Bessent and “the most unsustainable economy in history”

More and more frequently I feel that we are surviving on the phase of the theatre, in art, whose increasingly incompatible scripts are written by increasingly little talented authors, in this case mainly politicians. Scott Bessent, U.S. Treasury Secretary, just announced to the planet that China is "the most unsustainable economy in modern history." He added that duties should "melt like an ice cube" if trade between the US and China and another countries balance.

The declaration sounds like a serious proposal with simple conditions. But if you think about it for a moment, immediately there is simply a consensus: what is the planet to buy from the United States to offset all these trade deficits? Deficits, which are indeed debt drawn by America...

And the question of “the most unsustainable economy in history”. He would like to ask, “And who says it?”

On the another hand, anyone who has watched the Chinese economy at close announcement over the past 2 decades knows that China is simply a “unsustainable economy” (on export basis). And it was meant to be. And that's not a mistake – it's a strategy.

Bessent says that "it is hard to deal with China due to the fact that it is simply a non-market economy and non-market economies have different objectives".

But did individual in the U.S. administration ask themselves, ‘ What are the objectives? due to the fact that if not, this full discussion about "rebalancing" is like trying to play chess with individual who plays it without realizing it.

China has been building an export economy since the beginning of Deng Xiaoping's reforms not due to the fact that they did not know how to build it differently. They built it due to the fact that it was the fastest way to rip a billion people out of poverty. And it worked. Point for China.

Now that this phase is coming to an end, China is actually switching to an interior consumption model. But they do it at their own pace and on their own terms. Not due to the fact that Bessent tells them to. Or – as well as declaring that he is willing to aid China decision distant from the pro-export model for the pro-consumer model...

The most amusing thing about this full situation is that Bessent presents as a large discovery something that should be apparent from the beginning: customs is simply a negotiating tool, not an end in itself.

"The duties should melt like an ice cube," said the secretary of the treasure. Like an ice cube. Poetic, no need. But did anyone tell him that the Chinese have been saying the same thing for years? That customs is simply a bilateral problem and that the solution lies in a compromise?

Of course not. due to the fact that Washington is inactive convinced that China needs to adapt to American expectations, not that a mutually beneficial solution needs to be found.

Bessent expects trade issues with China to be "completed by October". October! Concrete (?) “deadline”. individual in the Treasury Department most likely took a calendar, looked at the elections in the mediate of the word and said, “This will look good politically.”

But did anyone ask the Chinese if October suits them? Has anyone considered that China has its own political and economical calendar? That possibly they're not peculiarly curious in adjusting to the American electoral cycle?

Probably not. due to the fact that that would require knowing that negotiations are a bilateral process, not an American monologue.

When Bessent says that “non-market economies have different objectives”, it sounds like individual who has just discovered that water is wet. Of course they have another goals! China has never hidden that their goal is to make their own citizens prosperous, not to delight American politicians.

But possibly that's the problem. For decades Americans have become accustomed to the fact that the remainder of the planet adapts to their expectations. All you gotta do is say, "That's the way it's expected to be," and everyone's going to comply.

China shows that these times are over. And that you could be a U.S. trading partner without being their vassal.

If you translate Bessent's statements into a language that is understandable to individual who knows China, it sounds something like this:

"China has been doing what it has predicted for years – moving on to a model based on interior consumption. We yet noticed it, and we want them to do it faster. If they agree, we will abolish any of the duties that are mainly harmful to us."

But, of course, it can't be said directly. due to the fact that that would mean admitting that in fresh years American trade policy towards China has been mostly missed.

Does Bessent truly believe what he says? Is it just a political theatre for voters who want to hear that “America is hard on China”?

Or possibly – and this would be the most optimistic – is the first step towards a more pragmatic approach to relations with China? An approach based on knowing that China is simply a partner, not a subordinate?

Because if so, possibly these duties will actually start to “melt like an ice cube”. And maybe, for the first time in years, American-Chinese trade talks will actually be talks, not American ultimatum.

Time will tell. But October seems to be a very uncertain date for reaching an agreement. surely not on American terms...