5 ms·

There is so much to unpack here that it's difficult to even get started. The US government has encouraged companies to work with China for decades. I remember i

There is so much to unpack here that it's difficult to even get started. The US government has encouraged companies to work with China for decades. I remember it being big news when GM opened a joint venture in China in 1997. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAIC-GM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAIC-GM The Clinton administration pushed hard to increase trade with China and make it easier for American companies to outsource manufacturing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States%E2%80%93China_Relations_Act_of_2000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States%E2%80%93China_Re... This continued unabated through the Bush and Obama presidencies, even as it became increasingly clear that US relations with China were going off the rails. There were significant signs that the Chinese government was not playing fair, particularly around IP theft, but the legislative and executive branches did nothing visible about it. Hundreds or thousands of American companies (including google) were hacked into or had intellectual property stolen with no legal recourse. https://www.thedailybeast.com/fbi-probes-hundreds-of-china-spy-cases https://www.thedailybeast.com/fbi-probes-hundreds-of-china-s... Chinese military groups also hacked into the employee database for the US federal government. https://abcnews.go.com/US/exclusive-25-million-affected-opm-hack-sources/story?id=32332731 https://abcnews.go.com/US/exclusive-25-million-affected-opm-... Tech companies, like google, are acutely aware that the current Chinese government is extremely capricious and will block an entire company from the country to incubate their own competitor. Many tech companies want to work in china, but of major american companies, they seem to be the most cautious. Given all this context, for Barr to turn around and say that US tech companies are "pawns" is infuriating. Virtually every large american company needs clear laws on working with China. They are not getting those laws out of Congress or the Justice Department, and everyone is the worse for it.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
muleroid 6y ago
Historically the US trade relationship with China was based on a principal that doing so would encourage the adoption of democracy there. Seeing as how that hasn't happened, this kind of rhetoric could just be an attempt to course correct (maybe overly so). I'm sure the upcoming elections also play a part in this. The article briefly mentions that as well.
- Aunche 6y ago
  Encouraging the adoption of democracy is never a true goal to any geopolitical decision. It's only used to deflect criticism from naysayers. The US has used the same justification to bomb nations and install fascist dictators. "You oppose going to war with Iraq? So you hate democracy then?"
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    In China's case, "spreading democracy" just meant "remove from Soviet sphere." We broadly used the same term at the same time to open trade with China and fight the Vietnam War.
    - smegger001 6y ago
      the sino-soviet split happened long before we started off shoring to china
      - boomboomsubban 6y ago
        I didn't mention off shoring? Not sure what your point is.
  - muleroid 6y ago
    For sure, it's much easier to sell any decision if you package it in terms of values and ideals that your population is willing to embrace. It's as true for the US as it is any other country in the world.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - jimclegg 6y ago
    Exporting our broken form of governing, which is rife with corruption, mismanagement, unresponsive to the majority of the population, and defaults to redirecting money from the poorest to the richest, is the goal of western monopoly capital. Basically "Our broken system allowed capital to rob 400 million people, let's utilize it in robbing 1.4 billion Chinese people next..." Any idea that the American and European elite are pushing this for "benevolent purposes" flies in the face of a few centuries of well documented western history.
jerrac 6y ago
> Virtually every large american company needs clear laws on working with China. I partially agree. Yes, the Federal government should heavily regulate trade with China. But companies don't need to wait on the Government to do what is right. Companies could have ignored any Government push to do business in China. Outsourcing ethics to Government regulation is just plain wrong.
- cgriswald 6y ago
  It seems it's been a necessary course of action over the course of the last two centuries regardless of the morality of it.
- linuxftw 6y ago
  > Companies could have ignored any Government push to do business in China. The corporations are the ones that wanted it.
- thephyber 6y ago
  > Outsourcing ethics to Government regulation is just plain wrong. This is a category error. Companies have an existential incentive to chase profits (and their managers can be sued by the shareholders for doing anything less). Their incentive to avoid violating laws, morals, and ethics is far lower. > is just plain wrong What is the consequence? Does anyone in the USA strictly avoid buying anything from any company with dubious ethics? We all have knee-jerk reactions to outrage, but where we either (1) don't have enough transparency to know or (2) don't have reasonable alternatives, there is no ability for individual non-governmental entities to shape those incentives. The closest we get are internet mobs organizing boycotts, but lots of people reject that method for completely rational reasons.
  - jerrac 6y ago
    > This is a category error. Companies have an existential incentive to chase profits (and their managers can be sued by the shareholders for doing anything less). Their incentive to avoid violating laws, morals, and ethics is far lower. Holding firm to a strong sense of ethics and morals is a risky thing to do. Whether you're representing a company, or just acting as an individual. But that risk does not justify NOT holding firm. So, if you run a company, and you're afraid of getting sued by your shareholders for not pursuing profit at the expense of your ethics and morals, I'd suggest finding a new job. Or, just maybe, your shareholders aren't so blinded by greed that they would not support your company doing what is right.
reaperducer 6y ago
I remember it being big news when GM opened a joint venture in China in 1997. Things change. The world has changed since 1997. China has changed since 1997. In 1942 Germany was the enemy. Today, Germany is our friend.
- rfrey 6y ago
  > Today, Germany is our friend. That may have been true a few years ago. The way the US is treating its allies, I'm not sure what the state of the "friendships" are anymore.
- csharptwdec19 6y ago
  > Things change. The world has changed since 1997. China has changed since 1997. And yet the 2003 Chery QQ was such a copy of the Chevy Spark that you could pull a door off the QQ, put it on the Spark, and the air seals were fine.
Fjolsvith 6y ago
There's broader context to all this. The central banks knew that their system would break down eventually due to inflation, and so one way to extend its life was to offshore manufacturing to make products cheaper and more affordable on a weaker dollar. To keep everything from imploding on America, manufacturing had to be wrested from China at the same time the Federal Reserve was shut down.
cheaprentalyeti 6y ago
So Barr should not be allowed to turn around and say all the bad decisions we made over the past thirty years were bad decisions?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

muleroid 6y ago

Historically the US trade relationship with China was based on a principal that doing so would encourage the adoption of democracy there. Seeing as how that hasn't happened, this kind of rhetoric could just be an attempt to course correct (maybe overly so). I'm sure the upcoming elections also play a part in this. The article briefly mentions that as well.

Aunche 6y ago
Encouraging the adoption of democracy is never a true goal to any geopolitical decision. It's only used to deflect criticism from naysayers. The US has used the same justification to bomb nations and install fascist dictators. "You oppose going to war with Iraq? So you hate democracy then?"
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  In China's case, "spreading democracy" just meant "remove from Soviet sphere." We broadly used the same term at the same time to open trade with China and fight the Vietnam War.
  - smegger001 6y ago
    the sino-soviet split happened long before we started off shoring to china
    - boomboomsubban 6y ago
      I didn't mention off shoring? Not sure what your point is.
- muleroid 6y ago
  For sure, it's much easier to sell any decision if you package it in terms of values and ideals that your population is willing to embrace. It's as true for the US as it is any other country in the world.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- jimclegg 6y ago
  Exporting our broken form of governing, which is rife with corruption, mismanagement, unresponsive to the majority of the population, and defaults to redirecting money from the poorest to the richest, is the goal of western monopoly capital. Basically "Our broken system allowed capital to rob 400 million people, let's utilize it in robbing 1.4 billion Chinese people next..." Any idea that the American and European elite are pushing this for "benevolent purposes" flies in the face of a few centuries of well documented western history.

jerrac 6y ago

> Virtually every large american company needs clear laws on working with China. I partially agree. Yes, the Federal government should heavily regulate trade with China. But companies don't need to wait on the Government to do what is right. Companies could have ignored any Government push to do business in China. Outsourcing ethics to Government regulation is just plain wrong.

cgriswald 6y ago
It seems it's been a necessary course of action over the course of the last two centuries regardless of the morality of it.
linuxftw 6y ago
> Companies could have ignored any Government push to do business in China. The corporations are the ones that wanted it.
thephyber 6y ago
> Outsourcing ethics to Government regulation is just plain wrong. This is a category error. Companies have an existential incentive to chase profits (and their managers can be sued by the shareholders for doing anything less). Their incentive to avoid violating laws, morals, and ethics is far lower. > is just plain wrong What is the consequence? Does anyone in the USA strictly avoid buying anything from any company with dubious ethics? We all have knee-jerk reactions to outrage, but where we either (1) don't have enough transparency to know or (2) don't have reasonable alternatives, there is no ability for individual non-governmental entities to shape those incentives. The closest we get are internet mobs organizing boycotts, but lots of people reject that method for completely rational reasons.
- jerrac 6y ago
  > This is a category error. Companies have an existential incentive to chase profits (and their managers can be sued by the shareholders for doing anything less). Their incentive to avoid violating laws, morals, and ethics is far lower. Holding firm to a strong sense of ethics and morals is a risky thing to do. Whether you're representing a company, or just acting as an individual. But that risk does not justify NOT holding firm. So, if you run a company, and you're afraid of getting sued by your shareholders for not pursuing profit at the expense of your ethics and morals, I'd suggest finding a new job. Or, just maybe, your shareholders aren't so blinded by greed that they would not support your company doing what is right.

reaperducer 6y ago

I remember it being big news when GM opened a joint venture in China in 1997. Things change. The world has changed since 1997. China has changed since 1997. In 1942 Germany was the enemy. Today, Germany is our friend.

rfrey 6y ago
> Today, Germany is our friend. That may have been true a few years ago. The way the US is treating its allies, I'm not sure what the state of the "friendships" are anymore.
csharptwdec19 6y ago
> Things change. The world has changed since 1997. China has changed since 1997. And yet the 2003 Chery QQ was such a copy of the Chevy Spark that you could pull a door off the QQ, put it on the Spark, and the air seals were fine.

Fjolsvith 6y ago

There's broader context to all this. The central banks knew that their system would break down eventually due to inflation, and so one way to extend its life was to offshore manufacturing to make products cheaper and more affordable on a weaker dollar. To keep everything from imploding on America, manufacturing had to be wrested from China at the same time the Federal Reserve was shut down.

cheaprentalyeti 6y ago

So Barr should not be allowed to turn around and say all the bad decisions we made over the past thirty years were bad decisions?