5 ms·

> The ban exists as good politics (we don't ship to our adversaries) Do normal people really view china as an adversary? I see this constantly being pushed by

> The ban exists as good politics (we don't ship to our adversaries) Do normal people really view china as an adversary? I see this constantly being pushed by politicians and pundits but, unlike other countries in my lifetime, I don't really see that much animosity from normal folk. Expats who resent the PRC? Absolutely. Racism? Definitely. But there's not much appetite for the demonization of our largest trade partner, nor do I think people buy that we would ever want actual conflict with them—kinetic or economic (sans them doing something comically evil, of course). Genocide aside (for which there is at best sparse evidence available to westerners) most of the ways that they're supposedly our adversaries just seem like what we were brought up to see as "competition".

twelve40 2y ago
They are not our largest trade partner. Both of the last two administrations were driving pretty hard to distance from PRC. Given that, animosity from normal folk or lack thereof seems kind of vague/irrelevant?
- PittleyDunkin 2y ago
  Sorry I was thrown by calling it good politics. I guess you could call it that ignoring the people and interests the administration allegedly represents but that doesn't make much sense. Unless you consider american enterprise to be the primary clients of the government, which I suppose there's a good argument for. Regardless, china is our third largest trade partner and severing that connection would still absolutely destroy our economy and quality of life.
  - twelve40 2y ago
    > severing that connection would still absolutely destroy our economy and quality of life Probably, who knows. I'm just making an observation. Maybe after being useful to help win the Cold War they are now considered by the powers that be more of an annoyance or a competitive threat? Your guess as to why this is the policy is as good as mine.
aorloff 2y ago
Where do you think the fentanyl is coming from ?
- PittleyDunkin 2y ago
  I'm not inclined to hold that against 1.4 billion people and I'm guessing most others aren't either
  - jojobas 2y ago
    "China" as it appears on the global stage is not 1.4 billion people, it's more like 10 maximum, and the other 1399999990 just do their bidding. The fact there's fentanyl production and export means the 10 people don't mind it, and 1399999990 were not consulted.
  - kelnos 2y ago
    That's a bit of an unserious argument, to put it mildly. When people say "China" here, we're talking about a specific subset of bad/adversarial actors, whether in government or (I guess in the case) the drug trade. I have no problem with the vast majority of that 1.4 billion.
bruce511 2y ago
Not sure why you're getting downvotes, it's a legitimate question. There are different kinds of adversary. A traditional tactic in politics is to find someone to blame. Trump blames immigrants, Muslims and China. He translated this into economic action by putting tarrifs on Chinese goods. (Tarrifs are a terrible idea, but one of the few things the president can do unilaterally.) Thanks to his years of anti-chinese rhetoric, I think there's a substantial number of people who gave drunk that kool-aid and see China as adversarial. Geopolitically, China is investing heavily in influence. There are lots of programs in other countries (especially Africa and Asia) where they are fostering trade and building infrastructure. This comes largely at the expense of US influence. Militarily they are growing, and are one of the few countries which could inflict serious losses on American forces. They wouldn't win (yet) but the American public has less appetite for high losses than the Chinese do. None of which stops them being huge trading partners of course. But the pendulum is swinging, and that distresses a significant number of US folk.
- aurareturn 2y ago
  > Thanks to his years of anti-chinese rhetoric, I think there's a substantial number of people who gave drunk that kool-aid and see China as adversarial. I agree. You actually see this on HN a lot too. Many here swear they didn’t become another “china bad” parrot because of the Trump years. But to me, the Trump years was the start of it all for most.
- kelnos 2y ago
  > Geopolitically, China is investing heavily in influence. There are lots of programs in other countries (especially Africa and Asia) where they are fostering trade and building infrastructure. This comes largely at the expense of US influence. So then what you are saying is, as an American, I should consider them an adversary. Unless I think that their influence on geopolitics is good (I don't) or that my own country losing influence is good (I don't).
  - bruce511 2y ago
    It depends if you see it as a zero sum game. And indeed if you view others gain as your loss. It's possible to be rivals, without being adversaries. Plus, I think it's worth qualifying "adversary" there. If you're not a politician then what do you care about their political choices, and so on. If you grew up during the cold War you likely have the viewpoint of America being exceptional, being "the best" government, democracy, everything. This can be a hard position to let go of - to see that some things could be improved, that some countries do done things better. That the US can learn. The essence of the MAGA movement is to return USA to their global position as it was in the 50s, but the world has changed. And yes, China has things to teach us if we'll listen. Of course they are also far from perfect, and some lessons may do well in one context but not another.

twelve40 2y ago

They are not our largest trade partner. Both of the last two administrations were driving pretty hard to distance from PRC. Given that, animosity from normal folk or lack thereof seems kind of vague/irrelevant?

PittleyDunkin 2y ago
Sorry I was thrown by calling it good politics. I guess you could call it that ignoring the people and interests the administration allegedly represents but that doesn't make much sense. Unless you consider american enterprise to be the primary clients of the government, which I suppose there's a good argument for. Regardless, china is our third largest trade partner and severing that connection would still absolutely destroy our economy and quality of life.
- twelve40 2y ago
  > severing that connection would still absolutely destroy our economy and quality of life Probably, who knows. I'm just making an observation. Maybe after being useful to help win the Cold War they are now considered by the powers that be more of an annoyance or a competitive threat? Your guess as to why this is the policy is as good as mine.

aorloff 2y ago

Where do you think the fentanyl is coming from ?

PittleyDunkin 2y ago
I'm not inclined to hold that against 1.4 billion people and I'm guessing most others aren't either
- jojobas 2y ago
  "China" as it appears on the global stage is not 1.4 billion people, it's more like 10 maximum, and the other 1399999990 just do their bidding. The fact there's fentanyl production and export means the 10 people don't mind it, and 1399999990 were not consulted.
- kelnos 2y ago
  That's a bit of an unserious argument, to put it mildly. When people say "China" here, we're talking about a specific subset of bad/adversarial actors, whether in government or (I guess in the case) the drug trade. I have no problem with the vast majority of that 1.4 billion.

bruce511 2y ago

Not sure why you're getting downvotes, it's a legitimate question. There are different kinds of adversary. A traditional tactic in politics is to find someone to blame. Trump blames immigrants, Muslims and China. He translated this into economic action by putting tarrifs on Chinese goods. (Tarrifs are a terrible idea, but one of the few things the president can do unilaterally.) Thanks to his years of anti-chinese rhetoric, I think there's a substantial number of people who gave drunk that kool-aid and see China as adversarial. Geopolitically, China is investing heavily in influence. There are lots of programs in other countries (especially Africa and Asia) where they are fostering trade and building infrastructure. This comes largely at the expense of US influence. Militarily they are growing, and are one of the few countries which could inflict serious losses on American forces. They wouldn't win (yet) but the American public has less appetite for high losses than the Chinese do. None of which stops them being huge trading partners of course. But the pendulum is swinging, and that distresses a significant number of US folk.

aurareturn 2y ago
> Thanks to his years of anti-chinese rhetoric, I think there's a substantial number of people who gave drunk that kool-aid and see China as adversarial. I agree. You actually see this on HN a lot too. Many here swear they didn’t become another “china bad” parrot because of the Trump years. But to me, the Trump years was the start of it all for most.
kelnos 2y ago
> Geopolitically, China is investing heavily in influence. There are lots of programs in other countries (especially Africa and Asia) where they are fostering trade and building infrastructure. This comes largely at the expense of US influence. So then what you are saying is, as an American, I should consider them an adversary. Unless I think that their influence on geopolitics is good (I don't) or that my own country losing influence is good (I don't).
- bruce511 2y ago
  It depends if you see it as a zero sum game. And indeed if you view others gain as your loss. It's possible to be rivals, without being adversaries. Plus, I think it's worth qualifying "adversary" there. If you're not a politician then what do you care about their political choices, and so on. If you grew up during the cold War you likely have the viewpoint of America being exceptional, being "the best" government, democracy, everything. This can be a hard position to let go of - to see that some things could be improved, that some countries do done things better. That the US can learn. The essence of the MAGA movement is to return USA to their global position as it was in the 50s, but the world has changed. And yes, China has things to teach us if we'll listen. Of course they are also far from perfect, and some lessons may do well in one context but not another.