5 ms·

has to be both ways for that to work. china can't just do whatever and tariff american companies to hell, right?

slt2021 2y ago
Tesla shanghai exists GM also has factories in China tariff concerns should be discussed via WTO, not unilateral sanctions. otherwise all this "rules based order" is not worth paper it is written on
- SauciestGNU 2y ago
  The "rules based order" is just an American invention to give our government something to talk about besides international law, which the US has basically always ignored.
  - slt2021 2y ago
    no, you cannot enforce rules based order on the whole world when it suits you (to force everyone use USD for reserves and global trade, allowing USA to borrow unlimited money for free and export inflation to entire world), but the moment it doesnt suit you - just abandon it. why would anyone trust usa's word if any agreement/word/promise can be torn unilaterally?
    - macintux 2y ago
      > why would anyone trust usa's word if any agreement/word/promise can be torn unilaterally? I suspect we're going to see the answer to that question play out over the next several years.
    - SauciestGNU 2y ago
      I agree with you, I'm trying to add color to the situation by pointing out that America has benefited from this invention stemming from the conditions of pax americana where the alternative is international law via the UN and ICC and other institutions that are perhaps more independent than the US would like.
rsynnott 2y ago
> china can't just do whatever and tariff american companies to hell, right? In general, the US would introduce retaliatory tariffs in that scenario; the game theory of the situation basically requires that. Despite popular belief, the CCP is also not actually completely immune to public discontent (it often seems to be really quite scared of it), and would likely be willing to kick off a major trade war, as it would cause price increases.

slt2021 2y ago

Tesla shanghai exists GM also has factories in China tariff concerns should be discussed via WTO, not unilateral sanctions. otherwise all this "rules based order" is not worth paper it is written on

SauciestGNU 2y ago
The "rules based order" is just an American invention to give our government something to talk about besides international law, which the US has basically always ignored.
- slt2021 2y ago
  no, you cannot enforce rules based order on the whole world when it suits you (to force everyone use USD for reserves and global trade, allowing USA to borrow unlimited money for free and export inflation to entire world), but the moment it doesnt suit you - just abandon it. why would anyone trust usa's word if any agreement/word/promise can be torn unilaterally?
  - macintux 2y ago
    > why would anyone trust usa's word if any agreement/word/promise can be torn unilaterally? I suspect we're going to see the answer to that question play out over the next several years.
  - SauciestGNU 2y ago
    I agree with you, I'm trying to add color to the situation by pointing out that America has benefited from this invention stemming from the conditions of pax americana where the alternative is international law via the UN and ICC and other institutions that are perhaps more independent than the US would like.

rsynnott 2y ago

> china can't just do whatever and tariff american companies to hell, right? In general, the US would introduce retaliatory tariffs in that scenario; the game theory of the situation basically requires that. Despite popular belief, the CCP is also not actually completely immune to public discontent (it often seems to be really quite scared of it), and would likely be willing to kick off a major trade war, as it would cause price increases.