4 ms·

Every nation has protectionism. Every single one. What's important is the degree of protectionism. So pointing out examples of a nation engaging in protectionis

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.
  - wrong_variable 10y ago
    Not really, Being self sufficient for war and producing excess agriculture product and dumping it on foreign markets are two completely different things. And two can play at that game - china can make the same 'national security' nonsense argument about information espionage when it comes to the internet. And in the modern world - the internet is more useful then food for a nation state - america can lose 30 million people and still win a total war as long as its nukes are functional. Its all about protectionism.
  - gbog 10y ago
    That's true but even more so when applied to the computer network. Nowadays, in case of a war, closing emails or zombying all Windows pcs could do more harm than food supplies.
    - golergka 10y ago
      And that's why for countries who aren't US closest allies it makes total sense to base military infrastructure on open-source operating systems and software (because let's be honest, Russian or Chinese military most likely won't be able to produce their own modern OS of comparable quality from scratch). However, software and hardware on one hard, and internet on another, aren't the same thing: I don't see how one can seriously make the same argument in favor of great chinese firewall. It's only effective against general population, and doesn't seriously negate any cyber-threats, as far as I understand.
      - gbog 10y ago
        Why only military infrastructure? Image a war between, say the USA and Russia, and imagine that the USA manages to shut down or cripple all Windows machines in Russia, this will probably put the enemy on the kneels, even more than weeks of airstrikes. And it may also be better PR as it do not directly "kill" anyone. I have always thought that Microsoft holding 95% of PCs in the world is extremely dangerous, and can't get why American, with their admirable foundness of personal freedom and security, do not decide to put a stop to this anomaly. (Imagine, if 95% of world's oil was provided by one company?)

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.
- wrong_variable 10y ago
  Not really, Being self sufficient for war and producing excess agriculture product and dumping it on foreign markets are two completely different things. And two can play at that game - china can make the same 'national security' nonsense argument about information espionage when it comes to the internet. And in the modern world - the internet is more useful then food for a nation state - america can lose 30 million people and still win a total war as long as its nukes are functional. Its all about protectionism.
- gbog 10y ago
  That's true but even more so when applied to the computer network. Nowadays, in case of a war, closing emails or zombying all Windows pcs could do more harm than food supplies.
  - golergka 10y ago
    And that's why for countries who aren't US closest allies it makes total sense to base military infrastructure on open-source operating systems and software (because let's be honest, Russian or Chinese military most likely won't be able to produce their own modern OS of comparable quality from scratch). However, software and hardware on one hard, and internet on another, aren't the same thing: I don't see how one can seriously make the same argument in favor of great chinese firewall. It's only effective against general population, and doesn't seriously negate any cyber-threats, as far as I understand.
    - gbog 10y ago
      Why only military infrastructure? Image a war between, say the USA and Russia, and imagine that the USA manages to shut down or cripple all Windows machines in Russia, this will probably put the enemy on the kneels, even more than weeks of airstrikes. And it may also be better PR as it do not directly "kill" anyone. I have always thought that Microsoft holding 95% of PCs in the world is extremely dangerous, and can't get why American, with their admirable foundness of personal freedom and security, do not decide to put a stop to this anomaly. (Imagine, if 95% of world's oil was provided by one company?)