3 ms·

Tit for tat makes sense in a situation where you expect to work out a deal, both sides agree to stop, and everyone is better off. E.g. allowing visa-free travel

by yorwba 3y ago

Tit for tat makes sense in a situation where you expect to work out a deal, both sides agree to stop, and everyone is better off. E.g. allowing visa-free travel in both directions between A and B. But for the Chinese government, social control is an existential issue, not something that can be negotiated away in a trade deal. They're always going to "tit", because allowing people to freely express themselves on the internet could end their rule overnight. So the "tat" cannot be used as a bargaining chip, but needs to be weighed on its own merits. Does the US benefit from the ability to arbitrarily declare companies to be "foreign adversaries" and shut them down or force their owners to divest? Mightn't TikTok decide to relocate their US headquarters to Europe instead? And shouldn't Chinese founders in the US see the writing on the wall and contemplate a similar move? Is that good or bad for the US?

vineyardmike 3y ago
> But for the Chinese government, social control is an existential issue, not something that can be negotiated away in a trade deal. They're always going to "tit", because allowing people to freely express themselves on the internet could end their rule overnight. Sounds like it’s bad idea to freely open the door to China. > Mightn't TikTok decide to relocate their US headquarters to Europe instead? The law says they can’t exist in China, Russia, NK, Iran so this is fine. > And shouldn't Chinese founders in the US see the writing on the wall and contemplate a similar move? If they leave China, and its influence, it sounds like a clear win for the US goals. If they’re already in the US then it’s a no-op and they shouldn’t be affected because why would they?
butlike 3y ago
Drop "Chinese." Just..."Government." But I'm not even framing this as a malicious control thing. A society could just as easily break down if there's not some form of social...you used the word "control," I choose "framework." Paid on Friday, national holidays, do your taxes in April. You could frame these as a sort of control. Also, a country not allowing citizens to pop off about committing terroristic acts against foreign entities would mitigate the potential for said country to be labelled an "enemy" by everyone else. Diplomacy is hard, but sometimes the rules are in place for a reason. I don't know though; I've never ran a country. for the most part

by yorwba 3y ago

vineyardmike 3y ago

> But for the Chinese government, social control is an existential issue, not something that can be negotiated away in a trade deal. They're always going to "tit", because allowing people to freely express themselves on the internet could end their rule overnight. Sounds like it’s bad idea to freely open the door to China. > Mightn't TikTok decide to relocate their US headquarters to Europe instead? The law says they can’t exist in China, Russia, NK, Iran so this is fine. > And shouldn't Chinese founders in the US see the writing on the wall and contemplate a similar move? If they leave China, and its influence, it sounds like a clear win for the US goals. If they’re already in the US then it’s a no-op and they shouldn’t be affected because why would they?

butlike 3y ago

Drop "Chinese." Just..."Government." But I'm not even framing this as a malicious control thing. A society could just as easily break down if there's not some form of social...you used the word "control," I choose "framework." Paid on Friday, national holidays, do your taxes in April. You could frame these as a sort of control. Also, a country not allowing citizens to pop off about committing terroristic acts against foreign entities would mitigate the potential for said country to be labelled an "enemy" by everyone else. Diplomacy is hard, but sometimes the rules are in place for a reason. I don't know though; I've never ran a country. for the most part