26 ms·
See this HN thread about historical global imperialism, under the guise of business. It provides a counter perspective as poor countries were historically fleec
by 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 agoAlthough 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 agoThe 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 agoSo does everybody. Let’s get rid of international trade.
- micheljones 9y agoThe 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 agoHate the game, not the player.
- micheljones 9y agoI'm just commenting on the moral judgement of 'China is just protecting themselves from evil whitey'.
- harryh 9y agoTrade isn't a zero sum competition like shooting hoops. When people engage in it both sides get richer.
- dragonwriter 9y ago> Trade isn't a zero sum competition like shooting hoops. This is less true than naive abalysis suggests, because relative deprivation is a significant source of disutility and trade that is “mutually beneficial” before the effects of relative deprivation are considered is often so unequal inn benefit distribution that the total net utility on one side is negative. Classical comparative advantage arguments for trade tend to ignore the disutility from relative deprivation.
- harryh 9y agoRelative deprivation occurs when people learn about other cultures where people have access to greater wealth. In the information age I don't think this is avoidable even if we stop trading with each other.
- dragonwriter 9y ago> Relative deprivation occurs when people learn about other cultures where people have access to greater wealth That's one of many places where it occurs, yes (it also happens locally.) Trade can exacerbate it, because even superficially mutually beneficial trade doesn't advance the wealth on both sides equally, and the degree of difference in material position, not merely it's binary existence or not, is a key factor in the magnitude of the resulting disutility.
- harryh 9y agoI can see how this theoretically might be the case, but I am unpersuaded that lifting a billion people out of abject poverty in east asia was actually bad for them because a bunch of westerners got relatively richer in the transaction as well. I suppose this is a matter of judgement though and not an objective fact so to each their own.
- Robotbeat 9y agoI mean, yeah, but China is now economically on par with the West. On a PPP, they're on par or even larger than the US. And they're export-driven with questionable policies themselves. I think they can take care of themselves now and follow trade policies which are fair.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- kuro-kuris 9y agoFair to who? When was trade ever fair?