'Avatar' pulled from 2-D screens by Chinese government
latimesblogs.latimes.com
latimesblogs.latimes.com
Alternate point of view:
"According to a report in the Hong Kong newspaper Apple Daily, the move was made at the urging of propaganda officials who are concerned that "Avatar" is taking too much market share from Chinese films and drawing unwanted attention to the sensitive issue of forced evictions."
Apparently only 20 foreign movies are allowed to be shown in Chinese theaters every year.
Regardless of the reasons, it's still a very fenced-in society.
We should seriously consider allowing only 20 kinds of Chinese-made consumer electronics into the US, and banning any model which gets popular enough to threaten non-Chinese manufacturers.
It's called freedom.
There is an important difference between starting a fight and finishing one.
Not really. The difference is usually in how you do it.
Then I remembered: the US has not had a problem doing just this with/to other countries before; for example South Africa. There were not only the apartheid-era sanctions; there have also been the post-apartheid era "negotiations" (for example, 'halt your satellite development program or we will oppose your entry to GATT').
It seems fair to say the US has used "steamroller" tactics like this before. So maybe the question should rather be: why is the US handling China differently?
B) We already get occasional shipping containers full of Chinese illegal aliens sneaking into the country. We don't want them to be armed and trained soldiers too.
Similarly, in the short run, cutting off china will hurt economically (both our people and theirs). In the long run, if it causes them to open up, it will probably benefit us and their people (though not necessarily their leadership).
The only flaw in that reasoning is that it treats tariffs as being unchangeable. China and other countries have eliminated protectionist policies in response to retaliation. As far as I know, no coast has even become less rocky in response to a blockaded harbor.
In contrast, China makes many consumer electronics intended for the US market.
International isolation worked fairly well for South Africa. Threads of isolation also opened up the Japanese and Chinese markets to US-made auto parts, and it opened the domestic Chinese consumer electronics market to foreign-made semiconductors.
Not really. South Africa's main exports were mainly commodities and anything it imported it imported through proxies (such as Taiwan or Israel). Disinvestment was a major boon to South Africans since it allowed them to buy foreign assets at cents to the rand.
Sanctions also increased the Laager mentality which probability increased the length of Apartheid.
The reasons why South Africa turned to CODESA had probably more to do with the happenings in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe (since South Africa’s biggest problem was that the ANC&SACP movements were funded by the USSR).
Btw, I don’t know why you say that it worked, when by all objective measures black people are worse off now than under Apartheid (e.g. a 13 year drop in life expectancy). South Africa is on track to become a failed state in 10-15 years.
See this link for a comparison: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/aja38/nonamerican...
Protectionist trade policies to attempt to balance a huge trade deficit is just economic policy. Free trade is all well and good when both partners are trading freely, but China is not doing that. China uses forced-low labor costs, low quality standards, low environmental standards, and import quotas to ensure they come out way ahead on the balance of trade. This hurts US businesses who can't compete with Chinese companies prices because they have to adhere to much higher standards/costs.
Simply adding tariffs to Chinese imports wouldn't be enough though; while that would bring some money into the US budget, it probably wouldn't help US businesses start up to pick up the slack in imports, and US consumers would wind up footing the bill. We'd also need a reduction in taxes on businesses that produce the sort of products we import from China so we can kickstart US production. The lower taxes should lead to more US jobs and lower prices on the products, and the government shouldn't lose revenue because it'll be getting the extra tariff money. (It'll be a long time before US businesses can produce the volume of goods we import from China, even with tariffs and tax breaks in place.)
There's no need for the other partner to trade freely to make free trade from your side advantageous to you. Have you heard of the theory of comparative advantage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage) that explains why this works?
"The fundamental logic of free trade can be stated a number of different ways, but one particularly useful version - the one that James Mill stated even before Ricardo - is to say that international trade is really just a production technique, a way to produce importables indirectly by first producing exportables, then exchanging them. There will be gains to be had from this technique as long as world relative prices differ from domestic opportunity costs - regardless of the source of that difference. That is, it does not matter from the point of view of the national gains from trade whether other countries have different relative prices because they have different resources, different technologies, different tastes, different labor laws, or different environmental standards. All that matters is that they be different - then we can gain from trading with them." (http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/negot.html)
At issue here is that we're not trading goods we're good at producing for goods China is good at producing. Instead, we're trading the future earnings of US citizens for Chinese goods. That might have been ok when our debt was low and the goods were low-value, but now our debt is unsustainable and the goods are high technology which we invented and used to produce, but don't anymore. The theory was that we were becoming a 'service economy', but the Chinese don't want or need our services. We have nothing to trade with them except our future financial independence... and the future is coming very quickly.
Because if everyone responded to import quotas with import bans, we wouldn't have this nice world economy everyone's so fond of.
I proposed an import quota identical to the Chinese one, except that it only applies to China.
If every country responded in kind, then no country would be doing what China is doing. (No one provoked China's bad behavior.) If every other country responded in kind only to the one country who is behaving badly, that single country would be isolated and might change their behavior.
My inlaws in China probably watch more American movies than I do and I have netflix.
I think that this makes them extremely robust. Sneak ten thousand satellite internet connections into North Korea and you will have a measurable impact. There is no equivalent for China.
American power does this without tyrannical media control just fine, it just takes a lot more resources. It's a matter of PR efficiency, more than anything.
It's a different economic model being practised in China, and this move is perfectly in line with the stated goals of the model.
Nobody loses, it's just an American Multinational that does not profit as much.
To an economist, the consumer is where the numbers get added. When a consumer chooses option A over option B, there is value in that choice. It might be savings (and the ability to use the amount saved on something else). It might be additional value (Avatar is better then Chinatar). That value is the scorecard for an economy.
Frankly, both countries worry about the balance of payments, which Chinese consumers consuming American movies helps. To have China focus on keeping every last dollar inside the borders is a form of protectionism, which if other countries followed would result in a general slowdown of trade. Sure this particular movie is a tiny blip, but then if so they should just play the movie until nobody wants to see it.
India doesn't have a hard time making movies - Bollywood is a huge success and they export to the rest of the world. Seems like a healthy balance to me.
Cinema's lose a lucrative crowd.
If you don't want communism, then say that, but don't say "Avatar should be allowed to make as much profit as it wants, but I don't care about the system". Do you understand the distinction here?
I won't. And IIRC, I haven't..
I understand your point on China's nature, I was wondering about the "nobody loses" conclusion.