4 ms·

In my inexpert opinion these sanctions create pressure for China to enter or expand into the sanctioned markets and thereby create more competition with America

In my inexpert opinion these sanctions create pressure for China to enter or expand into the sanctioned markets and thereby create more competition with American companies. It seems very short sighted.

onepointsixC 4y ago
China already has been doing that. No need to help them do that.
- analyst74 4y ago
  China is not a single entity. Huawei is not going to choose low quality high price local startup over suppliers with good reputation if they have that choice. Sanction means those uncompetitive local startups don't have to compete with established players, giving them chance to catch up.
  - maerF0x0 4y ago
    > China is not a single entity. However it acts like one much more so than many other countries, and especially under Xi jinping. See also https://archive.is/ZoShw https://archive.is/ZoShw (NY Times Who Owns Huawei? The Company Tried to Explain. It Got Complicated. 2019)
    - DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
      As that article describes, Huawei is effectively employee-owned, though the legal arrangement is not straightforward (because of China's laws on stock ownership at the time Huawei was founded).
      - maerF0x0 4y ago
        The article says that it's claimed that Huawei is... but that it's misleading (virtual shares) and that whenever ask the question dodgy answers are given.
        DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
        The answers make perfect sense in the context of Chinese law. This is how Huawei was set up decades ago. They would have had no reason to hide or obfuscate their ownership back then. They used a legal device - the union holds shares on behalf of the employees - to get around restrictions on the number of shareholders in a private company.
  - hangonhn 4y ago
    > China is not a single entity. I wish more people knew or understood this. The central government, as much as it wants, doesn't have great control on the local level. It's even enshrined in a Chinese idiom: 天高皇帝遠 or "Heaven is high and the emperor is far away". Furthermore, China's model is actually quite decentralized. There's a lot of freedom at the provincial and local level -- it pretty much has to but the CCP has been able to leverage it to experiment with different ideas at different provinces.
    - hackernewds 4y ago
      Just wanted to add a tangent on how beautifully expressive and complex the Chinese language and script is.
- hackernewds 4y ago
  Yes. It slows them down.
perihelions 4y ago
It's like dumping [0], except in reverse. Artificially increase the prices of our exports to our adversary ⇒ protect our adversary's fledgling industry from competition from us. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy)
- tough 4y ago
  So Pumping?
- adamsb6 4y ago
  I'd say it's more like reverse protectionism. A protectionist demands that his country consume products made domestically. The sanctionist demands that other countries consume their own products, or those made from a coalition of countries not bound by the sanctions. Economists used to be mostly in agreement that protectionism is always a net bad, but in the last couple of decades have realized that carefully crafted protectionism can be used to allow domestic industries to develop to the point where they are able to compete internationally.
  - lazyeye 4y ago
    There are different flavors of protectionism too. One kind is to pretend to be an open trading nation whilst in reality there are all kinds of "compliance requirements", backroom deals, vague red tape, impenetrable beaucracy such that it is effectively impossible for foreign entities to be successful. Then after a few years the foreign-owned business is sold off to a local company and the conclusion is that foreigners "just dont know how to do business in that country". If done right, you get all the benefits of protectionism with none of the retaliation in return. I wonder if the economists talk much about this kind of protectionism.
inconceivable 4y ago
it makes complete sense if you view the world through the lens of: 1. china is incapable of innovation and invention and 2. they only know how to steal stuff and 3. their manufacturing industry only makes cheap plastic crap.
- VulgarExigency 4y ago
  All 3 things which are demonstrably false, but the american empire seems determined to continue to shoot itself in the foot
  - dylan604 4y ago
    All 3 things which are demonstrably false, NOW. They absolutely started by stealing things and then figuring out how to make them on their own. But that's no different than how the US built its rocket industry, or how Apple built their OS, or any number of other non-Chinese entities doing the same thing. Let's not forget the "how it started, where it is now" meme of the whole thing
    - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
      > But that's no different than how the US built its rocket industry Wasn't this from military conquest? > , or how Apple built their OS And wasn't Xerox compensated with Apple stock? But sure, reverse engineering happened a lot (Phoenix bios, IIRC).
  - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
    China is sort of doing the same thing with its contemplation of export controls of rare earths and the like. The British empire tried to enforce no home-grown industries in certain industries among its colonies by law and by dumping or taxes. Didn't work out so well for either the UK or the colonies. This sort of forced competition through export controls may be for the best all around in the long-term.
  - threeseed 4y ago
    Everyone likes to view these situations as USA versus China. But it's much more USA, EU, UK, Australia, Japan, Canada etc. There is a widespread, consensus view that China's rise must be managed whilst they continue to be a brutal and aggressive dictatorship.

onepointsixC 4y ago

China already has been doing that. No need to help them do that.

analyst74 4y ago
China is not a single entity. Huawei is not going to choose low quality high price local startup over suppliers with good reputation if they have that choice. Sanction means those uncompetitive local startups don't have to compete with established players, giving them chance to catch up.
- maerF0x0 4y ago
  > China is not a single entity. However it acts like one much more so than many other countries, and especially under Xi jinping. See also https://archive.is/ZoShw https://archive.is/ZoShw (NY Times Who Owns Huawei? The Company Tried to Explain. It Got Complicated. 2019)
  - DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
    As that article describes, Huawei is effectively employee-owned, though the legal arrangement is not straightforward (because of China's laws on stock ownership at the time Huawei was founded).
    - maerF0x0 4y ago
      The article says that it's claimed that Huawei is... but that it's misleading (virtual shares) and that whenever ask the question dodgy answers are given.
      - DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
        The answers make perfect sense in the context of Chinese law. This is how Huawei was set up decades ago. They would have had no reason to hide or obfuscate their ownership back then. They used a legal device - the union holds shares on behalf of the employees - to get around restrictions on the number of shareholders in a private company.
- hangonhn 4y ago
  > China is not a single entity. I wish more people knew or understood this. The central government, as much as it wants, doesn't have great control on the local level. It's even enshrined in a Chinese idiom: 天高皇帝遠 or "Heaven is high and the emperor is far away". Furthermore, China's model is actually quite decentralized. There's a lot of freedom at the provincial and local level -- it pretty much has to but the CCP has been able to leverage it to experiment with different ideas at different provinces.
  - hackernewds 4y ago
    Just wanted to add a tangent on how beautifully expressive and complex the Chinese language and script is.
hackernewds 4y ago
Yes. It slows them down.

perihelions 4y ago

It's like dumping [0], except in reverse. Artificially increase the prices of our exports to our adversary ⇒ protect our adversary's fledgling industry from competition from us. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy)

tough 4y ago
So Pumping?
adamsb6 4y ago
I'd say it's more like reverse protectionism. A protectionist demands that his country consume products made domestically. The sanctionist demands that other countries consume their own products, or those made from a coalition of countries not bound by the sanctions. Economists used to be mostly in agreement that protectionism is always a net bad, but in the last couple of decades have realized that carefully crafted protectionism can be used to allow domestic industries to develop to the point where they are able to compete internationally.
- lazyeye 4y ago
  There are different flavors of protectionism too. One kind is to pretend to be an open trading nation whilst in reality there are all kinds of "compliance requirements", backroom deals, vague red tape, impenetrable beaucracy such that it is effectively impossible for foreign entities to be successful. Then after a few years the foreign-owned business is sold off to a local company and the conclusion is that foreigners "just dont know how to do business in that country". If done right, you get all the benefits of protectionism with none of the retaliation in return. I wonder if the economists talk much about this kind of protectionism.

inconceivable 4y ago

it makes complete sense if you view the world through the lens of: 1. china is incapable of innovation and invention and 2. they only know how to steal stuff and 3. their manufacturing industry only makes cheap plastic crap.

VulgarExigency 4y ago
All 3 things which are demonstrably false, but the american empire seems determined to continue to shoot itself in the foot
- dylan604 4y ago
  All 3 things which are demonstrably false, NOW. They absolutely started by stealing things and then figuring out how to make them on their own. But that's no different than how the US built its rocket industry, or how Apple built their OS, or any number of other non-Chinese entities doing the same thing. Let's not forget the "how it started, where it is now" meme of the whole thing
  - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
    > But that's no different than how the US built its rocket industry Wasn't this from military conquest? > , or how Apple built their OS And wasn't Xerox compensated with Apple stock? But sure, reverse engineering happened a lot (Phoenix bios, IIRC).
- anonymouskimmer 4y ago
  China is sort of doing the same thing with its contemplation of export controls of rare earths and the like. The British empire tried to enforce no home-grown industries in certain industries among its colonies by law and by dumping or taxes. Didn't work out so well for either the UK or the colonies. This sort of forced competition through export controls may be for the best all around in the long-term.
- threeseed 4y ago
  Everyone likes to view these situations as USA versus China. But it's much more USA, EU, UK, Australia, Japan, Canada etc. There is a widespread, consensus view that China's rise must be managed whilst they continue to be a brutal and aggressive dictatorship.