6 ms·

There was not free trade before though. We allowed China access to our markets, they didnt return the gesture. So econmists are wrong. You can have a perfectly

There was not free trade before though. We allowed China access to our markets, they didnt return the gesture. So econmists are wrong. You can have a perfectly unfree market and still posper, all you have to do is to convince other other nations to ignore the obvious mafia like behavior. This is both a democrats and republican making. Trump is right about this war even if it will cost some, in the long run we are better of.

bryanlarsen 7y ago
"We allowed China access to our markets, they didnt return the gesture." I would argue that China opened access more than the US did. During the Mao era, it was basically impossible for US goods to enter the Chinese market. The converse was not true: Chinese goods could enter the US market. So during liberalization the Chinese opened up more than the US did simply because they had so much further to go.
- arcticfox 7y ago
  While true, that is incredibly irrelevant to any current evaluation of fairness. It seems to reward an unreasonable start state for no reason.
  - bryanlarsen 7y ago
    If person A is 3 steps away from a goal and person B is 6 steps away and they want to negotiate to get to the goal together, the fair negotiation is that person A takes one step for every 2 steps person B takes. If person A says "I'll walk as fast as you once you catch up to me", person B has no assurance person A is arguing in good faith or ever has any intention of actually taking those steps.
- ThomPete 7y ago
  Not sure what you mean. The situation defacto is that china and the chinese has free access to our markets while we don't have free access to theirs. The situation is that defacto china is benefitting from their developing nation status outcompeting western companies just on shipping prices. Very few US products enter the chinese market plus those who do are forced to give over their IP.
  - DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
    American companies have access to the Chinese market. If you go to any major Chinese city, that will be obvious to you pretty quickly. American brands are everywhere. US companies do very well for themselves in the Chinese market. The reason for the trade imbalance is not Chinese protectionism, but rather structural issues in the United States and the Dollar's role as global reserve currency.
    - LMYahooTFY 7y ago
      > American brands are everywhere. Some American brands are everywhere.... Obviously some have been heavily restricted, most prominently internet media companies.
      - DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
        A lot of American brands are in China. The restrictions are about censorship of information, so they affect Google, Facebook and newspapers. You can still buy Starbucks, Levi jeans, iPhones, Ford automobiles and KFC buckets.
        ThomPete 7y ago
        I.e the big companies yes those who also have much of their production done in China. Thats not the same as China being open to western companies like the west is to china. And again no IP protection with countless cases of ip theft and forced technology transfer by the mafia run chinese goverment. To claim that the structural problems are US is absurd.
        DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
        > To claim that the structural problems are US is absurd. The US has a trade deficit with almost all of its trading partners. That is a structural issue. > no IP protection That's a crude caricature. There is IP protection in China. If that weren't the case, American microchip designers would not be making such large licensing fees in China. As far as I understand it, as a non-expert, IP protection in China is actually fairly good for a developing country. > Thats not the same as China being open to western companies like the west is to china. Western brands have much greater penetration in the Chinese market than vice versa. Moreover, much of the American trade deficit with China is actually made up of Western companies doing production in China.
jjoonathan 7y ago
20 years ago that would have been absolutely 100% true. The damage may already have been done, however. The IP has already been given away, so China doesn't much need us, but so has the manufacturing, so we need them. I hope that's not the case, but... we'll see. I do remember how economists were lining up to shout their party line, that protectionism doesn't work and China was only hurting themselves. For some reason I don't hear so much of that these days, now that China's investments into local companies have started paying off.
- ThomPete 7y ago
  But new IP is being created. Just because the other presidents didn't act in time, doesn't mean we should continue letting China dominate by basically operating as a mafia organization while still being defined as a developing nation. That's absolutely absurd.
  - jjoonathan 7y ago
    China can make new IP too. Our big advantage was our head start and we blew it. I'd love to be wrong. As for letting China continue to reap the benefits of being defined as a developing nation, yes, that's absurd, and also needed to stop 10-20 years ago.
    - ThomPete 7y ago
      Our big advantage is our free and open markets. It's not a question about whether we blew it the question is what are we going to do about it. Letting China win this with their mafia-like government, where there is no rule of law only rule of the party, is simply not an option. Right now the biggest challenge is the western politicians who hate Trump so much they don't care if they help the Chinese. Anything to get him down. But yeah I agree that it's definitely late in the game. We can still win this though.
      - pm90 7y ago
        > Right now the biggest challenge is the western politicians who hate Trump so much they don't care if they help the Chinese. Anything to get him down. Absolutely wrong. What do you think the TPP was meant to do? The only thing Trump does is short term bluster and outbursts with no long term plan at all. Tariffs are short term plays. Long term strategic thinking requires creation of alliances and allies. The fundamental difference always seems to be if you can persuade the world that your ideas and system is good, or you demand it by force. The latter is not a very effective long term strategy.
marcosdumay 7y ago
> We allowed China access to our markets, they didnt return the gesture. How is that so? The US people brought all those products in exchange of what exactly?
- jjoonathan 7y ago
  Paying Oracle to use their database software makes Oracle stronger. Paying China to use their manufacturing makes China stronger. That's the meta-game. China strongly discouraged their citizens and companies from buying US products and making the US stronger, but the US encouraged their citizens to buy from China, making China stronger. This worked out well for China.
  - adinobro 7y ago
    Only in the last 10+ years have large quantities of Chinese people started to earn enough to be able to buy US products. In the past, virtually none of them had enough money to buy products made in the high end (The US generally makes high quality but expensive products)
  - marcosdumay 7y ago
    Commerce is a two way game. Paying China to use their manufacturing makes the US stronger too.
    - ThomPete 7y ago
      Tell that to the 4 million factory workers who lost their middle-class jobs.
wbl 7y ago
That's not true. Both China and the US had WTO commitments. What is true is China had cheaper labor then the US and succeeded in attracting manufacturing.

bryanlarsen 7y ago

"We allowed China access to our markets, they didnt return the gesture." I would argue that China opened access more than the US did. During the Mao era, it was basically impossible for US goods to enter the Chinese market. The converse was not true: Chinese goods could enter the US market. So during liberalization the Chinese opened up more than the US did simply because they had so much further to go.

arcticfox 7y ago
While true, that is incredibly irrelevant to any current evaluation of fairness. It seems to reward an unreasonable start state for no reason.
- bryanlarsen 7y ago
  If person A is 3 steps away from a goal and person B is 6 steps away and they want to negotiate to get to the goal together, the fair negotiation is that person A takes one step for every 2 steps person B takes. If person A says "I'll walk as fast as you once you catch up to me", person B has no assurance person A is arguing in good faith or ever has any intention of actually taking those steps.
ThomPete 7y ago
Not sure what you mean. The situation defacto is that china and the chinese has free access to our markets while we don't have free access to theirs. The situation is that defacto china is benefitting from their developing nation status outcompeting western companies just on shipping prices. Very few US products enter the chinese market plus those who do are forced to give over their IP.
- DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
  American companies have access to the Chinese market. If you go to any major Chinese city, that will be obvious to you pretty quickly. American brands are everywhere. US companies do very well for themselves in the Chinese market. The reason for the trade imbalance is not Chinese protectionism, but rather structural issues in the United States and the Dollar's role as global reserve currency.
  - LMYahooTFY 7y ago
    > American brands are everywhere. Some American brands are everywhere.... Obviously some have been heavily restricted, most prominently internet media companies.
    - DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
      A lot of American brands are in China. The restrictions are about censorship of information, so they affect Google, Facebook and newspapers. You can still buy Starbucks, Levi jeans, iPhones, Ford automobiles and KFC buckets.
      - ThomPete 7y ago
        I.e the big companies yes those who also have much of their production done in China. Thats not the same as China being open to western companies like the west is to china. And again no IP protection with countless cases of ip theft and forced technology transfer by the mafia run chinese goverment. To claim that the structural problems are US is absurd.
        DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
        > To claim that the structural problems are US is absurd. The US has a trade deficit with almost all of its trading partners. That is a structural issue. > no IP protection That's a crude caricature. There is IP protection in China. If that weren't the case, American microchip designers would not be making such large licensing fees in China. As far as I understand it, as a non-expert, IP protection in China is actually fairly good for a developing country. > Thats not the same as China being open to western companies like the west is to china. Western brands have much greater penetration in the Chinese market than vice versa. Moreover, much of the American trade deficit with China is actually made up of Western companies doing production in China.

jjoonathan 7y ago

20 years ago that would have been absolutely 100% true. The damage may already have been done, however. The IP has already been given away, so China doesn't much need us, but so has the manufacturing, so we need them. I hope that's not the case, but... we'll see. I do remember how economists were lining up to shout their party line, that protectionism doesn't work and China was only hurting themselves. For some reason I don't hear so much of that these days, now that China's investments into local companies have started paying off.

ThomPete 7y ago
But new IP is being created. Just because the other presidents didn't act in time, doesn't mean we should continue letting China dominate by basically operating as a mafia organization while still being defined as a developing nation. That's absolutely absurd.
- jjoonathan 7y ago
  China can make new IP too. Our big advantage was our head start and we blew it. I'd love to be wrong. As for letting China continue to reap the benefits of being defined as a developing nation, yes, that's absurd, and also needed to stop 10-20 years ago.
  - ThomPete 7y ago
    Our big advantage is our free and open markets. It's not a question about whether we blew it the question is what are we going to do about it. Letting China win this with their mafia-like government, where there is no rule of law only rule of the party, is simply not an option. Right now the biggest challenge is the western politicians who hate Trump so much they don't care if they help the Chinese. Anything to get him down. But yeah I agree that it's definitely late in the game. We can still win this though.
    - pm90 7y ago
      > Right now the biggest challenge is the western politicians who hate Trump so much they don't care if they help the Chinese. Anything to get him down. Absolutely wrong. What do you think the TPP was meant to do? The only thing Trump does is short term bluster and outbursts with no long term plan at all. Tariffs are short term plays. Long term strategic thinking requires creation of alliances and allies. The fundamental difference always seems to be if you can persuade the world that your ideas and system is good, or you demand it by force. The latter is not a very effective long term strategy.

marcosdumay 7y ago

> We allowed China access to our markets, they didnt return the gesture. How is that so? The US people brought all those products in exchange of what exactly?

jjoonathan 7y ago
Paying Oracle to use their database software makes Oracle stronger. Paying China to use their manufacturing makes China stronger. That's the meta-game. China strongly discouraged their citizens and companies from buying US products and making the US stronger, but the US encouraged their citizens to buy from China, making China stronger. This worked out well for China.
- adinobro 7y ago
  Only in the last 10+ years have large quantities of Chinese people started to earn enough to be able to buy US products. In the past, virtually none of them had enough money to buy products made in the high end (The US generally makes high quality but expensive products)
- marcosdumay 7y ago
  Commerce is a two way game. Paying China to use their manufacturing makes the US stronger too.
  - ThomPete 7y ago
    Tell that to the 4 million factory workers who lost their middle-class jobs.

wbl 7y ago

That's not true. Both China and the US had WTO commitments. What is true is China had cheaper labor then the US and succeeded in attracting manufacturing.