5 ms·

> US "aggressive trade practices" (which means unilateral tarrifs, let's not spin, please) came first This just isn't true. China has not played fairly agains

> US "aggressive trade practices" (which means unilateral tarrifs, let's not spin, please) came first This just isn't true. China has not played fairly against the US in modern history. Putting aside problems like currency manipulation, intellectual property theft, and putting up barriers for foreign companies, they also haven't played fair with regards to tariffs. Take Elon Musk's word for it if you don't believe me: "an American car going to China pays 25% import duty, but a Chinese car coming to the US only pays 2.5%, a tenfold difference" https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/08/elon-musk-sides-with-trump-on-trade-with-china-citing-25-percent-import-duty-on-american-cars.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/08/elon-musk-sides-with-trump-o...

monocasa 8y ago
No one plays fair in international trade. I mean, we've literally installed dictators in countries to get better trade consideration. And recently thanks to Snowden, we know that the NSA hacked AirBus to give Boeing an edge, and appears to believe that the "economic security" of the US is a component of their SIGINT domain. I'm not really sure why we expect others to "play fair".
- sephamorr 8y ago
  Do you have a source about that NSA/Airbus/Boeing comment? Would be interesting to read.
  - nyolfen 8y ago
    nsa spied on airbus along with german intelligence to see if they were violating embargoes
    - monocasa 8y ago
      And then passed that information to Boeing.
coliveira 8y ago
This makes it sound like the US was just a small country mislead by powerful China. In fact every agreement between Chinese and American companies was signed because of it was beneficial to both sides. It was the US that allowed American companies to setup shop in China and transfer their technology for what it looked like a good deal. Now the US wants to recant on its decades old policy as if this was a big surprise.
- ksec 8y ago
  Well it is a little more complicated then that. Although it wasn't explicitly listed ( and I have no idea why it wasn't given most other countries had ), China would have to open up its market "more" to allow proper competition. Those deals, were signed after WTO, where it was beneficials to both in the long term. China gets to learn about the tech, and have US companies hiring there people, making investment into China under some partnership conditions. After 10 years it was suppose to be loosen. Instead US was trapped with investment money that cant be easily transferred out, and a market so big that they cant ignore.
  - dis-sys 8y ago
    > After 10 years it was suppose to be loosen. it is childish at best to selectively focus on WTO agreements only. when China is banned from purchasing most high tech stuff from the US, even some intel Xeon processors and DELL computers, how could you possibly expect to have easier access to the Chinese market? The US government should also become more consistent when it comes to international treaties and agreements, if those WTO agreements are indeed so bad to the US, why not just follow America's own paths in the Iranian deal, the Paris Climate deal and the UN human right commission case? Rather than keep crying on whether WTO is fair or not, maybe it is time to pack up and leave WTO? Trump mentioned it recently but didn't have the balls to actually make it happen, so sad.
    - ksec 8y ago
      And I agree. There are LOTS of moving parts so it is hard to single out. And US hasn't exactly been playing "decently" either. I just wish China would open up just a "little" more. To shut everyone up.
makomk 8y ago
The mainstream US media discourse on this is dishonest too, to say the least. Remember Politifact's 2012 lie of the year, the Romney campaign's claim that Chrysler was moving Jeep production to China? After it turned out that Chrysler was in fact setting up a Jeep factory in China, pretty much the entire US media insisted that the claim was still a lie because they were only building Jeeps there because of tariffs, as though those tariffs were some inevitable fact of life rather than an example of Chinese protectionism.
- cma 8y ago
  Romney's claim was after the news story about setting up a factory, not before (your chronology is wrong). And he said they would move all production to China based on a mis-interpretation of the story: "I saw a story today, that one of the great manufacturers in this state, Jeep, now owned by the Italians, is thinking of moving all production to China," He said all production, not some of it. He was riffing on a public news report that didn't say what he said it did.
KaoruAoiShiho 8y ago
The most unfair thing is the slave labor wages being paid to Chinese workers to make the stuff that Americans enjoy daily. In trade you obviously trade off things you need for things they need, and you don't reach an agreement unless it was ultimately beneficial to you. And let me tell ya, I'd much rather be the side that has to deal with some tariffs than be the side that has millions of my population mired in slavery to service your nation.

monocasa 8y ago

No one plays fair in international trade. I mean, we've literally installed dictators in countries to get better trade consideration. And recently thanks to Snowden, we know that the NSA hacked AirBus to give Boeing an edge, and appears to believe that the "economic security" of the US is a component of their SIGINT domain. I'm not really sure why we expect others to "play fair".

sephamorr 8y ago
Do you have a source about that NSA/Airbus/Boeing comment? Would be interesting to read.
- nyolfen 8y ago
  nsa spied on airbus along with german intelligence to see if they were violating embargoes
  - monocasa 8y ago
    And then passed that information to Boeing.

coliveira 8y ago

This makes it sound like the US was just a small country mislead by powerful China. In fact every agreement between Chinese and American companies was signed because of it was beneficial to both sides. It was the US that allowed American companies to setup shop in China and transfer their technology for what it looked like a good deal. Now the US wants to recant on its decades old policy as if this was a big surprise.

ksec 8y ago
Well it is a little more complicated then that. Although it wasn't explicitly listed ( and I have no idea why it wasn't given most other countries had ), China would have to open up its market "more" to allow proper competition. Those deals, were signed after WTO, where it was beneficials to both in the long term. China gets to learn about the tech, and have US companies hiring there people, making investment into China under some partnership conditions. After 10 years it was suppose to be loosen. Instead US was trapped with investment money that cant be easily transferred out, and a market so big that they cant ignore.
- dis-sys 8y ago
  > After 10 years it was suppose to be loosen. it is childish at best to selectively focus on WTO agreements only. when China is banned from purchasing most high tech stuff from the US, even some intel Xeon processors and DELL computers, how could you possibly expect to have easier access to the Chinese market? The US government should also become more consistent when it comes to international treaties and agreements, if those WTO agreements are indeed so bad to the US, why not just follow America's own paths in the Iranian deal, the Paris Climate deal and the UN human right commission case? Rather than keep crying on whether WTO is fair or not, maybe it is time to pack up and leave WTO? Trump mentioned it recently but didn't have the balls to actually make it happen, so sad.
  - ksec 8y ago
    And I agree. There are LOTS of moving parts so it is hard to single out. And US hasn't exactly been playing "decently" either. I just wish China would open up just a "little" more. To shut everyone up.

makomk 8y ago

The mainstream US media discourse on this is dishonest too, to say the least. Remember Politifact's 2012 lie of the year, the Romney campaign's claim that Chrysler was moving Jeep production to China? After it turned out that Chrysler was in fact setting up a Jeep factory in China, pretty much the entire US media insisted that the claim was still a lie because they were only building Jeeps there because of tariffs, as though those tariffs were some inevitable fact of life rather than an example of Chinese protectionism.

cma 8y ago
Romney's claim was after the news story about setting up a factory, not before (your chronology is wrong). And he said they would move all production to China based on a mis-interpretation of the story: "I saw a story today, that one of the great manufacturers in this state, Jeep, now owned by the Italians, is thinking of moving all production to China," He said all production, not some of it. He was riffing on a public news report that didn't say what he said it did.

KaoruAoiShiho 8y ago

The most unfair thing is the slave labor wages being paid to Chinese workers to make the stuff that Americans enjoy daily. In trade you obviously trade off things you need for things they need, and you don't reach an agreement unless it was ultimately beneficial to you. And let me tell ya, I'd much rather be the side that has to deal with some tariffs than be the side that has millions of my population mired in slavery to service your nation.