5 ms·
There is always a reason why it might be a good idea for some government to prop up this and cut down that industry. The temptation is obvious, which is why peo
by IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
There is always a reason why it might be a good idea for some government to prop up this and cut down that industry. The temptation is obvious, which is why people sometimes start believing in 5-year plans and great leaps forward, or enjoy Sim City.
Arbitrary action such as this is a sign of weakness: of economic weakness, and the fear to no longer be good enough to be the single biggest winner of free trade the US was for most of the 20th century. It's also a weakness of the law: of institutions competent and empowered to specifically define and litigate harmful behaviour, within the existing confines of law, such as due process. Instead, it's executive fiat, directed against foreign companies that have no lobby powerful enough to protect them, and coming from an office where nobody bothers to ask for reasonable explanations, because (last weakness) the guy is incapable, uninterested, and really just completely devoid of any understanding of the rule of law.
Americans already are losing as much as China is from this action. But its only in mindless entertainment that people won't complain about because they fear being mocked for enjoying such things. But if it works, the hits will start creeping closer, and you now need to make sure to stay not just on the right side of the law, but also the far-right side of politics.
Meanwhile, China isn't going to change for economic reasons: countries from cuba to North Korea to, for the longest time, the USSR have not budged in the face of sanctions. A country in the process of cutting off the lifeblood of its status as a superpower of science and entrepreneurship, just because people in rural counties that have never seen a foreigner have decided they don't like them, should really be in a good position to understand how powerless economic interests are against ideology and jingoism.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- free_rms 6y agoIt's specifically a sign of weakness that we'd feel the need to engage in protectionism for social media. The only worse idea would be finance. If we were talking about repatriating manufacturing and electronics, you could get me on board.
- pessimizer 6y agoChina isn't going to change for economic reasons because it is extremely successful economically. I wonder how the American psyche will be able to withstand the transition from demanding arbitrary sanctions on China for humanitarian reasons to demanding that China stop their sanctions on the US, also for humanitarian reasons.
- xref 6y agoIs calling for the release of a million Uyghurs from re-education camps an “arbitrary humanitarian reason”?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- free_rms 6y ago... yes? Nobody gives a shit about outcomes for Iraqis, Afghans, Yemenis, Palestinians... But all of a sudden we're super occupied with muslim rights when China is involved. Seems arbitrary to me.
- newen 6y agoA million Iraqis murdered by the US vs a million Uyghurs in reeducation/work camps by China. Frankly, the second option is more preferable to me and I'm sure the million dead Iraqis would agree.
- remarkEon 6y agoThe difference is that except for the leftover Neocon vanguard of Bill Kristol and Max Boot, no one is actually saying the Iraq War was a good thing, and no one making a serious argument about that war's history is claiming that the US "set out to murder one million Iraqis". These kinds of takes are meant to be reductionist ploys used to excuse the behavior of PRC by implying that there is some kind of moral equivalency between these events, which are separated by half a planet (literally) of context. Also, it might be wise to speak with some people who lived under actual oppressive/authoritarian regimes - like the Taliban or the Soviet Union - before making a claim that living that way is always preferable to death.
- switch11 6y agothis is beautifully put: Arbitrary action such as this is a sign of weakness: of economic weakness, and the fear to no longer be good enough to be the single biggest winner of free trade the US was for most of the 20th century.