>Ma seems to be saying to the United States: Continue running trade deficits with China, subsidizing China's ill-conceived domestic social and economic policies, or war
Subsidizing? The US (and others) spends X in China, and Chinese workers and factories sweat their ass off and give back products that the US companies then sell for 2X to 100X.
That's the exact opposite of subsidizing. It's the US that can't produce anymore, or can't produce cheaply enough and with enough tolerances, that found a solution to its issues.
And if you count for the trade deficit, it's China that holds US debt and thus "subsidies" the US.
No. This is NOT how it works. China exports its domestic demand to the US, the US absorbs Chinese overcapacity. This initially began as China importing inefficient US industrial production in the 70s-90s, in exchange for US expectation of access to an enormous Chinese market. That trade never really occurred as the short terms incentives weren't present, resulting in Chinese inefficiencies and massive imbalances for both sides.
This is exactly the policy the US seeks to now reverse (absorbing over-capacity) and which planned reversal China meets with threats of war. It wasn't charity as you well understand. The US exported its inefficient industries initially for the unfulfilled expectation of access to much greater markets for its efficient industries.
Subsidizing? The US (and others) spends X in China, and Chinese workers and factories sweat their ass off and give back products that the US companies then sell for 2X to 100X.
That's the exact opposite of subsidizing. It's the US that can't produce anymore, or can't produce cheaply enough and with enough tolerances, that found a solution to its issues.
And if you count for the trade deficit, it's China that holds US debt and thus "subsidies" the US.