5 ms·

Journalists cannot keep profiling the rise of the Chinese tech industry or its supposed move from "imitation to innovation” without focusing on how Chinese com

by sqdbps 9y ago

Journalists cannot keep profiling the rise of the Chinese tech industry or its supposed move from "imitation to innovation” without focusing on how Chinese companies are entirely protected from foreign competition in their domestic market and that the Chinese government is forcing foreign companies wanting to do business there to share intellectual property with Chinese competitors. The fact that none of that triggered WTO action points to just how broken that organization is.

coldtea 9y ago
>without focusing on how Chinese companies are entirely protected from foreign competition in their domestic market and that the Chinese government is forcing foreign companies wanting to do business there to share intellectual property with Chinese competitors. The US had the same advantages early on when it was at its own growth stage to superpower, copying European inventions to bootstrap at first, and using tariffs, subsidies and such to protect the local economy, and using their diplomatic/military might later on to ensure favorable deals for their companies (even now, countries and leaders e.g. that think of trading their oil in other currencies are not staying around for long to do it). e.g: "[protectionist] policy was most prevalent in the 19th century. It attempted to restrain imports to protect Northern industries. It was opposed by Southern states that wanted free trade to expand cotton and other agricultural exports. Protectionist measures included tariffs and quotas on imported goods, along with subsidies and other means, to ensure fair competition between imported goods and local goods. In today's age the US is still highly protectionist, according to Global Trade Alert the US has adopted over 1000 protectionist measures since the Global Economic Crisis in 2008, more than any other country since" https://www.bna.com/amazon-close-breaking-n57982085432/ https://www.bna.com/amazon-close-breaking-n57982085432/ https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-14/your-tax-dollars-subsidize-amazon-are-the-jobs-worth-it https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-14/your-tax-... >The fact that none of that triggered WTO action points to just how broken that orginization is. Or that the power relations have changed, and its old masters are somewhat toothless.
- sqdbps 9y ago
  What you're refrencing is a pactice by emerging or developing nations to protect what economists call "infant industries". None of that is applicable to China. They don't even brother with tariffs they prohibit all competition and coerce rivals to hand over the fruits of their research. It's diabolical.
  - jonathanyc 9y ago
    No, protectionism is not associated exclusively or even primarily with emerging or developing countries. The GP’s comment talks about 19th and 20th century history, during which time Europe and America industrialized and protectionism was practically the default.
    - sqdbps 9y ago
      That's neither here nor there, we're discussing China's actions in the context of free trade being the global norm and having established organization like the WTO to ensure a certain level of reciprocity. The larger point is that China is practicing extreme protectionism while benefitting greatly from free trade.
      - jonathanyc 9y ago
        > Thats neither here nor there The GP literally mentions protectionism in the context of the 19th century. I think you’re in the wrong thread.
      - coldtea 9y ago
        >The larger point is that China is practicing extreme protectionism while benefitting greatly from free trade. More power to them, then? Sounds like a good way benefit their country.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >They don't even brother with tariffs they prohibit all competition and coerce rivals to hand over the fruits of their research. It's diabolical. Well, they've been forced to open their borders once, at the opium wars, so that "free trade" can triumph and more junkies can be made of their people. I'd cut them some slack in not seeing "free trade" as all its advertised to be (by those that primarily profit from paying lip service to it).
throwaway_80bf3 9y ago
> Journalist cannot keep portraying the rise of the Chinese tech industry [...] In the United States anyway, Trumps pandering mercantilism has all but ensured that all global trade will be treated as an axiomatic good by an adversarial press (WaPo and NYT, primarily), nuance be damned.

by sqdbps 9y ago

coldtea 9y ago

>without focusing on how Chinese companies are entirely protected from foreign competition in their domestic market and that the Chinese government is forcing foreign companies wanting to do business there to share intellectual property with Chinese competitors. The US had the same advantages early on when it was at its own growth stage to superpower, copying European inventions to bootstrap at first, and using tariffs, subsidies and such to protect the local economy, and using their diplomatic/military might later on to ensure favorable deals for their companies (even now, countries and leaders e.g. that think of trading their oil in other currencies are not staying around for long to do it). e.g: "[protectionist] policy was most prevalent in the 19th century. It attempted to restrain imports to protect Northern industries. It was opposed by Southern states that wanted free trade to expand cotton and other agricultural exports. Protectionist measures included tariffs and quotas on imported goods, along with subsidies and other means, to ensure fair competition between imported goods and local goods. In today's age the US is still highly protectionist, according to Global Trade Alert the US has adopted over 1000 protectionist measures since the Global Economic Crisis in 2008, more than any other country since" https://www.bna.com/amazon-close-breaking-n57982085432/ https://www.bna.com/amazon-close-breaking-n57982085432/ https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-14/your-tax-dollars-subsidize-amazon-are-the-jobs-worth-it https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-14/your-tax-... >The fact that none of that triggered WTO action points to just how broken that orginization is. Or that the power relations have changed, and its old masters are somewhat toothless.

sqdbps 9y ago
What you're refrencing is a pactice by emerging or developing nations to protect what economists call "infant industries". None of that is applicable to China. They don't even brother with tariffs they prohibit all competition and coerce rivals to hand over the fruits of their research. It's diabolical.
- jonathanyc 9y ago
  No, protectionism is not associated exclusively or even primarily with emerging or developing countries. The GP’s comment talks about 19th and 20th century history, during which time Europe and America industrialized and protectionism was practically the default.
  - sqdbps 9y ago
    That's neither here nor there, we're discussing China's actions in the context of free trade being the global norm and having established organization like the WTO to ensure a certain level of reciprocity. The larger point is that China is practicing extreme protectionism while benefitting greatly from free trade.
    - jonathanyc 9y ago
      > Thats neither here nor there The GP literally mentions protectionism in the context of the 19th century. I think you’re in the wrong thread.
    - coldtea 9y ago
      >The larger point is that China is practicing extreme protectionism while benefitting greatly from free trade. More power to them, then? Sounds like a good way benefit their country.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >They don't even brother with tariffs they prohibit all competition and coerce rivals to hand over the fruits of their research. It's diabolical. Well, they've been forced to open their borders once, at the opium wars, so that "free trade" can triumph and more junkies can be made of their people. I'd cut them some slack in not seeing "free trade" as all its advertised to be (by those that primarily profit from paying lip service to it).

throwaway_80bf3 9y ago

> Journalist cannot keep portraying the rise of the Chinese tech industry [...] In the United States anyway, Trumps pandering mercantilism has all but ensured that all global trade will be treated as an axiomatic good by an adversarial press (WaPo and NYT, primarily), nuance be damned.