5 ms·

I completely agree. I feel that China just directly protects their markets while for whatever reason the US hides behind a defense justification.

tmotwu 6y ago
It would be socially destructive if America directly admits free market capitalism wasn't globally competitive after all. They don't have any other option but to hide behind national security justifications. To those who still think this is about national security and most definitely not protectionist actions: why aren't these companies blanket banned immediately rather than given arbitrary timelines? India has demonstrated it is possible to do so and continues to be a self sustaining democracy.
- samatman 6y ago
  Free market capitalism is a condition of peace, in the real sense that there's a spectrum from tariffs, to bans, to economic sanctions, leading to outright war. Unilateral disarmament, where one party allows free access to markets while the other party does not, is actually a valid tactic. It's not always the wrong thing to do. But choosing a tit-for-tat strategy instead isn't some sort of mark against free market capitalism. It just means that America has gotten tired of China defecting. Which I approve of. Your mileage may vary.
  - tmotwu 6y ago
    I agree that there is a spectrum, and protectionist measures would not deviate from our economic values. Whether tariffs, bans, and economic sanctions are actually effective strategies is a separate discussion entirely. But clearly there is a notion of free market capitalism one side seems to go to great lengths in protecting - which explains why they have been enforcing it under a separate pretense.
- oh_sigh 6y ago
  The argument would be that it is not a current threat, but could be used as one in the future, hence the timeline to the ban, giving them time to right their ship, as it were. And even if this is a tit-for-tat retaliation against China, it isn't indicative of free market capitalism, because the 'tat' would be China closing off its own market and heavy handed government interference in any firm which wants to operate in China.
kube-system 6y ago
China also primarily uses a national security justification. And neither the US's nor China's national security claims are unjustified. Election interference, propaganda, and espionage are very real and legitimate concerns that all major world powers have regarding their communication infrastructure. Trump might talk a big game to his constituents about the outsourcing of jobs -- but his economic agenda has absolutely nothing to do with the national security concerns voiced by US public servants.
- lacker 6y ago
  China does not primarily use a national security justification. They primarily don’t even bother to justify themselves. They freely ban whatever websites they want without communicating any rationale for the ban or clearly stating what is banned.
  - kube-system 6y ago
    Of course they have justifications. They have justifications for their own people in their own legal documents, and they have a party ideology with a clear set of agendas. "national security" is mentioned literally right at the beginning of the document that mandates the GFW. > Article 3: The computer management and supervision organization of the Ministry of Public Security is responsible for the security, protection and management of computer information networks and the Internet. The Computer Management and Supervision organization of the Ministry of Public Security should protect the public security of computer information networks and the Internet as well as protect the legal rights of Internet service providing units and individuals as well as the public interest. > Article 4: No unit or individual may use the Internet to harm national security, disclose state secrets, harm the interests of the State, of society or of a group, the legal rights of citizens, or to take part in criminal activities. [...] http://www.asianlii.org/cn/legis/cen/laws/cinaispamr904/ http://www.asianlii.org/cn/legis/cen/laws/cinaispamr904/
euix 6y ago
That's just because the U.S. is better at propaganda then China. Probably due to cultural differences. In the west official term for this is "soft power". Propaganda is when China, Russia or other adversarial countries do it. There is a whole lexicon of alternative doublespeak if you pay attention.
- powerapple 6y ago
  Propaganda is a positive word in China, that shows how culturally different US and China are. That's why there is a Department of Propaganda in China.

tmotwu 6y ago

It would be socially destructive if America directly admits free market capitalism wasn't globally competitive after all. They don't have any other option but to hide behind national security justifications. To those who still think this is about national security and most definitely not protectionist actions: why aren't these companies blanket banned immediately rather than given arbitrary timelines? India has demonstrated it is possible to do so and continues to be a self sustaining democracy.

samatman 6y ago
Free market capitalism is a condition of peace, in the real sense that there's a spectrum from tariffs, to bans, to economic sanctions, leading to outright war. Unilateral disarmament, where one party allows free access to markets while the other party does not, is actually a valid tactic. It's not always the wrong thing to do. But choosing a tit-for-tat strategy instead isn't some sort of mark against free market capitalism. It just means that America has gotten tired of China defecting. Which I approve of. Your mileage may vary.
- tmotwu 6y ago
  I agree that there is a spectrum, and protectionist measures would not deviate from our economic values. Whether tariffs, bans, and economic sanctions are actually effective strategies is a separate discussion entirely. But clearly there is a notion of free market capitalism one side seems to go to great lengths in protecting - which explains why they have been enforcing it under a separate pretense.
oh_sigh 6y ago
The argument would be that it is not a current threat, but could be used as one in the future, hence the timeline to the ban, giving them time to right their ship, as it were. And even if this is a tit-for-tat retaliation against China, it isn't indicative of free market capitalism, because the 'tat' would be China closing off its own market and heavy handed government interference in any firm which wants to operate in China.

kube-system 6y ago

China also primarily uses a national security justification. And neither the US's nor China's national security claims are unjustified. Election interference, propaganda, and espionage are very real and legitimate concerns that all major world powers have regarding their communication infrastructure. Trump might talk a big game to his constituents about the outsourcing of jobs -- but his economic agenda has absolutely nothing to do with the national security concerns voiced by US public servants.

lacker 6y ago
China does not primarily use a national security justification. They primarily don’t even bother to justify themselves. They freely ban whatever websites they want without communicating any rationale for the ban or clearly stating what is banned.
- kube-system 6y ago
  Of course they have justifications. They have justifications for their own people in their own legal documents, and they have a party ideology with a clear set of agendas. "national security" is mentioned literally right at the beginning of the document that mandates the GFW. > Article 3: The computer management and supervision organization of the Ministry of Public Security is responsible for the security, protection and management of computer information networks and the Internet. The Computer Management and Supervision organization of the Ministry of Public Security should protect the public security of computer information networks and the Internet as well as protect the legal rights of Internet service providing units and individuals as well as the public interest. > Article 4: No unit or individual may use the Internet to harm national security, disclose state secrets, harm the interests of the State, of society or of a group, the legal rights of citizens, or to take part in criminal activities. [...] http://www.asianlii.org/cn/legis/cen/laws/cinaispamr904/ http://www.asianlii.org/cn/legis/cen/laws/cinaispamr904/

euix 6y ago

That's just because the U.S. is better at propaganda then China. Probably due to cultural differences. In the west official term for this is "soft power". Propaganda is when China, Russia or other adversarial countries do it. There is a whole lexicon of alternative doublespeak if you pay attention.

powerapple 6y ago
Propaganda is a positive word in China, that shows how culturally different US and China are. That's why there is a Department of Propaganda in China.