4 ms·

China is only an adversary if you ignore the hundreds of billions of dollars in trade we have between us. If we were serious about treating China as an adversar

China is only an adversary if you ignore the hundreds of billions of dollars in trade we have between us. If we were serious about treating China as an adversary or enemy, we'd address trade way before we'd bother with toy sites like TikTok.

tivert 3y ago
> China is only an adversary if you ignore the hundreds of billions of dollars in trade we have between us. If we were serious about treating China as an adversary or enemy, we'd address trade way before we'd bother with toy sites like TikTok. You're trying to make perfect be the enemy of the good. The US and Western countries, for the last several decades, have engaged in a foolish and deluded trade policy with China. It's going to be a long and difficult process to partially undo that mistake. Though is done, they'll never be able to take back the technology, trade secrets, and know-how they let go. Dealing with the TikTok problem is low-hanging fruit, in comparison. You reach for the low-hanging fruit first.
- dpkirchner 3y ago
  > Dealing with the TikTok problem is low-hanging fruit, in comparison. You reach for the low-hanging fruit first. In this case it appears we're reaching for the low-hanging fruit because it makes easy headlines, has low political risk, and won't change the status quo (Congress won't be successful in their stated goals). It's a distraction from real problems.
  - tivert 3y ago
    > In this case it appears we're reaching for the low-hanging fruit because it makes easy headlines, has low political risk I don't think so. That honestly just sounds like a baseless appeal to cynicism. And as for "low political risk," didn't they just get their phone lines jammed with complaints? > and won't change the status quo (Congress won't be successful in their stated goals) What goals are those? It seems like their big goal is to remove a popular social network from the control of an adversary nation, and this bill would do that. IIRC, CIFUS successful forced the Chinese to divest Grindr. I don't see why this divestment would be out of reach. https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/6/21168079/grindr-sold-chinese-owner-us-cfius-security-concerns-kunlun-lgbtq https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/6/21168079/grindr-sold-chine...
    - dpkirchner 3y ago
      > And as for "low political risk," didn't they just get their phone lines jammed with complaints? Sure, and how many people are going to change their votes on the issue? Are they going to take it more seriously than immigration policy, abortion rights, support for Israel, the actual issue of our trade deficit with China, etc? I sincerely doubt it. It's pure distraction. They can point to it and claim they're taking the Chinese threat seriously. > IIRC, CIFUS successful forced the Chinese to divest Grindr. I don't see why this divestment would be out of reach. They invested about $250M, most of which was only a year before they sold it for $600M. They could have fought harder but I doubt they were too upset about that massive, quick profit. TikTok has a lot more at stake -- although who knows, maybe they'll find someone with extremely deep pockets.
milkhead 3y ago
A big reason that the US trades so much with China is because they are an adversary. It's a similar concept to nuclear MAD doctrine. Mutual Assured Economic destruction for both of the countries if there is a war.
- tivert 3y ago
  > A big reason that the US trades so much with China is because they are an adversary. It's a similar concept to nuclear MAD doctrine. Mutual Assured Economic destruction for both of the countries if there is a war. No, that's wrong. It sounds like a regurgitated libertarian talking point/post-hoc justification, not actual history. The reason the US trades so much with China is that, during its over-confident post Cold War high, it convinced itself that economic liberalization would inevitably bring political liberalization. That theory has been proven wrong, and China has shown you can have capitalism without democracy.
quickslowdown 3y ago
I disagree. I don't care how the money flows, their actions are adversarial, and if it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it means I don't have to put much effort into replying to obnoxious contrarian comments masquerading as a respectable point on Hackernews.

tivert 3y ago

> China is only an adversary if you ignore the hundreds of billions of dollars in trade we have between us. If we were serious about treating China as an adversary or enemy, we'd address trade way before we'd bother with toy sites like TikTok. You're trying to make perfect be the enemy of the good. The US and Western countries, for the last several decades, have engaged in a foolish and deluded trade policy with China. It's going to be a long and difficult process to partially undo that mistake. Though is done, they'll never be able to take back the technology, trade secrets, and know-how they let go. Dealing with the TikTok problem is low-hanging fruit, in comparison. You reach for the low-hanging fruit first.

dpkirchner 3y ago
> Dealing with the TikTok problem is low-hanging fruit, in comparison. You reach for the low-hanging fruit first. In this case it appears we're reaching for the low-hanging fruit because it makes easy headlines, has low political risk, and won't change the status quo (Congress won't be successful in their stated goals). It's a distraction from real problems.
- tivert 3y ago
  > In this case it appears we're reaching for the low-hanging fruit because it makes easy headlines, has low political risk I don't think so. That honestly just sounds like a baseless appeal to cynicism. And as for "low political risk," didn't they just get their phone lines jammed with complaints? > and won't change the status quo (Congress won't be successful in their stated goals) What goals are those? It seems like their big goal is to remove a popular social network from the control of an adversary nation, and this bill would do that. IIRC, CIFUS successful forced the Chinese to divest Grindr. I don't see why this divestment would be out of reach. https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/6/21168079/grindr-sold-chinese-owner-us-cfius-security-concerns-kunlun-lgbtq https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/6/21168079/grindr-sold-chine...
  - dpkirchner 3y ago
    > And as for "low political risk," didn't they just get their phone lines jammed with complaints? Sure, and how many people are going to change their votes on the issue? Are they going to take it more seriously than immigration policy, abortion rights, support for Israel, the actual issue of our trade deficit with China, etc? I sincerely doubt it. It's pure distraction. They can point to it and claim they're taking the Chinese threat seriously. > IIRC, CIFUS successful forced the Chinese to divest Grindr. I don't see why this divestment would be out of reach. They invested about $250M, most of which was only a year before they sold it for $600M. They could have fought harder but I doubt they were too upset about that massive, quick profit. TikTok has a lot more at stake -- although who knows, maybe they'll find someone with extremely deep pockets.

milkhead 3y ago

A big reason that the US trades so much with China is because they are an adversary. It's a similar concept to nuclear MAD doctrine. Mutual Assured Economic destruction for both of the countries if there is a war.

tivert 3y ago
> A big reason that the US trades so much with China is because they are an adversary. It's a similar concept to nuclear MAD doctrine. Mutual Assured Economic destruction for both of the countries if there is a war. No, that's wrong. It sounds like a regurgitated libertarian talking point/post-hoc justification, not actual history. The reason the US trades so much with China is that, during its over-confident post Cold War high, it convinced itself that economic liberalization would inevitably bring political liberalization. That theory has been proven wrong, and China has shown you can have capitalism without democracy.

quickslowdown 3y ago

I disagree. I don't care how the money flows, their actions are adversarial, and if it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it means I don't have to put much effort into replying to obnoxious contrarian comments masquerading as a respectable point on Hackernews.