Yanwen’s blog

Over the weekend, I asked my daughter if she’d picked up any Chinese from my daily posts. She replied, “No, but I read your articles.” This made me wonder if my Chinese inputs were having any impact—until I found myself shouting at the YMCA pool today: "站着茅坑不拉屎" (zhànzhe máokēng bù lā shǐ). I have a feeling my daughter might enjoy learning this one.

"站着茅坑不拉屎" is a vivid Chinese idiom that literally means "occupying the latrine pit without pooping." It’s used to describe someone who occupies a space or resource without actually using it, effectively blocking others from doing so. The English expression “dog in the manger” captures a similar idea.

I used this phrase when I spotted two ladies standing in one lane at the crowded pool, chatting instead of swimming. With all the lanes full, I couldn’t help but feel they were wasting space! I did make sure no Chinese speakers were around before I said it, though.

This idiom might also be applied to President Joe Biden, by critics who feel he’s occupying a crucial position without delivering the bold steps they hoped for. They might argue that his administration has, at times, been too cautious on big issues like climate change, healthcare reform, immigration reforms, and student loan debt.

Similarly, if President-elect Trump falls short on delivering his campaign promises—particularly those tied to "Make America Great Again" (MAGA)—voters might use the same expression. This would reflect the frustration of supporters who feel he’s occupying the presidential office without taking the bold actions he promised, especially around cleaning the swamp and reshoring manufacturing jobs. In this case, the phrase humorously captures the sense of wasted potential and unfulfilled expectations, especially for those who trusted him to bring real change on these key promises. And it might just turn out to be accurate in another four years, when the next election rolls around!

I watched a campus debate between a male and a female student. The female student is a typical "白左" (bái zuǒ) "white left" or "white liberal." It implies someone on the political left who is perceived as excessively idealistic, hypocritical, or naive about social justice issues.

The man asked, "Why do Black Americans, who make up 13% of the total population, represent 55% of the prison population?"

The woman highlighted the intersection of race and economic status, arguing that discrimination keeps many minorities in lower economic positions, contributing to their higher incarceration rates.

The man followed up, asking, 'Why do economically disadvantaged Asian minorities have low crime rates?'

The woman responded by noting that many Asian immigrants come from relatively stable economic backgrounds. However, a woman from the crowd stood up and rejected this view, sharing her experience as a 'boat person' refugee from Vietnam.

When the woman struggled to answer, the man introduced additional statistics: 75% of Black youth grow up in fatherless households, which he stated is the most significant predictor of future incarceration. He argued that the prevalence of single-parent Black families is influenced by three factors: government subsidies for single-parent households, cultural dynamics, and community acceptance of this structure. He referenced Thomas Sowell's book and the Nanny State to support his argument.

The woman countered by suggesting that the government could help change this culture by increasing subsidies for healthcare and education, making it easier for fathers to remain with their families.

The man disagreed, pointing to historical data: government subsidies for Black families began in 1965 when single-parent households were around 25%. Today, he claimed, that figure has risen to 75–80%. He argued that increasing financial support has coincided with a rise in single-parent families, suggesting a counterproductive effect.

His final statement was, "Don't dance around the core of the issue."

...............

The debate highlighted the multifaceted nature of social problems in America, including social, race, cultural, and economic factors. It also underscored two contrasting explanations for these issues. Different people hold varying views on both the causes and solutions. 

Ultimately, the conversation about race, class, culture, crime and social justice requires honesty and a willingness to confront raw facts and the root causes of these problems, rather than simplifying them into one-sided narratives or beating around the bush, bai zuo style.

Trump correctly identifies many of the challenges the nation faces, but his proposed solutions are debatable—one of which is raising tariffs.

During his first term, President Trump imposed tariffs on roughly $370 billion worth of Chinese imports, with rates reaching up to 25%.

Despite these tariffs, the trade imbalance with China remained largely unchanged. Bloomberg just reports that "China’s trade surplus is on track to hit nearly $1 trillion in 2024, setting a record high despite ongoing global economic and political tensions."

The impact of tariffs on the U.S. economy has been mixed: on the positive side, while tariffs boosted the U.S. government revenue which was used for his tax cut, and provided leverage in trade negotiations, they also temporarily shielded some domestic industries from foreign competition, potentially leading to job growth in certain sectors.

However, the subsequent tit-for-tat escalations have made American goods more expensive abroad, decreasing demand for U.S. exports, leading to job loss in some areas. The higher prices of import goods are passed to the consumers, leading to domestic inflation. Major American industries—including agriculture, technology, and manufacturing—lost market share and trade partners, and saw declining revenues.

Export-dependent industries and their supply chains were hit especially hard, facing increased risks of job losses. 

Retaliatory tariffs disrupted international supply networks, raising costs for companies that depend on imported parts and materials. This impact was felt not only by American consumers and businesses but also by global corporations with operations in the U.S., as many rely on cross-border production networks.

Moreover, the unpredictability of ongoing trade conflicts has created a climate of uncertainty, leading companies to delay investments and expansion plans.

Finally, countries affected by U.S. tariffs have increasingly sought new trade partners, forming alliances that bypass the U.S. market. This shift could weaken America’s long-term trade relationships and business opportunities, making America isolated in the global trend for cooperation, especially if other nations come to view the U.S. as an unreliable or unpredictable partner.

According to analyses by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Council on Foreign Relations, the overall effects of these tariffs remain complex. In reality, U.S. businesses have faced increased costs and market disruptions, which have contributed to inflationary pressures and raised questions about the long-term effectiveness and cost of using tariffs as a trade policy tool.

A Chinese saying goes, "杀敌一千，自损八百" (shā dí yī qiān, zì sǔn bā bǎi), which means, "You kill one thousand enemy troops, but at the cost of losing 800 yourself." This expression captures the heavy cost of inflicting harm on another. 

While Trump 1.0 tariffs aimed to weaken China’s economic position, they ultimately backfired, creating comparable setbacks for American businesses and consumers, and harming U.S. interests in the long run.

Last weekend we went apple picking again with the children. What we talked most was the election.  I explained to them two simple terms describing Trump's hardened supporters and their opponents: 川粉 (Chuān-fěn), their opponents: 白左 (Bái-zuǒ). They were truly impressed by the way Chinese simplified the expression, two syllables expressing so much.

A few days ago, a friend shared an article about Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) as a model of successful reshoring to the United States.

TSMC’s decision to expand its manufacturing facilities in the U.S. has been largely driven by geopolitical factors and bolstered by significant support from the CHIPS Act.

The CHIPS Act (Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors), enacted by the U.S. government in 2022 amid rising tensions with China, aims to secure American semiconductor production. With around $52 billion allocated for funding and tax incentives for domestic chip plants, the Act is a cornerstone of the U.S.’s strategy to boost competitiveness in semiconductor technology.

For TSMC’s Arizona project, the U.S. government has committed up to $6.6 billion in direct support under the CHIPS Act, along with up to $5 billion in loans and tax credits. This extensive backing aligns with the U.S.’s broader goals of strengthening domestic semiconductor production, reducing reliance on foreign suppliers, and enhancing national security. TSMC’s Arizona facilities are expected to generate roughly 26,000 jobs.

TSMC’s expansion reflects the complex dynamics of U.S.-China relations. The new Arizona plants are part of a broader reshoring or “friend-shoring” trend, as semiconductor companies reduce geopolitical risks by aligning production with supportive government policies.

While TSMC could feasibly continue its operation without further U.S. funding, recently, TSMC founder Morris Chang discussed some hurdles, noting how escalating geopolitical tensions and free-trade restrictions have increased competition over chip production. As a key supplier to companies like Apple and Nvidia, TSMC now finds itself at the center of major powers striving to secure chip access as tensions with China rise. The company has also navigated U.S. restrictions limiting its supply of advanced chips to Chinese firms, including Huawei.

Finally, could we replicate TSMC's move and have more factories moving back? With the right amount of money, absolutely yes. The Chinese saying "有钱能使鬼推磨" (yǒu qián néng shǐ guǐ tuī mò) — “With money, you can make the devil turn the millstone”— captures this idea perfectly. It suggests that with sufficient financial backing, even the toughest challenges become surmountable.

There has been extensive post-mortem analysis of Kamala Harris's loss in the 2024 presidential race. Some blame Biden for staying in the race too long, leaving Harris little time to establish herself. Others criticize his "garbage" remark about Trump supporters or point to Harris's VP choice as a factor.

Initially, I thought Harris’s identity as both Black and female posed a challenge in a country not yet ready for such a leader. 

However, the epiphany came when a friend reminded me of Bill Clinton’s famous slogan: "It’s the economy, stupid." That insight redirected my focus to the issue most affecting voters: the economy.

I have noticed how inflation has made even Walmart's prices feel less like a discount store. Walmart remains essential for many, but it no longer feels like the reliable low-cost option as it once was. This reflects broader inflationary pressures that have affected the average American’s wallet, especially under Biden’s administration.

Voters prioritize economic stability, and Biden’s economic policies, which have contributed to inflation, likely played a central role in Harris’s defeat.

In Chinese, the phrase 搬起石头砸自己的脚 (bān qǐ shí tóu zá zì jǐ de jiǎo) means "lifting a stone to smash your own foot," similar to "shooting oneself in the foot." Biden’s reputation in foreign affairs led him to prioritize overseas projects, pouring billions abroad while neglecting domestic issues. His decision to keep Trump-era tariffs, while intending to hurt China, ended up shooting in the foot of American consumers.

Biden's focus on overseas engagements, including maintaining trade tensions with China, has contributed to record-high inflation domestically. It’s no exaggeration to say that his failed economic strategy may have unintentionally paved an easier path for Trump’s return in 2024.

Ultimately, Harris’s loss finalizes Biden's legacy —a vivid example of "lifting a stone to smash his own foot."