Friday, May 2, 2025

Chinese Tariff Riots

Many have criticized Trump’s policy of rebalancing trade arrangements with China through tariffs but they’re working.
 
Many have claimed that the mighty Chinese economy is impervious to US actions and can overwhelm the US in a war.  We now see that isn’t quite the case.
 
Daily Caller website reports riots by disgruntled workers throughout China.
 
Workers throughout China are flooding the streets in revolt as U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariffs slam the fragile Chinese export economy.
 
The wave of unrest follows a brutal plunge in China’s export orders, now at their lowest since the COVID lockdowns. Goldman Sachs estimates up to 16 million Chinese jobs could vanish as Trump’s tariffs bite deeper into the regime’s weak underbelly.[1]

The tariffs are accomplishing the same thing that a war would do.  China would be isolated and its export-centric economy would collapse as the world halted all manufacturing orders.  On top of that would be blockades restricting imports of vital raw materials, further impacting manufacturing.
 
ComNavOps has often said that China has far more to lose, economically, in a war than the US and the tariff ‘war’ is providing ample proof of that.
 
This is not to trivialize the Chinese economy.  It’s powerful, to be sure, but it’s not the all-powerful, unassailable behemoth that so many fear.  Just as the US has some glaring strategic weaknesses, so too does China and their export-dependent economy is one of them.  Of course, in a war, China could always force workers to produce as unpaid slave labor but that would create additional problems.
 
This, as much as any other factor, may be what’s staying China’s bid for Taiwan for the time being.
 
This also demonstrates the potential of true all-domain warfare which, as an example, we are not applying to the Houthi conflict.
 
 

__________________________
 
[1]Daily Caller website, “China Erupts: Furious Workers Riot As Factories Collapse Under Trump’s Tariffs”, Floyd Buford, 1-May-2025,
https://dailycaller.com/2025/05/01/china-erupts-riot-factories-trump-tariffs/

Posted by at
Labels: , ,

63 comments:

  1. AnonymousMay 2, 2025 at 7:14 AM

    Trump lost his 1st re-election due to covid-economy. Otoh, Xi shut down covid-China for several years, and he still stands; therefore, covid-economy could be a pre-run to what can happen this time. Btw, China’s US-export accounts for 15% of its total exports and 3% of its GDP; a complete decouple will be significant, but we’re not there yet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsMay 2, 2025 at 9:43 AM

      A Microsoft Bing Internet search gives,

      "China's exports to the United States account for approximately 17.48% of its total exports."

      Not to quibble over a couple percent but China's exports to the US are approaching 20%. Add in China's exports to all other countries (I don't have a number) and war, which would completely shut those off, would be a huge economic hit to China.

      I found one number that stated that China's total exports totaled 20% of its GDP. If true, a massive hit to its economy if it were to lose it all!

      Delete
    2. ComNavOpsMay 2, 2025 at 9:46 AM

      This demonstrates that a properly fought war, involving ALL domains, is much more complicated than the mere kinetic match of the number of ships or planes. Those who would write the US off as having no hope in a war with China are failing to see the larger picture of war.

      Delete
    3. TimMay 2, 2025 at 1:54 PM

      I did a search on "how dependent is US Dept of defense on Chinese permanent magnets ", answer: heavily reliant (china makes 90% of world's high end permanent magnets), from mining to refining to manufacturing.

      Next I searched "how far behind is US rare earth process technology comparing to China", answer: at least a decade.

      That infers China supplying 90% of rare earth permanent magnets in our weapon system. If shooting starts, in quick order we'll run out of high end magnets, and with subpar magnets the weapon system's electrical actuators and motors will have to be redesigned and manufactured.

      That means, we'll go to war with what we already have (w/ spare high end magnets). After that, we'll have to wait a long time to come up to speed.

      Delete
    4. AnonymousMay 2, 2025 at 5:14 PM

      I asked the AI to dig this out. The restrictions on super-hard materials including synthetic diamonds and tungsten carbide are going to have a major impact on any processes that require machining. We've talked about issues with refined rare earths before on the blog. The problem is not just having the deposits available to quarry them, it the near-monopoly China has on refining them.

      China has banned the export of several raw materials to the United States, including gallium, germanium, antimony, and graphite. These materials are critical for various industries, particularly in the production of semiconductors, military equipment, and other advanced technologies.
      Specific materials banned or subject to stricter controls:

      Gallium and Germanium:
      These are essential in the manufacturing of semiconductors, infrared technology, and other advanced applications.

      Antimony:
      Used in various applications, including manufacturing semiconductors, bullets, and other weaponry.

      Graphite:
      A key component in electric vehicle batteries and other industrial applications.

      Superhard materials:
      China also restricts exports of superhard materials, which have both civilian and military uses.

      Tungsten, Tellurium, Bismuth, Indium, and Molybdenum:
      China also announced export controls on these materials, requiring licenses for their export.

      These export restrictions are part of an escalating trade war between the United States and China, with both countries taking steps to limit access to key technologies and materials. "

      Delete
    5. ComNavOpsMay 2, 2025 at 5:43 PM

      Just a reminder ... we're not going to discuss purely political trade or manufacturing issues. If you want to relate them directly to military matters, that's fine. Otherwise, no.

      Delete
    6. AnonymousMay 2, 2025 at 8:25 PM

      Sorry, I've spent so much time in a machining environment I forget the military implications are not apparent. Tungsten-carbide machining inserts are 75% produced in China, and the most sophisticated ones are manufactured either in China or Japan.

      So losing access to Chinese suppliers is going to be a big deal pretty soon, because the quantities involved are considerable, particularly if you are starting to ramp up manufacture of weapons systems that require a lot of machine work, and most do. I know that tungsten-carbide seems pretty mundane, you just make a phone call and get your inserts delivered next day. Until you can't... At which point you might as well be a blacksmith.

      The other things that jump out to my eye are tungsten itself for penetrating munitions, and molybdenum for manufacturing high-strength steel. I suspect many people are not aware that global steel production has gradually settled into very specialized production split up by country. The US specializes in certain types, China specializes in certain types, Canada does the same etc. Shutting out one country who makes a kind of steel you really need can have consequences, particularly when related to military manufacturing, or in fact any vital manufacturing that would be important in a war time economy. And replacing that void is not trivial. Hence losing access to molybdenum is not good news. As an example, pretty much all oilfield drilling equipment is built with chrome-moly steel to get the required strength. No moly, no chrome-moly.

      The importance of these supply chains CANNOT be overstated, and the fact they haven't been secured is not a good thing.

      Delete
    7. AndyMMay 2, 2025 at 8:33 PM

      Google Query: what percentage of chinese gdp is based on u.s. exports.

      AI Overview: In 2023, China's exports to the US accounted for approximately 2.9% of its GDP. This figure has been declining in recent years as China has diversified its export markets.

      And the first time I didn't ask Google I think I was using Statistista.

      But sure, let's try Bing
      Query: what percentage of chinese gdp is based on u.s. exports?

      Overview: China's GDP is approximately $19.53 trillion, while the U.S. GDP is projected to be $30.34 trillion3. U.S. exports to China reached $143.5 billion in 2024, while imports from China reached $438.9 billion4. China's economy expanded by 5.0 percent in 2024, fueled by robust manufacturing and high export demand

      Same numbers

      Delete
    8. ComNavOpsMay 3, 2025 at 7:18 AM

      "losing access to Chinese suppliers is going to be a big deal"

      You're simply stating what has been stated many times on this blog. To their credit, this administration recognizes our strategic materials vulnerabilities and is working to correct that and eliminate our dependence. We need Congress to support that effort by revamping and relaxing the applicable laws and regulations.

      Delete
    9. AnonymousMay 4, 2025 at 3:02 PM

      I'm not sure you actually read what I put quite some time into putting together. I am not "simply stating", I am attempting to show you the depths to which the Chinese supply chains reach into critical but everyday processes in the West, in addition to critical military functions.

      So night vision goggles for the army and special forces, and the navy, and the air force? Nyet, nothing, nada.

      We are not just talking about esoteric requirements for heavy earths, we are also talking about the requirement from Joe Blogs the machine shop owner down the block who needs TC Inserts for his lathes and his milling machines that manufacture and repair the machinery that keep western civilization going. Losing access to tungsten-carbide cutting tools is nearly existential. You're back to tool steel, which is guaranteed not be be available in the quantity required, and which in no way is a substitute to accomplish the job.

      And when you get into micrometer-tolerance precision cutting tools, losing access to industrial diamonds is even worse.

      This is the problem. Stated simply, no one has any idea how deep this problem goes, because when we were all best buds it didn't matter. That criticism specifically covers all the politicians of any and every stripe. There is no index of implications of tariffs and embargoes you can flip through and gauge what the impact of any given act will be.

      Delete
    10. ComNavOpsMay 4, 2025 at 3:26 PM

      Again, you're simply stating a well known problem: the US has strategic raw material vulnerabilities. That's well understood. You're simply listing individual products. That's nice, I guess, but you're not telling us anything new.

      China also has their fingers in US land ownership, banking, industrial ownership, financial circles, academia, entertainment, etc. This is all known and no need to list the specific details.

      Delete
  2. AnonymousMay 2, 2025 at 5:51 PM

    Many saw China as a threat in past 20 years but .... they all thought China was a regional power thus use XYZ weapons.

    I haven't seen any told us China would threat US as a superpower than a regional power.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsMay 2, 2025 at 5:53 PM

      Do you have a useful and informative comment to make?

      Delete
    2. AnonymousMay 2, 2025 at 6:49 PM

      If China were treated as a regional power, then, F-35, LCS, DDG-1000 ... are right weapons to then policy makers; if any saw China would be a superpower, they would not have wasted money and time to make these useless weapons but ones like successors of F-22, etc.

      Delete
  3. ComNavOpsMay 3, 2025 at 7:14 AM

    "Tucker Carlson"

    Comments deleted as totally unsubstantiated and personally biased. Just because you have some sort of personal animosity towards someone associated with the source website doesn't invalidate the article. I gave you the opportunity to offer facts that would repudiate the source and you have, thus far, not done so. This blog is based on facts and logic, not personal feelings.

    ReplyDelete
  4. AnonymousMay 3, 2025 at 10:47 AM

    Who would have thought it? A billionaire knows how to make money! And he is being second guessed by zombies who have worked to destroy the economy for decades.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsMay 3, 2025 at 1:09 PM

      Let's stick to military matters. Thanks.

      Delete
    2. G2milMay 3, 2025 at 7:56 PM

      Maybe a future post to discuss the Navy's key issue - carriers! The Red Sea is hot and the USA threatens Iran, but with 11 carriers it can only deploy 2 to that region. The Truman has been there over 7 months and is overdue to return home, and this may have been a factor in that recent accident where an F/A-18 slid overboard.

      If the Truman leaves, there is no talk about a replacement. The USS Ford is in a workup phase and is no hurry to deploy for reasons we all know. Its sister ship the Kennedy is still screwing around with never ending delivery trials. Will Admirals be forced with withdraw the Truman and explain why none of their other carriers can replace her?

      Delete
    3. JjabatieMay 4, 2025 at 7:47 AM

      A perfect ongoing example that supports :
      1) CNOs "keep the Fleet home", end to deployments or, barring that as somthing we won't ever do...
      2) a need for more, not less carriers...
      3) returning to a cheaper Nimitz-esque design, along with getting to the bottom of, and fixing the blooming carrier costs, in support of #2...

      Delete
  5. AnonymousMay 4, 2025 at 2:41 AM

    "Let's stick to military matters'
    Please!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Just another opinionMay 4, 2025 at 4:15 AM

    With respect to trade, I would have tried to wean the US off its Chinese dependency slowly rather than risk a trade war.

    For example, instead of across the board tariffs, I would have instead required that all US weapons of war are manufactured in the US with 100% US-sourced components by some particular date (e.g. 2035). Such a policy, given that it is focused directly on national security, is far more defensible and less likely to lead to retaliation. A trade war, by contrast, can cause us to be suddenly exposed for a time in which critical key inputs may be lacking, hindering procurement in advance of a potential conflict.

    It’s important to reshore not simply friendshore. We don’t want to be sourcing high tech components from South Korea and Taiwan circa 2032 when a further expanded PLAAF/PLAN has to capacity to interdict both shipments and the manufacturing plants themselves.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousMay 4, 2025 at 7:27 AM

      I think you are absolutely right, with the exception that the PLAAF/PLAN can interdict both SK and Taiwan right now if they chose to. Also Japan is not secure. The Chinese build up over the last 5 years is already significant.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousMay 4, 2025 at 8:28 AM

      Very sensible requirement but we have to get out the corruption. For example, M18 pistols are claimed to be US made but have Chinese steel “receivers” and Pakistani cast parts. Even the F35 has a lot of Chinese electronics.
      Even with TSMC building an Arizona factory, our chip making us 8 to 10 years behind Taiwan or Korea and our consumer electronics and solar are 15 to 20 years behind China production which we introduced in China.
      Let’s start with an honest survey and set a date to wean off our dependency on foreign parts.

      Delete
    3. ComNavOpsMay 4, 2025 at 9:26 AM

      "slowly rather than risk a trade war."

      The problem is that 'slowly', with respect to a government, means never.

      Without concomitant legislative and regulatory changes, no approach will work.

      I like the quit cold turkey approach. One hopes that would force Congress to act but that's no guarantee.

      "It’s important to reshore not simply friendshore."

      Absolutely! Great point. Strategically critical resources need to be 100% under our control which means self-contained within our mainland.

      Delete
    4. ComNavOpsMay 4, 2025 at 9:28 AM

      "PLAAF/PLAN can interdict both SK and Taiwan right now if they chose to."

      No, they cannot unless we allow them to. Any attempt at interdiction could just as easily be met with anti-interdiction and retaliatory blockades so, no, China cannot just blithely impose a blockade. This is the kind of one-sided thinking that hamstrings our geopolitical and military planning.

      Delete
    5. AnonymousMay 4, 2025 at 2:31 PM

      SOD Hegseth said last month that in all Pentagon war games, US lose to China. Do you still believe that US armed force can stop China in West Pacific?

      Delete
  7. AnonymousMay 4, 2025 at 8:22 AM

    You are assuming that we can shutoff all of Chinas exports to the United States but history teaches us that even in total wars like WW2, a complete shutdown of trade is impossible. For example, in WW2 Nazi Germany, Ford and GM continued production, Coca Cola continued business and introduced Fanta and IBM made the punch card machines used for surveys of the Jewish population.
    The China tariffs are probably as effective at restricting trade as a real war because a complete lack of trade will never happen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsMay 4, 2025 at 9:35 AM

      "The China tariffs are probably as effective at restricting trade as a real war because a complete lack of trade will never happen."

      No. While you may be technically correct that even a war will not shut down absolutely 100% of China's trade (there's always Russia, for example, to trade with), the practical effect of the entire free world ceasing trade, physical blockades, financial war (banks and money transactions being frozen), and so on, would, for all practical purposes completely shut down China's trade.

      Our current tariffs are just a sideshow. Useful for negotiating but hardly an all-out effort to shut down China's global trade.

      In contrast, China would have no ability to shut down our trade. We would still have Europe and the entire free world to continue trading with since China has no ability to impose or enforce any kind of world wide cessation of trade or physical blockade.

      We get carried away with China's military build up without recognizing the extremely vulnerable position China is in regarding trade and global finance.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousMay 4, 2025 at 11:12 AM

      Things have been changing fast. Don't underestimate the impact of Russia-China-Iran-Kazakhstan links, not to mention the rest of BRICS. Were you aware that China got 90.4% of its oil imports from Russia last year? And with the completion of the five rail corridors using Russia and Kazakhstan, China no longer has to be as reliant on sea-based commerce and so would be less vulnerable to a naval blockade. With what we are seeing in the Red Sea, I question how effective a blockade could be established in any case. Shipping is at the level it is because of insurance costs, and in an opposed situation it is unclear how effective a blockade would be. There doesn't seem to be enough forces available to do this right.

      While in military terms China can't blockade the US, in practical civilian shipping terms it might not be that hard to scare Lloyd's etc to cancel insurance on anything destined for a US port. The US doesn't have the civilian hulls to remedy this on their own, but perhaps they could buy a fleet quickly or underwrite the insurance of foreigners. Most maritime shipping came from China anyway, and the tariffs will stop that.

      I suspect the tariffs are going to do about as good a job as you are going to get, which is not very good. China simply isn't as vulnerable to a shutdown in US trade as it once was. Seems to be general agreement that a full blown war in WestPac is not feasible at this time, and I don't see that getting better soon.

      Delete
    3. ComNavOpsMay 4, 2025 at 11:47 AM

      "oil imports from Russia"

      I'm well aware of oil and natural gas pipelines. Are you aware of how completely vulnerable a pipeline is to destruction? A single B-2 bomber on day one and no more pipelines. The same applies to rails.

      With overland pipelines and rails cut, China would be even more dependent on sea trade.

      "I question how effective a blockade could be established in any case"

      ????? The Red Sea fiasco has demonstrated just how easy it would be to establish a blockade! The Houthis, with almost no military resources and no global financial weapons, have managed to just about blockade the Red Sea. Reverse that scenario and turn our ships loose to sink merchant shipping and using financial firepower to intimidate shippers and there's a completely effective blockade. You might want to study the US submarine blockade against Japan in WWII.

      "scare Lloyd's etc to cancel insurance on anything destined for a US port. "

      Insurance is based on risk of loss. There would be no risk to shipping inbound to the US.

      Delete
    4. AnonymousMay 4, 2025 at 12:38 PM

      Fixing pipelines and railways is trivial. With the speed the Chinese build, even repairing bridges is not the problem it once was. The supply of B-2s is finite and small.

      "Reverse that scenario and turn our ships loose to sink merchant shipping and using financial firepower to intimidate shippers and there's a completely effective blockade. You might want to study the US submarine blockade against Japan in WWII."

      This is more interesting. Intimidating shippers will have the side effect of putting off potential allies. What would be the effect from sinking a few cargoes of Brazilian soybeans? Don't know. If the US starts a war like this, where will global opinion come down? Don't know. I don't see China starting a war soon, but again, who knows. They have 2035 as the first deadline in their force buildup, so perhaps sometime in that area is more likely?

      The Chinese own the merchant fleet. So you can't intimidate them like you could a foreign-owned fleet, they'll do what they're told. Financial firepower in the traditional sense doesn't come into it. China is doing credit swaps in native currencies to pay for goods, and the digital RMB is live and used among the BRICS countries. One of the big issues on the other side of the ledger is what will happen to the US ability to borrow if the bond market tanks, which it might if the Chinese get serious about unloading US debt.

      There is a very interesting discussion of these issues to be found below. Sean is Singaporean and has a pretty good grasp of the economic issues, including the economic risk and consequential activities of both sides.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYdNXk4VaEA

      It is not a given that the Chinese are incapable of sinking a few merchant ships. They are building both Nuke and AIP attack subs like crazy. To say there is no risk to inbound shipping to the US is incorrect.

      You might find the link below interesting. It is a discussion between a couple of highly qualified military/CIA analysts and is fresh this morning. Its applicable to several of your recent posts.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyKwkDxEosk

      While its not the Japan blockade, I have had the pleasure of diving on several civilian wrecks from the German U-boat campaign on the east coast. Submarines do a great job enforcing a blockade.

      Delete
    5. ComNavOpsMay 4, 2025 at 2:36 PM

      "Fixing pipelines and railways is trivial."

      Perhaps in peacetime when you're dealing with a broken valve or bent rail. However, in war, when you're dealing with giant craters as all that remains and blazing oil fires and it's out in the middle of nowhere with no easy access to repair equipment, it's another story. You might recall the oil rig fires after the Gulf War and how difficult they were to contain and put out? You might also recall the ease with which a repaired pipe or rail can be destroyed again. If once every month or so, a bomb or cruise missile needs to revisit the site, that's fine.

      " Intimidating shippers will have the side effect of putting off potential allies."

      ???? Why would intimidating enemy shippers have any side effect on allied shipping? We did exactly this in WWII and there were no 'side effects'. You're just making stuff up now.

      "they'll do what they're told."

      Even if that's true, the simplest solution is to blockade the ports of loading and/or prevent the cargo from being loaded in the first place. You're not thinking this through.

      Delete
    6. AnonymousMay 4, 2025 at 3:33 PM

      "Perhaps in peacetime when you're dealing with a broken valve or bent rail. However, in war, when you're dealing with giant craters as all that remains and blazing oil fires and it's out in the middle of nowhere with no easy access to repair equipment, it's another story. You might recall the oil rig fires after the Gulf War and how difficult they were to contain and put out? You might also recall the ease with which a repaired pipe or rail can be destroyed again. If once every month or so, a bomb or cruise missile needs to revisit the site, that's fine."

      Really? I was one one of the guys onsite when the Abqaiq GOSP blew up in 1977. I spent months with Halliburton on site fixing this mess as a project lead. I was there a year later when it happened again. I'm not sure if you have time on site, but I damn sure do.

      You need to understand that your view of the world is not what you see on Fox News. The rest of us have been out in the shit since the early 1970s. So yeah, about the time the Vietnam war was winding down.

      I almost ended up there, except the best angel said don't. I can't tell you how bad I wanted to be a helicopter pilot. Instead I spent 15 years offshore in the North Sea learning how to get the job done without killing anyone.

      Delete
    7. AnonymousMay 5, 2025 at 6:59 AM

      "???? Why would intimidating enemy shippers have any side effect on allied shipping? We did exactly this in WWII and there were no 'side effects'. You're just making stuff up now."

      These are not enemy shippers. They are neutral parties trying to make a living. In WWII Germany and Japan were very clearly a huge threat to pretty much everyone on the planet that wasn't German or Japanese. The same is not true with China today at anywhere close to the same level. China is just not seen a huge military threat to most countries.

      In addition, in WWII the US had not just slapped a bunch of punitive tariffs on all her potential allies. That has really poisoned the well. So now, if you go sinking a bunch of neutral merchant shipping, what do you think will happen? That's why I said "Don't know", because this situation has never happened before in modern times.

      "Even if that's true, the simplest solution is to blockade the ports of loading and/or prevent the cargo from being loaded in the first place. You're not thinking this through."

      You're absolutely right, but where are you going to find the forces to do all this? You have a lot more certainty about allies than I do, and you can't build your way out of it in any reasonable timeline. Fleet size is just too small to do everything that needs to be done. So I have thought it through.

      Delete
  8. WardMay 4, 2025 at 12:02 PM

    I don't know what the previously deleted comment about Tucker Carlson was, but I think any information source connected with him is suspect (remember his Putin interview and "Wow, Moscow is great!" video?).
    I did just a little bit of digging and quickly found:
    The dailycaller site says: "Outside a LED light manufacturing plant near Shanghai, thousands of unpaid workers shouted furiously at company managers over wages that haven’t been paid since January."
    But if you go to the site where the video is from, you can translate the description and it's NOTHING to do with workers protesting unpaid wages.
    "Female villagers beat war drums to protest against photovoltaic installation, guarding their homes and clashing with police (2025.04.29)"
    Maybe some of the rest of the article is accurate, but don't blindly assume it all is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsMay 4, 2025 at 12:17 PM

      Perhaps you prefer a completely different source: Protests

      I will use ANY source until it is proven wrong. I don't allow personal likes and dislikes of individuals to color my information sources. You might try the same.

      Since you seem to like researching, you might try researching Chinese protests and tariff impacts for yourself. There are dozens of stories and sources.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousMay 4, 2025 at 12:57 PM

      It appears the protests spiked to new highs BEFORE that tariffs kicked in and in fact before Trump returned to power. There is little doubt the tariffs will make this a lot worse. I think its way early to see the full effects of the tariffs either in China or the US. I expect that will take at least another couple of months to fully sink into the economies.

      I quite like Bloomberg, its seems pretty non-partisan. Its unfortunate that Freedom House got their funding for China Dissent Monitor pulled, it seems like they were doing good work.
      https://finance.yahoo.com/news/china-economic-protests-spiked-record-075312642.html

      "Cases of economic protest rose by 41% in the fourth quarter from the same period last year, according to data compiled by Freedom House’s China Dissent Monitor. The tally was the highest for a three-month period since the US advocacy group began documenting incidents in 2022.

      “The prolonged economic malaise in China is leading to accumulated social conflict and dissent by citizens,” according to their analysis.

      The discontent bodes ill for an economy now facing an onslaught of US tariffs as a result of a tit-for-tat escalation that saw Trump hike levies on most Chinese goods to as high as 145% this month. The surge in protests came even as gross domestic product clocked the fastest growth in six quarters as Beijing rolled out a blitz of stimulus support late last year."

      So it sounds like they were having problems already, and the tariffs will aggravate that much further. It also sounds like they use the level of dissent to judge how much stimulus to pump into the economy, and that this was budgeted for.

      Delete
    3. ComNavOpsMay 6, 2025 at 8:52 AM

      Yet another source, Redstate: "Protests After Tariff Induced Factory Closures"

      Delete
    4. ComNavOpsMay 8, 2025 at 8:28 AM

      Yet another source (see, "China Tariffs" from Newsmax website:

      "Mainstream media has consistently suggested that America has been adversely affected by the tariff war with China. However, some signs indicate China has suffered even greater damage.

      In China, trade and economic statistics have suddenly been taken offline, according to a recent Wall Street Journal article titled, "How Bad Is China's Economy? The Data Needed to Answer Is Vanishing."

      Delete
  9. G2milMay 4, 2025 at 4:09 PM

    This guy provides the best info on shipping. He says imports at the biggest west coast port (Los Angeles) will be 35% less in the coming week than one year ago.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43VMteILGOI

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousMay 5, 2025 at 7:25 AM

      That was really interesting. The "out of the horse's mouth" interview with the Port of LA boss was fascinating.

      Delete
  10. Brian OyarzoMay 4, 2025 at 7:09 PM

    Not to be rude but, if China chooses to withold certain materials from the US then substitutes are available. I've been a Manufacturing Engineer for over 35 years. Please think about how we built Apollo, Jet Engines in the 1950's. Or even the The shuttle when Tungsten Carbide inserts were not available? We used HSS
    or cobalt? Slower cutting and smaller cuts. US Engineers are very innovative and intelligent. I have worked with many. Necessity is the mother of invention remember especially under very critical circumstances.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousMay 5, 2025 at 2:12 AM

      That is PAST. See how terrible recent moon landing. Less and less bright youngsters choose STEM as their college majors. This has been going on for decades. Now, the nation just reaps results from this.

      I have been in manufacturing, worked in factories and then do outsourcing (different jobs). Lots of companies outsource their manufacturing to Asia. While I am still able to help our suppliers on how to make good products for my company, I saw engineers from another company simply cannot help on technical issues but only chase them with BOM asking cost down.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousMay 5, 2025 at 6:44 AM

      Too true.

      It's all fully automated machining centers now. I can just see what will happen in one of those if you don't have the proper cutters available. The old school machining skills are hard to find now. Not impossible, just hard. The vast majority of the people with the right skill sets are long retired and modern technology is quite different. I'm sure in a national emergency like a war you would get a lot of people to come back to work, but even the machinery you need is going to be very hard to find.

      The industry is built around super-hards these days, which has been true since at least the 1980s or even earlier. That's a long time to reach back to find a solution. Not quite as bad as looking for buggy-whip makers, but headed in that direction for sure!!

      Delete
  11. CDR ChipMay 4, 2025 at 7:24 PM

    China has seldom been a unified nation throughout its thousands of years of history. When it has been unified, it has generally been under foreign leadership--see Genghis and Kublai Khan. The reson for lack of unity is that it is basically a bunch of people who hate each other. The warlike Han in the north don't like the commercial/entrepreneurial Yangtze Valley, and neither of them gets along with the sub-tropical south. Not to mention Tibet and the Uyghurs in the west.

    So here's how the current regime holds it together. They export a lot of cheap consumer goods and use the cash flow to finance make-work projects of limited or no economic value, in order to keep the peasants too busy and occupied to revolt. Things that could go wrong with this model:
    1) If exports slow down and they don't have cash flow to fund the make-work projects, it all dies; that's why Trump's tariffs are a huge threat
    2) Because the make-work projects won't produce any income, Chinese banks are way overextended with non-performing receivables, several times as far overextended as USA banks were in 2008
    3) It all depends on massive amounts of energy imports, mostly from the MidEast, and because you can't really run a pipeline across the Himalayas, most of that imported oil and gas has to come by sea, through the Straits of Hormuz, around India, through either the Malacca or Sunda Straits, across the China Sea, and the Chinese navy (PLAN) is in no way able to protect those shipping lanes. They do get a fair amount from Russia, by pipe, and that amount is doubling with new pipeline construction, but that still leaves great dependence on the MidEast. The numbers I've seen show that China produces 10% of its oil and gas consumption domestically, gets 20% from Russia and 70% from the MidEast. If the Russian part doubles to 40%, that still leaves 50% to come from the MidEast. Whether 70% or 50%, or even 30% or 20%, loss of that supply would be a crippling blow.

    In case of war, if some combination of USN, RN, RAN, Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia blocked Malacca and Sunda, China could no longer get the MidEast oil it needs or get its exports to Europe and Africa. That would bring a quick end to the Chinese economy. And with that, the whole thing falls apart. The economy fails and the people starve. The army will be tied down full time trying to put down rebellions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousMay 5, 2025 at 6:33 AM

      Your numbers were valid even five years ago. Today, no. The "peasants" are mostly urban dwellers now, working in manufacturing or service jobs. China is mostly an internal domestic economy now. Exports are down to 20% of GDP. This was a deliberate pivot to reduce vulnerabilities that you rightly describe. The US is in the neighborhood of 15% of that 20% of GDP that comes from trade, or around 2.9% of total GDP. Shutting that off will be uncomfortable but not disastrous. Demand to replace that 2.9% can be stimulated internally, and has been planned for as already disclosed and publicly available. It should also be noted that despite problems, Chinese growth is around 5% while the US is now dipping slightly into negative numbers. The next two quarters will be telling.

      China has enormous foreign reserves. Before tariffs, they were building their US dollar reserves at $2B PER DAY. And they spent a fair amount of that buying T-bills, not just funding major infrastructure projects. So they hold over $700B in US govt bonds, second only to Japan's $1.1T. On top of this, they also have very large reserves in other denominations they can fall back on.

      Your so-called "make-work" projects are actually building out infrastructure like high speed rail, modern highways, pipelines, the PLAN and PLAAF. There is a certain amount of irony that we are actually paying for the military buildup.

      Current figures from last year are that 90.4% of oil imports are coming overland from Russia. The new pipelines and rail links have made a huge difference. The balance does mostly come from the Middle East, including Iran and Saudi, although Iran is shifting to overland now, either by pipeline or train through Kazakhstan.

      Food imports have also shifted patterns. A lot comes from Russia now, plus Brazil and other parts of South America. Canada exports some too, but amounts are way down now compared to previous years. The tariffs have pretty much shut US farmers out of Chinese markets which will have impacts later this year.

      I think you also hold an over-optimistic view of how alliances are going to hold up. China is by far Australia's largest customer and Australia just had an election seating a pretty moderate government again. Most of the rest you listed have very limited capabilities including the RN these days. The major navies besides the US in the region are SK and Japan of course, and its always hard to say how that is going to go if they are not directly attacked by China.

      Meanwhile, China exercises with Russia and Iran and has been since 2018. Hard to say how much that will help them or not, but its an indication of where interests lay.

      So if it comes to war, China is not too badly positioned unlike five or more years ago, particularly when you look at the PLAN and PLAAF buildup (unless you consider them to be incompetent which could be very dangerous).

      Delete
    2. ComNavOpsMay 5, 2025 at 7:56 AM

      "So they hold over $700B in US govt bonds,"

      Meaningless in a war since I'm pretty sure we wouldn't pay bond interest to the enemy.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousMay 5, 2025 at 8:25 AM

      I don't see paying interest as the issue. If China dumped those bonds before hostilities started, it would cause absolute havoc in the bond market. As you know, the US finances the federal government (including the military) in part through borrowing (issuing bonds). If trust in US T-bills craters, then a major source of government funding goes down with them. That is one of the things that is so dangerous about both the national debt and more importantly the deficit. And its not just an American problem, much of the west has the same issues, but perhaps not as critical.

      As you have rightly pointed out several times, full spectrum warfare is going to involve financial warfare and China is in an interesting position. And even though a bond crisis can probably be managed through, it creates a major distraction right at the time you can't afford any distractions.

      Delete
    4. AnonymousMay 5, 2025 at 3:58 PM

      With respect to CNO I won’t elaborate on Chinese politics. But just so everyone already knows- China poses MAD nukes; if and when its regime perceives its survival under threat (which is the most probable outcome of an all out war, wether gradually or all of sudden), we’ll be all dead, victors and vanquished alike.

      Delete
    5. AnonymousMay 5, 2025 at 4:00 PM

      Thank you. You have made a number of very insightful and informative comments; obviously you know what you are talking about.

      Delete
    6. JjabatieMay 7, 2025 at 11:46 AM

      "which is the most probable outcome of an all out war, wether gradually or all of sudden"

      Why is that the most probable outcome??? In a nuclear exchange, nobody wins and everyone knows that?? So why is it "most probable"??? It's more likely a "will never happen" ...

      Delete
    7. AnonymousMay 7, 2025 at 3:13 PM

      1. We have fought enemies who didn’t mind using own death as weapon, so self-survival is not a given.
      2. “Taiwan” is the ONLY scenario China will go all out in a war. Taiwan war, being only 100 miles from the mainland, will be conducted mostly from mainland China; therefore, U.S. counters to China will have to hit mainland targets (in other words, sinking Chinese naval ships hundreds miles away from Taiwan will not stop China from conquering the island). Attacking a fully capable, not war worn, MAD opponent’s homeland is inviting disaster.
      3. On the same token, to pre-empt such U.S. counters, China will have to hit Guam, Okinawa, S.Korea and the PH (US sovereign and treaty obligations). There will be no proxy fighting to slow down escalation.
      4. God forbid if we lose a number of capital ships with mass casualties. Our blood will boil (hence escalation).
      5. What do we want from fighting a peer war ( or any war)? Complete victory? regime change? Re-conquering Taiwan? What is realistically achieve-able outcome fighting a peer China?
      6. When both sides have MAD deadman’s switch, it’ll be homicide-by-suicide if one side is irrevocably losing an existential war. That’s just human nature.

      Delete
    8. ComNavOpsMay 7, 2025 at 4:05 PM

      "China poses MAD nukes; if and when its regime perceives its survival under threat (which is the most probable outcome of an all out war, wether gradually or all of sudden), we’ll be all dead"

      This is the LEAST likely outcome. Neither side has the slightest desire (or capability) to invade and occupy the other, hence there is no existential threat.

      Further, the Chinese dictator for life, whoever it would be at the time, when faced with defeat, will do as all dictators have throughout history and that is gather up their wealth and flee to another country to live a life of luxury. No dictator is going to choose certain death over a life of luxury in exile.

      I understand that there is a faction of people who are simply terrified of nuclear war to the point that they lose their ability to reason and no amount of logic can persuade them that the slightest offense will not end in nuclear devastation.

      Delete
    9. AnonymousMay 7, 2025 at 6:02 PM

      “ Neither side has the slightest desire (or capability) to invade and occupy the other, hence there is no existential threat.“ China is the size of lower-48, with industrial capacity 2-3x of ours and connected to our forever enemy Russia (as strategic and resource depth). What can a fleet of couple hundreds B-21s, conducting at least 20-hours missions carrying conventional payloads, accomplish? (we dropped more bomb tonnage in VN than in WW2). Also, our subs won’t do much after sinking Chinese ships (China is not an island; its domestic oil production at about 1.4m bpd is about same as our oil production at the height of WW2. Just for context, modern Japan’s domestic oil production is 4000 bpd.)

      Which baddies we defeated managed to abscond to “Switzerland”? Not Hitler/Tojo/OBL/Saddam/Noriega/Kadaffi.

      Delete
    10. ComNavOpsMay 8, 2025 at 5:52 AM

      "What can a fleet of couple hundreds B-21s,"

      This has been explained in previous posts. Please make use of the archives.

      "Which baddies we defeated managed to abscond to “Switzerland”?"

      Every dictator throughout history who was able to, ran for safety.

      You seem to want to argue rather than discuss and learn. Please review the Comment Policy page.

      Delete
    11. AnonymousMay 8, 2025 at 7:28 AM

      Ok, I will rephrase my point 6.
      We never turned Cold War1 into hot because USSR was MAD capable; NATO does not fight Russia (which invaded Ukraine) for the same calculation; NK’s Kim3 gets to thumb his nose against the world because he has a dozen nukes. Given the above, we already have three precedents why we did/do not fight against nuke (let along MAD) powers; why would the same concern not applicable in the China scenario? ( I’m not being argumentative, I genuinely can’t figure out on your end).
      Tim

      Delete
    12. ComNavOpsMay 8, 2025 at 8:22 AM

      "We never turned Cold War1 into hot because USSR was MAD capable"

      No, we never turned it into a hot war because the Soviets never initiated an assault on Europe/NATO and because wars are highly destructive and disruptive of economies. Our contingency war plan for the USSR was not to instantly give up because they had nukes. It was to fight and defeat them using conventional weapons.

      "NATO does not fight Russia (which invaded Ukraine) for the same calculation;"

      Again, no. NATO isn't fighting Russia (directly) over Ukraine because:

      1. There is no treaty reason to do so.
      2. Russia does not pose an existential threat to Europe/NATO.
      3. Wars are highly destructive and disruptive to economies.

      "NK’s Kim3 gets to thumb his nose against the world because he has a dozen nukes."

      No. It's because NK is just a minor annoyance not an existential threat to anyone and, therefore, not worth the destruction of an actual war.

      "why would the same concern not applicable in the China scenario?"

      The same concerns EXACTLY apply to China. If/when China becomes an existential threat (there's valid arguments that they already are) or initiates a war (a Taiwan invasion, as China has been threatening to do for many years now), then we'll go to war.

      You seem to lack an accurate historical understanding of the rationale surrounding war. You would benefit greatly from study of the circumstances surrounding war or potential war.

      Delete
    13. AnonymousMay 8, 2025 at 11:44 AM

      Taiwan is not a mutual defense treaty obligation; in fact, we don’t even recognize it as a country. One other argument that Taiwan’s chip industry is indispensable to our technology survival (which one can make it an existential issue for us), but we’re in the process “on shoring” TSMC ( which already invested $60B last 4 years with high end production run this year, and will invest another $100B next 4 years, essentially will make all American chips domestically) so that issue is going away.

      In sum: no treaty obligation, no recognition of Taiwan as sovereign, no existential US dependency on Taiwan in another 3-4 years, with China doe ( and likely to be successful eventually ) to rest of east Asia is thru non-war means; Taiwan is being “ Ukrainized “ ( An European democracy invaded by Russia, has no defense treaty to obligate NATO, the west has no existential dependency on Ukraine, and Russia is on the road to “re-unify” the breakaway Ukraine into sphere of Greater Russia ( w/ Ukraine not getting strong backing from us anymore).
      Tim

      Delete
    14. ComNavOpsMay 8, 2025 at 12:30 PM

      The Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 does not obligate the US to participate in active defense of Taiwan but it does commit the US to substantial defense support. From the Act,

      "The act states that "the United States will make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability" and "shall maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan"

      Of course, Taiwan has potentially great strategic significance for the US as it provides a forward "base" for monitoring and combatting China as they attempt to expand their reach outside the first island chain.

      It is, indeed, an open question as to whether the US would respond to an invasion of Taiwan if that were the only Chinese action. Of course, if China were to attack, say, Guam as part of an assault on Taiwan, that would be a de Facto declaration of war by China against the US and would set the precedence of being able to attack the other's sovereign territory.

      Delete
    15. AnonymousMay 8, 2025 at 4:34 PM

      That’s certainly an interesting short-to-mid term strategic dilemma for China: to ensure Taiwan conquest and own force protection they must take out aforementioned targets beforehand. Otoh, to risk Taiwan war without force protection guarantee (not hitting those targets beforehand), it requires Putin’s gambling mentality AND certainty that PLA can withstand first strike from us and still take the island.

      Therefore, it seems China’s most probable military option (take Taiwan, but not initiating US-China war) is to build such overwhelming advantage that Taiwan presents a lost cause to us militarily.

      Delete
  12. ComNavOpsMay 5, 2025 at 5:47 PM

    From a Daily Caller article,

    "American manufacturers are seeing a surge in demand as President Donald Trump’s tariffs force companies to reconsider doing business in China.

    Trump’s tariffs, including a 145% levy on Chinese goods, are causing American-made products to be more competitive in the market. As a result, many small and medium manufacturers are experiencing a surge in demand and are preparing to ramp up production and hire new workers."

    ReplyDelete
  13. RapidrockyMay 9, 2025 at 2:41 PM


    Love this blog and have been reading without comment for some time. My comment now is simple - I will no longer read ANY "Anonymous" comments. This sure makes the blog more comprehensive and comprehensible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsMay 11, 2025 at 6:03 PM

      "reading without comment for some time"

      Try commenting. You obviously have the interest. Put it to use!

      Delete

Comments will be moderated for posts older than 7 days in order to reduce spam.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)