13 ms·

China is highly unlikely to undermine the U.S.-led global system given it has been one of its biggest beneficiaries, Balakrishnan said. They undermine it every

China is highly unlikely to undermine the U.S.-led global system given it has been one of its biggest beneficiaries, Balakrishnan said. They undermine it every day they refuse to allow free trade. The US and others spent a lot of resources building the free trade system of the world... and China wants the benefits of selling into that global market, while reserving their own market for themselves. Every day they are not confronted on this, they send out the message to every other country that free trade with other countries does not require you to open your own markets. They encourage the breakdown of trade and the closure of global markets. Confronting China on this today is the US asking China not to undermine the global system that has helped enrich China. Not to burn the bridge after they're finished with it (that many countries have used to pull themselves out of poverty: vietnam, korea, taiwan, japan, and even singapore).

Barrin92 7y ago
As Milton Friedman has pointed out, the loser of protectionist policies are the countries that practice them. If China wants to subsidize its industries and sell Americans cheap goods then that is primarily an issue for the Chinese people, not for American consumers. Absorbing global manufacturing has made Americans the richest people with the highest purchasing power on the planet, has subjected American companies to competition that no other country has experienced, and has made them more productive as a result. Why would any American want their government to give in to the same mercantilism that China practises, at the expense of their own people? To maintain jobs that pollute the local environment and are largely going to be automated away anyway? The central issue which makes this call for retaliation so intuitive (but mistaken) is that the plight of people who lose their jobs to trade is tangible. The steel worker is a person we can picture. But the collective welfare we all gain by the cheap imports from a country like China is invisible. Industries have lobbies, consumers don't.
- coldtea 7y ago
  >As Milton Friedman has pointed out, the loser of protectionist policies are the countries that practice them. Milton Friedman says that because he's a policy advisor of countries that benefit from others dropping their protectionist policies. At a certain state of development (and when you are not yet top dog to dictate what "free" trade means to other countries), you need some well balanced protectionist policies. The US itself rose thanks to its protectionist policies. Britain too -- as did all others major powers when it served them well. "Britain was the first country to successfully use a large-scale infant industry promotion strategy. However, its most ardent user was the U.S.; the economic historian Paul Bairoch once called it "the homeland and bastion of modern protectionism"
  - Barrin92 7y ago
    The infant industry argument is controversial, but assuming for a second it is correct, how is that related to the discussion about what course the US should take towards China right now? The US does not need industry protection. The US is the most advanced country on the planet. When the US administration gets into a tradewar that makes Chinese commodities more expensive and stops American farmers from selling soybeans, how exactly is this to the benefit of anyone? The answer is clearly that the narrative is purely political and not economical. Playing up China as an economic enemy rather than a partner resonates with a relatively small, but vocal minority of the voterbase, who for ideological reasons seeks conflict with China.
    - mistermann 7y ago
      > The US does not need industry protection. The US is the most advanced country on the planet. --> The US is the most advanced country on the planet, therefore it logically follows that they do not need industry protection. This doesn't seem quite right to me. Are you seeing a perspective that I'm overlooking? Have I perhaps mischaracterized you? > The answer is clearly that the narrative is purely political and not economical. Even if we assume for the sake of argument that "Playing up China as an economic enemy..." is completely true, do you consider that a complete proof of the above assertion?
    - coldtea 7y ago
      >The infant industry argument is controversial, but assuming for a second it is correct, how is that related to the discussion about what course the US should take towards China right now? The US does not need industry protection. The US is the most advanced country on the planet. The US "is the most advanced country on the planet" because it constantly uses "industry protection". Besides tariffs and subsidies, the whole power of the US state and military is constantly used to further US trade and resource interests, enforce favorable trade rules, ignore this or that treaty that doesn't benefit the US industry (e.g. environment or child labor laws), and so on. >When the US administration gets into a tradewar that makes Chinese commodities more expensive and stops American farmers from selling soybeans, how exactly is this to the benefit of anyone? For one, it's of benefit of those making (and/or) selling commodities of their own. Heck, even American workers, who might have to pay more for Chinese-made commodities, but they also get jobs again to make similar commodities in the US. A paycheck + more expensive goods trumps being unemployed + the availability of cheapo Chinese goods.
coldtea 7y ago
>They undermine it every day they refuse to allow free trade. The US and others spent a lot of resources building the free trade system of the world... I.e. the kind of trade that they dictate and call "free", creating banana republics that cut them special deals, toppling governments when they don't like their decisions, using humanitarian and development funding (even from supposedly independent sources, like the IMF) as bribes and pressure to secure special treatment , insisting on the dollar being used in major trade as opposed to the euro or the yuan (and punishing those states that make the opposite "free" decision), getting their hands on oil producing countries, and so on. And of course using protectionism whenever they like for themselves ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_St... ). Some free trade...
- mistermann 7y ago
  I think you raise a lot of valid points, the US is hardly innocent on a historic global basis. That being said, what's your take on China's behavior specifically, do you believe they are acting in a "fair" manner? Do you believe the advantages they enjoy are all justified? (Note: for the sake of this argument only, karmic payback for US historic behavior is not considered a valid justification.) EDIT: I'm curious why explicitly acknowledging valid points but then asking a clear and specific question (that excludes these points as they are not directly relevant to current trade with China) is being downvoted? Downvotes for disagreement are appropriate according to HN guidelines (or they used to be), but I'm not asserting anything, I am literally asking a serious question.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    >That being said, what's your take on China's behavior specifically, do you believe they are acting in a "fair" manner? Regarding trade: I think China (and any country) should have absolute say in how they do business, and who they want to do business with, who to allow in their internal market, etc. And of course other countries should be free to reciprocate. That would be actually free trade in my book: with any nation being free to do business as it pleases (trade this, impose tariffs on that, etc). The current "free trade" is mere lip service in the sense: "we promote free trade to force others to open their markets to us, but we ourselves use tariffs, wars, and whenever we like to further our interests". So, I don't like it, and I also don't like the "totally free" trade (which I find a pipe dream, as big players wil always work their way around it). >Do you believe the advantages they enjoy are all justified? (Note: for the sake of this argument only, karmic payback for US historic behavior is not considered a valid justification.) I think "fair" can only be considered in context. Something is fair or not according to how the actual players play the game, not according to some abstract rules. If everybody cheats, China is fair to cheat too. In that case, I don't think the "karmic payback" is irrelevant to answer the question, nor I believe it's mere US "historic behavior" (if the latter implies something that happened only in the distant past and is not active behavior it's benefiting from at the moment). Regarding human rights: China is authoritarian (and on the fore-front of authoritarian abuse of technology). That said, the situation is accepted well by the vast majority of its population, who doesn't have much tradition of free elections in the first place, and who probably worries of the impact of a breakdown of the regime. Naive pundits might call for the immediate dissolution of the CCP for example, but in 1.6 billion people state a power vacuum could lead to chaos, schism, and civil war than makes India/Pakistan, or modern day Iraq/Libya etc look like Disney movies. In any case, it's up to them, not to outsiders to call their shots (or to take sides in their internal power struggles). All kinds of countries had their popular revolutions, reforms, etc, if China (as a nation) doesn't like its regime, they're welcome to change it.
sbhn 7y ago
That sounds like england with brexit. Cake and eat it to
- vinay427 7y ago
  It sounds like what many in the UK thought they could get with Brexit, and not the reality of Brexit.
  - arethuza 7y ago
    One of the main leaders of the Leave campaign and someone who highly likely to be the next Prime Minister of the UK literally said: "My policy on cake is pro having it and pro eating it."
    - kingkawn 7y ago
      Who has cake and doesn’t eat it?
    - vinay427 7y ago
      Exactly. I actually can't tell if you're trying to raise a point of disagreement?
      - arethuza 7y ago
        Apologies, I was trying to emphasise that the "cake" theme was something that literally did feature in Brexit discussions.
ivanhoe 7y ago
Both US and EU have import quotas on all kinds of products from 3rd countries, there's nothing free about it, it's all highly regulated by WTO and trade agreements...
thefounder 7y ago
US seems to promote free trade for the industries it controls. When it looses to competition it invokes national security, military intervention etc...Trump made clear what was already known. I am a free trade believer but you must be stupid not to see that US doesn't want free trade. It wants free trade where it works for them, their "free trade", in US dollars of course. If you compete with the US you become a foe, an enemy. "We must protect our country and our workers. Our steel industry is in bad shape. IF YOU DON’T HAVE STEEL, YOU DON’T HAVE A COUNTRY!" "I think the European Union is a foe, what they do to us in trade. Now you wouldn't think of the European Union but they're a foe" "There's a lot of anger at the fact that Germany is paying Russia billions of dollars."
- tomp 7y ago
  It's more like, if you don't have steel/oil/planes/guns/CPUs you don't have an army (or more specifically, producers of the above can deny you resources when you need them most, in war).
  - thefounder 7y ago
    You could argue the same with anything: food, energy, cars, electronics etc... In time of war everything counts but I thought we are not at war...are we? Is it free trade, fair justice, human rights etc or "national security" and "our interests"?
  - AsyncAwait 7y ago
    As an example, this is why Russia has rushed to finish GLONASS, (GPS was disrupted for them in 2008) & why China and the EU are working towards the same goal.
apexalpha 7y ago
The "free trade" the US propagates is horrible for anyone not in the top 20% of society. Your manufacturing business has been decimated, many people outside coastal areas have been seeing declining standards of living. Even the EU has many import tariffs to protect its own industries from unfair competition from China and others. Why should someone who makes bikes in the EU compete with someone who does it for $0,50 an hour in Vietnam or who knows where? Protecting your own markets is the sensible thing to do. Any country with a decent industrial policy does it.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- mensetmanusman 7y ago
  Most peaceful era per capital in human history. Lowest percentage in poverty in human history.
  - low_poly_shiba 7y ago
    Where have the biggest reductions in poverty taken place?
- dalbasal 7y ago
  I agree. In fact, I don't think ending international trade is going far enough. Why should Californian businesses who make bikes have to compete with Texas businesses who have to pay employees lower salaries, less tax and different rules.
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  The why is because of relative advantage. Complaining about the 50 cent wage in a far lower cost of living country is like complaining that you cannot compete with a farmer's fields for corn with your urban rooftop gardens in plant pots. Well of course! That is where their advantages are - if you can trade without issues that is your cue to do something else more productive with your time.
- Faark 7y ago
ulfw 7y ago
I'm sorry. US? Free Trade? Huh? Have you noticed who is in government over there right now?
nabla9 7y ago
The correct way to challenge China multilaterally using WTO and trade agreements. TPP-agreement would have tied pacific countries and US tighter together while leaving China out until it improves. CPTPP and it's TPP without the US.
Theodores 7y ago
Free trade is free for whom? Monopolies? Capitalists? If we had the same rules everywhere and effectively one global government then we could have free trade. But we have sovereign nations with their own national interests. Therefore trade always has to be a deal. Either the deal is a good one or it is not. We have had problems before with Japan, for instance they like to grow their own rice rather than just ship in 'Uncle Ben's' rice from Uncle Sam. Rice grown in Japan by real Japanese people on real rice terraces is much more expensive than rice churned out by U.S. agri-business. But do the U.S. agri-businesses have a right to demand free trade, pushing the Japanese small farmers out of business? What sense does it actually make to do that? The product - rice - can be locally sourced with a lot of human effort gone into the production of it. This keeps people in Japan gainfully employed in agriculture. Japanese consumers also prefer the local product, it is more to their tastes. Should this protectionism go on forever? Well, yes, it is not as if the local rice farmers in Japan are going to be competing for global exports. So we have something similar with China and every other nation. I think that China are doing very well in tech thanks to the Great Firewall of China, they have versions of Wikipedia, Facebook, Google and Amazon - the world is richer for this diversity. What is wrong with the U.S. approach to protectionism? They could be honest about Huawei and state that they wish to have domestic companies do 5G just because they have national interest to do so. They could be honest about their own 'Great Firewall' which is what the NSA is and be up front that the government feels it needs to spy on the citizens lest any of them get revolutionary thoughts. The rest of the world is fine about U.S. protection of the pickup truck market. We get it - the U.S. needs Detroit and Detroit needs pickup trucks as they can't make competitive cars. If the U.S. was claiming that Toyota and VW trucks were unsafe that would be wrong, that is what is going on with the Huawei situation, there are these allegations that are not substantiated by facts. It is ridiculous that the U.S. is struggling with trade given how rich the country is from a land/resources point of view, how the U.S. owns the world's reserve currency and how almost all oil/energy has to be traded in USD. No other countries have these perks. China has no territorial ambitions beyond Taiwan. This is benign, a bit like Ireland wanting Ulster back rather than Britain wanting to enslave India. They may peg their currency and have this Great Firewall, however, who is to say that they are wrong in not wanting their great nation to be ravaged by global capitalism? We just need to strike actual trade deals with China in the West, affording the Chinese people and their leaders some respect.
dalbasal 7y ago
I think that's a valid take. But OTOH, broad, principled terms like "free trade" mask some of the nuance and realities of that history. Free markets have always come thick with caveats to suit whatever goals the authors/negotiators had at the time. The US, for example, generally prioritized investment access and largely got it. They also prioritized economic infrastructure, like the dollar standard and globalising the US patent system. Meanwhile, agricultural markets were kept outside of the mix, which is a huge deal to many politically/economically weak countries. The line between a bad faith exploitation of the system (as you characterized china) and an acceptable exception was determined by political interests and power dynamics, not by principles. What I'm saying is not that china "plays fair" or that the US does. What I'm saying is that it's a game where rules get made on the fly and power matters. There's a tendency to see your own priorities (patents stand out to me, in the US-China context) as obvious non-issues and rivals' priorities as huge compromises. I think it's wise to limit the moral reasoning which leads to finger pointing and conflict. Meanwhile, there's always a lot of dirty dealing on all sides. Putting up trade barriers on national security pretexts or whatnot. I think the Singaporean minister has the broad point right. The US had an incredibly central role in creating the current global trade setup. This reflected their power (and prestige, especially in Europe) at the time. The system wasn't a bad one and China has been a great beneficiary of it. A lot of the non-economic reasoning did come to fruition too. China is a far more open-to-the-world society today. But... The size of China's current economy changes the political balance. They will demand a US-like role and unless that's accepted by the US, politically & emotionally, we're headed for a recessive period.
- chewz 7y ago
  > As he ended this speech it is said that Cato shook out the folds of his toga and contrived to drop some Libyan figs on the floor of the Senate-house, and when the senators admired their size and beauty he remarked that the country which produced them was only three days’ sail from Rome. Afterwards he adopted a still more forceful method of driving home his point: whenever his opinion was called for on any subject, he invariably concluded with the words, ‘And furthermore it is my opinion that Carthage must be destroyed!’ (Lives, ‘Cato the Elder’ 27) The Carthage during 20 years after Second Punic War became export powerhouse and it was even able to repay war idemnities 10 years ahead of schedule.
majia 7y ago
> Confronting China on this today is the US asking China not to undermine the global system that has helped enrich China. Unfortunately, to the current US administration, confronting China is not a means to change China's behavior for better, but an end itself.
codedokode 7y ago
> The US and others spent a lot of resources building the free trade system of the world. Are the sanctions against countries like Cuba, Iran or North Korea also a part of "fair" and "free" trade? Of course, US is free to choose with whom they want or don't want to deal; just don't call it "free" trade please.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
mtw 7y ago
To be honest, last time China accepted major trade deals from the West to fully open their market, they got their cities flooded by opium and got land ruled by foreign law, and then got their government toppled. The lessons learned from that was that if you are not careful, western countries will come and dominate you. Look around, the same happened in India and many other countries with often exctintion of natives Fast forward to 2018, China and USA already agreed to WTO rules with China considered as a developing countries and thus granted special rights such as protection of its industries. Then USA unilaterally breaks WTO rules with tariffs with an arbitrary interpretation of "national security" and wants a signature of a one way deal where USA gets all the rights and controls but doesn't give anything. I'm sorry but history teaches you that kind of deals will get your citizens subjugated by foreign powers or foreign corporations.
- aNoob7000 7y ago
  Definition of "developing country" from WTO. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/devel_e/d1who_e.htm https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/devel_e/d1who_e.htm China is no longer a developing country. The can say they are developing but that is no longer true.
  - majia 7y ago
    > China is no longer a developing country. Any justification? China's GDP per capita is lower than Mexico's.
  - jazzyjackson 7y ago
    ?? So your link says anyone can present themselves as developing. what alternative definition contradicts this? China surely has some very shiny metropoli, but there is a few decades worth of modernization to be done still as you go inland.

Barrin92 7y ago

As Milton Friedman has pointed out, the loser of protectionist policies are the countries that practice them. If China wants to subsidize its industries and sell Americans cheap goods then that is primarily an issue for the Chinese people, not for American consumers. Absorbing global manufacturing has made Americans the richest people with the highest purchasing power on the planet, has subjected American companies to competition that no other country has experienced, and has made them more productive as a result. Why would any American want their government to give in to the same mercantilism that China practises, at the expense of their own people? To maintain jobs that pollute the local environment and are largely going to be automated away anyway? The central issue which makes this call for retaliation so intuitive (but mistaken) is that the plight of people who lose their jobs to trade is tangible. The steel worker is a person we can picture. But the collective welfare we all gain by the cheap imports from a country like China is invisible. Industries have lobbies, consumers don't.

coldtea 7y ago
>As Milton Friedman has pointed out, the loser of protectionist policies are the countries that practice them. Milton Friedman says that because he's a policy advisor of countries that benefit from others dropping their protectionist policies. At a certain state of development (and when you are not yet top dog to dictate what "free" trade means to other countries), you need some well balanced protectionist policies. The US itself rose thanks to its protectionist policies. Britain too -- as did all others major powers when it served them well. "Britain was the first country to successfully use a large-scale infant industry promotion strategy. However, its most ardent user was the U.S.; the economic historian Paul Bairoch once called it "the homeland and bastion of modern protectionism"
- Barrin92 7y ago
  The infant industry argument is controversial, but assuming for a second it is correct, how is that related to the discussion about what course the US should take towards China right now? The US does not need industry protection. The US is the most advanced country on the planet. When the US administration gets into a tradewar that makes Chinese commodities more expensive and stops American farmers from selling soybeans, how exactly is this to the benefit of anyone? The answer is clearly that the narrative is purely political and not economical. Playing up China as an economic enemy rather than a partner resonates with a relatively small, but vocal minority of the voterbase, who for ideological reasons seeks conflict with China.
  - mistermann 7y ago
    > The US does not need industry protection. The US is the most advanced country on the planet. --> The US is the most advanced country on the planet, therefore it logically follows that they do not need industry protection. This doesn't seem quite right to me. Are you seeing a perspective that I'm overlooking? Have I perhaps mischaracterized you? > The answer is clearly that the narrative is purely political and not economical. Even if we assume for the sake of argument that "Playing up China as an economic enemy..." is completely true, do you consider that a complete proof of the above assertion?
  - coldtea 7y ago
    >The infant industry argument is controversial, but assuming for a second it is correct, how is that related to the discussion about what course the US should take towards China right now? The US does not need industry protection. The US is the most advanced country on the planet. The US "is the most advanced country on the planet" because it constantly uses "industry protection". Besides tariffs and subsidies, the whole power of the US state and military is constantly used to further US trade and resource interests, enforce favorable trade rules, ignore this or that treaty that doesn't benefit the US industry (e.g. environment or child labor laws), and so on. >When the US administration gets into a tradewar that makes Chinese commodities more expensive and stops American farmers from selling soybeans, how exactly is this to the benefit of anyone? For one, it's of benefit of those making (and/or) selling commodities of their own. Heck, even American workers, who might have to pay more for Chinese-made commodities, but they also get jobs again to make similar commodities in the US. A paycheck + more expensive goods trumps being unemployed + the availability of cheapo Chinese goods.

coldtea 7y ago

>They undermine it every day they refuse to allow free trade. The US and others spent a lot of resources building the free trade system of the world... I.e. the kind of trade that they dictate and call "free", creating banana republics that cut them special deals, toppling governments when they don't like their decisions, using humanitarian and development funding (even from supposedly independent sources, like the IMF) as bribes and pressure to secure special treatment , insisting on the dollar being used in major trade as opposed to the euro or the yuan (and punishing those states that make the opposite "free" decision), getting their hands on oil producing countries, and so on. And of course using protectionism whenever they like for themselves ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_St... ). Some free trade...

mistermann 7y ago
I think you raise a lot of valid points, the US is hardly innocent on a historic global basis. That being said, what's your take on China's behavior specifically, do you believe they are acting in a "fair" manner? Do you believe the advantages they enjoy are all justified? (Note: for the sake of this argument only, karmic payback for US historic behavior is not considered a valid justification.) EDIT: I'm curious why explicitly acknowledging valid points but then asking a clear and specific question (that excludes these points as they are not directly relevant to current trade with China) is being downvoted? Downvotes for disagreement are appropriate according to HN guidelines (or they used to be), but I'm not asserting anything, I am literally asking a serious question.
- coldtea 7y ago
  >That being said, what's your take on China's behavior specifically, do you believe they are acting in a "fair" manner? Regarding trade: I think China (and any country) should have absolute say in how they do business, and who they want to do business with, who to allow in their internal market, etc. And of course other countries should be free to reciprocate. That would be actually free trade in my book: with any nation being free to do business as it pleases (trade this, impose tariffs on that, etc). The current "free trade" is mere lip service in the sense: "we promote free trade to force others to open their markets to us, but we ourselves use tariffs, wars, and whenever we like to further our interests". So, I don't like it, and I also don't like the "totally free" trade (which I find a pipe dream, as big players wil always work their way around it). >Do you believe the advantages they enjoy are all justified? (Note: for the sake of this argument only, karmic payback for US historic behavior is not considered a valid justification.) I think "fair" can only be considered in context. Something is fair or not according to how the actual players play the game, not according to some abstract rules. If everybody cheats, China is fair to cheat too. In that case, I don't think the "karmic payback" is irrelevant to answer the question, nor I believe it's mere US "historic behavior" (if the latter implies something that happened only in the distant past and is not active behavior it's benefiting from at the moment). Regarding human rights: China is authoritarian (and on the fore-front of authoritarian abuse of technology). That said, the situation is accepted well by the vast majority of its population, who doesn't have much tradition of free elections in the first place, and who probably worries of the impact of a breakdown of the regime. Naive pundits might call for the immediate dissolution of the CCP for example, but in 1.6 billion people state a power vacuum could lead to chaos, schism, and civil war than makes India/Pakistan, or modern day Iraq/Libya etc look like Disney movies. In any case, it's up to them, not to outsiders to call their shots (or to take sides in their internal power struggles). All kinds of countries had their popular revolutions, reforms, etc, if China (as a nation) doesn't like its regime, they're welcome to change it.

sbhn 7y ago

That sounds like england with brexit. Cake and eat it to

vinay427 7y ago
It sounds like what many in the UK thought they could get with Brexit, and not the reality of Brexit.
- arethuza 7y ago
  One of the main leaders of the Leave campaign and someone who highly likely to be the next Prime Minister of the UK literally said: "My policy on cake is pro having it and pro eating it."
  - kingkawn 7y ago
    Who has cake and doesn’t eat it?
  - vinay427 7y ago
    Exactly. I actually can't tell if you're trying to raise a point of disagreement?
    - arethuza 7y ago
      Apologies, I was trying to emphasise that the "cake" theme was something that literally did feature in Brexit discussions.

ivanhoe 7y ago

Both US and EU have import quotas on all kinds of products from 3rd countries, there's nothing free about it, it's all highly regulated by WTO and trade agreements...

thefounder 7y ago

US seems to promote free trade for the industries it controls. When it looses to competition it invokes national security, military intervention etc...Trump made clear what was already known. I am a free trade believer but you must be stupid not to see that US doesn't want free trade. It wants free trade where it works for them, their "free trade", in US dollars of course. If you compete with the US you become a foe, an enemy. "We must protect our country and our workers. Our steel industry is in bad shape. IF YOU DON’T HAVE STEEL, YOU DON’T HAVE A COUNTRY!" "I think the European Union is a foe, what they do to us in trade. Now you wouldn't think of the European Union but they're a foe" "There's a lot of anger at the fact that Germany is paying Russia billions of dollars."

tomp 7y ago
It's more like, if you don't have steel/oil/planes/guns/CPUs you don't have an army (or more specifically, producers of the above can deny you resources when you need them most, in war).
- thefounder 7y ago
  You could argue the same with anything: food, energy, cars, electronics etc... In time of war everything counts but I thought we are not at war...are we? Is it free trade, fair justice, human rights etc or "national security" and "our interests"?
- AsyncAwait 7y ago
  As an example, this is why Russia has rushed to finish GLONASS, (GPS was disrupted for them in 2008) & why China and the EU are working towards the same goal.

apexalpha 7y ago

The "free trade" the US propagates is horrible for anyone not in the top 20% of society. Your manufacturing business has been decimated, many people outside coastal areas have been seeing declining standards of living. Even the EU has many import tariffs to protect its own industries from unfair competition from China and others. Why should someone who makes bikes in the EU compete with someone who does it for $0,50 an hour in Vietnam or who knows where? Protecting your own markets is the sensible thing to do. Any country with a decent industrial policy does it.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
mensetmanusman 7y ago
Most peaceful era per capital in human history. Lowest percentage in poverty in human history.
- low_poly_shiba 7y ago
  Where have the biggest reductions in poverty taken place?
dalbasal 7y ago
I agree. In fact, I don't think ending international trade is going far enough. Why should Californian businesses who make bikes have to compete with Texas businesses who have to pay employees lower salaries, less tax and different rules.
Nasrudith 7y ago
The why is because of relative advantage. Complaining about the 50 cent wage in a far lower cost of living country is like complaining that you cannot compete with a farmer's fields for corn with your urban rooftop gardens in plant pots. Well of course! That is where their advantages are - if you can trade without issues that is your cue to do something else more productive with your time.
Faark 7y ago

ulfw 7y ago

I'm sorry. US? Free Trade? Huh? Have you noticed who is in government over there right now?

nabla9 7y ago

The correct way to challenge China multilaterally using WTO and trade agreements. TPP-agreement would have tied pacific countries and US tighter together while leaving China out until it improves. CPTPP and it's TPP without the US.

Theodores 7y ago

Free trade is free for whom? Monopolies? Capitalists? If we had the same rules everywhere and effectively one global government then we could have free trade. But we have sovereign nations with their own national interests. Therefore trade always has to be a deal. Either the deal is a good one or it is not. We have had problems before with Japan, for instance they like to grow their own rice rather than just ship in 'Uncle Ben's' rice from Uncle Sam. Rice grown in Japan by real Japanese people on real rice terraces is much more expensive than rice churned out by U.S. agri-business. But do the U.S. agri-businesses have a right to demand free trade, pushing the Japanese small farmers out of business? What sense does it actually make to do that? The product - rice - can be locally sourced with a lot of human effort gone into the production of it. This keeps people in Japan gainfully employed in agriculture. Japanese consumers also prefer the local product, it is more to their tastes. Should this protectionism go on forever? Well, yes, it is not as if the local rice farmers in Japan are going to be competing for global exports. So we have something similar with China and every other nation. I think that China are doing very well in tech thanks to the Great Firewall of China, they have versions of Wikipedia, Facebook, Google and Amazon - the world is richer for this diversity. What is wrong with the U.S. approach to protectionism? They could be honest about Huawei and state that they wish to have domestic companies do 5G just because they have national interest to do so. They could be honest about their own 'Great Firewall' which is what the NSA is and be up front that the government feels it needs to spy on the citizens lest any of them get revolutionary thoughts. The rest of the world is fine about U.S. protection of the pickup truck market. We get it - the U.S. needs Detroit and Detroit needs pickup trucks as they can't make competitive cars. If the U.S. was claiming that Toyota and VW trucks were unsafe that would be wrong, that is what is going on with the Huawei situation, there are these allegations that are not substantiated by facts. It is ridiculous that the U.S. is struggling with trade given how rich the country is from a land/resources point of view, how the U.S. owns the world's reserve currency and how almost all oil/energy has to be traded in USD. No other countries have these perks. China has no territorial ambitions beyond Taiwan. This is benign, a bit like Ireland wanting Ulster back rather than Britain wanting to enslave India. They may peg their currency and have this Great Firewall, however, who is to say that they are wrong in not wanting their great nation to be ravaged by global capitalism? We just need to strike actual trade deals with China in the West, affording the Chinese people and their leaders some respect.

dalbasal 7y ago

I think that's a valid take. But OTOH, broad, principled terms like "free trade" mask some of the nuance and realities of that history. Free markets have always come thick with caveats to suit whatever goals the authors/negotiators had at the time. The US, for example, generally prioritized investment access and largely got it. They also prioritized economic infrastructure, like the dollar standard and globalising the US patent system. Meanwhile, agricultural markets were kept outside of the mix, which is a huge deal to many politically/economically weak countries. The line between a bad faith exploitation of the system (as you characterized china) and an acceptable exception was determined by political interests and power dynamics, not by principles. What I'm saying is not that china "plays fair" or that the US does. What I'm saying is that it's a game where rules get made on the fly and power matters. There's a tendency to see your own priorities (patents stand out to me, in the US-China context) as obvious non-issues and rivals' priorities as huge compromises. I think it's wise to limit the moral reasoning which leads to finger pointing and conflict. Meanwhile, there's always a lot of dirty dealing on all sides. Putting up trade barriers on national security pretexts or whatnot. I think the Singaporean minister has the broad point right. The US had an incredibly central role in creating the current global trade setup. This reflected their power (and prestige, especially in Europe) at the time. The system wasn't a bad one and China has been a great beneficiary of it. A lot of the non-economic reasoning did come to fruition too. China is a far more open-to-the-world society today. But... The size of China's current economy changes the political balance. They will demand a US-like role and unless that's accepted by the US, politically & emotionally, we're headed for a recessive period.

chewz 7y ago
> As he ended this speech it is said that Cato shook out the folds of his toga and contrived to drop some Libyan figs on the floor of the Senate-house, and when the senators admired their size and beauty he remarked that the country which produced them was only three days’ sail from Rome. Afterwards he adopted a still more forceful method of driving home his point: whenever his opinion was called for on any subject, he invariably concluded with the words, ‘And furthermore it is my opinion that Carthage must be destroyed!’ (Lives, ‘Cato the Elder’ 27) The Carthage during 20 years after Second Punic War became export powerhouse and it was even able to repay war idemnities 10 years ahead of schedule.

majia 7y ago

> Confronting China on this today is the US asking China not to undermine the global system that has helped enrich China. Unfortunately, to the current US administration, confronting China is not a means to change China's behavior for better, but an end itself.

codedokode 7y ago

> The US and others spent a lot of resources building the free trade system of the world. Are the sanctions against countries like Cuba, Iran or North Korea also a part of "fair" and "free" trade? Of course, US is free to choose with whom they want or don't want to deal; just don't call it "free" trade please.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

mtw 7y ago

To be honest, last time China accepted major trade deals from the West to fully open their market, they got their cities flooded by opium and got land ruled by foreign law, and then got their government toppled. The lessons learned from that was that if you are not careful, western countries will come and dominate you. Look around, the same happened in India and many other countries with often exctintion of natives Fast forward to 2018, China and USA already agreed to WTO rules with China considered as a developing countries and thus granted special rights such as protection of its industries. Then USA unilaterally breaks WTO rules with tariffs with an arbitrary interpretation of "national security" and wants a signature of a one way deal where USA gets all the rights and controls but doesn't give anything. I'm sorry but history teaches you that kind of deals will get your citizens subjugated by foreign powers or foreign corporations.

aNoob7000 7y ago
Definition of "developing country" from WTO. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/devel_e/d1who_e.htm https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/devel_e/d1who_e.htm China is no longer a developing country. The can say they are developing but that is no longer true.
- majia 7y ago
  > China is no longer a developing country. Any justification? China's GDP per capita is lower than Mexico's.
- jazzyjackson 7y ago
  ?? So your link says anyone can present themselves as developing. what alternative definition contradicts this? China surely has some very shiny metropoli, but there is a few decades worth of modernization to be done still as you go inland.