3 ms·

“We’re in an economic war with China. It’s futile to compromise.”

2 points by cs702 8y ago

cs702 8y ago
I'm posting this on HN somewhat reluctantly, a bit worried that the discussion might degrade into ideologically-driven arguments. On the other hand, this is the first time I have come across a short list of coherent, well-written arguments that seek to defend the current US administration's antics in its trading negotiations with China. At a minimum, I feel this opinion piece provides insight into the thinking of people who support such antics, which otherwise seem arbitrary and irrational. If the discussion degrades, I will be the first person to flag the thread.
- NotPaidToPost 8y ago
  > might degrade into ideologically-driven arguments. The article you've posted is by Steve Bannon. It is ideologically-driven. He claims as fact that "has been waging economic war against industrial democracies ever since China joined the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001", which is ideological and inflammatory in essence. The rest of the claims are on par.
- cmurf 8y ago
  Ideological arguments are central to understanding the issues and effective diplomacy. The problem is when people use combinations of ad hominem attacks and moral arguments (inherent or absolute rightness or wrongness of ideologies). China does not have the same culture or philosophy as the U.S. of course they have a different ideology. Those must be explored in order to understand their consequences. If we're very good at that, we can predict the consequences and produce effective counter measures. They obviously would try to do the same. Regardless of ideology, any abrupt changes are inherently destabilizing, reduce trust, increase stress, and historically often have lead to conflict. This can be economic conflict, or warfare. So it is very important to make ideologically driven arguments, to thoroughly understand the most important issues, many of which can be cultural and emotional, not just about money.

2 points by cs702 8y ago

I'm posting this on HN somewhat reluctantly, a bit worried that the discussion might degrade into ideologically-driven arguments. On the other hand, this is the first time I have come across a short list of coherent, well-written arguments that seek to defend the current US administration's antics in its trading negotiations with China. At a minimum, I feel this opinion piece provides insight into the thinking of people who support such antics, which otherwise seem arbitrary and irrational. If the discussion degrades, I will be the first person to flag the thread.

NotPaidToPost 8y ago
> might degrade into ideologically-driven arguments. The article you've posted is by Steve Bannon. It is ideologically-driven. He claims as fact that "has been waging economic war against industrial democracies ever since China joined the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001", which is ideological and inflammatory in essence. The rest of the claims are on par.
cmurf 8y ago
Ideological arguments are central to understanding the issues and effective diplomacy. The problem is when people use combinations of ad hominem attacks and moral arguments (inherent or absolute rightness or wrongness of ideologies). China does not have the same culture or philosophy as the U.S. of course they have a different ideology. Those must be explored in order to understand their consequences. If we're very good at that, we can predict the consequences and produce effective counter measures. They obviously would try to do the same. Regardless of ideology, any abrupt changes are inherently destabilizing, reduce trust, increase stress, and historically often have lead to conflict. This can be economic conflict, or warfare. So it is very important to make ideologically driven arguments, to thoroughly understand the most important issues, many of which can be cultural and emotional, not just about money.