sachs336_XinhuaLi Xueren via Getty Images_xi jinping

Politics

Por que os EUA deveriam buscar a cooperação com a China

Feb 25, 2021 Jeffrey D. Sachs

NOVA YORK – A política externa dos EUA desde a Segunda Guerra Mundial tem se baseado em uma ideia simples, talvez melhor expressa pelo presidente George W. Bush após os ataques terroristas de 11 de setembro de 2001: ou você está conosco ou contra nós. Os Estados Unidos deveriam liderar, os aliados deveriam acompanhar e ai dos países que se oponham à sua primazia.

A ideia era tanto simples como simplista. E hoje está ultrapassada: os Estados Unidos não enfrentam inimigos implacáveis, não lideram mais uma aliança arrebatadora e têm muito mais a ganhar com a cooperação com a China e outros países do que com o confronto.

O ex-presidente Donald Trump foi uma caricatura grotesca da liderança dos EUA. Ele lançou insultos, ameaças, tarifas unilaterais e sanções financeiras para tentar forçar outros países a se submeterem às suas políticas. Ele rasgou o manual das regras multilaterais. Mesmo assim, a política externa de Trump enfrentou extraordinariamente pouca resistência dentro dos EUA. Havia mais consenso do que oposição às políticas anti-China de Trump, e pouca resistência às sanções contra o Irã e a Venezuela, apesar de suas catastróficas consequências humanitárias.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Secure your copy of PS Quarterly: The Year Ahead 2023

Our annual fourth-quarter magazine is here, and available only to Digital Plus and Premium subscribers. Subscribe to Digital Plus today, and save $15.

Subscribe Now

Jeffrey D. Sachs

Writing for PS since 1995
354 Commentaries

Jeffrey D. Sachs, University Professor at Columbia University, is Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University and President of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. He has served as adviser to three UN Secretaries-General, and currently serves as an SDG Advocate under Secretary-General António Guterres. His books include The End of Poverty, Common Wealth, The Age of Sustainable Development, Building the New American Economy, A New Foreign Policy: Beyond American Exceptionalism, and, most recently, The Ages of Globalization.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 25 Comments on this article

David Punabantu Mar 25, 2021

The reality about China and the US is that for cooperation to exist, fundamental changes to deal with flaws in the global economy.
China and the US have two different economic approaches and the only way is to reconcile them to create a new global economy that will create global wealth.
Understanding the economic differences between China and the US is clearly noted in what former editor of the Financial Times Mr Geoffrey Crowther wrote in his book "An Out Line of Money" in that "if a purchaser is someone who wants D-marks in order to pay for German exports, the fact that he can get his D-marks cheap is equivalent to a reduction in the price of exports; it will stimulate sales in exactly the same way as an ordinary depreciation of the exchange rate" (Crowther (1951) p.260).
US economic policy as epitomised by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has been "an ordinary exchange depreciation" to stimulate US dollar inflows. The Chinese economic policy has been a "reduction in the price of exports" as epitomised by cheap Chinese products exported globally.
It is against this that China's wealth is US dollar based and measured in US dollars.
However the key factor in China's economic success is in what Mr Geoffrey Crowther implies being D-marks buying German goods. This is the corner stone of a market system and expressed the underlyinging axioms of the Supply and Demand Doctrine as propounded by Adam Smith. Adam Smith's Supply and Demand Doctrine is based on British goods being bought by the British Sterling pounds whose supply and demand of both sets a price. If a German wanted British goods they would first have to use their D-marks to buy the British Sterling pounds and use these pounds to buy British goods. This is the process China has followed. Although Chinese firms quote in US dollars the final payment settlement for Chinese firms is in Chinese Renminbi because their foreign currency regulations.
Therefore it is Chinese Renminbi buying Chinese goods much like Mr Geoffrey Crowther wrote German D-marks buying German goods.
This Chinese economic policy is not new but was once used by mining companies.
As noted as late as April 1966 Roan Selection Trust (RST) and Anglo American Corporation (AAC) sold Zambian copper at £336 per ton under a producer price system, while the LME price was at £753 per ton.
Then the 1966 economic growth rate was robust, well above seven per cent and a strong Kwacha parity existed, US$2.80 per Kwacha. Zambian copper was sold in its local currency at a "reduction in the price of exports" as compared to the London Metal Exchange price quoted in US dollars. Naturally the Zambian government believed the LME British Sterling pounds value was far superior and opted to directly sell their copper to the LME that bans the use of the Kwacha, the local currency of Zambia, but only allows the US dollar, Sterling pound, Euro, Japanese Yen and recently the Chinese Renminbi as the only accepted currencies. In effect the underlyinging axioms of the supply and demand doctrine were ignored.
This now brings in the issue of the US dollar's "exorbitant privilege" of directly buying exports of other countries without the participation of the national currencies to determine the supply and demand and hence the exchange rate.
The supply and demand of the US dollar in national money markets has thus been driven to inhibit the flow of US dollars back to the US through trade to alleviate the Triffin Dilemma, which in turn China through its economic policy of price reduction has captured.
The US dollar has been chained by the IMF fixed cross rates which in turn has sacrificed the US productivity and its global market.
Evidence of this is clearly noted in the IMF fixed cross rates. For example the IMF fixed cross rates on the 28th of May 2020 gave the exchange rate between the two trans-Atlantic nations as US$1 equal to £1.2284. When looking at the Euro the value of the US dollar and Sterling pound in Euro respectively is €0.91027 and €1.11826 giving a IMF fixed cross rate of 1.2284 which mimics the exchange rate of the two trans-Atlantic nations of the UK and USA.
The South African Rand shows a similar picture being ZAR17.4053 per US dollar, and ZAR21.3813 per British Sterling pound giving a cross rate when the two figures are divided of 1.2284. Similarly the North Korea Won with KPW165.848 per Sterling pound against KPW135 per US dollar gives a cross rate of 1.2284. South Korea gives a similar picture. KRW1,517.51 per Sterling pound against KRW1,235.32 per US dollar when divided together gives a cross rate of 1.2284. The Japanese Yen shows the same picture with JYP132.25 per Sterling pound and JYP107.65 per US dollar when divided together gives 1.2284. The Canadian dollar also shows the same image being CAD1.69181 per Sterling pound and CAD1.37721 per US dollar that gives a cross rate of 1.2284. The Indian Rupee at INR92.4590 per Sterling pound and INR75.2657 when divided gives 1.2284 which is the exchange rate between the US and UK.
Even the Chinese Renminbi at CNY8.9449 per Sterling pound against CNY7.15910 per US dollars gives a cross rate of 1.2284. Zambia with ZMK22.1715 per Sterling pound against ZMK17.925 per US dollar gives the same picture.
The question that arises from this is does North Korea have exactly in its money markets the same US dollar and Sterling liquidity to equal the cross rates as determined by the IMF? Does Zambia, Canada, Japan, South Korea, China, India to name a few countries have everyday day in and day out the same liquidity of Sterling pounds and US dollars in their money markets to justify the value given to the IMF fixed cross rates.
To create value free floating cross rates are needed whose value is actually based on existing currency liquidities within each country's money as a function of trade.
Such a condition existed as recounted by the IMF managing director Mr. M. Gutt at Harvard University on the 13th February 1948, when he presented a paper entitled The Practical Problem of Exchange Rates.
Then as Tew records, the official direct Sterling-US dollar rate ruling in Britain and the United States is one Sterling pound to US$4, but the Lira-Sterling and Lira-US dollar direct rates are such that the Sterling pound-US dollar cross-rate in Italy is one Sterling pound to US$2.6. (Tew Brain (1967) p.79)
Americans found it cheaper to purchase goods from the UK via Italy until the IMF stepped in and imposed the IMF fixed cross-rate system in favour of the UK and not Italy nor the US.
It is here a CHEAP US DOLLAR in certain markets would equally compete with cheap Chinese goods and stimulate US dollar inflows into the US and thus enhance US productivity. The picture that emerges, for example, may see Zambia having trade surplus with Japan . This creates an exchange rate of ¥1,000 per K1 as Japan uses her Yen to purchase Kwachas, Zambia ’s national currency.
To this, Japan uses the purchased Kwachas to buy copper, against which Zambia accumulates Yen in its market.
Although the exchange rate in Zambia for the US dollar, based on Zambia' s market liquidity may be K8 per US dollar, in Japan it may well be ¥200 per US dollar as Japan trades more with United States of America than Zambia .
If a citizen in Zambia wanted to import an iphone X from the United States of America pegged at US$500, it would be cheaper to buy the iphone X via Japan , but this would in turn affect market liquidities in both the Zambia and Japan money markets and hence exchange rates as exchange arbitrage operations occur.
As the iphone X is valued at US$500 in Zambia in Kwacha terms based on its K8 per US dollar rate it would cost K4,000, but through Japan the cost of the iphone X would be ¥100,000 at ¥200 per US dollar, being through Zambia ’s Kwacha/Yen exchange rate at ¥1,000 per K1 be worth K100, which is equal in US dollars based on Zambia's US dollar/Kwacha exchange rate at US$12.50.
At US$12.50 for an iphone X, the United States of America would be on an equal footing to deal with another country called China with its cheap exports unless China’s cross-rates are lower in the countries China/ United States of America /Zambia exchange rate configurations.
It would then be a question of quality and finding the best value in currency arbitrage operations. The United States of America would still get its US$500 irrespective of the value step up or step down and the problem of external disequilibrium is addressed provided each country settled its exports in its national currencies. It is here that the US deals with its Triffin Dilemma and gets back the cash from the stimulus packages that found its way out of the US back to the US to build the US dollar's value and economy.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j victor1789 Feb 28, 2021

I'm no hawk, nor a war monger. I'm not even a Republican, or haven't been one for quite a long time now.

The problem with China is its size, and the indisputable fact, supported by 40 years of hard data, that China is on its way to catch up with the developed world and then, by sheer demographics, it will become a Hegemon of such monumental proportion that its power will choke the free development of all other nations. The US first copied and then improved and finally surpassed the British, just as the British did to the Spanish and Portuguese. Each succeeding empire has been more powerful and also more domineering than their predecessors, simply because of technological progress.

To those who say that Washington has abused, killed, caused sorrow and arrested the development of plenty of nations worldwide, I would answer that they are right. But wait till the Chinese, with a population 4 times that of the US, reach American per capita income levels- and why shouldn't they: Hong Kong did, Taiwan is almost there and Singapore has surpassed America by far already. By then Beijing will outclass any US-led alliance two to one- and probably such alliances will have melted away in any case way before then.

There is a human reflex called cowardice. It helps save the individual to live another day. But for nations it only aggravates problems over time. Clinton could have forced the reunification of the Korean peninsula back in the early 1990s, when Russia had a compliant Yeltsin and China was still a poor nation dependent on exports to the US. But he was a coward, enabled to choose the easy path of inaction by the cover provided by the well-meaning Carter, and look at the result: North Korea, a nation with an economy the size of Guatemala's, has H-bombs and ICBMs, and submarines capable of launching atomic-tipped cruise missiles are on their way, ready to destroy the US economic and political fabric any day Rocketman is urged to do so by Beijing. There is no MAD equilibrium when you have on one side NYC and the Bay Area and people who vote and on the other insignificant towns that were already leveled to the ground during the first Korean War while the grandfather of the current God-King hid on the mountains.

China will grow to devour the planet, not necessarily because of its political system, but simply because of its size. Arresting its development will be hard, if not impossible, with the tools currently in use. To divide China in semi-autonomous provinces will help the rest of humankind breathe easier. America has behaved in oppressive ways during the XX and early XXI century -Korea, Latin America, Vietnam, Indonesia, the Middle East...- Just imagine how nefarious will China be when they become four times wealthier than the US.

China has to be stopped from becoming an all-powerful Hegemon now that this is still possible, however hard. In a few years’ time it will simply be too late: by then Mr. Jeffrey Shachs will be busy learning how to write an essay in Chinese thanking Beijing for enlightening the World.
- j victor1789 Feb 28, 2021
  
  @ Susan Robinson:
  
  The US was founded on anti-imperialist (1776) and Enlightenment ideas, and yet plenty of mischief was done by Washington. Nations with the historical background of being societies where absolute rulers always did as they pleased with their subjects, on top of potentially becoming, because of population size, several times more powerful than the US ever was, are bound to be far more abusive towards the rest of the world, the majority of medium and small-sized nations on the planet.
  
  The sons of Rousseau and Montesquieu leveled North Korea to the ground in the 1950s, killed 2 million Vietnamese in the 60s and 70s and turned Central America into a Murder Fest from the 1980s to this very day. Once they become more powerful than the US ever was, should we expect better from the heirs of Genghis Kahn and Tamerlane?
  
  Look at Mao and his "Cultural Revolution": 2% of the Chinese population killed and untold suffering inflicted on all “citizens” just because of the whim of a handful of illuminated rulers. Pol Pot killed one in four Cambodians. What is happening today to the Uighurs in Sinkiang can happen tomorrow on a vaster scale to anyone. Regarding India, a nation divided by rivers of blood on account of religious intolerance, it has the democratic advantages of its heterogeneous population and federal system of government; still, just four years ago its president announced that in six hours’ time, all banknotes worth 7 US dollars or more would be worthless, and people could only exchange old notes for new debit cards to the tune of 50 dollars per person during the following days. In retrospect, India's demonetization push was a fiasco, but it is the intention that counts: the Indian government ultimately failed to be an absolute monetary tyrant, but not for lack of trying. With better technology and greater power concentration, we could see as much government abuse in India as in China: Delhi just isn't powerful enough yet, and let's hope it never will.
  
  The best outcome for a World in which no nation should be strong enough to abuse others -and its own population- is one in which no such nations are allowed to grow into becoming hegemonic tyrants, either by subduing their economic catching up, which would be unfair to their inhabitants, or by dismembering them into smaller, less dangerous political units.
  
  What is the use for an average Chinese for Beijing to accumulate unrivaled power if his very government can deprive him or her from their property, liberty and life at the stroke of a pen? Wouldn’t it be better if China was administered by competing regional governments so that the abuses committed in one could be contested by its people moving their wealth and persons onto other jurisdictions? In fact that right has been surreptitiously seized already by those on the top of the Chinese (and Indian) pyramids, who send their kids to study and open “second homes” abroad and stash their money in countries where the long arm of their abusive governments can’t reach.
  
  Nations must exist to benefit its peoples, not the other way around, which has been the tragic norm throughout history. Nationalism is often but a dangerous and self-defeating disease. If a continental Chinese dislikes his system of Government, he could in the past cross into Hong Kong, or now has the chance to try to move to Taiwan- hard but not utterly impossible. Once Taiwan is “gloriously re-incorporated into the motherland”…where will he go? To Moscow like the noble Snowden? And as China’s reach grows and grows, only Antarctica will be left, and it is somewhat inhospitable and desolate. Perhaps he can volunteer for a future mission to the bleach-covered dunes of airless Mars.
  
  It is in the interest of every freedom-loving person on our planet for no new hegemons to ever rise again, particularly the gigantic, abusive and pyramidal-run kind.
  The best scenario for everybody is a China that becomes a loose confederation of provinces united by self-defense ties but with provincial sovereignty and a competing market of local legal frameworks. Anathema to Beijing mandarins, bud a godsend to regular people firstly in China and also in the rest of the World.
  - Paul Friesen Mar 1, 2021
    
    I'm not convinced. I think there is a great deal of wisdom in Thomas Hobbes' idea of a "Leviathan". A strong power has an incentive to maintain order for the sake of its own well-being, and that order benefits even those who are controlled by it. I'm not convinced that China or India will be more of a problem than the U.S. has been. Here in Canada, domination by the U.S. has not been entirely a bad thing, but if I lived in Vietnam or Iraq, I might feel differently.
    
    Domination of the world by a strong China will, I am sure, have its problems. Some people are going to suffer. But domination by a weak and divided China could well be more chaotic and, on balance, worse.
    - j victor1789 Mar 1, 2021
      
      Depends on what kind of order you are looking forward to, or rather willing to put up with.
      
      Washington-imposed order has been remarkably benign for Canada, but as you pointed out, the SE Asian and Latin American countries have endured a much rougher deal. Look at Venezuela: they would rather be poor than give in and allow a Washington-anointed leader to take over. And they were a first-world nation by income just one generation ago. There are plenty of other examples.
      
      Do you really believe that a government such as China's, that has forced its own population to have only one child for decades under penalty of forced abortion; that aims to keep a social credit score upon which to allow not just what kind of job you have and what school your kid goes to, but even what train to what city you can take; a system that sends entire ethnic groups to prison camps and forces the victim's families to take in Han Chinese free boarders cum political officers so that they can spy on them from within their own homes...do you expect such a government to behave better than the heirs of Jefferson and Franklin did?
      
      Just the opposite will happen: once it has enough power, the CCP will organize a totalitarian surveillance state rivaling the worst dystopian nightmares ever concocted by mankind.
      - Paul Friesen Mar 1, 2021
        
        I think you are far too hard on China. There are things about China I do not like, but there are things about the U.S. that I do not like, too. In fact, I would see the two as roughly equivalent in the number of things I do not like.
        
        I don't think you would find many Chinese today who would like to trade their government for that of the U.S. They know that their system handled both the 2008 financial crisis and the covid pandemic far better than the U.S. did, due to the ability of its leaders to act decisively. And in both cases, they reacted rationally and in the interest of the people. They might not always do that in the future, but today, at least, Chinese government decision making looks pretty good.
        
        You talk about the one child policy. With 20-20 hindsight, I would agree that the policy was an over-reaction, that the birth rate has declined naturally with growing prosperity. It did unnecessary harm. But at the time the policy was created, this was much less clear. The leadership felt it was facing a crisis of over-population and took a radical step to confront it. I am sure that they felt this was necessary to protect the future well-being of their people, and they had reason to think so. There is something to be said for a system that can make a radical decision like that, even if it does not always get it right. In the two cases I mentioned above, they did get it right.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
      A new reply to this comment has been posted.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Susan Robinson Feb 28, 2021
  
  China’s population is 1.43 billion.
  India’s population is 1.38 billion.
  India has higher fertility rate, so India’s population will soon be bigger than China.
  
  All nations (big or small, India, China, Nigeria, etc.) have every right to develop to lift hundreds and hundreds of millions out of poverty, starvation and malnutrition, create wealth and living in peace and stability.
  
  You (or anyone for that matter) have no right to stop any country to develop to lift themselves out of poverty, create wealth.
  
  And the world cares about per-capita emissions:
  For CO2 emissions, here are CO2 emissions (in tons per capita) for some countries:
  Australia = 16.8, US = 16.1, Canada =16.1, South Korea = 13.6, Russia =12.1, Japan = 9.4, China = 8.0
  
  We cannot ignore inequality between countries, within countries and between women and men if we truly want to eradicate poverty and hunger.
  
  Now is the golden opportunity for nations (big or small, India, China, Nigeria, etc.) to embark on sustainable economic developments, build infrastructure, develop human capital, create jobs to lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty (with the help of global trade in which they use their respective comparative advantage (a country's ability to produce a particular good or service at a lower opportunity cost) to specialize, then trade with one another).
  
  There are many global problems (climate change, etc.) that need all countries accepting and respecting each other's system of government, and focus on cooperation and areas of global agreement that can be reached, we need all countries to work cooperatively to solve the global problems.
  - Paul Friesen Feb 28, 2021
    
    I think you are exactly right. I am sure that China and India will be the big powers of the next century. I think they are likely to be no worse at it than the U.S. has been.
    
    There are certainly things I don't like about China. Its treatment of the Uighurs is certainly not something I support. But it needs a bit of perspective. Within my lifetime, my own country, Canada, did something very similar to our own native people. Children were taken from their parents and put into residential schools to try to integrate them into "white" society through "education". Many were subjected to horrible conditions and many died. As we lecture China on its behaviour, we should remember things like that.
    
    And while China is behaving pretty unreasonably to some of its close neighbours, it has, so far, not shown much tendency to invade small countries on the other side of the globe and leave them in flames.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Susan Robinson Feb 27, 2021

There are many countries, many races, many cultures and many languages in the world, so peaceful coexistence and cooperation is the only way to achieve peace and prosperity.

Since 1978, China has a series of far-reaching market-economy reforms, China no longer follows communist command economic system and the bulk of China’s astonishing growth has come through the liberalization of its private sector.

The 3 sources of long-term economic growth are physical capital, human capital, and technological progress, so encouraging and facilitating these 3 sources are a high priority.

China’s economy has grown faster for longer than any other country on record (averaging almost 10 percent a year since 1978). China’s growth rate has slowed down since its peak some years ago but China has continued making an outsize contribution to powering global economic expansion and has reduced poverty in this process. China has generated almost one-third of total global growth since the 2008-2009 financial crisis.

China is learning/ emulating other countries (like Singapore, South Korea) to embark on economic developments, build infrastructure, develop human capital, create jobs... not communist command economic system anymore...

Given China's enormous size and complexities, China is doing many things right that have brought peace and prosperity to hundreds and hundreds of millions of people.

US per capita GDP = 65000 USD, China per capita GDP = 10000 USD, so you can see the very large gap that China is lagging behind....

With hundreds and hundreds of millions of people living in poverty for so many decades, China desperately wants to learn/ emulate other countries (like Singapore, South Korea) to embark on sustainable economic developments, build infrastructure, develop human capital, create jobs, continuously to increase productivity to lift these hundreds and hundreds of millions of people out of poverty....so, you can see the scale and appreciate the full enormity of these efforts which have enabled China's GDP growth to average almost 10 percent a year since 1978, and more than 850 million people have been lifted out of poverty, an admirable record of poverty reduction. China has continued to make a disproportionately large contribution to the pace of global growth.

But China's per capita GDP is still very low (compared to rich countries), so China still has a lot of room and potential for further GDP growth.

We need to appreciate these determined efforts to end poverty and hunger to ensure that people can fulfil their potential through sustainable consumption and production, managing the natural resources sustainably so that we can support the needs of the present and future generations, ensuring that people can enjoy prosperous and fulfilling lives and that economic, social and technological progress occurs to bring shared prosperity.

Even at the best of times, economic developments, infrastructure building, human capital developments can be very difficult let alone in countries inflicted with violence/chaos or being undermined by others constantly.

No one will invest in a business if rioting mobs are destroying it. So we do need peace and stability to create certainty and confidence that will encourage investments, human capital developments, jobs creation to help to eradicate poverty and hunger, expanding the richness of human life in shared prosperity.

We also cannot ignore inequality between countries, within countries and between women and men if we truly want to eradicate poverty and hunger.

Why global trade?
The key is opportunity cost, specialization and trade that will make larger quantities of goods and services available to consumers, so we’ve more of more (and most) goods/services available which, on balance, will deliver more advantages than costs—lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty and benefiting consumers in countries rich and poor.

Global trade allows different countries to take advantage of their respective comparative advantage (a country's ability to produce a particular good or service at a lower opportunity cost than its trading partners bearing in mind that opportunity cost is the true cost of doing something) and then, by trading these goods/services among themselves, every trading partner is better off.

Indeed, knowing that there are gains from trade with increase of consumer surplus and producer surplus (the pie grows bigger and bigger) that make the trade-participating countries better off, all countries need to work cooperatively to achieve win-win outcomes, but there are some people (far too many) adopting antagonistic approach to scuttle these efforts to achieve win-win outcomes.

In the last few years, President Trump’s unilateralism and destructive behaviors have deliberately weakened the rules-based, multilateral trading system, making the WTO’s Appellate Body dysfunctional (refusal to approve new judges to fill vacancies), imposing illegal sanctions, etc.

Hence US (new President) and leaders of other countries must begin to address the systemic and underlying trade issues as soon as possible—for the good of the world as well as for individual affected countries rich and poor – through negotiations.

With market-economy reforms fuelling China economic growth, there will be more and more opportunities being created making China an economic engine complementing the US economic engine and this is a good thing as we’ve 2 big economic engines powering the global economy, enhancing global economic stability, creating opportunities for countries around the world to take advantage of these opportunities to trade among themselves based on individual country’s comparative advantage that will make every trade-participating country better off…

Given the large size of US economy (GDP 21 trillions USD) and China economy (GDP 14 trillions USD, this GDP is even bigger in purchasing power parity term), the US economic cycle is likely not the same as economic cycle in China, this is important as the complementarity of these 2 large economies will smooth out the overall global economy, avoiding extreme economic ups/downs (like global recessions).

If the Eurozone is able to overcome their difficulty and achieve good growth, the Eurozone will be the 3rd big economic engine powering the global economy which is even better as we’ll have 3 big economic engines driving the global economy (Ideally, Eurozone should have fiscal union but the rich Eurozone countries resent subsidizing poorer Eurozone members with high unemployment and government-debts. Without fiscal union, the Eurozone continues to face inherent risk and difficulty)…

India (population 1.4 billion, per capita GDP = 2000 USD), Indonesia (population 273 million, per capita GDP = 3900 USD), Nigeria (population 214 million, per capita GDP = 2000 USD), Brazil (population 212 million, per capita GDP = 8900 USD) also have large populations with very low per capita GDP, they also have a lot of room and potential for further GDP growth. If these countries can carry out the necessary reforms, embark on sustainable economic developments, build infrastructure, develop human capital, create jobs to lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty (with help of global trade), these countries will be the additional engines driving the global economy further complementing the 3 engines (US, EU and China) to smooth out the overall global economy

We need all countries to work cooperatively to accomplish win-win outcome, unilateralism and bullying will not work.

All countries should have good relationship with one another to create peace and stability to allow all countries to develop, to eradicate poverty and hunger, create wealth (growing the pie bigger) and to bring shared prosperity to the people.

So, indeed, there are many global problems (climate change, etc.) that need all countries accepting and respecting each other's system of government, and focus on cooperation and areas of global agreement that can be reached.

People must be objective, understanding and assessing things/issues based on facts.

Poverty is a serious problem in many countries (including US having problem of inequality, racism and poverty, among others).

After 42 years of economic developments, building infrastructure and developing human capital, China has a lot of experience/ knowledge to share and help other countries fighting poverty and this should be welcomed as there are more than 700 millions people in the world still live in poverty, so we cannot be complacent to fight and eliminate poverty around the world.

BRI is part of the initiatives to help to fight poverty in many countries in Asia and elsewhere (remember there are more than 700 millions people in the world still live in poverty and I hope everyone agrees that these 700+ millions people have every right to lift themselves out of poverty, so we cannot be complacent.)

With international cooperation and global efforts to combat poverty worldwide, we can look forward to the day when poverty is eliminated sooner rather than later.

There are many races, many cultures and many languages in the world, so it is important for all these peoples to co-exist peacefully (we do not want wars let alone nuke war) whilst not imposing one's own values/systems on others and not interfering internal affairs of other countries.

This is a multilateral world governed by UN Charter, so all countries (and their systems of governments) should co-exist mutually and peacefully and all countries are protected by UN Charter.

Any countries that attack/invade illegally (like US/NATO attacking Iraq, Libya, etc. which are war crimes) must be brought to justice to uphold the rule of law.

We need all countries to work cooperatively to accomplish peace and prosperity, unilateralism and bullying will not work.

All countries (and their systems of governments) can co-exist mutually without interfering internal affairs of another countries and they can work cooperatively to resolve their differences to accomplish peace and prosperity.

Given the global challenges that all countries are facing (combating terrorism, avoiding wars (including nuclear war); ending poverty, reducing economic inequality, cooperating to stave off the catastrophic consequences of climate change, etc. —all countries must cooperate and work together to create a better world in these respects. The ideal way to work together is not to increase tensions with one another but to increase global cooperation to find common interests with realism and idealism to achieve common goals that will lead to a better and healthier world.

For CO2 emissions, here are CO2 emissions (in tons per capita) for some countries:
Australia = 16.8, US = 16.1, Canada =16.1, South Korea = 13.6, Russia =12.1, Japan = 9.4, China = 8.0

For RE (Renewable Energy), here are some data:
United States: Total electricity = 4,322,038 GWh, Total RE = 637,076 GWh, RE % of total = 14.7%
Japan: Total electricity = 1,057,976 GWh, Total RE = 158,822 GWh, RE % of total = 15.0%
China: Total electricity = 7,142,200 GWh, Total RE = 1,739,400 GWh, RE % of total = 24.35%
Germany: Total electricity = 514,860 GWh, Total RE = 237,610 GWh, RE % of total = 46.2%
India: Total electricity = 1,550,564 GWh, Total RE = 261,790 GWh, RE % of total = 16.88%
Australia: Total electricity = 256,563 GWh, Total RE = 37,205 GWh, RE % of total = 14.5%
Canada: Total electricity = 667,438 GWh, Total RE = 433,597 GWh, RE % of total = 65.0%
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
David Lentz Feb 26, 2021

I like this article as it highlights the idea not to assume conflict is inherent. America seems unable to even see its own internal contradictions. When you consider the treatment of indigenous Americans how can America criticize any other country. And that is not even mentioning the slave trade, incarceration etc.
So why not seek cooperation? Or is subjugation of everyone not white required
It’s a sad view of the world
The sentence mentioned embracing Europeans as a policy of the new administration
But Europe is white
Is it subtle white supremacy
Who knows
After what happened in Texas with the power failures, Covid nationwide there is a lot of work to do in America
And it will get worse
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Dolf Townsend Feb 26, 2021

So nice to see that liberal side of the political spectrum wants to get chummy with the genocidal maniacs in Beijing.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Raighne Delaney Feb 26, 2021

This is outmoded thinking. I cannot believe you would even publish it. Should we cooperate in the genocide in Xinjiang, the suppression of Tibet, the breaking of an international treaty with Hong Kong, the treaty with the Vatican, the suppression of the entire Mainland population by technical means, or should we just go ahead and cooperate full out on a CPP invasion of Taiwan? Cooperation has been tried and failed. It is time for confrontation.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Leo Arouet Feb 26, 2021

It's a naive point of view of Sachs. Think that China will work the United States on several areas is wrong. You have seen how China has broken its commitments in last decades.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Bill Halcott Feb 26, 2021

I would not call it cooperation. I would call it competition.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Sing Koo Feb 25, 2021

Author is right to point out the domestic problems facing America. America's China Policy over the past decades is casual to problems in America's domestic governance. It is time for America to harden its China Policy and re-gain its world leadership stance. When America attempted to seek for mutual advances with a country that oppose to its ideology, it is asking for more trouble ahead. Instead, America should embrace a one China policy, and that government is Republic of China and not the one governed by the Communist Party. Embracing a democratic China will bring peace and prosperity to the world. Communism, totalitarianism and autocracy have no place for world peace and prosperity.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Yoshimichi Moriyama Feb 25, 2021

I would agree with Prof. Sachs if the two countries were playing a purely economic game. The game they are playing is also and undoubtedly a political game.
I would like interested readers here to read my comment on Andrew Sheng and Xiao Geng/How to Cooperate with China.

"If we were to 'save' China from Japan...[it] is no reproach to the Chinese to acknowledge that we should have established no claim upon their gratitude...They (the Chinese) would thank us for nothing, and give us no credit for unselfish intentions, but set themselves to formulating their resistance to us in the exercise of responsibilities we would have assumed (quoted by George F. Kennan, American Diplomacy, p. 52.)"
"Unconscious and cultural arrogance and disdain for others is pronounced throughout the West. Chinese feelings of cultural superiority are monumental, deriving as they do from a three thousand year tradition (Edwin O. Reischauer, The Japanese, p.402.)"

One big reason among some others for the Sino-Russian rupture was that Mao wanted and tried to unseat Moscow from and seat Beijing on, the Holy See in the international communist movement.
- Michael Public Feb 26, 2021
  
  Not just political, but military. China is gearing up for a war on all its relevant borders - Australia, Japan, South Korea, India, Taiwan.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Yoshimichi Moriyama Feb 25, 2021
  
  It is a little bit naive to believe something because Xi said it. Kennan said on his 1964 visit to Japan that Chinese leaders were refined in speech and manners but that we should not be deceived. Honesty is not virtue with Chinese gentlemen, and deception is not vice.
  Read my (Michi's) comment, It Is Not China's Fault, nov. 16, 2015, on Michael Pillsbury/The Hundred-Year Marathon, amazon usa.
  - Bill Halcott Feb 26, 2021
    
    TRUTH.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.