4 ms·

Wait a minute... You're pretending like trade is only "fair" if selling happens in both directions. Doesn't that fly directly in the face of what trade means?

Wait a minute... You're pretending like trade is only "fair" if selling happens in both directions. Doesn't that fly directly in the face of what trade means? You buy something, but you get value in return. That's why it's not called "donation". If the thing you bought is not valuable to you then why did you buy it in the first place? Also, there is all this talk about "forced" tech transfers, but nobody forced US companies at gunpoint. US companies always had the choice to not enter the China market. They signed tech tranfer contracts, willingly, because they think the upsides (gaining a new market) are higher than the downsides, or that the downsides are manageable. The fact is, companies made a choice. And now the US government is making that choice for them? From a national supply chain security or technology hegemony point of view it makes sense to deny certain transfers, but let's recognize that this is just geopolitics and not about ethics, fairness, etc. The rherotic about fairness just doesn't make sense upon further scrutiny. If the US government doesn't fully believe in free market, why not just go ahead and say so instead of all the mental gymnastics?

fermienrico 6y ago
> Wait a minute... You're pretending like trade is only "fair" if selling happens in both directions. Doesn't that fly directly in the face of what trade means? I am confused by your question. How is this relevant to anti-competitive behavior of the CCP? > You buy something, but you get value in return. That's why it's not called "donation". If the thing you bought is not valuable to you then why did you buy it in the first place? Again, what does your patronizing clarification have to do with competitive marketplace where all parties can play fair? I am genuinely asking instead of just raising rhetorical questions. Literally the first line on Free Trade wikipedia page [1] says: "Free trade is a trade policy that does not restrict imports or exports." I thought I was talking about "Free Trade" as in freely be able to compete in China just as local companies. Perhaps there was a misunderstanding? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade
- FooBarWidget 6y ago
  Those were genuine questions, not patronizing. I just don't agree with the characterization that things are "unfair". I don't see how you can recognize that buying means getting value in return while still talking about fairness at the same time. The fairness is already embedded in the very transaction! You talk about anti-competitiveness, but isn't that just a matter of perspective and not an absolute moral high ground? When Microsoft was accused of anti-competitive behavior, it was because Microsoft used existing cash and influence to squat smaller parties like flies and gain dominance. In the same manner, we can argue that Facebook could squat other smaller social media networks in China as flies because Facebook was already big, and thus Facebook would be the one being anti-competitive. I won't argue with you about US interests. But I can't agree with taking the moral high ground. > "Free trade is a trade policy that does not restrict imports or exports." You can argue that China is not engaging fully in the free trade principle. But in my opinion it still doesn't make sense to turn this into a moral high ground thing, because all countries have import and export controls to some extent, because in the end all countries look after their interests. And not everybody agrees that the free trade principle is a good thing (note: this is not my personal opinion). See the rise of populism in Europe, and the number of people who yell that the Poles or refugees or whatever are "stealing our jobs". Now that I think about it, don't you have the same issue with US people complaining about Mexicans? Turning this into a moral issue is, in my opinion, a childish view of how the work works. I am saying: let's recognize that this is plain geopolitics and interests, and not about morals.
  - fermienrico 6y ago
    I think I want to explore something related to morality - what is the end game of humans? If the end game is to fallback on tribal instincts and identity, then we are easily equiped to assure mutual destruction. If the end game is to keep inventing bigger, better, faster, cheaper things and climb on the technology ladder enabled by the machinery of competition, then there has to be fairness built into the rulebook. One can't come in an tear pages off that benefit their own and lead demise of the other - all players notice the one who is not playing by the rulebook, not just the immediate opponent in the arena. One need not go too far to find it in the fabric of the human spirit (and even some monkeys), from market economy to PubG servers, people expect fairness and equal opportunity.
- DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
  The South Korean development economist Ha-Joon Chang has an analogy about this idea of "fairness" in international trade: Saying that free trade between a developed and undeveloped country is "fair" is like saying that a boxing match between a heavyweight and a featherweight is "fair." We recognize that "fairness" in boxing and other sports requires things like weight classes. The same goes for trade between countries at very different levels of economic development. Developed, undeveloped and developing countries should not have identical policies. Most countries that are developed today got to where they are using protectionist policies. Ha-Joon Chang explains his views in this talk: https://youtu.be/T5-ojv5-b3U https://youtu.be/T5-ojv5-b3U
ngcc_hk 6y ago
You cannot sell certain service to china. That is not fair.
- the_mitsuhiko 6y ago
  That’s true for all countries though in some capacity.
  - microcolonel 6y ago
    Here in Canada we should do away with our import controls on dairy as well. Advocates say it has to do with dairy quality standards, but that body of laws is completely separate from the one that institutes "supply management".
  - koheripbal 6y ago
    Right - and it's unfair to the degree that it is true. For China it is MASSIVELY unfair - far far more than any other industrialized economy.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  India has a significant number of restrictions on free trade, and they are a functional democracy. So maybe its unfair to us, but its a democratic choice. Further consider the advantage US has from being the center of global finance, and having many generations of wealth accumation compared to India and China being recent colonies and having recent devastating wars. Is that trade policy still unfair taking those variables in account
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Canada tried selling planes to the US, we got hit by 200% tariffs.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

fermienrico 6y ago

> Wait a minute... You're pretending like trade is only "fair" if selling happens in both directions. Doesn't that fly directly in the face of what trade means? I am confused by your question. How is this relevant to anti-competitive behavior of the CCP? > You buy something, but you get value in return. That's why it's not called "donation". If the thing you bought is not valuable to you then why did you buy it in the first place? Again, what does your patronizing clarification have to do with competitive marketplace where all parties can play fair? I am genuinely asking instead of just raising rhetorical questions. Literally the first line on Free Trade wikipedia page [1] says: "Free trade is a trade policy that does not restrict imports or exports." I thought I was talking about "Free Trade" as in freely be able to compete in China just as local companies. Perhaps there was a misunderstanding? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade

FooBarWidget 6y ago
Those were genuine questions, not patronizing. I just don't agree with the characterization that things are "unfair". I don't see how you can recognize that buying means getting value in return while still talking about fairness at the same time. The fairness is already embedded in the very transaction! You talk about anti-competitiveness, but isn't that just a matter of perspective and not an absolute moral high ground? When Microsoft was accused of anti-competitive behavior, it was because Microsoft used existing cash and influence to squat smaller parties like flies and gain dominance. In the same manner, we can argue that Facebook could squat other smaller social media networks in China as flies because Facebook was already big, and thus Facebook would be the one being anti-competitive. I won't argue with you about US interests. But I can't agree with taking the moral high ground. > "Free trade is a trade policy that does not restrict imports or exports." You can argue that China is not engaging fully in the free trade principle. But in my opinion it still doesn't make sense to turn this into a moral high ground thing, because all countries have import and export controls to some extent, because in the end all countries look after their interests. And not everybody agrees that the free trade principle is a good thing (note: this is not my personal opinion). See the rise of populism in Europe, and the number of people who yell that the Poles or refugees or whatever are "stealing our jobs". Now that I think about it, don't you have the same issue with US people complaining about Mexicans? Turning this into a moral issue is, in my opinion, a childish view of how the work works. I am saying: let's recognize that this is plain geopolitics and interests, and not about morals.
- fermienrico 6y ago
  I think I want to explore something related to morality - what is the end game of humans? If the end game is to fallback on tribal instincts and identity, then we are easily equiped to assure mutual destruction. If the end game is to keep inventing bigger, better, faster, cheaper things and climb on the technology ladder enabled by the machinery of competition, then there has to be fairness built into the rulebook. One can't come in an tear pages off that benefit their own and lead demise of the other - all players notice the one who is not playing by the rulebook, not just the immediate opponent in the arena. One need not go too far to find it in the fabric of the human spirit (and even some monkeys), from market economy to PubG servers, people expect fairness and equal opportunity.
DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
The South Korean development economist Ha-Joon Chang has an analogy about this idea of "fairness" in international trade: Saying that free trade between a developed and undeveloped country is "fair" is like saying that a boxing match between a heavyweight and a featherweight is "fair." We recognize that "fairness" in boxing and other sports requires things like weight classes. The same goes for trade between countries at very different levels of economic development. Developed, undeveloped and developing countries should not have identical policies. Most countries that are developed today got to where they are using protectionist policies. Ha-Joon Chang explains his views in this talk: https://youtu.be/T5-ojv5-b3U https://youtu.be/T5-ojv5-b3U

ngcc_hk 6y ago

You cannot sell certain service to china. That is not fair.

the_mitsuhiko 6y ago
That’s true for all countries though in some capacity.
- microcolonel 6y ago
  Here in Canada we should do away with our import controls on dairy as well. Advocates say it has to do with dairy quality standards, but that body of laws is completely separate from the one that institutes "supply management".
- koheripbal 6y ago
  Right - and it's unfair to the degree that it is true. For China it is MASSIVELY unfair - far far more than any other industrialized economy.
ClumsyPilot 6y ago
India has a significant number of restrictions on free trade, and they are a functional democracy. So maybe its unfair to us, but its a democratic choice. Further consider the advantage US has from being the center of global finance, and having many generations of wealth accumation compared to India and China being recent colonies and having recent devastating wars. Is that trade policy still unfair taking those variables in account
sudosysgen 6y ago
Canada tried selling planes to the US, we got hit by 200% tariffs.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]