Without China, how different would your home look?

One thing’s certain: a lot less plastic crap.

Could we live without Chinese stuff?

This week, the New York Times did the math on what portion of the stuff that fills our modern homes is made in China.

What do you think the right percentage is?

It probably shouldn’t be zero. Human society thrives on trading ideas, people, and stuff. And it certainly shouldn’t be 100%. Work is the fundamental way humans connect with the world. If we don’t create, don’t make stuff, don’t build, and take pride in our work, then our lives (and our stuff) will lose any sense of purpose, connection, and meaning.

There is a right answer. Ever changing. Ever evolving. It can’t be measured directly. All the indicators lag by years or decades. But we’re smarter than we think. Everyone has a feel for this. It’s a quality without a name, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

In the early days there were a few voices — the factory workers who lost their jobs, the people who appreciated quality, repairability, and local connection to their stuff. Then there were the early advocates. Think Springsteen singing, these jobs are going boys, and they ain’t coming back.

Now, a lot more people, even many of those deeply on the dope of disposable Chinese junk and Chinese subsidized pricing, are at least a little aware that something is wrong. There’s a high prices being paid for low low prices at the cash register.

Economics, in its clinical way, adores efficiency. And no theory has been more worshipped over the last generation than comparative advantage — the idea that every country should do what it’s "best" at, and trade for the rest. In the gospel of globalism, China became the world's workshop. And China loved the idea too — loved it so much they spent a generation of national wealth making it real: subsidizing your scrub wands, your toasters, your collapsible beach chairs, your every imaginable bit of molded plastic.

And the corporations? They loved it even more.
If you're willing to pay $9,000 for a Chanel bag where "Made in France" just means "label stitched on in France" — and the bag itself was made in China for six bucks — then guess what? They'll run that racket forever.

And the globalists? Well, to the extent they exist as anything more than just wishful thinking with private jets, it serves their ideological dream: one world, with no borders for money. They couldn't be happier.

But what about us?
The household.
The natural environment.
The land we have to live on without ruining it.

If we counted what actually counts — really counted it — would Canada be better or worse off without China as its unofficial garage-sale supplier?

And on the other side of the ledger — China itself?
If we stopped this mad theory, this lazy idea that China's purpose is to be the world’s unregulated, underpaid, unseen, factory floor, would they be better off thirty years from now?

If Trump’s rough, clumsy, but fundamentally instinctive dream of decoupling the West from Chinese industry actually wins out — if the best version of that dream somehow beats the billion-dollar lobbying machine and the hucksters, grifters, and "free traders" — who’s really better off?

Without China, what would your home look like?

Cleaner. Emptier. Less like the plastic aisle at Walmart after a clearance sale.

Could we survive it?

Of course.

The world’s addiction to Chinese manufacturing wasn’t fated; it was rigged.
Economists sold comparative advantage like a religion. But they made the mistake all economists make — taking too narrow a view, considering too few people, over too short a period of time.

Corporations feasted. China obliged — not because it was good for them, but because it was necessary to buy time. Time to get rich. Time to get strong. Time to beat the West at their own game. No weapons, no wars required. It’s the kind of long game, elegant, Confucian plan Asian philosophy has loved for thousands of years.

And you?

You got a $9 garlic press and a world drowning in microplastics. Congratulations.

If we counted what counts — stability, sovereignty, uneroded soil under our feet instead of garbage — Canada without Chinese imports wouldn't be poorer. It would be saner.

And China?

Set free from its own role as a planetary sweatshop, it might find a different destiny than becoming the world's first billion-strong burnout.

If Trump’s dream — ugly, vulgar, half-formed — somehow wins out, who actually ends up better off in thirty years?

Simple.

Everyone who prefers dignity over discount bins.

Would Canada Be Better or Worse Off Without Chinese Imports?

Short-term:

• Painful adjustment. Lots of goods would get more expensive, especially low-end household goods.

• Supply chain disruption. Many sectors depend on Chinese intermediate goods (parts and sub-assemblies).

• Inflation spike as replacements are sourced or built domestically or from costlier suppliers (Vietnam, India, Mexico).

Medium-term (5–15 years):

• Rebirth of some manufacturing.

• Countries like Canada would be forced to make more at home or within friendly trading blocs (USMCA, Five Eyes nations).

• Quality over quantity. Instead of a house stuffed with disposable junk, people might buy fewer, better things — a cultural change back toward repair, reuse, respect.

Long-term (15–30 years):

• More resilient economy.

• Stronger local industries.

• Reduced environmental impact from endless container shipping, offshore pollution, and disposable products.

• Higher standard of living in non-material ways — cleaner environment, better job markets, cultural pride in self-sufficiency.

Conclusion:
Hard adjustment, better country.
(Classic Stoic economics: Pain first, virtue later.)

---

Would China Be Better or Worse Off?

Short-term:

• Massive dislocation.

• Unemployment would skyrocket, especially among low-wage factory workers.

• Internal unrest would threaten political stability (Beijing fears this like nothing else).

Medium-term (5–15 years):

• Forced to pivot.

• Instead of selling the cheapest junk to the world, China would have to move faster up the value chain — biotech, green tech, aerospace, AI.

• China’s fundamental economy would come out from under the weight of subsidizing money-losing industries and supply chains to nowhere.

Long-term (15–30 years):

• Potentially much stronger internally.

• A China less dependent on foreign consumer demand could be wealthier, more innovative, and more domestically stable — ironically, less threatening to the world because it wouldn’t be chained to endless mercantile growth.

Conclusion:
Short-term chaos.
Long-term potential for a better, healthier national destiny — if the regime can survive the turbulence.

---

Who Ends Up Better Off in 30 Years?

Canada?
If we seize the moment: Yes. Cleaner economy, stronger communities, renewed pride.

China?
If they adapt fast enough: Possibly yes. But only if they avoid collapse and civil unrest.

Corporations?
No. They lose easy profits. (Good.)

The natural environment?
Yes. Fewer goods shipped across oceans, less plastic, more sustainable production methods.

Ordinary citizens?
Yes — at least in countries willing to weather the initial storm.

In short:
The real economy wins.
The paper economy loses.

---

Deeper Take: Would It Really Be Freedom?

Here's the hidden core:
Decoupling from China is not just an economic move. It's a cultural move.

It's a society saying, We'd rather be a little poorer and freer than trapped in an endless cycle of cheap dependency.

It’s the same idea as owning your own tools, growing your own garden, fixing your own house — being responsible for yourself, even if it's harder.

The real wealth isn’t another box from Temu or Amazon.
It’s competence, trust, resilience, and a life not based on endless consumption of things you don't even need.

In that sense, if the “best version” of Trump's dream wins — not the ugly jingoism, but the real economic decoupling — then Purpose, Prosperity, and Progress win over Growth, Garbage, and GDP.