4 ms·
+1 Thanks for the informative historical comparison. I appreciate it. Interesting. I do have a bit of trouble drawing parallels though. I mean, the US is not r
by HillaryBriss 7y ago
+1 Thanks for the informative historical comparison. I appreciate it. Interesting. I do have a bit of trouble drawing parallels though.
I mean, the US is not requiring, say, that goods imported to US ports be exclusively carried by US ships, as the English did. The US is not taking possession of any of the many Chinese owned port facilities which currently operate in a large number of US cities. The US is not demanding that only US merchant ships be allowed to carry cargo across certain regions of the world's oceans. And, China has not, for instance, sailed up the Potomac and stolen any US vessels.
Most of this is playing out in terms of taxes and tariffs. It is almost totally bureaucratic and regulatory in nature.
- Haga 7y agoIt does these things with the smaller countries it bullies. Take the Iranian oil freighter in the Mediterranean sea. Free trade is always just pushed by the dominant player as long as he can set the rules unchecked.
- kstenerud 7y agoIt's using whatever means to apply pressure to a foreign government in order to make them capitulate on a trade matter. In the old days it was done with guns, then later with overt rules set forth by dominant parties, and now via internal policy decisions that affect outside parties. It's simply applying the same pressure by more subtle means as time goes on. China is the only one so far taking it to its logical conclusion: giving the outward appearance of doing everything properly while secretly discriminating against and sabotaging your opponent. Western democracies do this internally, but not to such a degree internationally (yet). And in fact they may not do it ever, because such tactics require an opaque bureaucratic system and large-scale centralized control that Western-style countries simply don't have.