4 ms·

I think the world is better off in the world where the U.S. leads than in one in which China leads. Yes, the U.S. has turned sour on China, and for good reason

I think the world is better off in the world where the U.S. leads than in one in which China leads. Yes, the U.S. has turned sour on China, and for good reasons. China has turned away from liberalization, cementing one ruler for life while "anti-corruption" campaigns removed his political rivals. We tired of how our economy was playing by rules that the Chinese were not including massive protectionist subsidies, inappropriate currency peg that prevent American companies from competing, one-sided requirements to give IP or trade.secrets to China in order to enter their market, (which affects our US economy particularly as it is highly dependent IP dependent), increasing aggressive Chinese nationlism and anti-American rhetoric in the Party, massive IP theft from hacking, or straight up counterfeiting, with little done to curb it, the high rate of forced labor, state sponsored industrial espionage at scale, pervasive and horrific.human rights abuses at home, the fall of Hong Kong!!!, and the rising threats to Taiwan. And lest you think economic decoupling is at the behest of U.S. war policy, its because corporations have independently decided that China is too risky, because of all the things mentioned above, and because covid taught the value of diversification of risks. Need I really go on? You consistently defend China and implicate US as being the aggressor, but I think its mostly the opposite: The U.S. had ignored Chinese aggressions for too long because the good were cheap and because there was the dream that integration would bring mutual liberalization.

DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
> We tired of how our economy was playing by rules that the Chinese were not including massive protectionist subsidies, inappropriate currency peg that prevent American companies from competing, one-sided requirements to give IP or trade.secrets to China in order to enter their market, (which affects our US economy particularly as it is highly dependent IP dependent), increasing aggressive Chinese nationlism and anti-American rhetoric in the Party, massive IP theft from hacking, or straight up counterfeiting, with little done to curb it, the high rate of forced labor Almost none of this is true, or at least is extremely exaggerated. Your basic picture of China is completely wrong. First off, American companies have done extremely well in China over the last few decades. Given your litany of supposed problems, you'd never know that American companies dominate large chunks of the Chinese market and have made massive profits in China. The IP issues you raise are massively overblown. Yes, there were regulations in the past that required some level of IP sharing to enter some parts of the Chinese economy. These requirements were not that onerous, and many foreign companies made the rational and correct calculation that transferring a small amount of IP was worth it in order to access the large Chinese labor pool and market. Companies like Volkswagen did extremely well despite IP transfer, because that transfer was minor, and their investments in China were very lucrative. From the Chinese point of view, putting some conditions on foreign investment made sense. China was an undeveloped, mostly agricultural country that was just beginning to let in foreign corporate giants. China gave them access to a giant pool of cheap labor in exchange for some IP transfer. I don't see how that's morally wrong. On counterfeiting, this is something that happens in every underdeveloped economy. It's extremely difficult to prevent every little corner shop from making counterfeit goods, especially when the country has much more pressing problems to deal with (like much of the population not having access to running water or electricity). However, as China has developed, it has cracked down on counterfeit goods, and they're much less common than they used to be. I don't think China is worse in this regard than other countries at a similar level of economic development. About the supposed high rate of forced labor, I don't know where you're getting your statistics. China is not even a low-wage country any more (salaries are higher than in Mexico, for example). However, there have been plenty of evidence-free accusations of forced labor in Western media, ironically discussing Chinese programs designed to provide higher-paying jobs to the rural poor. > The U.S. had ignored Chinese aggressions for too long because the good were cheap and because there was the dream that integration would bring mutual liberalization. These supposed "Chinese aggressions" you're raising were extremely lucrative for the United States, and were responsible for a large fraction of American economic growth over the last few decades. The reason the US is freaking out right now is because Americans have realized that China is becoming a peer power. The very existence of a peer threatens the entire American political self-image. Nothing China could do, short of ceasing to exist or becoming poor again, would appease the US. You hold really extreme views on China, which do not correspond at all to reality. I think you should go visit, and ask yourself if what you see is the horror scenario you had pictured.
- SubiculumCode 3y ago
  >China gave them access to a giant pool of cheap labor in exchange for some IP transfer. I don't see how that's morally wrong. Yes. In isolation, that would be both a reasonable and commendably planned exchange. However, the context is important. Trading partners need to grow in the same direction. They should over time become greater allies, must profess similar beliefs in human freedom, democratic institutions, responsibility for global welfare, should not shield bad State-actors like North Korea, do not increasingly centralize power behind one man, and do not increasing be antagonistic to freedom of expression, or so thoroughy crush free speech and information at home. For example, what it appears like is that the West's openess of the internet has put our citizens as targets for disnformation warfare, while China's tight control has their populace locked down from each other, and from the U.S., while anti U.S. rhetoric rises in China Party Statements. So you can pretend in isolation, that the exchange was mutual and done, trading partners are supposed to be more than transactional, they are supposed to build trust.
  - DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
    > In isolation, that would be both a reasonable and commendably planned exchange. However, the context is important. The context is that these requirements were put in place in an era when China had a large, cheap labor pool to offer, but was sorely lacking in technical know-how. Trading access to that labor pool for IP was a perfectly reasonable thing to do. As China has developed economically, it has reduced IP transfer requirements. Half of Tesla's production is now on China, but they completely own their own factory and don't have to transfer IP. The IP transfer requirements were a stepping stone on the way from an agricultural economy to a modern industrialized economy. > Trading partners need to grow in the same direction. Trading partners don't have to like one another. They just both have to gain from the transaction. > China's tight control has their populace locked down from each other, and from the U.S. Ironically, Chinese people generally know a lot more about the United States than Americans know about China. There is censorship in China, but a good chunk of the population speaks English at some basic level (whereas very few Americans speak Mandarin), American movies and TV shows are popular, and people can get around the censorship with a little bit of effort (installing a VPN). > while anti U.S. rhetoric rises in China Party Statements. Having experienced both Chinese coverage of the US and American coverage of China, I can tell you that American coverage of China is far more negative than vice versa. The level of hatred and vitriol in the US towards China is reaching astronomical levels. CCP rhetoric about the US is tame in comparison to what you'd hear on the floor of the US Congress - Chinese government statements come across as conciliatory, in comparison. In the US, even people who know nothing about China have strong opinions and profess hatred or fear of the country. It's been very alarming to see.

DiogenesKynikos 3y ago

> We tired of how our economy was playing by rules that the Chinese were not including massive protectionist subsidies, inappropriate currency peg that prevent American companies from competing, one-sided requirements to give IP or trade.secrets to China in order to enter their market, (which affects our US economy particularly as it is highly dependent IP dependent), increasing aggressive Chinese nationlism and anti-American rhetoric in the Party, massive IP theft from hacking, or straight up counterfeiting, with little done to curb it, the high rate of forced labor Almost none of this is true, or at least is extremely exaggerated. Your basic picture of China is completely wrong. First off, American companies have done extremely well in China over the last few decades. Given your litany of supposed problems, you'd never know that American companies dominate large chunks of the Chinese market and have made massive profits in China. The IP issues you raise are massively overblown. Yes, there were regulations in the past that required some level of IP sharing to enter some parts of the Chinese economy. These requirements were not that onerous, and many foreign companies made the rational and correct calculation that transferring a small amount of IP was worth it in order to access the large Chinese labor pool and market. Companies like Volkswagen did extremely well despite IP transfer, because that transfer was minor, and their investments in China were very lucrative. From the Chinese point of view, putting some conditions on foreign investment made sense. China was an undeveloped, mostly agricultural country that was just beginning to let in foreign corporate giants. China gave them access to a giant pool of cheap labor in exchange for some IP transfer. I don't see how that's morally wrong. On counterfeiting, this is something that happens in every underdeveloped economy. It's extremely difficult to prevent every little corner shop from making counterfeit goods, especially when the country has much more pressing problems to deal with (like much of the population not having access to running water or electricity). However, as China has developed, it has cracked down on counterfeit goods, and they're much less common than they used to be. I don't think China is worse in this regard than other countries at a similar level of economic development. About the supposed high rate of forced labor, I don't know where you're getting your statistics. China is not even a low-wage country any more (salaries are higher than in Mexico, for example). However, there have been plenty of evidence-free accusations of forced labor in Western media, ironically discussing Chinese programs designed to provide higher-paying jobs to the rural poor. > The U.S. had ignored Chinese aggressions for too long because the good were cheap and because there was the dream that integration would bring mutual liberalization. These supposed "Chinese aggressions" you're raising were extremely lucrative for the United States, and were responsible for a large fraction of American economic growth over the last few decades. The reason the US is freaking out right now is because Americans have realized that China is becoming a peer power. The very existence of a peer threatens the entire American political self-image. Nothing China could do, short of ceasing to exist or becoming poor again, would appease the US. You hold really extreme views on China, which do not correspond at all to reality. I think you should go visit, and ask yourself if what you see is the horror scenario you had pictured.

SubiculumCode 3y ago
>China gave them access to a giant pool of cheap labor in exchange for some IP transfer. I don't see how that's morally wrong. Yes. In isolation, that would be both a reasonable and commendably planned exchange. However, the context is important. Trading partners need to grow in the same direction. They should over time become greater allies, must profess similar beliefs in human freedom, democratic institutions, responsibility for global welfare, should not shield bad State-actors like North Korea, do not increasingly centralize power behind one man, and do not increasing be antagonistic to freedom of expression, or so thoroughy crush free speech and information at home. For example, what it appears like is that the West's openess of the internet has put our citizens as targets for disnformation warfare, while China's tight control has their populace locked down from each other, and from the U.S., while anti U.S. rhetoric rises in China Party Statements. So you can pretend in isolation, that the exchange was mutual and done, trading partners are supposed to be more than transactional, they are supposed to build trust.
- DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
  > In isolation, that would be both a reasonable and commendably planned exchange. However, the context is important. The context is that these requirements were put in place in an era when China had a large, cheap labor pool to offer, but was sorely lacking in technical know-how. Trading access to that labor pool for IP was a perfectly reasonable thing to do. As China has developed economically, it has reduced IP transfer requirements. Half of Tesla's production is now on China, but they completely own their own factory and don't have to transfer IP. The IP transfer requirements were a stepping stone on the way from an agricultural economy to a modern industrialized economy. > Trading partners need to grow in the same direction. Trading partners don't have to like one another. They just both have to gain from the transaction. > China's tight control has their populace locked down from each other, and from the U.S. Ironically, Chinese people generally know a lot more about the United States than Americans know about China. There is censorship in China, but a good chunk of the population speaks English at some basic level (whereas very few Americans speak Mandarin), American movies and TV shows are popular, and people can get around the censorship with a little bit of effort (installing a VPN). > while anti U.S. rhetoric rises in China Party Statements. Having experienced both Chinese coverage of the US and American coverage of China, I can tell you that American coverage of China is far more negative than vice versa. The level of hatred and vitriol in the US towards China is reaching astronomical levels. CCP rhetoric about the US is tame in comparison to what you'd hear on the floor of the US Congress - Chinese government statements come across as conciliatory, in comparison. In the US, even people who know nothing about China have strong opinions and profess hatred or fear of the country. It's been very alarming to see.