Hacker News Reader

Comment by netheril96 | Hacker News Reader

> Since when does international trade regulations involve plain altruism and sacrificing your own?

International trade is not based on plain altruism. On both sides of the trade, some people benefit and some lose, but the net gains at both sides are positive. The article focuses on those hurt in US, but it does not mention how the US capitalists, consumers and workers not competing with China benefit.

> what is preventing the Chinese government to put heavy tariffs on those exports?

Chinese governments not only do not place tariffs on their exports, but also subsidies the exports. That is, the goods exported from China is cheaper than those sold directly in China. They do it for their own self interests.

View on HN

Free trade with China has undoubtedly destroyed US manufacturing jobs, and therefore significantly affected the working and lower middle class, which makes (or made) up most of the people. China has always implemented protectionist policies. The US government committed the same mistake of the Brits many years ago, by assuming free trade meant a level playing field and everyone would stick to the rules. In reality, you just end up giving away economic power to those nations who will happily subsidise their exports whilst penalising imports.

Many proponents of free trade argue that we should be pro free trade because it benefits the poor people in places like China. The OP is referring to that argument.

As for why this study didn't focus on the benefits - maybe because there weren't any? Or maybe it's because the benefits mostly went to the executives of large multinational corporations who are lobbying for these deals?

> maybe because there weren't any

The other comments have said plenty about the benefits, the most obvious being how cheap your daily goods are nowadays, effectively boosting the purchasing power of every American. In addition, had computers and smartphones not been so cheap because of the Chinese workers, the whole Silicon Valley bubble probably would never have come into existence.

> it's because the benefits mostly went to the executives of large multinational corporations

Why should the benefits of the executives be discounted? Perhaps you believe that the rich should not be made even richer; rather, the poor should receive the most benefits. Then why do you think that American workers, orders of magnitude richer than the Chinese, should be made even richer?

> Then why do you think that American workers, orders of magnitude richer than the Chinese, should be made even richer?

Because that's in the interest of their fellow citizens, since those citizens can vote to influence decisions that concern them, not the chinese. I don't think an american want a chinese to fail, but I don't think an american citizen really holds the fate of chinese people, and I don't think anybody should pretend otherwise. That's mainly about doing things that concerns you, and things that you can reach. The state of the chinese economy is in the hands of the chinese.

What I mean is that those decision are beyond the grasp or citizens and politicians. People should care about their own first, others second. Trade is fine, as long as there is no loss on your side. Maybe some want to believe that the world is one uniform place, but the reality of politics say otherwise. Sometimes you have to come back to basic strategy and realities.

> They do it for their own self interests.

What interest is that, to subsidy those export? In short they want to grow their market to weaken competition.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com