4 ms·
Thats not unequal. They did it to us, so we are doing it to them. This is how trade relations have worked since forever. It is not complicated. If another c
by stale2002 6y ago
Thats not unequal. They did it to us, so we are doing it to them. This is how trade relations have worked since forever.
It is not complicated. If another country engages in negative trade actions to us, it seems reasonable to do similar trade sanctions against them, so that we are treating them similarly to how they are treating us.
This is the basis of most international trade agreements and relations.
If a country puts a tariff on you, then it is almost certain that a tariff will be put on them as well.
If you don't respond, then you are letting people take advantage of you, and it encourages them to continue to do it in the future.
This is basic trade relations, and game theory 101. This is simple stuff. This is how international relations works on numerous different fronts.
It is simple accepted, basic, and uncontroversial, that, in international relations, when a country does a bad thing to you, then there is often a response to that bad thing, and you don't just let them get away with it.
This is uncontroversial to anyone who knows anything about international relations.
- ulfw 6y agoChildish. Then again, that‘s the US in a nutshell in 2020.
- stale2002 6y agoTit for tat reciprocity is the basis of most modern trade relations. To give a related, similar, but not exactly the same example, in order to demonstrate this idea of reciprocal trade relations: If country A puts a tariff on country B, then it is almost guaranteed that Country B will put the same exact tariff on country A. This example is used to demonstrate the principle of trade related relations. This is how trade relations have worked for a very long time. And actions regarding international, hundred billion dollar companies, are going to be related to this idea of trade and reciprocal trade relations.
- ulfw 6y agoWhat tariff? What trade? What does this action have to do with either?
- Hallucinaut 6y agoThe person you responded quite clearly stated it was an approximation to other trade situations. Your response reads as a little disingenuous given the text above, but if it was genuine the "trade" is the provision of services for the exchange of money with Chinese-owned apps. Providing software services like any other service, and indeed like physical goods, is trade all the same. Tariff may not have been a perfectly analogous choice, but prohibition can also be seen economically as an infinite tariff. China has put bans (infinite tariffs) on a great many US and other foreign companies' services and this is some, comparatively small, reciprocation.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- matthewmacleod 6y agoThis is the sort of mindset you should grow out of around the age of 13.
- ptx 6y agoOr around 2000 years ago. The new testament, I gather, deprecated "eye for an eye" in favor of "turn the other cheek".
- sukilot 6y agoThat guy was crucified.
- 38140585 6y agoYes and no. You shouldn't punish someone because they have done something bad, you should rehabilitate them. But you should do something. Doing nothing might be worse than doing the worst of the previously mentioned options.
- boringg 6y agoAgreed. Can't let people walk all over you otherwise it's an enabling behavior.
- ravenstine 6y ago> This is uncontroversial to anyone who knows anything about international relations. You'll find even most intellectual types don't have a first clue about how the global chess board works. Or, if they have some inkling, they're too busy entertaining some idealism to be in the stage of acceptance.
- troughway 6y agoHN wouldn’t have a first clue about most things, global or not. Comments around any controversial article/topic turn into a dumpster fire. It’s amusing and depressing to see. Not sure when it got this bad or if it was like this from the beginning.