6 ms·
They tariffed our "allies" because our "allies" allow China to setup shell corporations in their countries so China can abuse trade agreements to get around dir
by anon23423532 8y ago
They tariffed our "allies" because our "allies" allow China to setup shell corporations in their countries so China can abuse trade agreements to get around direct tariffs. In return they make billions for being willing to stab the US in the back.
We need to do this because China steals 300 billion dollars in IP from American corporations every year, in addition to illegally subsidizing their companies to steal global market share
- linuxps2 8y agoChina also gives us goods far below what we could produce them for which lowers our cost of living. Complaining about China stealing $300b (I'll use your number because it doesn't really matter) in IP is like complaining about high school kids stealing Adobe CC - it's a theoretical loss, they weren't going to be a customer regardless. Tariffs don't even do anything to prevent IP theft
- anon23423532 8y agoIt gives Chinese companies a competitive advantage because instead of spending billions on R&D they just steal it. The point is that the tariffs will be removed IF China stops stealing IP
- linuxps2 8y agoThat's the dumbest way to enforce IP law. Just take the companies to court in the US if they sell in the US or international court if selling to other countries where Chinese companies compete with American manuf. - tariffs just aren't a good way to do this as it royally fucks American consumers
- raesene9 8y agoYou got a Citation for Canada and the EU allowing Chinese steel shell companies (the recent tariffs against canada and the EU targeted steel)? I'd not heard that argument at all so far.
- selectodude 8y agoA name with a bunch of numbers behind it spouting off unsourced nonsense is trademark Russian bots on Twitter, so I'd just leave it alone.
- anon23423532 8y agomuh russia, don't consider anything the media doesn't tell you! See reply above
- selectodude 8y agoYou posted three articles, two of which don't have China in them even once (I crtl+F'd China, nothing), and the third which is titled "China may use Canada as 'Trojan horse' into US market", an op-ed written by Danny Lam, who if you google may as well not exist. I cannot find him anywhere. muh russia! You should be proud to be paid for this idiocy, because otherwise you'd be that gullible and that would be tragic.
- anon23423532 8y agoI cited a direct NAFTA bylaw, that a product can be considered Mexican or Canadian if 50-60% of it is sourced from those countries, hence China doesn't need to be mentioned directly in the article. Take a trip to Vancouver sometime and tell me there isn't a large Chinese presence. The fact you assume anyone you don't agree with or who provides information contrary to mainstream opinion a bot is the sign of a stunted mind.
- dang 8y agoThis is not a substantive comment. The "large Chinese presence" in Vancouver is obviously not evidence of an obscure point about trade policy. It is, though, a step into dark insinuation. That's not ok here. Worse, you went into personal attack. Since you've already been violating the site guidelines by using HN primarily for political battle (see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html), I've banned this account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll use the site as intended in the future.