How powerful is the SEIU and what role do they play in the anti-ICE riots in LA?

Grok says:

The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) California is a significant labor organization representing about 750,000 workers across various sectors, including healthcare, janitorial services, social work, and public employment. Its size and influence make it one of the largest and most powerful unions in California, with considerable resources to mobilize members and advocate for worker and immigrant rights. SEIU California has a history of political activism, often aligning with progressive causes, including immigration reform and opposition to federal immigration enforcement policies.

Regarding the anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles on June 6-7, 2025, SEIU California’s involvement centers on the actions of its president, David Huerta, and the union’s public stance against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids. Huerta was detained during a protest on June 6, reportedly for obstructing federal agents by blocking their vehicle while documenting an ICE operation in downtown Los Angeles. SEIU California stated that Huerta was exercising his First Amendment rights as a community observer, condemning his arrest and injuries sustained during the incident, which required hospital treatment before his transfer to the Metropolitan Detention Center. The union called for his immediate release and denounced the ICE raids as “cruel, destructive, and indiscriminate,” arguing they harm communities and working people.

There is no definitive evidence that SEIU California directly organized or incited the protests that escalated into riots, characterized by clashes with law enforcement, tear gas deployment, and reported violence such as throwing concrete pieces or setting fires. However, the union’s vocal opposition to ICE and Huerta’s presence at the protests suggest a leadership role in rallying community resistance. Posts on X speculate about SEIU’s broader influence, with some claiming the union has a vested interest in protecting undocumented workers, who may be among its members, and accusing it of mobilizing against ICE. These claims lack corroboration from primary sources and reflect polarized sentiment rather than fact.

Critics, including federal officials and some X users, allege that SEIU’s actions and rhetoric contribute to unrest. For instance, U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli stated Huerta was arrested for interfering with federal officers, not merely observing, and faces arraignment for his actions. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and ICE officials have accused Democratic leaders, including those tied to SEIU, of fueling violence through inflammatory rhetoric. Conversely, SEIU and supporters, including Governor Gavin Newsom and Mayor Karen Bass, frame Huerta’s detention as an attack on peaceful protest and immigrant rights, emphasizing solidarity with affected communities.

The Service Employees International Union (SEIU), specifically through its affiliate SEIU United Service Workers West (SEIU-USWW), played a key role in securing a $30 per hour minimum wage for janitors and other tourism industry workers, including those at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), in Los Angeles. The Los Angeles City Council approved an ordinance on May 23, 2025, that will incrementally increase the minimum wage for hotel and airport workers, including janitors, to $30 per hour by July 2028, in time for the Olympic and Paralympic Games.

Posted in California, ICE | Comments Off on How powerful is the SEIU and what role do they play in the anti-ICE riots in LA?

How much border wall has Trump built in 2025?

Grok says:

In 2025, during President Donald Trump’s second term, construction of the U.S.-Mexico border wall has resumed, with several projects reported. According to available information:
Hidalgo County, Texas: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) awarded a contract to Granite Construction Co. for $70,285,846 to build approximately 7 miles of new border wall in the Rio Grande Valley Sector, starting in March 2025. This project uses Fiscal Year 2021 funds to close gaps left incomplete during the Biden administration.

Jacumba Hot Springs, California: The Department of Homeland Security issued a waiver to bypass environmental regulations, enabling the construction of about 2.5 miles of new border barrier, with work fast-tracked in April 2025.

San Rafael Valley, Arizona: CBP solicited bids for constructing 24.7 miles of border barrier, with plans advancing by May 2025, though construction may not have fully started by June.

Other Projects: Reports indicate construction restarted in California (near San Ysidro) and Texas (near El Paso) in January and February 2025, using funds from 2018 and 2020 appropriations. These projects include new sections and reinforcements, but specific mileage completed in 2025 is not detailed beyond the above.

Total Estimate: A PBS News report from April 2025 states that more than 50 miles of permanent and temporary wall sections have been constructed since Trump’s inauguration on January 20, 2025. This includes the projects mentioned above and others not fully specified. The Trump administration planned to construct 85 miles of new wall in 2025, with hundreds more planned for 2026 and beyond, though completion of the 85 miles by June 2025 is not confirmed.

Given the data, at least 9.5 miles (7 miles in Texas + 2.5 miles in California) of new wall are confirmed as completed or in progress by June 2025, with the broader claim of over 50 miles constructed since January 2025 being the most comprehensive estimate. However, precise completion figures for all projects are not fully detailed in available sources, and some planned miles (e.g., Arizona’s 24.7 miles) may still be in bidding or planning stages.

For context, during Trump’s first term (2017–2021), approximately 458 miles of border wall were built, mostly replacing existing barriers, with only about 52–80 miles of new primary barriers where none existed before. The U.S.-Mexico border spans 1,954 miles, and Trump’s goal is to complete a significantly larger portion by 2029

Posted in America | Comments Off on How much border wall has Trump built in 2025?

The Musk Trump Feud Cools

Grok says:

The feud between Elon Musk and Donald Trump, which erupted publicly over disagreements on Trump’s tax and spending bill, shows signs of cooling as of June 6, 2025. Musk signaled a willingness to de-escalate by responding positively to calls for peace, notably agreeing with billionaire Bill Ackman’s post on X urging reconciliation “for the benefit of our great country,” saying, “You’re not wrong.” He also replied to a user’s suggestion to “cool off and take a step back” with, “Good advice,” indicating a potential pause in hostilities.

Posted in Elon Musk | Comments Off on The Musk Trump Feud Cools

Populism Means Revolt Against The Managers

Nathan Levine (an Orthodox Christian) aka N.S. Lyons writes in the New York Times:

…much of what is commonly called “populist” politics can be more accurately described as part of an anti-managerial revolution attempting to roll back the expansion of overbearing bureaucratic control into more and more areas of life.

Though it has so far met with limited success amid stiff resistance, grasping the nature of this anti-managerialism is essential to understanding the Trump administration’s effort to transform America’s institutional landscape, from government to universities and major corporations.

The idea’s intellectual history begins with the political philosopher James Burnham, who argued in his seminal 1941 book, “The Managerial Revolution,” that the aristocratic capitalist class was in the process of being overthrown by a revolution — just not, as the Marxists predicted, by the working class…

Orwell was particularly struck by Burnham’s observation that the major political systems of the day — fascism, Communism and New Deal-era social democracy — were fundamentally similar in their turn toward the bureaucratic management of society. He observed that everywhere “laissez-faire capitalism gives way to planning and state interference” and “the mere owner loses power as against the technician and the bureaucrat.” Believing that accelerating managerial control risked dragging every society inexorably into totalitarianism, Orwell made Burnham’s ideas the basis of his novel “1984.”

While the Cold War persisted, the view that America’s government might share some traits with the Soviet Union unsurprisingly proved unpopular, especially among Washington’s conservative establishment.

Nonetheless, the managerial class continued to grow, regardless of which political party controlled the government. Cold War defense budgets drove a relentless expansion of security state bureaucracy and the military-industrial complex. The advent of Great Society welfare programs and the Civil Rights Act demanded a re-engineering of social relations, prompting a dramatic proliferation of lawyers, regulatory bureaucrats and corporate compliance officers throughout much of public and private life. An ever-greater proportion of Americans began funneling through the credentialing machinery of higher education, inflating demand for yet more upper-middle-class managerial jobs.

What are the alternatives to managerial rule? Grok says:

The New York Times article outlines a political movement, termed “anti-managerialism,” which seeks to dismantle the influence of a perceived permanent ruling class of bureaucrats and managers. This movement, central to the Trump administration’s agenda and the broader “new right,” challenges the dominance of a managerial elite that, according to thinkers like James Burnham and Samuel Francis, has usurped democratic control. The article suggests this elite, spanning government, corporations, and academia, perpetuates a system of bureaucratic control that resists change and prioritizes its own interests over those of the broader populace. Below, I explore alternatives to this “rule of managers” based on the article’s context and broader political thought, addressing how power might be restructured to counter this managerial dominance.

Alternatives to the Rule of Managers

Strengthening Democratic Accountability through Executive Authority

Description: One alternative, as pursued by the Trump administration, is to reassert elected executive control over the administrative state. This involves empowering the presidency to directly oversee or dismantle bureaucratic agencies, reducing their autonomy. The article notes the administration’s challenge to Humphrey’s Executor, a precedent that allows agencies to operate independently of executive control, as an example of this approach.

Mechanism: Policies could include expanding presidential authority to appoint and remove agency heads, streamlining or eliminating regulatory bodies, and prioritizing political appointees over career bureaucrats. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), despite its limited impact, exemplifies this push to curb bureaucratic power through executive-led reforms.

Pros: Enhances democratic accountability by aligning government actions with the elected executive’s mandate. Potentially reduces bureaucratic overreach and inefficiency.

Cons: Risks centralizing power in the executive branch, potentially undermining checks and balances. May lead to politicization of technical roles, reducing expertise in governance.

Decentralization and Localism

Description: Another alternative is to devolve power from centralized bureaucracies to state or local governments, or even to communities, reducing the scope of federal managerial control. This aligns with the article’s critique of a homogenized managerial elite and could empower “Middle America,” as Samuel Francis advocated.

Mechanism: Implement federalism-based reforms, such as block grants to states, deregulation to shift authority to local entities, or community-driven governance models. Encourage participatory democracy through town halls or citizen assemblies to counter top-down management.

Pros: Empowers local communities, potentially increasing responsiveness to diverse needs. Reduces reliance on a distant managerial class, fostering accountability.

Cons: May exacerbate regional inequalities, as not all localities have the resources or capacity for self-governance. Risks inconsistent standards in areas like healthcare or education.

Direct Democracy and Populist Mechanisms

Description: To bypass the managerial elite, power could be redistributed through mechanisms of direct democracy, such as referenda, ballot initiatives, or digital platforms for citizen input. This aligns with the article’s reference to a “Middle American Revolution” to disrupt elite control.

Mechanism: Expand use of referenda for major policy decisions, create digital platforms for real-time public feedback on legislation, or establish citizen review boards for bureaucratic agencies. These could ensure policies reflect popular will rather than managerial priorities.

Pros: Directly engages citizens, reducing the influence of unelected bureaucrats. Can harness populist energy to challenge entrenched elites.

Cons: Risks oversimplification of complex issues, as public opinion may lack nuance or expertise. Susceptible to manipulation through misinformation or populist rhetoric.

Market-Based Governance and Privatization

Description: Replacing bureaucratic control with market-driven solutions could diminish the managerial class’s dominance. The article mentions Elon Musk’s tech-right support, suggesting an entrepreneurial approach to governance that prioritizes efficiency over regulation.

Mechanism: Privatize certain government functions (e.g., education, healthcare delivery), reduce regulatory burdens to encourage competition, or adopt public-private partnerships. Encourage innovation-driven governance models, like charter cities or special economic zones, where managerial oversight is minimized.

Pros: Potentially increases efficiency and innovation by leveraging market incentives. Reduces size and scope of bureaucratic institutions.

Cons: Risks prioritizing profit over public welfare, potentially neglecting marginalized groups. May create new forms of unaccountable private power, replacing one elite with another.

Institutional Reform and Merit-Based Systems

Description: Rather than dismantling bureaucracy, reform it to prioritize merit, transparency, and accountability, addressing the article’s critique of a self-perpetuating managerial elite. This could involve restructuring institutions to limit ideological conformity and careerism.

Mechanism: Implement merit-based hiring and promotion in bureaucracies, reduce credentialism by valuing practical experience, and establish independent oversight bodies to monitor agency performance. Encourage ideological diversity within institutions to prevent groupthink.

Pros: Preserves expertise and institutional knowledge while addressing inefficiencies. Balances reform with stability, avoiding radical disruption.

Cons: Difficult to implement without entrenched resistance from existing elites. May require long-term cultural shifts to change institutional norms.

Cultural and Educational Counter-Movements

Description: The article highlights universities as key managerial institutions. An alternative is to challenge their role in credentialing and socializing the managerial class through alternative educational and cultural frameworks.

Mechanism: Support alternative education models (e.g., trade schools, online platforms, or classical liberal arts colleges) that prioritize practical skills or independent thought over managerial ideologies like DEI. Foster cultural movements that celebrate entrepreneurship, localism, or traditional values to counter elite cultural dominance.

Pros: Undermines the pipeline that produces the managerial class. Encourages diverse pathways to success, reducing elite gatekeeping.

Cons: Faces resistance from established academic institutions. May struggle to scale without significant funding or cultural buy-in.

Analysis and Considerations

Each alternative addresses the “tyranny of the bureaucracy” differently, reflecting varied assumptions about power, governance, and society. The Trump administration’s approach (Option 1) emphasizes executive-led disruption, but its struggles, as noted in the article, highlight bureaucratic resilience and the risk of managerial logic co-opting even anti-managerial efforts. Decentralization (Option 2) and direct democracy (Option 3) align with populist sentiments but face practical challenges in implementation and scalability. Market-based solutions (Option 4) appeal to the tech-right but risk creating new unaccountable elites, as Burnham’s critique of managerialism applied to corporations as well. Institutional reform (Option 5) offers a middle path but requires overcoming entrenched interests, while cultural counter-movements (Option 6) are long-term and diffuse.
The article suggests the managerial regime’s strength lies in its interconnectedness across public and private sectors, making comprehensive change difficult. Any alternative must grapple with this structural unity, as Samuel Francis noted, where elites in government, corporations, and academia reinforce each other. A hybrid approach—combining executive action, decentralization, and cultural reform—might balance immediate impact with long-term transformation, though it risks diluting focus.

Conclusion

Alternatives to the rule of managers range from reasserting democratic control through executive power to decentralizing authority, expanding direct democracy, leveraging markets, reforming institutions, or fostering cultural shifts. Each has trade-offs, and their success depends on navigating the managerial elite’s entrenched power. The Trump administration’s anti-managerial push, via DOGE and broader reforms, represents one model, but its limited success underscores the challenge. For a lasting shift, any approach must address both the institutional and cultural roots of managerial dominance, as outlined by Burnham and Francis, while avoiding new forms of unaccountable power.

Posted in Populism | Comments Off on Populism Means Revolt Against The Managers

Apple in China: The Capture of the World’s Greatest Company

Grok says:

The book Apple in China: The Capture of the World’s Greatest Company by Patrick McGee challenges the conventional economist position on free trade by highlighting the complex and potentially destabilizing consequences of Apple’s deep integration with China’s economy. Conventional economic theory often emphasizes the benefits of free trade, such as efficiency, cost reduction, and global economic growth through comparative advantages. However, McGee’s analysis, as discussed in various sources, raises critical implications that question these assumptions, particularly in the context of geopolitical risks, national security, and long-term economic dependencies. Below, I outline the key implications for the conventional free trade position:

1. Unintended Transfer of Technological Know-How and Economic Power

Conventional View: Free trade encourages specialization and knowledge sharing, which boosts global innovation and economic efficiency.

Implication from the Book: McGee argues that Apple’s massive investment in China—estimated at $55 billion annually by 2015 and $275 billion over five years from 2016—has not only optimized its supply chain but also transferred critical technological expertise to China. This includes training 28 million Chinese workers and enabling Chinese firms to produce high-value components, which has empowered rivals like Huawei and Xiaomi.

Challenge to Free Trade: The book suggests that free trade can lead to an asymmetric transfer of intellectual capital, strengthening a geopolitical rival at the expense of the originating country’s long-term competitiveness. This undermines the assumption that free trade is inherently mutually beneficial, as China has leveraged Apple’s investment to build a sophisticated electronics ecosystem that now competes with American firms.

2. Geopolitical Vulnerabilities and National Security Risks

Conventional View: Free trade fosters interdependence, reducing the likelihood of conflict and promoting global stability.

Implication from the Book: McGee contends that Apple’s reliance on China for manufacturing and component sourcing (e.g., 98% of its production in 2022) creates an “existential vulnerability” for both the company and the United States. This dependence places Apple at the mercy of Chinese political decisions, as Beijing could use it as a bargaining chip in trade disputes or geopolitical tensions.

Challenge to Free Trade: The book highlights how free trade can create strategic dependencies that compromise national security. For instance, Apple’s supply chain is so entrenched in China that decoupling is nearly impossible, exposing the U.S. to risks if China imposes export controls or retaliates against U.S. tariffs. This challenges the notion that interdependence always promotes stability, suggesting instead that it can create leverage for authoritarian states.

3. Labor and Ethical Trade-Offs

Conventional View: Free trade lowers production costs by accessing cheaper labor markets, benefiting consumers with lower prices.

Implication from the Book: McGee details how Apple’s cost-driven move to China involved partnering with suppliers like Foxconn, which faced criticism for labor abuses, including low wages and suicide-prevention nets outside factory dorms. While Apple implemented some reforms, it also sidelined executives focused on labor improvements, prioritizing profits over ethical considerations.

Challenge to Free Trade: The book underscores that the cost advantages of free trade often come at the expense of labor rights and ethical standards, particularly in authoritarian regimes. This raises questions about whether the economic benefits justify the moral and social costs, challenging the conventional view that free trade is universally welfare-enhancing.

4. Economic Distortions from Trade Wars and Tariffs

Conventional View: Free trade maximizes efficiency by minimizing barriers like tariffs, which distort markets and raise costs.

Implication from the Book: McGee describes how Apple’s China-centric supply chain became a liability during U.S.-China trade wars, with tariffs (e.g., up to 145% in early 2025, later reduced to 30%) threatening its profitability. Apple’s attempts to diversify to India and Vietnam are limited by China’s unmatched manufacturing scale and infrastructure, meaning tariffs may simply increase consumer prices rather than spur domestic production.

Challenge to Free Trade: The book illustrates that free trade’s benefits are fragile in a world of escalating protectionism. When geopolitical tensions lead to tariffs, companies like Apple face higher costs that are often passed to consumers, undermining the efficiency argument. Moreover, the inability to quickly relocate supply chains highlights the risks of over-reliance on a single market, questioning the resilience of globalized trade systems.

5. Reevaluation of Comparative Advantage

Conventional View: Free trade allows countries to specialize based on comparative advantages, leading to optimal resource allocation.

Implication from the Book: McGee flips the narrative that “Apple wouldn’t exist without China,” arguing instead that Apple’s investments were instrumental in building China’s electronics dominance. For example, Apple’s support enabled Chinese firms to capture larger shares of its supply chain, reducing reliance on Taiwanese and Japanese suppliers.

Challenge to Free Trade: The book suggests that comparative advantages can be artificially created through strategic corporate investments rather than natural endowments. Apple’s role in developing China’s manufacturing capabilities shows how free trade can shift economic power to one country, creating dependencies that may not align with long-term national interests. This challenges the assumption that comparative advantages are static or inherently beneficial.

6. Policy Implications and the Limits of Corporate Autonomy

Conventional View: Free trade thrives when governments minimize interference, allowing firms to optimize global operations.

Implication from the Book: McGee notes that Apple’s autonomy has been curtailed by China’s authoritarian government, which exerts influence over its operations (e.g., forcing Apple to remove apps like The New York Times from its Chinese store). Simultaneously, U.S. policies, such as Trump’s tariffs and calls for domestic manufacturing, limit Apple’s flexibility.

Challenge to Free Trade: The book reveals that free trade operates within political constraints, where governments can manipulate corporate behavior to serve national agendas. This undermines the idea that firms can freely optimize under free trade, as Apple finds itself caught between conflicting U.S. and Chinese priorities, reducing its ability to act independently.

Synthesis and Broader Implications

For conventional economists, Apple in China serves as a case study that complicates the idealized benefits of free trade. While Apple’s partnership with China yielded unprecedented profits and scale, it also created vulnerabilities that threaten its future and U.S. technological leadership. The book suggests that free trade, when unchecked, can lead to:

Strategic imbalances: Transferring critical capabilities to a rival state.

Economic fragility: Over-reliance on a single market exposed to geopolitical risks.

Ethical compromises: Prioritizing cost over labor and human rights.

Policy conflicts: Firms becoming pawns in international disputes, undermining market efficiency.

These implications urge economists to reconsider free trade’s risks in a world where geopolitical tensions, authoritarian regimes, and national security concerns increasingly shape economic outcomes. The conventional view may need to integrate safeguards, such as diversified supply chains or strategic trade policies, to mitigate dependencies and protect long-term interests.

Critical Perspective

While McGee’s book is compelling, it’s worth noting potential biases. His narrative emphasizes Apple’s role in empowering China, which may overstate its impact relative to broader Chinese industrial policies or other firms’ contributions (e.g., Samsung, Intel). Additionally, the conventional economist might argue that Apple’s case is an outlier, not a refutation of free trade’s benefits, as many firms successfully leverage global markets without such extreme dependencies. Nonetheless, the book’s evidence, drawn from over 200 interviews and detailed supply chain analysis, provides a robust challenge to uncritical free trade advocacy.

Do the books Global Trade and Conflicting National Interests (2001) and Clyde Prestowitz’s 2021 book The World Turned Upside Down: America, China, and the Struggle for Global Leadership add useful analytical insights to the new book Apple in China: The Capture of the World’s Greatest Company?

Grok says:

Analytical Insights from Each Book

1. Insights from Global Trade and Conflicting National Interests

This book provides a theoretical foundation for understanding the structural dynamics of global trade that underpin Apple’s operations in China. Its insights are particularly relevant to Apple in China in the following ways:

Trade as a Zero-Sum Game: Gomory and Baumol’s models show that trade can produce winners and losers, especially when one country (e.g., China) uses strategic policies to dominate industries like electronics manufacturing. For Apple in China, this framework explains how China’s subsidies and infrastructure investments have made it indispensable to Apple’s supply chain, shifting economic power away from the U.S. Apple’s reliance on Chinese manufacturing may illustrate a case where U.S. technological innovation is subordinated to China’s production dominance, aligning with the book’s argument that trade benefits are not universal.

Technology Transfers and Productivity Shifts: The book highlights how technological advancements, such as building advanced facilities in another country, can alter competitive landscapes. Apple’s partnerships with Chinese firms like Foxconn and its compliance with technology transfer requirements (e.g., sharing know-how to operate in China) could be analyzed through this lens. Apple in China might explore how these transfers have bolstered China’s tech ecosystem, potentially at the expense of U.S. industrial capacity.

Policy Implications: Gomory and Baumol advocate for strategic trade policies to protect national interests. Apple in China could use this to argue for U.S. policies to incentivize domestic manufacturing or restrict technology transfers, countering China’s mercantilist advantages. For example, the book might discuss whether Apple should diversify its supply chain to reduce dependence on China, aligning with the need for strategic interventions.

Limitations: The book’s abstract, model-driven approach lacks specific focus on China or tech giants like Apple. Its pre-WTO context means it doesn’t directly address the scale of China’s modern influence or Apple’s unique role. However, its critique of free trade dogma provides a timeless lens for questioning Apple’s China-centric strategy.

2. Insights from The World Turned Upside Down

Prestowitz’s book is directly relevant to Apple in China because it explicitly addresses U.S.-China economic relations, corporate complicity, and the strategic risks of China’s mercantilism. Its insights include:

Corporate Enablement of China’s Rise: Prestowitz argues that U.S. firms, driven by profit motives, have enabled China’s economic dominance by accepting forced technology transfers and investing heavily in China. Apple in China likely critiques Apple’s role in this dynamic, as Apple’s massive manufacturing base in China and compliance with Beijing’s demands (e.g., storing iCloud data locally, removing apps from the App Store) mirror Prestowitz’s concerns. His point that foreign businesses “have Washington by the balls” through political influence could frame Apple’s lobbying to maintain access to China’s market.

China’s Mercantilist Strategy: Prestowitz details how China uses subsidies, state-owned enterprises, and control over supply chains to dominate global industries. For Apple in China, this provides context for why Apple is “captured”—China’s control over critical components (e.g., rare earths, assembly) and its market leverage give it power over Apple’s operations. Prestowitz’s analysis of China’s rejection of WTO liberalization explains why Apple faces increasing pressure to align with Beijing’s priorities.

Domestic U.S. Weaknesses: Prestowitz criticizes U.S. consumerism and underinvestment in R&D, which weaken its ability to counter China. Apple in China might explore how Apple’s focus on shareholder value and cost-cutting (via Chinese manufacturing) reflects these broader U.S. failures. Prestowitz’s “Plan for America” (e.g., creating a Department of Competitiveness, realigning trade policies) could inform recommendations for reducing Apple’s China dependence through U.S. industrial policy.

Geopolitical and Security Risks: Prestowitz frames China’s rise as a threat to democratic values and U.S. security, particularly through technology and supply chain dominance. Apple in China likely addresses similar risks, such as Apple’s exposure to U.S.-China decoupling efforts or national security concerns about Chinese-made hardware. Prestowitz’s call for a new WTO for democracies could inspire discussions on excluding China from critical tech supply chains.

Limitations: While highly relevant, Prestowitz’s book focuses broadly on U.S.-China relations, not Apple specifically. Its policy prescriptions are macro-level, so Apple in China would need to adapt them to the corporate context. Additionally, Prestowitz’s historical narrative (e.g., blaming the Truman administration for China’s rise) may be less relevant to Apple’s modern challenges.

Synergies and Complementary Insights

Together, the two books provide a robust framework for analyzing Apple in China:

Theoretical vs. Applied Perspectives: Global Trade offers a theoretical lens to understand why Apple’s China strategy may harm U.S. interests, emphasizing trade’s zero-sum potential. The World Turned Upside Down applies this to the U.S.-China context, providing concrete examples of China’s mercantilist tactics and their impact on firms like Apple. Combining these, Apple in China could argue that Apple’s predicament is both a structural outcome of flawed trade assumptions and a specific failure of U.S. policy toward China.

Corporate and National Interests: Global Trade highlights conflicts between national interests in trade, while Prestowitz shows how corporations exacerbate these conflicts. Apple in China could use this to explore the tension between Apple’s profit-driven decisions and U.S. national security, framing Apple as a case study of misaligned interests.

Policy Solutions: Both books advocate for strategic interventions—Gomory and Baumol through trade policies, Prestowitz through domestic reforms and alliances. Apple in China could draw on these to propose how Apple and the U.S. government might collaborate to diversify supply chains, invest in U.S. manufacturing, or navigate decoupling.

Relevance to Recent Reviews

Recent reviews of The World Turned Upside Down (2021–2025) praise its clarity, urgency, and practical solutions, suggesting it remains relevant to ongoing U.S.-China tensions. For example:

Kirkus Reviews calls it “an excellent comprehensive study” with a detailed plan, ideal for analyzing Apple’s strategic challenges.

Goodreads reviews note its focus on fixing U.S. domestic shortcomings, which could inform Apple in China’s discussion of U.S. industrial policy.

The Financial Times highlights its call for a sophisticated U.S. strategy, relevant to Apple’s navigation of trade wars.

Global Trade lacks recent reviews due to its 2001 publication, but Prestowitz cites it as “the most important unread book of all time,” underscoring its enduring theoretical value. Its models remain applicable to modern tech-driven trade dynamics, as seen in Apple’s supply chain.

Potential Gaps

Specificity to Apple: Neither book directly addresses Apple, so Apple in China would need to apply their frameworks to Apple’s unique context (e.g., brand power, consumer market reliance). Global Trade is particularly abstract, requiring translation to corporate strategy.

Evolving Dynamics: Global Trade predates China’s tech dominance, and while The World Turned Upside Down is recent, U.S.-China relations have evolved since 2021 (e.g., CHIPS Act, export controls). Apple in China likely incorporates these newer developments.

Ethical and Cultural Dimensions: If Apple in China emphasizes labor conditions or China’s human rights record, the two books offer less direct insight, as they focus on economics and geopolitics.

Conclusion

Both Global Trade and Conflicting National Interests and The World Turned Upside Down provide valuable analytical insights for Apple in China: The Capture of the World’s Greatest Company. Global Trade offers a theoretical foundation for understanding trade’s zero-sum dynamics and the risks of technology transfers, framing Apple’s China dependence as a structural trade issue. The World Turned Upside Down provides a timely, applied critique of U.S.-China relations, highlighting how corporate decisions like Apple’s enable China’s mercantilism and proposing actionable solutions. Together, they offer a dual lens—structural and strategic—to analyze Apple’s “capture” by China and its implications for U.S. interests. While they lack Apple-specific detail and may not cover ethical nuances, their frameworks are highly relevant for dissecting the economic and geopolitical dimensions of Apple’s China strategy, especially when paired with Apple in China’s likely focus on corporate case studies and current events.

Posted in Apple, China, Trade | Comments Off on Apple in China: The Capture of the World’s Greatest Company