[rgbrenner]

Americans are ok with companies outsourcing their labor to other countries... as long as those countries play fair. The assumption is that in a fair game, American's will find a way to win. But China doesn't play fair.

This is like you and me playing a game, and I find out you're a cheater.. and you say, 'what are you upset about? You invited me here'

[solotronics]

It is a known factor of business in China that they will try and cheat you. We assume in the U.S. that at least people will act according to the moral standard set by our society but this standard doesn't seem to apply to strangers or foreigners in China.

Before you call me jingoistic I have worked and lived in China and they just have a different outlook on "scam" business there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ncOyYzOP3w

[A2017U1]

> as long as those countries play fair

Which outsourcing destination has the same environmental and worker safety protections as the in the West?

A western factory polluting rivers and freely harming employees could compete quite well on the world stage.

[snupples]

I think your choice of words isn't the greatest. There is absolutely no such assumption behind the ideal of fair and open markets. The assumption is both sides benefit when competition is open and fair.

[redial]

> As long as those countries play fair.

And what a coincidence, the US decides what fair is. Bombing other countries and occupying them for their oil and other resources is totally fair.

[rgbrenner]

For sure. Just look at all the american companies pumping oil out of Iraq: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_industry_in_Iraq

Sure, Iraq exports more oil to China (21%) and India (20%) than it does to the US (13%).. but I'm sure that was somehow part of the conspiracy. So dont let that change your opinion.

[phyller]

This is a losing argument, the people (many many people) that believe these wars were all about the USA stealing oil and gold will never change their minds, they didn't get that opinion in the first place because they were thinking very logically about it or looking into it. The US having anything other than evil motives is not a possibility to be considered, so everything they do must be explained in a way that shows the US has bad intentions.

I've had these arguments with internationals living, working, and studying in America with Americans and its a dead end.

[redial]

Yes, the US leveled an entire country and has been occupying it for almost 20 years just out of the goodness of their heart, grandma must be so proud, no economic interest whatsoever!

What confuses people like you is that you think selling the oil is the only way the US has to benefit from the war. The US most of all, like all superpowers before it, wants control of the market.

[phyller]

Exactly, you make my point. If somehow you think the US had benefited from this you are crazy. The US didn't pour billions of dollars into Iraq, no one in the region was threatened by a despot with the third largest military in the world, it was just a followup to the amazing economic windfalls of Vietnam and Korea!

[objektif]

I never thought I would see such a comment in HN. I really dont even know where to start disputing your insanely idiotic comments about Vietnam and Iraq wars. We are talking about wars which caused more than 2 million civilian deaths.

You should leave international politics aside and go back to tech or whatever the hell you do in your daily job.

[adventured]

> the US leveled an entire country

The US didn't level Iraq in fact. The Iraqis leveled Iraq trying to murder each other in a large civil war that the US tried for years to stop (it could have just left instead). The US lost thousands of soldiers and a trillion dollars stepping in-between those factions. The Sunni and Shia in Iraq have hated each other for hundreds of years and immediately began killing each other after Saddam's Government fell. Saddam's 'solution' for that conflict previously was extreme oppression of the majority Shia. The only rational solution is to split the country into pieces; until then the conflict will continue perpetually.

> has been occupying it for almost 20 years

You're inventing that.

The US isn't occupying Iraq and certainly hasn't occupied it for 20 years. The US has single digit thousands of troops in Iraq in mostly supporting roles, at the invitation of the Iraqi Government. It previously left at the request of the Iraqi Government during the Obama Admin.

Please tell me how the US can occupy Iraq with a few thousand soldiers, when it couldn't control Iraq previously with more than a hundred thousand soldiers.

> you think selling the oil is the only way the US has to benefit from the war. The US most of all, like all superpowers before it, wants control of the market.

The US had dramatically more control of the Iraqi oil market before the war, with the ability to raise or lower output at will, using the aggressive sanction regime that was in place against Saddam Hussein's government. If the US wanted more Iraqi oil on the market, all it had to do is relax sanctions or look the other way as countries cheated on the sanctions.

Now Iraqi oil output is heading to new record highs, with the US having very little control over it. In fact, in your theory the US has an incentive to decimate the Iraqi oil industry rather than see it thrive. The US is the world's largest oil producer and has the most to gain from that. Projections are for US oil production to climb to 15-18 million barrels per day, far beyond Saudi and Russia, over the coming decade. It would be a large benefit to US oil producers - keeping prices up - to not have Iraq producing so much oil over that time.

The post Saddam ten year era in Iraq - the occupation - was about nation building, a foolish exercise of a superpower. The same is true about trying to prop up the Afghanistan Government vs the Taliban (a nearly impossible task). The US has vaporized a trillion dollars in Afghanistan, there is no way that can ever be recouped. The US had prior success with nation building in Europe and Asia and ignorantly believed it could accomplish a positive outcome in the Middle East.

[phyller]

My Iraqi friends, particularly one from Mosul, told me that the issue they had was that when Saddam was overthrown the coalition took too little control instead of too much. This created a power vacuum that allowed all sorts of bad actors to terrorize everyone else.

[mortehu]

This is a pretty weak argument since crude oil is a commodity and selling it anywhere reduces its price everywhere.

[redial]

And what currency are all those exports in?

And all those 'reconstruction' billions and decades long military contracts don't benefit anyone I'm sure.

[Wowfunhappy]

> The assumption is that in a fair game, Americans will find a way to win.

Perhaps that's exactly why China feels the need to cheat? From their point of view, the deck was stacked against them. They need to even the odds.

[phyller]

The United States has given China preferential trade deals (deals that are unfair by benefitting China) since the Nixon era. It is truly a tragedy that these two countries don't get along better.

[jayd16]

In every game, every player assumes they can find a way to win. That doesn't imply unfair odds.

[thaumasiotes]

What are you trying to say? This doesn't even pass the laugh test.

You and Tiger Woods, golf, go! Good luck.

[jayd16]

Sorry, implied in my comment is "any game both parties would bother playing" they both expect a chance to win or they wouldn't play at all.

But that aside, the point of my comment is "the opponent expecting to win, does not imply unfair odds."

"America thinks trade is good" does not imply "China gets to steal IP"

[pbalau]

> The assumption is that in a fair game, American's will find a way to win.

So, if America fails to find a way to win, the game is rigged? I mean, if this über country doesn't find a way to win, game being rigged is the only explanation... Where did I hear this before?

> This is like you and me playing a game, and I find out you're a cheater...

No, this is like you and me playing a game and if you don't win, you accuse me of being a cheater.

[phyller]

Both you and the comment you are responding to are wrong because in international trade there should not be one loser and one winner. There should only be winners and no losers. That is not only possible but that is the normal state, and why the world has been increasingly prosperous. It is not a zero sum gain when two nations trade, they actually create wealth by each doing what they do best and trading.

With this understanding, if any side finds that they are on the "losing" end of a deal, they should be upset. The United States has increased its wealth partially by increasing everyone else's wealth (as have other countries) and that is the way it should be.

[rgbrenner]

This isn't an argument either side is making. No one is under some delusion that China is playing a fair game. Even China themselves says they need more time to make reforms. Why do you need to make reforms if you're already playing fair?

[bllguo]

So if the game is "fair" America wins. That sounds more like a rigged game to me.

[rgbrenner]

That's not what I said. Americans assume american companies are capable of competing. If they fail, they fail.. as long as the rules were fair, no problem. There are millions of failed american companies that no american is shedding any tears over.

[est]

Amazon.cn is doing online retail business but it not successful by any means.

[phyller]

If the game is fair, both trade partners win, no one loses. Trade is not and should not be a zero sum gain.

[est]

> The assumption is that in a fair game, American's will find a way to win

Devil's advocate: the only disadvantage of US companies in China is FCPA.

Google failed in China because Kaifulee can not gift one iPad to a high rank communist party official. iPad were considered luxury at that time. Every other competitors do.

In other industries, some European joint adventures do govn't lobbying and media manipulation. Since media is controlled by the Chinese govn't, you must have "connections" or "guanxi" to pull things off.

If US can have exemption allowing companies have "convenient" business strategies in China, Chinese govn't and domestic copycats do not stand a chance.