[fermienrico]

To preface, firstly - I am a supporter of free global trade and greater collaboration between countries to maximize the benefit of each other.

The problem starts when there is a massive asymmetry in the trade. China has completely blocked US services from Google to Uber, and gladly accepts manufacturing investment - Tesla Shanghai factory, Intel's Chengdu factory, etc. because the CCP knows that they will gain tremendously by having IP physically based in China. It leaks like a sieve. I've seen it first hand (in semiconductor industry).

America should protect its own interests and interests of other democratic nations before they get eroded, dismantled and sold off to CCP's interests. If China doesn't want American software services running and fairly competing because of CCP surveillance requirements, well...then the US should block all Chinese services from exploiting users[1] and their data, may be EU should block Chinese services from running there until there is strict GDPR requirements and the data is located in EU datacenters. There should be independent datacenter security audits just like CCP wants keys to iCloud datacenters. That would just get us to the fairness level and that's still not enough - there should be a reverse asymmetry to make up for last 20 years of damage - incentivize US/EU services and manfuacturing while simultaneously imposing sanctions and import duties on goods/services made in China. Why not? Can someone tell me why the US/EU shouldn't do the same? I should not be able to buy $1.99 USB cable including shipping from China.

[1] https://citizenlab.ca/2020/05/we-chat-they-watch/

[FooBarWidget]

Wait a minute... You're pretending like trade is only "fair" if selling happens in both directions. Doesn't that fly directly in the face of what trade means?

You buy something, but you get value in return. That's why it's not called "donation". If the thing you bought is not valuable to you then why did you buy it in the first place?

Also, there is all this talk about "forced" tech transfers, but nobody forced US companies at gunpoint. US companies always had the choice to not enter the China market. They signed tech tranfer contracts, willingly, because they think the upsides (gaining a new market) are higher than the downsides, or that the downsides are manageable. The fact is, companies made a choice. And now the US government is making that choice for them?

From a national supply chain security or technology hegemony point of view it makes sense to deny certain transfers, but let's recognize that this is just geopolitics and not about ethics, fairness, etc. The rherotic about fairness just doesn't make sense upon further scrutiny. If the US government doesn't fully believe in free market, why not just go ahead and say so instead of all the mental gymnastics?

[fermienrico]

> Wait a minute... You're pretending like trade is only "fair" if selling happens in both directions. Doesn't that fly directly in the face of what trade means?

I am confused by your question. How is this relevant to anti-competitive behavior of the CCP?

> You buy something, but you get value in return. That's why it's not called "donation". If the thing you bought is not valuable to you then why did you buy it in the first place?

Again, what does your patronizing clarification have to do with competitive marketplace where all parties can play fair? I am genuinely asking instead of just raising rhetorical questions. Literally the first line on Free Trade wikipedia page [1] says:

"Free trade is a trade policy that does not restrict imports or exports."

I thought I was talking about "Free Trade" as in freely be able to compete in China just as local companies. Perhaps there was a misunderstanding?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade

[DiogenesKynikos]

The South Korean development economist Ha-Joon Chang has an analogy about this idea of "fairness" in international trade: Saying that free trade between a developed and undeveloped country is "fair" is like saying that a boxing match between a heavyweight and a featherweight is "fair."

We recognize that "fairness" in boxing and other sports requires things like weight classes. The same goes for trade between countries at very different levels of economic development. Developed, undeveloped and developing countries should not have identical policies. Most countries that are developed today got to where they are using protectionist policies.

Ha-Joon Chang explains his views in this talk: https://youtu.be/T5-ojv5-b3U

[FooBarWidget]

Those were genuine questions, not patronizing. I just don't agree with the characterization that things are "unfair". I don't see how you can recognize that buying means getting value in return while still talking about fairness at the same time. The fairness is already embedded in the very transaction!

You talk about anti-competitiveness, but isn't that just a matter of perspective and not an absolute moral high ground? When Microsoft was accused of anti-competitive behavior, it was because Microsoft used existing cash and influence to squat smaller parties like flies and gain dominance. In the same manner, we can argue that Facebook could squat other smaller social media networks in China as flies because Facebook was already big, and thus Facebook would be the one being anti-competitive.

I won't argue with you about US interests. But I can't agree with taking the moral high ground.

> "Free trade is a trade policy that does not restrict imports or exports."

You can argue that China is not engaging fully in the free trade principle. But in my opinion it still doesn't make sense to turn this into a moral high ground thing, because all countries have import and export controls to some extent, because in the end all countries look after their interests.

And not everybody agrees that the free trade principle is a good thing (note: this is not my personal opinion). See the rise of populism in Europe, and the number of people who yell that the Poles or refugees or whatever are "stealing our jobs". Now that I think about it, don't you have the same issue with US people complaining about Mexicans?

Turning this into a moral issue is, in my opinion, a childish view of how the work works. I am saying: let's recognize that this is plain geopolitics and interests, and not about morals.

[fermienrico]

I think I want to explore something related to morality - what is the end game of humans? If the end game is to fallback on tribal instincts and identity, then we are easily equiped to assure mutual destruction. If the end game is to keep inventing bigger, better, faster, cheaper things and climb on the technology ladder enabled by the machinery of competition, then there has to be fairness built into the rulebook. One can't come in an tear pages off that benefit their own and lead demise of the other - all players notice the one who is not playing by the rulebook, not just the immediate opponent in the arena. One need not go too far to find it in the fabric of the human spirit (and even some monkeys), from market economy to PubG servers, people expect fairness and equal opportunity.

[FooBarWidget]

I agree with the abstract idea of fairness, having rules, etc. But the devil lies in the implementation. A dogmatic free trade order mainly benefits the establishment: the western powers. If China adopts free trade principles in a dogmatic manner then they will be tremendously hurt by it. And it's not like the US plays very fair either: the US outright rejects a lot of international rules. For example there is a US law that declares they will invade the Netherlands if a US person is ever judged by the International Court of Justice. http://www.diplomatmagazine.eu/2019/02/09/william-pace-the-h...

Having ideals is a fine thing but we need to stay realistic. Is it at all possible to create rules that benefit everybody, given that countries differ in development status, culture, values, etc? I have no idea. We can try, we should try, but don't get too surprised if things fall apart sometimes, and when things fall apart it's unhelpful to point fingers.

[roenxi]

> I agree with the abstract idea of fairness, having rules, etc. But the devil lies in the implementation.

Particularly around IP law, which is what China is most flagrant about ignoring. Nothing in IP law comes from any sense natural principle. It is all arbitrary judgements.

It makes sense for America to claim IP is important since they own most of it, but it is wise for China to ignore their arguments as far as they can get away with it.

[DSingularity]

Love your answers. Agree 100%. Personally, I would emphasize that figuring out this “fairness” question is of utmost importance in an age of intertwined interests across nations.

Those in positions of dominance risk their power when they ignore these questions. Unfair practices can increase dominance in the short-term but what happens in the long-term when more and more people recognize the practice as unfair? What happens when we get to a point where most of the world consider western nations/corporations to be stewards/enablers of oppression and injustice?

[ekianjo]

The US benefited from Free Trade and rose to prominency vs the UK so the idea that playing by the rules will not get you anywhere is pretty wrong.

[sifar]

>> I think I want to explore something related to morality - what is the end game of humans

Such hubris.

So the heads of two powerful nations are to decide the fate of humanity - where is the morality in that ?

And why does there have to be an endgame ? and who are we to decide ?

[saiya-jin]

Dude, your tirade about fair west and unfair evil chinese, give me a break. Sounds like reading Trump's twitter if I had the stomach for it and too much free time to waste.

US does behave amorally tons of times, so does EU, so does everybody else. US slapping super massive tariffs on non-US products (airplanes for example) ain't fair to european manufacturers by any definition, and if we aren't allies anymore, then who is. US stealing trade secrets via NSA, spying on all foreign politicians, dissent, supporting dictators and so on.

The thing is, out there is mostly unrestrained capitalism - everybody for themselves, and help even between allies normally only comes if its mutually beneficial. US has very little moral ground if any in this topic.

[ngcc_hk]

You cannot sell certain service to china. That is not fair.

[ClumsyPilot]

India has a significant number of restrictions on free trade, and they are a functional democracy. So maybe its unfair to us, but its a democratic choice.

Further consider the advantage US has from being the center of global finance, and having many generations of wealth accumation compared to India and China being recent colonies and having recent devastating wars.

Is that trade policy still unfair taking those variables in account

[sudosysgen]

Canada tried selling planes to the US, we got hit by 200% tariffs.

[the_mitsuhiko]

That’s true for all countries though in some capacity.

[koheripbal]

Right - and it's unfair to the degree that it is true. For China it is MASSIVELY unfair - far far more than any other industrialized economy.

[microcolonel]

Here in Canada we should do away with our import controls on dairy as well. Advocates say it has to do with dairy quality standards, but that body of laws is completely separate from the one that institutes "supply management".

[tomp]

I'm not supporter of free trade, I'm supporter of fair trade.

What you've described is simply - unfair. Another extremely unfair thing is different employment & environmental standards. If an EU company opens a Chinese factory just because they can make people work more hours and can pollute the environment more, I don't really see that as a "globalization benefit", but rather as "unlawful competition" which results in a race to the bottom (other EU/US companies being forced to open polluting exploiting factories abroad to compete on price).

That's why I strongly support tariffs on imported products, unless foreign companies/factories conform to strict standards and allow strict (and random) inspection that they do conform to said standards.

[ClumsyPilot]

Are you sure your idea of fairness is right?

Consider Mongolia, perhaps they want to match EU employment standards but can't afford do. What are they suppose to do?

Suppose a democracy decided on different employment standards, should EU ban imports from US due to EU having higher standards of employee and environmental protection? How big does the difference have to be?

Does your free trade "fairness" account for the advantages US gets from being a global center of finance?

For disadvantages Vietnam has from being a recent colony and having a devastating war?

Does a country with loads of natural resources, or elderly population, or struck by natural disaster change the calculus?

Is this a robust rule you would like to see implemented, or is it just justifying current politics?

[tomp]

It’s a robust rule I’d like to see implemented. Obviously there’s a lot of nuance and important details, some if which you highlighted, but the general idea is, that the goal should be to make a policy that’s “fair” in some way or another, and not just go “hur dur muh free trade” free-for-all. For example, I’d probably give Mongolia a bit of leeway as it’s a poor, developing nation to help them catch up, whereas I think US should be punished mot for the reasons you highlight, but for being a tax haven and maybe even for pollution.

But in general, my argument isn’t about some specific countries, but instead about specific products. A company in Mongolia selling to EU could either not give their employees medical insurance and sell widgets to EU for €50 + 100% tariffs, or treat their employees by EU standards and sell widgets for €100 and no tariffs. The ideal tariffs would exactly balance that (while still allowing Mongolian widgets to be cheaper because of lower wages because of lower cost of living.)

[princeb]

to go full conspiracy theory, standards of fair trade, e.g. labour standards, worker rights, IP etc, exist to cripple emerging economies, to contain their growth and limit their ability to compete. political spin doctors have wrapped this up in the veneer of fair trade, equal standards, to get ordinary people to take the bait.

there are ways to mitigate the growing pains of economic development but to prevent it completely is not a solution. nearly all industrial nations have, at some point in their history, gone through the whole process - discovering necessary safety standards, methods to encourage cooperation and where it fails, enforcement and legal repercussions remedies and punishment, etc... that really ought to be hyper-local and community-specific in their implementation. first world governments are fully complicit in preventing emerging nations from developing this themselves.

[the8472]

Factor those externalties - internalized for some manufacturers by regulations - that allow them to manufacture more cheaply into the import tariffs. Trade is not the same as a tariff-free common market.

[csense]

This is exactly my position as well. Every country in the world needs to be held to certain minimum standards.

If a country pays its workers pennies and craps all over the environment, it sucks for the people that live there, but really it's fine, they're a sovereign nation, nobody's gonna send in the troops over it.

Let's simply charge them enough to take all the money they save / make from these practices out of their pockets. If they don't pay up, the goods can't cross the border.

[temac]

There is the question of the long term effect of policies like even just threatening to block major Chinese actors thanks to doubtful instruments (the US is basically the only power that attempts and manages to rule the world by claiming and effectively constructing jurisdiction on everything that touches a US dollar, or any kind of tech that has even just minor relationship with the US). Meanwhile the China has already become a major power and even just the threat of a tech blockade will motivate them to develop their own; and we are now past the mere threat points...

What will happen when they will own all the supply chains and the buyers will have the choice between US tech, with their propension to want to rule the world, or Chinese tech; of course China may eventually do the same thing as the US, but strategically it is easy enough to not do it for long enough so that it is a major advantage to develop their market.

In (at least parts of) the EU, btw, we see this attitude of the US as a critical problem, more than a solution... As far as those kind of affairs are concerned, we don't view the US as a close ally but more as a distant cousin which is sometimes even a blatant economic enemy, especially when they attempt and do rule the world through $US and tech policies (and demonstrated, not only suspected, systematized world scale espionage). For example the embargo on Iran is particularly problematic. The China might be "worse" than the US in some dimensions, including critical ones, but there are some movement in the EU to guarantee/redevelop our independence from the US too, and this involves developing our own versions of more technologies which are for now originating from the US in a far too large proportion, given their policies and the risk they produce. (For some of those projects already existing, I suspect they initially won't be very successful, but that is another issue; if the problem becomes more pressing, there is no reason to not be able to do it: 10 or 20 years is an eternity in tech, but international equilibrium is a longterm affair)

[maxdo]

Those actors exist only because China blocks US movies in their theaters to 10 a year(!!). US movie industry creates so-called joint movies with the only goal to avoid these quotas. That's how Chinese capital suddenly got access to US movie companies, Chinese actors start appearing in US movies.

It's a pretty much mafia move and has nothing to do with fair trade.

Somehow Korea managed to create best movie of the year without this mafia-style ruling. They use the weaknesses of regular people who want gains now.

[andyzweb]

Korea just has a different mafia-style rule in the form of chaebol

[maxdo]

This particular post was about the movie industry. Korea went in a different, much more competitive way, unlike China.

[dragonsh]

Brush up on Korea, there neither google nor Apple map can provide you navigation services, it is reserved for local company only. I have to drive car there using Korean gps.

For mobile network and services they have their own standard giving virtual monopoly to SK and KT telecom and local manufacturers. No foreign car manufacturer can setup easily in Korea, Samsung rebrand Nissan car as S5 and S7. Except high end German cars with high tariffs you will only see Korean brands.

Check any sector and you will find more hurdles. Doing business in Korea compared to China is harder, if you target local businesses.

These all are not visible or so pronounced because Korea is relatively small compared to China in terms of GDP and size. Actually Korea is more like China and unlike USA except for political systems.

[temac]

I did not mean "actor" as in a people playing in a movie, but I learnt something from your comment nonetheless :)

[georgeburdell]

Right but what does that have to do with a Taiwanese company? That’s the part I have trouble with. According to the U.S.’s own policy, Taiwan and what we call China are the same country. So the U.S. is putting restrictions on a company for taking business from another company from the same country.

U.S. needs to work on making its foreign policy self consistent. Recognizing Taiwan as a separate country would be a great start (logically and morally)

[adventured]

> According to the U.S.’s own policy, Taiwan and what we call China are the same country.

That's a mistaken interpretation and it has been clarified on numerous occasions.

There are two critical words to the context: recognize and acknowledge. And two separate entities to be considered as far as the US is concerned: China and Taiwan. The US has intentionally left the situation in limbo, to neither give in to China nor prompt a military confrontation between China and Taiwan.

The US does not officially recognize China and Taiwan as one. The US "acknowledges" China's position; specifically China's belief that they are one country.

Here is a good explanation:

> The United States did not, however, give in to Chinese demands that it recognize Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan (which is the name preferred by the United States since it opted to de-recognize the ROC). Instead, Washington acknowledged the Chinese position that Taiwan was part of China. For geopolitical reasons, both the United States and the PRC were willing to go forward with diplomatic recognition despite their differences on this matter. When China attempted to change the Chinese text from the original acknowledge to recognize, Deputy Secretary of State Warren Christopher told a Senate hearing questioner, “[W]e regard the English text as being the binding text. We regard the word ‘acknowledge’ as being the word that is determinative for the U.S.” In the August 17, 1982, U.S.-China Communique, the United States went one step further, stating that it had no intention of pursuing a policy of “two Chinas” or “one China, one Taiwan.”

> To this day, the U.S. “one China” position stands: the United States recognizes the PRC as the sole legal government of China but only acknowledges the Chinese position that Taiwan is part of China.

https://www.csis.org/analysis/what-us-one-china-policy-and-w...

[CogitoCogito]

I'm a bit curious why this is being down-voted. It is certainly a 100% accurate description of United States policy.

[zaphirplane]

Perhaps to bury the argument ;)

[ksec]

It is the tactic that is used often, real world or online. Since they will always outnumber you. Although hasn't happened on HN right now.

[FooBarWidget]

If the US recognizes Taiwan, doesn't that make even less sense? On the one hand you're saying that Taiwan is sovereign, on the other hand you're saying, we the US call the shots.

[ksec]

Well because US doesn't need to call the shots. Apparently Taiwan is drafting a legislation to officially admit defeat and they no longer calm mainland being their territory. And calling itself Taiwan, a competely separate nation.

[FooBarWidget]

I wasn't talking about Taiwan independence. I was talking about the US forcing TSMC to not do business with China, forcing their will on the TSMC executives.

[computerex]

How is recognizing Taiwan as a sovereign country that it is, saying that we are the ones calling the shots? The one China doctrine is a stupid attempt to save face. It's China throwing a tantrum. It's high time we stop putting up with such childish behavior, don't you think?

[api]

> To preface, firstly - I am a supporter of free global trade and greater collaboration between countries to maximize the benefit of each other.

The problem starts when there is massive asymmetry in those countries in terms of human rights, worker protections, and environmental regulations.

Criticize the US all day (I certainly can), but compared to the Chinese single party dictatorship the US is massively better in all those areas. The EU is even better than the US in some.

Occupational safety, environmental laws, and a free and open society imposes costs on business in the form of higher wages and overhead. It's impossible -- repeat, impossible -- for businesses in countries that operate to those standards to compete in a "free trade" regime with businesses in countries that do not. It's even worse when said countries (like China) also subsidize their industries and implement protectionist asymmetrical trade policies of their own.

I am all for free trade between free countries to within some reasonable minimal standard for "free." Trade with totalitarian and lawless regimes should be heavily taxed.

The free world should form a trade pact among its members with heavy tariffs for imports from non members.

One way of implementing it would be penalties for wages below domestic median, carbon emissions, and human rights violations. Use those factors to calculate a score and impose tariffs accordingly.

[effie]

What is "free world"?

[maxdo]

What is more important to me, is 9-9-6, ecology, and the culture China tries to bring to the modern world. We have some rights for the middle class in both US and Europe. It's not perfect but it's so much better comparing even to 50 years ago, don't even try to compare now and 150 years ago. China is a treat to this lifestyle. It pushes us centuries back where regular people are just a source for monsters like Tencent.

I have a friend who worked in Tencent an iconic Chinese IT company that owns WeChat. They work from 9 to 9, six days a week. This is not an option. It's mandatory.

She literally escapes to the US because been a single woman in the early 30s considered a very bad misdo in their society. The same rule doesn't apply for man btw. So you as young female pushed to work 9-9-6 and do a very bad choice very early because you have to do it before 30, otherwise you're considered a renegade. Their society is an extremely racist and sexist to the point where their own parents don't want to talk to you if you're a woman who doesn't want to mary a Han-Chinese person( a title nationality in China).

I don't believe that scientists of the western world that put their life for a breakthrough in Computer science, agriculture, medicine, etc... dedicate their life for this kind of society where humanity is just a bio-mechanism that has one day off to clean the room and recover a bit. No social life... nothing. It's a huge gap. While the western world is debating about 4 days of work week china is double down on 9-9-6 which anti-human. You might remember GitHub issue with software developers complains about it and how china tried to stop this "leak" So no matter how stupid it's sound. It's a free world with the neo-feodal country as it is.

You vote for that with your money. Right now is a tipping point they either slow down and the CCP will collapse in a natural way or they will be ruling the world means their way to do business one day might apply to you.

I'm not trying to idealize US or any other country. EU seems to be much more socialistic, Canada seems to be much more inclusive ( at least Toronto). EU is putting so much more money into green energy compared to the US. But this competition is a much better direction rather than what Chinese leadership offers. Racism, sexism, neglecting ecology impact, no human rights, no socialism in any form, no rule of law. Don't get messed with US wrong things.

You have so many reasons to hate Donald and what he's doing but that doesn't automatically make his opponents saint. In fact, Donald will disappear in 0.5 or 4 years. And the threat to the middle-class people's lifestyle because of China and CCP will not.

[savorypiano]

I think it's better to understand the culture rather than frame it as West vs East, democracy vs CCP, etc.

China has experienced grinding poverty for over a century, and have its work ethic to thank for pulling it out. 996 is enabled because of that history, rather than being a control plot. Even school kids have that kind of schedule.

Chinese people are very focused on the lower tiers of Maslow's hierarchy, and survival of the family is somewhat on the line if one of your only grandchildren is female and isn't married at 30. That's her life you say? Equally the parents can feel like all their sacrifices were for naught.

It's getting a bit tangential but the pattern in all societies is that women have the choice in mates and men have to be more willing to look abroad. So any racist sentiments would judge women harsher.

Regarding your other points, China has been much better about including minorities in its country than the West. It has furthered environmental controls vs. Trump reversing them, and most of the greening in the last decade occurred in China (and India). It has sensible universal healthcare and supported its citizens during Covid-19, unlike the US which passed legislation that supports big business, letting small ones fail and charging its own citizens for evacuation flights.

Anyway, the point is that once we understand the history we need not paint China as the malevolent entity that is common in media.

[DiogenesKynikos]

> The problem starts when there is a massive asymmetry in the trade.

Up until a few years ago, there was a massive asymmetry, but in the opposite sense to the asymmetry that Americans usually complain about. Because China was a developing country with very little capital but a huge labor pool, there were huge investment inflows into China. Western companies took advantage of cheap labor in China, setting up factories to produce for Western consumers. Chinese consumers were almost completely out of the picture. China did not have the capital to invest in foreign countries, so the investment was almost entirely unidirectional.

That began to change as China's workers began to earn more, and Western companies jumped into the Chinese consumer market (Starbucks has thousands of locations in China, VW sells millions of cars in China a year, and so on for countless Western companies). Whereas you would see almost no Chinese brands in Western consumer markets, the Chinese market was awash with Western brands.

Now, Chinese brands are starting to enter Western markets, and China also has capital to invest abroad. The relationship is becoming more bidirectional. To the United States, which was happy to exploit cheap Chinese labor and to sell airplanes to the Chinese market, the idea that China might be transforming into a serious economic and political competitor is alarming. That's why there are suddenly these myopic complaints about the relationship being one-sided.

> China has completely blocked US services from Google to Uber

Google is blocked in China for political reasons. Uber was allowed, and indeed operated in the Chinese market for a number of years. It failed there, because there was strong competition from companies that understood the local market and local consumer preferences better. Let me ask a simple question to test if the relationship really is asymmetric, and in which direction the asymmetry points: Do Chinese brands have a larger presence in the US than American brands have in China?

[fermienrico]

You've made some good points but what about the fact that everything in my living room, I mean everything from the paint on the wall to the keys on my Macbook - everything is made in China. I say that influence is of material value (goods) whereas Starbucks entering the Chinese market seems like a distraction.

[DiogenesKynikos]

That fact is due to exactly what I stated before: for decades, China had no capital and no consumer class, so all it could do was serve as a manufacturing platform for foreign companies.

I find it pretty difficult to blame China for this "asymmetry in trade," when that asymmetry was exactly what foreign governments wanted. They wanted China to open up its labor market, so that foreign companies could exploit cheap labor in China. The consumer market in China was tiny, whereas the American and European consumer markets were huge, so the relationship could not be symmetric.

Now, China's consumer market is actually quite large, and foreign companies play a huge role in that market. I didn't just mention Starbucks. I also mentioned VW, but I could equally have mentioned Boeing, Apple, Intel, Qualcomm or Micron. You'll notice a trend here: the US exports high-value-added products to China (including IP licenses and services). Most of what you have in your living room that's actually manufactured in China is lower on the value chain.

Over time, in other words, the US trade relationship with China is becoming more symmetric. Huawei's development into high-value-added products is a sign of that. It's actually this symmetry that the United States wants to avoid, because it means China becoming a peer-level competitor.

The US trade relationship with China will never become fully symmetric, though, because the US runs a net trade deficit with the rest of the world, for reasons that appear to me to have to do with the United States' unique financial position in the world.

[d2161]

Trade is always beneficial to both sides. I find it quite silly for people who say they support free trade but then claim this kind of bs. If the trade isn't beneficial, then they simply won't trade. And if is then they will receive a benefit from the trade. But trade is decisions by individuals, and shouldn't be up to donald tramp and his tramp crew. What your describing is asymmetry between countries in trade. The Hecksher Ohlin model describes the relationship quite well and the relationship is natural. For the same reason the whole complaing about how X country is subsidising their Y products and ruining our country, is just rich corporate bs. It's focused on business owners and not consumers. Why should I pay for a product when I know my marginal utility/marginal cost is higher with the other product? So I can put more money into some rich asshole's ass pocket? While you might be rich enough to sit complain about things being too cheap, some of us have bills to pay. And I see no reason to pay more so you can make money off the rest of us.

[rtikulit]

I take your line of argument as meaning "there are no legitimate medium or long-term interests for countries, for societies or for humanity". Or, alternatively, "the pursuit of short-term interests will always result in long-term good outcomes."

I really don't agree.

Were I ungenerous, I could interpret "I see no reason to pay more so you can make money off the rest of us" as "If local conditions permit me to loot someone else's future for my own present benefit, I will do so."

Furthermore, "trade is always beneficial to both sides" is clearly false, unless you define trade as "that which is always beneficial to both sides."

(I agree as a matter of fact that free trade and free markets are in general the most effective way to allocate capital, decide prices, maximize the realized value of goods, and provide individual economic autonomy. I do not, however, see them as end-goals in and of themselves. I do not see them as infallible in fulfilling personal or human values. I do not see them as especially resistant to having their function subverted.)

[powerapple]

Google left China. Uber sold their share of market to Didi. US has blocked many deals when Chinese companies are involved. There is never free global trade, it is just exploitation at different scales. Global trade happens because some countries need dollars to buy weapon, oil and technology. You buy $1.99 USB cable from China, and the profit from 100 million cables will be used to buy intel chips and Boeing airplanes. It is the same that the profit of 100 kilos of coffee beans from Africa countries will be used to buy weapons from US. We don't need global trade if there is no weapon in the world.

[leemailll]

>China has completely blocked US services from Google to Uber

Both are wrong, Google quit from China, and Uber sold its China division to a rival company.

[summerlight]

Wait, are you suggesting that Google/YouTube is still accessible from China?

[marticode]

He is saying that Google could have kept operating in China if they had agreed to follow local (but Orwellian) regulations.

[summerlight]

No, Google pulled its business from China because of massive state-level hacking attempts, not because of fighting for freedom or doing the right thing or whatever that sounds cool. Or do you think fighting against millions of state-backed hackers is a part of following local regulation?

[sudosysgen]

Did Google pull out of the US when the NSA and friends hacked into their employees and ultimately forced them to give full access?

[enitihas]

Google didn't pull it's business from the USA after PRISM, so I guess strengthening their networks against state-backed hackers is already part and parcel of their business.

[myopenid]

China blocked American services in the mainland precisely to prevent intel gathering on the Chinese masses.

And it's ironic for you to say the CCP wants keys to iCloud, because your government literally forces American companies to hand over the keys[1].

[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusiv...

[myopenid]

> It leaks like a sieve. I've seen it first hand (in semiconductor industry).

There is this thing called knowledge transfer, and you do this when you change jobs. Are you suggesting that the employee work in the same company indefinitely?

> well...then the US should block all Chinese services from exploiting users[1] and their data

Which is exactly what China is doing to you.

[jjeaff]

The US requires due process where companies like Apple can (and do) fight the government in court where a judge must decide whether the request is lawful/constitutional. Can the same be said for the CCP? And even if such a court exists in the CCP, if a company did fight a data request from the CCP, would the executives then "disappear" never to be seen again or perhaps disappear and then show up months later apologizing profusely for being so wrong in not following the wishes of the CCP?

[DiogenesKynikos]

That's the ideal, but the reality is that the NSA was collecting large amounts of information on nearly all Americans for years, and the public was completely oblivious to it.

A secret court issued nearly 100% of requested warrants. Some of the warrants that have come to light were blatantly unconstitutional, but because the entire system was hidden from the public, nobody could complain. Even now, legally challenging this surveillance is almost impossible, because nobody can prove standing - the list of surveillance targets is secret after all.

The very existence of this system was secret. It wasn't democratically legitimized. Nobody voted for the system, and the voters were kept in the dark about the system's existence.

This isn't to say that China and the US are identical. They're bad in different ways. You'll be spied on in both countries, but you have legal avenues to protect yourself from imprisonment/etc. in the US. Then again, China doesn't drone strike its own citizens abroad, as far as we know.

[est]

> China has completely blocked US services from Google to Uber

China blocked Google, but not Uber

People also invent false lies like "China blocked Amazon, eBay, Yahoo" etc.

[astatine]

Here's the thing. Very likely Chinese companies with interest in doing business will comply with any local regulation. That leaves everyone red faced with no further arguments other than raise the concern that you can't trust that there is no backdoor, that there are no secret strings attached etc.

[maxdo]

Locking services is one thing, take as an example Xiaomi which started as an Apple copy. Right now it's a multibillion company. If copyright exists on China soil this company wouldn't exist at all and it will not take shares it has now. This is very basic path for many Chinese companies, yes, once they reach some volume they start to follow some rules since some grey area countries might ban them but till that moment they enjoy absolute freedom.

[ClumsyPilot]

The current IP regime is deeply problematic and I would not enourage other countries to copy it blindly.

Also in some societies the idea of intellectual property is not widely accepted, and obviously their laws and behaviour will reflect that.

[LatteLazy]

I don't think you're wrong but...

Good luck convincing the average consumer (voter) to do without for a while and then pay more after that. They'll lynch you if they can't get the latest iTurd for 499.99 plus tax.

Also, as long as the CCP run China, they'll be stronger than the west (consumerism and short-termism and Chinese abuses of them aren't just US issues). We need them to democratise, consumer domestically and sort out other issues (wet markets, treatment of minorities). That's the long term win here. Convincing them to treat Google and Uber fairly is nice but it's not going to make them reasonable partners in 2,5,10,50 years time...

[hello_moto]

Wet markets is a too general/vague.

Wet markets exist are all over the world with similar setup like the one in China.

[LatteLazy]

That's a fair comment. I used it as I wanted a noun short enough to fit in a list.

Maybe it's better to go even vaguer though: "food hygiene standards so low they keep causing pandemics".

[hello_moto]

Actually, wet markets in Asia have the same health standards like the ones in China: close to none ;).

Covid19 spread faster, unfortunately. There are quite a few viruses/infectious diseases spreading in Asia that didn't made it big-time like Covid19.

[ClumsyPilot]

Perhaps we should get a hanfle on short-termist and consumerism before they doom us, with or without China

[LatteLazy]

I'd like that. I actually think Chinas rise is one of the things that will make us do that. Similarly, some environmental catastropy might. Not sure how else it will happen.

[dirtyid]

> China has completely blocked US services from Google to Uber

Western social media platform are welcome to participate in China if they follow local laws - in this case onerous censorship requirements, which every domestic company comply to. That's what project Dragonfly was for, but internal Google politics killed it. Bing still operates fine in China while Google and Facebook still makes billions off Chinese adsales. For some reason people find it appalling that US companies have to operate by foreign laws when operating abroad. As far as I know, TikTok keeps US data on US servers. I'm not sure about Europe, but data siloing regulations is becoming the norm as countries realize the importance of domestic information control. So yes, the US/EU should do the same and if Chinese companies don't want to comply they should get booted from the market.

Uber's story is more complicated. At the end of the day, Uber and many Chinese rideshare startups got out competed by Didi Chuxing. One narrative is various local and national regulations on ride sharing made gave domestic entrants and unfair competitive advantage, but Uber had a strategic partnership with Baidu (to circumvent Google Map block) which had every interest in Uber succeeding.

[foepys]

Didn't China require any foreign company to be controlled by Chinese to get access to the Chinese market?

I heard that they relaxed those restrictions a bit to appease the WTO but in practice are often still denying basic permits for foreign companies until they can show to have a ≥51% Chinese share.

[est]

> Didn't China require any foreign company to be controlled by Chinese to get access to the Chinese market?

It varies by industry. And loosened quite a bit since the trade war.

The most recent case:

Exxon Mobil starts building $10 billion China petrochemical complex

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-exxonmobil-china-petroche...

Now Shanghai FTZ allows foreign Internet services operate without the ICP licence. Interesting times.

[dirtyid]

Look up WFOE, wholly owned foreign enterprises. There were indeed a lot of restrictions and pressure towards Joint Ventures, but conditions have relaxed a lot over the years and continues to, i.e. financial services last year. Motorola, Lucent, GM had WFOE arrangements (certain plants) in the mid 90s. Also keep in mind JVs provide foreign companies local expertise and massive subsidies, free land among other schemes. Foreign companies knew exactly what they were getting themselves into since the mid 90s, there are certain strategic sectors where JVs is expected, but companies also pick JV because frequently it was a good deal. You have to keep in mind a lot of the narrative around Chinese business is shaped by huge companies with loud lobbying voices in strategically important industries. For example the last US Shanghai Chamber of Commerce surveys concludes something like 95%+ of US companies in China doesn't care about IP... because most companies business models aren't based around IP. So you won't hear their complaints because mostly, foreign companies in China operate fine, particularly those that serve the Chinese market.

[dis-sys]

> Didn't China require any foreign company to be controlled by Chinese to get access to the Chinese market?

This has been explained like hundreds of times on HN. If you truly believe such nonsense, there are one simple question to ask - what Chinese business entity is control Microsoft/Apple/Intel when they enjoyed all those revenues from the Chinese market.

[foepys]

I know that HN is living in a bubble but you realize that there are more industries besides tech and FAANG? Car manufacturers and their thousands of suppliers for example.

Wikipedia says regarding Volkswagen in China:

> In 1984, Volkswagen signed a 25-year contract to make passenger cars in Shanghai. Since, at that time, vehicle manufacturers could not own a majority stake in a manufacturing plant, Volkswagen's venture took the limit of 50 per cent foreign ownership.

I'm glad that someone else answered my comment sincerely instead of making a snarky comment that turns out to be wrong.

[belltaco]

> Car manufacturers and their thousands of suppliers for example.

How come people are not aware of this? Did Tesla have to give up controlling ownership to set up a plant in China?

https://europe.autonews.com/article/20180417/COPY/304179943/...

[cameronh90]

I don't know if it's legally required, but in China:

* Azure is provided by 21Vianet

* AWS is provided by Sinnet and NWCD

Generally speaking, serving the Chinese market is rather difficult as a foreign entity. My understanding is that unless you export more than 50% of the production value, you need to have a local partner. And even that's only allowed in certain industries.

[random314]

> For some reason people find it appalling that US companies have to operate by foreign laws when operating abroad.

Sure, that is the reason why people were appalled - some reason -can't clearly put a finger on it.