6 ms·

> Currently, all outside automakers (GM, BMW, Volkswagen, Toyota, etc, etc) must have a Chinese partner with at least a 50% stake. I think non-Chinese governme

> Currently, all outside automakers (GM, BMW, Volkswagen, Toyota, etc, etc) must have a Chinese partner with at least a 50% stake. I think non-Chinese governments should start fighting back on this. It's kinda messed up that Chinese companies can do unlimited business in the U.S. and Europe but then when we have a business that might sell to China, they take more than half the profits.

lafar6502 9y ago
And why we don’t have chinese car dealers? They don’t know that they can do unlimited business?
meddlepal 9y ago
Wasn't this a big point of the TPP? To even the playing field. Instead we went the other direction.
- princeb 9y ago
  short answer: no, China was not a partner to the TPP. long answer: getting a multilateral trade agreement with nearly all of China's trade partners in Asia-Pacific will influence trade standards in China, but not to the extent that China will do anything about this JV requirement.
  - gok 9y ago
    China’s exclusion was in fact a point of TPP. The other members would have had a better shot at being able to enforce rules that China ignores (state aid, intellectual property, etc).
- fragsworth 9y ago
  China was not a party in the TPP.
sergers 9y ago
China kind of has the leverage here... Everyone wants a piece of the presumed cash cow of the huge moderately untapped market of China. China can dictate the access to this market. US cannot do the opposite, where would the US consumer find many made in china electronics and other items for cheap.. china is already entrenched in western markets
- jeffdavis 9y ago
  The only thing worse than a trade war is a one-sided trade war. Disclaimer: I know nothing about international trade policy.
  - Synaesthesia 9y ago
    Protectionism is how every world power today got to that position. The US in the 19th century, and the UK in the 18th-19th were highly protectionist, putting up very high tariffs in order to nurture their fledgling industries.
    - sah2ed 9y ago
      > The US in the 19th century ... .. and in the 20th century [0] to protect the US automobile industry from fuel efficient Japanese imports. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_export_restraints https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_export_restraints
    - Reason077 9y ago
      > "The US in the 19th century, and the UK in the 18th-19th were highly protectionist" This is not really true in the UK case. While protectionist policies certainly did exist on agricultural goods in the 18th century, the UK moved gradually towards free trade throughout most of the early 19th century - and then embraced it completely with the repeal of the corn laws in 1846. In fact, the UK at that time had a policy of unilateral free trade - not imposing tariffs on imported goods even when they came from countries who imposed tariffs on British goods. This did become a problem during wartime. By 1914, the UK was heavily dependent on imported food and a large part of the German strategy was to try to sink ships bringing food to Britain. The one area where tariffs were still applied was on luxury goods, which were seen to have low price elasticity. (Compare to modern China, which also seeks tariff-free trade on commodities, resources, agricultural products, etc - but heavily taxes luxuries) It wasn't until the 1930s that there was a serious swing back towards protectionism in the UK.
vm 9y ago
See this HN thread about historical global imperialism, under the guise of business. It provides a counter perspective as poor countries were historically fleeced by the business (and military) interests of Western nations. Chinese "protectionism" seems reasonable, if not expected, through that lens. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15291385 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15291385
- isolli 9y ago
  Although China is pretty much the only country that can pull this off. It's ironic that all those poor countries who implement investment-friendly policies receive so little investment, while China gets away with blatantly ripping foreign investors (and to echo your sentiment, I don't blame them).
- apexalpha 9y ago
  The West telling poor countries that they should embrace free trade and WTO rules is like LeBron James telling me that from now on we should settle all disputes by shooting hoops. China (and India) have all the right and incentives to protect their continents from bad economic influences.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    So does everybody. Let’s get rid of international trade.
  - micheljones 9y ago
    The problem with China is that while 'protecting' themselves from 'evil West' they keep doing to other countries (in Africa and Asia) the same things they are protecting themselves from.
    - kuro-kuris 9y ago
      Hate the game, not the player.
      - 9y ago
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
alexbeloi 9y ago
Those regulations prop up Chinese businesses at the expense of economic efficiency (higher costs for consumer goods). To your point, it's not necessary or beneficial (in general) for US or Europe to act similarly. Western industries are highly developed and specialized, such regulations hurt consumers in order to prop up industry. So sure, if you want your manufacturing and textile jobs to stay in your country then you can have such regulations, but the cost of that is everyone in your country pays +X% more (in value, e.g. higher price or lower quality) for textiles and manufactured goods, which is what the Chinese consumer is doing right now for cars and every other highly regulated import good.
majortennis 9y ago
I hear this is the rule in Spain too

lafar6502 9y ago

And why we don’t have chinese car dealers? They don’t know that they can do unlimited business?

meddlepal 9y ago

Wasn't this a big point of the TPP? To even the playing field. Instead we went the other direction.

princeb 9y ago
short answer: no, China was not a partner to the TPP. long answer: getting a multilateral trade agreement with nearly all of China's trade partners in Asia-Pacific will influence trade standards in China, but not to the extent that China will do anything about this JV requirement.
- gok 9y ago
  China’s exclusion was in fact a point of TPP. The other members would have had a better shot at being able to enforce rules that China ignores (state aid, intellectual property, etc).
fragsworth 9y ago
China was not a party in the TPP.

sergers 9y ago

China kind of has the leverage here... Everyone wants a piece of the presumed cash cow of the huge moderately untapped market of China. China can dictate the access to this market. US cannot do the opposite, where would the US consumer find many made in china electronics and other items for cheap.. china is already entrenched in western markets

jeffdavis 9y ago
The only thing worse than a trade war is a one-sided trade war. Disclaimer: I know nothing about international trade policy.
- Synaesthesia 9y ago
  Protectionism is how every world power today got to that position. The US in the 19th century, and the UK in the 18th-19th were highly protectionist, putting up very high tariffs in order to nurture their fledgling industries.
  - sah2ed 9y ago
    > The US in the 19th century ... .. and in the 20th century [0] to protect the US automobile industry from fuel efficient Japanese imports. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_export_restraints https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_export_restraints
  - Reason077 9y ago
    > "The US in the 19th century, and the UK in the 18th-19th were highly protectionist" This is not really true in the UK case. While protectionist policies certainly did exist on agricultural goods in the 18th century, the UK moved gradually towards free trade throughout most of the early 19th century - and then embraced it completely with the repeal of the corn laws in 1846. In fact, the UK at that time had a policy of unilateral free trade - not imposing tariffs on imported goods even when they came from countries who imposed tariffs on British goods. This did become a problem during wartime. By 1914, the UK was heavily dependent on imported food and a large part of the German strategy was to try to sink ships bringing food to Britain. The one area where tariffs were still applied was on luxury goods, which were seen to have low price elasticity. (Compare to modern China, which also seeks tariff-free trade on commodities, resources, agricultural products, etc - but heavily taxes luxuries) It wasn't until the 1930s that there was a serious swing back towards protectionism in the UK.

vm 9y ago

See this HN thread about historical global imperialism, under the guise of business. It provides a counter perspective as poor countries were historically fleeced by the business (and military) interests of Western nations. Chinese "protectionism" seems reasonable, if not expected, through that lens. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15291385 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15291385

isolli 9y ago
Although China is pretty much the only country that can pull this off. It's ironic that all those poor countries who implement investment-friendly policies receive so little investment, while China gets away with blatantly ripping foreign investors (and to echo your sentiment, I don't blame them).
apexalpha 9y ago
The West telling poor countries that they should embrace free trade and WTO rules is like LeBron James telling me that from now on we should settle all disputes by shooting hoops. China (and India) have all the right and incentives to protect their continents from bad economic influences.
- rayiner 9y ago
  So does everybody. Let’s get rid of international trade.
- micheljones 9y ago
  The problem with China is that while 'protecting' themselves from 'evil West' they keep doing to other countries (in Africa and Asia) the same things they are protecting themselves from.
  - kuro-kuris 9y ago
    Hate the game, not the player.
    - 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

alexbeloi 9y ago

Those regulations prop up Chinese businesses at the expense of economic efficiency (higher costs for consumer goods). To your point, it's not necessary or beneficial (in general) for US or Europe to act similarly. Western industries are highly developed and specialized, such regulations hurt consumers in order to prop up industry. So sure, if you want your manufacturing and textile jobs to stay in your country then you can have such regulations, but the cost of that is everyone in your country pays +X% more (in value, e.g. higher price or lower quality) for textiles and manufactured goods, which is what the Chinese consumer is doing right now for cars and every other highly regulated import good.

majortennis 9y ago

I hear this is the rule in Spain too