Think Japan. 35-40 years ago it was going to take over the world. It had an enviable and widely feared/praised modern sector. Juxtaposition against a flawed rest of economy and institutions was ignored. Until it wasn't, and the rest is history. China is the encore. 3/3.

Not at all wrt China's tech prowess and manufacturing scale, and not about its status as global power. But a country with a dynamic modern sector that's about 8-12% GDP in a much larger economy with profound macroeconomic imbalances and drags isn't a shoo-in for dominance 2/3.

Generate videos in just a few seconds. Try Grok Imagine, free for a limited time.

While some talk about the Chinese century, or the inevitability of a dominant China, I think it's worth examining if Peak China may not already have arrived. 1/3

Discussing trade issues and complicated trade politics incl why many countries are going along with trumps tariffs with @KateKatharina from.@dwnews. Why the US lacks leverage over China on trade | DW News via @YouTube.

Wise words. couldn't agree more. Or call them emerging nations/markets. Global South is a deliberately divisive and misleading term, and it's neither global nor sout, not to mention coherent.

. but also many significant EM which have reason to fear premature de-industrialisation, .-ive effects on labour and know how. China has vowed to act against 'involuted' competition, ie destructive, aspects of overcap. To do so though, would be to upend its preferred model. 3/3.

The pursuit of a unique, expansive industrial policies by Leninist and mercantilist party-state gives rise to a model that emphasises production and supply, and now a giant export-import gap. And its not only usual developed country suspects whose noses are out of joint. 2/3.

If you think Chinese overcapacity is mostly about EVs and batteries, think again. Here I explain that it's just a high profile example of a ubiquitous problem in steel, cement, glass, housing and infra, high speed rail, solar/wind and climate mfg, etc 1/3

There's a serious arg abt gifting China unnecessarily, now in search of a shortlived Phase 1 trade deal. Also some things like America First Inv Policy and global commerce fragmentation are in US interests, not China's. But to make the case,more robust and cogent args needed. 5/5.

And there is enough diversity in the GS to accommodate US leaning countries, and those that promiscuously court both US and China. Fourth, the charge that Trump is ceding primacy in clean energy is rather rich coming from folk who dissed Biden and Trump industrial policies 4/5.

Third, the charge that Trump has lost the so called Global South to China is to say the least questionable. Most major middle inc and emerging have put up own trade defence measures vs cheap Chinese imports, fearful of being robbed of own industrialisation, skilled jobs etc.3/5.

First, assertions without reasoning don't count. Just saying that Trump is gifting China doesn't make it true. Second, citations of India and Taiwan can certainly be presented as evidence, but the content here is nuanced and uncertain and could equally make an alt argument. 2/5.

This may be true, or at least debatable but the arguments presented here don't really make the case and are in any case comprised of half truths and disingenuous. I will explain. 1/5.

Yeah. And I’m Napoleon.

The thing is the eu is already losing a trade war with China, ok? Getting into another one with the US as honey commerce is fracturing into blocs makes no sense at all. Van der Leyen didn’t get a great deal o/c but it was realistic.

Major European power though refuses to recognise Taiwan which does have recognised structure, borders, legitimacy and order. Just nonsense.

What a gr8 op title, but also Ha-Joon Chang’s call for more political economy and socio-climate content is +1. The former has been my bug bear since the fin crisis brought us all down to earth. How economics teaching became the Aeroflot of ideas via @FT.

Siri: what does transshipment mean?.

Have you noticed it’s slightly less than rich ppl mostly who are so keen that they shouldn’t pay wealth tax but others should?.

This borders on economic illiteracy. Keynes’ quote in proper context as spoken is not what this chap alleges, and while private investment rate eg in U.K. is disappointing, reasons are complex and the description here is pure Speakers’ Corner.