Trade War with China

Status
Not open for further replies.

canniBUS

Junior Member
Registered Member
China's scale of subsidies coupled with unfair trade practices of forced technology and restricted market access is well documented. What we are seeing is simply countries pushing back led by the US. Examples are
European Commission, ‘Joint statement on trilateral meeting of the trade ministers of the United States, Japan, and the European Union


… and clearly not dependent on polls . LOL

HRUFSP, Joint communication to the European Parliament, the European Council and the Council: EU–China—a strategic outlook

Read Anwar Shaikh, read Ha Joon Chang. Shielding and protecting industries is exactly how UK, Germany, Japan, USA got to where they are today. Regardless, it's very amusing that capitalists are complaining that they cannot out compete the supposedly inefficient state owned industries. So much for the efficiency of the free market.
 

Brumby

Major
Read Anwar Shaikh, read Ha Joon Chang. Shielding and protecting industries is exactly how UK, Germany, Japan, USA got to where they are today. Regardless, it's very amusing that capitalists are complaining that they cannot out compete the supposedly inefficient state owned industries. So much for the efficiency of the free market.
When people resort to history to justify then you might as well proceed to WW3 because that was how WW2 started
 

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
China's scale of subsidies coupled with unfair trade practices of forced technology and restricted market access is well documented. What we are seeing is simply countries pushing back led by the US. Examples are
European Commission, ‘Joint statement on trilateral meeting of the trade ministers of the United States, Japan, and the European Union


… and clearly not dependent on polls . LOL

HRUFSP, Joint communication to the European Parliament, the European Council and the Council: EU–China—a strategic outlook
Awww, how cute! You left out the source and the citation because you didn't want us to see that you're citing stuff from 2018! As I said, there was considerable support for this US effort at the beginning but Trump squandered it by attacking all his allies. Now, it's:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


See? No polls and you still lose.
 
Last edited:

Brumby

Major
Awww, how cute! You left out the source and the citation because you didn't want us to see that you're citing stuff from 2018! As I said, there was considerable support for this US effort at the beginning but Trump squandered it by attacking all his allies. Now, it's:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


See? No polls and you still lose.
I think it is already a problem when you see the issue as a win or loose proposition. There are no winners - all losers.
 

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
I think it is already a problem when you see the issue as a win or loose proposition. There are no winners - all losers.
Speak for yourself LOL When you make nonsense points in a debate and everyone shoves it back down your throat, they won and you lost. This is not a nuclear war; this is not even a trade war. This is everyone against your attempts to spread misinformation.
 
Last edited:

canniBUS

Junior Member
Registered Member
When people resort to history to justify then you might as well proceed to WW3 because that was how WW2 started
Historical developments are reflections of reality. The history of development shows how real economics works, not the religious doctrine that is taught today and mindlessly repeated by politicians and the media. The strategy of China and the strategy of america are both based on history, in China's case it is the state capitalist or socialist development of the advanced industrialized countries. In the US case it is attempting to replicate the British success in destroying Indian textile industry to sustain and feed its own. Both are right in the sense that they have created successes. As Marx says, when two rights collide, force decides.
 

Brumby

Major
Historical developments are reflections of reality. The history of development shows how real economics works, not the religious doctrine that is taught today and mindlessly repeated by politicians and the media. The strategy of China and the strategy of america are both based on history, in China's case it is the state capitalist or socialist development of the advanced industrialized countries. In the US case it is attempting to replicate the British success in destroying Indian textile industry to sustain and feed its own. Both are right in the sense that they have created successes. As Marx says, when two rights collide, force decides.
…. your narrative is not the underlying drivers behind the trade war. It is about fair trade and China's practices are nothing but fair. Stealing, forced technology transfer and restricted market access. It complains about things that it has been actively conducting. For example, Google and Facebook have long been banned from market access in China. SOE's are basically state owned and run enterprises. So in effect it is about competition between commercial and state. That is not level playing field and the WTO forbids but unable to rule on. The notion that Huawei is employee owned is just BS. The founder owns 1% and the rest held by a trade union i.e. the state. Employees own phantom shares which is basically profit sharing. That is not ownership.
 

Cypher

New Member
Registered Member
…. your narrative is not the underlying drivers behind the trade war. It is about fair trade and China's practices are nothing but fair. Stealing, forced technology transfer and restricted market access. It complains about things that it has been actively conducting. For example, Google and Facebook have long been banned from market access in China. SOE's are basically state owned and run enterprises. So in effect it is about competition between commercial and state. That is not level playing field and the WTO forbids but unable to rule on. The notion that Huawei is employee owned is just BS. The founder owns 1% and the rest held by a trade union i.e. the state. Employees own phantom shares which is basically profit sharing. That is not ownership.

Just want to do a fact check here, Google has never been banned in China, they chose to withdraw from mainland themselves, actually they are still running the advertising business there and it's quite profitable.
 

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
…. your narrative is not the underlying drivers behind the trade war. It is about fair trade and China's practices are nothing but fair.
Um, thank you?
Stealing, forced technology transfer and restricted market access. It complains about things that it has been actively conducting. For example, Google and Facebook have long been banned from market access in China. SOE's are basically state owned and run enterprises. So in effect it is about competition between commercial and state. That is not level playing field and the WTO forbids but unable to rule on.
Nothing's fair because nothing's exactly the same. The US does many extremely unfair things (really well-outlined already so I won't go through them all again) so for China to be completely fair is to put itself at a disadvantage.
The notion that Huawei is employee owned is just BS. The founder owns 1% and the rest held by a trade union i.e. the state. Employees own phantom shares which is basically profit sharing. That is not ownership.
Post your source on why Huawei is owned by the Chinese government, and this time, don't cut out the title and link to hide the date.
 

canniBUS

Junior Member
Registered Member
…. your narrative is not the underlying drivers behind the trade war. It is about fair trade and China's practices are nothing but fair. Stealing, forced technology transfer and restricted market access. It complains about things that it has been actively conducting. For example, Google and Facebook have long been banned from market access in China. SOE's are basically state owned and run enterprises. So in effect it is about competition between commercial and state. That is not level playing field and the WTO forbids but unable to rule on. The notion that Huawei is employee owned is just BS. The founder owns 1% and the rest held by a trade union i.e. the state. Employees own phantom shares which is basically profit sharing. That is not ownership.
Mainstream economists say the trade war is about fair trade. Politicians parrot those talking points. The reality is that the trade war is about the US attempting to limit China's economic development. If you are so worried that private businesses cannot compete with a state then maybe you should stop supporting the loosing side. You don't even need to care about helping the poor you can be a state capitalist and still have fun seeing profits go up and up.

Also China's SOEs are better than just worker owned cooperatives. China is a democratic state, the government uses the Mass Line to learn about the citizens interests and also refine and align both individual concerns and general social policy. Therefore, the state owning an enterprise is the same as the employees+citizens at large owning it. The joint ownership by employees and the citizens of a country in general is superior to simple employee ownership as it ensures there is a check against employees of a certain industry acting in their self interest against the country as a whole.

In contrast, the western democracies are in fact oligarchies where business owns the state and businesses themselves are owned by a small fraction of the population. It's no surprise that laws passed by congress have no correlation with the opinion of the general public but correlate very well with what the top 1% want. Rule by the few, through and through. Well at least we can all be serfs one day on Zuckerberg's manor. Hope we don't get conscripted when we decides to annex territory of house Google (sorry Alphabet).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top