Hacker News Reader

Comment by bduerst | Hacker News Reader

Which would be the case if the tariffs were China-only, but the current presidential administration is enacting tariffs on many other countries, like Mexico, Brazil, and S Korea.

Also, the upcoming Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) meeting in November could be used by China to unify most of APAC against the U.S. The U.S. TPP was a blocking move to prevent the RCEP, which in it's current form covers half the world's economy (India, China, and others).

Negotiations for RCEP have been slow but with the U.S. now burning trade bridges with it's partners, we're probably going to see something interesting happen in November.

View on HN

I've never understood how Asian regional free trade agreements and China providing loans to developing countries is really a threat to the west.

Why exactly should the World Bank and the US/Europe be the only top players in the game again?

Has all the strings attached to that help really made the world a better place?

As far as I'm concerned extreme poverty or simply poverty is enough of a goal to target. Attempting to forcefully push country's local politics and governance forward without solving the basic problems of quality of life and all of the luxuries that allow people to focus on less local problems affecting their lives directly, like what they are going to eat next, freeing people up to focus on government and community. That seems like an essential first step.

Otherwise youre just mining the same small group of influential people already in those countries and expecting different outcomes. Not changing leadership or reducing corruption organically through education and the empowerment an influential middle class brings to politics.

> I've never understood how Asian regional free trade agreements and China providing loans to developing countries is really a threat to the west.

It’s a threat from the US perspective, in the US national interest. Currently, the US is the top dog internationally, both economically and politically. As China increases its influence especially in the Asia and Africa region via economic investment and, potentially, demonstration of military prowess, it necessarily means US influence in said region decreases. This decrease in soft power of US means it is more difficult for the US to push for US-friendly policy in said region/country, which is detrimental to the US national interest.

I think it's a threat to everyone. As much as people, myself included, have problems with American imperialism, just wait until we get a taste of Chinese imperialism with their millions in concentration camps, dictator for life, ethno-state, and social credit system creating a permanent under class. The further they spread their power, the worse it will be.

What is beneficial to US might not be beneficial to anybody else (meaning >90% of the world). If I take things to the extreme, it would probably be beneficial for US security and economy to have rest of the world as slaves. Not so much for us.

Previous US governments seemed to have more moral constraints in this regard compared to current one (with great power comes great responsibility and all that). Interesting times we have. I for one root for China despite all its flaws - the world would benefit from counter-balance in power since US is less and less a good moral leader it once used to be.

Plus when we compare outward aggressiveness of these 2 states, US very clearly loses. Fearmongering about China is just empty talk when simple historical facts about unjust invasions of sovereign states are compared. You know, the actually important criteria for common folks out there. Compared to that, the debate whether its better if NSA reads my emails compared to Chinese is a bit pointless.

I agree with you on the fact that what’s beneficial to the US is not necessarily beneficial to other nations. And I agree with you that the current US president is less restraint than previous administrations.

This is probably going to be controversial, but I personally think the US is relatively restrained in its meddling in other nation’s domestic politics given its power and influence. Every nation has its sphere of influence, and they use it for their national interest as needed. In the case of China, it has been building up its military presence in the South China Sea and establishing military base in contested islands to extend their territory claim. It remains to be seem how China will act when it is at the similar power level as the US.

China will be a tyrant. How can anyone imagine otherwise, seeing how it currently treats its perceived internal threats?

The only difference between this administration and the prior ones is less phony talk that masked the same agendas that existed for decades.

Not to mention how this is a hyper US centric view of things. EU, Canada, Australia, and various other countries have tried pressuring China and it's a huge global bureaucratic system. The tweets coming out of the executive branch of the US doesn't have much effect on the giant multi national diplomatic machines like the World Bank and UN. People love exaggerating his actual power.

Everyone paying attention has known the west does the human rights and democracy dog and pony show every big political event while the reality of actually changing another countries politics and governance is extremely challenging and almost always comes from within or as a result of their wealth being directly tied to acting morally or in the interest of their western partners.

It rarely happens due to diplomatic pressure or boxing them out of trade deals and giving out loans.

I personally don't see how it helps to say one thing while nothing really changes and looking the other way when cameras are off. Honesty would go farther and these countries aren't dumb, they see through it all too. So what difference does it make?

That said, of course being civil and calculated is more valuable than being brash and blundering through diplomacy, but that doesn't mean they have to all be full of shit just to be "nice". You can still be honest and strong and not come off like an asshole while giving the media a perpetual panic attack, because they take every word literally as if they were all well thought out, completely serious, and have multiple hidden dog whistling layers, when it was just some throw away half joking tweet made at 3am because he likes to pump himself and America up. Most people can tell the difference, plenty pretend not to on purpose, but either way it doesn't help the process and gives fuel to the spin masters.

Precisely. U.S. imperialism is based on smart power, a combination of soft (aid packages, trade, etc.) and hard (military) power. The RCEP creates barriers and increases competition for U.S. imperialism, hindering it's soft power capabilities in APAC to negotiate trade deals. The sheer size of it would help propel both India and China economically - if it moves forward that is.

> ...but the current presidential administration is enacting tariffs on many other countries...

I'm quite curious to know possible rationals behind that?

To layman like myself, it make absolute no sense, but on some level it got to have a purpose right? even if it's ulterior motive or personal agenda.

That's because the trade war is irrational.

It's based in animosity, which is typically economically detrimental: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_discrimination#Animos...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com