Comment by bigbadfeline
4 months ago
Either way, it cannot be stopped, China will develop independent technology sector because they can and they have no other choice. They don't trust the West and cases like this make such attitude understandable.
As soon as China tries to compete with the rich monopolies, the "free market" goes out of the window and becomes "free to do as we tell you".
> As soon as China tries to compete with the rich monopolies, the "free market" goes out of the window and becomes "free to do as we tell you".
Hence big tech cozying up to this administration, and all the attempts to ban AI regulation.
China won already, US is just trying to stop the bleeding
>As soon as China tries to compete with the rich monopolies, the "free market" goes out of the window and becomes "free to do as we tell you".
When China cannot compete with incumbents those protections also go up and when they can now people like you appeal to free trade (while ignoring existing protections). You are being overly charitable to one side here. Which is it? Free trade or Protectionism?
Of course its protectionism for China, so they can bolster their own economy, but free trade for the US, so they can bleed us dry.
A big distinction is the Chinese do not meddle with affairs outside their borders.
They do, all the time. Price dumping is one example.
Industrial and scientific espionage is another one.
Hacking companies is one more.
4 replies →
China definitely meddles with the affairs of other countries. The belt and road initiative, for example. It's taking some pages out of Europe's old colonial playbook.
And let's not even get started on Taiwan...
> can now people like you appeal to free trade
You're assuming too much and, along with others here, acting like you've been hurt. "Free trade" is the mantra of Western economists and politicians since the time of Adam Smith, and it's been a ruse since then too. Read him.
> When China cannot compete with incumbents those protections also go up.
They do, but not in the erratic manner, levels or timing we're observing here. China is a party of the WTO and they haven't broken any of its agreements, nor have they used any of its emergency clauses.
> You are being overly charitable to one side here. Which is it? Free trade or Protectionism?
It's not either/or. I can tell you a third option that is worse than both of these - it's jumping from one to the other and back in an erratic manner as we are doing it now.
I could tell you something that's better than all of these too but I won't do it. I've been talking about it for many years, primarily as an alternative to free trade and I'm amazed that at this time, nobody seems to be aware of it. Like, what's the point of pointing out obvious truths over and over again with the same (lack of) result.
>Adam Smith, and it's been a ruse since then too. Read him.
You should read Keynes as the primary opposing side to US during Bretton Woods, with strong support from most bankers at the time. The WTO has no answer to structural imbalances nor was ever intended to resolve such a matter.
The status quo you support is not grounded in economic literature than it is a incoherent mess that was created through political circumstances. Under a truly multilateral system of the ICU, China would have been severely disciplined years ago for its distortionary surplus actions.
2 replies →