That’s a much better definition that I wont argue with though I would say that Marx had some interesting things to say about capitalism eating itself too often to provide the stability that populations need.

I’m just saying.

“All China is doing is exercising competitive advantage wherever it can.”

Precisely. And the sooner the US realizes that, the sooner the US can start to consider its own industrial policy that favors US companies and US workers.

Right now, China and the US are both playing for a win-win. Unfortunately our definitions of win-win are not the same. To the Chinese, it means they get to win twice.

There is no greater trade fiddle then printing dollars (quantitative easing) The US gets to do this with impunity because it’s the default global currency. Not because its finances are ship shape.

All China is doing is exercising competitive advantage wherever it can. The US would like to think it’s benign but then the propensity for it to forget what is largely seen as manipulation is only exceeded by the scale with which it exercises that manipulation.

Our greatest delusion is tying in freedom with prosperity and concluding that we;re all good. We’re not.

The last to know it are the Americans and I’d argue the British.

China has been taking advantage of US gullibility over free trade for decades and laughing all the way to the bank while many in the US cling to the doctrines of neoliberal economics.

The United States has had a long succession of Presidents who buy this theory, each of whom has professed his faith that trade with China would eventually pay dividends, not only in terms of trade, but politically as well.

While I don’t disagree that the US often looks out for its own interest around the world (a couple of recent wars come to mind), when it comes to business relationships with China (again, the topic of this article), the US has taken a very liberal approach.

China, as you astutely point out, is a textbook picture of realism. But the thing about realists is that they assume everyone else is a realist. Their assumption is that the US does not buy its own liberal rhetoric, but is instead using it to try to take advantage of China.

Free trade agreements are just one element of how the dealer dealers and the reality is that self interest is the legacy the US leaves behind.

China knows that.

China would laugh at any other suggestion.

Point taken. I do acknowledge above that the US often talks out of both sides of its mouth regarding trade.

My point is that, at least in the East Asian region (which is the only region of the world I will claim to know anything about), the US has long endured largely unequal terms of trade.

The US has done this mostly on faith that others would play the game by similar rules. When everyone buys Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage, everyone wins — but not everyone gets to have, for example, an auto industry.

Clearly the dynamic economies of East Asia don’t buy Ricardo’s theory. They’ve always viewed the international division of labor as a hierarchy, and they’ve had no intention of remaining poor and agrarian. And can we really blame them?

If everyone else plays to win, I don’t see why the US can’t. That seems to be the source of frustration behind Immelt’s comments.

Look no further than Confessions of an economic hitman to see both how the US really operates and how the much of the worlds economies to suffer hardship see how the game is played.

While China is by no means a monolithic entity, Beijing has done a remarkable job at determining what they want to get out of their relations with the rest of the world and pursuing those interests with laser-like focus.

The US, on the other hand, looks like the kid on the playground who just wants to be everyone’s friend when it comes to trade policy. US administrations, and the businesses who put them into office, have all swallowed neoliberal economics to such a degree that they never question their commitment to “free trade”.

This is not to say that “free trade” is a bad thing, but it is bad when one side remains largely committed to it while the other does not. (And, yes, there are still areas in which the US talks out of both sides of its mouth on this issue.)

The US pushed to get China into the WTO hoping for a couple of things that they didn’t bother to get in writing. First, they hoped that China would eventually decide to abandon its trade restrictions (and there are many of them) that aren’t covered under the WTO agreement. They haven’t.

And second, the US has continued to support openness to trade with China in the hopes that economic growth in China would lead to political liberalization, which it hasn’t.

The last sentence of your article sums up the argument perfectly: indeed, if only the US taxpayer had someone in Washington looking out for their interests in the way that the Communist Party looks out for its interests.