7 ms·

This is sad, we in the US are losing the little high ground we had and no longer lead by example to bring the world closer together by encouraging free markets

This is sad, we in the US are losing the little high ground we had and no longer lead by example to bring the world closer together by encouraging free markets and free people. I'm against this protectionist nationalism, it only leads to future conflict.

baby 6y ago
I don’t think the US has ever lead by example. Europe has though.
- fastball 6y ago
  The US has been a champion of global free trade for more than a century. Of course, the US wants to be top dog in this free trade Utopia, and the means employed to get to those free-trade ends have frequently been terrible. But just as frequently the means have been a reasonable (and moral / amoral) push to encourage globalization, which has demonstrably helped reduce poverty and other negative stats the world over.
karterk 6y ago
US is merely reciprocating the policies of CCP: let them allow US companies to compete fairly in China as well.
- badRNG 6y ago
  > US is merely reciprocating the policies of CCP Does this mean the policies of the CCP are superior to US policy to date?
  - karterk 6y ago
    Certainly: CCP has been able to fool the world for long enough. US policy of hoping that China would open up in the long run has proven to be extremely naive.
  - systematical 6y ago
    If by policy you mean trade policy, yes. By any another metric, probably not. Certainly not policies on freedom for instance, if you value that sort of thing. It's time the United States levels the trade game with China.
  - gpm 6y ago
    This is a bad faith interpretation. A widely held belief is both that free trade is good, when both parties engage in it, and that when one party prohibits it the other party is correct in doing the same. This is why reciprocating sanctions and tarrifs is standard practice. For example, Canada just today announced tarrifs on some US goods in response to the US putting tarrifs on some Canadian goods. That's not because we don't want free trade with the US, it's because free trade only works if it's reciprocal.
  - mlindner 6y ago
    In terms of benefiting the government of China, yes.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  And this is where credibility matters. Do other countries believe that this is true, or do they believe that Trump is doing this because TikTok is full of teens & comedians that have made him look foolish?
- alexmingoia 6y ago
  Yes, by mirroring China’s authoritarianism and restricting the freedom of Americans. I’m living overseas and now my government is telling me I can’t use WeChat? Telling me who I can and cannot trade with, etc. Restrictions on trade with China are attacks on our freedom.
  - remarkEon 6y ago
    It is absolutely within the purview of a Sovereign Nation to decide, within the confines of relevant statutes, what companies are allowed to operate within its borders. Trade restrictions are absolutely normal, and are well inline with established practices. What are economic sanctions, after all, but a restriction on the freedom to conduct commerce?
    - bmitc 6y ago
      What is the trade reason why these apps are being banned?
      - Markoff 6y ago
        Removing unfair advantage these apps have by building their base in China and creating snowball effect when trying to communicate from abroad with Chinese users? Later you see your foreign contact has also Wechat to talk with Chinese, so why not to talk also with your nonchinese contact through WeChat. Anyway the bigger issue here really is tax evasion through wechat payments or security threats thanks to unlimited access of Chinese gov to your phone storage. EDIT: I see Chinese wumaos have field day in this comments section downvoting everything left and right.
  - ac29 6y ago
    How do you feel about restrictions on trade with North Korea, Syria, or Iran?
    - alexmingoia 6y ago
      The same, especially with regards to communications and consumer goods. We’re talking about a chat and payments app... It’s not an actual national security issue like selling China nukes or something.
ekianjo 6y ago
> no longer lead by example to bring the world closer together by encouraging free markets and free people. It does not work very well if you are the only nice guy within a group of a--holes. You just end up being beaten up. Free Markets work well if pretty much everyone adopts the same rules of commerce, but China is way beyond that point.
- sifar 6y ago
  One of my favorite Marcus Aurelius quote is "Leave the harm done by other where it started." Excluding self defense, I wonder if this can be applied to nations too.
  - em500 6y ago
    Alan Kay has noted that vendettas are a human universal [1]: they arises naturally in any human society everywhere on the globe and in history. Rule of law is not a human universal, it requires conscious effort and continuous maintenance. I'm increasingly afraid that the relatively long period of peace in the West have lulled this generation to forget that war, not peace is the natural state of the world. [1] http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2008/08/what-alan-kay-said-about-universals-non.html http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2008/08/what-alan-kay-said-abo...
- thesimon 6y ago
  > It does not work very well if you are the only nice guy within a group of a--holes You are saying Europe is behaving like China?
Markoff 6y ago
it's not only about protectionism, WeChat is also used for tax evasion through wechat payments, let alone security risks with Chinese gov having access to all photos, documents and videos of residents of US who have this spyware on their phone
frequentnapper 6y ago
You need to study up on game theory. Being the only nice guy surrounded by jerks who take advantage of you benefits them and wipes you out.
- fsflover 6y ago
  More details about it in a form of a game: https://ncase.me/trust/ https://ncase.me/trust/
yumraj 6y ago
I'd rather that US lose the moral high ground than lose its bread and butter.
tomp 6y ago
The only thing that matters is long-term consequences. This could be war, but literally nobody wants that, least of all China. It also could be beating China down on its knees, and forcing it to free its people and its markets. That would be a remarkable outcome (not sure Trump can get there, though - I expected something in this direction in his dealings with North Korea, but he dropped the ball... I don't know, maybe he just got bored?)
sreejithr 6y ago
Not really. There are other developing economies with serious tech sectors like India which operate according to the rules based open market system we have in place. If the US doesn't take action against Chinese protectionism, why should other countries abide by the rules and give US access to their markets? The US provides China it's market even though China closes it down for everyone. I think US being soft on China sets a bad precedent.
toto444 6y ago
> I'm against this protectionist nationalism, it only leads to future conflict. And unfortunately this is what the top comment preaches and I am very disappointed to see that the more-educated-than-the-average-person readers of HN fall into the trade war / retaliation fallacy. Trade always benefits both parties. Otherwise they would not start trading in the first place.

baby 6y ago

I don’t think the US has ever lead by example. Europe has though.

fastball 6y ago
The US has been a champion of global free trade for more than a century. Of course, the US wants to be top dog in this free trade Utopia, and the means employed to get to those free-trade ends have frequently been terrible. But just as frequently the means have been a reasonable (and moral / amoral) push to encourage globalization, which has demonstrably helped reduce poverty and other negative stats the world over.

karterk 6y ago

US is merely reciprocating the policies of CCP: let them allow US companies to compete fairly in China as well.

badRNG 6y ago
> US is merely reciprocating the policies of CCP Does this mean the policies of the CCP are superior to US policy to date?
- karterk 6y ago
  Certainly: CCP has been able to fool the world for long enough. US policy of hoping that China would open up in the long run has proven to be extremely naive.
- systematical 6y ago
  If by policy you mean trade policy, yes. By any another metric, probably not. Certainly not policies on freedom for instance, if you value that sort of thing. It's time the United States levels the trade game with China.
- gpm 6y ago
  This is a bad faith interpretation. A widely held belief is both that free trade is good, when both parties engage in it, and that when one party prohibits it the other party is correct in doing the same. This is why reciprocating sanctions and tarrifs is standard practice. For example, Canada just today announced tarrifs on some US goods in response to the US putting tarrifs on some Canadian goods. That's not because we don't want free trade with the US, it's because free trade only works if it's reciprocal.
- mlindner 6y ago
  In terms of benefiting the government of China, yes.
ashtonkem 6y ago
And this is where credibility matters. Do other countries believe that this is true, or do they believe that Trump is doing this because TikTok is full of teens & comedians that have made him look foolish?
alexmingoia 6y ago
Yes, by mirroring China’s authoritarianism and restricting the freedom of Americans. I’m living overseas and now my government is telling me I can’t use WeChat? Telling me who I can and cannot trade with, etc. Restrictions on trade with China are attacks on our freedom.
- remarkEon 6y ago
  It is absolutely within the purview of a Sovereign Nation to decide, within the confines of relevant statutes, what companies are allowed to operate within its borders. Trade restrictions are absolutely normal, and are well inline with established practices. What are economic sanctions, after all, but a restriction on the freedom to conduct commerce?
  - bmitc 6y ago
    What is the trade reason why these apps are being banned?
    - Markoff 6y ago
      Removing unfair advantage these apps have by building their base in China and creating snowball effect when trying to communicate from abroad with Chinese users? Later you see your foreign contact has also Wechat to talk with Chinese, so why not to talk also with your nonchinese contact through WeChat. Anyway the bigger issue here really is tax evasion through wechat payments or security threats thanks to unlimited access of Chinese gov to your phone storage. EDIT: I see Chinese wumaos have field day in this comments section downvoting everything left and right.
- ac29 6y ago
  How do you feel about restrictions on trade with North Korea, Syria, or Iran?
  - alexmingoia 6y ago
    The same, especially with regards to communications and consumer goods. We’re talking about a chat and payments app... It’s not an actual national security issue like selling China nukes or something.

ekianjo 6y ago

> no longer lead by example to bring the world closer together by encouraging free markets and free people. It does not work very well if you are the only nice guy within a group of a--holes. You just end up being beaten up. Free Markets work well if pretty much everyone adopts the same rules of commerce, but China is way beyond that point.

sifar 6y ago
One of my favorite Marcus Aurelius quote is "Leave the harm done by other where it started." Excluding self defense, I wonder if this can be applied to nations too.
- em500 6y ago
  Alan Kay has noted that vendettas are a human universal [1]: they arises naturally in any human society everywhere on the globe and in history. Rule of law is not a human universal, it requires conscious effort and continuous maintenance. I'm increasingly afraid that the relatively long period of peace in the West have lulled this generation to forget that war, not peace is the natural state of the world. [1] http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2008/08/what-alan-kay-said-about-universals-non.html http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2008/08/what-alan-kay-said-abo...
thesimon 6y ago
> It does not work very well if you are the only nice guy within a group of a--holes You are saying Europe is behaving like China?

Markoff 6y ago

it's not only about protectionism, WeChat is also used for tax evasion through wechat payments, let alone security risks with Chinese gov having access to all photos, documents and videos of residents of US who have this spyware on their phone

frequentnapper 6y ago

You need to study up on game theory. Being the only nice guy surrounded by jerks who take advantage of you benefits them and wipes you out.

fsflover 6y ago
More details about it in a form of a game: https://ncase.me/trust/ https://ncase.me/trust/

yumraj 6y ago

I'd rather that US lose the moral high ground than lose its bread and butter.

tomp 6y ago

The only thing that matters is long-term consequences. This could be war, but literally nobody wants that, least of all China. It also could be beating China down on its knees, and forcing it to free its people and its markets. That would be a remarkable outcome (not sure Trump can get there, though - I expected something in this direction in his dealings with North Korea, but he dropped the ball... I don't know, maybe he just got bored?)

sreejithr 6y ago

Not really. There are other developing economies with serious tech sectors like India which operate according to the rules based open market system we have in place. If the US doesn't take action against Chinese protectionism, why should other countries abide by the rules and give US access to their markets? The US provides China it's market even though China closes it down for everyone. I think US being soft on China sets a bad precedent.

toto444 6y ago

> I'm against this protectionist nationalism, it only leads to future conflict. And unfortunately this is what the top comment preaches and I am very disappointed to see that the more-educated-than-the-average-person readers of HN fall into the trade war / retaliation fallacy. Trade always benefits both parties. Otherwise they would not start trading in the first place.