4 ms·

> Some people don't like protectionism because in the long term it's worse for both countries. That is a good argument from a purely economic perspective, but

> Some people don't like protectionism because in the long term it's worse for both countries. That is a good argument from a purely economic perspective, but the ability of a country to manufacture things on their own is a long-term benefit to the country from a security and sovereignty perspective. It's hard to prevail in a war if a potential enemy is making all your stuff for you. China understands this very well, which is why they spend an enormous amount of effort and resources building up domestic alternatives to manufactured products they still rely on non-Chinese sources for. Comac may or may not become globally competitive with Boeing or Airbus, but that's not really the point of the venture. China wants domestic aircraft expertise and capacity because it's critical to have and they don't want to be reliant on the US or Europe for it.

whatshisface 2y ago
It's hard to prevail in any war in a post-nuclear age. Profiting from a war with China is a total fantasy, it would be the end of both countries, even if we had as little trade with them as with the Soviet Union. The reason we are not manufacturing everything ourselves is that our incumbents refuse to allow anything to replace them, whether that is a more efficient company or a more able manager. They have the sway within the US to get what they want, and so things like patents and approval processes (which China does not have to the same degree, because for all of their flaws the government is more powerful there than the established manufacturers), will stop anyone from improving on GM within Michigan. The competition comes from within a country they can't determine the policy of. Germany is suffering from a similar ailment. They are stagnating because for fifty years successive administrations have equated success with success of their majors.
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  >It's hard to prevail in any war in a post-nuclear age. Another cold war is possible, and someone could prevail eventually. >The reason we are not manufacturing everything ourselves is that our incumbents refuse to allow anything to replace them, whether that is a more efficient company or a more able manager. That is not true in general. We have laws specifically to promote competition. I'm not aware of anything like that in China, although I haven't looked. I can tell you that it's common knowledge in China that doing certain kinds of business requires a bribe or connections. >They have the sway within the US to get what they want, and so things like patents and approval processes (which China does not have to the same degree, because for all of their flaws the government is more powerful there than the established manufacturers), will stop anyone from improving on GM within Michigan. First, the Chinese government owns or has a stake in many companies there. I think you're even required to have certain CCP officials inside your company if it's big enough. Second, China does have patents and IP laws. They also have pervasive state surveillance, so your ideas can be stolen by the government. I often wonder if WE have that too, but at least total privacy is legal here. Americans can stop the state from spying on them in most cases, at least as far as we know. >The competition comes from within a country they can't determine the policy of. I think you're mistaken about this too, because many party members are rich and involved in business. They CAN determine policies. There was a huge crash in the Chinese stock market a couple of years ago as one party faction fought with another one. That was totally anti-competitive, yet it happened, and Western investors got screwed. I heard it was the result of a fight between Hu Jintao (the previous president of China) and Xi Jinping. I think the campaign against Hu was touted as a way to fight corruption. By the way, Mr. Hu has only been seen in public like once since he was dragged out of a national party meeting in 2022. >Germany is suffering from a similar ailment. They are stagnating because for fifty years successive administrations have equated success with success of their majors. Germany is currently stagnating because of the toll the Ukraine war is taking on them, along with other commitments they've made such as shutting down all their nuclear power plants. They too have high labor costs and so on, like the rest of the West, but they were doing relatively well until recently.
  - whatshisface 2y ago
    If we go into it saying we're only pretending to annihilate civilization they won't match our military spending, and if we don't, we're still being insane.
  - ReptileMan 2y ago
    >Germany is currently stagnating because of the toll the Ukraine war is taking on them, The war is not inflicting any tolls on Germany. It was all self inflicted. It was pure stupidity not to be prepared to Russian aggression in Ukraine, and it was pure stupidity to respond while unprepared instead of brokering some Realpolitik peace.
    - wakawaka28 2y ago
      >The war is not inflicting any tolls on Germany. Their fuel costs are skyrocketing, which is affecting everything there. >It was pure stupidity not to be prepared to Russian aggression in Ukraine, and it was pure stupidity to respond while unprepared instead of brokering some Realpolitik peace. I agree about this. They should have never been unprepared, and they should have settled it by now with a reasonable deal. The war started because of NATO screwing around in Ukraine's politics and trying to set up NATO on Russia's border. Of course Russia also did political things in Ukraine, but it makes more sense for them to be involved with their neighbor than for countries much farther away to do it.
      - mopsi 2y ago
        > The war started because of NATO screwing around in Ukraine's politics and trying to set up NATO on Russia's border. That sounds like an attempt to rewrite history. Ukraine's prospect of becoming a member of NATO was completely buried since 2008, and the intention to join NATO was resurrected only after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014. To this day, the interest of other members to accept Ukraine into NATO remains lukewarm and no meaningful progress has been made in this direction. The war started because Russia couldn't stomach that Ukraine was on the verge of signing a major trade deal with the EU that would've opened up the EU market for Ukraine, and Russia, facing its vaning influence over Ukraine, decided to invade and subjugate Ukrainians through violence, as it had nothing else to offer.
greggyb 2y ago
When you say "economic perspective" I believe you mean a financial or poorly monetary one. Any econ course would teach you that economics is really based around preference and opportunity cost, which is inclusive of the non-monetary attributes you bring up to dismiss the "purely economic perspective". Thus your argument, if framed in economics, is that countries are choosing a worse option, considering their alternatives. This is a valid argument to make, but it's not consistent with your introduction.

whatshisface 2y ago

It's hard to prevail in any war in a post-nuclear age. Profiting from a war with China is a total fantasy, it would be the end of both countries, even if we had as little trade with them as with the Soviet Union. The reason we are not manufacturing everything ourselves is that our incumbents refuse to allow anything to replace them, whether that is a more efficient company or a more able manager. They have the sway within the US to get what they want, and so things like patents and approval processes (which China does not have to the same degree, because for all of their flaws the government is more powerful there than the established manufacturers), will stop anyone from improving on GM within Michigan. The competition comes from within a country they can't determine the policy of. Germany is suffering from a similar ailment. They are stagnating because for fifty years successive administrations have equated success with success of their majors.

wakawaka28 2y ago
>It's hard to prevail in any war in a post-nuclear age. Another cold war is possible, and someone could prevail eventually. >The reason we are not manufacturing everything ourselves is that our incumbents refuse to allow anything to replace them, whether that is a more efficient company or a more able manager. That is not true in general. We have laws specifically to promote competition. I'm not aware of anything like that in China, although I haven't looked. I can tell you that it's common knowledge in China that doing certain kinds of business requires a bribe or connections. >They have the sway within the US to get what they want, and so things like patents and approval processes (which China does not have to the same degree, because for all of their flaws the government is more powerful there than the established manufacturers), will stop anyone from improving on GM within Michigan. First, the Chinese government owns or has a stake in many companies there. I think you're even required to have certain CCP officials inside your company if it's big enough. Second, China does have patents and IP laws. They also have pervasive state surveillance, so your ideas can be stolen by the government. I often wonder if WE have that too, but at least total privacy is legal here. Americans can stop the state from spying on them in most cases, at least as far as we know. >The competition comes from within a country they can't determine the policy of. I think you're mistaken about this too, because many party members are rich and involved in business. They CAN determine policies. There was a huge crash in the Chinese stock market a couple of years ago as one party faction fought with another one. That was totally anti-competitive, yet it happened, and Western investors got screwed. I heard it was the result of a fight between Hu Jintao (the previous president of China) and Xi Jinping. I think the campaign against Hu was touted as a way to fight corruption. By the way, Mr. Hu has only been seen in public like once since he was dragged out of a national party meeting in 2022. >Germany is suffering from a similar ailment. They are stagnating because for fifty years successive administrations have equated success with success of their majors. Germany is currently stagnating because of the toll the Ukraine war is taking on them, along with other commitments they've made such as shutting down all their nuclear power plants. They too have high labor costs and so on, like the rest of the West, but they were doing relatively well until recently.
- whatshisface 2y ago
  If we go into it saying we're only pretending to annihilate civilization they won't match our military spending, and if we don't, we're still being insane.
- ReptileMan 2y ago
  >Germany is currently stagnating because of the toll the Ukraine war is taking on them, The war is not inflicting any tolls on Germany. It was all self inflicted. It was pure stupidity not to be prepared to Russian aggression in Ukraine, and it was pure stupidity to respond while unprepared instead of brokering some Realpolitik peace.
  - wakawaka28 2y ago
    >The war is not inflicting any tolls on Germany. Their fuel costs are skyrocketing, which is affecting everything there. >It was pure stupidity not to be prepared to Russian aggression in Ukraine, and it was pure stupidity to respond while unprepared instead of brokering some Realpolitik peace. I agree about this. They should have never been unprepared, and they should have settled it by now with a reasonable deal. The war started because of NATO screwing around in Ukraine's politics and trying to set up NATO on Russia's border. Of course Russia also did political things in Ukraine, but it makes more sense for them to be involved with their neighbor than for countries much farther away to do it.
    - mopsi 2y ago
      > The war started because of NATO screwing around in Ukraine's politics and trying to set up NATO on Russia's border. That sounds like an attempt to rewrite history. Ukraine's prospect of becoming a member of NATO was completely buried since 2008, and the intention to join NATO was resurrected only after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014. To this day, the interest of other members to accept Ukraine into NATO remains lukewarm and no meaningful progress has been made in this direction. The war started because Russia couldn't stomach that Ukraine was on the verge of signing a major trade deal with the EU that would've opened up the EU market for Ukraine, and Russia, facing its vaning influence over Ukraine, decided to invade and subjugate Ukrainians through violence, as it had nothing else to offer.

greggyb 2y ago

When you say "economic perspective" I believe you mean a financial or poorly monetary one. Any econ course would teach you that economics is really based around preference and opportunity cost, which is inclusive of the non-monetary attributes you bring up to dismiss the "purely economic perspective". Thus your argument, if framed in economics, is that countries are choosing a worse option, considering their alternatives. This is a valid argument to make, but it's not consistent with your introduction.