6 ms·

There is some deep history here that has been barely reported on at all by any journalist, anywhere. It happened in many industries, in many political groups.

There is some deep history here that has been barely reported on at all by any journalist, anywhere. It happened in many industries, in many political groups. Rumsfeld et al started this bigtime in the 80s, selling and giving tech and IP to several asian countries for diplomatic favors. We were not consulted as to why at the time, just forced to make ourselves highly available for several Chinese government partners that were very interested in some of our advances, particularly in networking and manufacturing. This song and dance apparently accelerated in the G W years, but by then all half our company had shut down and I had abandoned tech for the second time.

mirimir 8y ago
Yes. That's the basis for this, from the article: > In effect, US policymakers put diplomacy before industrial development at home, offering the massive American consumer market as a carrot to encourage other countries to open up their economies to multinational investment. Then, thanks to the popular narrative that automation was responsible for job losses in manufacturing, American leaders tended to dismiss the threat of foreign competition to a thriving manufacturing industry and minimize its importance to the overall health of the US economy. It started with Nixon's 1972 visit to China. Engineered by Kissinger. However, it's arguable that it helped prevent WWIII, so hey.
- jackcosgrove 8y ago
  There's a word that describes the transfer of wealth from one country to another to achieve a desireable political outcome. It's called tribute. On a personal level it's called bribery. It could have been the best option at the time, especially with nuclear weapons in the mix. However it's also very convenient that those deciding to pay the tribute or bribe (government bigwigs) did not have to pay out of their own pockets. In fact they were able to skim a portion off for themselves.
  - mirimir 8y ago
    That's a great insight. I had thought of it as a policy decision, one aspect of the post-WWII globalization initiative. Encouraging trade and international connections, to reduce the risk of war. But yes, it also looks like tribute. Edit: > In fact they were able to skim a portion off for themselves. Walmart was represented at those talks :) I've heard that Mao offered 200 million young Chinese women, but Nixon passed, I guess.
  - mmirate 8y ago
    When the desirable outcome is the hope of avoiding a war, the word isn't "tribute". It's "appeasement".
  - closeparen 8y ago
    Businesses don’t trade altruistically. They do it because they benefit from the transaction. We do make straight-up donations around the world in the form of foreign/humanitarian aid, typically to buy stability in weak regimes rather than to appease powerful ones. There’s nothing going on here that can reasonably be labeled a tribute. Aid given in exchange for nuclear disarmament is probably the closest.
forapurpose 8y ago
The assumption behind the parent is economic nationalism, which is a false model of economics. Economic development in other countries benefits the U.S. greatly; economics and trade are not zero-sum, but mutually beneficial. Would you rather sell (and buy) goods in a town of poor people, or in a town of wealthy ones? Would the U.S. rather sell and buy goods in a world of other wealthy countries, or in a world of poor ones? If China didn't develop economically, it wouldn't be huge market for U.S. goods today, and wouldn't produce so much that the U.S. needs. Nationalism also ignores two fundamental moral issues: First, it is an unequivocal moral good for people rise out of extreme poverty, as has happened in China (and elsewhere). Second, there is no moral difference between the welfare of a human being in China and one in the U.S. or any other country; there is no reason the American deserves to be more wealthy. Everyone should have opportunity and a fair shot to earn what they can; if you don't make more, should you get special welfare because of your nationality?
- joejerryronnie 8y ago
  This is all well and good in the global altruistic humanist sense, but if I just lost my job in Indiana because the company shuttered our plant and outsourced manufacturing to China, I'm voting for Trump. As they say, "All politics is local".
  - nicoburns 8y ago
    Of course ironically it has been the US pushing globalism and free trade on the rest of the world (with similar impacts on industries elsewhere it seems).
    - caseysoftware 8y ago
      As noted in the article, the original analysis backed that up as a "good" option for the US and everyone else. With the knowledge that the original analysis is wrong, I wonder if we'll see actual policy changes more broadly than Trump's campaign rhetoric?
    - forapurpose 8y ago

mirimir 8y ago

Yes. That's the basis for this, from the article: > In effect, US policymakers put diplomacy before industrial development at home, offering the massive American consumer market as a carrot to encourage other countries to open up their economies to multinational investment. Then, thanks to the popular narrative that automation was responsible for job losses in manufacturing, American leaders tended to dismiss the threat of foreign competition to a thriving manufacturing industry and minimize its importance to the overall health of the US economy. It started with Nixon's 1972 visit to China. Engineered by Kissinger. However, it's arguable that it helped prevent WWIII, so hey.

jackcosgrove 8y ago
There's a word that describes the transfer of wealth from one country to another to achieve a desireable political outcome. It's called tribute. On a personal level it's called bribery. It could have been the best option at the time, especially with nuclear weapons in the mix. However it's also very convenient that those deciding to pay the tribute or bribe (government bigwigs) did not have to pay out of their own pockets. In fact they were able to skim a portion off for themselves.
- mirimir 8y ago
  That's a great insight. I had thought of it as a policy decision, one aspect of the post-WWII globalization initiative. Encouraging trade and international connections, to reduce the risk of war. But yes, it also looks like tribute. Edit: > In fact they were able to skim a portion off for themselves. Walmart was represented at those talks :) I've heard that Mao offered 200 million young Chinese women, but Nixon passed, I guess.
- mmirate 8y ago
  When the desirable outcome is the hope of avoiding a war, the word isn't "tribute". It's "appeasement".
- closeparen 8y ago
  Businesses don’t trade altruistically. They do it because they benefit from the transaction. We do make straight-up donations around the world in the form of foreign/humanitarian aid, typically to buy stability in weak regimes rather than to appease powerful ones. There’s nothing going on here that can reasonably be labeled a tribute. Aid given in exchange for nuclear disarmament is probably the closest.

forapurpose 8y ago

The assumption behind the parent is economic nationalism, which is a false model of economics. Economic development in other countries benefits the U.S. greatly; economics and trade are not zero-sum, but mutually beneficial. Would you rather sell (and buy) goods in a town of poor people, or in a town of wealthy ones? Would the U.S. rather sell and buy goods in a world of other wealthy countries, or in a world of poor ones? If China didn't develop economically, it wouldn't be huge market for U.S. goods today, and wouldn't produce so much that the U.S. needs. Nationalism also ignores two fundamental moral issues: First, it is an unequivocal moral good for people rise out of extreme poverty, as has happened in China (and elsewhere). Second, there is no moral difference between the welfare of a human being in China and one in the U.S. or any other country; there is no reason the American deserves to be more wealthy. Everyone should have opportunity and a fair shot to earn what they can; if you don't make more, should you get special welfare because of your nationality?

joejerryronnie 8y ago
This is all well and good in the global altruistic humanist sense, but if I just lost my job in Indiana because the company shuttered our plant and outsourced manufacturing to China, I'm voting for Trump. As they say, "All politics is local".
- nicoburns 8y ago
  Of course ironically it has been the US pushing globalism and free trade on the rest of the world (with similar impacts on industries elsewhere it seems).
  - caseysoftware 8y ago
    As noted in the article, the original analysis backed that up as a "good" option for the US and everyone else. With the knowledge that the original analysis is wrong, I wonder if we'll see actual policy changes more broadly than Trump's campaign rhetoric?
  - forapurpose 8y ago