4 ms·

> This seems reasonable Does it? The U.S went to wars, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians to force open markets to its products, it has been preaching

> This seems reasonable Does it? The U.S went to wars, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians to force open markets to its products, it has been preaching the free market mantra for decades. Regardless of everything else about China, they're now starting to make some actually compelling products so the U.S is acting out. I know the argument is that Chinese companies are just an extension of the state, but you could say the same in reverse about the U.S. I just assumed it's going to be more subtle than this, as an EU citizen, this sends a clear signal to me that the EU is only an 'ally' as long as it keeps buying American products.

tolqen 7y ago
> I know the argument is that Chinese companies are just an extension of the state, but you could say the same in reverse about the U.S What
- AstralStorm 7y ago
  The US state being an extension of US companies, thanks to all the lobbying, collusion and some underhanded moves.
- pinkfoot 7y ago
  I think a good argument can be made that Lockheed Martin and Boeing are extensions of the USG.
- chrischen 7y ago
  The US and citizens, even without direct stock, are beneficial owners of US companies because they contribute to the economy and livelihood of the local economy... that and National Security Letters.
- simion314 7y ago
  Also US started wars , military actions or changed the governments around the world,spied(maybe assassinations - I would apreciate someone if knows of a good example of this) , pushed international law for the interest of the big companies(aka for money) ex the banana wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_Wars Also the government will intervene on the internal market too with money,subsidies, regulations,exceptions to help the big companies, in t he end the state and big companies are in a long relationship and there is no way you can deny this just ways you can try to find arguments that is fair and honest.
ekc 7y ago
They are running rival concentration camps, I can't imagine the competition is welcome.
DollarGuru 7y ago
Since the US gained global dominance post WW2 with the Marshall plan I don't think the US has ever really been that subtle about maintaining capitalist free market dominance. As you say, now that China is producing compelling products the US is flexing a bit more because it sees a serious non ally threat to US interests. The biggest shame of it is that it is so unfortunate that China isn't more politically and legally upstanding and morally respectable like Europe is.
- _iyig 7y ago
  I think you have cause and effect mixed up. The U.S. became a postwar economic superpower not because of the Marshall Plan, but because its chief competitors in Europe and the Pacific had utterly ruined one another’s economies after years of total war. Meanwhile, the United States’ manufacturing capacity had continued to expand. The Marshall Plan certainly exposed Europeans to more American products, especially Hollywood and pop culture. However, the majority of Marshall Plan funds were given as grants, not loans - ultimately, even to Germany. American capital did not come to own and exploit Western Europe. On the contrary, one of the Marshall Plan’s main effects was to reduce intra-Europe trade barriers, setting the stage for the E.E.C. and later, the European Union. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan
  - DollarGuru 7y ago
    I misworded my comment, I meant that the Marshall Plan was the first obvious act in their own corporate self interest. You can't sell anything to people with no money. How much do you think the Marshall plan accelerated the repair and growth of Europe?
    - _iyig 7y ago
      >How much do you think the Marshall plan accelerated the repair and growth of Europe? I’m not sure what you expect me to say. I think the academic consensus is, “by a lot.” I think the immediate European reaction was also, “it’s great that we’ve rebuilt our own means of production with generous outside assistance, while retaining ownership and without accruing huge debts.” I’m a little confused. What was the nefarious aspect of the Marshall Plan? Why was it bad to help Germans rebuild Volkswagen factories, in order that they might trade things Americans want for things that Germans want?
_iyig 7y ago
>The U.S went to wars, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians to force open markets to its products This is a standard Marxist explanation for U.S. overseas military intervention [0]. It is also largely wrong. Let’s look at the data. After 16 years of obscenely expensive American intervention in Iraq, that country exports more to China than the U.S., and imports more from China and Turkey together than from all other trade partners combined [1]. Likewise, Afghanistan today imports almost nothing from the U.S., but relies heavily on exports from China and Iran - two major U.S. competitors [2]. This is, of course, geographical common sense. If anything, recent U.S. wars have opened new markets for China, their number one geopolitical competitor. Looking further back, Germany, Japan, and South Korea have all developed into financially independent trading partners. Far from U.S. capital dominating Japan, Americans were afraid for quite some time that Japanese cars, electronics, and industrial equipment would completely displace their American equivalents. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_explanations_of_warfare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_explanations_of_warfar... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Iraq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Iraq [2] http://stat.wto.org/CountryProfile/WSDBCountryPFView.aspx?Language=E&Country=AF http://stat.wto.org/CountryProfile/WSDBCountryPFView.aspx?La...
- AsyncAwait 7y ago
  > After 16 years of obscenely expensive American intervention in Iraq, that country exports more to China than the U.S. and imports more from China and Turkey together than from all other trade partners combined [0]. Likewise, Afghanistan today imports almost nothing from the U.S. but relies heavily on exports from China and Iran U.S military contractors got handsomely rich off both Afghanistan and Iraq and both nations are almost exclusively importing American military equipment. As for civilian items, the average income of an Afghan/Iraqi civilian is not enough to afford American products, but just because not every U.S economic sector benefited does not mean it wasn't worth it for the likes of Raytheon. As for Iran being very close to Iraq now, that certainly wasn't the plan, is just that there are other players in the world making moves and reacting to U.S. ones and sometimes they come out on top, particularly if they happen to understand the local political dynamic better, because they're actually from the area.

tolqen 7y ago

> I know the argument is that Chinese companies are just an extension of the state, but you could say the same in reverse about the U.S What

AstralStorm 7y ago
The US state being an extension of US companies, thanks to all the lobbying, collusion and some underhanded moves.
pinkfoot 7y ago
I think a good argument can be made that Lockheed Martin and Boeing are extensions of the USG.
chrischen 7y ago
The US and citizens, even without direct stock, are beneficial owners of US companies because they contribute to the economy and livelihood of the local economy... that and National Security Letters.
simion314 7y ago
Also US started wars , military actions or changed the governments around the world,spied(maybe assassinations - I would apreciate someone if knows of a good example of this) , pushed international law for the interest of the big companies(aka for money) ex the banana wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_Wars Also the government will intervene on the internal market too with money,subsidies, regulations,exceptions to help the big companies, in t he end the state and big companies are in a long relationship and there is no way you can deny this just ways you can try to find arguments that is fair and honest.

ekc 7y ago

They are running rival concentration camps, I can't imagine the competition is welcome.

DollarGuru 7y ago

Since the US gained global dominance post WW2 with the Marshall plan I don't think the US has ever really been that subtle about maintaining capitalist free market dominance. As you say, now that China is producing compelling products the US is flexing a bit more because it sees a serious non ally threat to US interests. The biggest shame of it is that it is so unfortunate that China isn't more politically and legally upstanding and morally respectable like Europe is.

_iyig 7y ago
I think you have cause and effect mixed up. The U.S. became a postwar economic superpower not because of the Marshall Plan, but because its chief competitors in Europe and the Pacific had utterly ruined one another’s economies after years of total war. Meanwhile, the United States’ manufacturing capacity had continued to expand. The Marshall Plan certainly exposed Europeans to more American products, especially Hollywood and pop culture. However, the majority of Marshall Plan funds were given as grants, not loans - ultimately, even to Germany. American capital did not come to own and exploit Western Europe. On the contrary, one of the Marshall Plan’s main effects was to reduce intra-Europe trade barriers, setting the stage for the E.E.C. and later, the European Union. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan
- DollarGuru 7y ago
  I misworded my comment, I meant that the Marshall Plan was the first obvious act in their own corporate self interest. You can't sell anything to people with no money. How much do you think the Marshall plan accelerated the repair and growth of Europe?
  - _iyig 7y ago
    >How much do you think the Marshall plan accelerated the repair and growth of Europe? I’m not sure what you expect me to say. I think the academic consensus is, “by a lot.” I think the immediate European reaction was also, “it’s great that we’ve rebuilt our own means of production with generous outside assistance, while retaining ownership and without accruing huge debts.” I’m a little confused. What was the nefarious aspect of the Marshall Plan? Why was it bad to help Germans rebuild Volkswagen factories, in order that they might trade things Americans want for things that Germans want?

_iyig 7y ago

>The U.S went to wars, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians to force open markets to its products This is a standard Marxist explanation for U.S. overseas military intervention [0]. It is also largely wrong. Let’s look at the data. After 16 years of obscenely expensive American intervention in Iraq, that country exports more to China than the U.S., and imports more from China and Turkey together than from all other trade partners combined [1]. Likewise, Afghanistan today imports almost nothing from the U.S., but relies heavily on exports from China and Iran - two major U.S. competitors [2]. This is, of course, geographical common sense. If anything, recent U.S. wars have opened new markets for China, their number one geopolitical competitor. Looking further back, Germany, Japan, and South Korea have all developed into financially independent trading partners. Far from U.S. capital dominating Japan, Americans were afraid for quite some time that Japanese cars, electronics, and industrial equipment would completely displace their American equivalents. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_explanations_of_warfare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_explanations_of_warfar... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Iraq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Iraq [2] http://stat.wto.org/CountryProfile/WSDBCountryPFView.aspx?Language=E&Country=AF http://stat.wto.org/CountryProfile/WSDBCountryPFView.aspx?La...

AsyncAwait 7y ago
> After 16 years of obscenely expensive American intervention in Iraq, that country exports more to China than the U.S. and imports more from China and Turkey together than from all other trade partners combined [0]. Likewise, Afghanistan today imports almost nothing from the U.S. but relies heavily on exports from China and Iran U.S military contractors got handsomely rich off both Afghanistan and Iraq and both nations are almost exclusively importing American military equipment. As for civilian items, the average income of an Afghan/Iraqi civilian is not enough to afford American products, but just because not every U.S economic sector benefited does not mean it wasn't worth it for the likes of Raytheon. As for Iran being very close to Iraq now, that certainly wasn't the plan, is just that there are other players in the world making moves and reacting to U.S. ones and sometimes they come out on top, particularly if they happen to understand the local political dynamic better, because they're actually from the area.