US-China Dynamics: Key Considerations for Investors in a Global Market

US-China Dynamics: Key Considerations for Investors in a Global Market | Elbridge Colby

Рет қаралды 3,245

Күн бұрын

The thought of risking American lives and resources over Taiwan leaves most Americans perplexed. The goal for the US here, which former DoD official Elbridge Colby and I agree on, is to avoid a war with China.
To do that, Elbridge says we urgently need to overhaul our defense strategy. He lays out a concise plan for this in my latest Global Macro Update interview.
Here’s Colby:
“[T]he best thing for the American people, and frankly the best thing for freedom and democracy in the world, is for us to not get in a war, but meet our core interests.”
Colby is a co-founder and principal of the Marathon Initiative, a foreign policy think tank, and the author of The Strategy of Denial: American Defense in an Age of Great Power Conflict.
Go here to subscribe to Global Macro Update:
www.mauldineconomics.com/go/J...
Learn more about Elbridge Colby here:
themarathoninitiative.org/elb...
Follow Elbridge Colby on X (formerly Twitter):
/ elbridgecolby
Learn more about Elbridge Colby’s book, The Strategy of Denial: American Defense in an Age of Great Power Conflict, here:
yalebooks.yale.edu/book/97803...
Follow Ed D’Agostino on LinkedIn:
/ ed-d-agostino-415475296
Download the Mauldin Economics App here:
community.mauldineconomics.co...
Time stamps:
00:00 - Introduction
01:54 - Where the Cold War analogy breaks down
05:58 - Why US policy needs to focus on Asia over Europe and the Middle East
06:51 - China is perpetuating global conflicts
13:58 - A better US defense strategy
17:22 - The potential fallout from a war with China
21:14 - The right diplomatic strategy with China

Пікірлер: 31

@KGold53 4 ай бұрын

If Ed is going to start discussion by quoting Henry Kissinger, he should also be bound to mention that Kissinger’s last plea before he passed away was for the U.S. and China to reconcile, to have a rapprochement. The mindset with Colby is way too militaristic in orientation, and he thus overstates the China threat. He is a very erudite fearmonger, IMO. Ed doesn’t push back, so I presume he’s just as hawkish. Please bring on the more dovish minds on China now, please.

@MauldinEconomicsYouTube 4 ай бұрын

My goal with Global Macro Update is to bring you a wide variety of voices. I am not a journalist. I'm an analyst. I take in as many varying voices as possible, across multiple topics. Then I distill that information to form my own view, mainly for investing purposes. I sometimes do not agree with my guests, but I respect their thinking and take their ideas seriously. I could push back more, but then we might miss their points, or the nuance of their ideas. To me, that is more important. Again, I'm not trying to be a journalist. I'm gathering information. I believe Mr. Colby is intent on avoiding conflict with China and others. He believes maintaining a strong, capable military is a deterrent. I agree. The goal of a dominant military is never to deploy. I am not a hawk. War is a terrible outcome and should be a last resort. My guess is Mr. Colby agrees. I understand your concern about balance and I am lining up guests with a different view of China. From an investment perspective, I believe there are better risk/reward opportunities. Others feel differently. Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment - I appreciate it! -Ed

@KGold53 4 ай бұрын

@@MauldinEconomicsKZbin I appreciate your feedback, Ed. From my perspective, Mr. Colby is a representative of the Military Industrial Complex. He wrote a Foreign Affairs piece in 2022 themed “Prepare for a War over Taiwan”, complete with prescriptions to increase US presence in Asia/Pacific by a doubling of defense spending. That’s where he comes from. I heard his intellectual case for employing “deterrence” this way, but we have budgetary limits. Our MIC is already supersized and related spending will be over $10 trillion in the next decade at our current pace. His ideas of a “China Threat” necessitating such profligate spending that he’d double if he were king is just self-defeating and would weaken America, though beneficial if you own defense stocks or work in the MIC. I side with the late Kissinger. Befriend China again instead of provoking them. They are a different and autocratic form of government, but they are rational and prize stability and internal development. Our presence in their backyard is what angers them and could lead to miscalculations and war.

@Lefford 3 ай бұрын

@@KGold53 Elbridge Colby is ultimately a representative of the MIC, and I agree with you & Kissinger re China... but Colby's worth listening to imo even if for no other reason than his analysis of the strategic balance. Other hawks or neocons or whatever just want to fund any war, all the time, forever. He's arguing for less focus on Ukraine/ME, which is currently where the profits are for the MIC. Suggesting that the MIC focus on one place (for the future) instead of everywhere (now), allocate resources properly, or stop making so many high-cost but ultimately useless weapons is not something every defense hack advocates. It's actually kind of similar to Kissinger in a way... I'm sure you'd agree Kissinger was a sociopath and did terrible things, etc., yet you're still quoting him. His analysis is still worth hearing. Even his appearing not exclusively on neocon thinktank panels but on places like this says something.

@KGold53 3 ай бұрын

@@Lefford You make a good point regarding listening to those with whom one might disagree, as I do with Colby (this isn’t the only interview or speech of his I’ve heard). Kissinger did do some terrible things with the Vietnam war and Latin America, yet I agree with him on China. So point well-taken. Regarding Colby’s point of allocating scarce military resources away from Ukraine to focus on the “China threat” in the Asia-Pacific in order to “deter” China from invading Taiwan is, IMO, wrongheaded on many levels. First, we do have scarce resources but I’d re-allocate away from the MIC and cut defense spending by half over the next decade (Colby wants to double it) in order to rebuild and secure from bad actors U.S. infrastructure such as airports, electric grid, water facilities, while introducing high speed rail. Second, Ukraine needs our unwavering support at this time, though I’d couple that support with insisting on peace talks as soon as possible. Third, trying to “deter” China with more naval and weapons presence around Taiwan is fruitless, and would be provocative, resulting in the opposite of deterrence, IMO. Deal with China via smart diplomacy and ratchet down the temperature, I say. Over time, Taiwan will want to integrate more closely with China anyway, either before or after Xi is gone from the scene, and unless they declare formal independence, I don’t see Xi using force to “reunify” Taiwan with the mainland. Spending our treasure to deter what almost surely won’t happen seems a grand waste of money.

@Lefford 3 ай бұрын

@@KGold53 I certainly agree on reducing the MIC/fixing infrastructure. Although much of Colby's argument has to do with allocation of current resources. Re Ukraine: They've already lost the war. Whatever "unwavering support" we give them is truly just feeding the MIC (and probably a good deal is siphoned off in Ukraine's corrupt system) ...And insisting on peace talks isn't very credible as long as we're the ones making the decisions for Ukraine; Russia wants to discuss peace with Ukraine, not with a U.S. proxy. It's true there's really no good option for Ukraine at this point, and the whole situation was caused by us turning Ukraine into a US pawn to be used against Russia. Even at the beginning of the war there was a peace deal the US squashed. Prolonging the war only serves the MIC, I'm unsure why one would criticize the idea of a Taiwan war or downplay the China threat... while at the same time advocate supporting a war that's already lost, against Russia, objectively a much smaller threat than China. (tbc i oppose both) -"Trying to deter China is fruitless..." Maybe! but Colby's argument is that the US *is* being provocative right now, without anything to back it up. He would rather the US stop doing things like having Pelosi fly there or Biden vow to defend it, but rather quietly build defenses. -Taiwan is not going to want to integrate with China in any way that they want. Yes there's plenty of flights between Taiwan and China, etc. but they really don't want to be ruled from Beijing. Many people on Taiwan want the US to stop provoking China, want to be closer to China, etc. but only a small minority want to be part of the PRC. This is exactly the part of Colby's analysis I think is correct and worth considering; Xi has every reason to use force to reunify, because it's the only way reunification will happen. One can argue that they don't want reunification as much as we think ... but there's no way other than an invasion to make Xi's stated goal happen. And there's very strong geographic incentives as well; China wants to have Ocean access past the Island chain, etc.

@Nick-bh5bk Ай бұрын

More people need to start listening to Colby. You don't have to agree with all of his presumptions to see he is trying to avoid WW3. He is trying to get in front of this problem but so few people I think want to even hear him out because they are scared of acknowledging where this all goes, if we get it wrong.

@felixf.3392 4 ай бұрын

I really don't understand how an educated intelligent person like Elbridge Colby can think so unrealistically on this issue. How does the US want to win a war in East Asia against China after over 40 years of systematic deindustrialization? As he himself says, China has a shipbuilding capacity 200 times larger than the United States. The proxy war against Russia has shown that the West is simply not able to keep up with emerging countries in the mass production of weapons and ammunition. What would the US gain if it were drawn into a nuclear war in East Asia where its military bases were destroyed? Of course, China has the right to claim power over East Asia. It is by far the largest country in this region and accounts for 50 percent of the economy in this part of the world. You can come up with as many strategies as you want, the balance of power has changed and the Americans have to subordinate themselves and cannot act as if they are the most powerful country in the world.

@ggttuuxx 3 ай бұрын

Why Colby makes no sense, you ask. Well, "It Is Difficult to Get a Man to Understand Something When His Salary Depends Upon His Not Understanding It"

@chickenfishhybrid44 2 ай бұрын

"Have to subordinate themselves" lmao, ok China bot.

@felixf.3392 2 ай бұрын

@@chickenfishhybrid44 Taiwan doesn't have to subordinate itself to American interests and fight a war it can't win. Or do you believe the myth that the US wants to help Taiwan because it's a democracy? That's ridiculous.

@bobhill4582 4 ай бұрын

Great perspectives, thanks Ed!

@clarityinspires 4 ай бұрын

The idea of "decommissioning" TSMC (not the word Colby uses) is cold. Logical and in US interest, but cold. I say that as someone who used to bicycle by the Taichung TSMC facility at least once a week.

@ggttuuxx 3 ай бұрын

He is a crazy selfish warmonger. There is only forever war and destruction. He is not a normal human being; not a human being.

@HanS662 4 ай бұрын

lol a better analogy would be China is moving its ship out the way but US veers towards it than just a straight collision

@opdmin 4 ай бұрын

"China does not think its ready to take Taiwan.... we must deny them TMSC" It seems that China will be ready once its completed building it's own TMSC. Every time Western Democracies seeks to deny China something they develop their own. This is why, for example, the only space station orbiting the earth in 2030 will be Chinese

@user-lb8bg6kj9m 2 ай бұрын

His analysis is right on. But he does not explain what the alternate diplomacy path is to China's rise. I dont think there is one. The world is not going to be stable and certainly not peaceful with 2 superpowers. One inevitably must fall and neither will simply go quietly into the night. He has the right idea as to how US will win this long term. US strength is in the fact that (for now) it has strong regional allies in western europe, south asia, and east asia that underpins its strength both economically and strategically. This combined strength alone ensures any adversary can be brought to its knees with economic power alone. China by contrast has strong enemies only. Even Russia is more wary of China than it is of the US and no country , let alone any regional power trusts China.