8 ms·

Extremely one sided comments, with a US centric view. The world is not the US, and HN readers are not only US citizens, so let me express a different point of v

Extremely one sided comments, with a US centric view. The world is not the US, and HN readers are not only US citizens, so let me express a different point of view. Assumption: Trump wants fair trade. HN readers want fair trade. What is needed: fair trading rules, fair IP rules, fair capital structures, and a fair currency. Tackling some of the unfair trade practices does not address all those issues. In particular it does not address the services trade imbalances, the favouring of US IP holders (as incumbents and head starters), and the massive advantage that the dollar gives to the US economy. And we have not yet started talking about the weaponizing of the dollar, which can be recently seen in the conflict with Iran. All this to say that the US demands are not fair. You can obviously pursue your interests, but you will not sell it as being a "fair" policy. The Chinese, the Europeans, all countries have equally fair, if not fairer, demands, which must be respected. The core of the problem is obviously that the initial assumption is false: Trump and HN do not want fairer trade, but trade one-sidedly beneffiting the US. We will fight this policies, if needed at the personal level, by selectively consuming products according to country of manufacture.

fastball 8y ago
So where are you from?
- gonvaled 8y ago
  Not from the US.
pergadad 8y ago
There are some real grievances where China is not playing fair - forced partnerships, cheap loans for state-backed companies, etc. Lots of empty promises each year with no change to the rules and approaches. So while I think trump is insane and his policies are mostly harmful to both his country and the remainder of the world, pointing out the false pretences and pretend-market-economy of China is definitely not the worst thing he has done. It will certainly cause harm, but if it gets China to actually stick to its commitments everyone might be better off long term. That might be a long shot though, as Trump is crazy and the Chinese leader currently transforming himself into a dictator. For both of them the main way to stay in power is to pretend they are the only ones that will guarantee their country's standing and respect in the world (even as in realpolitik terms they do the opposite) - fueling nationalism and us vs them thinking. I wouldn't say the US is strictly playing fair in the economic game either though, even before trump US economic power was a major weapon. The only ones that really seem committed to fait trade are the EU and maybe Canada, Japan, Korea.
- supernovae 8y ago
  Believe me, Trump doesn't want "Fair trade" when your slogan is "Make America Great Again". Corporate America's welfare is around 100 billion as said by many rather partisan think tanks... but in reality, its trillions of dollars when you figure in realized costs such as below poverty level minimum wages, the collapse of pension and retirement programs, the exploding costs of for-profit healthcare.
  - adventured 8y ago
    > but in reality, its trillions of dollars when you figure in realized costs such as below poverty level minimum wages Trillions of dollars? You're inventing that claim. Less than 1% of the US population earns the minimum wage for starters. There isn't a single developed nation that doesn't massively subsidize its poorest workers via a welfare state. Every country with universal healthcare does for example, without exception. > the exploding costs of for-profit healthcare. Private corporations are heavily footing the bill for that healthcare cost increase, as roughly half of the US healthcare system is employer coverage. Which is why companies as diverse as Amazon, JP Morgan and Berkshire Hathaway are desperate to work together to reduce the problem. > the collapse of pension and retirement programs Which is occurring in just about every major economy at the moment, thanks to rapidly aging demographics. China has a very bad pension problem for example, and that's on pensions that typically only pay about $100 per month. Simultaneously their economy is already seeing a decline in workers (which means less workers to pay into propping up the eroding pension context). https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-05/china-s-next-debt-bomb-is-an-aging-population https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-05/china-s-n...
  - pathseeker 8y ago
    > Believe me, Trump doesn't want "Fair trade" when your slogan is "Make America Great Again". He does if you believe that the current trade is unfairly balanced against the US. >Corporate America's welfare Nothing to do with trade policies, but w/e. >the collapse of pension and retirement programs That's not welfare. >the exploding costs of for-profit healthcare. Also not welfare, especially when many corporations have to pay these costs for their employees.
bsder 8y ago
> Assumption: Trump wants fair trade. Invalid Assumption: Trump has any understanding of cause-effect. This is China's problem, right now. Trump doesn't have a specific purpose, so there is no pain point you can drive back at. China should have just tariffed some meaningless stuff, rolled out the propaganda machine, and just let it go. Never wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.
- gonvaled 8y ago
  Trump is destroying international trade, with the goal of increasing an already tilted playing field even more in the US's interest. And it has found a good lever to push, so this will work in the medium term. Basically, he is discounting short term pain for long term gain, betting that other leaders are not crazy enough to step up the conflict beyond trade, and that everybody will prefer to accept Trump's demands rather than using the next levers at their disposal. Which are: 1) the dollar 2) military conflict We'll see
07d046 8y ago
To be fair, China doesn't really want "fair" trade either. China would like to become a high-tech autarky dominating modern global supply chains [1], is very happy to throw its economic weight around to punish countries for doing things it doesn't like [2][3], and has a habit of playing by international rules only when it suits them (America isn't great on this point either) [3][4]. 1. https://www.cfr.org/blog/why-does-everyone-hate-made-china-2025 https://www.cfr.org/blog/why-does-everyone-hate-made-china-2... 2. https://qz.com/1000541/norway-wants-china-to-forget-about-the-human-rights-thing-and-eat-salmon-instead/ https://qz.com/1000541/norway-wants-china-to-forget-about-th... 3. https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/asia/china/chinas-hypocrisy-engine-at-work/ https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/asia/china... 4. https://thediplomat.com/2015/02/u-s-china-relations-the-hypocrisy-of-rules/ https://thediplomat.com/2015/02/u-s-china-relations-the-hypo...
sergiotapia 8y ago
Of course US citizens want a president that looks out for US interests. To think otherwise is laughable and naive. I want the president to fight for us!
- bachmeier 8y ago
  Imposing taxes on US consumers is looking out for US interests? That's a strange way of looking at it...
  - pathseeker 8y ago
    Yes, that's how all tariffs work.
  - int_19h 8y ago
    The idea is that it's temporary pain for long-term gain. Whether that's actually the case is debatable, but people who support those policies genuinely believe so. So you can call them misguided, but not irrational or inconsistent.
    - bachmeier 8y ago
      > The idea is that it's temporary pain for long-term gain. No, it's not. There's absolutely no sense in which there is a "long-term gain" from imposing a tax on US consumers because the government decided they were buying the wrong products. If you have an actual argument to make in favor of these taxes, please make it. You're just parroting a talking point and providing no justification for something that doesn't make any sense.
      - int_19h 8y ago
        I'm not making that argument. I'm telling you how people who do make that argument think. Like I said, you can call them ignorant on the basis that there's no actual long-term gain. But they believe there is, and that is why they support this policy, not because they really like shooting themselves in the foot so much.
swebs 8y ago
>Assumption: Trump wants fair trade Where are you getting that from? Trump wants to keep his promise to working class workers that he'll bring their manufacturing jobs back from China.
- jayd16 8y ago
  Looks like you're getting down voted but this whole endeavor seems far more tied to Trump's ego and rhetoric than good policy.
- gonvaled 8y ago
  > Where are you getting that from? From his mouth? Not that that would be a reliable source, I concede that ...
pathseeker 8y ago
>the favouring of US IP holders (as incumbents and head starters) You mean favoring the people that actually invented these things? I understand there isn't much of a notion of IP in China, but are you suggesting that it's unfair to not be able to copy IP and just manufacture without paying?
- white-flame 8y ago
  The allowance for copyright law to exist in the USA is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"; with a similar intent to patents to eventually bring more quality things into the public domain. So yes, anything outside of that, regardless of invention of non-science/useful-arts, and regardless of profitability, is fair game. Any other enforcements and punishments are overreaches by government on behalf of lobbying. Many agree that the scope and punishments on the books in the USA far outweigh the punished behavior, and these are being foisted upon the rest of the world in strong-armed multinational agreements, against the will of the people on the receiving ends.
  - pathseeker 8y ago
    > The allowance for copyright law to exist in the USA is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"; with a similar intent to patents to eventually bring more quality things into the public domain. So yes, anything outside of that, regardless of invention of non-science/useful-arts, and regardless of profitability, is fair game. Can you give an example of what is outside of science and arts that you think is fair game?
    - white-flame 8y ago
      Not "arts", but "Useful Arts" which are things like industry skills & practices, a specific term from the time of writing. An easy example would be the Happy Birthday song. edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_arts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_arts
- gonvaled 8y ago
  The IP laws have been written by the US, for the US, and its terms keep on changing to continue protecting US interests. The IP laws should be a trade-off: temporary protection of inventors / creators, so that progress happens and consumers get a good deal. Instead, HN is already aware how IP laws get abused. The effects of those abuses are felt largely outside the US: it allows the US to foster its economic and cultural dominance. All thanks to founding and controlling the international bodies in charge of ruling on IP matters.
engi_nerd 8y ago
I think the US is past being "fair" with China, and I believe this is a very good thing. The Chinese are cheating in every arena with everything they've got, and being fair only plays into their hands.
- gonvaled 8y ago
  The US has been cheating, bigger, better and longer. We seem to agree that this is not about fair trade, but that is what Trump is calling the whole thing.
  - deletemenow 8y ago
    >The US has been cheating, bigger, better and longer Citation?
  - pankajdoharey 8y ago
    Name one thing where US is cheating? US invents china steals that the only truth. Name one thing chinese have invented? Dont tell me gun powder, something latest.
    - espadrine 8y ago
      > Name one thing where US is cheating? It is an open secret that the US has waged wars and authorized covert action for economical purposes, eg. for control over oil. > Name one thing chinese have invented? Electronic cigarettes, passenger drones, synthetic bovine insulin, and the Nobel prize-winning Malaria drug Artemisinin. (Not that I believe that Chinese companies were not lax with US IP, but that you try to instill the idea that China cannot invent and that the US does not mess international trade, which is not quite true.)
    - chillacy 8y ago
      That’s funny, the British used to say the same thing about the US during the industrial revolution where America didn’t respect British IP. Hollywood exists because California didn’t respect IP from eastern states. So, stealing is the winning strategy it seems.
jayalpha 8y ago
The Chinese cheat all the time. - high subsidiaries for their exports - blind eye on IP theft - forced technology transfer - closed market for many industries and services - forced "joint ventures" for certain industries - legal system the favors Chinese companies - systematic attack on western industries Feel free to ask and I will give specific examples. Based on the kind of business relationship of the US and China, e.g. Apple products are produces in China and hence also go into the trade deficit, the trade deficit is heavily distorted. (China, Foxconn makes very little profit on assembling apple phones. Yet, Apples makes most profits offshore, e.g. via selling from China to HK and from HK to US). So a trade deficit is not surprising. Trump never said that he wants a zero trade balance, he told Xi to "lower it" and "equalize the playing field". This was a reasonable request. Xi just could have agreed to this but instead wants to play hard ball. In my opinion Xi can not win this game and the only rational strategy in a game that you can not win is not to play it. It makes me doubt the strategic abilities of Xi but we will see. "suggested on Sunday that China could deliberately disrupt American companies’ supply chains by halting the export of crucial components mostly made in China." Outstanding idea. I am sure Western companies will love this, invest more in China and don't move production to other countries. Before you downvote me, give an argument.
- simonh 8y ago
  I’m sure you are right that the Chinese cheat, but a fair and equitable free trade system must be based on rules and independent arbitration. Trump is doing everything he can to undermine and destroy every vestige of a rules based independently arbitrated global trade system. His policies are explicitly stated to be purely in US interests only, by him personally. That’s not the basis for a free trade system. Finger pointing at China doesn’t excuse any of this, even Trump’s policies against China, on the basis of free trade.
  - jayalpha 8y ago
    I don't understand your argument. And if they Chinese tax US cars with 25% and the US taxes them with 2.5% (or was it 5%)? then it is reasonable to request equal tariffs.
teknologist 8y ago
> The Chinese, the Europeans, all countries have equally fair, if not fairer, demands, which must be respected. So when Chinese consumers have to pay a 25%+ "foreign goods tax" on things made in China and bought in China you'd say that's fair would you?
pankajdoharey 8y ago
Man i am from India, at the same time you gotta call a spade a spade. US has been too liberal and gave a leeway to everyone to export goods to US without any tariffs. But every country Including my own puts a import tax on goods imported from the US. This isnt fair business, and US has actually lost a lot of money trying to be the leader in fair trade practice and globalisation. Other countries are just plain stealing and not ready to compete on fair grounds. Frankly i love Trumps tactic and i think all countries should embrace the same to balance the trade imbalance between China and the world.
- gonvaled 8y ago
  US promoted free trade after WWII, when it was the last man standing and the only manufacturer. Free trade meant "we sell made in America all around the world". Leading by example meant opening their market, at no cost since nobody was in a position to export. The rationale was "open your markets as we do, and we will all get richer". But the real intent was to foster the dominance of American manufacturing So we did. The whole world has been painfully opening markets for 70 years, and slowly, by finding cracks in the system designed to favor American interests, developing countries have indeed started to grow richer. Still poor compared to the US, but definitely better off. Those open markets, designed by the US to export, have been used by two actors to import to the US: - emerging markets (China, India, ...). This was the selling point of opening the markets, so this is perfectly fair - US capitalists, trying to increase profits by moving production overseas and reduce costs. This is what is causing problems in the US, by losing jobs. This is a homegrown problem, and nothing the rest of the world should care about. Basically, now that the world is starting to benefit from globalisation, after the US being the main beneficiary for over 50+ years, we somehow need to start caring about internal US problems. I do not buy this.
  - repolfx 8y ago
    If that was true the US would have had giant import tariffs after WW2 and been promoting the absence of them in other countries. Even if you assume the US would have abolished tariffs knowing it'd cost them little immediately after WW2, they'd have put them back in the decades that followed as places like South Korea, Japan, most of Europe recovered and started exporting again. But the US didn't do that, as far as I know. American tariffs are something I didn't hear about until very recently. The US can be criticised for hypocrisy on various issues but this doesn't seem to be one of them.
sonnyblarney 8y ago
1) "We will fight this policies, if needed at the personal level, by selectively consuming products according to country of manufacture." No. Nobody really does this. People mostly just buy stuff. Chinese will continue to be enamoured by iPhones. The only change will be any supply/demand function due to price. 2) 'Fair Trade' is not a relative issue. If China does not respect foreign IP then nobody should respect China's IP. That would be 'fair'. If China wants to control and invests in strategic winners then it's only fair that Europe and America do not allow those companies to sell into their economies without a big tariff. It's also not 'fair' that China pollutes quite a lot, and does not have have basic worker protections. So 'fair' would be if the US and EU imposed tariffs for those externalities as well. I don't like Trump, I don't think he really understands what he is doing - but effectively it's the right thing: 'fair trade' would ultimately for nations to be on equal terms. So how about: all Chinese software outside of China is open source and they shouldn't have recourse on IP, and there should be tariffs to offset environmental/worker externalizations, state actors face tariffs, and Chinese purchase of external companies and assets are severely restricted. That would be 'fair'. That said, it would probably be in China's long term best interest to improve the IP situation, environmental and safety/worker issues, and to have less dependance on central planning. It's totally fine if China wants to 'make it's own' path, that's natural and positive. But all those things will yield long term benefit. Trump I don't think is smart enough to put it this way - but the world should see his movements as an opportunity to address core and fundamental trade issues that we are facing, since the 'old order' is not going to work. I hope that in the end they're able to sit down and work it out because there's plenty of room for compromise and it will be a win-win.
salimmadjd 8y ago
>And we have not yet started talking about the weaponizing of the dollar, which can be recently seen in the conflict with Iran. Not just with Iran, but everywhere. Most people do not realize the monopoly of USD in banking transactions. Essentially US can pass laws or even through executive order control the economic and trade policy of other countries. Turkey and India are barred from buying Russian equipments. This is not free trade. When US uses its monopoly to block India from trade with Iran and tries the same with China, that’s not really free trade either. You mentioned weaponizing dollar, many people do not realize how it works. We’ve seen a lot of negative news about China recently . I suspect some of it has to do with their decision to open their own oil futures trading that is not run on USD. This could be the largest threat to the USD monopoly. Time will tell.., edit: additional links and info: Basic info on Shanghai crude futures [0] Some early speculative behavior. I wonder with low early volumes in this market can be manipulated to scare off more serious investors [1] Seems like the Shanghai market had its first delivery on Sep 12 [2], that being said, some predict it might take 10 years before it will have serious impact on the market. But sometimes financial markets move ahead of the physical realities. So, its impact might become palpable in just a few years [3] [0] https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-china-crude-oil-futures-analysis/shanghai-crude-futures-eat-into-western-benchmarks-as-china-pushes-yuan-idUKKCN1LF2RI https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-china-crude-oil-futures-an... [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-07/oil-speculators-grip-china-futures-as-prices-post-mystery-gains https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-07/oil-specu... [2] https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/China-Completes-First-Physical-Delivery-For-Crude-Futures.html https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/China-Completes-First-... [3] https://www.scmp.com/comment/letters/article/2139676/will-chinas-renminbi-oil-futures-end-petrodollar-monopoly https://www.scmp.com/comment/letters/article/2139676/will-ch...
- gonvaled 8y ago
  Interesting, and related to the Iranian Oil Bourse [1], which was supposed to trade in Euros, among other currencies. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_oil_bourse https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_oil_bourse
- v_lisivka 8y ago
  For me it like "Why I cannot trade some Americans? They say that they are free." You are mismatching unrestricted (wild) market with free market. Market, to be free, requires someone to play role of guard and punish bad actors, who disobey rules. Otherwise, bad actors will convert free market into non-free in no time. Usually, such power is granted to a government or to an association of traders. Currently, world have no united government. We have WTO, which is our world trade organization, but it have very limited power. Why have enough power and strict moral principles to keep market free? As you said, USA cannot do that, of course, so maybe it should be job of Russia, Iran, China, or North Korea?
rqs 8y ago
I've watched a video[0] from Fox News few months ago, the key point been the "unfair trading" problem should be addressed through WTO rather than direct tariffs, and those tariffs maybe against WTO's rules. Also, many people here maybe don't know, China is suing the U.S. for those tariffs. Maybe wait until it played out, the everything will be a bit clear. I don't know how people in the U.S. view this trade war, but in China, many people already start to treat it as a new normal now after realizing it will be a long lasting one. Jack Ma for example, believes it will last for ~20 years. I also watched another video[1], which is a voice recording from a seminar, the speaker was Jin Yi Nan[2], who is one of the "Hawks" in China. In that recording, other than trying to calm the listener (mainly business man I assume) down, he made few points, which been (I oversimplified it, somebody can do a full translation of the recording if interested): - We (China) had problems, but the U.S. also had problems. At the same time, they (The U.S.) had advantage, we had ours. We're actually chained together (trade war will be bad for both, and they are hurting themselves while we facing the challenge). - Chinese business should keep trying to enter international (including US) market and make investment, regardless the trade war. - Trump's idea is frozen at '40s, and we (China) will be more open (more participation in trading and welcome international investment). I think it sort of reflects the idea of some people inside the China government, or at least showing how the government want people to think of the trade war. On the bright side, by the time all of this ends, it will be a very good topic to discuss with our future high-schooler kids. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGbcsBfPF0g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGbcsBfPF0g [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8svRtTAw_10 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8svRtTAw_10 (It's in Chinese) [2] https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-cn/%E9%87%91%E4%B8%80%E5%8D%97 https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-cn/%E9%87%91%E4%B8%80%E5%8D%97 (Only Chinese version available)
justaguyhere 8y ago
Even if US demands are fair, going around insulting other countries and imposing tariffs isn't exactly a nice way of addressing the issue.
philipodonnell 8y ago
> Assumption: Trump wants fair trade. HN readers want fair trade... The core of the problem is obviously that the initial assumption is false: Trump and HN do not want fairer trade, but trade one-sidedly beneffiting the US. I realize your comment is not from a pro-US perspective, but try not to conflate a leader of a country with a group of users coming from that country. Many people on HN have nuanced views of the value of trade. If you read anything Trump has said or written on the topic its clear that he has no idea what international trade is or how tariffs work. Attributing any plan or intelligent design behind these things is one of the biggest mistakes we have made in addressing the problems created by this president. Its just what people "ooo" and "aaah" about at his rallies and that's all he cares about, but it attracts political allies that share that belief for their own reasons and that is who we see being selected to carry out US policies.

fastball 8y ago

So where are you from?

gonvaled 8y ago
Not from the US.

pergadad 8y ago

There are some real grievances where China is not playing fair - forced partnerships, cheap loans for state-backed companies, etc. Lots of empty promises each year with no change to the rules and approaches. So while I think trump is insane and his policies are mostly harmful to both his country and the remainder of the world, pointing out the false pretences and pretend-market-economy of China is definitely not the worst thing he has done. It will certainly cause harm, but if it gets China to actually stick to its commitments everyone might be better off long term. That might be a long shot though, as Trump is crazy and the Chinese leader currently transforming himself into a dictator. For both of them the main way to stay in power is to pretend they are the only ones that will guarantee their country's standing and respect in the world (even as in realpolitik terms they do the opposite) - fueling nationalism and us vs them thinking. I wouldn't say the US is strictly playing fair in the economic game either though, even before trump US economic power was a major weapon. The only ones that really seem committed to fait trade are the EU and maybe Canada, Japan, Korea.

supernovae 8y ago
Believe me, Trump doesn't want "Fair trade" when your slogan is "Make America Great Again". Corporate America's welfare is around 100 billion as said by many rather partisan think tanks... but in reality, its trillions of dollars when you figure in realized costs such as below poverty level minimum wages, the collapse of pension and retirement programs, the exploding costs of for-profit healthcare.
- adventured 8y ago
  > but in reality, its trillions of dollars when you figure in realized costs such as below poverty level minimum wages Trillions of dollars? You're inventing that claim. Less than 1% of the US population earns the minimum wage for starters. There isn't a single developed nation that doesn't massively subsidize its poorest workers via a welfare state. Every country with universal healthcare does for example, without exception. > the exploding costs of for-profit healthcare. Private corporations are heavily footing the bill for that healthcare cost increase, as roughly half of the US healthcare system is employer coverage. Which is why companies as diverse as Amazon, JP Morgan and Berkshire Hathaway are desperate to work together to reduce the problem. > the collapse of pension and retirement programs Which is occurring in just about every major economy at the moment, thanks to rapidly aging demographics. China has a very bad pension problem for example, and that's on pensions that typically only pay about $100 per month. Simultaneously their economy is already seeing a decline in workers (which means less workers to pay into propping up the eroding pension context). https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-05/china-s-next-debt-bomb-is-an-aging-population https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-05/china-s-n...
- pathseeker 8y ago
  > Believe me, Trump doesn't want "Fair trade" when your slogan is "Make America Great Again". He does if you believe that the current trade is unfairly balanced against the US. >Corporate America's welfare Nothing to do with trade policies, but w/e. >the collapse of pension and retirement programs That's not welfare. >the exploding costs of for-profit healthcare. Also not welfare, especially when many corporations have to pay these costs for their employees.

bsder 8y ago

> Assumption: Trump wants fair trade. Invalid Assumption: Trump has any understanding of cause-effect. This is China's problem, right now. Trump doesn't have a specific purpose, so there is no pain point you can drive back at. China should have just tariffed some meaningless stuff, rolled out the propaganda machine, and just let it go. Never wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.

gonvaled 8y ago
Trump is destroying international trade, with the goal of increasing an already tilted playing field even more in the US's interest. And it has found a good lever to push, so this will work in the medium term. Basically, he is discounting short term pain for long term gain, betting that other leaders are not crazy enough to step up the conflict beyond trade, and that everybody will prefer to accept Trump's demands rather than using the next levers at their disposal. Which are: 1) the dollar 2) military conflict We'll see

07d046 8y ago

To be fair, China doesn't really want "fair" trade either. China would like to become a high-tech autarky dominating modern global supply chains [1], is very happy to throw its economic weight around to punish countries for doing things it doesn't like [2][3], and has a habit of playing by international rules only when it suits them (America isn't great on this point either) [3][4]. 1. https://www.cfr.org/blog/why-does-everyone-hate-made-china-2025 https://www.cfr.org/blog/why-does-everyone-hate-made-china-2... 2. https://qz.com/1000541/norway-wants-china-to-forget-about-the-human-rights-thing-and-eat-salmon-instead/ https://qz.com/1000541/norway-wants-china-to-forget-about-th... 3. https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/asia/china/chinas-hypocrisy-engine-at-work/ https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/asia/china... 4. https://thediplomat.com/2015/02/u-s-china-relations-the-hypocrisy-of-rules/ https://thediplomat.com/2015/02/u-s-china-relations-the-hypo...

sergiotapia 8y ago

Of course US citizens want a president that looks out for US interests. To think otherwise is laughable and naive. I want the president to fight for us!

bachmeier 8y ago
Imposing taxes on US consumers is looking out for US interests? That's a strange way of looking at it...
- pathseeker 8y ago
  Yes, that's how all tariffs work.
- int_19h 8y ago
  The idea is that it's temporary pain for long-term gain. Whether that's actually the case is debatable, but people who support those policies genuinely believe so. So you can call them misguided, but not irrational or inconsistent.
  - bachmeier 8y ago
    > The idea is that it's temporary pain for long-term gain. No, it's not. There's absolutely no sense in which there is a "long-term gain" from imposing a tax on US consumers because the government decided they were buying the wrong products. If you have an actual argument to make in favor of these taxes, please make it. You're just parroting a talking point and providing no justification for something that doesn't make any sense.
    - int_19h 8y ago
      I'm not making that argument. I'm telling you how people who do make that argument think. Like I said, you can call them ignorant on the basis that there's no actual long-term gain. But they believe there is, and that is why they support this policy, not because they really like shooting themselves in the foot so much.

swebs 8y ago

>Assumption: Trump wants fair trade Where are you getting that from? Trump wants to keep his promise to working class workers that he'll bring their manufacturing jobs back from China.

jayd16 8y ago
Looks like you're getting down voted but this whole endeavor seems far more tied to Trump's ego and rhetoric than good policy.
gonvaled 8y ago
> Where are you getting that from? From his mouth? Not that that would be a reliable source, I concede that ...

pathseeker 8y ago

>the favouring of US IP holders (as incumbents and head starters) You mean favoring the people that actually invented these things? I understand there isn't much of a notion of IP in China, but are you suggesting that it's unfair to not be able to copy IP and just manufacture without paying?

white-flame 8y ago
The allowance for copyright law to exist in the USA is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"; with a similar intent to patents to eventually bring more quality things into the public domain. So yes, anything outside of that, regardless of invention of non-science/useful-arts, and regardless of profitability, is fair game. Any other enforcements and punishments are overreaches by government on behalf of lobbying. Many agree that the scope and punishments on the books in the USA far outweigh the punished behavior, and these are being foisted upon the rest of the world in strong-armed multinational agreements, against the will of the people on the receiving ends.
- pathseeker 8y ago
  > The allowance for copyright law to exist in the USA is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"; with a similar intent to patents to eventually bring more quality things into the public domain. So yes, anything outside of that, regardless of invention of non-science/useful-arts, and regardless of profitability, is fair game. Can you give an example of what is outside of science and arts that you think is fair game?
  - white-flame 8y ago
    Not "arts", but "Useful Arts" which are things like industry skills & practices, a specific term from the time of writing. An easy example would be the Happy Birthday song. edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_arts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_arts
gonvaled 8y ago
The IP laws have been written by the US, for the US, and its terms keep on changing to continue protecting US interests. The IP laws should be a trade-off: temporary protection of inventors / creators, so that progress happens and consumers get a good deal. Instead, HN is already aware how IP laws get abused. The effects of those abuses are felt largely outside the US: it allows the US to foster its economic and cultural dominance. All thanks to founding and controlling the international bodies in charge of ruling on IP matters.

engi_nerd 8y ago

I think the US is past being "fair" with China, and I believe this is a very good thing. The Chinese are cheating in every arena with everything they've got, and being fair only plays into their hands.

gonvaled 8y ago
The US has been cheating, bigger, better and longer. We seem to agree that this is not about fair trade, but that is what Trump is calling the whole thing.
- deletemenow 8y ago
  >The US has been cheating, bigger, better and longer Citation?
- pankajdoharey 8y ago
  Name one thing where US is cheating? US invents china steals that the only truth. Name one thing chinese have invented? Dont tell me gun powder, something latest.
  - espadrine 8y ago
    > Name one thing where US is cheating? It is an open secret that the US has waged wars and authorized covert action for economical purposes, eg. for control over oil. > Name one thing chinese have invented? Electronic cigarettes, passenger drones, synthetic bovine insulin, and the Nobel prize-winning Malaria drug Artemisinin. (Not that I believe that Chinese companies were not lax with US IP, but that you try to instill the idea that China cannot invent and that the US does not mess international trade, which is not quite true.)
  - chillacy 8y ago
    That’s funny, the British used to say the same thing about the US during the industrial revolution where America didn’t respect British IP. Hollywood exists because California didn’t respect IP from eastern states. So, stealing is the winning strategy it seems.

jayalpha 8y ago

The Chinese cheat all the time. - high subsidiaries for their exports - blind eye on IP theft - forced technology transfer - closed market for many industries and services - forced "joint ventures" for certain industries - legal system the favors Chinese companies - systematic attack on western industries Feel free to ask and I will give specific examples. Based on the kind of business relationship of the US and China, e.g. Apple products are produces in China and hence also go into the trade deficit, the trade deficit is heavily distorted. (China, Foxconn makes very little profit on assembling apple phones. Yet, Apples makes most profits offshore, e.g. via selling from China to HK and from HK to US). So a trade deficit is not surprising. Trump never said that he wants a zero trade balance, he told Xi to "lower it" and "equalize the playing field". This was a reasonable request. Xi just could have agreed to this but instead wants to play hard ball. In my opinion Xi can not win this game and the only rational strategy in a game that you can not win is not to play it. It makes me doubt the strategic abilities of Xi but we will see. "suggested on Sunday that China could deliberately disrupt American companies’ supply chains by halting the export of crucial components mostly made in China." Outstanding idea. I am sure Western companies will love this, invest more in China and don't move production to other countries. Before you downvote me, give an argument.

simonh 8y ago
I’m sure you are right that the Chinese cheat, but a fair and equitable free trade system must be based on rules and independent arbitration. Trump is doing everything he can to undermine and destroy every vestige of a rules based independently arbitrated global trade system. His policies are explicitly stated to be purely in US interests only, by him personally. That’s not the basis for a free trade system. Finger pointing at China doesn’t excuse any of this, even Trump’s policies against China, on the basis of free trade.
- jayalpha 8y ago
  I don't understand your argument. And if they Chinese tax US cars with 25% and the US taxes them with 2.5% (or was it 5%)? then it is reasonable to request equal tariffs.

teknologist 8y ago

> The Chinese, the Europeans, all countries have equally fair, if not fairer, demands, which must be respected. So when Chinese consumers have to pay a 25%+ "foreign goods tax" on things made in China and bought in China you'd say that's fair would you?

pankajdoharey 8y ago

Man i am from India, at the same time you gotta call a spade a spade. US has been too liberal and gave a leeway to everyone to export goods to US without any tariffs. But every country Including my own puts a import tax on goods imported from the US. This isnt fair business, and US has actually lost a lot of money trying to be the leader in fair trade practice and globalisation. Other countries are just plain stealing and not ready to compete on fair grounds. Frankly i love Trumps tactic and i think all countries should embrace the same to balance the trade imbalance between China and the world.

gonvaled 8y ago
US promoted free trade after WWII, when it was the last man standing and the only manufacturer. Free trade meant "we sell made in America all around the world". Leading by example meant opening their market, at no cost since nobody was in a position to export. The rationale was "open your markets as we do, and we will all get richer". But the real intent was to foster the dominance of American manufacturing So we did. The whole world has been painfully opening markets for 70 years, and slowly, by finding cracks in the system designed to favor American interests, developing countries have indeed started to grow richer. Still poor compared to the US, but definitely better off. Those open markets, designed by the US to export, have been used by two actors to import to the US: - emerging markets (China, India, ...). This was the selling point of opening the markets, so this is perfectly fair - US capitalists, trying to increase profits by moving production overseas and reduce costs. This is what is causing problems in the US, by losing jobs. This is a homegrown problem, and nothing the rest of the world should care about. Basically, now that the world is starting to benefit from globalisation, after the US being the main beneficiary for over 50+ years, we somehow need to start caring about internal US problems. I do not buy this.
- repolfx 8y ago
  If that was true the US would have had giant import tariffs after WW2 and been promoting the absence of them in other countries. Even if you assume the US would have abolished tariffs knowing it'd cost them little immediately after WW2, they'd have put them back in the decades that followed as places like South Korea, Japan, most of Europe recovered and started exporting again. But the US didn't do that, as far as I know. American tariffs are something I didn't hear about until very recently. The US can be criticised for hypocrisy on various issues but this doesn't seem to be one of them.

sonnyblarney 8y ago

1) "We will fight this policies, if needed at the personal level, by selectively consuming products according to country of manufacture." No. Nobody really does this. People mostly just buy stuff. Chinese will continue to be enamoured by iPhones. The only change will be any supply/demand function due to price. 2) 'Fair Trade' is not a relative issue. If China does not respect foreign IP then nobody should respect China's IP. That would be 'fair'. If China wants to control and invests in strategic winners then it's only fair that Europe and America do not allow those companies to sell into their economies without a big tariff. It's also not 'fair' that China pollutes quite a lot, and does not have have basic worker protections. So 'fair' would be if the US and EU imposed tariffs for those externalities as well. I don't like Trump, I don't think he really understands what he is doing - but effectively it's the right thing: 'fair trade' would ultimately for nations to be on equal terms. So how about: all Chinese software outside of China is open source and they shouldn't have recourse on IP, and there should be tariffs to offset environmental/worker externalizations, state actors face tariffs, and Chinese purchase of external companies and assets are severely restricted. That would be 'fair'. That said, it would probably be in China's long term best interest to improve the IP situation, environmental and safety/worker issues, and to have less dependance on central planning. It's totally fine if China wants to 'make it's own' path, that's natural and positive. But all those things will yield long term benefit. Trump I don't think is smart enough to put it this way - but the world should see his movements as an opportunity to address core and fundamental trade issues that we are facing, since the 'old order' is not going to work. I hope that in the end they're able to sit down and work it out because there's plenty of room for compromise and it will be a win-win.

salimmadjd 8y ago

>And we have not yet started talking about the weaponizing of the dollar, which can be recently seen in the conflict with Iran. Not just with Iran, but everywhere. Most people do not realize the monopoly of USD in banking transactions. Essentially US can pass laws or even through executive order control the economic and trade policy of other countries. Turkey and India are barred from buying Russian equipments. This is not free trade. When US uses its monopoly to block India from trade with Iran and tries the same with China, that’s not really free trade either. You mentioned weaponizing dollar, many people do not realize how it works. We’ve seen a lot of negative news about China recently . I suspect some of it has to do with their decision to open their own oil futures trading that is not run on USD. This could be the largest threat to the USD monopoly. Time will tell.., edit: additional links and info: Basic info on Shanghai crude futures [0] Some early speculative behavior. I wonder with low early volumes in this market can be manipulated to scare off more serious investors [1] Seems like the Shanghai market had its first delivery on Sep 12 [2], that being said, some predict it might take 10 years before it will have serious impact on the market. But sometimes financial markets move ahead of the physical realities. So, its impact might become palpable in just a few years [3] [0] https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-china-crude-oil-futures-analysis/shanghai-crude-futures-eat-into-western-benchmarks-as-china-pushes-yuan-idUKKCN1LF2RI https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-china-crude-oil-futures-an... [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-07/oil-speculators-grip-china-futures-as-prices-post-mystery-gains https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-07/oil-specu... [2] https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/China-Completes-First-Physical-Delivery-For-Crude-Futures.html https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/China-Completes-First-... [3] https://www.scmp.com/comment/letters/article/2139676/will-chinas-renminbi-oil-futures-end-petrodollar-monopoly https://www.scmp.com/comment/letters/article/2139676/will-ch...

gonvaled 8y ago
Interesting, and related to the Iranian Oil Bourse [1], which was supposed to trade in Euros, among other currencies. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_oil_bourse https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_oil_bourse
v_lisivka 8y ago
For me it like "Why I cannot trade some Americans? They say that they are free." You are mismatching unrestricted (wild) market with free market. Market, to be free, requires someone to play role of guard and punish bad actors, who disobey rules. Otherwise, bad actors will convert free market into non-free in no time. Usually, such power is granted to a government or to an association of traders. Currently, world have no united government. We have WTO, which is our world trade organization, but it have very limited power. Why have enough power and strict moral principles to keep market free? As you said, USA cannot do that, of course, so maybe it should be job of Russia, Iran, China, or North Korea?

rqs 8y ago

I've watched a video[0] from Fox News few months ago, the key point been the "unfair trading" problem should be addressed through WTO rather than direct tariffs, and those tariffs maybe against WTO's rules. Also, many people here maybe don't know, China is suing the U.S. for those tariffs. Maybe wait until it played out, the everything will be a bit clear. I don't know how people in the U.S. view this trade war, but in China, many people already start to treat it as a new normal now after realizing it will be a long lasting one. Jack Ma for example, believes it will last for ~20 years. I also watched another video[1], which is a voice recording from a seminar, the speaker was Jin Yi Nan[2], who is one of the "Hawks" in China. In that recording, other than trying to calm the listener (mainly business man I assume) down, he made few points, which been (I oversimplified it, somebody can do a full translation of the recording if interested): - We (China) had problems, but the U.S. also had problems. At the same time, they (The U.S.) had advantage, we had ours. We're actually chained together (trade war will be bad for both, and they are hurting themselves while we facing the challenge). - Chinese business should keep trying to enter international (including US) market and make investment, regardless the trade war. - Trump's idea is frozen at '40s, and we (China) will be more open (more participation in trading and welcome international investment). I think it sort of reflects the idea of some people inside the China government, or at least showing how the government want people to think of the trade war. On the bright side, by the time all of this ends, it will be a very good topic to discuss with our future high-schooler kids. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGbcsBfPF0g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGbcsBfPF0g [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8svRtTAw_10 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8svRtTAw_10 (It's in Chinese) [2] https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-cn/%E9%87%91%E4%B8%80%E5%8D%97 https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-cn/%E9%87%91%E4%B8%80%E5%8D%97 (Only Chinese version available)

justaguyhere 8y ago

Even if US demands are fair, going around insulting other countries and imposing tariffs isn't exactly a nice way of addressing the issue.

philipodonnell 8y ago

> Assumption: Trump wants fair trade. HN readers want fair trade... The core of the problem is obviously that the initial assumption is false: Trump and HN do not want fairer trade, but trade one-sidedly beneffiting the US. I realize your comment is not from a pro-US perspective, but try not to conflate a leader of a country with a group of users coming from that country. Many people on HN have nuanced views of the value of trade. If you read anything Trump has said or written on the topic its clear that he has no idea what international trade is or how tariffs work. Attributing any plan or intelligent design behind these things is one of the biggest mistakes we have made in addressing the problems created by this president. Its just what people "ooo" and "aaah" about at his rallies and that's all he cares about, but it attracts political allies that share that belief for their own reasons and that is who we see being selected to carry out US policies.