4 ms·

The obvious lesson for any Western state is to formally protect its critical industries. Of course, some brain damaged opposite lesson will be taken, such as 'C

by 100011 7y ago

The obvious lesson for any Western state is to formally protect its critical industries. Of course, some brain damaged opposite lesson will be taken, such as 'China must liberalize'; good luck with that gents, LOL.

taeric 7y ago
Isn't that predicated on them having a lasting presence? That burning money can propel someone to the top seems given. Keeping them there, though? Granted, I would think some market protections would also make sense.
jimmy2020 7y ago
that's not how things work in free markets. Not even during the cold war.
- 100011 7y ago
  I wish you the best in trying to convince China of this abstraction called 'free markets', when mercantilism is working extremely well for them, as it did for Europe too. Free trade is installed intrastate in the Empire, such as British Empire with its colonies, but even during this era the externality that Empire projected was that of mercantilism such as East India Company adventures in China. As it is clear, 'free trade' is a weapon of the strong, and strong isn't a word to call US or Europe of 2019. Certainly nowhere near strong enough to force China for free trade regiment.
  - api 7y ago
    Another factor in China's rise is deciding to not care about the environment at all. Western nations spend quite a bit to have clean air, clean water, parks, etc. The cost comes in the form of more costly energy, raw materials, and waste disposal.
    - 100011 7y ago
      True. It's not like when NW Europe cared about pollution when it was gunning for the top of the world. And of course we in Europe and US are making loud noises about pollution after the fact we have made it, so to speak, 'big'. Like another poster pointed out, it's a rather sad attempt to 'pull away the ladder' from still rising nation(s) to use same means to climb the ladder as we in Europe/US did. I would believe much more into pollution talk by my dear leaders if 1. We were springing up nuclear reactors 2. Stopping third world immigration into Europe 3. Had concrete trade moratoriums against India and China. This would probably cause issues with US defense and military industries though, the situation is rather fragile [1] > [1] https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/americas-monopoly-crisis-hits-the-military/ https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/americas-mo...
    - jimmy2020 7y ago
      China's rise is about supremacy and the rise of concentration camps. That's it. https://apnews.com/4ab0b341a4ec4e648423f2ec47ea5c47 https://apnews.com/4ab0b341a4ec4e648423f2ec47ea5c47
      - dang 7y ago
        Please do not post nationalistic flamebait to HN. It leads to nationalistic flamewars, which are lame and all the same and nasty. We're trying for better than that here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - jimmy2020 7y ago
    > I wish you the best in trying to convince China of this abstraction called 'free markets'. Nobody can, that's why US imposing sanctions.
- GhettoMaestro 7y ago
  Yes it is you dunce. Boeing? Airbus? IBM? These were all semi-protected entities that enjoyed close ties to their respective governments. Neo-liberalism needs to be taken out back and shot in the face. It’s a god damn farce. Free markets are bullshit. China just doesn’t have the long-lived worship of it like we do. Thus, Huawei.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
sct202 7y ago
But should America for example support Nokia and Ericsson which are not American. Most of the major American telecom equipment companies were sold off to European companies after the telecom bubble burst.
- rdlecler1 7y ago
  Nokia and Ericsson are not government entities.
  - betaby 7y ago
    Neither Boeing or Airbus or Bombardier, yet they get astonishing amount of subsidies. Even smaller players get huge preferences.
    - GordonS 7y ago
      And not just subsidies either - I've read several accounts, going back decades, of how British and US spies have inserted themselves into Boeing and Airbus respectively, to steal IP and research to provide to Airbus and Boeing respectively, trying to give them an unfair advantage behind the scenes. The west complains about China stealing IP, but the west were doing the same long before the Chinese - the difference is the scale and brazenness of China's tactics, and indeed the vast success of those tactics.
      - goatinaboat 7y ago
        Well not quite. US/UK/France/Germany all steal IP from each other, but with China it’s asymmetric. It’s a one-way flow of unprecedented scale. And the former countries are allies and the alliance isn’t in any way weakened by this. Again with China it’s different.
- 100011 7y ago
  With US, NATO backing Ericsson/Nokia can be made trans-atlantic military alliance compliant 5G alternative that can rival Huawei. Currently, the above is not even a policy choice considered openly by Western governments, not that I know of. We are forfeiting technological lead in this domain despite US making the first big steps in same domain in WW II and later with state backing, history plays jokes like that I guess. Too many people are brain wormed by ideas stemming from liberal philosophies. China is not benevolent, they're rising power. They don't share same ideas of society as we do. Free markets haven't existed in hundreds of years. Yet all are influential ideas that stop us from addressing China realistically. Talk of bringing democracy to China for example is not realistic. The Communist Party has 90%+ acceptance rate by the populace.
Al-Khwarizmi 7y ago
US: "You must embrace the free market, open the markets, liberalize everything, avoid protectionism. It's better for you because it's more efficient, you will be richer, blah blah." Western countries: "OK." China: applies protectionism, obtains unprecedented growth, steamrolls markets US, Western countries: "Free market is obviously much better, protectionism and planned economies are inefficient and can't work, but... but... they're cheating!" At least the US acts in their own interest (anarchy, i.e. the free market, makes sense if you're the strongest). What's pathetic is that European countries believe all the neoliberal dogmatic BS when we don't even benefit from it.
- 100011 7y ago
  China is the monkey's paw to Western liberalism.
- JPKab 7y ago
  Do you really think the mercantilist model is sustainable in the long run? It seems to me that it works great for playing catch up, but only if there are nations willing to purchase your goods. China doesn't have the domestic market they could have if they hadn't weakened their currency by transferring wealth from savers to the exporters.
- yborg 7y ago
  Anything works when you are the strongest, the argument is greater good vs. individual gain. The mercantilist model works well when you are the only one executing it into a free market. If everyone is behaving in a protectionist manner, than it gives no advantage and (in theory) everyone in the market has lower growth. However, the 'strongest' parameter still applies, and we can see this right now with the tariff war between the US and China. The US still has the strongest economy at the moment, so the instant the US began behaving in a protectionist manner the Chinese suddenly became much more interested in (slightly more) serious negotiation. I actually don't fault China for executing their strategy, it certainly made logical sense and has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. I also don't fault Europe for executing their strategy and they have benefited from it - Europe was ravaged by wars over its history and one of the ways to avoid that was tight economic integration. Different circumstances require different strategies.
rjzzleep 7y ago
It's pretty much this. Except that the US seems to try backdoor subsidies, which isn't really addressing the core issue. There was a pretty good analysis of the whole thing about exactly this issue but I just can't remember where it was. I used to see the Ericsson guys once a year and they seemed to be pretty busy bragging about all the new 5G patents they have. https://www.sdxcentral.com/articles/news/us-eyes-nokia-ericsson-subsidies-to-fight-huawei/2019/10/ https://www.sdxcentral.com/articles/news/us-eyes-nokia-erics...

by 100011 7y ago

taeric 7y ago

Isn't that predicated on them having a lasting presence? That burning money can propel someone to the top seems given. Keeping them there, though? Granted, I would think some market protections would also make sense.

jimmy2020 7y ago

that's not how things work in free markets. Not even during the cold war.

100011 7y ago
I wish you the best in trying to convince China of this abstraction called 'free markets', when mercantilism is working extremely well for them, as it did for Europe too. Free trade is installed intrastate in the Empire, such as British Empire with its colonies, but even during this era the externality that Empire projected was that of mercantilism such as East India Company adventures in China. As it is clear, 'free trade' is a weapon of the strong, and strong isn't a word to call US or Europe of 2019. Certainly nowhere near strong enough to force China for free trade regiment.
- api 7y ago
  Another factor in China's rise is deciding to not care about the environment at all. Western nations spend quite a bit to have clean air, clean water, parks, etc. The cost comes in the form of more costly energy, raw materials, and waste disposal.
  - 100011 7y ago
    True. It's not like when NW Europe cared about pollution when it was gunning for the top of the world. And of course we in Europe and US are making loud noises about pollution after the fact we have made it, so to speak, 'big'. Like another poster pointed out, it's a rather sad attempt to 'pull away the ladder' from still rising nation(s) to use same means to climb the ladder as we in Europe/US did. I would believe much more into pollution talk by my dear leaders if 1. We were springing up nuclear reactors 2. Stopping third world immigration into Europe 3. Had concrete trade moratoriums against India and China. This would probably cause issues with US defense and military industries though, the situation is rather fragile [1] > [1] https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/americas-monopoly-crisis-hits-the-military/ https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/americas-mo...
  - jimmy2020 7y ago
    China's rise is about supremacy and the rise of concentration camps. That's it. https://apnews.com/4ab0b341a4ec4e648423f2ec47ea5c47 https://apnews.com/4ab0b341a4ec4e648423f2ec47ea5c47
    - dang 7y ago
      Please do not post nationalistic flamebait to HN. It leads to nationalistic flamewars, which are lame and all the same and nasty. We're trying for better than that here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- jimmy2020 7y ago
  > I wish you the best in trying to convince China of this abstraction called 'free markets'. Nobody can, that's why US imposing sanctions.
GhettoMaestro 7y ago
Yes it is you dunce. Boeing? Airbus? IBM? These were all semi-protected entities that enjoyed close ties to their respective governments. Neo-liberalism needs to be taken out back and shot in the face. It’s a god damn farce. Free markets are bullshit. China just doesn’t have the long-lived worship of it like we do. Thus, Huawei.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

sct202 7y ago

But should America for example support Nokia and Ericsson which are not American. Most of the major American telecom equipment companies were sold off to European companies after the telecom bubble burst.

rdlecler1 7y ago
Nokia and Ericsson are not government entities.
- betaby 7y ago
  Neither Boeing or Airbus or Bombardier, yet they get astonishing amount of subsidies. Even smaller players get huge preferences.
  - GordonS 7y ago
    And not just subsidies either - I've read several accounts, going back decades, of how British and US spies have inserted themselves into Boeing and Airbus respectively, to steal IP and research to provide to Airbus and Boeing respectively, trying to give them an unfair advantage behind the scenes. The west complains about China stealing IP, but the west were doing the same long before the Chinese - the difference is the scale and brazenness of China's tactics, and indeed the vast success of those tactics.
    - goatinaboat 7y ago
      Well not quite. US/UK/France/Germany all steal IP from each other, but with China it’s asymmetric. It’s a one-way flow of unprecedented scale. And the former countries are allies and the alliance isn’t in any way weakened by this. Again with China it’s different.
100011 7y ago
With US, NATO backing Ericsson/Nokia can be made trans-atlantic military alliance compliant 5G alternative that can rival Huawei. Currently, the above is not even a policy choice considered openly by Western governments, not that I know of. We are forfeiting technological lead in this domain despite US making the first big steps in same domain in WW II and later with state backing, history plays jokes like that I guess. Too many people are brain wormed by ideas stemming from liberal philosophies. China is not benevolent, they're rising power. They don't share same ideas of society as we do. Free markets haven't existed in hundreds of years. Yet all are influential ideas that stop us from addressing China realistically. Talk of bringing democracy to China for example is not realistic. The Communist Party has 90%+ acceptance rate by the populace.

Al-Khwarizmi 7y ago

US: "You must embrace the free market, open the markets, liberalize everything, avoid protectionism. It's better for you because it's more efficient, you will be richer, blah blah." Western countries: "OK." China: applies protectionism, obtains unprecedented growth, steamrolls markets US, Western countries: "Free market is obviously much better, protectionism and planned economies are inefficient and can't work, but... but... they're cheating!" At least the US acts in their own interest (anarchy, i.e. the free market, makes sense if you're the strongest). What's pathetic is that European countries believe all the neoliberal dogmatic BS when we don't even benefit from it.

100011 7y ago
China is the monkey's paw to Western liberalism.
JPKab 7y ago
Do you really think the mercantilist model is sustainable in the long run? It seems to me that it works great for playing catch up, but only if there are nations willing to purchase your goods. China doesn't have the domestic market they could have if they hadn't weakened their currency by transferring wealth from savers to the exporters.
yborg 7y ago
Anything works when you are the strongest, the argument is greater good vs. individual gain. The mercantilist model works well when you are the only one executing it into a free market. If everyone is behaving in a protectionist manner, than it gives no advantage and (in theory) everyone in the market has lower growth. However, the 'strongest' parameter still applies, and we can see this right now with the tariff war between the US and China. The US still has the strongest economy at the moment, so the instant the US began behaving in a protectionist manner the Chinese suddenly became much more interested in (slightly more) serious negotiation. I actually don't fault China for executing their strategy, it certainly made logical sense and has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. I also don't fault Europe for executing their strategy and they have benefited from it - Europe was ravaged by wars over its history and one of the ways to avoid that was tight economic integration. Different circumstances require different strategies.

rjzzleep 7y ago

It's pretty much this. Except that the US seems to try backdoor subsidies, which isn't really addressing the core issue. There was a pretty good analysis of the whole thing about exactly this issue but I just can't remember where it was. I used to see the Ericsson guys once a year and they seemed to be pretty busy bragging about all the new 5G patents they have. https://www.sdxcentral.com/articles/news/us-eyes-nokia-ericsson-subsidies-to-fight-huawei/2019/10/ https://www.sdxcentral.com/articles/news/us-eyes-nokia-erics...