5 ms·

"Fair" is a bullshit notion when it comes to trade. What Americans say is that China can produce <insert commodity> cheaper than the USA only because "it's subs

"Fair" is a bullshit notion when it comes to trade. What Americans say is that China can produce <insert commodity> cheaper than the USA only because "it's subsidized", and that's unfair. What exactly does it mean to say that is "unfair"? The USA for example subsidizes their soybean exports, is that "unfair" to the rest of the world? Their society spotted a strategic opportunity in collectively working together to lower the prices of some exports. Now, it might make sense for the USA to apply strategic tariffs. But calling their decision "unfair" is just filler word nonsense, as we're all playing by the same rules.

yourcousinbob 9y ago
In the article, it mentions subsidizing commodities is an acceptable free trade practice that perhaps helps everyone giving Americans cheaper goods. What Americans are saying is unfair is China's blatant and state backed assault on intellectual property as well as strict limits on foreign companies. It is China's strict laws that exclude the world's tech companies and create their own markets for their own companies. These antifree trade practices benefit China at the expense of the rest of the world. That is what is unfair
djrogers 9y ago
You seem to be focusing on one rallying point of the protectionist agenda (subsidized production), and not the underlying predatory trade practices. See, there are unfair trade practices, even if you think your example isn’t - practices such as dumping, or outrageously high unilateral tariffs. These destabilize global economies, and are used specifically to damage foreign industry. These are not simply a matter of ‘strategic opportunity’, which is why they are generally forbidden by international trade groups. Of course they don’t actually get to do much to enforce international law at the WTO, but that’s a different story.
- digitaltrees 9y ago
  You make some good points. I agree. There are differences in subsidies. For example. It may be ok to subsidize food production so that a country can ensure continued ability to maintain production capacity domestically, even where it’s not economically viable. But that is very different from a country strategically subsidizing an industry with the objective of marking the products so low priced that they drive all the domestic producers out of business and then, when they are left standing, jacking up the prices. That’s called dumping. There is a reason we have the WTO and a dispute resolution process, it’s be cause some things are ok and some are not.
  - fwdpropaganda 9y ago
    > It may be ok to subsidize food production so that a country can ensure continued ability to maintain production capacity domestically Isn't that how the Chinese justify what they do?
akira2501 9y ago
> as we're all playing by the same rules. No we're not. If China wants to make an anti-dumping case over our soybeans to the WTO, they're welcome to. So far, they haven't. Mostly because they're going to have to make a case that "crop insurance" provided by the USDA is somehow an undue "subsidy."
- fwdpropaganda 9y ago
  > Mostly because they're going to have to make a case that "crop insurance" provided by the USDA is somehow an undue "subsidy." Isn't it? How many billions of totally-not-subsidy are you not subsidizing?
  - akira2501 9y ago
    > Isn't it? Not strictly.. food security is a valid concern. > How many billions of totally-not-subsidy are you not subsidizing? Roughly: 2 Billion on an export crop that's worth 35 Billion at market. Is that noncompetitive support to spurn dumping in a foreign market? Obviously not, and it's why China didn't go to the WTO already.
    - fwdpropaganda 9y ago
      It does support dumping, as it allows lower prices than competitors who don't have such practice.

yourcousinbob 9y ago

In the article, it mentions subsidizing commodities is an acceptable free trade practice that perhaps helps everyone giving Americans cheaper goods. What Americans are saying is unfair is China's blatant and state backed assault on intellectual property as well as strict limits on foreign companies. It is China's strict laws that exclude the world's tech companies and create their own markets for their own companies. These antifree trade practices benefit China at the expense of the rest of the world. That is what is unfair

djrogers 9y ago

You seem to be focusing on one rallying point of the protectionist agenda (subsidized production), and not the underlying predatory trade practices. See, there are unfair trade practices, even if you think your example isn’t - practices such as dumping, or outrageously high unilateral tariffs. These destabilize global economies, and are used specifically to damage foreign industry. These are not simply a matter of ‘strategic opportunity’, which is why they are generally forbidden by international trade groups. Of course they don’t actually get to do much to enforce international law at the WTO, but that’s a different story.

digitaltrees 9y ago
You make some good points. I agree. There are differences in subsidies. For example. It may be ok to subsidize food production so that a country can ensure continued ability to maintain production capacity domestically, even where it’s not economically viable. But that is very different from a country strategically subsidizing an industry with the objective of marking the products so low priced that they drive all the domestic producers out of business and then, when they are left standing, jacking up the prices. That’s called dumping. There is a reason we have the WTO and a dispute resolution process, it’s be cause some things are ok and some are not.
- fwdpropaganda 9y ago
  > It may be ok to subsidize food production so that a country can ensure continued ability to maintain production capacity domestically Isn't that how the Chinese justify what they do?

akira2501 9y ago

> as we're all playing by the same rules. No we're not. If China wants to make an anti-dumping case over our soybeans to the WTO, they're welcome to. So far, they haven't. Mostly because they're going to have to make a case that "crop insurance" provided by the USDA is somehow an undue "subsidy."

fwdpropaganda 9y ago
> Mostly because they're going to have to make a case that "crop insurance" provided by the USDA is somehow an undue "subsidy." Isn't it? How many billions of totally-not-subsidy are you not subsidizing?
- akira2501 9y ago
  > Isn't it? Not strictly.. food security is a valid concern. > How many billions of totally-not-subsidy are you not subsidizing? Roughly: 2 Billion on an export crop that's worth 35 Billion at market. Is that noncompetitive support to spurn dumping in a foreign market? Obviously not, and it's why China didn't go to the WTO already.
  - fwdpropaganda 9y ago
    It does support dumping, as it allows lower prices than competitors who don't have such practice.