5 ms·
> The assumption is that in a fair game, American's will find a way to win. So, if America fails to find a way to win, the game is rigged? I mean, if this über
by pbalau 8y ago
> The assumption is that in a fair game, American's will find a way to win.
So, if America fails to find a way to win, the game is rigged? I mean, if this über country doesn't find a way to win, game being rigged is the only explanation... Where did I hear this before?
> This is like you and me playing a game, and I find out you're a cheater...
No, this is like you and me playing a game and if you don't win, you accuse me of being a cheater.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- rgbrenner 8y agoThis isn't an argument either side is making. No one is under some delusion that China is playing a fair game. Even China themselves says they need more time to make reforms. Why do you need to make reforms if you're already playing fair?
- phyller 8y agoBoth you and the comment you are responding to are wrong because in international trade there should not be one loser and one winner. There should only be winners and no losers. That is not only possible but that is the normal state, and why the world has been increasingly prosperous. It is not a zero sum gain when two nations trade, they actually create wealth by each doing what they do best and trading. With this understanding, if any side finds that they are on the "losing" end of a deal, they should be upset. The United States has increased its wealth partially by increasing everyone else's wealth (as have other countries) and that is the way it should be.