Mỹ cần hòa giải với Trung Quốc?

cựu bộ trưởng tài chính Mỹ Henry Paulson nói vậy, hai nước cần re-engage như giai đoạn 1980-2010, rằng chính sách của Mỹ với China hiện nay là đối đầu ko cần thiết, khiến các công ty Mỹ ở thế bất lợi so với công ty các nước đồng minh, giới hạn khả năng thương mại hóa đổi mới sáng tạo, mất thị phần ở các nước khác...

-> lời kêu gọi mạnh mẽ nhất về việc Mỹ hòa giải với China là từ ngành tài chính - các ngân hàng, công ty quản lý tài sản (qua đầu tư gián tiếp vào China (bất động sản, nhà thầu, ngân hàng bóng tối...), vì đầu tư trực tiếp thì giảm dần rồi (cả về số tuyệt đối, và tỷ lệ trên GDP))

-----

You are now living through Cold War 2

by Noah Smith,

...the most important call for re-engagement on the U.S. side is coming from people who argue that China is still just too good an investment opportunity to pass up. Henry Paulson, the former Treasury Secretary and head of Goldman Sachs, recently argued that confrontation with China would put the U.S. economy in danger:

China and the United States are in a headlong descent from a competitive but sometimes cooperative relationship to one that is confrontational in nearly every respect. As a result, the United States faces the prospect of putting its companies at a disadvantage relative to its allies, limiting its ability to commercialize innovations. It could lose market share in third countries. For those who fear the United States is losing the competitive race with China, U.S. actions threaten to ensure that fear is realized…In the case of high technologies, some targeted decoupling will be absolutely necessary. But wholesale decoupling makes no sense. Americans benefit from access to the world, and China will remain a huge market that Americans can either partake in or abandon to competitors. China is the world’s second-largest economy, its largest manufacturer, and its largest trader. It will be a big part of the global financial picture for decades to come.

Reading Paulson’s article, my instinct is that the strongest calls for a conciliatory U.S. approach toward China will come from the finance industry — especially banks and asset managers.

Why do I think this? Because of the changing nature of the investment opportunities available to American capital in China. Foreign direct investment in manufacturing defined the Chimerica era, but it’s becoming less important now. Companies like Apple are slowly starting to disinvest from Chinese factories and move supply chains elsewhere — a decision that is probably due to rising Chinese costs and local political risk as much as to geostrategic concerns or U.S. government pressure. Overall, FDI into China shrank in the 2010s, both in absolute terms and (especially) as a percent of GDP.

...So if FDI in China isn’t a great opportunity for Westerners anymore, what is? Portfolio investment. U.S. banks and asset managers, hungry to find high returns wherever they can, will be eager to pour capital into China, especially now that Zero Covid is over and the real estate crackdown is being partially reversed. Some of this will go into Chinese stocks, but much of it will probably be handed off to Chinese asset managers, from where it will eventually, inevitably, flow into real estate-related investments —developers, local government financing vehicles, contractors, shadow banks, etc.