Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

China Once Looked Tough on Trade. Now Its Options Are Dwindling

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 385 posts

Re: China Once Looked Tough on Trade. Now Its Options Are Dwindling

#371

Post by int_19h »

bachmeier wrote: post #331
int_19h wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea is that it's temporary pain for long-term gain. Whether that's actually the case is debatable, but people who support those policies genuinely believe so. So you can call them misguided, but not irrational or inconsistent.

> The idea is that it's temporary pain for long-term gain. No, it's not. There's absolutely no sense in which there is a "long-term gain" from imposing a tax on US consumers because the government decided they were buying the wrong products. If you have an actual argument to make in favor of these taxes, please make it. You're just parroting a talking point and providing no justification for something that doesn't ma…

I'm not making that argument. I'm telling you how people who do make that argument think.

Like I said, you can call them ignorant on the basis that there's no actual long-term gain. But they believe there is, and that is why they support this policy, not because they really like shooting themselves in the foot so much.

Re: China Once Looked Tough on Trade. Now Its Options Are Dwindling

#372

Post by sheepmullet »

chowchowchow wrote: post #370
sheepmullet wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> is disenfranchising compared to our current electoral college system. I guess my point is we can enfranchise significantly more people than today without moving away from the electoral college. Yet no state is seriously considering assigning their electoral votes proportionally. I think that shows the people calling for the removal of the electoral college are playing politics and are only interested in it if it he…

To me your point of view reads as superficially civil but deeply cynical underneath. The current system is unfair , and you criticize people who want to fix it because they won't take a local action which is nominally aligned with the goal but in reality will just tilt the unfairness further. It's a bit like tritely declaring that people should just opt in to pay more taxes individually if they think tax rates on the…

> because they won't take a local action which is nominally aligned

Of course - Your collective actions don’t mirror your rhetoric.

> in reality will just tilt the unfairness further.

I thought your argument was disenfranchising voters was immoral and unfair.

Yet I’ve shown you a politically viable way to enfranchise millions more people and you are claiming that enfranchising these people makes the system less fair?

> It's a bit like tritely declaring that people should just opt in to pay more taxes

How so?

Re: China Once Looked Tough on Trade. Now Its Options Are Dwindling

#373

Post by sonnyblarney »

TACIXAT wrote: post #362
sonnyblarney wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"but are you suggesting that it's unfair to not be able to copy IP and just manufacture without paying?" It's a perfectly legitimate approach for some situations. In the 1980's , 1990's it was actually a positive strategy for China to pay no mind to IP. And it was better for us as well because it was the easiest way to move them along at a quick pace. It's better for the 'rest of the world' to have a prosperous China…

Why can't you catch up to major players without IP? I am of the opinion that any IP is antithetical to societal progress. If people are free to copy that means we get to remove the monopolistic pricing of goods. If people are free to improve then our ideas and products become better and better, rather than having a single player guard an antiquated model and prevent others from iterating on the idea. If information f…

Without IP there's no incentive to invest in certain things.

Particularly drugs.

The more R&D involved the riskier it is to make something.

It cost $1 Billion to make a new drug, there's no way anyone invests that kind of money without IP protections.

On the creative side, we allow companies to protect their creations like characters, films etc..

Re: China Once Looked Tough on Trade. Now Its Options Are Dwindling

#374

Post by chowchowchow »

sheepmullet wrote: post #372
chowchowchow wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me your point of view reads as superficially civil but deeply cynical underneath. The current system is unfair , and you criticize people who want to fix it because they won't take a local action which is nominally aligned with the goal but in reality will just tilt the unfairness further. It's a bit like tritely declaring that people should just opt in to pay more taxes individually if they think tax rates on the…

> because they won't take a local action which is nominally aligned Of course - Your collective actions don’t mirror your rhetoric. > in reality will just tilt the unfairness further. I thought your argument was disenfranchising voters was immoral and unfair. Yet I’ve shown you a politically viable way to enfranchise millions more people and you are claiming that enfranchising these people makes the system less fair?…

> I thought your argument was disenfranchising voters was immoral and unfair.

I don't think I said anything to that effect -- aside from that the current system is unfair -- but you seem to be arguing against a bit of a straw man here already, so I won't stop you from continuing.

> How so?

How not so? You could easily say (and I imagine you in particular would say): you think taxes should be higher? You should pay more voluntarily right now regardless of what the official rates are.

Your viewpoint neglects to consider that certain changes must occur uniformly, at a structural level in order to be effective.

Under your proposal, if CA adopted it and WY did not, 50 voters in Wyoming for Candidate A would get even more voting power relative to 50 voters in California for the same candidate at the federal level. That you think that is more fair makes it difficult for me to believe you're approaching this discussion in good faith. I also sense you're replaying arguments you've had before and aren't looking to change your mind. So we can probably leave it off here.

Re: China Once Looked Tough on Trade. Now Its Options Are Dwindling

#375

Post by wahern »

gonvaled wrote: post #283
wahern wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I made a hyperbolic statement to emphasis that it's not politically viable. No, I don't think there'd be a coup. But I also think acceptance of ICC jurisdiction in the near future is about as likely as there being a coup. The military institutionally--the people that embody the military at the Pentagon, in Congress, in the White House, and elsewhere--would never allow it even if a majority of Americans were okay with…

Agree. I hope we also agree that this is extremely unfair, internationally speaking.

I hesitate to say its unfair because I don't know how to even begin to define what fair would look like.

Look at the situation in Syria. When Obama refused significant interventions (despite his famous "red line"), Europe sharply criticized the U.S. notwithstanding the fact that Europe refused to intervene itself. This example shows how much of the world accepts and affirms the U.S. role as a so-called global policeman, at least when it suits them.

Now imagine a situation where the U.S. bowed to pressure and intervened at Europe's behest, but subsequently was drawn into an ICC prosecution for some action in that country. That hardly seems fair, to assume both the direct cost of the conflict plus the cost of ex post criticisms by parties unwilling to participate themselves. Especially in light of the fact that, relatively speaking, the U.S. has well functioning military courts willing and capable of punishing crimes, particularly the types of serious crimes the ICC was established to handle.

The existing situation is unfair in the sense that the U.S. is a wealthy hegemon, while most countries are poor and vulnerable. But the U.S. putting itself under ICC jurisdiction wouldn't substantially change that. It's such a complex situation I find it hard to criticize the U.S. here. I sort of like Clinton's approach of "plausible ratification", which appreciated both the real politick and idealist aspects. It lent the court legitimacy without risking a crisis where the U.S. repudiated jurisdiction or where the threat of repudiation caused ICC prosecutors or judges to pull their punches. Situations of the latter type would slowly erode the ICC's legitimacy.

Re: China Once Looked Tough on Trade. Now Its Options Are Dwindling

#376

Post by sheepmullet »

chowchowchow wrote: post #374
sheepmullet wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because they won't take a local action which is nominally aligned Of course - Your collective actions don’t mirror your rhetoric. > in reality will just tilt the unfairness further. I thought your argument was disenfranchising voters was immoral and unfair. Yet I’ve shown you a politically viable way to enfranchise millions more people and you are claiming that enfranchising these people makes the system less fair?…

> I thought your argument was disenfranchising voters was immoral and unfair. I don't think I said anything to that effect -- aside from that the current system is unfair -- but you seem to be arguing against a bit of a straw man here already, so I won't stop you from continuing. > How so? How not so? You could easily say (and I imagine you in particular would say): you think taxes should be higher? You should pay mo…

> aside from that the current system is unfair

Unfair on what basis?

I did assume your basis was the belief that it’s immoral/unfair for one persons vote to be worth less than another’s simply based on which state they live in.

> You should pay more voluntarily right now regardless of what the official rates are.

Why would I say that? I don’t think a single person paying more in taxes would make a difference.

> at a structural level in order to be effective

Yes. And if done at the California state level it would enfranchise millions of people.

I’ll leave it up to you to judge whether that’s good or bad.

> 50 voters in Wyoming for Candidate A would get even more voting power relative to 50 voters in California

The distribution would change to give the minority accurate representation based on their vote count.

So a Californian minority voter would not be unfairly disadvantaged just because they live in California.

I mean it’s the same as when we enfranchised women - men’s votes were obviously diluted.

> and aren't looking to change your mind

I’m simply trying to understand your argument. If you can put forward a convincing case and prove it’s not just a political power play then I will happily change my mind.

Though I must warn you that I’m on the other end of the states vs federal debate:

I’m happy for the individual states to decide where they want their electoral votes to go - even if they don’t want to hold a vote and instead use a panel of experts to decide or even if they just want to flip a coin.

Re: China Once Looked Tough on Trade. Now Its Options Are Dwindling

#377

Post by pathseeker »

Isofarro wrote: post #330
yonkshi wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I advise you to reflect on the bias of your own view points. China has been pulling the same bullying tactics towards EU and S.Korea/Japan as well. IP transfer, forced partnership, etc. Notice how EU, South Korea and Japan haven't really been opposing this ordeal between China and US? They would also like to see China start playing fair, unfortunately there is very few economies can standup to China right now. China…

The US did initially include the European Union in this trade war, but when the EU threatened to respond with a import levies that affected Harley Davidson motorbikes manufactured in a Republican-voting state, the US backed down [1]. Chinese media (and social media particularly) does regularly cover stories about Chinese people outside of China involved in situations such as these, whether it's a high-profile busines…

>The US did initially include the European Union in this trade war, but when the EU threatened to respond with a import levies that affected Harley Davidson motorbikes manufactured in a Republican-voting state, the US backed down [1].

I suggest you read your own article. The "backed down" part is referring to a previous trade war under Bush.

Re: China Once Looked Tough on Trade. Now Its Options Are Dwindling

#378

Post by pathseeker »

TACIXAT wrote: post #362
sonnyblarney wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"but are you suggesting that it's unfair to not be able to copy IP and just manufacture without paying?" It's a perfectly legitimate approach for some situations. In the 1980's , 1990's it was actually a positive strategy for China to pay no mind to IP. And it was better for us as well because it was the easiest way to move them along at a quick pace. It's better for the 'rest of the world' to have a prosperous China…

Why can't you catch up to major players without IP? I am of the opinion that any IP is antithetical to societal progress. If people are free to copy that means we get to remove the monopolistic pricing of goods. If people are free to improve then our ideas and products become better and better, rather than having a single player guard an antiquated model and prevent others from iterating on the idea. If information f…

You vastly underestimate the cost of investing in IP development - perhaps because you come from a background where research is trivial??

Developing drugs, building special fabs, etc can be hundreds of millions spent in research that needs to be incentivized. If the option to just copy the person that does all of the work is on the table, anyone who does the research investment will be immediately undercut in price and the whole system encouraging expensive R&D will collapse.

>If information flowed more freely people interested in making money would have to continue to innovate

If information flowed more freely without IP protection, the winning move is to not actually invent things and just copy whatever the current leading products do. Maybe that's what you call "innovation", but it's a pretty big regression from actual inventions and major leaps forward.

Re: China Once Looked Tough on Trade. Now Its Options Are Dwindling

#379

Post by pathseeker »

NikolaNovak wrote: post #175
pathseeker wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Ruining goodwill and relationships (and of course trade) with YOUR MOST IMPORTANT ALLIES That's not how this works. A trade tariff dispute doesn't mean anything about the relationships in other matters unless they are brought up as part of the negotiations. Each country isn't a single person being directed by their feelings being hurt. So we can certainly negotiate with Canada to get them to lift dairy tariffs or wh…

>>Each country isn't a single person being directed by their feelings being hurt. Umm, sorry for being flippant, but are we reading the same news about US foreign policy last 18 months...? :-/

>Umm, sorry for being flippant, but are we reading the same news about US foreign policy last 18 months...? :-/

Not sure. I don't recall any news about the US going to war or halting trade with any of its previous allies. I don't remember reading anything about the five eyes agreements changing. Do you have other news sources?

The phrase being used is "ruining relationships". Maybe you have a different definition of "ruined" if you think Trump has ruined any relationships with allies.

Re: China Once Looked Tough on Trade. Now Its Options Are Dwindling

#380

Post by pathseeker »

white-flame wrote: post #173
pathseeker wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>the favouring of US IP holders (as incumbents and head starters) You mean favoring the people that actually invented these things? I understand there isn't much of a notion of IP in China, but are you suggesting that it's unfair to not be able to copy IP and just manufacture without paying?

The allowance for copyright law to exist in the USA is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"; with a similar intent to patents to eventually bring more quality things into the public domain. So yes, anything outside of that, regardless of invention of non-science/useful-arts, and regardless of profitability, is fair game. Any other enforcements and punishments are overreaches by government on behalf of…

> The allowance for copyright law to exist in the USA is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"; with a similar intent to patents to eventually bring more quality things into the public domain. So yes, anything outside of that, regardless of invention of non-science/useful-arts, and regardless of profitability, is fair game.

Can you give an example of what is outside of science and arts that you think is fair game?

Post reply on HN