5 ms·

Funny how things change. In the 90s the U.S., EU and Japan were the champions of free trade for industrial products and services. However, when it would come

Funny how things change. In the 90s the U.S., EU and Japan were the champions of free trade for industrial products and services. However, when it would come to agricultural goods they were the champions of tariffs and protectionism. Why? Easy: because 3rd world countries were very competitive on agriculture. Egypt had better cotton, Argentina had beef, Brazil had orange juice, Cuba had sugar, etc, etc. 3rd world countries would complain about the hypocrisy and the rich would reply that they should just shut up and give up on protectionism. Now the whole Southeast Asia is competing with rich countries in industrial goods and protectionism is not protectionism anymore, is "decoupling".

the_af 3y ago
Those of us in the 3rd world have always known this. US mandates on removing protectionism were never for them; they are for others. Their recommendations on how to run our economies are always like this; they are never for them, it's always for us. They sometimes use fancy speak like "decoupling" in hopes we won't be able to tell.
strangescript 3y ago
Having better beef doesn't translate to building weapons or global communication networks. Spinning up a new cattle ranch if supply is cut off is trivial. They are not on the same level. The movements we are seeing now are matters of national security.
- sudosysgen 3y ago
  It takes time and it has cascading effects.
- TremendousJudge 3y ago
  Having access to food is most definitely a matter of national security. If you get your ports cut off you can't increase local food production before mass starvation.
brabel 3y ago
This hypocrisy is why BRICS is so inviting to those countries that have suffered from the status quo for a long time.
translucyd 3y ago
Not only that, but the US made a trap for themselves: Theres no know how and capable people to replicate the tech. This take decades, 2 or even 3 to build. I have the impression that the China today is the result of the planning made in the 90s, implemented in the 00s. What planning the west did last 20 years? I think the west already lost and this is the tantrum. :(
- thworp 3y ago
  If you had ever lived and worked in the countries that are the public boogeymen for world domination, or even just with people and companies from those countries, you wouldn't be quite so down. I think it's quite telling that the "workshop of the world" does not export high precision CNC equipment made by domestic companies in any meaningful amounts. Similarly, even before any export controls and sanctions really kicked in, their domestic chip makers had huge problems with yield and quality even though they bought tried and tested machines (and sometimes whole departments) from established chipmakers.
TheGigaChad 3y ago
[dead]
jszymborski 3y ago
Call it whatever you want, if freely trading with liberal democracies is protectionism then I am a big fan.
ericmay 3y ago
"decoupling" tends to be how it's described in media, but every day people know exactly what it is which is "protectionism" (as if that's necessarily a bad word). I'm also unsure about your comment about Southeast Asia competing with rich countries on industrial goods. It seems to me it's more specifically about China and not so much other countries in Southeast Asia. I wouldn't disagree with your offhand comment about the 90s and such and the US, EU, and Japan. But I'm not really sure what the point of it is given that countries such as China (not the only one) have maintained protectionist policies. Since many didn't go along with the idea of free trade and the theory that free trade would open up global markets and raise everyone's living standard (which was probably just marketing from those who stood to profit) you can't then blame the US, EU, Japan, or others for reverting back to more protectionist policies to be in line with how most other countries tend to operate. Hey we should all do this thing that stands to benefit everyone, but we all have to do it Starts doing it Hey we all have to do it or it won't work No change Ok fine we're not going to do it then Repercussions/results/etc.
goodbyesf 3y ago
> Now the whole Southeast Asia is competing with rich countries in industrial goods and protectionism is not protectionism anymore, is "decoupling". Just like bribery in 3rd world is corruption but here, it's called lobbying ( cost of doing business ).
lefstathiou 3y ago
I think decoupling is the right word. These south East Asian countries were unindustrialized nations before the hundreds of billions of foreign direct investment and hundreds of billions of intellectual property that transferred from the West to the East. America exported its manufacturing know how for decades, and now it is taking it back as the trade is no longer as favorable. Seems rational to me. SE Asia came out a huge winner in the process, and now the time has come to stand up their tech and manufacturing in their own. Much ado about nothing imho.
- yorwba 3y ago
  "Decoupling" mostly involves increasing investment in South and Southeast Asia to set up alternatives to Chinese suppliers. America is hardly going to take back much of the low-skill, low-wage, long-hours manufacturing of cheap consumer products that was offshored decades ago.
  - onemoresoop 3y ago
    It doesn't have to be for cheap stuff aka textiles and other plasticky things. But for tech, modern electronics and so on it could go in another directions. And maybe we stop using these cheap things anyway since they're garbage anyway. Perhaps it's time to re-start building things to last, or at least that's my wish...
tptacek 3y ago
"Decoupling" refers specifically to economic disengagement with China, not Asia in general or the developing world.
whats_a_quasar 3y ago
It's not protectionism. Most of that manufacturing is not moving back to the U.S., it's moving to U.S. allies like Vietnam or Mexico, that would also be called third world countries. It really is what it says on the tin. It's a risk for the U.S. to be economically dependent on a state whose government does not share American values, and that is threatening its neighbors with invasion.
- pphysch 3y ago
  Vietnam and Mexico are not "US allies"
  - jpgvm 3y ago
    I can think of few places that embrace less "American values" than Vietnam. I say that as someone that lived there and now lives in Thailand, ie I'm aware of the tradeoffs of such places.
  - xeromal 3y ago
    What's your definition for an ally
  - jcrites 3y ago
    What definition are you using of ally? Normally countries are considered allies when they have formal agreements (treaties) between each other to cooperate for mutual benefit. By this measure, the US and Mexico are definitely allies. Mexico is the USA's second largest trading partner worldwide. Exports of goods and services to Mexico support an estimated 1.1 million jobs (Department of Commerce). Mexico is also the second largest source of foreign crude oil to the USA, and the top export destination for US petroleum & natural gas. The US-Mexico-Canada agreement (USMCA) entered force in 2020, replacing NAFTA. The countries have a variety of complex ties. There are other treaties and areas of cooperation too, such as the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC). A security cooperation agreement called the Bicentennial Framework for Security, Public Health, and Safe Communities went into effect in 2021. As for Vietnam, the US and Vietnam established a bilateral trade agreement in 2001. The US provides maritime security assistance to the country through the Maritime Security Initiative, Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, and through foreign military financing. US transferred Coast Guard cutters to Vietnam in 2017 and 2020 to bolster its law enforcement capabilities. Those sound like alliances to me, but I'm interested to hear what other definition you're using.
orbital-decay 3y ago
Good thing you mentioned Japan. It was a huge competitor to the US in 80s and 90s in industrial products, yet nobody considered restricting the trade with it.
- hnfong 3y ago
  LOL Trade issues with Japan dominated relationships, especially the threat that American automobile and high tech industries would be overwhelmed. Japan's economic miracle emerged from a systematic program of subsidized investment in strategic industries—steel, machinery, electronics, chemicals, autos, shipbuilding, and aircraft.[118][119] During Reagan's first term Japanese government and private investors held a third of the debt sold by the US Treasury, providing Americans with hard currency used to buy Japanese goods.[120] In March 1985 the Senate voted 92–0 in favor of a Republican resolution that condemned Japan's trade practices as "unfair" and called on President Reagan curb Japanese imports.[121]
- jpgvm 3y ago
  Plaza Accord -> Louvre Accord. The Japanese real estate bubble was directly caused by the former and the latter put the nail in the coffin by massively tightening the Japanese economy, bursting the huge debt bubble and robbing the BOJ of any and all tools to try contain the explosion. US architected Japan's downfall and there was nothing Japan could do because they weren't allowed to have their own guns anymore so couldn't stand up for themselves and refuse to sign/implement aforementioned accords.

the_af 3y ago

Those of us in the 3rd world have always known this. US mandates on removing protectionism were never for them; they are for others. Their recommendations on how to run our economies are always like this; they are never for them, it's always for us. They sometimes use fancy speak like "decoupling" in hopes we won't be able to tell.

strangescript 3y ago

Having better beef doesn't translate to building weapons or global communication networks. Spinning up a new cattle ranch if supply is cut off is trivial. They are not on the same level. The movements we are seeing now are matters of national security.

sudosysgen 3y ago
It takes time and it has cascading effects.
TremendousJudge 3y ago
Having access to food is most definitely a matter of national security. If you get your ports cut off you can't increase local food production before mass starvation.

brabel 3y ago

This hypocrisy is why BRICS is so inviting to those countries that have suffered from the status quo for a long time.

translucyd 3y ago

Not only that, but the US made a trap for themselves: Theres no know how and capable people to replicate the tech. This take decades, 2 or even 3 to build. I have the impression that the China today is the result of the planning made in the 90s, implemented in the 00s. What planning the west did last 20 years? I think the west already lost and this is the tantrum. :(

thworp 3y ago
If you had ever lived and worked in the countries that are the public boogeymen for world domination, or even just with people and companies from those countries, you wouldn't be quite so down. I think it's quite telling that the "workshop of the world" does not export high precision CNC equipment made by domestic companies in any meaningful amounts. Similarly, even before any export controls and sanctions really kicked in, their domestic chip makers had huge problems with yield and quality even though they bought tried and tested machines (and sometimes whole departments) from established chipmakers.

TheGigaChad 3y ago

[dead]

jszymborski 3y ago

Call it whatever you want, if freely trading with liberal democracies is protectionism then I am a big fan.

ericmay 3y ago

"decoupling" tends to be how it's described in media, but every day people know exactly what it is which is "protectionism" (as if that's necessarily a bad word). I'm also unsure about your comment about Southeast Asia competing with rich countries on industrial goods. It seems to me it's more specifically about China and not so much other countries in Southeast Asia. I wouldn't disagree with your offhand comment about the 90s and such and the US, EU, and Japan. But I'm not really sure what the point of it is given that countries such as China (not the only one) have maintained protectionist policies. Since many didn't go along with the idea of free trade and the theory that free trade would open up global markets and raise everyone's living standard (which was probably just marketing from those who stood to profit) you can't then blame the US, EU, Japan, or others for reverting back to more protectionist policies to be in line with how most other countries tend to operate. Hey we should all do this thing that stands to benefit everyone, but we all have to do it Starts doing it Hey we all have to do it or it won't work No change Ok fine we're not going to do it then Repercussions/results/etc.

goodbyesf 3y ago

> Now the whole Southeast Asia is competing with rich countries in industrial goods and protectionism is not protectionism anymore, is "decoupling". Just like bribery in 3rd world is corruption but here, it's called lobbying ( cost of doing business ).

lefstathiou 3y ago

I think decoupling is the right word. These south East Asian countries were unindustrialized nations before the hundreds of billions of foreign direct investment and hundreds of billions of intellectual property that transferred from the West to the East. America exported its manufacturing know how for decades, and now it is taking it back as the trade is no longer as favorable. Seems rational to me. SE Asia came out a huge winner in the process, and now the time has come to stand up their tech and manufacturing in their own. Much ado about nothing imho.

yorwba 3y ago
"Decoupling" mostly involves increasing investment in South and Southeast Asia to set up alternatives to Chinese suppliers. America is hardly going to take back much of the low-skill, low-wage, long-hours manufacturing of cheap consumer products that was offshored decades ago.
- onemoresoop 3y ago
  It doesn't have to be for cheap stuff aka textiles and other plasticky things. But for tech, modern electronics and so on it could go in another directions. And maybe we stop using these cheap things anyway since they're garbage anyway. Perhaps it's time to re-start building things to last, or at least that's my wish...

tptacek 3y ago

"Decoupling" refers specifically to economic disengagement with China, not Asia in general or the developing world.

whats_a_quasar 3y ago

It's not protectionism. Most of that manufacturing is not moving back to the U.S., it's moving to U.S. allies like Vietnam or Mexico, that would also be called third world countries. It really is what it says on the tin. It's a risk for the U.S. to be economically dependent on a state whose government does not share American values, and that is threatening its neighbors with invasion.

pphysch 3y ago
Vietnam and Mexico are not "US allies"
- jpgvm 3y ago
  I can think of few places that embrace less "American values" than Vietnam. I say that as someone that lived there and now lives in Thailand, ie I'm aware of the tradeoffs of such places.
- xeromal 3y ago
  What's your definition for an ally
- jcrites 3y ago
  What definition are you using of ally? Normally countries are considered allies when they have formal agreements (treaties) between each other to cooperate for mutual benefit. By this measure, the US and Mexico are definitely allies. Mexico is the USA's second largest trading partner worldwide. Exports of goods and services to Mexico support an estimated 1.1 million jobs (Department of Commerce). Mexico is also the second largest source of foreign crude oil to the USA, and the top export destination for US petroleum & natural gas. The US-Mexico-Canada agreement (USMCA) entered force in 2020, replacing NAFTA. The countries have a variety of complex ties. There are other treaties and areas of cooperation too, such as the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC). A security cooperation agreement called the Bicentennial Framework for Security, Public Health, and Safe Communities went into effect in 2021. As for Vietnam, the US and Vietnam established a bilateral trade agreement in 2001. The US provides maritime security assistance to the country through the Maritime Security Initiative, Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, and through foreign military financing. US transferred Coast Guard cutters to Vietnam in 2017 and 2020 to bolster its law enforcement capabilities. Those sound like alliances to me, but I'm interested to hear what other definition you're using.

orbital-decay 3y ago

Good thing you mentioned Japan. It was a huge competitor to the US in 80s and 90s in industrial products, yet nobody considered restricting the trade with it.

hnfong 3y ago
LOL Trade issues with Japan dominated relationships, especially the threat that American automobile and high tech industries would be overwhelmed. Japan's economic miracle emerged from a systematic program of subsidized investment in strategic industries—steel, machinery, electronics, chemicals, autos, shipbuilding, and aircraft.[118][119] During Reagan's first term Japanese government and private investors held a third of the debt sold by the US Treasury, providing Americans with hard currency used to buy Japanese goods.[120] In March 1985 the Senate voted 92–0 in favor of a Republican resolution that condemned Japan's trade practices as "unfair" and called on President Reagan curb Japanese imports.[121]
jpgvm 3y ago
Plaza Accord -> Louvre Accord. The Japanese real estate bubble was directly caused by the former and the latter put the nail in the coffin by massively tightening the Japanese economy, bursting the huge debt bubble and robbing the BOJ of any and all tools to try contain the explosion. US architected Japan's downfall and there was nothing Japan could do because they weren't allowed to have their own guns anymore so couldn't stand up for themselves and refuse to sign/implement aforementioned accords.