5 ms·

Don't you think that decades of isolationist Maoism had more influence on the rural poverty in China than US and British protectionism?

mseebach 15y ago
The Mao isolation was just a continuation of centuries of Ming isolation, and, emphatically, yes. I think the GP meant modern protectionism in the sense of "Buy American/British/etc" movements.
- rbarooah 15y ago
  By talking about how the US and Britain had grown rich through trade and 'imperialist' protectionism and mentioning racism, the GP seemed to be implying that the poverty in China was somehow created by these western countries. Aren't those modern "buy British" or "buy American" movements voluntary? Might there not be good reasons for supporting those who are economically tied to you by culture and legal jurisdiction?
  - mseebach 15y ago
    There is no possible way I can read the GP to mean that. He only mentions imperialism and racism after talking about, and with clear reference to, "Buy American". Most of the movements are voluntary for now, but not all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009#Buy_American_provision http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestm... > Might there not be good reasons for supporting those who are economically tied to you by culture and legal jurisdiction? Yes and no. But if the support takes the form of a bail-out, you're just wasting your money while delaying the inevitable and making the eventual crash much more painful. If you instead let industries fizzle out over time, it's much easier for something to appear to take it's place.
    - rbarooah 15y ago
      So, do you disagree with the point in the original article about the bail-out of the auto industry preventing a much wider loss?
      - rbarooah 15y ago
        Good grief. Downvoted multiple times without explanation? The original top-level article that this thread is about made what seemed to be a reasoned point at the end about the bailout of the auto-industry, and I am simply asking mseebach whether he disagrees with it, since he made reference to bailouts. Why on earth would that get downvoted?
- mechnik 15y ago
  Might want to revisit all those centuries of Chinese history. There is a gap of over 300 years between the fall of Ming dynasty and the establishment of the People's Republic of China, roughly from the time Mayflower Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock to the end of WW2.
olalonde 15y ago
Straw man.
- rbarooah 15y ago
  How so?
  - olalonde 15y ago
    Parent didn't argue that American/British protectionism was worse than Mao's isolationism. He simply argued that American/British protectionism was bad for poor people in developing countries. > A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. It seems to me that you are misrepresenting your opponent's position.
    - rbarooah 15y ago
      Nowhere did I assert that this was the parent's arguement. I didn't represent his position at all. My question adds context that changes the weight of the parent's assertions. What I wrote isn't even an argument, so it can't be a straw man.
      - olalonde 15y ago
        By asking a question in the negative form ("don't you think...") you are implicitly asserting what follows is your interlocutor's opinion. If that's not your intention, don't ask the question in negative form. In this case: > Do you think that decades of isolationist Maoism had more influence on the rural poverty in China than US and British protectionism? or even better: > On another note, do you think that decades of isolationist Maoism had more influence on the rural poverty in China than US and British protectionism?
        rbarooah 15y ago
        By asking a question in the negative form ("don't you think...") you are implicitly asserting what follows is your interlocutor's opinion. This is where you are wrong. By phrasing it in the negative form I am implicitly asserting that I think that what follows is not my interlocutors opinion. So, no straw man.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

mseebach 15y ago

The Mao isolation was just a continuation of centuries of Ming isolation, and, emphatically, yes. I think the GP meant modern protectionism in the sense of "Buy American/British/etc" movements.

rbarooah 15y ago
By talking about how the US and Britain had grown rich through trade and 'imperialist' protectionism and mentioning racism, the GP seemed to be implying that the poverty in China was somehow created by these western countries. Aren't those modern "buy British" or "buy American" movements voluntary? Might there not be good reasons for supporting those who are economically tied to you by culture and legal jurisdiction?
- mseebach 15y ago
  There is no possible way I can read the GP to mean that. He only mentions imperialism and racism after talking about, and with clear reference to, "Buy American". Most of the movements are voluntary for now, but not all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009#Buy_American_provision http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestm... > Might there not be good reasons for supporting those who are economically tied to you by culture and legal jurisdiction? Yes and no. But if the support takes the form of a bail-out, you're just wasting your money while delaying the inevitable and making the eventual crash much more painful. If you instead let industries fizzle out over time, it's much easier for something to appear to take it's place.
  - rbarooah 15y ago
    So, do you disagree with the point in the original article about the bail-out of the auto industry preventing a much wider loss?
    - rbarooah 15y ago
      Good grief. Downvoted multiple times without explanation? The original top-level article that this thread is about made what seemed to be a reasoned point at the end about the bailout of the auto-industry, and I am simply asking mseebach whether he disagrees with it, since he made reference to bailouts. Why on earth would that get downvoted?
mechnik 15y ago
Might want to revisit all those centuries of Chinese history. There is a gap of over 300 years between the fall of Ming dynasty and the establishment of the People's Republic of China, roughly from the time Mayflower Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock to the end of WW2.

olalonde 15y ago

Straw man.

rbarooah 15y ago
How so?
- olalonde 15y ago
  Parent didn't argue that American/British protectionism was worse than Mao's isolationism. He simply argued that American/British protectionism was bad for poor people in developing countries. > A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. It seems to me that you are misrepresenting your opponent's position.
  - rbarooah 15y ago
    Nowhere did I assert that this was the parent's arguement. I didn't represent his position at all. My question adds context that changes the weight of the parent's assertions. What I wrote isn't even an argument, so it can't be a straw man.
    - olalonde 15y ago
      By asking a question in the negative form ("don't you think...") you are implicitly asserting what follows is your interlocutor's opinion. If that's not your intention, don't ask the question in negative form. In this case: > Do you think that decades of isolationist Maoism had more influence on the rural poverty in China than US and British protectionism? or even better: > On another note, do you think that decades of isolationist Maoism had more influence on the rural poverty in China than US and British protectionism?
      - rbarooah 15y ago
        By asking a question in the negative form ("don't you think...") you are implicitly asserting what follows is your interlocutor's opinion. This is where you are wrong. By phrasing it in the negative form I am implicitly asserting that I think that what follows is not my interlocutors opinion. So, no straw man.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]