6 ms·

China never has and never will offer a level playing field for non-Chinese companies. The US is finally starting to act in kind, and should continue to do so.

declan_roberts 2y ago
Fair trade. It's amazing it took us until Trump to make this a major agenda item.
- azinman2 2y ago
  And yet he’s not blocking TikTok. It’s quite astonishing given: A) they’re a Chinese owned company B) China asymmetrically has never allowed US social media (amongst practically all major internet properties) C) We cap ownership of foreign owners of US media. TikTok IS TV for the young generation. But apparently he thinks it helped him win (would love to know if that was actually true, which is probably impossible to calculate), so who cares about all these other principles!
  - wkat4242 2y ago
    D) It was him who started the whole discussion of banning TikTok in the first place
  - bee_rider 2y ago
    I thought he asked the court to pause the ban until he was in office. In the interest of trying to be neutral, perhaps he either: * Thinks he can help negotiate some sort of deal that keeps TikTok here fairly, or * Sees an opportunity to do a grift/accept some bribes from ByteDance/get some control over an effective propaganda engine.
    - iamacyborg 2y ago
      * wants the publicity from being the president to ban them
      - Xenoamorphous 2y ago
        Genuine question as someone not from the US, wouldn’t that make a significant part of a generation mad at Republicans? Some who might be close to voting age or might even be able to vote already.
        bee_rider 2y ago
        Trump isn’t up for re-election, and he’s isn’t interested in the long term performance of the Republican Party (he only became a Republican because that’s the party whose primary he could win).
        okasaki 2y ago
        Both parties are owned by the same oligarchs and security state. The owners don't care who you vote for, the system is a political World Wrestling Federation.
        BeetleB 2y ago
        > Genuine question as someone not from the US, wouldn’t that make a significant part of a generation mad at Republicans? This would be a minor "infraction" compared to what he has already done. I don't see this moving the needle one bit.
wbl 2y ago
We've had CIFUS for decades. The only change is now we say no to Japan teaching us to make better steel.
- nordsieck 2y ago
  > We've had CIFUS for decades. The only change is now we say no to Japan teaching us to make better steel. I'm curious what you mean by that. Most of what I know about steel is in relation to knives (and peripherally, swords, axes, and other tools). At least in that (admittedly small) niche, Japanese steel is good, but certainly not superior to US steel (although with the financial trouble that Crucible is having, perhaps things will change a bit).
  - kortilla 2y ago
    Likely referring to the acquisition attempt by nippon steel
  - wenc 2y ago
    I used to live in a rust-belt steel town. My knowledge is cursory except for my lived reality of my town being economically depressed by poor management of steel production facilities. US Steel mostly focuses on commodity steel. Nippon Steel has a wider portfolio focusing on higher-end specialty steel. Commodity steel producers like US Steel (they acquired the main steel company in my town) generally play on lower end of the market, and have not invested adequately in technology or modernization. They are not able to make specialty steel because they have not made those kinds of investments. Instead they have chosen to languish with low productivity practices, so they're being outcompeted by foreign companies who are now able to make the same quality of steel but cheaper. They used to laugh at foreign steel companies because of the trash steel they made, but they laughed a bit too long and didn't realize that foreign steel gradually got better year over year. I saw this hubris play out first hand in my town. My town also has another steel maker, a specialty one. This one was smaller but chose to invest in automation and modern technology, and also on producing new types of high-value steel for specialty applications. They had a profit-sharing scheme and had loyal employees who did not reject automation or modernization, but instead had a growth mindset. They remain competitive today. This is capitalism's creative destruction playing out, and companies like US Steel that refuse to adapt find themselves outcompeted by more productive players. The Nippon Steel takeover, even if it had succeeded, might have been too late.
sangnoir 2y ago
[flagged]
- macspoofing 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - sangnoir 2y ago
    It's not a red herring, I was responding to this specific sentence about the US "finally" acting, as if it's a new phenomenon: >> The US is finally starting to act in kind, and should continue to do so > No country is a perfect free market, and has some 'sacred cows' that it attempts to protect This is a more nuanced take that should be the starting off point for any productive discussion around what counts as "fair" trade. > Jones Act is actually really bad, for America! It should go away! It especially hurts areas like Hawaii and Puerto Rico, but it is generally Sure, but it's protectionist, and has existed for over a century as proof of American protectionism.
    - parasense 2y ago
      It is a Red Herring. That is because the Jones Act in context to the gross entirety of the USA and PRC economic relations is at best utterly irrelevant. Besides, you might find it interesting to learn that the protectionist parts of the Jones act are in fact common around the world. Many counties prohibit port to port shippments without first visiting an international port. Mind you, many folks here would agree these kind of laws are stupid, and I would personally agree... However, that does not stop this talk about the Jones act from being a Red Herring. I'm glad you found a topic of great interrest to you, and that's great. What does this have to do with Akamai, and many other American companies, ending services in mainland China? Nothing... What does export tarrifs on Chines exports have to do with Jones act? Very little, asymptoticly little... to the point one might say the topics are orthogonal, or more plainly they might say Red Herring.
      - sangnoir 2y ago
sschueller 2y ago
I thought we don't want to be like China? You aren't going to spread your form of "democracy" across the world by doing what the "oppressive" regimes are doing.
- kortilla 2y ago
  Tit for tat taxation or restrictions on businesses are not related at all to democracy.
  - diggan 2y ago
    > restrictions on businesses are not related at all to democracy. I guess we've dropped the whole "Global fair trade leads to a more free, peaceful and democratic world" argument that used to be so popular?
    - alephnerd 2y ago
      > I guess we've dropped the whole "Global fair trade leads to a more free, peaceful and democratic world" argument that used to be so popular? Global Free Trade is based on the Stag Hunt Principle - all players need to be aligned to cooperate in order to "hunt the stag". If players decide they wish to undermine the principle of fair trade, then they should be isolated. For example, if China has banned FB or Google from operating without Chinese government oversight, then we should do the same with TikTok and WeChat.
    - typon 2y ago
      The rules are written by the powerful to advantage the powerful. Once those advantages disappear, the rules must be rewritten or disregarded.
    - dilyevsky 2y ago
      It has been successfully proven wrong so yes
    - reaperducer 2y ago
      I guess we've dropped the whole "Global fair trade leads to a more free, peaceful and democratic world" argument that used to be so popular? Sadly, yes. It took Russia invading Ukraine and threatening the E.U. for it to sink in. Now it's pretty much accepted that the experiment failed.
Barrin92 2y ago
>China never has and never will offer a level playing field for non-Chinese companies. Foreign companies in China have to play by Chinese rules, which are more restrictive than the US but so do Chinese companies. When it comes to doing business abroad China imposes very few rules or conditions. Meanwhile the US has been waging a straight up trade war on China with the not just implicit but stated goal of strangling China's technological progress. If anyone should level the playing field it's the US. This is how this is perceived in the world outside the Anglosphere, it's astonishing how out of touch the American centric commentary on this is. China's open to do business with the world, the US and Western countries are politicizing trade.
- seanmcdirmid 2y ago
  Chinese companies don’t have to play by the rules in the same way that foreign companies do. China isn’t a rule of law country, and has explicitly stated that it doesn’t want to be a rule of law country. Instead laws are enforced selectively for whatever outcome the official branch wants at the moment (rule by law). They are perfectly willing to fine American companies when Chinese companies cheat (and not apply anywhere near the same enforcement to the Chinese company that actually cheated). Foreign companies have to be heavily aware of context just like Chinese companies do, but they will also be treated very differently in how and when laws are applied (not always to their detriment, China will elevate some foreign companies to show they are fair and open to FDI).
  - Barrin92 2y ago
    >and not apply anywhere near the same enforcement to the Chinese company About two years ago China imposed regulations on its own tech sector so strict that it killed the entire "ed-tech" sector overnight and wiped out a decent chunk of the country's tech market value. What other country has done this to its own companies? The US has slapped a 100% tariff on cars, bans on Chinese hardware and software in autonomous vehicles, ripping out 5G equipment, tried to basically destroy Huawei specifically, and the list goes on. Whatever local favoritism may happen in China, you realize that pales to the full blown protectionism that the US engages in. China hasn't even retaliated in kind. You're complaining about being poked with a stick while throwing a sledgehammer around. Am I supposed to believe the "TikTok ban" is anything other than completely absurd security theater? Like do you think the world is so naive they think this is how the "rule of law" works? You realize every time a Western politician utters that term everyone just laughs right?
saltserv 2y ago
[dead]
tehjoker 2y ago
China doesn't want to be an opium den for western powers and have their economy underdeveloped by their firms. I think that's okay and it has been paying off. That's why China is able to develop its economy to superpower status while so much of the rest of the world is locked in dependency on the whims of G7.
- seanmcdirmid 2y ago
  That’s really interesting considering China is exporting fentanyl to the USA and much of the western world today.
  - tehjoker 2y ago
    its really interesting how afghanistan became the world's #1 poppy producer under us occupation and it declined immediately after we left. heroin prices rose, leaving a market opportunity for fent. i still do not believe that china is necessarily the source btw. that needs proof. you can read about an earlier iteration of us involvement in drugs in this book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Politics_of_Heroin_in_Southeast_Asia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Politics_of_Heroin_in_Sout... there are infamous pictures of us soldiers guarding poppies in afghanistan during the recent occupation: https://publicintelligence.net/usnato-troops-patrolling-opium-poppy-fields-in-afghanistan/ https://publicintelligence.net/usnato-troops-patrolling-opiu...
    - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
      Ya, I don’t see that lasting very long since China production is too cheap to compete with. They’ve basically taken over the whole illegal drug business here in the USA (opium has never been a very big drug in the states). I don’t really know what China is trying to prove though, is the PLA involved or is it just a few big Tianjin SOE pharmaceuticals?
      - tehjoker 2y ago
        It's not lasting it's over. The US pulled out of Afghanistan in 2021 and the Taliban vastly reduced poppy cultivation. That's what caused a sharp rise in heroin prices and a demand for a substitute. I haven't looked into fent, but given the information is coming mainly from US security agencies who consider china an enemy state, I need to see physical evidence. I won't accept their say-so. This narrative about China smells suspiciously too perfect. China was the subject of 100 years of humiliation, was drugged to death by Americans, British, and others. Now the US is claiming they're doing it to us? The abuser is suddenly claiming we are the symmetric victim? Fishy story.

declan_roberts 2y ago

Fair trade. It's amazing it took us until Trump to make this a major agenda item.

azinman2 2y ago
And yet he’s not blocking TikTok. It’s quite astonishing given: A) they’re a Chinese owned company B) China asymmetrically has never allowed US social media (amongst practically all major internet properties) C) We cap ownership of foreign owners of US media. TikTok IS TV for the young generation. But apparently he thinks it helped him win (would love to know if that was actually true, which is probably impossible to calculate), so who cares about all these other principles!
- wkat4242 2y ago
  D) It was him who started the whole discussion of banning TikTok in the first place
- bee_rider 2y ago
  I thought he asked the court to pause the ban until he was in office. In the interest of trying to be neutral, perhaps he either: * Thinks he can help negotiate some sort of deal that keeps TikTok here fairly, or * Sees an opportunity to do a grift/accept some bribes from ByteDance/get some control over an effective propaganda engine.
  - iamacyborg 2y ago
    * wants the publicity from being the president to ban them
    - Xenoamorphous 2y ago
      Genuine question as someone not from the US, wouldn’t that make a significant part of a generation mad at Republicans? Some who might be close to voting age or might even be able to vote already.
      - bee_rider 2y ago
        Trump isn’t up for re-election, and he’s isn’t interested in the long term performance of the Republican Party (he only became a Republican because that’s the party whose primary he could win).
      - okasaki 2y ago
        Both parties are owned by the same oligarchs and security state. The owners don't care who you vote for, the system is a political World Wrestling Federation.
      - BeetleB 2y ago
        > Genuine question as someone not from the US, wouldn’t that make a significant part of a generation mad at Republicans? This would be a minor "infraction" compared to what he has already done. I don't see this moving the needle one bit.

wbl 2y ago

We've had CIFUS for decades. The only change is now we say no to Japan teaching us to make better steel.

nordsieck 2y ago
> We've had CIFUS for decades. The only change is now we say no to Japan teaching us to make better steel. I'm curious what you mean by that. Most of what I know about steel is in relation to knives (and peripherally, swords, axes, and other tools). At least in that (admittedly small) niche, Japanese steel is good, but certainly not superior to US steel (although with the financial trouble that Crucible is having, perhaps things will change a bit).
- kortilla 2y ago
  Likely referring to the acquisition attempt by nippon steel
- wenc 2y ago
  I used to live in a rust-belt steel town. My knowledge is cursory except for my lived reality of my town being economically depressed by poor management of steel production facilities. US Steel mostly focuses on commodity steel. Nippon Steel has a wider portfolio focusing on higher-end specialty steel. Commodity steel producers like US Steel (they acquired the main steel company in my town) generally play on lower end of the market, and have not invested adequately in technology or modernization. They are not able to make specialty steel because they have not made those kinds of investments. Instead they have chosen to languish with low productivity practices, so they're being outcompeted by foreign companies who are now able to make the same quality of steel but cheaper. They used to laugh at foreign steel companies because of the trash steel they made, but they laughed a bit too long and didn't realize that foreign steel gradually got better year over year. I saw this hubris play out first hand in my town. My town also has another steel maker, a specialty one. This one was smaller but chose to invest in automation and modern technology, and also on producing new types of high-value steel for specialty applications. They had a profit-sharing scheme and had loyal employees who did not reject automation or modernization, but instead had a growth mindset. They remain competitive today. This is capitalism's creative destruction playing out, and companies like US Steel that refuse to adapt find themselves outcompeted by more productive players. The Nippon Steel takeover, even if it had succeeded, might have been too late.

sangnoir 2y ago

[flagged]

macspoofing 2y ago
[flagged]
- sangnoir 2y ago
  It's not a red herring, I was responding to this specific sentence about the US "finally" acting, as if it's a new phenomenon: >> The US is finally starting to act in kind, and should continue to do so > No country is a perfect free market, and has some 'sacred cows' that it attempts to protect This is a more nuanced take that should be the starting off point for any productive discussion around what counts as "fair" trade. > Jones Act is actually really bad, for America! It should go away! It especially hurts areas like Hawaii and Puerto Rico, but it is generally Sure, but it's protectionist, and has existed for over a century as proof of American protectionism.
  - parasense 2y ago
    It is a Red Herring. That is because the Jones Act in context to the gross entirety of the USA and PRC economic relations is at best utterly irrelevant. Besides, you might find it interesting to learn that the protectionist parts of the Jones act are in fact common around the world. Many counties prohibit port to port shippments without first visiting an international port. Mind you, many folks here would agree these kind of laws are stupid, and I would personally agree... However, that does not stop this talk about the Jones act from being a Red Herring. I'm glad you found a topic of great interrest to you, and that's great. What does this have to do with Akamai, and many other American companies, ending services in mainland China? Nothing... What does export tarrifs on Chines exports have to do with Jones act? Very little, asymptoticly little... to the point one might say the topics are orthogonal, or more plainly they might say Red Herring.
    - sangnoir 2y ago

sschueller 2y ago

I thought we don't want to be like China? You aren't going to spread your form of "democracy" across the world by doing what the "oppressive" regimes are doing.

kortilla 2y ago
Tit for tat taxation or restrictions on businesses are not related at all to democracy.
- diggan 2y ago
  > restrictions on businesses are not related at all to democracy. I guess we've dropped the whole "Global fair trade leads to a more free, peaceful and democratic world" argument that used to be so popular?
  - alephnerd 2y ago
    > I guess we've dropped the whole "Global fair trade leads to a more free, peaceful and democratic world" argument that used to be so popular? Global Free Trade is based on the Stag Hunt Principle - all players need to be aligned to cooperate in order to "hunt the stag". If players decide they wish to undermine the principle of fair trade, then they should be isolated. For example, if China has banned FB or Google from operating without Chinese government oversight, then we should do the same with TikTok and WeChat.
  - typon 2y ago
    The rules are written by the powerful to advantage the powerful. Once those advantages disappear, the rules must be rewritten or disregarded.
  - dilyevsky 2y ago
    It has been successfully proven wrong so yes
  - reaperducer 2y ago
    I guess we've dropped the whole "Global fair trade leads to a more free, peaceful and democratic world" argument that used to be so popular? Sadly, yes. It took Russia invading Ukraine and threatening the E.U. for it to sink in. Now it's pretty much accepted that the experiment failed.

Barrin92 2y ago

>China never has and never will offer a level playing field for non-Chinese companies. Foreign companies in China have to play by Chinese rules, which are more restrictive than the US but so do Chinese companies. When it comes to doing business abroad China imposes very few rules or conditions. Meanwhile the US has been waging a straight up trade war on China with the not just implicit but stated goal of strangling China's technological progress. If anyone should level the playing field it's the US. This is how this is perceived in the world outside the Anglosphere, it's astonishing how out of touch the American centric commentary on this is. China's open to do business with the world, the US and Western countries are politicizing trade.

seanmcdirmid 2y ago
Chinese companies don’t have to play by the rules in the same way that foreign companies do. China isn’t a rule of law country, and has explicitly stated that it doesn’t want to be a rule of law country. Instead laws are enforced selectively for whatever outcome the official branch wants at the moment (rule by law). They are perfectly willing to fine American companies when Chinese companies cheat (and not apply anywhere near the same enforcement to the Chinese company that actually cheated). Foreign companies have to be heavily aware of context just like Chinese companies do, but they will also be treated very differently in how and when laws are applied (not always to their detriment, China will elevate some foreign companies to show they are fair and open to FDI).
- Barrin92 2y ago
  >and not apply anywhere near the same enforcement to the Chinese company About two years ago China imposed regulations on its own tech sector so strict that it killed the entire "ed-tech" sector overnight and wiped out a decent chunk of the country's tech market value. What other country has done this to its own companies? The US has slapped a 100% tariff on cars, bans on Chinese hardware and software in autonomous vehicles, ripping out 5G equipment, tried to basically destroy Huawei specifically, and the list goes on. Whatever local favoritism may happen in China, you realize that pales to the full blown protectionism that the US engages in. China hasn't even retaliated in kind. You're complaining about being poked with a stick while throwing a sledgehammer around. Am I supposed to believe the "TikTok ban" is anything other than completely absurd security theater? Like do you think the world is so naive they think this is how the "rule of law" works? You realize every time a Western politician utters that term everyone just laughs right?

saltserv 2y ago

[dead]

tehjoker 2y ago

China doesn't want to be an opium den for western powers and have their economy underdeveloped by their firms. I think that's okay and it has been paying off. That's why China is able to develop its economy to superpower status while so much of the rest of the world is locked in dependency on the whims of G7.

seanmcdirmid 2y ago
That’s really interesting considering China is exporting fentanyl to the USA and much of the western world today.
- tehjoker 2y ago
  its really interesting how afghanistan became the world's #1 poppy producer under us occupation and it declined immediately after we left. heroin prices rose, leaving a market opportunity for fent. i still do not believe that china is necessarily the source btw. that needs proof. you can read about an earlier iteration of us involvement in drugs in this book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Politics_of_Heroin_in_Southeast_Asia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Politics_of_Heroin_in_Sout... there are infamous pictures of us soldiers guarding poppies in afghanistan during the recent occupation: https://publicintelligence.net/usnato-troops-patrolling-opium-poppy-fields-in-afghanistan/ https://publicintelligence.net/usnato-troops-patrolling-opiu...
  - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
    Ya, I don’t see that lasting very long since China production is too cheap to compete with. They’ve basically taken over the whole illegal drug business here in the USA (opium has never been a very big drug in the states). I don’t really know what China is trying to prove though, is the PLA involved or is it just a few big Tianjin SOE pharmaceuticals?
    - tehjoker 2y ago
      It's not lasting it's over. The US pulled out of Afghanistan in 2021 and the Taliban vastly reduced poppy cultivation. That's what caused a sharp rise in heroin prices and a demand for a substitute. I haven't looked into fent, but given the information is coming mainly from US security agencies who consider china an enemy state, I need to see physical evidence. I won't accept their say-so. This narrative about China smells suspiciously too perfect. China was the subject of 100 years of humiliation, was drugged to death by Americans, British, and others. Now the US is claiming they're doing it to us? The abuser is suddenly claiming we are the symmetric victim? Fishy story.