It's an embrace of mutually-assured destruction (MAD) in an economic sense (the term MAD was first used for the cold war, with ref to nukes).

Others have outlined the elements of the MAD scheme (treasury debt+consumer debt+cheap manufacturing+artificial currency valuation) and I don't disagree, so I'll leave that alone. I just interpret it differently.

I DO think in the (apt) McDonald's analogy, McDonald's IS culpable to some extent. Watch Food Inc., and Supersize Me. There are actual legitimate arguments there, and you can't just yell "take responsibility, fatty" and walk away. That's vastly oversimplifying the issue (for the record, I am not obese, but not inclined to absolve McD's of all blame).

Something similar holds in the China-America MAD loop. There is a systemic problem, and there is culpability on both sides.

There is a tendency to blame the American side of the MAD loop more simply because it is the rich side. I don't think that makes it the more immoral side by default. Humans everywhere, whether rich or poor, whether communist or democratic, are flawed, and screw things up wherever they are. When big things go wrong, there is rarely one cause. Everyone involved usually has some role in the screw-up.