Editor’s note: Zhang Siyuan is a Beijing-based commentator on international affairs, writing regularly for Xinhua News Agency, Global Times, and China Daily, among others. The article reflects the author’s opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.
As a financial expert, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent prefers to speak in numbers. But when it comes to China-U.S. economic relations, his claims can be inaccurate, illogical, and unprofessional. On May 4, he claimed in his Wall Street Journal article that 3.7 million Americans lost their jobs because of China’s accession to the WTO. On June 18, he harped on the same string during his interview on Pod Force One by saying that China’s share of global manufacturing should not exceed 30 percent. It looks like he started using non-market economic tools, which have been harshly criticized by the U.S., and setting planned economic indicators for China.
Here’s how he thinks. After China joined the WTO, its surge in exports to the U.S. triggered the so-called “China shock,” causing job losses in American manufacturing. Therefore, as long as China cuts manufacturing and boosts domestic consumption, there will be no “China shock,” and the U.S. will magically resolve its own problems. However, this line of argument – both in its evidence or its conclusion – makes no sense at all.
Here are the facts. The decline in the proportion of manufacturing employment in the U.S. did not begin with China’s accession to the WTO, nor was caused by it. The decline has been a trend for over five decades and exists across developed economies apart from the U.S. The root cause lies in automation, which allows higher output with fewer workers. The result was not mass job loss, but a transition of labor forces to other sectors with growing demand. For example, between 2001 to 2024, manufacturing employment in the U.S. declined by 3.6 million, yet the actual manufacturing output value went up by $800 billion. In the meantime, jobs in management and professional sectors registered a significant increase. All this indicates an upgrade of employment quality and economic structure.
What actually matters here is the kind of social policy a country adopts during manufacturing transformation, which is commonly seen in the U.S., China and many other countries. Any social and economic transformation will inevitably affect certain groups. How the government reacts matters. In China, affected people’s employment and livelihood stability are guaranteed through supportive policies. It goes without saying how the U.S. has been coping with the transformation period. However, one thing is certain – the way that the U.S. government has pointed fingers at China rather than addressing internal policy gaps.
China has never set a particular cap for its share in global manufacturing – whether 10 percent, 20 percent, or 30 percent. It is completely decided by market competitiveness. After decades of development, China is now the only country that encompasses all industrial categories listed in the United Nations’ industrial classification system. The competitiveness of China’s manufacturing stem from a combination of technology, market scale, talent, supply chain, and accords with the laws of industrial development.
In 2024, five-sixths of China’s total manufacturing output was domestically consumed. And the proportion keeps rising. Of China’s exports, 60 percent were intermediate goods used in other countries’ production, especially in the U.S. What we are seeing now is not excess production capacity in China, but rather a global and domestic demand for it. Let’s say we plan our economy and impose a cap on our share in global manufacturing. What happens next? Undersupply. In that case, would China then be blamed for disturbing global supply chains?
In the U.S., populism may have its way in politics, but respect for facts and science remains the only path to addressing real challenges. The same applies to China-U.S. relations. Only through a spirit of equality, mutual respect, mutual benefit, and pragmatic approach can the two countries work together to successfully solve problems.
U.S.-imposed economic targets on China not rational or professional
