3 ms·

>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

>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

> 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.