With the recent rift in trade and tariffs involving China, it has been interesting to see how certain people are reacting to the situation. Unsurprisingly, a predictable group has emerged screeching about how it is such a “bad situation” to get involved in a trade dispute with China. Who is this predictable group? Well, I have talked about them numerous times in a few blogs – I call them neocosmopolitans.
Neocosmopolitan (n.):
A member of a modern, ideologically global elite who promotes a universalist worldview grounded in cultural relativism, spiritual eclecticism, and moral posturing. Often characterized by a superficial embrace of diversity, neocosmopolitans adopt fashionable causes and global narratives while distancing themselves from national, traditional, or working-class identities. They perceive themselves as global citizens, yet are often entrenched within privileged institutions and social networks.
Some may call them just globalist elites, but neocosmopolitan goes one step further. It’s easy to dismiss the term “globalist elite” as some shadowy cabal that worships Moloch the Owl in the dark forest of Northern California. However, neocosmopolitan almost forces these people to accept who they are.
Harvard Business Review outright defends cosmopolitanism using the phrases to describe cosmopolitanism as “the aspiration to become a citizen of the world” and to “temper nationalism and humanize globalization.” The funny thing is that neocosmopolitanism is an outgrowth of classic cosmopolitanism – with an Artificial Aristocracy garnish to point out their hypocrisy and superficiality feigning generosity throughout the world, while only benefiting themselves in their small group. Bill Gates says he wants to give vaccines to the world but battles poorer nations by not sharing the patents for vaccines. They are philanthropists – but only in the luxury halls of their highly catered dinners in New York City or Martha’s Vineyard. Happy to talk about how much good they’re doing while a third-world immigrant fills their wine glass and brings their chateaubriand posthaste…and they dare not make eye contact the wrong way with these people, or you will be on a one-way trip back to your homeland pleb!
Again, why people think these benevolent neocosmopolitans are no different from the oligarchic class you would find in modern-day Russia is surprising to me. But to get back on course, what is it about neocosmopolitanism and China? Why do they, and their corporate media extension, get mad when you criticize China?
Neocosmopolitans Benefit from China Economically
China’s the world’s factory floor. It produces everything from iPhones to car parts to cheap clothes, thanks to low labor costs and a massive, disciplined workforce. Companies like Apple, Nike, and Walmart rely on Chinese factories to keep production cheap and profits high. It is that simple. Neocosmopolitans like Tim Cook (Apple CEO) benefit massively from China and the cheap (slave: look at the stories about Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang) labor to produce his products. In 2023 alone, China accounted for about 28% of global manufacturing output. Disrupting that with criticism—or worse, policy changes—could spike costs and tank stock prices.
Concerning investment and debt, China is a cash machine for elites. Wall Street and European banks have poured billions into Chinese stocks, bonds, and real estate. BlackRock, for instance, has a $400 million stake in China’s financial sector as of late 2024. On the flip side, China holds over $800 billion in U.S. Treasury debt—down from its peak but still enough to flex if tensions rise. Developing nations owe China trillions through the Belt and Road Initiative, giving it leverage over entire economies. Also, not to mention the global security risk with China’s dominance of rare earth minerals. 90% of rare earth elements used in batteries, wind turbines, and military tech come from there. Criticize China too loudly, and they might tighten the tap, as they did with Japan in 2010 over a territorial spat. That’s a nightmare for green energy pushers and defense contractors alike.
My favorite, in pure definition of the neocosmopolitan, is that these people see stability in China. How do you ask? CEOs and shareholders love China’s stability – no strikes, no pesky regulations. It keeps margins fat. But it’s a double-edged sword: if relations sour, jobs tied to trade (millions in the U.S. alone) could vanish, and the neocosmopolitans would take the blame.
Anger out of Fear of What China Can Do Geopolitically
We are seeing this with the tariffs and trade disputes. It’s funny how quickly the narrative with Canada went away and shifted to China. Or the fact that Canadian Liberal Leader and PM select Mark Carney is madder about Trump’s 25% tariffs than the 100% tariffs China recently put on Canada. China’s economic clout doubles as a geopolitical weapon. It can choke off trade, hoard resources, or dump assets to punish critics, and elites know the fallout would hit hard.
Have it been their carrot and stick they hold with 1.4 billion consumers, to the aforementioned $800 Billion in U.S. Treasury debt, neocosmopolitans get mad because criticizing China risks waking this ‘geopolitical beast.’ A 2024 Rand Corporation study modeled a U.S.-China trade war escalating to conflict: global GDP drops 10%, stock markets lose $15 trillion, and supply chains collapse for years. This really makes the neocosmopolitan business leaders squirm in their $8000 bespoke suits.
Media Companies Have Corporate Stakes in China
Media companies, much like Fortune 500 companies, have massive stakes in China as well. Big outlets often have corporate owners with stakes in China, or they’re chasing clicks from a narrative that’s already been sold – China as the misunderstood giant. Calling out its flaws (censorship, human rights, whatever) messes with the script. And don’t forget the cultural cringe: some elites bend over backward to avoid looking “intolerant” by slamming a non-Western power too hard.
Some media giants have sunk cash into Chinese ventures, often through subsidiaries or joint projects, giving them a literal stake in China’s success.
- Warner Bros. (WarnerMedia): Back in 2003, Warner invested $2.15 million for a 49% stake in Shanghai Yonghua Cinema, part of Shanghai Film Group. By 2004, it teamed up with Wanda Group to build Warner Wanda Cinemas across China’s shopping complexes. In 2015, it flipped the script, letting China Media Capital (CMC) take a 51% stake in Flagship Entertainment Group while holding 49%. These deals tie Warner’s fortunes to Chinese partners – and their government’s whims.
- Bloomberg LP: Michael Bloomberg’s outfit has steered $150 billion into bond offerings for 364 Chinese firms, 159 of them CCP-controlled. That’s a hefty bet on China’s financial system, and it’s no shock Bloomberg himself has downplayed Xi Jinping’s authoritarian streak.
- Alibaba Stakes: In 2023, state-backed entities grabbed 1% stakes in two Alibaba subsidiaries (Youku video platform and UC Browser), part of Beijing’s “golden shares” strategy to control media narratives. Alibaba’s digital media arm, small as it is (4% of revenue), still matters to its U.S.-listed stock – and to investors like Disney or Comcast who watch China’s tech moves.
It’s not a conspiracy; it’s business. Media companies with stakes in China—whether through cash, markets, or parents—get twitchy when the CCP is criticized because their bottom line is on the hook. The anger’s loudest when the stakes are highest: a $300 million film, a billion-dollar streaming deal, or a shareholder meeting with BlackRock. They’re not defending China out of ideology—they’re scared of the geopolitical and financial dominoes that could fall if Beijing pushes back. Fear, not loyalty, drives the outburst.
The Narrative: The Belt and Road vs. The Rust Belt
We go back to the Harvard Business Review article that describes “temper nationalism and humanize globalization.” Nationalism is not a bad word, it is made a bad word by neocosmopolitans, but nationalism, in terms of economy, means:
- Prioritizing Main Street vs. Wall Street.
- Bringing good paying jobs back to hometowns to build the middle class.
- Not capitulating to automation taking away labor.
I tune in to CNN once in a while and I cannot believe how much they are propping up the globalist narrative, almost defending a communist authoritarian regime, claiming they are the poor, oppressed bunch having to deal with the evil hegemonic U.S. power. This tweet really exemplifies the neocosmopolitan shrieking in recent days.
The narrative pitting China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) against America’s Rust Belt is a juicy one – two competing visions of economic power, infrastructure, and influence, with media and neocosmopolitans often framing it as a tale of rise versus decline. It’s not just about roads and factories; it’s about what they symbolize: China’s ambition to reshape the world versus the U.S.’s struggle to reclaim its industrial past.
The Rust Belt: Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and beyond – was once the U.S.’s industrial backbone, churning out steel, cars, and jobs. Now it’s a symbol of neglect, deindustrialization, and broken promises. Bureau of Labor Statistics found that manufacturing jobs dropped from 19.5 million in 1979 to 12.9 million by 2024. Also, steel production fell from 137 million tons in 1973 to 86 million in 2023. Towns like Youngstown, Ohio, lost 40% of their population since 1980. But of course, the neocosmopolitans don’t care or they wouldn’t have gutted these American towns, to begin with. This is why I like to see this tariff spat happen right now because it’s a narrative beyond Wall Street and market crashes. It’s a loud backlash to the hollowing out of the American dream.
I just like to see Larry Fink sweat a little from anxiety, as opposed to a luxury Finnish sauna.
carsonbabich.com 