4 ms·

What is the end game here? I can't figure out if they want to cripple Huawei, which seems unlikely to succeed, or if this is some sort of negotiatong tactic as

What is the end game here? I can't figure out if they want to cripple Huawei, which seems unlikely to succeed, or if this is some sort of negotiatong tactic as part of some bigger geopolitical game.

toomuchtodo 7y ago
Both. It’s meant to be punitive for past transgressions related to trade (which is a complex issue beyond the scale of a single thread) and send a message for future interactions.
- h0l0cube 7y ago
  > punitive for past transgressions related to trade You can take the morality out of it. This is simply two adversaries in a power play.
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    IP and patent theft is a legal, not moral, issue. Examples of theft of Western intellectual property by China is trivially available, and requires no enumeration here.
    - h0l0cube 7y ago
      Property rights are a moral concern, though of obvious financial import. But as far as I'm aware, the trade war is not premised on increased enforcement of property rights in China, but on the trade deficit.
      - DeonPenny 7y ago
        A trade deficit that people believe was created using unfair trading practice which includes the violation of Property rights among many other
        h0l0cube 7y ago
        As far as I'm aware, at the behest of it's trading partners, China had already made strides to implement IP laws prior to the trade war. Once again, the goal of the trade war isn't to improve China's engagement with it's trade partners, which can be achieved through bi-lateral trade agreements, but to address the growing power of China. Edit: To clarify my own opinions, I'd be really happy for a trade war if it's objective was to change China's policies. If China grows unimpeded with the same human rights, and lack of enforcement of IP laws, it means the whole world would have to compete on the same terms. This would mean a degradation of human rights in first-world countries in the long run.
        elp 7y ago
        No one outside of the US actually believes that. This is nothing but a trade war. Its going to be an interesting fight to watch, but I suspect that by the time this ends the US will have lost more than it will have gained.
  - DeonPenny 7y ago
    Its not morality> Fair play in trade and the undermining of that will obviously have ripple effects. Why would anyone trust anyone else in trade if this snowballs
justin66 7y ago
> I can't figure out if they want to cripple Huawei, which seems unlikely to succeed, or if this is some sort of negotiatong tactic as part of some bigger geopolitical game. Is there anything about recent US trade policy that suggests to you a well thought out, long-term strategy?
DeonPenny 7y ago
Seems extremely likely to succeed. It comes back to China challenging its information apparatus. Who cares about the economy if china figures out a way around that.

What is the end game here? I can't figure out if they want to cripple Huawei, which seems unlikely to succeed, or if this is some sort of negotiatong tactic as part of some bigger geopolitical game.

toomuchtodo 7y ago

Both. It’s meant to be punitive for past transgressions related to trade (which is a complex issue beyond the scale of a single thread) and send a message for future interactions.

h0l0cube 7y ago
> punitive for past transgressions related to trade You can take the morality out of it. This is simply two adversaries in a power play.
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  IP and patent theft is a legal, not moral, issue. Examples of theft of Western intellectual property by China is trivially available, and requires no enumeration here.
  - h0l0cube 7y ago
    Property rights are a moral concern, though of obvious financial import. But as far as I'm aware, the trade war is not premised on increased enforcement of property rights in China, but on the trade deficit.
    - DeonPenny 7y ago
      A trade deficit that people believe was created using unfair trading practice which includes the violation of Property rights among many other
      - h0l0cube 7y ago
        As far as I'm aware, at the behest of it's trading partners, China had already made strides to implement IP laws prior to the trade war. Once again, the goal of the trade war isn't to improve China's engagement with it's trade partners, which can be achieved through bi-lateral trade agreements, but to address the growing power of China. Edit: To clarify my own opinions, I'd be really happy for a trade war if it's objective was to change China's policies. If China grows unimpeded with the same human rights, and lack of enforcement of IP laws, it means the whole world would have to compete on the same terms. This would mean a degradation of human rights in first-world countries in the long run.
      - elp 7y ago
        No one outside of the US actually believes that. This is nothing but a trade war. Its going to be an interesting fight to watch, but I suspect that by the time this ends the US will have lost more than it will have gained.
- DeonPenny 7y ago
  Its not morality> Fair play in trade and the undermining of that will obviously have ripple effects. Why would anyone trust anyone else in trade if this snowballs

justin66 7y ago

> I can't figure out if they want to cripple Huawei, which seems unlikely to succeed, or if this is some sort of negotiatong tactic as part of some bigger geopolitical game. Is there anything about recent US trade policy that suggests to you a well thought out, long-term strategy?

DeonPenny 7y ago

Seems extremely likely to succeed. It comes back to China challenging its information apparatus. Who cares about the economy if china figures out a way around that.