#168. Cameron Johnson: The Big Connection
01:50:32 Share

Thanks for bringing the root beer, too. Of course. Thank God the supply lines of root beer have restarted again. For years, you couldn't get it. Actually, just use this to get into the... Into the mood. Into the mood, as they say. As if you're not being recorded at all, you know?

I don't feel at all with the cameras on me and the microphone and the headphones. Yeah, fucking spotlights. There's like 10 people in the back. Wait, hold on, the makeup, like just... No, no, I have to tell you... Makeup, wardrobe, can we get... The Kaiser one, that was, you know, I ran to the bathroom like five times in a half hour before that. Anyway, all right, yeah, Cameron Johnson. I'm originally from Seattle, but came to China at the age of 19. And with the exception of a brief period...

Back in the U.S., I have been here basically my entire adult life. I just passed my 25th year in country. I run a small consultancy here in the city focused on supply chain and manufacturing advisory and consulting, supply chain management, those kinds of things. I also teach part-time at NYU. And I think one of the interesting things about me is that I've been in over 5,000 factories between China and Southeast Asia. All right. I want your honest opinion. What's your favorite brand of root beer?

Oh, that's a difficult one. I mean, the reality is if you're an American, if you're on the West Coast, it's probably an A&W or Dad's Root Beer. If you're in the Midwest, it's more of a Barks. But I have to tell you, one of the best root beers I've ever had, home-brewed root beer, is I think it's called City Tap. It's in D.C., close to DuPont Circle, and they have home-brewed root beer for five bucks. And it's just, it is amazing. Coming from China, of course, when I go to D.C. and talk to Paul, it's really great to have what it feels like home in many ways. So it just depends. Of course, in Seattle, it's usually A&W.

Alright, I'm Justin. I'm Eric. Welcome to The Honest Drink, and please give it up for Cameron Johnson. Well, cheers one more time, Cameron. Thank you so much for coming on the show. Great to be here. It's awesome to see you again. I'm glad we finally made this happen, man. Yeah, no, as I said, you guys are, one, you're local, which is always helpful, and two, is that you guys do great work, and it's not just...

It's not just, you know, you have the type of guests on, but you really do go into interesting stuff. You know, a lot of the podcasts out there, you know, I try to listen to most of the China stuff, just particularly out of the States and Europe, just to figure out what's going on, who's doing what, who's saying what. But oftentimes you can feel that either they're holding something back or you're like, ah, they don't quite...

They may be on the right track, but they're not really getting it. But here, I think it's a good opportunity to go into that, and I'm glad to be here. Look, you've been on my list for a long time. It's a good list. It's not Santa's naughty list, is it? It's not Santa's naughty list. But you've been on my list for a long time and someone that I've been really wanting to talk to. And you've also come highly recommended by many former guests as well. So again, I'm really glad we're able to do this.

Something that really struck me last time in our brief conversation, when you were talking about your area expertise, which is, you know, U.S.-China trade and supply chain issues,

I think for normally for the normal lay person, when we hear these things, unless you really want to nerd out about these things, it's, it seems a little bit like, oh, well, I kind of get it. And it doesn't seem always that exciting to be honest, but the way you framed it to me last time, briefly, it was so interesting in terms of the concept of the things at stake and the implications involved that,

in what is going on. And I really want to get your retelling from a macro level first, because I don't want to start the conversation with the assumption that either us or anyone that's listening already have any basic understanding of what's going on. So from a high level, where do you feel like we should start this story?

I think perhaps the easiest way to begin that conversation is, you know, what does actually, what does a supply chain ecosystem actually mean and what does it consist of, right? So how do we break it down? So for example, a supply chain ecosystem is how is this cup made, right, as an example, right? What are all the different pieces and components and players involved? And so I try to break it down kind of into five key areas. The first is advanced infrastructure.

ports, railroads, the electrical grid, 5G, sewer, that kind of thing, because all of that is needed to actually, you know, for a manufacturer or a factory to produce stuff. The second is technology, right? A lot of that is machinery, sometimes it's software, those kinds of things.

The next is government support, and that is actually pretty broad because that can mean all kinds of things. It can mean, you know, government's giving you subsidies or tax breaks, which is usually historically the kind of support one gives. Another would be something like procurement regulations, right? For example, now if you're an EV company here in China, the government in many ways has encouraged you to use local technology.

semiconductor chips, right, to help build out then the demand and also help the semiconductor industry. And they want it local. The next is talent.

Right. And then an apparatus around that to train the talent. So whether it's, you know, I'm going through high school and then I go into a trade school or college or university and then you become trained. The fifth component is raw material and or the ability to process it. Right. And so to your point, like when you're making chips, if you notice or if you hear from the news that China just put in some restrictions on.

germanium and gallium and antimony to ship to the states. The process material that's used for chips, um,

Why? Because China is the best in the world at that, and it basically produces most of the world's raw material and or the processed materials for those components. And to your point, if you're buying an iPhone in the store in Cupertino, that's probably the furthest thing from your mind is how, you know, what are the raw materials and everything that goes into this phone? So I try to use that format and architecture to kind of look at supply chains and how they can affect not just business, but myself, right? If I know kind of

In those five areas, what's going on, then we can kind of determine, hey, this is going to affect us this way or that way. Well, I love also your concept of the or philosophy of the idea of integration and disintegration. That I think, I don't know, do you feel like that's a good place to start in terms of I feel like that really highlights what's at stake here?

Yeah, I mean, it's interesting when you talk about integration, disintegration. Integration means many things to many different people. And I think when you look at how the world is working today, right, we are far more integrated than any point in human history. And tomorrow we will be more integrated than today. And, you know, the day after tomorrow, we're integrated than tomorrow and so on and so forth. We will never be less connected than we are today as globe or humanity. Even with the...

what seems like a trend towards this isolationist or protectionist um trend for a lot of countries around the world right now well let's look at how it's actually manifesting itself right so let's take um de-risking right this is kind of the european phrase that came out the last couple years we don't want to be reliant i'm talking about supply chains and manufacturing right as an example we don't want to be reliant on china we want because it's too risky

We want to have other sources, other places. Well, instead of China maybe being a primary hub, now you have China maybe as a primary hub or a focused hub, and then you have something in Southeast Asia or Mexico or Eastern Europe. This is kind of the China plus one plus two. So as the de-risking, quote unquote, is happening, you're actually, this is globalization 2.0.

You're actually seeing the supply chains and the supply lines and countries be more integrated, right? Because, okay, you're CATL, you're here in China. Of course, you have the power of the market here, so to speak. Now you're in Hungary.

Where is Hungary getting the technology from China? Where is Hungary getting a lot of the knowledge workers from China? Where are they getting the raw materials or the processed materials for the batteries from China? And so what you're actually seeing is a decentralization of these supply chains where you're no longer relying on a single location or country or region. You actually now have it all over the world. So we are being integrated. We're not seeing the integration because, you know, and de-risking very much is a political term just as decoupling is.

In economics, it's absolutely not what's happening. It's actually, instead of de-risking, it's reconnecting, right? Because now you have these factories and these facilities and supply chains being spread everywhere. Yeah. It feels like it's getting a lot more complicated and complex now. Not only that, but, you know, again, more people have it, have...

have a stake in the system right and so and we may talk about that a little bit later kind of how um you know this can um actually i've argued that this can lessen the chance of conflict instead of increase it and so one of the things you see is that now for example vietnam right vietnam has now a stake in the u.s china relationship because they're like if you guys go sour like

I'm going to get screwed. Same thing in Thailand, same thing in Malaysia, Mexico. I mean, all of these countries now have a stake, not just in the US-China relationship, but in also making sure that these supply chains continue to grow. And particularly in their area, they continue to build out to meet that demand. So it's multifaceted, to your point, complicated. On the one hand, if you're, for example, let's take Vietnam.

They're now building up all of their infrastructure, right, to meet the needs of the supply chains. Well, what does that do if you're a Vietnamese person? Well, you have better roads, better railways, right? Maybe you have a better job because you're able to move up the economic ladder because now, right, the country can move more goods in. They can make higher level goods, more complex goods, right? So all of these things are affecting, right, the Vietnamese economy and the Vietnamese citizen. And so that's basically playing itself out in most places of the world, right?

And so why would anybody want to screw that up? Nobody wants to screw that up. And so this is one of the things that we're seeing now that all of these countries now have a stake in the system. I find that fascinating. And I have a couple of questions. So what is the, like, so the narrative that is being played out, it feels like in countries like the US is, you know, that...

you know, maybe we were too reliant on like this one-stop shop, right? Because China kind of had all five elements in spades, right? And then we were becoming more and more reliant. And then there was a little bit, it sounds, it feels like a scapegoat kind of thing, right? Like all of this stuff is going to China, et cetera, et cetera. But it sounds like what you're saying is that even if you don't put

you know, everything in China, those five elements are very difficult to replicate any, you know, all, you know, any one of them, much less sort of all of them. And one question I had was that given this, what's the competition like between the Vietnams, the Mexicos, et cetera, right? Are they trying to, you know, cater to China because, and become that China plus one, you know, are they trying to cater to the US, et cetera? Like what is their strategy?

I mean, part of it is it's an evolving strategy, right? Some of it is at the behest of, you know, when the US launched the trade war, the goal at the time was ABC, anywhere but China. And I remember I was in a congressman's office, I want to say it's about 2018 or so, maybe 2019. And I asked, we asked him straight up, what does that mean? He says, anywhere but China, you know, Vietnam, Mexico, it doesn't matter, but it can't be in China, right? And in today's world,

2024, ABC actually means anything but China. Right. So we're seeing an evolution of this.

But to your point, it doesn't really work that way. Supply chains don't operate. One, it takes decades usually to build out this ecosystem. And secondly, people are not going to leave a country or an ecosystem unless they absolutely have to. So to your point, and the US and Europe do have a point of, hey, if it's single source in China, that's a big risk to us.

China says the exact same, or do the exact same thing. Let's be honest here. So I think they're looking for, we need to have other options. But the idea of you'll be able to take China, the

that China risked, quote-unquote, out of any supply chain is just a fallacy. Nowhere in the world, every major supply chain has some form of Chinese something in it, whether it's a component, it's engineers, it's technology, whatever it may be. So to your point, when you go to Vietnam, they benefited from the trade war because now all these countries or companies from China, foreign and Chinese, went into Vietnam, they went into Thailand, and they took advantage of that. Hey, out of China, it's X percent of tariffs.

When we come from Vietnam, it's maybe low single digits or nothing. That's a direct benefit of being in those places. And so...

Of course, you're going to get more business that way. From what I've seen, for example, is a lot of companies that I've dealt with, they went to Vietnam because they wanted a backup plan, right? If the U.S. decides to fully embargo products out of China, we need to be able to ship from somewhere else. So if the U.S. puts on 50%, 100% tariffs, whatever it may be, we can still ship from Vietnam or other places to get to our U.S. customers. It's interesting because if, like, for...

different reasons, right? Especially like geopolitical reasons. If ABC anywhere, anything but China is the strategy, right? Part of that's like the geopolitical risk. We don't, let's say you're from the US perspective, you don't want China to get too powerful, right? And also you're catering to your local sort of electorate, right? Because you want to, you know, get reelected, et cetera. And it's like how,

How much can China continue to exert its influence when the stuff's not physically, geographically happening within China, but maybe it's still under some kind of Chinese proxy? And then it's like, who gets more leverage from this, right? So for instance, let's say China has to then spread out to other countries. Maybe it has to behave itself in a more sort of...

world citizen kind of way, does the US get leverage that China now can't just run everything as a one-stop shop from China and it's actually got to play ball in different countries? Or does China get leverage from that because now they're influencing, they can go to Africa, they can go to Mexico, they can go to Vietnam and say, hey, you're going to get more business globally and this is the strategy.

and we're going to help you do that. So it's like the game just gets elevated to another level, but it doesn't seem like the dynamic necessarily changes in a way where it's going to be truly ABC. Yeah, you're right. The reality is that the answer to that question is a mix. On the one hand, I was in an industrial park

I was talking to both the companies and the local administrator, and they said that they were moving to, or they were building facilities in Southeast Asia. And I said, wait a minute, the economy is challenged here. You know, the government wants more local FDI. They want more resources. And they're like, no, no, no, you don't understand. If this company, one, they're still operating here, so we're still getting tax revenue and other things.

But if this company goes overseas, particularly in the Southeast Asian example, it gives us face because now they're an international company, right? They're MNC. Secondly, it actually spreads out the supply chain. So maybe we'll get, you know, as the supply chains extend and become more complex, as you mentioned, Justin, you can actually order more products. And it essentially ensures long-term buying, right? Because once you have a supplier on the supply chain set, it's very difficult to move. And the third thing, to your point, is Chinese influence.

It extends Chinese influence. Maybe it's just company influence or it's Chinese business practices or something like that. But it absolutely does. And I asked them, you know, where are you encouraging companies not to go? And they said India, right? Don't go to India, but anywhere else is okay. Why not India? Lack of influence, right? They're not able to influence much there just because of language, culture, all kinds of stuff. Are you talking about from the Chinese perspective? From the Chinese perspective. Yeah, because they're kind of rivals in a more...

you know, kind of historical sense. True. I think the other thing to your point about, you know, what about the US? Yes, when Chinese companies, and the Chinese government actually has been pretty clear on this, when Chinese companies go overseas, you play by local rules. Right.

And so part of the discussions, when you look at supply chains, how they're evolving, I've had discussions about, listen, if a Chinese SOE is operating in Indonesia and they're making, you know, the nickel or they're mining and refining nickel, or, you know, they're in Chile, the Chileans are mining lithium and the Chinese are refining it. That's a totally different ballgame. Chinese companies now are learning from that and able to actually accelerate their own development and

Because they realized once you're outside of China, it's a new ballgame. So they're now retooling, whether it's in terms of company policies or company staff, and they're actually able to build that out so they can now be competitive to other firms wherever they are in the world. Yeah. So it's really interesting that the first order effects are so overly simplistic, right? Like what gets positioned to the average US citizen is like...

overly simplistic. And what really happens is as you start doing these things, they're so complex, they're so advanced. It's not like a country that wants to develop technology can just overnight do it. It doesn't happen that way. Sometimes it takes decades.

And so the second and third order consequences is not something that it gets positioned. And so you could do one thing and you could sort of expect a certain outcome if you're like the lay person. But the reality is it's so much more nuanced and like what you sort of –

tell the US electric that you're doing, you might actually get the completely opposite result. And that's just so scary, right? People are voting for issue A when in reality what's being done could turn into something completely different. Well, in some ways we saw this with the trade war, right, when it was launched. The goal of the trade war was we want to reshore products. First, we want fairer

And reciprocal trade with China. That was kind of number one. Number two is we want reshoring or things like that to North America, particularly into the U.S., right? We want manufacturing back. And the third was to deal with things like IP or other challenges that historically the U.S. and China had. But one of the things that really wasn't considered is the supply chains don't lie, right? They will tell you exactly what's going on in the supply chain.

Oh, we want to reshore to the U.S. There's not that many companies reshoring to the U.S. Where are they going? They're going to Mexico, Southeast Asia, maybe Eastern Europe, maybe the Middle East, right? North Africa. But they're not going to the U.S. Would it be oversimplistic to just chop that up to cost?

That would be one of the primary factors. The other is the talent gap, right? We just simply do not have that. And so to your point, when a politician stands up and say, we're going to return millions of jobs to the US and like, oh, they're full of crap. It's simply not going to happen in manufacturing. Do they know that? Do the politicians actually, they know it, but they're just doing it anyways because they want to get reelected? Or are they just like, you've talked to lots of these folks, right? Or are they just actually like oblivious and naive? Yeah.

I think that they're sincere in their efforts that they want to bring back quote unquote American jobs, right? So when you, when you read Lighthizer's book, you know, no trade is free. Uh, he talks a lot about how, you know, Americans, you know, they lost the jobs and then all of the effects of what, of what happened after that, right? Basically after the first China shock. Um, secondly, um, that a family can no longer afford like to have a house or to send the kids to college, right? The, the, uh,

old adage of, you know, every generation gets better and better has now stopped. So our generation is the first generation where that's the case, right? And there's other things with that, you know, destroyed communities, this kind of thing. But the reality is, is that when you look at manufacturing specifically, it's not only high tech, but everybody in the world is trying to automate as fast as they can. So even if you have a huge factory to produce cars or batteries or solar panels or whatever it may be,

It's not going to employ thousands and thousands of people. It may employ a couple hundred. Mm-hmm.

or something like that, but they're all going to be skilled labor, technicians, software engineers, that kind of stuff. And there's a documentary I was a part of, this is about three or four years ago, by PBS Frontline called America's Medical Supply Crisis. And they had a CEO there from a mask company. Remember during the PPE wars, the masks and all the issues, Texas company. He said, listen, people aren't going to pay for it.

What I need is somebody to guarantee my demand long term because then I can build up capacity, I can train workers, right? And then if I have that long term buffer, I know at least at the end of the day I'm going to get X amount so I can plan for that. And as there's surges, for example, I can maintain that, you know, I can build up to that, right? Versus I have nothing and all of a sudden I need everything, right? And to your point, you're seeing this also...

With the CHIPS Act, right? Of course, there should be more manufacturing in the States. Of course, there should be. There should be in Europe, right? Everybody should have some manufacturing. But Justin, to your point, it's so prohibitively expensive. Supply chains don't lie. If people thought that they can make money in the US with this product or that product, they would be setting up in the US or Canada or Mexico for that matter. And they're just not. Right.

I mean, I have to believe there are, of course, smart people in D.C. who I would think are analyzing this and experts in their own right and kind of know how this works. Why do you think there are so many lawmakers, politicians, or whoever coming out of D.C.,

pushing for this decoupling, de-risking, whether in tariffs. Do you think it's just political rhetoric, or do you think there is an endgame here in which it's like a chess move, and there is some sort of longer vision that they have in mind that they feel ultimately will be a net positive for them and their interests? I think when you look at it, they see China as a problem to the U.S.,

And also how, for example, domestic manufacturing in some ways has been gutted. You know, the weird thing of it is, is that the U.S. is still the second most powerful manufacturer in the world. But, you know, China, of course, is number one. And so it really it's kind of weird to understand exactly the dynamics from here.

And I do talk to, you know, when I go to DC, I do talk to different policymakers and experts and scholars. And a lot of it really gets down to, we need to have an employable middle class, right? The American dream is to have a home and a car and put your kids through college. And that is no longer accessible to a lot of Americans. So by reshoring and bringing manufacturing back, we're able to do that. But part of the challenge is also is the world doesn't operate that way anymore, right?

When you had a localized ecosystem, right, inside the U.S. or North America, right, automotive or something like that, you can, you know, take five or ten years, you can plan it out, right, you can build up your ecosystem, whether it's, hey, I need a new type of steel, right, developed, or, hey, I need to send these, you know,

workers to go be trained as technicians, right? There's a roadmap kind of how you can do that. But when you look at new industries, right, chips, for example, the US hasn't really had any sort of at scale manufacturing for chips for a couple decades. How are you going to do that in five years? You're not.

And to your point, it's also very cost prohibitive, right? At what point are you not going to pay the money to build that out? And when I do discuss these things with policymakers, I use the masks during the PP as the example, or during the PP wars as the example, where there were plenty of US companies who had masks that could help medical workers or government workers or whoever, right?

And they weren't bought. So you're saying this is during COVID, there were American companies manufacturing masks in America, but consumers just weren't buying them? Well, and like, just to set the stage on that one, wasn't there a shortage of masks in particularly important environments like hospitals and hospitals?

you know, where like transmission of the virus was especially risky. But to Cameron's point, how real was that shortage? Was there actually a supply there, local supply, but maybe costs were just too high, people were unwilling? Exactly. So, you know, let's kind of play it out at least to how I understood. One, when everything kind of fell apart in the spring of 2020,

In the U.S., you did have a shortage of everything, a shortage of masks, shortage of gloves, shortage of gowns, all the kinds of PPE that we know of today, right? A massive shortage all over the country. The government and many organizations went out and begged companies, whether they be medical or otherwise, please find a way to manufacture this stuff locally because everything was coming from China or East Asia for that matter. And so they did that.

And then people didn't buy it. So to your point, there's a famous case, Demtech, D-E-M-E-T-E-C-H, I think. The New York Times wrote about it in February of 21, where they had 30 million masks available, FDA approved, which was kind of the key, and nobody would buy it. And so you had all these forces. On the one hand, you had

a dynamic where people needed PPE and there wasn't enough. So doctors and nurses were using garbage bags, right? They were using masks for days on end, which you're supposed to only use it, you know, for a short period of time before they become ineffective. All of these things happening. And then you had these companies locally who were eventually able to ramp up where nobody would buy from. And what it really showed is one, our systems, and to your point earlier about why is some of this stuff not working, the systems are so set in the old ways that they're inflexible.

And you have also a lot of vested interests involved, right? People who do not necessarily want other suppliers or other things, which is terrible to say, but the reality is Americans died because people wouldn't buy a mask that was a penny more from the U.S. than they would from China. And so when you have all these issues piled up, and on top of that,

All of these companies went out of business. So you had local hospitals and governments and even the national government, we need more domestic production, right? We need more of this. And when it happened, there was no support. Now what do you do? Although I think over 100 companies, 70% went bankrupt. And so when you talk about, to your point earlier about my discussions when I do meet with policymakers, I use that as the example. Guys, this is a national security issue. Americans died.

And yet we still import over 60% of our PPE from around the world, mostly from China and Malaysia. So what are we doing here? So when you say PPE, that's personal protective equipment? That's correct. Yeah. So Cam, I'm very curious about this point. So what actually happened at the hospital administrator level? Did they go out and then look at all the different manufacturers and

And then decide not to buy from the U.S. firms because of that small margin because they didn't have the money. Like what made them not actually buy the masks because of that one cent? I think a lot of it is when you look at how companies are run and even governments, they're run by procurement guys and CFOs. It's money.

And so, and to your point, it is very weird because on the one hand, New York State would pay $4 per mask, right, to get it out of China. And then, you know, we'd be on the phone with people who are like, listen, I can't afford, you know, this mask at $2.35. It's got to be $2.30. It's five cents a mask. You're saving somebody's life.

And so I think, you know, with the vested interests and all the different things, it was just, it was a total fuck up, to be honest. And there were so many vested interests involved, right? You had agents from all over the country. You had different governments, different hospitals. Everybody was trying to get stuff at the same time. And so...

There was also what I call a lot of phantom ordering, right? Where, for example, you'd have agents who served a particular entity, but they'd get five different quotes from 10 different sources.

Right. And then all those quotes are playing off each other and reinforcing each other. So the price keeps going up and up and up and here the factory or whoever maybe is thinking, oh, I'm going to produce 500,000 masks or a million masks. But instead, you know, all they're doing is just getting this information and then playing a lot. So it became a whole screwed up mess. Um, and the other thing is just the massive pressure. I mean, you're having people die. You're, they're on ventilators with this and like the hospitals, um,

You know, there was no protocol, if you remember in the beginning. So I think part of the learnings taken away from that is one, you really need an Eisenhower in charge if you're going to do it that way. Like somebody has got to be able to get in there and knock heads and say, no, this is the strategy. We'll tweak it on the fly if we have to, but we're going this direction. I mean, the reality is, is when that happens, because there's nobody really in charge, that's part of the problem.

Well, I just want to also make it very clear when you say, you know, people weren't buying the masks that were American-made because they were a bit more expensive. We're talking about...

you know, institutions, major retailers, right? We're not talking about consumers, individual consumers. That's right. When you look at it, and this was actually one of the frustrations during the pandemic, is that because of the regulations that, for example, Facebook and Amazon had on PPE and that kind of stuff, those particular companies, domestic U.S. companies who were making PPE could not sell locally to the consumer, right? Like you could go on Amazon and buy PPE, but only from a quote-unquote reputable source. Well, what does that mean?

it was unclear. And so, you know, companies like the one I mentioned, Demetik, they were not able to sell masks online as an example. So the local consumer, uh,

unless you probably knew the company personally, was not able to purchase any of this stuff. Or even aware there was even the supply available. That's right. That's right. And also when you add to that the FDA regulations and, you know, it took nine to 12 months to get it. And again, all of that is needed. I'm not saying it shouldn't be there, but just the reality of, you know, talking to people who would say, listen, I can't afford a mask at $2.35. It's got to be $2.30. What are you talking about? It's 5 cents. Right.

Like, and you get it in a week. Why is five cents so important on a mass that's going to save somebody's life? Well, because of profits, right? Well, I don't know. And again, to your point, I'm not sure. It's got to be. Well, I think the other thing is all the hospitals were hit with so much at one time, there was no money. Mm. Right? Mm.

There was no money in the system. Yeah. And everybody, remember, everybody from everywhere was scrambling for the exact same stuff. I mean, could it also be that maybe there just was actually less demand by the time the U.S. ramped up its own production of PPEs and masks? Because as I remember, I think in the beginning, for sure, as you say, there was a shortage. Everyone was freaking out. They didn't know what was what. You know, people were buying masks left and right. I know that's globally. Yeah.

Um, but from what I can remember as the pandemic went on, there was more of a shift in mentality or even resentment towards even having to wear a mask. And so there was like a big anti-mask movement. People were like, you know, you can't tell me what to put on my face, things like that. Do you think that had anything to do with it? That people were just, that the society in general was just less wanting masks or willing to buy masks?

That may have had an ultimately small part in it, but I think the reality is that part of the... Remember, the original goal of launching the trade war is we want to be less reliant on China. We want to produce more stuff here. Here you had a situation where companies were producing...

in the states and could supply to, you know, all kinds of organizations, hospitals, governments, whatever it may be, not necessarily the consumer. And yet they still went out of business because there was no support. And in today's world, to, to answer your question, we're still importing the majority of our masks and gloves from everywhere else. So,

Again, getting back to if it's truly a national security issue, there's really no bigger national security than what we just went through with the pandemic, right? And needing these kinds of PPE for frontline workers or doctors. It still didn't happen. So I use this as an example of you were telling that you told everybody in the world this was a national security issue. It happened. The minute it was over, it was no longer a national security issue. And you may say it's a national security issue, but the old saying from the Bible, by their DG shall know them,

or you walk on the walk or talk on the talk, to use a modern phrase, it's all that way. So when you... I use that as an example. If you're not willing to do that to save people's lives, how now are you expecting U.S. companies to pay 50 bucks more per chip or whatever it may be for a car or other parts of the ecosystem or components? Because it's so astronomically more expensive than you could get out of China. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, to me, this...

really highlights like when the chips, when the stakes are so high that people's lives are at stake, right? I mean, the evidence, I guess, that you're pointing to is that one, all these companies that were set up, like they didn't make it, they went out of business. So obviously they didn't sell all those masks. And if that's the case in this sort of heightened situation, then bringing all the manufacturing back to the US is a very precarious thing because if people wouldn't even buy a mask for a couple of cents more,

Then why would they buy anything else when there's already a global supply chain or a China supply chain where all this stuff sort of exists? Well, it not only exists, but it's also cheaper. And quicker. And advanced. And quicker. Quicker, consistent. Well, remember, if you're a, to your point, Eric, if you're a U.S. stock listed company, you go by quarterly results. And does anybody really believe-

that if the CFO is looking there and going, why the hell is this costing me 30% more? Go get the cheapest version. Why are we spending more money on this? Of course, they're going to go get something cheaper, right? I mean, the counter argument is national security. I mean, there's a lot of counter arguments that are made, but again, I get back to, you told us PPE was a national security issue. Look at where we're at. Now, some of it's gone to Mexico, so it's better, so I understand that. But when you talk about the totality of it,

Right. In the moment when the shit hit the fan and people needed it because they were dying. That's what happened. Yeah. But you mentioned before, you know, when we're talking about masks, you said you really need someone like an Eisenhower to kind of step in and knock heads around and, you know, really drive the direction. Yeah.

I mean, couldn't a counterargument be made that that is kind of what we're seeing now? Is that the government is getting more involved in kind of dictating laws and restrictions and things around trade and around supply chain issues like this? That's true. But again, are you building out the ecosystem, right? Anybody can build a factory. You could, I could, Eric could, anybody listening could.

That doesn't mean anything if you can't get the material, the people, right, the infrastructure, the government support, all the stuff we talked about. And so, yes, they're building out cheap factories. Wonderful. Of course they should, right? Again, every country should have what they need locally for their own national whatever. But the reality is, is that that's only a piece of the puzzle. If you're really going to do the whole puzzle, you've got to do the whole puzzle. You know, I was, earlier this year, I was talking about

uh, with somebody, uh, an official. And I asked about the talent in, particularly in terms with the chips, Hey, we've got a shortage of talent. You know, how are we going to overcome this? You know, our universities, like for example, I think Purdue university is tailoring a program, um, specifically to, uh, so engineers can meet more of the, um, talent needs and the chip industry. And they told me point blank, listen, there's no appetite at all to raise the caps on immigration.

And I said to them, well, I hope you enjoy not having a fully robust chip manufacturing capability because the best in the world are from where? They're from Japan, Malaysia, China, and the island that should not be named. Well, it goes back to your five elements, right? It's like you can't just wave a magic wand. These things...

These things take time. The reason that there are certain places that are so dominant in the supply chain is because they've had a long history of doing that. And that demand and that investment has sustained them to build up that infrastructure. That's like why they were select. It's like selection, right? Going towards this talent concept, though, I feel like this idea of the talent and labor and this disparity between...

the Asian part of the world in terms of talent for manufacturing versus the talent pool in the States for manufacturing. I don't think that is even an idea or concept or even reality that most people are even aware of over there. I feel like they feel like,

Asian people working in factories, they think of stereotypically like a sweatshop or something. I think for the average person, citizen, that's what they think of. They don't think of this disparity in actual manufacturing talent and labor talent.

I think, yeah, to a point. I also think that when you look at the percentage, for example, the American population involved in manufacturing has gone down particularly the last two generations or so. In China, it's still very new.

Meaning in terms of just time. This is one of the things that is different definitely between the West and Asia broadly is that, you know, I think one of the reasons I'm actually working on an article now about why the Intel executive, Mr. Gensler, was just fired the CEO because he only came on in 2021, right? And now he's gone.

In Asia, we take a far different approach and view on things like talent or building that ecosystems or capital return, those kinds of things, right? It's a much longer term view. In the West, particularly the US, like it's a really quick turnaround. Like you got to start making money year three, year four. I remember when I opened up a factory here, one of the board of the company said, oh, you better be profitable in three years or we're going to shut you down. And I'm like, what are you talking about? Like, that's just not how China works, right? China's about the long game.

Right. It doesn't mean it's perfect or you won't have challenges or maybe, you know, but the reality is, is to your point, they view it as, oh, we're going to build a factory. We're going to employ a bunch of people and things will be all hunky dory. But the reality is, it's not how it works. It's a whole process involved. It's building out the ecosystem, the talent. Right. How do you bring in or if you remember when the first factories were opened up in the 80s and the 90s here, right.

People were literally coming off the farms, right? Now, how do you train those people, right? And in some ways, we're also getting into that aspect and into the states, right? Because people are not really familiar with factories anymore like they used to be, right? The other thing is a lot of people these days, particularly the younger generations, don't want to work in factories. So, you know, when you look at time, you know, a lot of my question is great. So you have demographic challenges, you have educational challenges and limits, right? So for example, in China...

You know, most people do not have above a ninth grade level education, right? And in the US, more than 50% of Americans can't read above a sixth grade level. Those, that doesn't mean you're going to have a advanced manufacturing ecosystem.

with that. Now you can, to some degree, in different places with different people if you have some flexibility or you have training or you have immigration, but the reality is that's just not going to happen. When you add all these factors together, one, people don't really want to work in factories, two, modern day factories are heavily, heavily automated already, three,

the educational challenges already in the population, and four, the lack of really understanding what it is to have a manufacturing or let's just say broadly supply chain ecosystem to fulfill all those needs, right? That's the problem, right? When you talk to Eric Tupoy and when you talk to people about it in the States, and no, they don't think about it holistically, right?

Right. I'm trying to, I'm trying to provide different view of saying, Hey, I've lived, I am an American, but I lived in China since I was a kid. I've been all over Asia, worked all over Asia. Here's the systems and the ways I'm seeing things work.

for a modern world which is becoming ever more connected, where everybody wants to have a constantly rising standard of living, where every parent wants their child to have... So here's some of the learnings that I've had. And if it really is a national security issue to you, you want to have this domestically produced or in friendlier hands, the kind of friend-sharing themes, these kinds of things. Here's some of the things, because I'm here and I've seen it done. One of the things...

And maybe we'll get into the book idea a little bit later. But one of the things that I found fascinating is within six months, China built an entire mask supply chain ecosystem in 2020. Overnight. Everything you would ever need. All the material, the people, the machines, the this, the that, the government. So everything in six months to basically provide 50% of the world's masks. And so again, I look at that and say...

It was so important to China that they put everything on hold they possibly could and built this entire ecosystem out because they had to. And then once that was done, a lot of people will quibble with quality and this and that, but to be honest, that's a secondary issue to the point I'm making. They built the entire ecosystem and then utilized it.

But it also costs a lot of money and a lot of sacrifice. And when you get into, you know, are countries and companies willing to sacrifice short-term for that long-term gain? And in my experience, particularly when you talk in the West, and even more so now here to some degree, they're not willing to. And if you're not willing to, but your competitor is, guess who's going to win in that?

It's obviously the competitor. Well, but there's also the counter argument on this particular one, which is, okay, so China was able to kickstart their whole apparatus and do something really impressive, right? With the mass, like with railroads. I mean, there's certain things that they're just really ahead. The pushback could be, well, you know, the Chinese economy is really suffering because of all the things they did to tackle this one, you know, problem. And was that money and sacrifice actually worth it?

It's a good point. I think, to be honest, we're still too close to those events to really understand how that's all played out. But what I can tell you is the economy here is challenging, but when you go in the interior, when you go outside of the eastern seaboard, the economy is okay. People are generally confident.

So there is, in China, you know, there is this gap between the eastern seaboard where people are like, hey, you know, it's not growing. I can't get the same jobs. But the reality is that Shanghai already has the tall buildings. You can't build any more tall buildings in the city, right? All that work's done. But when you go in the interior, like when I go visit factories in Qingdao or in Sichuan or wherever, they're much more optimistic and bullish, right? So you do see this kind of break in the system. But, you know, that's really interesting you say that.

because, you know, there's some narratives that say the U.S. economy is doing, you know, fine, right? Inflation is getting under control, et cetera, et cetera. You know, unemployment is still pretty low, right? But it feels like if you look at the recent election, it was the urban areas where people seem to be doing okay. And it was the rural areas that basically all voted for the Republicans, right? And they were really suffering. And it sounds like

you know, sort of opposite of what you're saying in China, which is that the developed areas on the Eastern seaboard, you know, Shanghai, Shenzhen, Beijing, you know, these,

um, glittery metropolises, it's actually getting harder and harder to survive, but it's the hinterlands and sort of the rural areas that are still doing okay. Like, is there some kind of parallel, you know, kind of story to be drawn there? I think that's a good point. I think part of it is, you know, in the US when you, when you, when they asked voters, what is, you know, what was the, one of the main issues or the main issue, it was about the economy, inflation, right? Yeah. The fact that I'm working two jobs and, you know, and still can't make ends meet. It's a huge problem.

In the US. And in fact, in the last 30 years, the general, you know, the middle class wages overall, I think the status is they haven't really grown at all, particularly after the last bout of 20, 30% inflation. There's also a lack of feeling of opportunity.

Right. Um, here, yeah, here in the Eastern seaboard, it is challenging, but you know, you can't build any more buildings in Shanghai, right. As an example, but in the interior, you still can. So there's a lot more optimism when you get into, uh, other parts of the country. I think the other thing is, is people forget that, you know, China hasn't really gone through an economic challenge like this for at least 30, 40 years. Um,

Maybe in the late 90s when they had all the reforms, the SOE reform and the real estate reform, there were some challenges for sure. But we still are trying to figure out what this roadmap means for modern China. And to the government's credit, I think they're working to figure that out. And they are putting in stimulus and other steps to move that forward. But again, when you go into the hinterland, so to speak, as you put it, not only is it much more optimistic, but people realize that, hey, things are still getting better.

Right? We're getting more access to goods and services. Right? Where our money still goes fairly far. Right? I mean, the cost of living in Chengdu is like 30% lower than Shanghai as an example. Right? So you still have a lot of wiggle room there for a lot of growth and anticipation. And the other thing, the other interesting change that I think has happened in China, and it hasn't really happened at least as I've seen in the States, is that now...

The younger generation itself, the women are more educated than the men generally.

And you see more women actually making the buying decisions. And so when you look at, for example, EVs and the explosion of EVs, the companies, if you look at the ads and how companies are doing different things, a lot of it is targeted towards the female audience, right? A lot of foreign, I'd argue most foreign brands are still targeted at people like us, right? Guys in their 30s, 40s, 50s, those kinds of things. But when you look at how EVs are doing it, they're completely shifting the

Right. Because oftentimes what we're finding is the female buyer actually buys the EV. So in China, you're seeing this actual societal evolution that isn't necessarily happening in other parts of Western society, as an example. And that's also, to your point, Eric, shifting some of the dynamic. Right. Is there an explanation for this change in China?

It's an excellent question. I'm not sure on that. I think one of the things you do see is that as women have become more educated here, I wouldn't put it so much as it's assertive, but more like I'm going to control more of my own destiny. And on top of that, it's also focusing on things like, you know, I want better bang for my buck. I want to do something that really helps my family better.

Guys, we want awesome cars so we can kind of show off right and run around the city in these cars. So it's also a different dynamic at work. I think the other thing is that we haven't really seen, this is a recent phenomenon, and we haven't really seen this before. So we don't know how it's actually going to evolve itself out. But this is more of a recent change, I think, that people kind of miss. You know, why EVs, for example, are selling more than 50% every month in the market than ICEs, right, internal combustion engines. I think

Part of that is a lot of the ICs, again, were targeted towards kind of a male audience. And EVs are more evenly targeted, if that makes sense. Yeah, yeah. What is the reaction you get when you talk to people? Like given everything you're saying and your point of view, given your experience and expertise here, when you go to DC and you talk to people there, generally what is the reaction they get to what you're saying?

There's some flexibility and attraction to it, right? Because it is not, it is definitely not conventional. I think the other thing, though, is that they want solutions and answers, right, to problems, right? China is a mercantilist country.

nationalistic economy, we need to find a way to push back against that. Right? So one of the ways is we're going to develop our own supply chains or non-Chinese supply chains. Other things, get involved. I mean, it's always, you know, it's usually one of the, you know, China started the coronavirus, you know, everybody is under the, you know, the boot of the party. I mean, it depends on which groups you're talking to. There's incredible mistrust.

And even somebody like me who, you know, I would argue I'm fairly moderate, right? I understand there's challenges on both sides. My goal is to make sure that we can fix those challenges and become more connected. So as we get bigger and bigger challenges, we're actually able to deal with those. The other thing that's been interesting, and this happened in the last time I was there, is I point blank had an official tell me, you know,

why is it that the Americans always have to lead? China never takes the lead on anything. And they found it to be an interesting comment. And to be honest, I didn't say it out loud, but the first thing that hit my head was, well, then how can China be taken over the world, which is what I hear, if we have to lead on everything? And my comment to them, what I did say to them is like, listen, China in many ways is still an evolving country, right? We know it's 4,000 years, we know all that stuff.

But in today's world, right, it is still evolving and trying in some ways to figure it out. And in other ways, it wants respect, you know, which is, which is duly earned. So if you want to do something for climate champ, take your pick. Why not take the lead? What is the problem?

I found that comment to actually be pretty encapsulating of some of the... China's taking over the world, it's going on, and then on the other hand... Yeah, which is it? Well, it's not what is it, but I'm like, so what are you actually looking at to your point, or what are they seeing? I don't know what they're seeing, right? With that kind of, you know, this dichotomy here. China's taking over the world, but how come China never leads? And I'm like, but you can't have both. Yeah. And part of it is maybe we're not functioning in the proper prism.

Because in my world, I'm trying to understand how to make effective supply chains, not only so a product can be made as efficiently as possible, like this coffee cup here, but also how can countries, organizations, or people all benefit. And it's not perfect. I don't have that illusion or delusion.

But the reality is it's very confusing often when I go there because, of course, I want to be part of the solution, right? I don't want to be part of the problem. But I want to say, hey, here's what I'm seeing in China and all these factories and all the people I talk to and the work I'm doing. And here's why it's important to you, Mr. Congressman or whoever it may be.

But it is very confusing. And I get the sense there are a lot of vested interests, right? Some, of course, want to be, want to maintain good relations with China. Others want to completely decouple from China. Others want to do kind of the ABC of China. You know, there's all of these different dynamics at work and they all have different positions and different PowerPoints in the structure. So for people who like, let's say, want to completely decouple or the ABC thing, do you

Kind of lay out like you're doing now the reasons why you think that would be next to impossible to completely accomplish? It depends on if they're open to it. But you have before, right? Yeah. Often it gets into, well, here's what I'm seeing, right? And one of the, there's a couple of criticisms that often get touted. One is, you know, listen, China joined the WTO and we were told that it was going to reform and become more open and this and that and the other thing.

Right. More democratic, whatever you want to talk about. And first off, and I don't say I have to tell I, I bite my tongue a lot because, um, of course I want to be part of the discourse and I want to come back and meet with these people again. But the reality is, is if you thought that China was going to change to meet your expectations, then you're a fool. China has its own destiny. And so it will develop and do whatever it needs to do. Um, and I've actually argued, I argued vociferously, um,

in the last year in a visit to D.C. that actually China is far more open than it was when I moved here in 99 in Chong Chuan. And that American influence here is actually fairly good. I mean, look at our own city. There's 8,000 coffee shops in Shanghai. It's the most of any city in the world. We've turned a tea drinking culture into a coffee culture in 20 years. Yeah. Or 20 to whenever Starbucks opened here. Yeah. Every kid in the country wants to go to Disneyland. Yeah.

Most of the upper echelon of society wants an iPhone. All of these things. And so when you take a look at it, I'm like, guys, you're not seeing what I'm seeing. Now, it doesn't mean they're challenging. Of course there's challenges. Of course there is. And actually, I have a theme, if I may lay it out to you. It's called the Spread Index of Decoupling. Spread Index meaning Starbucks, Pandas, Raytheon, ExxonMobil, Apple, and Disney.

Now, what it essentially means is as long as there's Starbucks in the country, significant Starbucks stores, as long as we have pandas in the US, as long as Raytheon continues to have thousands of Chinese suppliers that it currently does, as long as ExxonMobil is doing its energy stuff here,

As long as Apple is not only producing, but also selling Apple phones here. And as long as Disney stays here, there will be no decoupling between our two countries. It doesn't mean there won't be challenges. It doesn't mean there won't be de-risking. All that will, you know, that will come. But this is why I'm far more bullish longer term on the U.S.-China relationship. Yes, there will be challenges. Yes, both sides often are stuck in their ways. Often we get stuck on small things.

But the reality is, is that again, we're an ever connecting world. We will never be less connected than we are today. So those guys who do say we wanted to couple and I'm like, okay, decoupling is basically this. It allows you to, you know, um, for those of you listening, I'm taking my two fists together. You have a lot of tension there. Yeah. Whereas coupling or connecting your interlock to your hand. What happens then? Now you have much less flexibility to do something stupid.

Well, yeah, because that goes directly into the larger debate of, I feel there's one side who feels it's safer to decouple. And then there's another school of thought, and I think that's where you really stand, is that, no, actually, the more integrated we are, the safer we all are.

Yeah, somebody mentioned, I talked to recently about this, there's some IR, international relation theory about that. But I'm not a political scientist, so I don't know. But go ahead and try to decouple the US-China. Okay, it's decoupled. But you're still going to be buying products from Japan, which has over 30% of its economy started in China.

I think it's 30%. You're still going to be buying products from Vietnam. Where are they going to come from? From Thailand, from Europe. So you're never going to decouple. So that's why decoupling is a fantasy. This is not the Cold War. You know, it reminds me of like, imagine it's like you're getting, you're married, some

somehow and then you get a divorce like so decoupling is like the divorce but all of your relatives are the same and you still have to go to each other's houses for like parties and you're still gonna like do all these things or it's like you have kids already yeah you have kids you both have kids you got family and then you're sort of like decouple so Cam I'm curious

You know, you've been, you're American, right? And you've, you know, represented the US on lots of different issues and you're trying to advocate for certain things. Like, what are your goals? Like, you know, when you think about how you want to see the world in the next 10, 20, 30 years, like, what is it that you want to see?

Well, it'd be nice to not have any more war, number one. I mean, what really drives me is maybe is a better answer to your question is making sure that my Chinese children never have to go to war.

That's number one. Number two is, again, trying to, in my own world of supply chains, trying to really understand that to figure out, is there a way we can use them so conflict is lessened? Right. And again, you know, everybody's standards are raised, right? Governments are more stable. You know, those kinds of things are what I'm looking at. I think the reality is we, as a world, we still haven't figured out how to truly live together.

how do we really deal with and deal with the challenges of the day, right? The most obvious challenge that people cite is climate change. Like, yeah, but, you know, half the world doesn't really think that's an issue. So to rely on that to unite the world, I think is not something that's useful. When I look at it broadly, you know, in the last century plus, there's been several attempts by humanity to essentially form a globalized system of one form or another, right?

League of Nations after World War I, right, which was kind of the world's first real attempt to we want to put a system and a structure in place so there can't be any more war. We saw after, of course, the devastation of World War II, which the League of Nations didn't stop, you know, the creation of the United Nations, same kind of thing.

We also saw the millennial summits and movement towards the end, or at the very end of the 20th century. So I've actually argued, and to your point about DC, there's multiple times, at least three, four, five times in the last century plus, where humanity itself has cried out and said, we need something to actually deal with these challenges we're facing on a global level. And so to your point, I think we're also seeing that opportunity now coming in

Um, I'm not saying we're going to see world peace in our lifetime, but I think the realization as we continue to become more and more integrated, right? And you asked earlier about integration and disintegration. The more we're integrated, the more the current levels of institutions and things we know of what's going on and how we operate ourselves are falling apart.

because they don't work and meet the needs of the day. And as somewhat of a go-between between, you know, and I do go to DC and I go to Europe, you know, can I use some of those consultations to give good information that maybe they haven't considered or maybe areas where, um, I'm like, Hey, I'm actually talking to these sets of people. You don't have this information. This is critical for you to know because of, you know, X, Y, Z, right? Um,

It's interesting. I was thinking you might ask a question like that. You know, one of my early ancestors was Roger Sherman. He was the only founding father to sign, of the U.S., to sign all four founding documents of the U.S. The Articles of Confederation, the Continental Association, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution, I think. Wow. And so, you know, one of the later ancestors was William Sherman, the general, the Civil War general. And so, you know, I was thinking about

My own family history has always been one of pioneering and doing something different. Like I'm sixth generation Seattle in some regards, right? And different parts of my family came over to the US, you know, from Sweden and Eastern Europe, Poland and Russia and the English and the Scots. And, you know, they all came and they mixed, but it was always something where they were trying to move something forward. They were trying to do something new, something fresh, something different.

And so I try to look at it that way. What are things that I can do that are unique and different that maybe others aren't seeing or where I can move the needle in a positive direction? Because again, I have a very unique spot in space that that perspective maybe isn't always considered. Yeah. I think that's a really interesting

admirable mission and I think you're an incredible person and in a position to be doing that. I guess my concern is, before when you were talking about that there is this deep mistrust in DC of anything China or even China related, do you feel that that distrust and to a certain level, maybe even paranoia at times rubs off onto you given how much time you spent here

um given your personal life here like do you feel that when you go there is they look at you somewhat differently where you're there's a bias against you given actually like kind of counter-intuitively you spent so much time here so you understand the place but then you spent so much time here they kind of like don't really kind of trust you completely oh that's definitely true i have you know i've been called you know i've been called um a sycophant for the communist party and

I've been called somebody who's not a patriot, you know, true American. I'm going to call people in DC. Yeah. Yeah. And I gave it, I don't, I don't, I just don't give a shit. You know, my goal is not to, well, that's got to hurt though, right? To some degree. But again, my goal is to make sure that my Chinese children don't go to war. That's the goal. The focus and the goal is to make sure that we become more connected so we don't have to go to war. And while some may see that as a,

as maybe not the best of intentions. The reality is in 2024, with the tensions and the way the world's working, that's how I see it. Now, to your point, Eric, maybe in five or 10 years, I'll have a different kind of focus and perspective. But that's my goal. You know, you mentioned...

But you have some skin in the game, right? I mean, we, you know, anyone who does business in China that comes out here, right, that has relatives, family, or just has a general, you know, affinity to the culture, whatever it is, has some skin in the game. But if the people that are making the decisions, you know, on that side of the ocean, 99.99% of them don't have the same skin in the game. And, right, in parallel, the folks in China, you know,

you know, don't necessarily have skin in the game. Although we do know that probably more people at that leadership level in China have been to the U.S. and studied there, right? Even the current, you know, head of China spent, you know, time in the U.S. But, you know, for the most part, there's not a whole lot of skin in game on either side. Then what happens? How do you actually convince them, right? Because it makes sense for you, for Justin, you've got children here that are of, you know, sort of this mixed identity. But what about

Everyone else. It's a good question. I think one way to look at it is understanding any problem that happens anywhere in the world now does not stay local. Yeah. Right. That's kind of number one. So, you know, we thought Ukraine, for example, um, you know, some said, oh, it's going to be over. Russia can do this, Ukraine, you know, but the reality is, look at it, we're about to enter year three and you have at least half a million people dead, uh, and it's affecting commerce and global, you know, issues all over the world.

Um, and yeah, I think the, the reality is you're right. Um, although I, I would argue our generation is a little bit different because we did go through 9-11, right? A lot of my friends, you know, they did go off to war, um, you know, and came back in, in different ways. And so on top of that, you know, this is, you see, you see, I find this interesting. Almost globally, you find that most militaries around the world, um,

particularly in the West, cannot hit their recruitment requirements, meaning the number of recruits. And so again, I've argued this is one of the ways we know that the world is changing and evolving because people do not want to go into the military anymore. Right?

Right. And this is why you see talk of conscription in certain parts of Europe, right? The US, I think the last year or two, it has not hit its targets for recruitment, for example, for the army. I think for the Marines it has, but not for the army. And so people, similar to factories, people do not want to go do this stuff anymore.

Uh, and the counter argument to that is, well, things will become more mechanized, more drone, and that may or may not be true. Um, but the reality is, is that with China's manufacturing powerhouse, China's going to be the center of that anyway. So why not be on better terms? The other, the, you know, to your point earlier, when you questioned me about how do I deal with these people often, my, my blunt question is China's your biggest customer and your biggest supplier. It's the biggest, one of the biggest customers in terms of, um, uh,

T-bills, right, buying treasury bills. It's your biggest customer for, you know, different supply chains and materials, these kinds of things. It's also your biggest supplier, and it supplies your biggest companies. Apple, Amazon, Walmart, Starbucks, Disney, all of that stuff. So why do you want to piss them off? What's their response? Well...

Again, usually it's some form of national security and so on and so forth. And I guess the reality is economic security is national security too. And we're forgetting this argument in most parts of the world. If your peoples are not progressing, that is a threat to your national security.

Right? People want to progress. They want to continue to move forward. They want to have a better life. They want their children to have a better life than they did. Right? In China, you know, we will churku, right? We'll do the hard stuff so our children have it better. Every parent in the world feels that way. But when society stops having that as part of the deal, that's a huge problem. And that's essentially what we're entering. I mean, I did some...

research and travel in Germany earlier this year. And I was absolutely shocked at how the country is operating. They are rapidly de-industrializing right before our eyes. And as Germany goes, so goes Europe. And I remember I was in Berlin talking to a former official, I asked him point blank and said, well, you know, what's, what's going on? What are they going to, how are they going to arrest this, you know, stop this and do this and do that? And he's like, well, we have a traffic light coalition. Basically they have a three party system that

No politician's going to stand up and say, we need to take our medicine, we need to do something that's difficult because the other politician will say, that guy's full of crap, vote for me instead. Well, that's a big problem. You're not going to fix any problems that way, right? When problem solving becomes political suicide, that's a big problem. That's right. And a lot of countries are actually operating in that format. And so, you know, you go about what do they say. I mean, I looked at, or I had done some research

during the pandemic where I talked about medical gloves for the U.S. And I basically wrote out a long story

kind of formatted email on this about how do you actually do it. For example, on the one hand, you need to invest in rubber plantations, right? Rubber trees and plantations in Florida, the Yucatan or somewhere where you have access to it, right? The raw material. And then you have to invest in things like factory plants

Including not just raw material processing, but also, you know, building up the machines so you can produce more gloves, right? That also means you have to bring in more workers, train them, do all these things. And then my final recommendation was,

You need to actually backfill demand, right? You need to, you know, whether it's through FEMA or FDA or somebody, um, veteran affairs go in and say, we will guarantee you 10, 15 years of a minimum quantity of X. So then the factory knows that no matter what, because demand will go up and down depending on market conditions, all these kinds of things that they'll have access. And the response I got back was, well, that just takes too long. I'm like, well, but that's how you fix the problem.

Right. And I think, you know, part of the discussion is we want it now. It's national security now, now, now, or in the next five years, we're going to have full chip self-sufficiency. And I'm like, no, you're not because you're not fixing all of these challenges in the supply chain ecosystem. Yeah. And yeah, you're right. They're going to hit their head against the wall. Um,

And when I do go, sometimes that is received okay. And other times I'm just told that, you know, this just isn't, you know, the world isn't as you see it. And in our system, because there are a lot of vested interests, right? Companies can go and lobby different parts of the government. Government agencies can make arbitrary decisions. President Trump can come in and say everything is 50% tariffed, right? And there's little recourse. And so when those are the cases, right?

No company in their right mind is going to come around and say, yes, I'm going to invest and build this out because somebody may turn around and do something that's going to negatively affect it. We see this in some ways with the EV market.

transition in the U.S., right, where they have all these government subsidies and incoming Trump administration is already talking about, well, we're going to take some of this stuff away. Okay, so you're GM, Ford, Chrysler, whoever, you spent all this money trying to retool new factories, new machines, new staff, new this, new that. You're making battery deals with CATL or Goshen. You're trying to do this and that. And all of a sudden, the money you thought was going to be there no longer is. Well, they pull the rug from out of money. Well, exactly. So what happens then?

It doesn't happen. And then people wonder why. Why aren't they building, why aren't there more companies investing in reshoring in the U.S.? Why aren't they, you know, and not that China doesn't have that problem. There are challenges. But China, in many ways, when you see the investment in industry, it's often in the supply chains either first or along with the development overall of the industry. You know what's interesting is like that it seems like if there's like a specific point

problem, like a short-term problem, then the government here is able to, if they want to, mobilize all the resources to go after that thing in a very precise and, or, you know, a reasonably efficient way. And they can like rally all the resources, get everyone on board and then get all of the independent actors, right? That are, that have all these different types of incentives and then kind of point them in the, in the same direction, which is,

you know, clearly much harder in the U.S. system. But at the same time, if you look at Silicon Valley and you just look at, you know, historically parts of the U.S. that are so entrepreneurial, right, they've continued to change the world. It's like we're actually, we seem to be more geared to like this blue sky thinking where if there's not like kind of a

a fixed problem, right? We don't really know what the solution is going to look like. It's like the US is like amazing at that. We're really, really, really good at that. And Silicon Valley continues to do stuff like that. But if it's like a

you know, a known problem, it seems like it's harder for us to actually rally everyone around. So if it's creative thinking, like we're really good at, right? But if it's more fixed problem solving, we're getting weaker and weaker because there's so many different like conflicting or vested interests and independent actors in the system. You know, I think you're right. Well, that's our show folks. No, I, that is a, that is a really good point. I also think that in terms of this

I think what you were describing as this more urgency or short-sightedness or short-term thinking in terms of, no, we need it now. We need a solution now, now, now, now. What do you think are the factors that contribute to that?

that kind of thinking in DC? Do you think it's election cycles? Do you think it's maybe the national security concerns that they feel are so urgent that it just simply needs to happen now or else, you know, the world is over? What do you think the factors that contribute to that kind of thinking are? All of the above. I think when you look at part of it is just how our businesses are naturally growing

geared towards quarterly results, right? End of the year results. And I think that that's part of it, you know, that, that in many ways has, for lack of a better term, infected much of the thinking, right? Like Wall Street. Well, not just Wall Street, but hey, you know, as a business, like we got to have returns, baby. Like if we don't have returns, I'm going to, I'm going to get axed. Yeah. You know, so we better have those returns. Um,

I would argue this is part of the challenge with the Intel CEO, right? He putting aside whether or not the plan would have worked, which I think was very much TBD because that kind of plan needed a long-term view. What was the plan? I think it was a lot to do with building out foundries and capabilities and kind of matching some of what other companies could do, particularly at TSMC. But again, when you're reorienting an entire company towards a brand new

not just focus, but rebuild as well. Like that takes a minimum of 10 years. You know, he was in the job, I think barely three. Um, and so the short term thinking to your point, yes, election cycles are definitely part of it. Um, the American pension for, I need to get on TV. You know, I need to, it was interesting. One of the, one of the people I've, uh, I talked to in DC regularly, he said to me, he's like, listen, 80, 90% of this is showmanship. Only 10, 20% is actually real policy work.

And I said, well, how does somebody like me who lives and works somewhere else understand that? He goes, just watch what happens on the TV. The guys who are making the policies are not the ones who are on TV screaming, generally. Now, they may come along and approve the policy, but the actual policymakers are doing something different. You don't necessarily see them in public or these kinds of things. They probably don't want to be on TV. Well, yeah. Well, there's a lot of people who want to grab at those things.

you know, cause they want the policy to favor them or to favor a company or a situation of these kinds of things. Uh, I think the other challenge is, is that how many, how many people actually really speak, not just Chinese, but have been here in the last five years. Like it may not just been here as in travel, as in lived here. Now I personally, I know it's not everybody, but I personally know only three people in DC who lived here through, if not all, everything we've been through the last five years, but at least a lot of it.

Anything those three guys write or say, I voraciously consume. Everybody else I look at with a much more careful eye, right? And I think that's also part of it. You know, when you have a system that doesn't necessarily reward problem solving to your point, but it really rewards things like screaming at the top of your lungs, that's also a challenge, right? I think when you look at it,

One of the challenges in the system also is just our divisiveness, right? You asked earlier about how I'm perceived. I'm very, I'm vehemently nonpartisan. I'm not Democrat, Republican. I try to be not just moderate, but like, okay, what is the other side of the thinking, right? And this is, and often in my discourse, I don't really care if you agree with me, but tell me something I don't know. And if you challenge me, that's fine, right? Because I know I don't see the world perfectly. I want to know what the other people think. Now, it may be wrong, but again, it's not, um,

I'm not afraid of having that discussion or that pushback. A lot of people are. And I think on top of that, when you have also an echo chamber that kind of feeds upon itself, right? I mean, the big one, at least when I was there, again, I kind of told you is, you know, China's taken over the world.

And then on the other side, somebody says, well, you know, how come, you know, China never leads on anything? And I'm like, this is not, do you guys not see the contradiction within the statements you're seeing? And the reality is, is either they're not talking to each other, they're not going to say, it's very weird to see that, particularly from here. It seems like there's a vacuum in terms of the type of leadership that we may have experienced that, you know, sort of made America great again.

In the past, right? And I'm curious to get your perspective on that. Like what's missing these days? Well, I think, you know, most countries in the world struggle with the fact that 2024 is not, you know, 1994, right? Or 2004, right? The current world is constantly evolving and much of what we do is of the past, right?

Right. Kind of, again, this focus on what we need to have manufacturing jobs. Okay. But manufacturing has kind of evolved. We don't need as many, we don't need to need as many people today to work in a factory as we did, you know, 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago. And that's fine. But then what?

And then you kind of, you know, nobody has the answer for that. And I think much of, much of the way we interact with each other, right? We're sitting across a table like this. Now this is fine for a podcast, but you know, when you look at the pictures of how, you know, um,

You know, the boardroom style, I'm going to sit across from you and you have your talking points and I have mine and we go back and forth. I'm like, is this really the most effective way to deal with today's problems in 2024 and beyond? You know, we have to use an English term, we have this yoke around us of old ways of thinking and styles and they just don't work in today.

Uh, and I don't think particularly the younger generation has any patience for that anyway, because we're so stuck to our phones and everything else. I mean, who the hell wants to sit in a boardroom for three or four hours and bitch at each other? I argue probably nobody does. On the other hand, um, I think we could do a lot, uh, of things together. You know, I, I read an article now, uh, that you're looking at called acts of service. What are things we can do together? So if we're having a meeting, uh,

And whether it's between companies or politicians or governments, we should have some form of active service, whether it's we're going to go down to an orphanage and, you know, or a soup kitchen and feed the homeless, whatever it may be. Right. Even beyond that, I just go, what are some of the acts we can just do together? So I'm from Seattle. I love fishing. So why don't we get some of these guys in a fishing boat and send them out and go catch salmon for 12 hours? And let me tell you.

You'll talk a lot because one, there ain't nothing else to do. And secondly, who doesn't like to catch a salmon? And so you're cheering each other on, right? You're helping each other. You're screaming. I mean, that changes the dynamic. Imagine, imagine of that. Well, I don't imagine. Like I, this is something I think we need to make a part of our process and not just, you know, US China, but generally as part of the process.

And also, you get to really then kind of talk about the things that you need to talk about, or you do get to know the other people. I think, you know, Kaiser Guo talks a lot about this, right? This cognitive empathy kind of thing, right? These kinds of things. And it does change the dynamic, right? It's like, you know, in our first meeting, we had lunch together, right? We got to know each other a bit more. This is great. That's not so good. You know, there is a process to that. And, you know, one of the things that I've seen, when you look at how

For example, some officials have interacted with China. When you see officials who are truly, and this is kind of a broader term, are sincere well-wishers of the Chinese people, right? And it doesn't mean that you're a kiss-ass, which a lot of people interpret. But if you look at how Janet Yellen does her thing, when she comes here, she'll go to a local restaurant, right? She'll meet with local economists, whatever. I mean, people just go crazy. There's a reason why she's called Yellen Nai Nai, right? Right.

And then when she talks to the Chinese behind closed doors, I'm sure they, you know, they go at it. But the reality is, is that they know she's not going to burn them.

And that there's a level of respect there, you know, also when you include her background and everything. But they know she's not going to stand up and start spouting stuff that would be antithetical to them, particularly, you know, in their own backyard, so to speak. And she gets a lot of play here. And when you can contrast that with others who may not have, who have kind of the opposite approach, you can kind of see what happens here.

Right. And so this is, again, this is one of the things, if we're going to change anything, those would kind of be some areas I'd look at. One is do something together, whatever it may be. You know, I did kind of propose this last time I was in D.C. and somebody said, well, you know, the Chinese would never do that. And I'm like, well, first off, how do you know? You know, because you haven't asked them. And secondly, what politician doesn't like a photo op? I mean, let's be honest here. And if you want more than that, then actually create a dynamic where you can both have success. Right. Right.

Because I think often we forget, particularly from the West, that China has a dog in its own fight too, right? China is a country that sees itself not just as returning, but as a nation that should be respected. And I don't disagree. China should be respected. It's done an incredible amount of work and has made tremendous progress, particularly the last couple of decades. I mean, I've been here since I was a kid.

I had my 20th birthday party at the McDonald's in Changchun, right? And then now you fast forward, I've lived in Shanghai. This is my 20th year or so. And there are over 8,000 coffee shops. I mean, this is one of the most incredible cities in the world. Why wouldn't China be proud of that and want to be recognized? And so when you look at, there's a famous quote in my faith that talks about, you know, a true friend loves you for your sake, not for their sake.

And so when you actually, you know, and I wish more of our discourse would be like, hey, China, like you've really done amazing on this stuff or, you know, but a true friend also says, man, there's some challenges here. Like, well, you got to fix this. You know, you can't be doing, you know, and I think we forget this dynamic and maybe it's because, you know, the U.S. has been top of the world. I don't know, to be honest, because I'm not, I don't run in those circles. Go ahead, Eric. Yeah, no, I think that's, I mean, what you said is,

Absolutely resonates with me. And it makes so much sense from like a human nature point of view. And like, like we can fight anyone, right? I mean, any country can fight any other country and there can be bloodshed, right? But you don't want to fight human nature. And, you know, when you're like kind of helping us visualize what,

you know, sitting on a boat together for hours and hours and hours, right? Fishing for salmon and like you're rooting for each other. You have a common goal and you've got that shared experience. Like for you to actually make the effort to go on a boat, you've got to pack for it, right? You've got to think about what you're going to do out there, you know, put sunscreen on, like you've got that shared experience. And I think that's the challenge we have is that right now it's like, it's literally like two platforms pointed at each other

Right. And it's like, you know, North Korea and South Korea. Right. And literally we're pointing missiles at each other and no one's willing to cross that line. And inevitably what's going to happen is war. Right. Like inevitably what's going to happen is something so disastrous and so painful. And then that's the only way we really learn our lesson. Right. And that's why like the Mearsheimers of the world, they're not very good.

like bullish because they just feel like that's inevitably the cycle of human beings, right? Then we start fighting. But if we have these shared experiences, right? Cause yours is serendipity that brought you to China. And when you're able to experience the other side and see each other, that's like the only way you can actually problem solve. The only way you can avoid war is to get on a fucking fishing boat together and have that shared experience. But the sad thing is that the Pacific Pacific ocean is pretty fucking big and

And no one's really doing that. And like, I'm optimistic in general in the long arc of human history, but I'm actually, when I think about it, pretty pessimistic because I think that the forces that are around us right now are going to push us to something really, really bad happening. And that is the only wake-up call that we can possibly have. And if that thing becomes...

you know, if it involves nuclear stuff, then that's, that's it. Like it's game over. Cause no, you know, in the past we've never been able to wipe the others, the whole world out. We just didn't have the, the weaponry to do it. But now that we do, I'm actually not actually not, I'm actually pessimistic in the long, the long arc too. I think. Well, it's interesting. You said that I, I completely understand. I think, I think part of it is, um, I'm short term pessimistic.

because there are significant challenges, but I'm long-term bullish for a couple of reasons. One is... Because we won't be around and it'll put us out of our misery. I think within our lifetime, we'll see what's called the lesser piece, which is countries will come together and realize that we have to have some formation where we can't have war, whatever that may mean. I think long-term, I have no doubt that eventually there will be a global world peace,

It probably won't be in our lifetimes. But again, when you look at how the evolution just of humanity, right? First you had people, then you had the family, then the tribe, then the city-state, then the nation-state, the next natural evolution of that, right? Our next goal, our next evolution overall is global unity of some kind in a global system. This is when you actually look at the UN, like there's many of these principles, and I know you're laughing. I'm just like, I think the next stage is just like we go back to bacteria.

I think I'm a generally optimistic person. You see I'm smiling and laughing. This is very out of character for Eric right now. He's usually the optimistic one. Yeah, I'm optimistic and I'm happy, but I think I'm just like, nope, we're all going back to bacteria with a smile. I think you don't want to know, I don't disagree that there won't be incredible challenges or that somebody may do something stupid, but I'm very much...

long-term bullish. One, because I think there's people like us. There's enough of us who are like no mas. I think secondly, the other thing is, you know, there's a famous quote from a kind of a mid 20th century scholar. You know, he talked about China. And remember, this is like, I want to say in the, this is probably in the fifties. And he said, China has so glorious a past and so promising a future. Right. I think when you look at this country and all of the challenges it's been through,

particularly the last 150, 200 years, this is no doubt one of the key pillars of a global peace and a people who have been through all of that adversity. And again, we forget this in the West, right? People who've been through adversity don't want to go through more adversity. They want better things.

And so it's actually a blessing in some ways that we're here at this time because China does not want to have that happen again or go through that. And through that prism, it can see in its own history, remember one of so glorious a past, it now knows and can lead on what not to do. So that's one of the reasons I'm more bullish. The second is

I think in the U.S. we're actually seeing an evolution of our own society. And part of that is it's a very long process. It started probably around the time of the founding and then we had our civil war.

And then we had the suffragettes in the 1910s into the 20s to get the women's right to vote. And then we had our own civil rights movement. Then we had the 90s. And we're going through another transition period now. And so I think as U.S. society continues to evolve and become better, I think in many ways we forget in the U.S. our primacy, quote unquote, is not because of our economics or we have aircraft carriers around the globe. That's definitely part of it. It's an offshoot. But our primacy is not because of our economics or we have aircraft carriers around the globe.

But our primacy really is our people. And the fact that anybody from anywhere in the world can come to the U.S. and become something. I mean, the richest African in history, or one of them anyway, is an American called Elon Musk. What other country in the world does that happen? Nowhere.

And I actually think as the U.S. continues to progress and figure itself out, right, the elimination of prejudice in many ways, right? The fact that we're, our generation is much less prejudiced than the previous generation, particularly our parents' generation.

As this continues to evolve, it will also be one of the keys to unlocking a global world peace. Because countries will look at... I remember I was here when Obama was elected. I remember somebody said to me, well, how is it that Americans could elect a black man? Everybody knows you kill black people. The U.S. in many ways, its premise is a signal to the world of which way things are going, one way or the other. After the...

The Emancipation Proclamation was signed by Abraham Lincoln in 1862. There's a British scholar, his name I forget, who said this is one of the clearing calls of the world, is that basically now that the U.S. did it, because if you remember, you know, France had banned slavery and the U.K. had, Britain had banned slavery, but because the U.S. did it, it then signaled to the entire world that this game is up.

And I found that to be very interesting. This is like in the 1860s, 1870s. Even then people saw. And so, yes, Americans are very inward looking to some degree, but we also don't recognize the fact that what we do has global ramifications.

At the same time, now what China does has global ramifications. So part of what you're talking about, Eric, is these conflicting ramifications. But at the same time, there's also recognition of we all live on the same planet. The things we do affect everybody else, right? Climate change is an example of that thinking. Yeah.

And so that's why long-term I'm far more bullish is because it doesn't mean that things are going to be perfect and hunky-dory and kumbaya, but we're continuing to see an evolving world that is now becoming into a global worldwide civilization, right? Yeah. I think one of the roadblocks, and you guys were both hinting at this a little bit,

I see one of the roadblocks to this is on the societal level. And I agree with you, Cameron, that, you know, if we're looking at America, even globally, the general level of prejudice generally has gone down, you know, in modern times compared to the past, for sure.

But there is one acute area where it's spiking up, and that is in the context of our conversation when it comes to China, especially in conversations in America. And this ties into even your example of Janet Yellen.

I mean, yeah, Xi is very tough when she talks to Chinese officials and stuff. But yet, Xi is very popular in China amongst Chinese people. Donald Trump is really popular amongst Chinese people. But you would never see a Chinese official popular in America. That is just...

so outside the realm of possibility so there's like a societal thing well i'll make two comments and then i want to and then we can i want to hear from cam but like one is that i don't know how many um non-americans that americans generally respect in general just like the nature of america right i mean for sure i agree that like china it's like a pretty long shot like bruce lee

Jet Li, like, you know, but in general, I think that Americans don't really think too fondly of people outside the US unless that particular person embraces American culture. So like an athlete, for instance, right? So it's interesting that

Although we're a place where, ironically, it's the place that people can go to make a new future. It's the one place in the world that's the most open to that. And at the same time, there is this sort of America first, American kind of this attitude of exceptionalism.

You know, and that anyone who braces sort of American cultural exceptionalism can be embraced. And at the same time, if you don't, right, then you're kind of out. I mean, it's a good question. I don't know necessarily how to answer that other than, I mean, look at our sports heroes as an example, and they come from all over the world, right? And to your point, it may be because they're embracing, but we definitely have stars, you

And people from all over the world who we do support. Maybe that's more of an in the American context to your point. I think the other thing is to your point, Justin, that a lot of what happens outside isn't really known. On the other hand, I mean, who was the guy who did Gangnam Style, Psy or whatever? Yeah, yeah, yeah. That thing was just massive. So, you know, K-pop and...

Right? I mean, James Bond, you know, so you have all of these different aspects from around the world that do make it into American culture. There's a heavy CIA presence, though, in every James Bond movie, right? They're really calling the shots. Not my area of expertise, but...

James Bond is also British, right? So he comes from a long time US ally. So there's not much of a leap there to make. And more specifically, I'm not talking about Hollywood or sports figures. Like culturally, of course, that's true. I'm talking specifically in terms of political and government figures. You will never see a political or government figure popular, a Chinese government figure popular in the States. Whereas you do see some American government figures popular here.

Well, I mean, I guess it depends on your definition. I mean, Lee Kuan Yew, of course, is popular in the States, particularly in the political establishment. No, I'm talking Chinese specifically. Well, he is Chinese, but Singaporean. I'm giving you a hard time. But in general, right? In general. I think to zoom out on your point, like for sure, like, you know, Chinese leaders are sort of persona non grata in general, right? But I think overall, you don't see a lot of like...

you know, international leaders really sort of glorified in the U S I mean, not recently, maybe like Gandhi. Yeah. And by the way, I'm not saying there aren't legitimate reasons why that shouldn't be the case. I'm just pointing out as a, as a matter of fact, that that is,

You know, I think a roadblock in terms of what we're talking about are these, like, you know, on a societal level, seeing things from the other side and ingratiating each other and more people-people exchanges is from a societal level, we just don't see, there's not much of a balance there or reciprocal kind of dynamic there in terms of, I think, culturally speaking amongst people, amongst the populations. Yeah.

You're right. That's just what I'm saying. I don't think it really matters, to be honest. I mean, I think, you know, what keeps leaders up in this country is things like economics and making sure, you know, society keeps progressing forward. I don't really think they give a shit about what Americans think. I think more broader though, they do want people in Asia for, you know, I think broadly when you look at it, the US is only what, 5% of the world's population or whatever it may be. It doesn't really tilt the needle.

China's far more concerned with the rest of the world at the moment. But do you think on this roadmap towards peace, specifically between the US and China, don't you think that the way the populations view the other side can have a big influence on, you know, in helping go that direction towards peace? It absolutely can. But I also think, you know, what we're basing the information on in either place is kind of

through a filter and a prism that isn't necessarily the truth, right? I mean, one of the things that U.S. politicians tout now is that, oh, you know, the vast majority of Americans think that China is this, you know, whatever place, evil or whatever you may call it. But the reality is, is what do they get fed?

You know, China's coming for you. China's, you know, after your jobs, China's stealing your jobs, you know, and I, so of course, if you're fed that, um, the reality actually is not only much more nuanced, but different. And so, um, and to be honest, I don't really think it's this, I don't think it's this generation is going to figure it out. I think it's our kids' generation. I think our job in many ways is to hold the line.

to make sure stuff doesn't careen off into that direction. That's our job because the reality is, is, is whether it's societies are not mature enough yet, um, or, uh,

The people aren't, I don't know. I mean, I've argued that the U.S.-China relationship in some ways is in its age of adolescence and it's going towards the age of adulthood. And in that, even in our own lives, we know that process is very turbulent. We've had 250 years of a relationship that started in the 1770s or 80s. And so what happened through that? A lot of trade wars, two world wars, opening, reopening, all these things have happened over

And yet we're still not through that into the age of maturity yet. And so I argue that part of the challenges we're having back and forth is very similar to what we're having, what we have in our own lives when we're going through that process. And so, no, we haven't figured it out. Why should an American know anything about here and vice versa? Right. I don't know. But the reality is, is that some of that will start to work itself out. I think the other thing is the connectivity, right? The fact that we, uh,

All you need as proof of our connectedness is to look at the three of us. We're from different parts of the States. We moved here probably on a, not on a permanent basis, but probably for a shorter term. We ended up moving here, having families, and now we're here. And now the three of us from different parts of the US are now here in Shanghai talking to each other. There's no greater example of

of, um, connectivity and integration in that. And so as that continues to happen more and more and more, right? Um, that's why longer term I'm bullish. I think the other thing to look at it is kind of what I mentioned earlier, China has been through a lot and has seen a lot, and that actually is a great benefit.

to how it views the world and the outlook. I think on the flip side of that, the U.S. is like this crazy startup who's willing to try anything and break anything to move forward. And so what you really need actually is a combination of the two, and that actually will propel the world far more forward than anything else. And so this is why, in many ways, I think the U.S.-China relationship itself will become a pillar of a –

permanent enduring world peace, but at the same time, both of those countries as well will be. I think when you look at the US, I mean, look at all the knocks on the US, right? Politically dysfunctional, the racism, the prejudice and everything else. But as you're seeing our country and our society evolve, what greater proof

to the world that a peace is coming is because we're resolving those challenges in our own country. You know, it's kind of like the, you know, the person who has, has the, how do you know those true reforms are really reforms and they're really transformed? It's because when you see a people or country or company, whatever it may be, who had all these challenges and now are completely different, that's how you know that's the truth. And that's the path we're on.

Ultimately, right? Now, I'm not naive to think it's going to happen in the next five years, but that ultimately is the trajectory we're on. Everybody can actually live together. We can figure this stuff out, right? And so that's why, you know, I don't know if the Honest Drink podcast is up for all of this philosophy and stuff, but let me tell you. No, we love it. We love it. No, I mean, it makes an impact on my thinking and it's a reminder. It's a reminder that no matter how you feel in one given moment, no matter how

fixated or fixed you are on a certain mindset or judgment that sometimes like once you see the other side, once you, you know, you see other possibilities that shift in itself can totally change your mind. Right? Like, I mean, how many people have you met for the first time and you just like, they just rubbed you the wrong way. And then ultimately they turned out to be a really good friend, you know? And I think that's,

like we get so caught up in the rhetoric and we just see so much negativity then that becomes like you know the cloud that shapes all of our thinking but what if you just woke up one day and you were you know you just had a different mindset you're in a better mood right and you just believed in the optimism and people even like the most hawkish sort of negative people they still have families and children they still smile right they still have moments of joy and like i think

I think we just vilify everyone. We vilify the villains, right? Or we vilify the people that are vilifying. And then that becomes very dangerous. I think, Ian, you bring up a good point about how to view things. You know, when a war, when a, it's interesting, one of the famous quotes, my faith is when a, when a thought of war comes, you know, combat it with the stronger thought of peace. Yeah.

You know, how do you actually do that? I don't know, but it's just interesting. I try to, you know, the second half of that is when a thought of hate comes, you know, fight it against with a stronger thought of love, this kind of thing. And I don't know how to put that in practical action. This is one of the things I struggle with personally. You know, for example, you know, to your point in DC, because these guys are, they're very sincere, right? Many of them, they want...

You know, they want a good China, right? They want a China that is very much part of the global community, right? And I think often there's a lot of things that can blind them or, you know, because they're only viewing it through maybe a national security prism or other things that can actually get in the way of that, right? Because the reality is, is what does a China look like in the 21st century in the terms of a global context? We don't really know.

Now, we kind of have an idea of what the U.S. might look like, right, just because of the past 50 years or so, particularly after, you know, after the 80s, right, when the world kind of shifted a bit. But the other thing is the world's rapidly changing. I mean, the challenges in Europe...

challenges in Russia, Ukraine, the Middle East, all of these things are now, you know, changing all these different dynamics. So anything we thought of, and this is kind of the other thing that I, it's interesting being in DC because they always referenced Cold War 2.0. Well, that doesn't make any sense because we're in a global world.

you know, the Mearsheimer statements, you know, true, um, great power competition. Like how does that work in a world that is integrated? It doesn't make any sense to me. Yeah. I think those models are very old and outdated and it doesn't really make any sense in today's world. Well, I, let me, let me play for you something that I find a little bit humorous, right? So as you, as we were talking, um, I asked ChatGPT, um,

And I said, you know, you said like when a thought of hate comes, like fight it with peace, metaphorically. And then I also said like react to the idea of don't vilify the ones who vilify, right? And just ask GPT, like react to these ideas, right? Give me something. And Chad GPT came back and said something like,

Pretty interesting. It says,

emphasizing that meeting hate with hate only perpetuates division. It encourages us to rise above immediate emotional reactions and seek a more transformative approach to conflict. While it may not always feel natural or easy, such a mindset can lead to healing and reconciliation in ways that retaliation never could.

And I think ultimately, remember, whatever is going on today isn't necessarily going to be going on five or 10 years from now, except for a couple trends, one of which we talked about earlier, which is the kind of the decentralization of supply chains and production. Right.

Right. Most regions will have something somewhere, right? There will be battery supply chains in the Americas. We just don't know what they look like yet, right? There are definitely them in Asia. There will be some in Africa at some point, right? There will be, they'll develop in Europe. So every region will have, you know, kind of its dominant critical supply chain. But what do you see, or what would be your best guess in terms of the timeline we're looking at here?

No idea. I mean, anything I would give you would be- Within a decade, within the next two? Yeah, I mean, 2050, 2021, 2100. I think a lot of it depends, of course, on what's happening now, what trade wars are initiated, what localization requirements are done. Some of it is based on country of origin or regulation. Some of it is content percentages. So all of those factor in.

And you are seeing supply chains evolve because of some of that. Yeah. And what incentives are put in place, I guess. That's right. Yeah. Um,

I definitely want to have you back for a bunch of different reasons. Number one, because I just love talking to you and hearing your point of view on things. But I also know you're working on a book. Can you give us a little teaser in terms of what you're working on right now? Yeah, it's a new process for me. I've never done this before, so hopefully I can get it done at some point. But basically, my idea is that there's been a million books on trade, right?

right? How the trade system works. But I think trade is really only part of the mosaic, right? The full mosaic covers a lot of what we just talked about, right? Supply chains, right? How do supply chains fit in? And there's a part of it where I talk about the supply chains of war, right? And what does that actually mean in today's context? Maybe some history, right? Historical looking at, hey, how supply chains for war evolved. But specifically, I'm looking at a couple areas. One is drones, right? Because that's used all over the world. Secondly,

I use an example of gun cotton, which is a material that's used for bullets and shell casings, artillery shell casings. And in this case, I use the example of Rheinmetall, which is a big German military manufacturer, and they're using cotton out of Xinjiang. And I look at that example and say, hey, here's an example where it's being shipped all around the world for this particular product. This is very unique.

So I'm trying to look at it and say, in the terms of supply chains, even for war, they're incredibly complex. My theory is that the greater we have supply chain connectivity, but also integration, the less...

war and conflict will happen. And so I use the example of Europe. If you look at mainland Europe, there probably will never be another war on the continent ever again. So how after thousands of years of wars and conflicts and all this stuff, how is it that they integrated and the supply chains are integrated and now there's no more war? What happened there? And so part of my looking at this is saying, hey,

Is this a model that we as a world can follow that is, again, one of those pillars of putting together something where we don't have as much conflict? So you're talking specifically in terms of the EU, right? Not the entire European conflict. And I'm also partly using the example of Southeast Asia with China, right? How there are tensions, of course, and historically there's been a lot of tensions, even wars, but as that continues to be integrated into...

Right. That the chance of conflict becomes less. And so part of the argument I'm using with that as well is imagine if there were 10,000 Chinese manufacturers in the U.S. that probably takes the chance of a conflict off the table between our two countries. So why won't we do that?

All we talk about is we need to build up our militaries and do this. And I'm not saying that's not important. That is. But there's also other factors that can basically, you know, that's a hell of a deterrence. How many Chinese manufacturers are in the U.S.? I don't know. There's not that many. Right. For all kinds of reasons, political considerations, right, data concerns, technology. I mean, there's a million. National security is the big one that they come up with. And so part of it is, again, looking at it.

from somebody who's here, who's trying to take the understandings and examples of learning, not just in China, but also East Asia, right? Japan, South Korea, you know, all these countries have developed incredible supply chains, particularly over the last 50 years, that are integrated in many ways on a global level. And trying to look at those examples and find out what can we learn moving forward and how can we use it? And so this is kind of the purpose of the book is to kind of explore some of those issues, right?

and try to have some findings that can help not just people like us understand how the world works, but also how maybe policymakers can look at it and say, oh, here's an interesting dynamic from this person who's written about supply chains that we can apply or at least look at in terms of what we want to do. Cameron, thank you so much for taking the time to be here, man. It was really wonderful talking to you. No, thank you guys. And thanks for breaking out the root beer for me. Appreciate that. You brought the root beer. We just got the culture. It was good. It was good.

I'm Justin. I'm an optimist, again. That was Cameron Johnson. Alright guys, be good, be well. Peace.