6 ms·

I support it because of "the China thing". Not because I think China is inherently bad (I am capable of separating China from the CCP) but as long as the CCP en

I support it because of "the China thing". Not because I think China is inherently bad (I am capable of separating China from the CCP) but as long as the CCP enforces heir draconian laws that don't permit foreign companies free access to the Chinese market I think this should be reciprocated. Any other response is reckless.

erklik 6y ago
I mean if that's the case, why not simply make laws to limit foreign companies access to the US market. As far as I know, the US hasn't actually passed any laws, right?
- unityByFreedom 6y ago
  Being discretionary can also be reciprocated
  - erklik 6y ago
    I am sorry. I am not sure I understand what you mean? Could you clarify a little?
tom-_- 6y ago
It's easy to forget that China is still a developing nation (~$10k gdp/capita) and protectionist policy is designed to allow developing nations to strengthen domestic industries. If "free access" were permitted, these Chinese companies would surely be absolutely crushed by their US counterparts and its citizens would forever be consumers of US goods while forever providing the cheap labor to produce them. To build self-sustaining growth, a country must establish the positive feedback loop of consuming its own goods.
- ChuckNorris89 6y ago
  >If "free access" were permitted, these Chinese companies would surely be absolutely crushed by their US counterparts and its citizens would forever be consumers of US goods while forever providing the cheap labor to produce them. I feel like if you were to replace China with Europe your statement would still apply for the software sector.
  - ahmedalsudani 6y ago
    Sure. Europe would be well served by building a moat around European tech upstarts.
- rorykoehler 6y ago
  That's not really our problem though. They've shown they have no intention of opening up regardless of how rich they get.
  - yorwba 6y ago
    Have you perhaps heard of "reform and opening up"? It started being a thing in the 1970s and every Chinese government since then has opened up more and more, because that's how they're getting rich. The latest big move in that direction was the new Foreign Investment Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Investment_Law_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Investment_Law_of_the_... that went into effect this year, which introduced a bunch of big changes, such as switching from the previous system of "everything is off-limits to foreign investment unless explicitly allowed" to "everything is open to foreign investment unless explicitly forbidden". That list of restrictions http://images.mofcom.gov.cn/wzs/202006/20200624143734575.pdf http://images.mofcom.gov.cn/wzs/202006/20200624143734575.pdf already includes provisions for further opening in the future, such as removing the last restrictions on manufacturing passenger cars by 2022. (Special-purpose vehicles, electric cars and commercial vehicles are already exempt.) If that doesn't demonstrate "intention of opening up", I don't know what would. The only thing about China that hasn't changed seems to be Western commentators' knowledge of it.
    - rorykoehler 6y ago
      I'll believe it when I see it. This law will be applied arbitrarily. Try critising Xi and see how far you get.
      - yorwba 6y ago
        Is Tesla's wholly-foreign owned Shanghai plant enough to see to believe, or does Musk need to compare Xi to Winnie the Pooh first? https://www.scmp.com/business/companies/article/2154674/tesla-build-its-gigafactory-shanghai-capacity-produce-500000-cars https://www.scmp.com/business/companies/article/2154674/tesl...
- op00to 6y ago
  Build domestic industries by stealing IP from foreign competitors? that’s not super cool to do.
  - phatfish 6y ago
    Exporting US centric laws to the world and ensuring that preferable conditions for the US are "legal" is not cool either. China has only recently become a big enough economy in their own right to say "nice try but no thanks" to US driven international law.
KVFinn 6y ago
>I support it because of "the China thing". Not because I think China is inherently bad (I am capable of separating China from the CCP) but as long as the CCP enforces heir draconian laws that don't permit foreign companies free access to the Chinese market I think this should be reciprocated. Any other response is reckles If this is the case, why are they forcing them to sell specifically to a US company rather than any non-Chinese company with less draconian laws (EU, etc).
- rorykoehler 6y ago
  Maybe I should have been more clear. I don't support the TikTok case specifically. This should be applied to all Chinese companies, investments etc
koonsolo 6y ago
You missed my point: If this is your view, why does a president need to pick on 1 specific company? Why not make it a rule that applies to all companies?
- rorykoehler 6y ago
  I agree with you. Should be a blanket rule
- 37r6ehehediud 6y ago
  Why it should probably be the President initially is a much longer answer, but as far as only targeting specific businesses the answer boils down to not every Chinese businesses being viewed as a problem. If you only view certain companies or industries as strategically significant at the moment then why would you want to ban the rest? That just drives prices for imported goods higher while accomplishing nothing of value.
  - koonsolo 6y ago
    Ok no problem. If you want to live in a country where the emperor decides on this, it's not my problem.
    - tssva 6y ago
      The emperor isn't deciding this. The president is using authority which is granted to him by law. In this case a law which includes a means for Congress to overrule his decision if it wishes.
- infinityplus1 6y ago
  India implemented the ban first. Donald is simply copying what India did.

erklik 6y ago

I mean if that's the case, why not simply make laws to limit foreign companies access to the US market. As far as I know, the US hasn't actually passed any laws, right?

unityByFreedom 6y ago
Being discretionary can also be reciprocated
- erklik 6y ago
  I am sorry. I am not sure I understand what you mean? Could you clarify a little?

tom-_- 6y ago

It's easy to forget that China is still a developing nation (~$10k gdp/capita) and protectionist policy is designed to allow developing nations to strengthen domestic industries. If "free access" were permitted, these Chinese companies would surely be absolutely crushed by their US counterparts and its citizens would forever be consumers of US goods while forever providing the cheap labor to produce them. To build self-sustaining growth, a country must establish the positive feedback loop of consuming its own goods.

ChuckNorris89 6y ago
>If "free access" were permitted, these Chinese companies would surely be absolutely crushed by their US counterparts and its citizens would forever be consumers of US goods while forever providing the cheap labor to produce them. I feel like if you were to replace China with Europe your statement would still apply for the software sector.
- ahmedalsudani 6y ago
  Sure. Europe would be well served by building a moat around European tech upstarts.
rorykoehler 6y ago
That's not really our problem though. They've shown they have no intention of opening up regardless of how rich they get.
- yorwba 6y ago
  Have you perhaps heard of "reform and opening up"? It started being a thing in the 1970s and every Chinese government since then has opened up more and more, because that's how they're getting rich. The latest big move in that direction was the new Foreign Investment Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Investment_Law_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Investment_Law_of_the_... that went into effect this year, which introduced a bunch of big changes, such as switching from the previous system of "everything is off-limits to foreign investment unless explicitly allowed" to "everything is open to foreign investment unless explicitly forbidden". That list of restrictions http://images.mofcom.gov.cn/wzs/202006/20200624143734575.pdf http://images.mofcom.gov.cn/wzs/202006/20200624143734575.pdf already includes provisions for further opening in the future, such as removing the last restrictions on manufacturing passenger cars by 2022. (Special-purpose vehicles, electric cars and commercial vehicles are already exempt.) If that doesn't demonstrate "intention of opening up", I don't know what would. The only thing about China that hasn't changed seems to be Western commentators' knowledge of it.
  - rorykoehler 6y ago
    I'll believe it when I see it. This law will be applied arbitrarily. Try critising Xi and see how far you get.
    - yorwba 6y ago
      Is Tesla's wholly-foreign owned Shanghai plant enough to see to believe, or does Musk need to compare Xi to Winnie the Pooh first? https://www.scmp.com/business/companies/article/2154674/tesla-build-its-gigafactory-shanghai-capacity-produce-500000-cars https://www.scmp.com/business/companies/article/2154674/tesl...
op00to 6y ago
Build domestic industries by stealing IP from foreign competitors? that’s not super cool to do.
- phatfish 6y ago
  Exporting US centric laws to the world and ensuring that preferable conditions for the US are "legal" is not cool either. China has only recently become a big enough economy in their own right to say "nice try but no thanks" to US driven international law.

KVFinn 6y ago

>I support it because of "the China thing". Not because I think China is inherently bad (I am capable of separating China from the CCP) but as long as the CCP enforces heir draconian laws that don't permit foreign companies free access to the Chinese market I think this should be reciprocated. Any other response is reckles If this is the case, why are they forcing them to sell specifically to a US company rather than any non-Chinese company with less draconian laws (EU, etc).

rorykoehler 6y ago
Maybe I should have been more clear. I don't support the TikTok case specifically. This should be applied to all Chinese companies, investments etc

koonsolo 6y ago

You missed my point: If this is your view, why does a president need to pick on 1 specific company? Why not make it a rule that applies to all companies?

rorykoehler 6y ago
I agree with you. Should be a blanket rule
37r6ehehediud 6y ago
Why it should probably be the President initially is a much longer answer, but as far as only targeting specific businesses the answer boils down to not every Chinese businesses being viewed as a problem. If you only view certain companies or industries as strategically significant at the moment then why would you want to ban the rest? That just drives prices for imported goods higher while accomplishing nothing of value.
- koonsolo 6y ago
  Ok no problem. If you want to live in a country where the emperor decides on this, it's not my problem.
  - tssva 6y ago
    The emperor isn't deciding this. The president is using authority which is granted to him by law. In this case a law which includes a means for Congress to overrule his decision if it wishes.
infinityplus1 6y ago
India implemented the ban first. Donald is simply copying what India did.