4 ms·
More protectionism is not the answer. Restraints on global trade are probably the most harmful thing we do to ourselves as a species. Now I understand that nat
by s_q_b 12y ago
More protectionism is not the answer. Restraints on global trade are probably the most harmful thing we do to ourselves as a species.
Now I understand that national defense is paramount. Some restrictions for national defense may be necessary (and neither China nor the US has helped promote trust in each other's products for defense uses lately), but trade restrictions should only be used as a last resort.
We often forget that we have been down this road before. The world on the eve of World War I looked far more like the world of today than the world of our parents.
The entire globe was experiencing massively interconnected rapid economic growth, not just from industrialization, but from the speed and ease of global trade which the new technologies enabled. American ice was sold in India, India tea in Russia, German farm implements in Britain, and British everything everywhere.
Then came first the Great War, and then the Great Depression. And with the Depression came every politician's favorite way to fight economic woes: keep out the foreigners. One restraint led to immediate retaliation by other nations, creating a frenetic negative feedback loop, until finally the open system collapsed in its entirety.
And in its place we created a hidebound monstrosity, an incomprehensible series of trade regulations that were nearly impossible to navigate.
Of course this protectionism only drove us deeper into the Depression, caused global output to plummet to historic lows, made the global economic engine seize like an un-oiled V8, and threw lit thermite into the already smoldering tinderbox of militant nationalism.
It took two World Wars, a global standoff that threatened to consume all of civilization in nuclear holocaust, and most of a century to get back to where we started. Let's not throw away those hard-won gains over international intrigue. Trillions of dollars, and the lives they support, are at stake here.
Free trade is good. Full stop. It builds massive wealth through compounding growth. It pulls people out of dire poverty. And it stops wars.
To step away from it now, just as we enter a truly globalized world, would be the single largest self-inflicted wound to the global economy since the collapse of Rome.
- electic 12y agoHonestly, I think their concerns are legitimate. They want to make sure the components and software they use won't spy on them. Welcome to 2014 and beyond.
- s_q_b 12y agoOf course it is a legitimate concern, just as tainted food products from China are a legitimate concern, but they are not a big enough concern to warrant the absolutely massive economic risk the new Chinese leaders are taking. Trade wars collapse nations, and this is how they begin. Tit-for-tat escalates quickly, and it is unfathomably reckless for a country that is dependent upon exports to ban products from the largest importer of its goods.
- electic 12y agoThis is a bit beyond food. You can analyze food and deem it safe or not safe. Simple. The FDA does a good job of this. Tech. That is a different ball game. Any part of the device could be vulnerable. The components, the software, or the entire system. That being said, it is very difficult to analyze. When it is difficult to analyze you put your self at massive risk to lose diplomatic strategy, military secrets, financial secrets, and far beyond. Is it worth the risk? Nope.
- valas 12y agoSounds like scaremongering to me. Chinese powers/oligarchs act here quire rationally. Protecting and promoting their own industries has paid them well so far (e.g. movies, car manufacturing, e-commerce/web). Will that hurt 'international trade'? Yes. Will this cause another Cold War? No.
- s_q_b 12y agoProtectionism is rational in the same way robbery is rational: only if you can get away with it. And in both cases, the odds are low. "Protecting and promoting their own industries has paid them well..." Protectionism has paid certain members of China's elite very well at the extreme expense of the firms that could actually produce the goods most efficiently. Many of those would-be producers are Americans, and if you think the automotive industry, Hollywood, and SV haven't been howling for retaliatory sanctions for years, you would be very wrong. See e.g. the blacklisting of Huawei gear from US government IT systems. Further protectionism strengthens their hand, and if they get their way, we have open breakdown in trade. That isn't "scaremongering." It is simple fact, confirmed by countless historical examples. The new Chinese leaders are like a man standing on the edge of a cliff saying "Well, every step I've taken thus far in this direction has moved me closer to my goal. Why shall the next be any different?"
- notasmartman 12y agoLets not kid ourselves, security isn't the impetus behind this. It's politics. And politics is just grown men acting like children, while pretending that they're looking out for our best interest, all the while screwing us more than the people they are protecting us from.
- s_q_b 12y agoThe game in politics is to convince those who think like adults that your selfish idea is actually beneficial to the nation. National security is something with which real adults concern themselves, so it makes a good excuse for local oligarchs to erect trade barriers to protect their interests. By debunking the argument they make ("security"), often the true impetus becomes clear ("profit.")
- nwatson 12y agoThis is won't stop corrupt Chinese officials with money to burn, and also will play out just like the BYOD scenario for mobile phones in corporations in the US: BYOD phenomenon: * company issues BlackBerry or Windows 6.x phones * executive has money to burn, likes the iPhone/iPad * executive brings iPhone/iPad to work and tells I.T. guy "hook me up or you're fired" * I.T. makes an exception, deals with it * other people start bringing their iPhone/iPad to work * corporate policy adjusts and everybody can bring iOS/Android, corporate issues iOS/Android * players like Citrix, MobileIron, etc., have a market for Mobile Device Management Chinese gov't evolution: * corrupt official has money to burn * corrupt official buys MacBook/iOS/iPad or Samsung, etc. * corrupt official uses his stuff at work despite policy * underlings want to show off too and bring their devices * Hmmm, except the US gov't still depends on BlackBerry, at least DHS