The fragility of the U.S. economic cycle

As a nonsense chatter, and then talk to you about the market "cycle" of the United States, in fact, under the market mechanism of the United States, its "cycle" seems to be strong, but it is much more fragile than China.

Let me give you an example, for example, in the era of laptops, the United States has at least three or four brands to establish enough competitiveness in the world, so it is allowed and accepted for other countries to appear global brands in this field, but in the era of mobile phones, the United States is only left with one brand, Apple, so Apple seems to be extremely powerful, but if it is from the perspective of creating a cycle, it is very fragile, because once Apple loses, the entire mobile phone market in the United States will have no hardware brands, which is called the fragility brought by strength.

Therefore, when the global market share of Huawei's mobile phones begins to rise, the United States will definitely crack down, otherwise this cycle will be broken, and it may affect the entire related upstream industries in the United States, such as chips, design, services and software system platforms.

Of course, like Samsung, the United States doesn't care too much, because Samsung itself is the industrial chain of the United States and the capital of Wall Street, a few years ago, Moon Jae-in arrested Samsung's Lee Jae-yong, but as a result, under the pressure of the United States, especially Wall Street, had to be released, so a brand like Samsung is actually supporting the industrial chain of the United States.

Therefore, in terms of brand, the United States will become more and more aggressive in the future, because the United States can only rely on the strength of a single brand, and the stronger the single brand, the more likely it is to have any mistakes, and it is necessary to resolutely crack down on the emergence of competitors. This is different from China, whether it is mobile phones or electric vehicles, China is a multi-brand, direct ecological competition, you hit a brand is actually difficult to completely curb China's "cycle".

For another example, at the system platform level, several tech giants went to the U.S. Congress for questioning two days ago, which was very interesting, but most people didn't understand it. The problem with the content is not Tiktok, but the American pro-Facebook (which has been renamed), for which Zuckerberg apologized. I really can't find a reason for Tiktok, so I just talk about the nationality of the CEO or something.

In fact, why does the United States want to rectify Tiktok, and Tiktok has been emasculated to basically conform to the public opinion requirements system of the United States, why not let it go? The reason is that Tiktok is a new type of information platform that has grown entirely based on China's content model, and the content production of the entire United States has not yet been fully adapted to it, so on this platform, some Chinese content methods are more likely to appear, which is unacceptable to the United States. Assuming that Tiktok is a platform that grows entirely from the American market, in fact, it is logically no different from BBC and CNN, so why do you need such a platform? Now Tiktok's global active users have exceeded 1.5 billion (excluding Chinese mainland), if you do not accelerate the encirclement and transformation, including Musk, etc., also scold short videos, in fact, this is not of much sense, because human industry and information evolution will not stagnate with some will, and neither can the United States. But please note that this does not mean that the field of short videos can develop savagely, and there needs to be bottom-line supervision in terms of content.

For example, the mobile phone industry, the electric vehicle industry, the cross-border e-commerce industry, the infrastructure industry, the short video information industry, the home appliance industry, the shipbuilding industry, and the future aerospace industry, China is creating a new international cycle, and these have always been almost monopolized by the US industrial chain. Therefore, the strength of the current American brand that you see is completely different from the strength of 20 or 30 years ago, which is determined by vulnerability, not simply market capitalization. Just like the automobile industry, if it was half a century ago, that is, in the era of Ford, General Motors, etc., the United States would not have looked at the world squarely, and did not care which country developed the automobile industry at all, but why did it develop to this day, it would be distorted to think that China's new energy and electric vehicles are a threat to the world? This is the fear of the entire international business cycle system.

In addition to the circulation of international business brands, one is also the importance of the circulation of the American consumption system, in 2019, the public debt of the United States was only 22 trillion US dollars, and today, four years later, the public debt of the United States has exceeded 34 trillion US dollars. In other words, the United States has accumulated 22 trillion yuan of public debt in the past hundred years, and the debt has increased by 12 trillion yuan in the last four years.

But the price is paid by the international community, many countries around the world have fallen into foreign exchange outflows, local currency depreciation, including Argentina and other bankruptcy, but in order to appease Argentina, the IMF recently gave Argentina billions of dollars, encouraging Milley to say, the measures you have taken are a bold attempt, and we all support it very much. The problem is that no one will attribute some of Argentina's problems to the dollar limit cycle.

Is this way of saving itself from the cycle to make the United States stronger, or is it that this strength comes at the cost of increasing vulnerability? After the dollar flows into the United States, it supports consumption and asset prices, and also pushes up the employment rate, but in the end, the dollar must be exported on a larger scale, otherwise the dollar cycle will be broken. At the same time, when people are extremely afraid of the cycle of the dollar, they will choose to abandon their support for this cycle, which is like saying that China's renminbi now accounts for only 3% of the global foreign exchange market As long as it does not go up, every few points will bring a butterfly effect to the international circulation of the entire United States, that is, the internationalization of the renminbi cannot be lower, and the international attributes of the dollar are maintained at the limit.

If we talk about the population problem, Europe has no population for the United States to absorb, and Asia used to mainly harvest China's high-end talents, at present, many Chinese talents are not willing to go out anymore, and the United States does not dare to ask for it, because many people have begun to return to China, and in the process of the United States fighting various decoupling wars, ideology has prompted the United States to no longer trust talents from China. And the talent from India and other regions is not only not diverse, but also better than the Americans, and sometimes the Americans wonder whether it is me who will harvest you or you who will harvest me.

So what to do in the end, we can only look to Latin America, so the border crisis broke out, and all began to trigger civil wars, which is also the vulnerability of the strong cycle at the demographic level of the United States.

Therefore, in order to maintain multiple cycles of strength, it is necessary to endure increasing vulnerability, but if the cycle is not strengthened, there may not even be a chance to bear vulnerability, and the competition between China and the United States is actually not whether each should strengthen the cycle, but who can better manage vulnerability.

The above is pure nonsense!