3 ms·

False dichotomy. The choice isn't mercantilism XOR IMF agenda, and I certainly did not speak up for the IMF agenda (and won't). Financial repression is a thin

False dichotomy. The choice isn't mercantilism XOR IMF agenda, and I certainly did not speak up for the IMF agenda (and won't). Financial repression is a thing in China. It's true that mercantilism has been better for Chinese people than the IMF agenda for anyone else. So what? EDIT: It takes two to mercantilist: the perennial exporter and the perennial importer. Mercantilism has been good for the American consumer, and bad for American industry, so bad for America.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dotcommand 5y ago
> . It's true that mercantilism has been better for Chinese people than the IMF agenda for anyone else. So what? But you wrote: "Not even China! (At least not Chinese people.)" In one comment you say it didn't benefit the chinese people and then when you are called out, you say it did benefit them. It's amazing how anti-china propagandists contradict themselves over and over again. You should go work for a news company.
- cryptonector 5y ago
  And then I mentioned financial repression. Also, Chinese companies are being paid in dollar debt that can easily turn out to be worth less than they though. China has all these reserves that, if they really push their model, must move in a big way towards zero. That's not good for them.
refenestrator 5y ago
If you're going to attack mercantilism from a free trade perspective, the IMF is at the other end of that pole. That's where your ideas were tried and failed in practice. South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and China are all huge success stories due to protecting nascent industries while they caught up with more industrialized states.
- mbrodersen 5y ago
  Don’t forget the US. The US benefitted from massive import restrictions in its early history. It only lowered the walls when it became competitive. Which was smart (by the way) and is what successful countries have historically done. Countries that didn’t protect themselves were crushed by international companies overpowering local companies.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

dotcommand 5y ago

> . It's true that mercantilism has been better for Chinese people than the IMF agenda for anyone else. So what? But you wrote: "Not even China! (At least not Chinese people.)" In one comment you say it didn't benefit the chinese people and then when you are called out, you say it did benefit them. It's amazing how anti-china propagandists contradict themselves over and over again. You should go work for a news company.

cryptonector 5y ago
And then I mentioned financial repression. Also, Chinese companies are being paid in dollar debt that can easily turn out to be worth less than they though. China has all these reserves that, if they really push their model, must move in a big way towards zero. That's not good for them.

refenestrator 5y ago

If you're going to attack mercantilism from a free trade perspective, the IMF is at the other end of that pole. That's where your ideas were tried and failed in practice. South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and China are all huge success stories due to protecting nascent industries while they caught up with more industrialized states.

mbrodersen 5y ago
Don’t forget the US. The US benefitted from massive import restrictions in its early history. It only lowered the walls when it became competitive. Which was smart (by the way) and is what successful countries have historically done. Countries that didn’t protect themselves were crushed by international companies overpowering local companies.