Some seem confused about the potential threats that China poses to our great nation. Indeed, this is a complex topic, but we need some foundational understanding to help us truly appreciate the potential danger. Recently, I have been presented with several questions regarding this situation. As far as I’m concerned, if one person asks, many others wonder. So, let’s talk about it.
Is all Trade with China Beneficial to America?
No, absolutely not. While it’s true that trade between the two countries is complex and that they are long-standing trading “partners,” it’s also true that there are elements that are a clear detriment to America. In fact, there are plenty of examples where China is a trade “beneficiary,” and America gets the short end of the stick. However, to demonstrate this point, let’s explore a few examples of what it means to trade with China.
We have to begin with the concept of trade-balances. When it comes to the United States and China, the U.S. has often run a trade deficit with China, which means the U.S. is importing more Chinese goods than it is exporting to China. This can be a problem for American workers because that imbalance typically (and quite negatively) affects American industries and workers who face increased competition from cheaper Chinese imports while simultaneously reducing demand for potential domestic buys or exports.
Of course, there is an additional rough negative attached. Importing Chinese goods at lower prices can lead to job displacement as American companies struggle to compete with cheaper foreign products. When governments create a favorable environment for foreign goods over domestic goods, this issue only gets worse. This creates a negative cascade effect, which ultimately leads to supply chain dependence on those foreign entities. This is mainly due to domestic companies closing and the workers of those organizations, along with the larger public, also becoming dependent on cheaper foreign products.
When we have this type of dependence, we get into the evident geopolitical considerations, such as Americans being forced to inadvertently support human rights violations when they are forced to purchase their various foreign products. Dependent nations are then forced to walk the line carefully. After all, you wouldn’t want to anger the nation that feeds you, so pointing out such violations can become problematic. As evidenced by the numerous stories in the media over the last decade or so, several high-profile organizations are wrapped up in these issues.
And really, we cannot have a conversation about trade without mentioning the belligerent intellectual property theft regarding technology transfers. This problem has been a known issue for quite some time. On this point, we are, once again, talking about negative consequences for American companies but also national security.
The point is that not all trade with China is a good thing. While I could go on, hopefully, the few examples I provided demonstrate that point. Unfortunately, the problem gets worse.
Buying the Land with Dollars
As you may or may not know by now, State and federal lawmakers have been attempting to regulate foreign ownership of U.S. real estate. Publically, this is primarily due to concerns about Chinese entities amassing U.S. farmland near sensitive sites. Once again, this raises national security risks. However, while national security is important, another issue is the bad deal that Americans get when they sell their property for dollars. If you haven’t heard, the dollar is in trouble – big trouble. But we have seen this coming for some time now.
Let’s make this simple. While we could discuss various perspectives on the matter, the truth is that the U.S. dollar is inflated and depreciated. Remember, you could buy a suit and a gun for an ounce of gold in 1913, and today, you can buy a suit and a gun for an ounce of gold. However, the price of gold has gone up from $18.92 an ounce to roughly $1,984 during that time. To be clear, this is more of a demonstration that the value of your dollar is eroding over time. Now, imagine what that might be in another twenty years or so. The point is that Americans are getting a raw deal all the way around.
If Guy #1 has an appreciating physical asset (such as land) and Guy #2 wants to buy it using a depreciating and inflated currency (like the dollar), it’s generally a terrible deal for Guy #1. In the scenario where Guy #1 exchanges an appreciating physical asset for a depreciating and inflated currency, he would lose the opportunity to benefit from the asset’s continued appreciation and would hold a less valuable form of wealth due to the depreciating currency. This is not a good deal for Guy #1, and it would be more advantageous for him to retain the appreciating physical asset or seek a better form of compensation to preserve the value he has in the asset.
So, Americans, especially the ones who are still under the impression that their dollars are worth something, exchange their physical asset for the dying currency. Who wins? Of course, if Americans were to flip the script and exchange their worthless currency for valuable property, that would be a good deal. Nonetheless, the land purchase scenario becomes more complicated when Guy #2 is a supposed enemy.
The Foreign Infrastructure Example
Let us explore friendly nations buying up American land and infrastructure projects. We can use them as an example to help eliminate emotional contortion and bias regarding the Chinese situation. To be clear, I’m using friendly examples because even with our friends, it can be a problem.
Evidently, many Americans are unaware that foreign companies have invested in and acquired ownership or operational rights of ports, airports, bridges, water management systems, farms, and toll roads in the United States. Of course, some Americans don’t see this as a problem. However, these situations come with a few inherent issues.
Let’s begin with the idea that much of this infrastructure was paid for with taxpayer money. And this becomes a problem because the entities who acquired these properties did so on a for-profit basis. Of course, this allows foreign entities to profit off of properties that Americans have already paid for. That’s a bad deal! This means these foreign entities are likely to prioritize profit generation, which could lead to higher fees for American users. Moreover, American citizens also have less influence or control over decisions related to rates, maintenance, and other aspects of operation, which leads me to concerns about accountability. And finally, and in many ways, this should raise concerns about national sovereignty and security regarding our infrastructure.
Now, these are issues regarding land purchased by our friends. Imagine the issues regarding a potential enemy. Yes! It’s a terrible deal all the way around! And this is especially true when we are talking about farmland – which equates to our food supply. However, it’s also a bad deal when whatever land we hand over creates national security risks.
The Really Really Bad Deal
When China buys American property, it does so under the guise of various business interests. However, many Americans use American bias when evaluating such exchanges, and they definitely should not do that. So, let’s clarify a few things.
Generally speaking, any nation allowing another country or foreign power to purchase its land comes with significant risks. This is especially true regarding China, which has a strong history of ensnaring nations via various business and infrastructure tactics. Again, China is generally considered a potential adversary. So, caution and skepticism should always be the default position.
Once again, one of the primary concerns is national security. Governments should always be wary of foreign individuals or entities attempting to buy their land. This is especially true when such purchases are near sensitive military or strategic locations or involve essential supply lines, such as food. Allowing foreign ownership in such areas could potentially result in a number of problems.
Then, of course, there are the resources and physical assets. Generally speaking, if a nation seeks to remain strong and independent, it should protect its resources and assets from being acquired by foreign investors, especially in sectors like agriculture, natural resources, or critical infrastructure. By limiting foreign land ownership, they maintain control over these valuable assets.
As alluded to in the previous example, foreign acquisition of domestic land ownership can have various negative impacts. However, when you factor in farmlands and commercial real estate specifically, you have to consider the effect on domestic businesses and citizens. Allowing foreign investors to acquire large tracts of land can lead to rising land prices and potentially disadvantage local buyers. Moreover, farmland ownership can contribute to food instability and unnecessary price fluctuations during times of need or conflict.
Some might argue that China owns less land than Canada, the Netherlands, Italy, the U.K., and Germany. That’s a decent argument, but that actually adds to my point. Why are we selling off so much American property? Moreover, is it even remotely possible that this practice might come back and bite us in the butt at some point? I think that it might.
Of course, some might argue that China’s ownership is statistically low. Okay, but I guess that probably depends on how you choose to look at it. After all, China owns at least 383,934 acres in the United States. To put that number into perspective, that’s about the size of New York City or Phoenix and about twelve times the size of San Francisco. However, this land is spread out throughout the country. According to officials, much of this land appears to be in strategic locations. Again, caution and skepticism are essential here.
And while we could discuss many other concerns here, I think the one that people should be concerned with most is national sovereignty and control. Again, restricting foreign land ownership can help to assert sovereignty and maintain control over a nation’s territory. That’s as simple as it gets. In other words, if you allow your enemies inside, you risk exposing vulnerabilities and potentially facing the consequences of their presence, which may undermine your security and objectives. By avoiding the issue from the start, you prevent undue influence or fallout from foreign entanglements – any of them.
Some might suggest that what I have discussed thus far are not significant issues. While I would argue that such a position merely demonstrates an ignorance of the potential problems, there are still other concerns that we can address. For example, I would say that Americans are really messing up by allowing the Chinese to get involved in their education.
That’s right! America has opened the door to Chinese influence in education. The question then becomes, what would the Chinese hope to accomplish with such influence? Seriously! Why would China even be interested in American education?
China’s persistent spying campaign against the United States, including cyber espionage, intellectual property theft, and attempts to infiltrate American university research, is of growing concern. In fact, the FBI has identified ‘academic espionage’ as a method Beijing uses to access trade secrets through scholars and researchers. This is to say that education centers have become attractive targets for Chinese intelligence seeking critical U.S. data while also attempting to influence American citizens. Now, I don’t know about you, but this seems like a rather significant problem.
Now, let’s factor in the idea that the Chinese also purchase various schools throughout our country. Should Americans be concerned? Just look at the Confucius Institutes across our country and around the world, which are implicated in both cultural training and spying. However, what I want you to understand is a very old understanding that when you allow your enemy to educate your children, you’re raising your children to be your enemies. This truth has been known for thousands of years. And even if they are not directly educating your children, you have to understand that their influence is prevalent, as evidenced by the warning provided by our political leaders. Of course, we can already see the impact of the influence alone by examining some of the current educators and the graduates they produce.
An Individual, Company, or CCP Operative
There is a misconception that a Chinese individual or company is somehow different or separate from the Chinese Communist Party. Perhaps people believe that because that’s how it is in the United States. However, Americans must understand that according to China’s National Intelligence Law of 2017, Data Security Law of 2020, and Cryptology Law of 2020, etc., Chinese businesses and individuals, including those associated with academic institutions, research service providers, and investors, are obligated to assist and enable the Chinese government in gaining access to data collection, transmission, and storage. In other words, a Chinese citizen must engage on behalf of the CCP, which makes almost every Chinese citizen a potential agent of the CCP.
To clarify, Chinese companies or individuals, regardless of their location, may be compelled to store their data within China’s borders and grant access to the Chinese government, all in the name of Chinese national security. Frankly, this just gets the ball rolling, but this is precisely why the U.S. government has such a big issue with organizations like TikTok.
Now, we could add in the clandestine Chinese “police stations” popping up across the country and more scattered around the world. Or factor in all the money that the Chinese funnel to compromised politicians for various Chinese interests. Or better yet, think about how China seems to be supporting a great number of our enemies and is proactively attempting to further undermine our dollar with the BRICS initiative. Of course, the list of potential issues is long.
Or better yet, just think about the various videos that have surfaced in recent months of Chinese influencers showing criminal immigrants how to cross our borders without being caught. And we should never forget the supposed network of thousands of beautiful Chinese women working under the direction of China’s Ministry of State Security, who attempt to cozy up to politicians and acquire classified U.S. material or infiltrate the U.S. political system. Or remember my article discussing how women from China are being encouraged to deliver their babies in the U.S. to make their infant American citizens automatically. In that article, I referenced the statements of Time magazine’s Hannah Beech, who reported that “At least 10,000 such Chinese babies were born in America last year”. How many have been born since? The list goes on and on.
So, absolutely. The China situation is complex, but it is worth noting, and I believe it’s worth being aware of its potential dangers. Some might suggest that I’m worried for no reason, but I don’t see it that way. Ultimately, regarding everything I have discussed thus far, and many more that could be listed here, I think it’s probably best to hold back on allowing Chinese involvement in American affairs. At the very least, we should be skeptical and highly cautious at all times.
However, one thing is evident at the end of the day: if you want a strong nation, you need to protect national interests. If you don’t want a strong nation, you can continue to allow the things I have discussed. Ignoring, denying, or belittling the situation, especially on the cusp of a global power shift, just seems highly irresponsible.
The Root of My Concern
Let’s talk about what I think really matters. The American Founding Fathers, who played a crucial role in shaping the principles and values of the United States, were deeply committed to American sovereignty and protecting the nation’s interests. While I admit that it is impossible to know with certainty how they would feel about specific modern-day situations, such as selling American land to potential adversaries, we can make some educated inferences based on their principles and beliefs.
For example, the Founding Fathers, especially George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin, were deeply committed to safeguarding American independence and sovereignty. They were cautious about foreign entanglements and understood the importance of securing and preserving American territory and resources. They believed in a robust national defense and maintaining control over our nation’s land.
In many ways, it’s safe to assume that selling American land to potential adversaries (or any foreign government) would likely go against the Founding Fathers’ core principles. They would probably be concerned about the national security implications and the potential risk to American interests. Their emphasis on protecting American sovereignty and the nation’s long-term well-being would likely lead them to avoid such transactions, especially if they believed it could compromise American independence or security. Perhaps we should consider what they might tell us to do.
Now, if you struggle with this idea, then consider the following. National leaders come and go. As we have seen throughout history, some nations change sides. In other words, some friends can become foes. However, land ownership remains until it is either sold or nationalized. If you sold some of your land to a friend who eventually becomes your foe, now you’re in trouble. So, if you believe my concerns are unwarranted, understand that my concerns are grounded in foundational purity and national security.
The U.S. is struggling. Are we at risk of dying from a self-inflicted wound? Read my article titled “Will The United States Collapse?“