6 ms·
It could be seen as a non-trade tariff barrier if you squint quite hard. There's another example - intellectual property. The US was fine playing fast and loos
by flir 3y ago
It could be seen as a non-trade tariff barrier if you squint quite hard.
There's another example - intellectual property. The US was fine playing fast and loose with IP (Most famous example is Dickens' attempts to point out he was being pirated left and right in the States and not seeing a penny: https://www.charlesdickenspage.com/copyright1842.html https://www.charlesdickenspage.com/copyright1842.html)
Now America is on top of the IP pile, it sees other nations as playing fast and loose: https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnlamattina/2013/04/08/indias-solution-to-drug-costs-ignore-patents-and-control-prices-except-for-home-grown-drugs/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnlamattina/2013/04/08/indias...
- llamaimperative 3y agoHuh I wonder if there have been any substantial changes to international cooperation, investments made thereupon, and agreements made thereupon between the 1850s and 2013. Countries don’t have to join international trade regimes. They also don’t have to join climate/emission commitments. They do both of them because they come with benefits. Cursory searching suggests the first real work on international copyright, by contrast, came about in 1886. Even early versions came after Dickens’ story here.
- lupusreal 3y agoYou must understand that we have to hold China to a 19th century standard while holding western nations to a 21st century standard because... uh.. reasons. Don't question it!
- ethanbond 3y agoWhat? Absolutely question it. Let me know if you find an answer that’s significantly more believable than, “trying to balance local quality of life, long term environmental and economic viability, and short term economic prosperity and political stability.” If you have a different balance to strike that you think is significantly and obviously better, I’m sure the whole world is interested in hearing it.
- dotnet00 3y agoHe was being sarcastic.
- ethanbond 3y agoI’m aware. The implication of the sarcasm is there’s no good reason China and western countries have different standards, so that’s what I was addressing.
- lupusreal 3y agoWe share the same planet, so we need to share the same environmental standards. The self-touted "world's oldest civilization" no less than the rest.
- ethanbond 3y agoIt’s a great ideal, but there are interests other than purely environmental (or purely “fairness”) that must be taken into account as a matter of sheer necessity.
- lupusreal 3y agoYou appealed to fairness, not me.
- ethanbond 3y agoIt’d be easier to have productive conversations if you just plainly stated your position on the topic at hand, if you have one.
- lupusreal 3y agoDid I not? > We share the same planet, so we need to share the same environmental standards All of the excuses to hold China to a different standard are horse shit. Is that stated plainly enough for you?
- flir 3y agoWell obviously, change is constant. History doesn't repeat, but it does rhyme. Look at the shape of the story. The people on top support rules that completely coincidentally help keep them on top. It's a universal impluse. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." (Upton Sinclair) is another example with a similar shape, but at the scale of individuals. John Rawls had the right idea.