I recently wrote a paper on the Sino-US trade friction, and also talked about the game. The trade dispute has also been a hot topic in recent years that reflects the current situation of the game between China and the United States. In fact, if analyzed only from a theoretical perspective, at least in the economic field, the sufficient condition for both parties to maximize the total interests of the game is to achieve Nash equilibrium. Once both sides of the game add political ideology to their decision-making on international affairs, the situation becomes complicated. Since Nash equilibrium is only a seemingly perfect game state in theory, its shadow can rarely be found in reality. In reality, what we see is often one prisoner’s dilemma after another. As the world's number one power, the United States wants to retain its position in the context of rapid development in some countries. It will inevitably seek its own interests in the development process and try to use various methods and means to share the profit pie. The largest piece of it. History clearly tells us that this is America. The United States, created by those British descendants who were not content with the status quo and did not want to be bound by tradition, told the world with practical actions that ideals are beautiful, but reality is reality after all. When human spiritual civilization has not yet unified to a certain height, we can only see A series of life-and-death battles for interests driven by national interests.
Under the current situation of military peace between China and the United States, the game between China and the United States mainly exists in the field of economic exchanges. In this field, it is mainly manifested in exchange rate wars and trade wars. The fundamental reason for the economic dispute between China and the United States lies in the imbalance of interests between countries. (To put it bluntly, the United States is not easy to mess with. You can have a trade surplus to make other people’s money, but you cannot make other people’s money every year. People have grievances in their hearts. Once something happens to you or the economy is in crisis, they will look for you. You settle the score, Lao Mei thinks that if I don't go well, you won't want to go well)
The content of the paper will be revealed below. . . Ten thousand words are omitted below. . .
. . .
Judging from the recent measures China has taken to deal with trade friction cases caused by the United States, China has made certain concessions under the strong political public opinion and economic pressure from the United States, including appropriately adjusting the exchange rate of my country's RMB against The U.S. dollar exchange rate, promotion of U.S. imports into my country, and large-scale government procurement activities, etc., strive to minimize the impact on my country's export trade industry through other means. China's appeasement policy seems to be gradually showing results. As for where the Sino-US game will lead the two countries in the future, the author believes that with the continuous growth of my country's economic level and the improvement of its international status, the Sino-US game will go At a higher level and a more intense stage, after all, if there is a gap in strength between the participating countries in the game, the stronger party will definitely gain an advantage and obtain greater benefits in the game process, while the weaker party can only do something to avoid a greater defeat. Certain concessions must be made, even if the powerful country violates international practices and moral standards. Once the two sides of the game are evenly matched and no party can gain a complete advantage, the game can fully reflect its splendor and the wisdom of the two peoples. In fact, if it really comes to this point, most countries in the world will cooperate or form alliances to peacefully divide the cake of interests and focus on other places where they can get more cake.
As for the situation in Libya, I personally feel that there is not much essential difference between the situation in Libya and the war in Iraq. They both have the same goal, oil. As the country with the largest oil reserves in Africa, taking advantage of domestic civil strife is an excellent opportunity to attack it. But what is the best way to attack it? Americans who think they are smart have actually been seen through by others. Intervening in the civil war and helping the anti-government armed forces has two obvious benefits. One is that the number of one's enemies is relatively reduced. When the Iraq War was fought, there was no civil strife in Iraq. The United States was fighting the entire Iraq, and the cost and casualties would be relatively high. Now it is helping the rebels to fight the government forces, and there is also a coalition of Western powers joining in. The United States is like being the boss and investing in Libya, letting Britain, France and others work for him, and he is waiting to benefit. When the time comes, he doesn't care if he gets some of the oil and gives it to Britain and France.
On the other hand, when the war ends and the rebels win and gain leadership (this is not certain yet), the United States will rely on its "great" contribution to their victory and demand absolute "preferential procurement rights" on the oil issue. ”, even wanton plunder is possible. Moreover, the United States can claim that the entire Libyan war was to help Libya achieve national stability and unity, which has a more "reasonable" explanation than the so-called fight against terrorism in the Iraq war.
If you look at it this way, all countries with a lot of oil in the world must be careful. They must either quickly form alliances with powerful countries, or alliances with major oil countries, or they must quickly develop nuclear weapons, otherwise the coalition of Western powers will The next target is you.
Because oil will be used up in less than 60 years. . .