4 ms·

The article really explains it well. It is USA, a foreign power, dictating detailed law in China; that digs deep.

• dionian 7y ago
  The US is right to try to seek some reasonable guarantees that the terms of the deal will be adhered to
• m0zg 7y ago
  Um, yeah, trade deals tend to "dictate law" in other countries. TPP would have done a lot of that. What's so bad about not forcing industrial espionage on US companies if they want to operate in China? No one is forcing China at gunpoint to take the deal. If they have another market they can sell to, they should consider doing that.
  • chvid 7y ago
    "No one is forcing them at gunpoint to take the deal." The Trump administration did choose the "nuclear option" just one day later. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-16/trump-s-huawei-threat-is-the-nuclear-option-to-halt-china-s-rise?srnd=technology-vp https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-16/trump-s-h... I think the above bloomberg article explains just how extreme an action it is; and also sprinkle it with comments from american politicians which seem to reveal that this is about more than "reasonable guarantees".
    • m0zg 7y ago
      Try rooting for the US for a change. I can guarantee you nobody is rooting for the US on the other end of this negotiation. It is criminally naive to believe that a country will give up $500B in trade imbalance without kicking up some dust and engaging in hardball negotiation tactics to mitigate the damage. I also happen to think that Trump is 100% right in barring Huawei from dominating the US telecom for the same reason why you wouldn't want e.g. Russia to build US voting systems.
      • Tomte 7y ago
        "$500B in trade imbalance" You make it sound like it's a bad thing. Trade imbalance simply is, there is no moral value statement involved. For consumers a trade deficit is actually pretty sweet. You can also see it this way: America gets 500B worth of goods from China, in exchange for currency it can simply print.
        • rchaud 7y ago
          > For consumers a trade deficit is actually pretty sweet. That's textbook economics. It's called "textbook" because it is theoretical, and even then it assumes that all other things remain the same. Deficits don't impact every country the same way. In any case, no economics textbook will claim that decades-long deficits are good for the consumer. > You can also see it this way: America gets 500B worth of goods from China, in exchange for currency it can simply print. Another way to look at it would be in the slow deindustrialization of America and the bleeding out of hundreds of thousands of once middle-class jobs that kept the American economy ticking. Those jobs have moved abroad because it looked better for C-level execs whose compensation is tied to their stock price, not because of any BS about comparative advantage. People making textiles or auto parts can't switch to data science jobs overnight, even though the economics textbook says that's what should happen, all other things remaining equal.
          • m0zg 7y ago
            Way to ruin the neoliberal globalist narrative. "Après nous, le déluge" is their modus operandi.
      • moorhosj 7y ago
        The trade imbalance has grown since these tariffs were enacted. [1] https://piie.com/research/piie-charts/us-trade-deficit-china-keeps-growing-even-tariffs https://piie.com/research/piie-charts/us-trade-deficit-china...
• yumraj 7y ago
  US is the aggrieved party. It has full right to make sure that the wrongs do not continue.