5 ms·

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the mostly-American HN will upvote an article with such a blatant anti-Chinese bias. From the first sentence this article

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the mostly-American HN will upvote an article with such a blatant anti-Chinese bias. From the first sentence this article paints China as the "bad guy". China is not the only country that has used economic pressure to protect its interests.

hyperpape 12y ago
Maybe some people feel this way, but you're assuming far too much. I don't want any country (including mine) to have a monopoly on any resource. At best, it enriches that country to no one else's benefit. At worst, it leaves room for threats to the world economy. Sure, I trust China less than I trust Denmark (but I also trust Denmark more than the US), but that's not even the point.
- jp555 12y ago
  Capitalism is the pursuit of monopolies. Does it matter if there's cheap minerals when a patent, exclusive licence agreement, or lack of adequate engineers blocks any possibility of making a competing product? Raw materials are not the only resources that can be subject to monopolies. There is only one Gordon Ramsey, and he uses this monopoly to get asymmetric profit out of the horribly competitive restaurant market.
  - Symmetry 12y ago
    No, capitalism is a system wherein the means of production are privately owned and can be bought and sold. Capitalists can pursue anything they wish and still be capitalists, including monopolies, but usually they try to maximize their profits rather than their market share.
    - jp555 12y ago
      Maximizing profit is the pursuit of monopolies. In a market with perfect competition there are no profits.
      - seanflyon 12y ago
        "Perfect competition" can only exist in the long term. In the short term, there are start up costs and new improvements. With perfect competition, if you are making a profit someone will come along and undercut you, but that takes time, capital, skill, and luck.
        jp555 12y ago
        Exactly. In the short term you have some kind of monopoly. Maybe you have the only ice cream shop with a licence to sell booze, or a new supply restricted piece of equipment, or exclusive supply of a rare ingredient, famous partner, etc. product differentiation is at its best, a monopoly. All lasting businesses are built on monopolies.
      - Symmetry 12y ago
        In a market with perfect competition there are no profits. I hope you can see that that claim doesn't fit the observed evidence. Gas stations somehow generate enough profits to stay in business despite the fact that they're competing to sell something that's an indistinguishable commodity. Now, in the special case where the marginal cost of production is very low and you're selling a commodity it is true that competition destroys profits. Like if there are two people selling txt files of The Prince neither is going to make much money (that's why we have copyright). But we're talking about rare earth minerals here and those have a substantial cost of production with a corresponding upward slowing supply curve and I assure you that the people mining minerals are making a profit without having a monopoly.
        jp555 12y ago
        "a substantial cost of production" is often a barrier of entry exploited via a monopoly, whether in the form of superior patetended technology, exclusive production agreements, government subsidy, a distribution cartel, etc, etc. Are gas stations making profit off the gas or is that often a lost leader for high margin snack sales? I've heard that stations make nothing off gas sales. Copyright is a government supported distribution monopoly.
- oftenwrong 12y ago
  Point taken. It was foolish of me to assume that HN users support the author's biases. Still, I do not necessarily agree that China deserves much blame here. We should not expect any more from China than what we expect of other countries. That national export restrictions are motivated by selfishness and are harmful to the world economy is not in dispute. The point is that they are not the only country playing that game. On the world stage, everyone cashes in their unfair advantages, only paying attention to the WTO when it is profitable. Why should China abstain from manipulating supply to their benefit when other nations would not return that courtesy? If other world powers want China to play nice with exports, they will have to pay for it.
ArtDev 12y ago
China is the largest most repressive regime the world has ever seen. The Chinese internet Firewall makes the NSA look like child's play. I have been to Tibet. I have seen it with my own eyes. I have heard about the concentration camps, the deaths from forced-sterilization operations, the disappearances. I am outspoken about civil rights in America too. In China, not only would I not be a web developer, I would be dead.
- ArtDev 12y ago
  This is why we freaked when it was reported that China controlled the markets for unusual materials.
- oftenwrong 12y ago
  I agree, but that is all outside the context of the article. The article specifically takes issue with China's export restrictions. I argue that limiting exports to produce political pressure is fair play, as it is not exclusively a tactic of the Chinese government.

hyperpape 12y ago

Maybe some people feel this way, but you're assuming far too much. I don't want any country (including mine) to have a monopoly on any resource. At best, it enriches that country to no one else's benefit. At worst, it leaves room for threats to the world economy. Sure, I trust China less than I trust Denmark (but I also trust Denmark more than the US), but that's not even the point.

jp555 12y ago
Capitalism is the pursuit of monopolies. Does it matter if there's cheap minerals when a patent, exclusive licence agreement, or lack of adequate engineers blocks any possibility of making a competing product? Raw materials are not the only resources that can be subject to monopolies. There is only one Gordon Ramsey, and he uses this monopoly to get asymmetric profit out of the horribly competitive restaurant market.
- Symmetry 12y ago
  No, capitalism is a system wherein the means of production are privately owned and can be bought and sold. Capitalists can pursue anything they wish and still be capitalists, including monopolies, but usually they try to maximize their profits rather than their market share.
  - jp555 12y ago
    Maximizing profit is the pursuit of monopolies. In a market with perfect competition there are no profits.
    - seanflyon 12y ago
      "Perfect competition" can only exist in the long term. In the short term, there are start up costs and new improvements. With perfect competition, if you are making a profit someone will come along and undercut you, but that takes time, capital, skill, and luck.
      - jp555 12y ago
        Exactly. In the short term you have some kind of monopoly. Maybe you have the only ice cream shop with a licence to sell booze, or a new supply restricted piece of equipment, or exclusive supply of a rare ingredient, famous partner, etc. product differentiation is at its best, a monopoly. All lasting businesses are built on monopolies.
    - Symmetry 12y ago
      In a market with perfect competition there are no profits. I hope you can see that that claim doesn't fit the observed evidence. Gas stations somehow generate enough profits to stay in business despite the fact that they're competing to sell something that's an indistinguishable commodity. Now, in the special case where the marginal cost of production is very low and you're selling a commodity it is true that competition destroys profits. Like if there are two people selling txt files of The Prince neither is going to make much money (that's why we have copyright). But we're talking about rare earth minerals here and those have a substantial cost of production with a corresponding upward slowing supply curve and I assure you that the people mining minerals are making a profit without having a monopoly.
      - jp555 12y ago
        "a substantial cost of production" is often a barrier of entry exploited via a monopoly, whether in the form of superior patetended technology, exclusive production agreements, government subsidy, a distribution cartel, etc, etc. Are gas stations making profit off the gas or is that often a lost leader for high margin snack sales? I've heard that stations make nothing off gas sales. Copyright is a government supported distribution monopoly.
oftenwrong 12y ago
Point taken. It was foolish of me to assume that HN users support the author's biases. Still, I do not necessarily agree that China deserves much blame here. We should not expect any more from China than what we expect of other countries. That national export restrictions are motivated by selfishness and are harmful to the world economy is not in dispute. The point is that they are not the only country playing that game. On the world stage, everyone cashes in their unfair advantages, only paying attention to the WTO when it is profitable. Why should China abstain from manipulating supply to their benefit when other nations would not return that courtesy? If other world powers want China to play nice with exports, they will have to pay for it.

ArtDev 12y ago

China is the largest most repressive regime the world has ever seen. The Chinese internet Firewall makes the NSA look like child's play. I have been to Tibet. I have seen it with my own eyes. I have heard about the concentration camps, the deaths from forced-sterilization operations, the disappearances. I am outspoken about civil rights in America too. In China, not only would I not be a web developer, I would be dead.

ArtDev 12y ago
This is why we freaked when it was reported that China controlled the markets for unusual materials.
oftenwrong 12y ago
I agree, but that is all outside the context of the article. The article specifically takes issue with China's export restrictions. I argue that limiting exports to produce political pressure is fair play, as it is not exclusively a tactic of the Chinese government.