Robin Harding’s argument is blunt and mostly right. China is not behaving like a normal trading partner that expects reciprocity over time. It is behaving like a civilization state executing a long plan for autonomy and dominance. Trade, in Beijing’s model, is not mutual dependence. It is a transitional tool until dependence is no longer needed.
The key insight here is the asymmetry. Europe still thinks in terms of exchange. China now thinks in terms of replacement. If you can make aircraft, chips, software, green tech, and luxury goods yourself, why rely on outsiders at all? Add US export controls and the incentive for full self sufficiency hardens into doctrine.
Harding also nails the psychological shift among elites. For thirty years, free trade was treated as a law of nature. Now it is being reclassified as a strategic risk. That is not ideology. That is belated realism.
Where the piece is strongest is its honest admission that Europe has boxed itself in. If China will not buy and will only sell, Europe’s current social model becomes mathematically untenable. High welfare, heavy regulation, and slow innovation collide with a hyper efficient export machine willing to run permanent surpluses.
The fork in the road is ugly but real.
Option one is reform: harder work, sharper competitiveness, less comfort, more dynamism. Politically toxic but economically sane.
Option two is protectionism: blunt, destabilising, and likely inevitable in some form. Once voters see factories closing with no reciprocal access to Chinese demand, abstract devotion to free trade collapses fast.
The uncomfortable truth is this. The old globalisation consensus was built on the fantasy that every rising power would converge on Western norms. China never signed up to that dream. It signed up to win.
Europe now has to decide whether it wants to be a museum, a welfare state without an industry, or a serious competitor again. There is no painless version of that decision.
Elites are sobering up. Good. The hangover will last a long time.
LATEST POSTS:
- The Comparator Test: Does Penn Apply the Same Standard?
- PragerU Salaries & Bonuses
- The David Pinsof Story
- Added Context to the Dennis Prager-Cedars Sinai Lawsuit
- The Criticism Was Right and It Did Nothing: Andrew Gelman, Seth Roberts, and the Limits of Being Correct
- What Andrew Gelman Doesn’t Write About
- Andrew Gelman: ‘Computer scientists today are like economists in the early 2000s and Freudian psychiatrists in the 1950s’
- Virtue Signaling and the Amy Wax case
- Revisiting Virtually You: The Dangerous Powers of the E-Personality
- The Great Delusion
- Why Do I Instinctively Dislike Erik Erikson?
- WSJ: The Uninvited Guest Who Crashed Our Family Vacation: My Mom’s AI Chatbot
- WEHT to Marc Weisblott?
- WEHT to Moxie aka Madison Slade?
- WEHT to Nicholas Polson’s Archive?
- Cohen Passes His Own Audit (V2)
- Andrew Gelman & the E-Personality
- ‘(1) “Do you think the culture of research has genuinely changed since the replication crisis became widely discussed, or has it mostly generated new compliance rituals around pre-registration and open data while leaving the underlying incentive structure intact?, (2) Regarding Columbia University, “is there a statistical or social scientific way of understanding how institutions lose the ability to accurately perceive their own situation?”’
- What a Public Audit Does (V4)
- Post: ‘Nathan Cofnas the Schlimazel’
BEST POSTS:
- * The Enlightenment Wasn’t Enlightened (6-23-26)
* Mr. Burge Draws The Line (6-23-26)
* 'Improving on Democracy' (6-17-26)
* People Leak To People Who Are Fun (6-11-26)
* Why Does Australia Produce So Many Great Journalists? (6-11-26)
* Steve Wynn and the Press: Power, Litigation, and the Contest Over Las Vegas (6-3-26)
* Sheldon Adelson and the Journalists (6-3-26)
* The Vigilant Animal: Thinkers Who Reject the Myth of Human Gullibility (6-2-26)
* The Cost of Refusing the Misunderstanding Myth (6-2-26)
* Show Me How It Travels (6-2-26)
* The Norm Explainers (6-2-26)
* Centering Marginalized Voices (6-1-26)
* What would it look like if the Washington Post put its reader first? (6-1-26)
* What would it look like if the Financial Times put its reader first? (6-1-26)
* What It Would Mean for the Los Angeles Times to Put the Reader First? (6-1-26)
* What It Would Mean for The New York Times to Put the Reader First? (6-1-26)
* Why Wembanyama Lives on the Perimeter (5-31-26)
* The Emotional Palettes Of San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco & Sacramento (5-27-26)
* The Administrative Capital: Sacramento Legal Culture (5-27-26)
* San Diego - The Quiet Republic (5-27-26)
* The Quiet Bar: San Diego Legal Culture (5-27-26)
* SF v LA Legal Culture (5-27-26)
* Why Talent Travels Poorly Between San Francisco and Los Angeles (5-27-26)
* San Francisco and Los Angeles as Rival Models of Urban Access (5-27-26)
* Social Cliques in New York, 2026 (5-25-26)
* Social Cliques in San Francisco, 2026 (5-25-26)
* The Rival Courts of Washington (5-25-26)
* The City of Private Rooms (5-25-26)
