4 ms·
I don't understand that argument. It sounds like you're saying that the way to get freer trade is for all parties to restrict trade, since "free trade has to wo
by baddox 6y ago
I don't understand that argument. It sounds like you're saying that the way to get freer trade is for all parties to restrict trade, since "free trade has to work both ways."
- zelphirkalt 6y agoI think that was exactly the intended irony of that comment.
- TulliusCicero 6y agoI'm saying free trade ought to be reciprocal. If one side is gaming the system by blocking foreign competitors while competing in those foreign markets, then that side should in turn be blocked until they're willing to change their tune. China can be allowed to compete in other markets when they allow others to compete in their market.
- baddox 6y agoThen the outcome is that a country can claim to support free trade while deliberately not supporting free trade, since "it's the other countries' fault."
- TulliusCicero 6y agoNo, they can't. If the US were to ban Chinese apps, and then China relented and allowed in American apps, and then the US kept the ban, that would make the hypocrisy clear. You could even made it explicit in the law, similar to what the EU is doing for travel reciprocity now that the coronavirus situation isn't as bad: have the text of the law explicitly say that the ban automatically lifts if the other country cooperates.
- baddox 6y agoThat’s exactly what I’m saying. To actually get free trade a country has to refuse to reciprocate in trade restrictions. This is my point, it’s not “free trade” for one country to match other countries’ restrictions on trade.
- TulliusCicero 6y agoSure, but it could pressure countries to actually engage in free trade.