4 ms·

>An idea, any foreign country that forbids buying land in their country [0] is not allowed to buy land in our country. Sound equal? FWICT, they also don't allo

by ksk 9y ago

>An idea, any foreign country that forbids buying land in their country [0] is not allowed to buy land in our country. Sound equal? FWICT, they also don't allow their own citizens to purchase land. In that sense, they're treating foreign citizens equally. Also, this seems to return some useful info: https://www.google.com/search?&q=how+to+buy+land+in+china https://www.google.com/search?&q=how+to+buy+land+in+china Seems like people have found a way to purchase land. >I think it's reasonable to leverage our freedom as an asset instead of a liability to be abused. What do you mean by leverage?

RobertRoberts 9y ago
>What do you mean by leverage? Use our freedom to implement a fair trading system. We are free to buy and sell here, but not in China. China takes advantage of us because of this, and up till now, we have had no recourse accept "trade wars". Instead of a trade war with tariffs and accusations and bickering, why not remove all possible complaints and treat others as they want to be treated? Use Chinese rules for the Chinese. Completely and utterly balanced trade. If they don't like it, they can change their rules to be more free, and they get more freedom to buy here. How would the Chinese government complain to the international community about the US applying their own rules to land ownership? How could anyone complain? It would be the height of hypocrisy, so they wouldn't. So why not use our freedom as the ultimate bargaining tool to create a balance in the world? Other countries could do the same to us, and we couldn't complain either. It seems there has to be a game theory equation to explain this, it can't be the first time it's been considered.
- ksk 9y ago
  Why do you think the US would stay the same if it became closed like China? What makes you think that the freedom is a liability? You're essentially advocating to reverse decades if not centuries of policy that justified US foreign policy actions, because the US assumed moral high ground on several geopolitical fronts. IMO it would degrade the USs standing on several policy issues. "trust us, we're the good guys." no longer works. I'm sure China and Russia would love to park their navy outside of Florida in international waters because the US does similar things.
  - RobertRoberts 9y ago
    >Why do you think the US would stay the same if it became closed like China? I didn't suggest "closed like China", I said "treat them how they wan to be treated". Every country treated equally on their own rules. >...US assumed moral high ground on several geopolitical fronts. How is it not the moral high ground to "treat others as they want to be treated"? That is straight from the mouth of Jesus. Edit: I misquoted Jesus... It's supposed to be "Treat others as you want to be treated"
    - baobrain 9y ago
      How is the word of Jesus an objective moral standard? Should we cut off a man and woman who had sex during the woman's period from society?
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - seiferteric 9y ago
        pretty sure Jesus never said such a thing, I think that's some old testament stuff.
      - apotheothesomai 9y ago
        It's already agreed that it's as objective a moral standard as one could be. Jesus was only referenced as a rhetorical flourish. I prefer Kant's articulations, but the Jesus books include a not necessarily religious moral philosophy. Society cannot hold together, when people make exceptions for themselves, or play the 'you did it first, so it's o.k. for me' game. That indicates an absence of moral principles.
    - seiferteric 9y ago
      Wait wait.. Isn't it "Treat others how you want to be treated"? Isn't what your suggestion essentially "an eye for an eye"?
      - 9y ago
- adventured 9y ago
  > implement a fair trading system. We're now, apparently, starting to do that. It has been heating up for years, pre-Trump. We currently appear to be in a total freeze on allowing China to buy US technology assets. Which is exactly what we should be doing, until they allow US companies to operate similarly in China. [2016] "One of the companies that first brought silicon to Silicon Valley — Fairchild Semiconductor International — said it would remain in American hands after rejecting a takeover offer worth about $2.5 billion led by Chinese state-backed buyers. Instead, Fairchild embraced a smaller bid from an American rival on Tuesday, citing concerns that federal regulators might reject the Chinese deal." https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/business/dealbook/china-fairchild-semiconductor-bid-rejected.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/business/dealbook/china-f... And more recently, prevented or killed under the Trump era: - Qualcomm by Broadcom (Singapore) - Xcerra by Hubei Xinyan Equity Investment (China) - MoneyGram by Ant Financial Services Group (China) - Cowen by China Energy Company Limited (China) - Aleris by Zhongwang (China) - HERE by Navinfo (China) - Lattice Semiconductor by Canyon Bridge (China) - Global Eagle Entertainment by HNA Group (China) - Novatel Wireless by TCL (China) - Cree by Infineon Technologies (Germany) https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-12/trump-issues-order-to-block-broadcom-s-takeover-of-qualcomm-jeoszwnt https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-12/trump-iss...

by ksk 9y ago

RobertRoberts 9y ago

>What do you mean by leverage? Use our freedom to implement a fair trading system. We are free to buy and sell here, but not in China. China takes advantage of us because of this, and up till now, we have had no recourse accept "trade wars". Instead of a trade war with tariffs and accusations and bickering, why not remove all possible complaints and treat others as they want to be treated? Use Chinese rules for the Chinese. Completely and utterly balanced trade. If they don't like it, they can change their rules to be more free, and they get more freedom to buy here. How would the Chinese government complain to the international community about the US applying their own rules to land ownership? How could anyone complain? It would be the height of hypocrisy, so they wouldn't. So why not use our freedom as the ultimate bargaining tool to create a balance in the world? Other countries could do the same to us, and we couldn't complain either. It seems there has to be a game theory equation to explain this, it can't be the first time it's been considered.

ksk 9y ago
Why do you think the US would stay the same if it became closed like China? What makes you think that the freedom is a liability? You're essentially advocating to reverse decades if not centuries of policy that justified US foreign policy actions, because the US assumed moral high ground on several geopolitical fronts. IMO it would degrade the USs standing on several policy issues. "trust us, we're the good guys." no longer works. I'm sure China and Russia would love to park their navy outside of Florida in international waters because the US does similar things.
- RobertRoberts 9y ago
  >Why do you think the US would stay the same if it became closed like China? I didn't suggest "closed like China", I said "treat them how they wan to be treated". Every country treated equally on their own rules. >...US assumed moral high ground on several geopolitical fronts. How is it not the moral high ground to "treat others as they want to be treated"? That is straight from the mouth of Jesus. Edit: I misquoted Jesus... It's supposed to be "Treat others as you want to be treated"
  - baobrain 9y ago
    How is the word of Jesus an objective moral standard? Should we cut off a man and woman who had sex during the woman's period from society?
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - seiferteric 9y ago
      pretty sure Jesus never said such a thing, I think that's some old testament stuff.
    - apotheothesomai 9y ago
      It's already agreed that it's as objective a moral standard as one could be. Jesus was only referenced as a rhetorical flourish. I prefer Kant's articulations, but the Jesus books include a not necessarily religious moral philosophy. Society cannot hold together, when people make exceptions for themselves, or play the 'you did it first, so it's o.k. for me' game. That indicates an absence of moral principles.
  - seiferteric 9y ago
    Wait wait.. Isn't it "Treat others how you want to be treated"? Isn't what your suggestion essentially "an eye for an eye"?
    - 9y ago
adventured 9y ago
> implement a fair trading system. We're now, apparently, starting to do that. It has been heating up for years, pre-Trump. We currently appear to be in a total freeze on allowing China to buy US technology assets. Which is exactly what we should be doing, until they allow US companies to operate similarly in China. [2016] "One of the companies that first brought silicon to Silicon Valley — Fairchild Semiconductor International — said it would remain in American hands after rejecting a takeover offer worth about $2.5 billion led by Chinese state-backed buyers. Instead, Fairchild embraced a smaller bid from an American rival on Tuesday, citing concerns that federal regulators might reject the Chinese deal." https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/business/dealbook/china-fairchild-semiconductor-bid-rejected.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/business/dealbook/china-f... And more recently, prevented or killed under the Trump era: - Qualcomm by Broadcom (Singapore) - Xcerra by Hubei Xinyan Equity Investment (China) - MoneyGram by Ant Financial Services Group (China) - Cowen by China Energy Company Limited (China) - Aleris by Zhongwang (China) - HERE by Navinfo (China) - Lattice Semiconductor by Canyon Bridge (China) - Global Eagle Entertainment by HNA Group (China) - Novatel Wireless by TCL (China) - Cree by Infineon Technologies (Germany) https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-12/trump-issues-order-to-block-broadcom-s-takeover-of-qualcomm-jeoszwnt https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-12/trump-iss...