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? 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.
  - FooBarWidget 6y ago
    I agree with the abstract idea of fairness, having rules, etc. But the devil lies in the implementation. A dogmatic free trade order mainly benefits the establishment: the western powers. If China adopts free trade principles in a dogmatic manner then they will be tremendously hurt by it. And it's not like the US plays very fair either: the US outright rejects a lot of international rules. For example there is a US law that declares they will invade the Netherlands if a US person is ever judged by the International Court of Justice. http://www.diplomatmagazine.eu/2019/02/09/william-pace-the-hague-invasion-act-remains-dangerous/ http://www.diplomatmagazine.eu/2019/02/09/william-pace-the-h... Having ideals is a fine thing but we need to stay realistic. Is it at all possible to create rules that benefit everybody, given that countries differ in development status, culture, values, etc? I have no idea. We can try, we should try, but don't get too surprised if things fall apart sometimes, and when things fall apart it's unhelpful to point fingers.
    - DSingularity 6y ago
      Love your answers. Agree 100%. Personally, I would emphasize that figuring out this “fairness” question is of utmost importance in an age of intertwined interests across nations. Those in positions of dominance risk their power when they ignore these questions. Unfair practices can increase dominance in the short-term but what happens in the long-term when more and more people recognize the practice as unfair? What happens when we get to a point where most of the world consider western nations/corporations to be stewards/enablers of oppression and injustice?
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

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.
- FooBarWidget 6y ago
  I agree with the abstract idea of fairness, having rules, etc. But the devil lies in the implementation. A dogmatic free trade order mainly benefits the establishment: the western powers. If China adopts free trade principles in a dogmatic manner then they will be tremendously hurt by it. And it's not like the US plays very fair either: the US outright rejects a lot of international rules. For example there is a US law that declares they will invade the Netherlands if a US person is ever judged by the International Court of Justice. http://www.diplomatmagazine.eu/2019/02/09/william-pace-the-hague-invasion-act-remains-dangerous/ http://www.diplomatmagazine.eu/2019/02/09/william-pace-the-h... Having ideals is a fine thing but we need to stay realistic. Is it at all possible to create rules that benefit everybody, given that countries differ in development status, culture, values, etc? I have no idea. We can try, we should try, but don't get too surprised if things fall apart sometimes, and when things fall apart it's unhelpful to point fingers.
  - DSingularity 6y ago
    Love your answers. Agree 100%. Personally, I would emphasize that figuring out this “fairness” question is of utmost importance in an age of intertwined interests across nations. Those in positions of dominance risk their power when they ignore these questions. Unfair practices can increase dominance in the short-term but what happens in the long-term when more and more people recognize the practice as unfair? What happens when we get to a point where most of the world consider western nations/corporations to be stewards/enablers of oppression and injustice?

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