3 ms·

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 t

by 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.

by tmotwu 6y ago

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.