Hacker News Reader

Comment by mrb | Hacker News Reader

Ma seems...

And that's where it stops. Ma made a general observation and that's it. Historically countries who trade less tend to be hostile toward each others, while countries who trade in bigger volumes are friendly.

Also Ma isn't saying or implying "keep the trade deficit". He says "keep trading. period" (a surplus or a deficit, doesn't matter in the context of his argument.) By the way it's weird that people seem to think it's China's problem that the US have a trade deficit with them. The deficit can be solved by the US selling products and services to China. It's the US' problem to find what to sell. And only the US can solve it.

View on HN

>It's the US' problem to find what to sell. And only the US can solve it.

This is completely wrong.

China has huge barriers in place to dissuade the importation of products that compete with their own. 30% tariffs on certain items, selective application of VAT and currency manipulation all make it near impossible for the US to sell goods in China.

And yet for all those barriers, Chinese consumers still can't get enough of the latest Apple products.

mrb is exactly right. US companies CAN sell in China, if they figure out how to, and some have.

Yes, they CAN sell in China, they're just at a huge disadvantage. Is your argument that because SOME products still sell, the barriers aren't significant, or that US firms aren't adversely affected by them, to the benefit of Chinese ones?

My argument is that when companies can't compete on technology as they may be used to, too frequently, they throw their hands up in the air and conclude that this means they can't compete period. However, we can see that Western companies are successful today competing along different axes.

I would even extend that further by saying that if things dry up in the future and we have to keep innovating to stay ahead as China continues to copy and catch up, good. Let's do that. Everyone will be better off.

Not to mention heavy restrictions on money transfers in and out of the country and a huge amount of red tape. Ian of Dangerous Prototypes set up a business in China a year or so back and wrote about what was involved, and it's astonishing: http://dangerousprototypes.com/blog/2016/02/04/how-to-china-...

> Historically countries who trade less tend to be hostile toward each others, while countries who trade in bigger volumes are friendly

I can think of one big counterexample off the top of my head: trade between France and Germany in the years leading up to 1914. Strong economic ties didn't prevent Europe from going completely off the rails. Which historical trading partners did you have in mind?

Can a US-based business sell products and services to a Chinese one? At least, can they do it directly and not through some Chinese subsidiary?

Are not American corporations getting a god deal here?

Because it seems to me that they are profiting from the difference in wages. Maybe a case of eat your cake and have it?

> It's the US' problem to find what to sell. And only the US can solve it.

Well there's the problem of China not respecting copyright or any type of intellectual property. And that's not just a problem for the Facebooks of the world, they are stealing our agricultural and industrial knowledge as well. And while it's not officially sanctioned by the CCP, it's unofficially encouraged.

That's the standard book for developing an economy.

The USA did that to Europe, specially to England.

There is no standard for developing an economy, you've just taken two similar instances in history and correlated them.

Or did Japan, Germany, et al. develop their economy through industrial espionage and I just haven't learned about it yet?

It's funny that you mention the Japanese.

I don't know if you were around in the 80's but, if you were and have some memory, this song that we are listening now, should be familiar to you.

And it seems to me that, yes, there is a standard for developing a country's economy: you build and industrial base. For that you need importing technology and knowledge. For that you need foreign currency. So, you sell the job of your people. By the way, what you don't do, if you are clever, is follow the IMF advice.

This implies that the American way of looking at these things is the ONLY right way of looking at things and that Chinese need to accept western companies on western terms.

If they are going to be part of the global economy then they need to accept the terms of the global economy. Yea their practices are mainly harming western countries at this point, but in the future maybe it's India or Singapore that has the lead in these areas. Would you think it's alright for China to do it then?

Like it or not the global capitalist economy has to be built with some form of protection for content and IP producers. I fail to see how China's model is the 'right way of looking at things'. In fact if we all acted like China I'm guessing the global economy would collapse.

"If they are going to be part of the global economy then they need to accept the terms of the global economy."

This is an absolutely marvelous way of looking at things.

For once, it ignores that the "global economy" may profit a lot from revising its own terms (especially regarding copyright/IP).

Or that the "global economy" is more like the interests of the few powerful ones who say what it is.

Sure there are theoretically better ways of doing things. If there are theoretically better ways of distributing food does that mean I get to go rob a grocery store?

You can't flaunt the rules and regulations of world trade because you disagree with them or want to change them. Besides that's not what China wants. China wants to eat its cake and have it too.

Edit: Wow looks like it's ok to lie, cheat, and steal because "the other guy does it and I think the system is unjust on top of that." Really spectacular arguments from the anti-establishment crowd.

And so does USA, EU and others. Isn't that how foreign diplomacy and trade works? Steal, murder, take what you can, behave well only when someone forces you to?

Because from current perspective I can't seem to find a reason why China would back down and let their own economy be taken over by western companies, when protectionism works well for them and their manufacturing is holding the world world by the proverbial balls. It's the tactic USA employed mercilessly (and still does) to get the best position - forcing everyone else to drop their rules to trade with them. Of course, now when China does it it's suddenly a problem, because Facebook, Google and others can't monopolize their market and transfer money to their offshore accounts? :)

>Steal, murder, take what you can, behave well only when someone forces you to?

And the US is forcing China to. I'm not trying to hold one side up as some kind of moral victor. Yea China's doing the same thing the US would in their position. This isn't some kind of moral equivalency contest.

Your post is the equivalent of Trump excusing Putins behavior because the US has done some pretty bad stuff too.

No one's talking about robbing physical goods or food. Copyright & IP matter to wildly different beasts: ideas.

And there are way more practical better ways of dealing with those than strict locked down control over it. It's not black & white.

Now, we're drifting. My point was: it's normal, acceptable and even desirable to contest and discuss the way cough "everyone" do things, especially when two parties trade. That's how they may all progress.

Going to force, or to war, as too many here seem to suggest (and I just can't believe I read this), solves nothing: it destroys the problem with a long-lived lie (that violence can solve anything) and creates new, larger ones.

Are you even having the same conversation as me? You are so into your anti-IP/DRM mindset its blinding you to the basic principle I'm getting at.

I don't give a shit what you think about the current Copyright or IP laws we have in international trade. In fact I think the current system is stupid.

BUT that doesn't mean China gets to unilaterally ignore them because it's beneficial for them. The same way I can't unilaterally ignore our laws on theft just because I think the system of distributing food is wrong. IF China wants to change the rules then they need to do that through the WTO. They decided to join in order to gain access to the global market. If they can't follow those rules then they need to be stopped or kicked out because it's causing serious issues within the global economy, issues that are leading some people to talk about war.

That's fine... but they joined the WIPO and promised to uphold certain Intellectual property laws internally that are internationally the norm... except it looks like they aren't.

It's almost like Imaginary Property laws don't correspond to how the universe actually works, and perhaps China only "agreed" to them the way one "agrees" to unenforceable terms in a unilateral clickwrap "contract".

China chooses to be a member of the WTO, and with it the rules-based system that underpins international trade across the globe.

gph says:>"... the problem of China not respecting copyright or any type of intellectual property. "

And, after thirty years' trying, mainland Chinese still make very low-quality hand tools and have severely damaged Western suppliers of the same.

"Give me a good screwdriver and a place to stand - I will move the Earth." - Archimedes322

P.S. Why the downvote? Compare the quality of USA-, European- and Chinese-made (except Taiwanese, which are often exquisite) hand tools. The mainland Chinese don't measure up to a 1920's standards of manufacture in the West.

>It's the US' problem to find what to sell.

If it's trade or war, it's China's problem too.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com