Comment by RobertRoberts | Hacker News Reader

Comment by RobertRoberts | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>What do you mean by leverage?

Use our freedom to implement a fair trading system. We are free to buy and sell here, but not in China. China takes advantage of us because of this, and up till now, we have had no recourse accept "trade wars".

Instead of a trade war with tariffs and accusations and bickering, why not remove all possible complaints and treat others as they want to be treated?

Use Chinese rules for the Chinese. Completely and utterly balanced trade. If they don't like it, they can change their rules to be more free, and they get more freedom to buy here.

How would the Chinese government complain to the international community about the US applying their own rules to land ownership? How could anyone complain? It would be the height of hypocrisy, so they wouldn't.

So why not use our freedom as the ultimate bargaining tool to create a balance in the world? Other countries could do the same to us, and we couldn't complain either. It seems there has to be a game theory equation to explain this, it can't be the first time it's been considered.

Why do you think the US would stay the same if it became closed like China? What makes you think that the freedom is a liability?

You're essentially advocating to reverse decades if not centuries of policy that justified US foreign policy actions, because the US assumed moral high ground on several geopolitical fronts. IMO it would degrade the USs standing on several policy issues. "trust us, we're the good guys." no longer works. I'm sure China and Russia would love to park their navy outside of Florida in international waters because the US does similar things.

>Why do you think the US would stay the same if it became closed like China?

I didn't suggest "closed like China", I said "treat them how they wan to be treated". Every country treated equally on their own rules.

>...US assumed moral high ground on several geopolitical fronts.

How is it not the moral high ground to "treat others as they want to be treated"? That is straight from the mouth of Jesus.

Edit: I misquoted Jesus... It's supposed to be "Treat others as you want to be treated"

Wait wait.. Isn't it "Treat others how you want to be treated"? Isn't what your suggestion essentially "an eye for an eye"?

It's: we'll do as you do.

Here is the tariff picture around the world for example:

https://i.imgur.com/ucahKjK.jpg

It's time for the US to start reciprocating trade behavior. Just look at those agriculture tariffs that nearly everyone else is using.

No eyes are in fact lost. The US increases the amount of goods it produces domestically and reduces the amount that it imports (ideally buying less consumer junk from China), which is entirely feasible now that China's manufacturing costs are nearly as high as the US. Or alternatively, the US trades with more open partners (eg where the US can properly own assets & businesses), or chooses partners that are strategically a better fit (such as Vietnam, where trade is booming with the US).

Yes it is, I added a correction to my comment.

But that doesn't change the argument. The US wants to be treated as equals with China. Not like a sucker being tricked by a hustler, but as equals.

The only thing we control is our own actions. So to make our selves equal with China, why not make our deals with China based on China's rules?

How is the word of Jesus an objective moral standard?

Should we cut off a man and woman who had sex during the woman's period from society?

It's already agreed that it's as objective a moral standard as one could be.

Jesus was only referenced as a rhetorical flourish. I prefer Kant's articulations, but the Jesus books include a not necessarily religious moral philosophy.

Society cannot hold together, when people make exceptions for themselves, or play the 'you did it first, so it's o.k. for me' game. That indicates an absence of moral principles.

pretty sure Jesus never said such a thing, I think that's some old testament stuff.

There is a tiny amount of precedent for this, in the form of reciprocal visa fees.

> implement a fair trading system.

We're now, apparently, starting to do that. It has been heating up for years, pre-Trump. We currently appear to be in a total freeze on allowing China to buy US technology assets. Which is exactly what we should be doing, until they allow US companies to operate similarly in China.

[2016] "One of the companies that first brought silicon to Silicon Valley — Fairchild Semiconductor International — said it would remain in American hands after rejecting a takeover offer worth about $2.5 billion led by Chinese state-backed buyers. Instead, Fairchild embraced a smaller bid from an American rival on Tuesday, citing concerns that federal regulators might reject the Chinese deal."

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/business/dealbook/china-f...

And more recently, prevented or killed under the Trump era:

- Qualcomm by Broadcom (Singapore)

- Xcerra by Hubei Xinyan Equity Investment (China)

- MoneyGram by Ant Financial Services Group (China)

- Cowen by China Energy Company Limited (China)

- Aleris by Zhongwang (China)

- HERE by Navinfo (China)

- Lattice Semiconductor by Canyon Bridge (China)

- Global Eagle Entertainment by HNA Group (China)

- Novatel Wireless by TCL (China)

- Cree by Infineon Technologies (Germany)

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-12/trump-iss...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com