Hacker News Reader

Comment by seanmcdirmid | Hacker News Reader

From a different point of view, almost everyone has made a lot of money on the current relationship, Chinese and Americans, so why mess up a good thing? Even with the ownership requirements, IP transfer, market access, and IP theft that occurs, this has still been incredibly profitable for American companies and multi-nationals, so there wasn't much pressure to bring an axe down on China. The same goes with Mexico and pretty much every other trade partner.

However, some people didn't win out, and in fact lost out significantly because of all this globalization: American blue collar workers. These people became disgruntled, elected a rightist populist nationalist to the presidency, and now they want change. In reality, it wasn't just China doing them in, but China (and Mexico and immigrants) make great scapegoats for those rightists, ATM.

View on HN

Businesses made a killing, yes, short and mid term. Long term it’s looking bad, unless there’s change in that relationship. For workers it was a loss. Be they Democrats or Republicans, black or white.

Democrats up until the 80s were on the side of the workers, so these were traditionally democratic constituencies, but the Dems and Repubs earlier, sold them out to big business and the promise of globalization.

To call them rightists is short sighted. If these were Brazilians in Brazil or Mexicans in Mexico being sold out en masse, they too would have voted for someone who would take up their cause because the traditional parties had long ago abandoned them except for some pro forma pandering (we like unions, we stand behind unions, etc.)

Right now only likes of Trump and Sanders have the desire to actually do things for them, albeit perhaps very differently.

> Long term it’s looking bad, unless there’s change in that relationship.

Long term nothing gets worse. Yes, China perhaps becomes Japan eventually, but look where that has gone after the paranoia of the 1980s. Completely survivable and for the most part a net positive.

Japan could never surpass us. They were limited by population. Also, while unfair in trade and access, for the most the rest of their trade practices were within the bounds. They also were not looking to be hegemonic and were and are very cooperative with regard to defense.

Never the less, as it regards China, we should bring up and address the issue of unfair trade, theft and other practices detrimental to our economy. Detrimental to our workforce, detrimental to their ecology and world ecology, even their own workers. Being a “good guy” unilaterally (in trade, whatever) only works when others are willing to reciprocate. This hasn’t been the case so far.

> why mess up a good thing?

It's unsustainable. Trump's broader trade policy is protectionist. But the reason his China policy finds firmer footing than e.g. his Mexico tariffs come from China's abuse of several good-faith measures over the past 30 years (e.g. early accession to the WTO). It was plausible to assume the next leader would be another Deng. But when Xi ensconced himself as a "leader for life" [1], the timing calculus changed.

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-43361276

> It's unsustainable.

How so? It wasn't fake money being passed around, there was real production and real demand for trade with China.

> But when Xi ensconced himself as a "leader for life" [1], the timing calculus changed.

Xi is messed up for a lot of reasons, but this isn't really one of them.

Put it back in context:

It's unsustainable. Trump's broader trade policy is protectionist.

The US has become overly reliant on China, add on their Belt and Road Initiative, and we should be taking a more aggressive stance. Trade wont last forever with us and we will not have any industrial infrastructure left. this is trying to protect ourselves.

I find it funny half the US wants higher minimum wages and better standards of living here, but complain when prices go up for cheap stuff from China being made by near slave labor in oppressed conditions. I guess out of sight, out of mind.

> How so? It wasn't fake money

Photographic film was making real money in the 1980s. Doesn't mean it was a sustainable business.

Sometimes, short-term tactical pain is necessary for strategic gain.

> Xi is messed up for a lot of reasons, but this isn't really one of them

Dictatorships, like it or not, are common in our world. So I agree, it's tough to objectively call it messed up. There are, however, patterns in dictatorships' behaviors. Common incentive structures priorities their mortal leader's interests over the immortal country's.

Before China was a dictatorship, it didn't make sense to treat it like one. One's strategy, however, must adapt when the board changes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com