9 ms·

U.S. Government Strikes Back Against Chinese Investment

84 points by kposehn 9y ago

pjc50 9y ago
This is extremely ironic after decades of pushing the international financial institutions like the WTO and the IMF to "open other countries for investment".
- dpwm 9y ago
  It's interesting that the US has advocated free trade whilst also being one of the biggest advocates of sanctions for countries with administrations that are not so sympathetic to its plans for them. Perhaps what the USA wants is not really free trade but "free trade": new markets to sell labour-derived goods and services to and resource suppliers with very low wages, low standards of services and low food prices in order to maintain its (slipping) financially dominant position in the world. Viewed from this angle the move makes sense and remains consistent with long-term policy goals. The stance of the current presidential administration is merely convenient. Whether it works in the long term remains to be seen. I'm a long-term critic of the US administration's trade and foreign policy and do not gladly suffer any who are unquestioningly sympathetic with it. So I have a hard time admitting this, but the consequences of the US' global trade empire falling are unimaginable to me: I see more ways it could end up in a significantly worse global situation than a marginally better one.
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    > Perhaps what the USA wants is not really free trade but "free trade": new markets to sell labour-derived goods and services to and resource suppliers with very low wages, low standards of services and low food prices in order to maintain its (slipping) financially dominant position in the world. This is a commonly touted criticism for the US by foreigners. I grew up basically my entire life hearing this argument. (I'm argentinian). But I think it fails to grasp the political and economical reality. If the US restricts importations, it harms itself as well as it harms the would-be exporter. The idea that the US gains economic advantage by telling other countries to be open and remaining closed is just false. Its like a business man telling other business men that paying good wages is the way to retain employees and then he pays below market: he harms himself with the hypocrisy. Secondly, I am convinced that the natural state of human beings is to be mercantilist and protectionist, which means open trade is always a political uphill battle. The restrictions the US has on imports has been criticized by its liberal economists. But politicians are not elected to make good policy, they are elected to make popular policy.
    - bilbo0s 9y ago
      "...The idea that the US gains economic advantage by telling other countries to be open and remaining closed is just false...." Well, we do gain economic advantage when nations remain open, because the US is only open in theory. That said, this "only open in theory" thing affects us, the citizens of the US, just as much as it affects other nations. For instance, in THEORY if we in the US don't like the fact that Facebook and Twitter have the power to shape what we see and hear, we're free to form startups that offer competing social networks. As a pragmatic matter though, we really aren't. Such startups are almost guaranteed to fail in the US. On an international scale we can see this same effect in action by comparing the vibrancy of the Chinese internet startup market, against that of other, more open, nations. The vast majority of users in nations with more open markets use Facebook, Twitter, and other mostly US properties. Don't misunderstand me, the citizens of those nations can attempt to form internet startups if they wish, but the reality is that in the face of the giant, well funded, US competitors also operating in their nations, I, personally, wouldn't be sanguine about their prospects. The Chinese cleverly avoided that fate by effectively closing their market.
      - conanbatt 9y ago
        The chinese people are much poorer for not having as much foreign companies inside. They pay extra taxes for the subsidies and quality of service by having less options. Yes, its a huge loss for FAANG that they cant compete in china, but its also a loss for chinese people. It's just not a loss for chinese politicians, that can tout that thanks to them they created massive companies. You can run indefinitely on a bad platform while it gives your reasonable returns. We'll see what happens when china gets its own big capitalist crisis.
    - dpwm 9y ago
      > But I think it fails to grasp the political and economical reality. If the US restricts importations, it harms itself as well as it harms the would-be exporter. It's quite ironic that this is the US we're talking about and that the US gained so much from protectionism. Abraham Lincoln remarked, “Give us a protective tariff and we will have the greatest nation on earth.” The US was born, after its independence, in protectionism. Through protectionism, the US was able to establish a very impressive manufacturing base in almost every sector of the economy. The US can drop all tariffs on imports to zero if it wants. Have you considered why it doesn't? If free imports really benefited the US in the way you're claiming they do, why would the US so aggressively seek trade deals with other nations? The only reason to engage in trade deals is to be able to gain regulatory influence of other countries and set mutual tariffs. It is in the US interest to make these tariffs lower for things they are net exporters of and higher for things they are net importers of (because if you're manufacturing, the raw materials generally cost less than the cost of the imported raw materials and so a larger tariff on a smaller value is better than a larger tariff on the larger value) Huge multilateral trade deals, the kind the US has been pushing, rely on the fact that they are the biggest single party and that the other signatories have a diversity of exports and imports. This is what makes Trump's bilateral approach slightly amusing: a bilateral trade deal with America First stamped on it seems like it would be a harder sell than the multilateral trade deal negotiated by the US as the largest single entity. It makes it easier to sell to the people in those countries that their politicians have signed away their power to choose a government that has the power to introduce nice things like an efficient (i.e. socialized) healthcare system . Because the trade agreement will explicitly forbid this in order to open up the healthcare market to all the signatories. > The idea that the US gains economic advantage by telling other countries to be open and remaining closed is just false. Its like a business man telling other business men that paying good wages is the way to retain employees and then he pays below market: he harms himself with the hypocrisy. That's a poor analogy and as hard as I try I really can't see the mapping. In this analogy the businessmen are countries. The workers are what, the citizens? The factories? That makes no sense. Each party wants their factories to make money, of course. Are the wages taxes? Because the state taxes people. Reflecting the analogy back, is the US saying "cut taxes, cut the services for workers" whilst hypocritically turning into a social democracy? But I like the businessmen analogy. We can say that one represents an entirely fictional Fortune 100 company (I'm sure none would behave this way) and another a tiny little manufacturer that is on the brink of going under. The Fortune 100 company uses its leverage to suggest it will give the smaller manufacturer a huge order subject to it giving it a free sample run or such of a bespoke part. The smaller manufacturer would never entertain such terms for any other customer in ordinary circumstances, but this contract would save it. So it bites, takes a hit and gets accelerated under. Then the Fortune 100 company buys it at a knock-down price when it's no longer a going concern. The US wants imports, but not of things that directly compete with US manufacturing. Things have gone a little wrong, because self-interest has led to the moving of production to the plundered world and has led to the perception amongst some people that the main thing the US has been exporting is jobs.
  - macspoofing 9y ago
    United States has largely been responsible for building the current world order post-WW2, based on democracy,and global trade. It's not easy being at the top.
- oh-kumudo 9y ago
  Key industry sectors are never up there for sales, such as semiconductor, which is widely acknowledged, by this government and Obama Administration. Xi's China at best a competitor, at worst an enemy, it is getting clearer and clearer day after day.
- fwdpropaganda 9y ago
  This is true. In addition, it's also ironic how when the Chinese government intervenes you see the American media decry exactly the type of behavior that the administration now wants to embrace. It has never been about ideologies (free market), it's always been about what's beneficial for the US government. Not just in trade, but in everything. And anyone who knows anything about the past 40 years should be able to see it clearly. Instead, so many people are happy to parrot whatever the latest talking point on the media is.
  - bilbo0s 9y ago
    "...Instead, so many people are happy to parrot whatever the latest talking point on the media is..." In fairness, propaganda is supposed to have that effect. There are people and organizations in China, and in the US, who spend DECADES studying human psychology, human behavior, etc etc etc, just to be able to properly direct human thinking at scale.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > after decades of pushing the international financial institutions like the WTO and the IMF The Washington Consensus promoted free trade and liberal democracy. In just the last few weeks, it has become apparent China is devolving into a garden-variety dictatorship. Trading short-term economic growth to defray a long-term threat to the global system is entirely consistent with the UN/IMF/WB/WTO missions and past activity.
- petre 9y ago
  The Chinese are transferring western tech through acquisitions so what would you expect other than a door shut in their face? Also, the Chinese NPC just made Xi chariman for life, China is guity of countless human right violations agains Uyghurs and Tibetans, their leadership has failed to act against North Korea, they have created tensions in the South China Sea and the list could go on and on.
gressquel 9y ago
I really dont like the Trump administration for various reasons, but one thing they have done right is showing firm hand against China. Especially when it comes to the artificial islands in South China sea and also the attempts to buy western technology by buying companies and institutions in US. I hope more countries wake up to what China is trying to do. Artificial island, Rohingya-cleansing, Sri Lanka airport etc. Its just the beginning, we need to be prepared.
- 3stop 9y ago
  China is not Myanmar... Is there a Rohingya conspiracy I'm not aware of? Artificial islands in the south China sea... Is that not just a really crappy-low-tech version of an aircraft carrier? When you say we need to be prepared. For what? Do you think China will attack? Or it will just pursue economic growth like every other country? In exactly the way we always wanted them to... Remember in the past China was closed... We (the West) opened that can of worms... Now we decide we don't like worms...
  - gressquel 9y ago
    1. China with its vote in UN security counsuel was a major suppord for Burmese government to do what what they did without fear of being punished. Google "China Rohingya" theres plenty of articles. 2. Are you literally justifying building island in other countrys sovereign territory? There is absolutely no excuse for this. How would Beijing like it if France or US moved their aircraft carrier 1 km outside of Shanghai? 3. China may not be capable of attakcing through convential war, but they are doing more nastyness without it. Supporting the Sri lankan governments assault on the tamils literally killing 60 000 people in the last weeks of the war in 2009. Imprisoning nobel pieze price winner till his death? Punishing Norway economically for awarding nobel peize price? Suppressing the muslim population in their country (Uyighur?) Stealing technologies and preventing any outside countries from enforcing IP-theft lawsuits. The list is too long to mention.
    - empath75 9y ago
      What do you propose to do about it that wouldn’t end in even worse outcomes?
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
“After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the West welcomed the next big communist country into the global economic order. Western leaders believed that giving China a stake in institutions such as the World Trade Organisation (WTO) would bind it into the rules-based system set up after the second world war (see Briefing). They hoped that economic integration would encourage China to evolve into a market economy and that, as they grew wealthier, its people would come to yearn for democratic freedoms, rights and the rule of law. It was a worthy vision, which this newspaper shared, and better than shutting China out. China has grown rich beyond anybody’s imagining. Under the leadership of Hu Jintao, you could still picture the bet paying off. When Mr Xi took power five years ago China was rife with speculation that he would move towards constitutional rule. Today the illusion has been shattered. In reality, Mr Xi has steered politics and economics towards repression, state control and confrontation. ... The West lost its bet.” https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21737517-it-bet-china-would-head-towards-democracy-and-market-economy-gamble-has-failed-how https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21737517-it-bet-china...
- justicezyx 9y ago
  So China isn't playing with wto rules? I thought that would get punished promptly before this day, considering its decades since China joined wto? On the other hand, if we look at the staggering systematic corruption in western nations, and suffering of the lowest rank citizens, I see no reason Chinese people, who are mostly poor, would want to move to a western system.
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    > I thought that would get punished promptly before this day International laws are closer to guidelines than the laws of a nation-state. Enforcement is fuzzy. When China lost its UNCLOS case to the Philippines, for example, the former simply ignored the tribunal's ruling [1]. The point of The Economist article [2] is that the WTO et al were unusually lenient with China. The hope was this leniency would result in a market economy that would, in turn, produce strong institutions and lay the path towards liberal democracy. That was the bet. That didn't happen. Hence the withdrawal of leniency. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines_v._China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines_v._China [2] https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21737517-it-bet-china-would-head-towards-democracy-and-market-economy-gamble-has-failed-how https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21737517-it-bet-china...
loeg 9y ago
Please add ", D.C." to the headline :-). (The headline would not be out of place describing Washington state, which sees a large amount of Chinese real estate investment.)
- lostmsu 9y ago
  Better have US in there
  - loeg 9y ago
    Are there other common Washington, D.C.'s outside the US? Or is this just a flippant comment?
Slansitartop 9y ago
This is sensible. China has played the West, by using the unmaterialized promise of access to its markets to motivate technology transfer to it for its own strategic advantage. It's never going to let a Western company provide the technology to power its critical systems, so there's no reason the US should allow a Chinese one to do the same.
- SubiculumCode 9y ago
  In many respects China has had a hands off approach by the world. They have high tariffs and other laws that prevent Western products and services competing in China. I'm no fan of trade wars, or a fan of Trump, but raising the tariffs on China for steel imports is nothing China isn't already doing.
  - SubiculumCode 9y ago
    :edit: Steel was just an example product of many.
pure_ambition 9y ago
I for one think it would be a good thing for the US if Xi Jinping becomes a dictator. Dictatorships have been proven to be unstable and don't make great decisions. If inaugurated in a period of growth, they tend to stagnate after the original dictator dies. See USSR after Stalin and then Khruschev, Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, The Pachas of Turkey, etc... Not to mention other dictators that were only brought down by war, but lord forbid that happens. So basically, the destruction of what little democratic-esque institution there was in China will inevitably result in a decline and/or downfall of the current political agenda of China, which can only be a good thing for the world in the long term. The world does not need more validation of dictatorships. It needs to see dictatorships fail, and - even more so - it needs to see democracies succeed.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > The world does not need more validation of dictatorships. It needs to see dictatorships fail Venezuela is a dictatorship failing. China's population is 50 times larger than Venezuela's. Its military capabilities and global economic integration are commensurately greater. When Xi falls, the best we can hope for is a few months of chaos contained to Beijing.
- SubiculumCode 9y ago
  If the world withdraws free trade with China, or realisticly, limits it by imposing tariffs on Chinese products, then the easy growth they've experienced would be gone. If we limit somehow limit their corporate espionage also...I'd expect the extreme suppression of their citizen's liberty and privacy will limit their innovation and growth.

84 points by kposehn 9y ago

This is extremely ironic after decades of pushing the international financial institutions like the WTO and the IMF to "open other countries for investment".

dpwm 9y ago
It's interesting that the US has advocated free trade whilst also being one of the biggest advocates of sanctions for countries with administrations that are not so sympathetic to its plans for them. Perhaps what the USA wants is not really free trade but "free trade": new markets to sell labour-derived goods and services to and resource suppliers with very low wages, low standards of services and low food prices in order to maintain its (slipping) financially dominant position in the world. Viewed from this angle the move makes sense and remains consistent with long-term policy goals. The stance of the current presidential administration is merely convenient. Whether it works in the long term remains to be seen. I'm a long-term critic of the US administration's trade and foreign policy and do not gladly suffer any who are unquestioningly sympathetic with it. So I have a hard time admitting this, but the consequences of the US' global trade empire falling are unimaginable to me: I see more ways it could end up in a significantly worse global situation than a marginally better one.
- conanbatt 9y ago
  > Perhaps what the USA wants is not really free trade but "free trade": new markets to sell labour-derived goods and services to and resource suppliers with very low wages, low standards of services and low food prices in order to maintain its (slipping) financially dominant position in the world. This is a commonly touted criticism for the US by foreigners. I grew up basically my entire life hearing this argument. (I'm argentinian). But I think it fails to grasp the political and economical reality. If the US restricts importations, it harms itself as well as it harms the would-be exporter. The idea that the US gains economic advantage by telling other countries to be open and remaining closed is just false. Its like a business man telling other business men that paying good wages is the way to retain employees and then he pays below market: he harms himself with the hypocrisy. Secondly, I am convinced that the natural state of human beings is to be mercantilist and protectionist, which means open trade is always a political uphill battle. The restrictions the US has on imports has been criticized by its liberal economists. But politicians are not elected to make good policy, they are elected to make popular policy.
  - bilbo0s 9y ago
    "...The idea that the US gains economic advantage by telling other countries to be open and remaining closed is just false...." Well, we do gain economic advantage when nations remain open, because the US is only open in theory. That said, this "only open in theory" thing affects us, the citizens of the US, just as much as it affects other nations. For instance, in THEORY if we in the US don't like the fact that Facebook and Twitter have the power to shape what we see and hear, we're free to form startups that offer competing social networks. As a pragmatic matter though, we really aren't. Such startups are almost guaranteed to fail in the US. On an international scale we can see this same effect in action by comparing the vibrancy of the Chinese internet startup market, against that of other, more open, nations. The vast majority of users in nations with more open markets use Facebook, Twitter, and other mostly US properties. Don't misunderstand me, the citizens of those nations can attempt to form internet startups if they wish, but the reality is that in the face of the giant, well funded, US competitors also operating in their nations, I, personally, wouldn't be sanguine about their prospects. The Chinese cleverly avoided that fate by effectively closing their market.
    - conanbatt 9y ago
      The chinese people are much poorer for not having as much foreign companies inside. They pay extra taxes for the subsidies and quality of service by having less options. Yes, its a huge loss for FAANG that they cant compete in china, but its also a loss for chinese people. It's just not a loss for chinese politicians, that can tout that thanks to them they created massive companies. You can run indefinitely on a bad platform while it gives your reasonable returns. We'll see what happens when china gets its own big capitalist crisis.
  - dpwm 9y ago
    > But I think it fails to grasp the political and economical reality. If the US restricts importations, it harms itself as well as it harms the would-be exporter. It's quite ironic that this is the US we're talking about and that the US gained so much from protectionism. Abraham Lincoln remarked, “Give us a protective tariff and we will have the greatest nation on earth.” The US was born, after its independence, in protectionism. Through protectionism, the US was able to establish a very impressive manufacturing base in almost every sector of the economy. The US can drop all tariffs on imports to zero if it wants. Have you considered why it doesn't? If free imports really benefited the US in the way you're claiming they do, why would the US so aggressively seek trade deals with other nations? The only reason to engage in trade deals is to be able to gain regulatory influence of other countries and set mutual tariffs. It is in the US interest to make these tariffs lower for things they are net exporters of and higher for things they are net importers of (because if you're manufacturing, the raw materials generally cost less than the cost of the imported raw materials and so a larger tariff on a smaller value is better than a larger tariff on the larger value) Huge multilateral trade deals, the kind the US has been pushing, rely on the fact that they are the biggest single party and that the other signatories have a diversity of exports and imports. This is what makes Trump's bilateral approach slightly amusing: a bilateral trade deal with America First stamped on it seems like it would be a harder sell than the multilateral trade deal negotiated by the US as the largest single entity. It makes it easier to sell to the people in those countries that their politicians have signed away their power to choose a government that has the power to introduce nice things like an efficient (i.e. socialized) healthcare system . Because the trade agreement will explicitly forbid this in order to open up the healthcare market to all the signatories. > The idea that the US gains economic advantage by telling other countries to be open and remaining closed is just false. Its like a business man telling other business men that paying good wages is the way to retain employees and then he pays below market: he harms himself with the hypocrisy. That's a poor analogy and as hard as I try I really can't see the mapping. In this analogy the businessmen are countries. The workers are what, the citizens? The factories? That makes no sense. Each party wants their factories to make money, of course. Are the wages taxes? Because the state taxes people. Reflecting the analogy back, is the US saying "cut taxes, cut the services for workers" whilst hypocritically turning into a social democracy? But I like the businessmen analogy. We can say that one represents an entirely fictional Fortune 100 company (I'm sure none would behave this way) and another a tiny little manufacturer that is on the brink of going under. The Fortune 100 company uses its leverage to suggest it will give the smaller manufacturer a huge order subject to it giving it a free sample run or such of a bespoke part. The smaller manufacturer would never entertain such terms for any other customer in ordinary circumstances, but this contract would save it. So it bites, takes a hit and gets accelerated under. Then the Fortune 100 company buys it at a knock-down price when it's no longer a going concern. The US wants imports, but not of things that directly compete with US manufacturing. Things have gone a little wrong, because self-interest has led to the moving of production to the plundered world and has led to the perception amongst some people that the main thing the US has been exporting is jobs.
- macspoofing 9y ago
  United States has largely been responsible for building the current world order post-WW2, based on democracy,and global trade. It's not easy being at the top.
oh-kumudo 9y ago
Key industry sectors are never up there for sales, such as semiconductor, which is widely acknowledged, by this government and Obama Administration. Xi's China at best a competitor, at worst an enemy, it is getting clearer and clearer day after day.
fwdpropaganda 9y ago
This is true. In addition, it's also ironic how when the Chinese government intervenes you see the American media decry exactly the type of behavior that the administration now wants to embrace. It has never been about ideologies (free market), it's always been about what's beneficial for the US government. Not just in trade, but in everything. And anyone who knows anything about the past 40 years should be able to see it clearly. Instead, so many people are happy to parrot whatever the latest talking point on the media is.
- bilbo0s 9y ago
  "...Instead, so many people are happy to parrot whatever the latest talking point on the media is..." In fairness, propaganda is supposed to have that effect. There are people and organizations in China, and in the US, who spend DECADES studying human psychology, human behavior, etc etc etc, just to be able to properly direct human thinking at scale.
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> after decades of pushing the international financial institutions like the WTO and the IMF The Washington Consensus promoted free trade and liberal democracy. In just the last few weeks, it has become apparent China is devolving into a garden-variety dictatorship. Trading short-term economic growth to defray a long-term threat to the global system is entirely consistent with the UN/IMF/WB/WTO missions and past activity.
petre 9y ago
The Chinese are transferring western tech through acquisitions so what would you expect other than a door shut in their face? Also, the Chinese NPC just made Xi chariman for life, China is guity of countless human right violations agains Uyghurs and Tibetans, their leadership has failed to act against North Korea, they have created tensions in the South China Sea and the list could go on and on.

gressquel 9y ago

I really dont like the Trump administration for various reasons, but one thing they have done right is showing firm hand against China. Especially when it comes to the artificial islands in South China sea and also the attempts to buy western technology by buying companies and institutions in US. I hope more countries wake up to what China is trying to do. Artificial island, Rohingya-cleansing, Sri Lanka airport etc. Its just the beginning, we need to be prepared.

3stop 9y ago
China is not Myanmar... Is there a Rohingya conspiracy I'm not aware of? Artificial islands in the south China sea... Is that not just a really crappy-low-tech version of an aircraft carrier? When you say we need to be prepared. For what? Do you think China will attack? Or it will just pursue economic growth like every other country? In exactly the way we always wanted them to... Remember in the past China was closed... We (the West) opened that can of worms... Now we decide we don't like worms...
- gressquel 9y ago
  1. China with its vote in UN security counsuel was a major suppord for Burmese government to do what what they did without fear of being punished. Google "China Rohingya" theres plenty of articles. 2. Are you literally justifying building island in other countrys sovereign territory? There is absolutely no excuse for this. How would Beijing like it if France or US moved their aircraft carrier 1 km outside of Shanghai? 3. China may not be capable of attakcing through convential war, but they are doing more nastyness without it. Supporting the Sri lankan governments assault on the tamils literally killing 60 000 people in the last weeks of the war in 2009. Imprisoning nobel pieze price winner till his death? Punishing Norway economically for awarding nobel peize price? Suppressing the muslim population in their country (Uyighur?) Stealing technologies and preventing any outside countries from enforcing IP-theft lawsuits. The list is too long to mention.
  - empath75 9y ago
    What do you propose to do about it that wouldn’t end in even worse outcomes?

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

“After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the West welcomed the next big communist country into the global economic order. Western leaders believed that giving China a stake in institutions such as the World Trade Organisation (WTO) would bind it into the rules-based system set up after the second world war (see Briefing). They hoped that economic integration would encourage China to evolve into a market economy and that, as they grew wealthier, its people would come to yearn for democratic freedoms, rights and the rule of law. It was a worthy vision, which this newspaper shared, and better than shutting China out. China has grown rich beyond anybody’s imagining. Under the leadership of Hu Jintao, you could still picture the bet paying off. When Mr Xi took power five years ago China was rife with speculation that he would move towards constitutional rule. Today the illusion has been shattered. In reality, Mr Xi has steered politics and economics towards repression, state control and confrontation. ... The West lost its bet.” https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21737517-it-bet-china-would-head-towards-democracy-and-market-economy-gamble-has-failed-how https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21737517-it-bet-china...

justicezyx 9y ago
So China isn't playing with wto rules? I thought that would get punished promptly before this day, considering its decades since China joined wto? On the other hand, if we look at the staggering systematic corruption in western nations, and suffering of the lowest rank citizens, I see no reason Chinese people, who are mostly poor, would want to move to a western system.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > I thought that would get punished promptly before this day International laws are closer to guidelines than the laws of a nation-state. Enforcement is fuzzy. When China lost its UNCLOS case to the Philippines, for example, the former simply ignored the tribunal's ruling [1]. The point of The Economist article [2] is that the WTO et al were unusually lenient with China. The hope was this leniency would result in a market economy that would, in turn, produce strong institutions and lay the path towards liberal democracy. That was the bet. That didn't happen. Hence the withdrawal of leniency. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines_v._China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines_v._China [2] https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21737517-it-bet-china-would-head-towards-democracy-and-market-economy-gamble-has-failed-how https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21737517-it-bet-china...

loeg 9y ago

Please add ", D.C." to the headline :-). (The headline would not be out of place describing Washington state, which sees a large amount of Chinese real estate investment.)

lostmsu 9y ago
Better have US in there
- loeg 9y ago
  Are there other common Washington, D.C.'s outside the US? Or is this just a flippant comment?

Slansitartop 9y ago

This is sensible. China has played the West, by using the unmaterialized promise of access to its markets to motivate technology transfer to it for its own strategic advantage. It's never going to let a Western company provide the technology to power its critical systems, so there's no reason the US should allow a Chinese one to do the same.

SubiculumCode 9y ago
In many respects China has had a hands off approach by the world. They have high tariffs and other laws that prevent Western products and services competing in China. I'm no fan of trade wars, or a fan of Trump, but raising the tariffs on China for steel imports is nothing China isn't already doing.
- SubiculumCode 9y ago
  :edit: Steel was just an example product of many.

pure_ambition 9y ago

I for one think it would be a good thing for the US if Xi Jinping becomes a dictator. Dictatorships have been proven to be unstable and don't make great decisions. If inaugurated in a period of growth, they tend to stagnate after the original dictator dies. See USSR after Stalin and then Khruschev, Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, The Pachas of Turkey, etc... Not to mention other dictators that were only brought down by war, but lord forbid that happens. So basically, the destruction of what little democratic-esque institution there was in China will inevitably result in a decline and/or downfall of the current political agenda of China, which can only be a good thing for the world in the long term. The world does not need more validation of dictatorships. It needs to see dictatorships fail, and - even more so - it needs to see democracies succeed.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> The world does not need more validation of dictatorships. It needs to see dictatorships fail Venezuela is a dictatorship failing. China's population is 50 times larger than Venezuela's. Its military capabilities and global economic integration are commensurately greater. When Xi falls, the best we can hope for is a few months of chaos contained to Beijing.
SubiculumCode 9y ago
If the world withdraws free trade with China, or realisticly, limits it by imposing tariffs on Chinese products, then the easy growth they've experienced would be gone. If we limit somehow limit their corporate espionage also...I'd expect the extreme suppression of their citizen's liberty and privacy will limit their innovation and growth.