4 ms·

> a lop side trade relationship with a wealthy country that had the kind of human rights and foreign policy situation the west traditionally only ignores if you

by mabbo 6y ago

> a lop side trade relationship with a wealthy country that had the kind of human rights and foreign policy situation the west traditionally only ignores if you're poor I have a hard time believing the US actually cares about human rights abuses in other countries, when they are the beneficiaries. They won't put their money where their mouth is when it comes to ethics and trade. I think the only way you can influence China to change is to reinvent how trade works. Rather than trade deals, the US could simply have a set of rules that cause increases in tariffs. Forced labor? +80% to all goods. Won't let international observers monitor your elections? +20%. No elections? +50%. And then enforce these rules strongly, and make no exceptions. That would put ethics into the equations of trade, and reduce trade with countries who are not ethical. But that's a pipe dream that will never, ever happen.

drewg123 6y ago
I've often thought we should introduce tariffs based on wages paid in the source country. The goal would be to prevent goods from being artificially cheap due to exploitative labor practices..
- basch 6y ago
  The same should apply to externalities like pollution. It shouldn't be cheaper to pollute somewhere else.
- Arnt 6y ago
  And then some big low-wage country answers with tariffs based on, say, the number of people employed and paid above the poverty line, and argues that it's bad to produce goods using just a few obscenely well paid people and a lot of robots, and that this badness should be counteracted using tariffs.
  - tarboreus 6y ago
    The US is the country with the big consumer market, though. Who cares if small country X has high tariffs?
    - Arnt 6y ago
      Well... I expect farmers do, and Harley Davidson employees, and Boeing employees, and, well, really anyone with a job that involves selling goods or services abroad.
rumanator 6y ago
> I have a hard time believing the US actually cares about human rights abuses in other countries, when they are the beneficiaries. My take is that in this context the human rights argument is not emotional or humanist, but refers to the practical implications of competing against a regime for which human life holds no importance and has no meaningful value. It's impossible to compete with a regime which treats workers as slaves and disregards even basic health and safety measures.
ikerdanzel 6y ago
If you look through entire USA history, they do seems to care about human rights abuse. Americans still heavily debating to this day about the Japanese internment. It pales in comparisons to what British and Chinese did consistently throughout their history. Even American Indians are given their own "Nations" within USA. Show me which countries are doing that. No other countries outright fought a war to emancipate slaves and enshrined that in constitutions. No countries willing to go fight consistently in foreign lands for the idea of freedom. No countries on earth allows a slave minorities became president. No countries on earth has peace corp and fund United Nation operation more than USA. Even WHO is largely funded by USA. No countries without the need of signed Montreal Protocol and achieve it. USA is probably terribly shitty by any metrics if you judge it individually. But as a nation overall, it is simply the greatest nation on Earth and human history until now. Americans do believe largely in manifest destiny. That phrase alone say a lot about USA. You should read up more and diversify your readings. You can't change how trade works. That is international. At best you impose sanctions. Trade changes won't change a country behavior. If it can, Obama would be greatest true Peace Nobel laureate having change Iran, Libya, SA, Iraq, China, Russia, NK for the better.
- mabbo 6y ago
  > You can't change how trade works. That is international. I'm arguing in favor of exactly this. I believe nations should give up on trade deals in their present form, and change to a simpler model whereby the tariffs imposed on other countries are purely a function of the ethics of that other country. And as I said, a dream at best. But maybe with the rise in fascists who believe in protectionism, there is an opportunity soon for such a system to be put in place. It appears existing trade deals are going to be ignored or broken at the whim of the POTUS without warning anyway. > Trade changes won't change a country behavior. Then why does the US bother with sanctions? If they won't influence change in a country's behaviour, what's the point? By that logic, we might as well all open up trade with North Korea, right?

by mabbo 6y ago

drewg123 6y ago

I've often thought we should introduce tariffs based on wages paid in the source country. The goal would be to prevent goods from being artificially cheap due to exploitative labor practices..

basch 6y ago
The same should apply to externalities like pollution. It shouldn't be cheaper to pollute somewhere else.
Arnt 6y ago
And then some big low-wage country answers with tariffs based on, say, the number of people employed and paid above the poverty line, and argues that it's bad to produce goods using just a few obscenely well paid people and a lot of robots, and that this badness should be counteracted using tariffs.
- tarboreus 6y ago
  The US is the country with the big consumer market, though. Who cares if small country X has high tariffs?
  - Arnt 6y ago
    Well... I expect farmers do, and Harley Davidson employees, and Boeing employees, and, well, really anyone with a job that involves selling goods or services abroad.

rumanator 6y ago

> I have a hard time believing the US actually cares about human rights abuses in other countries, when they are the beneficiaries. My take is that in this context the human rights argument is not emotional or humanist, but refers to the practical implications of competing against a regime for which human life holds no importance and has no meaningful value. It's impossible to compete with a regime which treats workers as slaves and disregards even basic health and safety measures.

ikerdanzel 6y ago

If you look through entire USA history, they do seems to care about human rights abuse. Americans still heavily debating to this day about the Japanese internment. It pales in comparisons to what British and Chinese did consistently throughout their history. Even American Indians are given their own "Nations" within USA. Show me which countries are doing that. No other countries outright fought a war to emancipate slaves and enshrined that in constitutions. No countries willing to go fight consistently in foreign lands for the idea of freedom. No countries on earth allows a slave minorities became president. No countries on earth has peace corp and fund United Nation operation more than USA. Even WHO is largely funded by USA. No countries without the need of signed Montreal Protocol and achieve it. USA is probably terribly shitty by any metrics if you judge it individually. But as a nation overall, it is simply the greatest nation on Earth and human history until now. Americans do believe largely in manifest destiny. That phrase alone say a lot about USA. You should read up more and diversify your readings. You can't change how trade works. That is international. At best you impose sanctions. Trade changes won't change a country behavior. If it can, Obama would be greatest true Peace Nobel laureate having change Iran, Libya, SA, Iraq, China, Russia, NK for the better.

mabbo 6y ago
> You can't change how trade works. That is international. I'm arguing in favor of exactly this. I believe nations should give up on trade deals in their present form, and change to a simpler model whereby the tariffs imposed on other countries are purely a function of the ethics of that other country. And as I said, a dream at best. But maybe with the rise in fascists who believe in protectionism, there is an opportunity soon for such a system to be put in place. It appears existing trade deals are going to be ignored or broken at the whim of the POTUS without warning anyway. > Trade changes won't change a country behavior. Then why does the US bother with sanctions? If they won't influence change in a country's behaviour, what's the point? By that logic, we might as well all open up trade with North Korea, right?