers who could make large stuff so we will export extra to the world and import much less,” in addition to give China extra time to “let in additional Taylor Swifts” that are “extra alternatives for its youth to spend cash on leisure and shopper items made overseas.”
Friedman isn’t flawed concerning the idiocy of a US-China commerce warfare, however his prognosis is tone-deaf, and really clearly the results of a Western capitalist suffering from the idea of zero-sum competitors:
“It’s essential to the world that China continues to have the ability to give its 1.4 billion folks a greater life — but it surely can’t be on the expense of everybody else.”
He does, unsurprisingly, make the Soviet comparability:
But when we don’t use this time to answer China the way in which we did to the Soviet Union’s 1957 launch of Sputnik, the world’s first synthetic satellite tv for pc, with our personal complete scientific, modern and industrial push, we will likely be toast.”
Toast! Don’t all of us collectively like toast?
He talks of the risks of China’s rising financial dominance. How China “owns the long run” as a result of it’s the principal producer of Electrical Automobiles. How China is domestically self-sufficient. How China will quickly account for practically half of all international manufacturing. How all of China’s positive aspects will likely be everybody else’s loss. How China goes to export robot-run factories to different nations, and thereby steal labor alternatives— as if the West hasn’t exported their very own factories and exploited impoverished communities for affordable labor over a long time.
“However right here’s what’s scary: We now not make that many issues China desires to purchase. It might do virtually every part no less than cheaper and sometimes higher.”
That have to be extremely scary to the typical American who would fairly pay a couple of bucks for a Temu model of an merchandise fairly than shell out tens of {dollars} for something made by native companies. It’s not their fault. The U.S. is extremely unaffordable and the federal government doesn’t appear to care.
On the similar time, Friedman criticizes the shortage of consumption inside China:
“If I have been drawing an image of China’s economic system right now as an individual, it could have an superior manufacturing higher physique — like Popeye, nonetheless consuming spinach — with consuming legs resembling skinny little sticks.”
It’s the destiny of a capitalist to view nonconsumption as a societal illness fairly than an indication of fine well being. The reality is people who eat much less produce other extra nourishing and sustainable methods to fill their souls. At a time when consumerism and overspending are contributing to the destruction of the planet, this can be a fairly inconsiderate level to make. Think about if society applauded community-building fairly than the pointless expenditure of cash to briefly fill a gaping vacancy left by an absence of group and an overemphasis on hyperindividualism? It is vitally American to search for fast options fairly than deal with the basis trigger.
To his credit score, Friedman does state the significance of China offering for its 1.4 billion inhabitants, however it’s a mere drop of humility that does little to steadiness the western self-righteousness. He doesn’t touch upon the truth that China’s inhabitants is larger than the US and Europe mixed. Neither does he touch upon the West’s personal position in exporting labor for cheaper costs— as a result of a capitalist system is run on greed, and wherever a buck might be saved, you guess it is going to be. Even on the expense of the folks.
Friedman means that China ought to “let their folks have extra of the availability.” Apparently, they need to purchase extra stuff from us. Stuff that Friedman claims they’re being starved of below the rule of the Communist Get together of China. Issues like artwork and leisure. Majors in gender research and sociology.
“Its youth want extra shops for artistic expression — with out having to fret {that a} music lyric they write might land them in jail.”
I’ve doubts that Friedman ever ventured out to a live performance in Shanghai, not to mention listened to a few of China’s newest indie music. Tradition is one thing that China positively doesn’t lack, and to make that declare is so wildly misguided that I query whether or not he has any understanding of China in any respect. One merely has to take a stroll alongside the riverside in actually any metropolis, and they are going to be bombarded by musicians, performers, and a formidable quantity of out of doors public karaoke. There are as many artists as there are customers of artwork, and certainly, a justifiable share of scholars pursuing the humanities.
He concludes:
“In sum, America must tighten up, however China must loosen up. Which is why my hat is off to Secretary of State Antony Blinken for exhibiting China the way in which ahead.”
What did Antony Blinken do this was so spectacular? He stopped at a report retailer in China and acquired a Taylor Swift album.
Perhaps, simply perhaps, Friedman is only one large Swiftie. However extra seemingly, he threw the article along with a preschool stage understanding of the WTO, and an opinion that nearly appears like an opinion, however doesn’t actually say a lot of something while you give it a thought.
The one distinction between sudden tariffs and gradual tariffs is time—and what’s going to time do? In our 4-year system, time is as fickle as our phrase. Both means, China will nonetheless be pioneering the inexperienced vitality revolution, promoting reasonably priced EVs and renewable vitality gear across the globe whereas the USA, because the NYT Beijing bureau chief Keith Bradsher says, will “turn into the brand new Cuba—the place the place you go to to see outdated gas-guzzling automobiles that you simply drive your self.”
And if the US continues its threatened posture round something coming from China—together with inexperienced vitality tech—the world will proceed to warmth up, and we’ll all face the results.
Friedman’s common lack of information about China was a let down. However principally I used to be upset as a result of the title had me anticipating a a lot completely different learn—one thing with a little bit of creativity, and perhaps even an unique thought.
I might have been extra impressed if Friedman recommended sticking Elon Musk and his federal spending chopping block DOGE on the over-bloated Division of Protection, and reserving Taylor Swift a highly-publicized multi-city tour round China. Ship Blinken alongside along with her, if he’s such an enormous fan, and have him enterprise outdoors of his strict China perimeter to satisfy, speak with locals, and expertise a model of China that he by no means would in his fancy lodge rooms and safe authorities buildings. Perhaps then he would kind an opinion based mostly on his personal experiences fairly than the strains he memorized over the course of his typical Ivy League schooling, and the next falling-in-place that one should do to turn into the Secretary of State of the USA. A promoting out of the soul, if you’ll.
And perhaps the effectively being of the folks—of all folks—could be thought of for as soon as, fairly than the flimsy financial aspirations of the already-wealthy.
