5 ms·

Interesting point, but to be fair China is not the only one to find ways to implement protectionism. The F35 program or even Nasa contracting SpaceX could be se

Interesting point, but to be fair China is not the only one to find ways to implement protectionism. The F35 program or even Nasa contracting SpaceX could be seen as examples of the US implementing some level of protectionism.

argonaut 10y ago
Every nation has protectionism. Every single one. What's important is the degree of protectionism. So pointing out examples of a nation engaging in protectionism contributes little to the discussion unless you compare it to other nations.
- bnegreve 10y ago
  Every nation has protectionism. Yes, that's my point. Not every one agrees with this and GGP's comment doesn't mention this fact. So pointing out examples [..] contributes little to the discussion. It adds examples of US protectionism so you can compare them with the ones from China that were mentioned before. Hopefully, this contributes to a more objective point of view. Why do I need to justify this?
  - argonaut 10y ago
    Because China's space program and defense industry are protected as well. So if we're really going to try to decide whether China or the US are more protectionist than the other, in that comparison the examples cancel each other out. All you've done is add examples to both sides of the balance beam. And we're still left with examples of Chinese internet industry protectionism.
- sangnoir 10y ago
  > What's important is the degree of protectionism The US complaining about China's protectionism is hypocritical. Let's talk about America's farm subsidies. How is that not competing unfairly? It leads to American agricultural produce being dumped on foreign markets at subsidized prices, destroying entire countries' agricultural base. What would you say is the degree of protectionism here?
  - argonaut 10y ago
    I'll just repeat my extremely short comment: > pointing out examples of a nation engaging in protectionism contributes little to the discussion unless you compare it to other nations.
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      It's being implicitly compared to China, and well, to everyone else.
    - sangnoir 10y ago
      I thought the implicit comparison to any country was obvious and well known - maybe not to Americans[1]. Can you think of any country that practices protectionism on agriculture at the same level as the US? 1. I would have thought post-"corn-syrup-gate" more Americans would at least know corn is heavily subsidized.
      - argonaut 10y ago
        To make a good point, you also need to show that China doesn't have agricultural subsidies. 5 seconds of Google searching reveals a long lists of results: https://www.google.com/#q=chinese+agricultural+subsidies https://www.google.com/#q=chinese+agricultural+subsidies http://www.economist.com/news/china/21651272-others-cut-farm-support-china-spends-more-wrong-direction http://www.economist.com/news/china/21651272-others-cut-farm... Agricultural subsidies are really not going to support your point. Most countries have heavy agricultural subsidies.
  - golergka 10y ago
    Farm subsidies is not only about business, it's about national security: you subside food industry so that when you suddenly find yourself in the big war with trade routes cut, your population doesn't starve. I'm not saying that these subsidies are necessary; I'm just saying that they should be analyzed with a different framework.
    - 10y ago
bayesian_horse 10y ago
SpaceX has better and cheaper rockets. I don't think they are exceptionally profiting from a "buy American" effect. For the F-35 program, it contains a lot of technology which can't be found anywhere else in the world, and much of that technology was funded by the US government. For all the ridicule the project got, the corresponding projects in Russia and China are even worse off... If anything, the F-35 program is overpriced because there are no reasonable adversaries.
GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
They could be, but I'd say that wanting to produce your own fighters (especially for a large military like ours) is reasonable. We're not complaining that the Chinese don't want to buy the F-35. Isn't SpaceX substantially cheaper than any other alternative at this point?

argonaut 10y ago

Every nation has protectionism. Every single one. What's important is the degree of protectionism. So pointing out examples of a nation engaging in protectionism contributes little to the discussion unless you compare it to other nations.

bnegreve 10y ago
Every nation has protectionism. Yes, that's my point. Not every one agrees with this and GGP's comment doesn't mention this fact. So pointing out examples [..] contributes little to the discussion. It adds examples of US protectionism so you can compare them with the ones from China that were mentioned before. Hopefully, this contributes to a more objective point of view. Why do I need to justify this?
- argonaut 10y ago
  Because China's space program and defense industry are protected as well. So if we're really going to try to decide whether China or the US are more protectionist than the other, in that comparison the examples cancel each other out. All you've done is add examples to both sides of the balance beam. And we're still left with examples of Chinese internet industry protectionism.
sangnoir 10y ago
> What's important is the degree of protectionism The US complaining about China's protectionism is hypocritical. Let's talk about America's farm subsidies. How is that not competing unfairly? It leads to American agricultural produce being dumped on foreign markets at subsidized prices, destroying entire countries' agricultural base. What would you say is the degree of protectionism here?
- argonaut 10y ago
  I'll just repeat my extremely short comment: > pointing out examples of a nation engaging in protectionism contributes little to the discussion unless you compare it to other nations.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    It's being implicitly compared to China, and well, to everyone else.
  - sangnoir 10y ago
    I thought the implicit comparison to any country was obvious and well known - maybe not to Americans[1]. Can you think of any country that practices protectionism on agriculture at the same level as the US? 1. I would have thought post-"corn-syrup-gate" more Americans would at least know corn is heavily subsidized.
    - argonaut 10y ago
      To make a good point, you also need to show that China doesn't have agricultural subsidies. 5 seconds of Google searching reveals a long lists of results: https://www.google.com/#q=chinese+agricultural+subsidies https://www.google.com/#q=chinese+agricultural+subsidies http://www.economist.com/news/china/21651272-others-cut-farm-support-china-spends-more-wrong-direction http://www.economist.com/news/china/21651272-others-cut-farm... Agricultural subsidies are really not going to support your point. Most countries have heavy agricultural subsidies.
- golergka 10y ago
  Farm subsidies is not only about business, it's about national security: you subside food industry so that when you suddenly find yourself in the big war with trade routes cut, your population doesn't starve. I'm not saying that these subsidies are necessary; I'm just saying that they should be analyzed with a different framework.
  - 10y ago

bayesian_horse 10y ago

SpaceX has better and cheaper rockets. I don't think they are exceptionally profiting from a "buy American" effect. For the F-35 program, it contains a lot of technology which can't be found anywhere else in the world, and much of that technology was funded by the US government. For all the ridicule the project got, the corresponding projects in Russia and China are even worse off... If anything, the F-35 program is overpriced because there are no reasonable adversaries.

GunboatDiplomat 10y ago

They could be, but I'd say that wanting to produce your own fighters (especially for a large military like ours) is reasonable. We're not complaining that the Chinese don't want to buy the F-35. Isn't SpaceX substantially cheaper than any other alternative at this point?