Hacker News Reader

If you believe that "intellectual property" is a "thing" (as many people do) then you may consider China's behaviour in this area (obtaining trade secrets illicitly, or forcing companies to reveal them as a condition for doing business in China, or breaking copyright law) to be theft and more than enough grounds for sanctions.

Even if you don't believe in "intellectual property", then you may still believe that a selective (not universal) and one-sided breaking of the relevant international and national IP laws, in favour of one country, is harmful.

In addition to that, there have been allegations (I'm not sure how true they are), that supposedly private Chinese companies have been supported by the Chinese government in ways that break WTO rules.

No one is forced to reveal secrets. Play ball with their rules or don’t business in China. Our own government forced tech companies to do certain things. Why can’t China set its own rules?

Sure I believe in IP. I also think other countries will do as they please when they know they will get away with it. Nation states behave in self interest and can have their own interpretations of what are black and white laws to you or me, especially so when they’re in a position of power. Or they can completely disregard international agreements. Case in point - the Iran deal.

>Play ball with their rules or don’t business in China.

If you don't manufacture in China, you can't compete with companies that do. As a result, every company is forced to sell out their future 20 years from now so that they don't go under today. Whether you think it's a good idea or not, government intervention is often necessary to coordinate industry-wide strategic things like "don't put poison in milk" and "don't take the sweet but deadly embrace of technology transfer."

You simultaneously believe in IP and are confused that American companies are upset by IP theft by Chinese companies? Why would they not be? It's not like they agreed to well-defined contracts trading away their IP. It's reasonable to be upset if you believe the other party in a contract has unilaterally broken it.

Being pro free market usually means you want level playing fields for companies. Now when you introduce governments that alter that playing field by refusing to enforce IP or by having asymmetric tariffs, that government is interfering with the free market.

Given that, most people I’ve talked to that are in agreement with the trade war view it as a necessary evil to force China to level the playing field. They don’t want a long term trade war.

Level playing fields is a gross simplification. Companies in the US have various advantages of the simple fact that they’re in a developed nation. Compare us to China 15 years ago. They wouldn’t get to where they are or stay on their current trajectory had their focus being in being “fair” to the West.

To be clear, American interests were grounded in asymmetric hegemony over Chinese market, not for some evil world domination goals but to fuel American profits. It didn’t turn out that way so now people cry about fairness.

China has well passed the time for its Developing Countries Status and everything it promised to WTO. And that is everything that was "unfair".

> Companies in the US have various advantages of the simple fact that they’re in a developed nation.

The US isn't magically a developed nation. It is fortunate, sure. And it has absolutely made mistakes and ill-advised compromises for the sake of growth. But universities, factories, literacy, functioning judicial systems, and infrastructure don't fall out of the sky.

It's not arbitrary that developed nations are developed.

> Being pro free market usually means you want level playing fields for companies... force China to level the playing field...

i think different people have different meanings of free market... for some, the idea would be “let china set its own rules and let others choose or not to play by them” (libertarian) and to some it would be “we should all play [1] by the same open rules” (fair market)

to add to this, i would also claim, that what the average person is advocating for in this trade war is not “free” but “fair” markets, and this (trump/trade war) represents a strong rejection of neoliberal “free market” policies [2]

[1] https://www.wattpad.com/2144357-fair-market-vs-free-market

[2] https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2019/05/26/comment...

Do you think that corporate America somehow wants this trade war? I think it would have preferred to stay in the TPP trade deal and operate under a predictable regulatory environment.

I don’t know. I do know my conservative friends and conservative personalities all seem to support the trade war.

I believe a large part is identity politics. A symptome is that a voter will agree with the policy of their preferred candidates, rather than choosing a candidate based on their preferred policy.

I'm implying this for both sides of the aisle.

At the least republicans accuse democrats of being in identity politics and then practice extreme versions of it themselves. I like the op above us who sees the contradictions. 'Some (rich) Americans' don't like the choices that free american companies made to move their factories to China; they liked them before because it was more profits, now the Chinese are becoming too powerful.

There are more libertarian types who have been consistently for unrestricted trade. And there are patriotic types who see the role of government as booster-in-chief, taking the side of its companies whatever the implications are.

There are definitely people who use identity more than ideology to make decisions, and there are hypocrites, but it's not strictly useful to complain about them as if they are the only people in the discussion.

> For all of its huge faults and despite the human rights abuses, the Chinese government can actually get things done as opposed to here with our annual traditions of government shutdown threats and now extended periods of actual shutdowns.

A surveillance state can get a lot of things done. We could make our government work a lot differently here as well if you find their system better than ours.

One thing (might be many others) :Free markets are not free is the state subsidizes certain industries. They can dump the product for long enough to bankrupt others...

Not from the USA but I am intrigued you classify the relatives for the trade war as conservatives. Are they conservative in everything else or is this a position they hold. Do all conservatives hold the same position.

I am genuinely interested because I have always regarded myself as conservative even though I work in technology. I was one of the last to get a cellphone because when they entered the market they were too expensive so was airtime to make any calls. I tend to want to improve processes using current stack before jumping on a new technology stack. I am just not into the latest fashion, I literally wear the same two pairs of jeans to work every day (interchangeably). I am intrigued because in the US it seems being conservative has a "negative" connotation if I may say so. I have always seen myself as being more cautious and not jumping on every fad.

Hi, Canadian here. From what I've been able to gather, American conservatism is more of a tribe than an ideology, that holds many values under a big tent. Some of these values are at odds with each other.

I don't see much conservatism in republicans at all. They are not conserving the environment, they are not fiscally conservative, their politics has been starkly reactionary. At this point, I would say the label has lost all meaning.

Luckily, Americans can still vote for the Democratic party, a staunchly conservative party by all accounts.

As an U.S. American; I've always viewed our brand of conservatism as an ideology focused on fighting change (good or bad); thus, conserving our established policies or returning to established policies of the past (abortion rights, gay rights, etc.). Some people are scared of progressive policies or think that have set a precedent that is at odds with their values. They seem to spend a great deal of time worrying about the effects new policies will have on society. I try to have empathy and I wish fewer people were ideologues in the US and just viewed ideas as tools to solve problems. Just like in the tech industry, people get it in their heads that something works at solving a problem so they try to solve every problem with it. The world is gray, not black and white.

As an outsider I guess I am sometimes confused at partisanship. I get it though being conservative in the US seems to be a political position whereas where I am from being conservative is aunt Pat telling you real gentlemen wear a suit to work and muttering under their breath how the youth of today have lost the plot. It's more of a character/personality trait as opposed to an ideology. I have always thought we needed both types of people the ones that jump at new things and the ones that kind of say hold a minute before we swap out this full stack can we just define what problem we are solving.

I mostly agree with you; however, I think it a personality trait that leads to an ideology. Most people in the US are middle of the road. It is somewhat unfortunate that our two party system has increasingly push candidates to either extreme to appeal to their very loud bases.

I think in general, conservatives seem to want to see a policy work somewhere else first before adopting it nationally. That is why, imho, states rights are so important to them. However, when they do get power, they try to rush whatever changes they want through. Nevermind the fact that both parties are corrupted by money. So, like many people, their leaders seem to be hypocrites; they use arguments that appeal to conservative ideals, but only as an attempt to suppress the liberal ideas.

You make a good point on the problems associated with a two party system. Most issues in the world are not binary but unfortunately the world seems to simplify things to either you with us or against us. No one is better for it. Seems mainland Europe is slightly different. They seems to have a few large parties and the governments tend to be coalitions. So the big parties win about 30% of the vote. I can't speak for how effective it is but it feels right to me. As humans surely there isn't just two types of us.

Ah thanks :-). Sounds like one of those words that has morphed into a movement of some sort.

> American conservatism is more of a tribe than an ideology

The American conservative movement is very much ideological, though certainly a minority these days. Influential conservative magazines and columnists pointedly withheld endorsements or actively campaigned against "the tribe" you're describing.

For instance, George Will, "Vote against the GOP this November" (2018): https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/vote-against-the-gop...

> I don't see much conservatism in republicans at all.

Conservatives believe in the classically liberal principles of the American founding: the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, and the thinkers that informed those things. They are conserving a democratic republic based on the idea of inalienable rights. That is one of the things that is unique about American conservatism compared to European and even Canadian conservatism. There isn't a language, a monarchy, some historical border, some ethnicity, or official state religion to conserve.

Conservatives also believe in non-government institutions, principally the family, but also private organizations.

Anyway, there's not much action going on in Washington at all these days. That's not to say there's no conservative action in the last couple decades. Appointment of judges cleared through the Federalist Society probably counts. The deconstruction of campaign finance regulations probably counts.