4 ms·

If you claim to stand for free trade, you can't go along in these protectionism wars without losing a lot of credibility and, along with that, soft power.

walkingolof 6y ago
People outside US and other super powers, like the Soviet Union and now China, has always preferred the US as the lesser evil. But we have no illusions that there is a leveled playing field, the US is using all its might to land deals in its favor. Insight: How U.S. spying cost Boeing multibillion-dollar jet contract https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-brazil-insight-idUSBRE9BJ10P20131220 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-brazil-insight-idU...
fastball 6y ago
And you can't operate free-trade style in a world where you have bad actors like China reaping all the benefits while being protectionist and therefore preventing their trade partners from seeing the same benefits. Saying the US should just press forward with free trade is like saying it is X company's fault for failing when the entire reason they fail is because Y company is behaving anti-competitively, and that behavior is not being curbed by a higher power. Except in this case there is no higher power to slap China on the wrist. So the only recourse the US (and honestly the rest of the world has) is to be protectionist right back until China realize that everyone wins if we all cooperate, nobody does if we don't. This is classic prisoner's dilemma, except where the US has been letting China keep pressing "tattle" while the US keeps pressing "keep mum". It had to end at some point.
- ookdatnog 6y ago
  Sure, if it were a clearly communicated retaliation to a specific protectionist act of China. But it's not, and it is relevant to consider the context in which this measure happens to understand how this can be perceived. The current administration has had numerous unproductive scuffles with allies and trading partners to renegotiate trade agreements, after running a presidential campaign on a protectionist platform, promising to return manufacturing jobs to the US. After these negotiations were largely unsuccessful, close to the next presidential election, the administration abruptly locks in on one of the only globally successful social media companies that isn't US-controlled and insists that it must be purchased by a US-based company in order to continue operations in the US, without even attempting to resolve the issue through regulation. Due to the size of the US market, the company is bound to give in. Of course, I'm deliberately telling the story in a biased way, but (as someone not from the US) I do feel that the US has been steadily on the way down as a credible defender of the principles of free trade. And this is just one more incident to add to the pile.
- vkou 6y ago
  I did not realize that free trade is such a failed system, that it completely breaks down when not enforced by gunboat diplomacy. All this time, I was taught that it is a positive-sum, virtuous system that improves everything it touches - and that military interventions that enforced it were purely altruistic humanitarian acts, that were done for the targeted countries' own good. Which is it? Is it a fragile house of cards that we have spread in self-serving ways? Or is it actually a robust positive-sum ideal that we should aspire to? (And therefore, we should ignore defectors, as they only hurt themselves.)
  - fastball 6y ago
    No, it breaks down when an actor realizes that they can get all of the benefit and then some if they don't participate in good faith yet everyone else continues to do so. This then leads to a "tragedy of the commons" situation, which is a fairly well-established idea.
    - vkou 6y ago
      So, it always has to be enforced through gunboat diplomacy? It sounds like a failed system, then - can we move over to some other economic model, that does not require coercion or a constant threat of war to function? Unilateral coercion is not the basis for a free society, or free relationships between societies. It is utterly incompatible with sovereignty and democracy, and the ability of countries to decide their own internal policies.
      - fastball 6y ago
        No, it needs to be enforced by either a higher power (which doesn't currently exist for the world) or by not allowing countries to do this. This can happen either through gunboat diplomacy or by economic actions like the ones this entire thread is about. As to your addendum, I am unaware of an economic model that intrinsically solves such problems of peaceful coordination between nation states.
    - kosh2 6y ago
      The question is who is the actor with good faith though. The US is arguably the player with the most foreign aggressive interventions (often economic) since WW2. The US is all about free trade when it benefits them but the second that is no longer the case, it's over with fair free trade.
- kosh2 6y ago
  > And you can't operate free-trade style in a world where you have bad actors like China reaping all the benefits while being protectionist and therefore preventing their trade partners from seeing the same benefits. China was pretty poor country when it opened up. When it opened, all the western companies that agreed to their terms weren't doing it just to help out but they wanted a piece of that huge marked to get rich. China managed to get a better deal than a lot of other countries who were basically plundered. Saying China is "reaping all the benefits" is just absurd. Western countries made countless of billions in China.
oceanplexian 6y ago
I stand for free trade, but it's not "free" when trading with a country that doesn't share our values. How someone can advocate for a minimum wage or health and safety protections for a European or US company, but then turn around and advocate trading with a country with no such protections baffles me. There is no outcome except that our economy will become disadvantaged while at the same time encouraging the erosion of democracy and human rights around the world.
- beaunative 6y ago
  This isn't free trade. There would be no point of other countries existence if they share same values. The reason so many countries exists is because they don't share the same values. The US famously fought its independence war because it doesn't share british values where there is no delegation even paying taxes for colonies

walkingolof 6y ago

People outside US and other super powers, like the Soviet Union and now China, has always preferred the US as the lesser evil. But we have no illusions that there is a leveled playing field, the US is using all its might to land deals in its favor. Insight: How U.S. spying cost Boeing multibillion-dollar jet contract https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-brazil-insight-idUSBRE9BJ10P20131220 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-brazil-insight-idU...

fastball 6y ago

And you can't operate free-trade style in a world where you have bad actors like China reaping all the benefits while being protectionist and therefore preventing their trade partners from seeing the same benefits. Saying the US should just press forward with free trade is like saying it is X company's fault for failing when the entire reason they fail is because Y company is behaving anti-competitively, and that behavior is not being curbed by a higher power. Except in this case there is no higher power to slap China on the wrist. So the only recourse the US (and honestly the rest of the world has) is to be protectionist right back until China realize that everyone wins if we all cooperate, nobody does if we don't. This is classic prisoner's dilemma, except where the US has been letting China keep pressing "tattle" while the US keeps pressing "keep mum". It had to end at some point.

ookdatnog 6y ago
Sure, if it were a clearly communicated retaliation to a specific protectionist act of China. But it's not, and it is relevant to consider the context in which this measure happens to understand how this can be perceived. The current administration has had numerous unproductive scuffles with allies and trading partners to renegotiate trade agreements, after running a presidential campaign on a protectionist platform, promising to return manufacturing jobs to the US. After these negotiations were largely unsuccessful, close to the next presidential election, the administration abruptly locks in on one of the only globally successful social media companies that isn't US-controlled and insists that it must be purchased by a US-based company in order to continue operations in the US, without even attempting to resolve the issue through regulation. Due to the size of the US market, the company is bound to give in. Of course, I'm deliberately telling the story in a biased way, but (as someone not from the US) I do feel that the US has been steadily on the way down as a credible defender of the principles of free trade. And this is just one more incident to add to the pile.
vkou 6y ago
I did not realize that free trade is such a failed system, that it completely breaks down when not enforced by gunboat diplomacy. All this time, I was taught that it is a positive-sum, virtuous system that improves everything it touches - and that military interventions that enforced it were purely altruistic humanitarian acts, that were done for the targeted countries' own good. Which is it? Is it a fragile house of cards that we have spread in self-serving ways? Or is it actually a robust positive-sum ideal that we should aspire to? (And therefore, we should ignore defectors, as they only hurt themselves.)
- fastball 6y ago
  No, it breaks down when an actor realizes that they can get all of the benefit and then some if they don't participate in good faith yet everyone else continues to do so. This then leads to a "tragedy of the commons" situation, which is a fairly well-established idea.
  - vkou 6y ago
    So, it always has to be enforced through gunboat diplomacy? It sounds like a failed system, then - can we move over to some other economic model, that does not require coercion or a constant threat of war to function? Unilateral coercion is not the basis for a free society, or free relationships between societies. It is utterly incompatible with sovereignty and democracy, and the ability of countries to decide their own internal policies.
    - fastball 6y ago
      No, it needs to be enforced by either a higher power (which doesn't currently exist for the world) or by not allowing countries to do this. This can happen either through gunboat diplomacy or by economic actions like the ones this entire thread is about. As to your addendum, I am unaware of an economic model that intrinsically solves such problems of peaceful coordination between nation states.
  - kosh2 6y ago
    The question is who is the actor with good faith though. The US is arguably the player with the most foreign aggressive interventions (often economic) since WW2. The US is all about free trade when it benefits them but the second that is no longer the case, it's over with fair free trade.
kosh2 6y ago
> And you can't operate free-trade style in a world where you have bad actors like China reaping all the benefits while being protectionist and therefore preventing their trade partners from seeing the same benefits. China was pretty poor country when it opened up. When it opened, all the western companies that agreed to their terms weren't doing it just to help out but they wanted a piece of that huge marked to get rich. China managed to get a better deal than a lot of other countries who were basically plundered. Saying China is "reaping all the benefits" is just absurd. Western countries made countless of billions in China.

oceanplexian 6y ago

I stand for free trade, but it's not "free" when trading with a country that doesn't share our values. How someone can advocate for a minimum wage or health and safety protections for a European or US company, but then turn around and advocate trading with a country with no such protections baffles me. There is no outcome except that our economy will become disadvantaged while at the same time encouraging the erosion of democracy and human rights around the world.

beaunative 6y ago
This isn't free trade. There would be no point of other countries existence if they share same values. The reason so many countries exists is because they don't share the same values. The US famously fought its independence war because it doesn't share british values where there is no delegation even paying taxes for colonies