Let's delve into the core reasons underlying the strategic confrontation between the People's Republic of China and the United States of America, as this unveils a significant systemic discrepancy: [...] The issuance of the renminbi (RMB) is fundamentally based on the authority of the Chinese government, specifically through the People's Bank of China (PBC). The basis for the issuance of the renminbi is definitely not gold. The reason this money is valuable is because it is a sovereign currency issued by the state and backed by state authority. Empowering a sovereign currency establishes credit. The currency creates credit, and the sole resource available is political authority. Thus, political authority, governmental power, and the administration in control align with the currency system.
Wen Tiejun (温铁军) is a Chinese agricultural economist and a professor at the Renmin
On the other hand, the
source of the US dollar's credit is an institution established by
private bankers, not a country. Pay attention, this difference matters: The US dollar is actually issued by an institution called the Federal
Reserve. The Federal Reserve is neither an official entity nor a
government institution; instead, it is an organization operated by
private bankers. This particular organization possesses the authority to
issue the national currency and determines the financial policy of the
United States, which the government then implements.
» The root cause of global chaos is financial capital globalization, which is
supported by military hegemony. « Wen Tiejun's complete discourse video.
This occurrence is quite rare across the globe, both in terms of nations and systems. In the majority of countries, it is the political power of the state that grants authority to its national currency, forming a sovereign currency. In a select number of nations, such as the United States, institutions are established by private banking entities, and the government subsequently enacts the policies of these private banker collectives.
[...] Therefore, throughout the extensive history of the United States, numerous influential presidents have attempted to reclaim monetary authority. All of them ultimately failed. Almost every president who was resolute in their determination to reclaim monetary authority ended up deceased, including the widely recognized Kennedy assassination. These events all share similar demands to restore monetary rights back to the government, yet none of these plans have been fully realized.
[...] China continues to maintain its national control over financial capital. For what specific purpose? In recent years, when China faced global crises and a decline in exports, the Chinese government mainly relied on national finance, investing in infrastructure that may not yield immediate profits. A straightforward example is the allocation of funds for the construction of roads and railways in rural, mountainous, and even desert regions. All these investments cannot be recovered in the short term, and it's also difficult to recover them in the long term. So, should we invest? We should, because if we don't, businesses will have no market and workers will become unemployed. On the other hand, the government would have to use its finances to pay for unemployment benefits. Rather than doing that, it's better to invest.
[...] Therefore, throughout the extensive history of the United States, numerous influential presidents have attempted to reclaim monetary authority. All of them ultimately failed. Almost every president who was resolute in their determination to reclaim monetary authority ended up deceased, including the widely recognized Kennedy assassination. These events all share similar demands to restore monetary rights back to the government, yet none of these plans have been fully realized.
[...] China continues to maintain its national control over financial capital. For what specific purpose? In recent years, when China faced global crises and a decline in exports, the Chinese government mainly relied on national finance, investing in infrastructure that may not yield immediate profits. A straightforward example is the allocation of funds for the construction of roads and railways in rural, mountainous, and even desert regions. All these investments cannot be recovered in the short term, and it's also difficult to recover them in the long term. So, should we invest? We should, because if we don't, businesses will have no market and workers will become unemployed. On the other hand, the government would have to use its finances to pay for unemployment benefits. Rather than doing that, it's better to invest.
» The United States exploits the world's wealth with the help of "seigniorage." It costs only about 17 cents to produce a 100 dollar bill, but other countries had to pony up 100 dollar of actual goods in order to obtain one. It was pointed out more than half a century ago, that the United States enjoyed exorbitant privilege and deficit without tears created by its dollar, and used
the worthless paper note to plunder the resources and factories of other nations. The hegemony of the US dollar
is the main source of instability and uncertainty in the world economy. «
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China, 2023.
[...] I perceive this as one of Trump's most proactive and forward-thinking policies—to focus on the advancement of infrastructure development. His most significant challenge is that the US lacks the so-called state-owned enterprises (SOEs) similar to those in China. Additionally, it doesn't have a state-owned banking system. China's system uses state banks to receive currency from the government, which is directly paid to state-owned enterprises. These enterprises then directly engage in infrastructure construction, maintaining China's economic growth and sustaining employment. The US uses private banks to issue more currency to buy government bonds, which then leads to a virtual capital expansion, with two hands shifting the crisis to the whole world.
[...] Analyzing this with American theory suggests China's state-owned banks and state-owned enterprises are inefficient. They don't provide tax revenue and occupy a large amount of capital. But just because financial resources are utilized doesn't mean nothing is produced. A significant amount of wealth is indeed generated, but this wealth manifests in the form of airports, seaports, train stations, highways, and high-speed railway systems. None of these investments can generate returns in the immediate short term. Consequently, a substantial amount of capital in China's state-owned banks is currently tied up. According to general free-market economic theory, those that can't be recovered soon should all go bankrupt. As long as you genuinely and sincerely execute what is purportedly stated in the media today, China's economy should have gone bankrupt long ago because its large investments can't be recovered quickly.
Not-calling-the-shots POTUS, July 13, 2025.
[...] How Trump might approach the situation? He doesn't have China's methods. So, how will he do it? By relying on private bankers to reform America's railways? How long will it take to recoup the investment? Why would private individuals invest in rebuilding American roads and airports? Private investment is dropping. This is similar to what's happening in China: whenever there's an economic crisis, China's private investment decline is inevitable. So, how do you counter it? You have to rely on state investment to push it up. One goes down, the other goes up. That's how it is.
leads to a virtual capital expansion, with two hands shifting the crisis to the whole world. «
A significant number of individuals are critical of China's system. I don't intend to imply anything else; I'm merely suggesting that you observe the actual impact. I also don't wish to defend this so-called closed system of China because I equally dislike this bureaucratic system, but it actually maintains the nation's foundational employment and crucial economic development.