New US tariffs kick in on $16 billion of Chinese goods

[Hygro]

Just pointing out that it's not actually free. The dollars externally hoarded are still someone local's debt. Not saying that they're bad, Schumpeter and all. But they're just not free.

I agree but it's not the financial debt but paying them in growth relative to ours. Which, btw, doesn't slow our growth afaict, so long as we aren't stuck with decaying fixed capital.

I really don't think that letting an oppressive, totalitarian, kleptocratic, racist superpower catching up to you faster is any kind of good or smart...

Okay, it's not particularly heartening to elevate a government I don't agree with, but on the other hand the human triumph of 1.4 billion folks achieving greater material wellbeing is something to celebrate.

 

[Cheetah]

Okay, it's not particularly heartening to elevate a government I don't agree with, but on the other hand the human triumph of 1.4 billion folks achieving greater material wellbeing is something to celebrate.

But surely that's in spite of the CCP, no because of it? Taiwan has done way better, which should indicate that the CCP is bad for the material wellbeing of most Chinese people...

And that's without mentioning the millions of people who are in prison camps and reeducation camps, or the Uighur women who are forced to marry Han-Chinese men, the girls who are kidnapped from neighbouring countries and are forced to be factory workers and wives, or the people who get beaten up and put in prison if they want to unionize, or the people who were arrested in Fiji by Chinese police forces.

And that again is without mentioning the thousands who were murdered on Tianamen square, or the dozens of millions who were starved to death by Mao.

The CCP has an extremely great PR machine, but what's behind the curtain is really bad. And as China is growing in power, that curtain is being opened bit by bit...

 

[Timsup2nothin]

But surely that's in spite of the CCP, no because of it? Taiwan has done way better, which should indicate that the CCP is bad for the material wellbeing of most Chinese people...

The implication that it is just as easy to industrialize a nation of over a billion as it is to industrialize a nation of twenty million, with substantial outside investment, is a very tenuous leap.

 

[Lexicus]

The implication that it is just as easy to industrialize a nation of over a billion as it is to industrialize a nation of twenty million, with substantial outside investment, is a very tenuous leap.

I was going to say that it's patently obvious that the CCP's rule means China is a lot poorer than it could be under a more democratic government, but then I thought that there really isn't an example of industrialization occurring without massive human rights violations up to and including genocide, so

 

[Farm Boy]

The CCP has an extremely great PR machine

Are you sure they need one? Remember, there's no bad news in China.

 

[Cheetah]

I was going to say that it's patently obvious that the CCP's rule means China is a lot poorer than it could be under a more democratic government, but then I thought that there really isn't an example of industrialization occurring without massive human rights violations up to and including genocide, so

Norway industrialised quite peacefully.

Sweden had one episode of the army firing at strikers and killing some, but otherwise I think it went pretty quiet there as well.

 

[Cheetah]

The implication that it is just as easy to industrialize a nation of over a billion as it is to industrialize a nation of twenty million, with substantial outside investment, is a very tenuous leap.

I can buy the «substantial outside investment» part, but the CCP got lots of help from the USSR, and frankly, the USA's side was the least immoral side during the Cold war, so if the CCP were more moral they could easily have gotten help from there instead of from the USSR.

What I do not buy is the ridiculous argument that just because a political entity is bigger, therefore it is harder to do anything! It's not true that democracy in the US must be worse than in Norway just because the US is a bigger country! It is not true that Romania is more corrupt than Iceland just because it is a bigger country! And it is not true that just because mainland China is bigger than the island of Taiwan it is harder to industrialise it!

More land and more people does mean more to do, but it also means more resources and more people to do it!

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I can buy the «substantial outside investment» part, but the CCP got lots of help from the USSR, and frankly, the USA's side was the least immoral side during the Cold war, so if the CCP were more moral they could easily have gotten help from there instead of from the USSR.

What I do not buy is the ridiculous argument that just because a political entity is bigger, therefore it is harder to do anything! It's not true that democracy in the US must be worse than in Norway just because the US is a bigger country! It is not true that Romania is more corrupt than Iceland just because it is a bigger country! And it is not true that just because mainland China is bigger than the island of Taiwan it is harder to industrialise it!

More land and more people does mean more to do, but it also means more resources and more people to do it!

The USA was "less immoral" in the cold war? Glad to hear it. Didn't notice it, really, at the time.

So, let's look at the "they got lots of help too." So, a hundred times the size would mean that a comparable level of outside investment would involve the USSR pumping into China a hundred times the investment that the rest of the world was pumping into Taiwan. Do you really think the USSR did that? Do you think that even if they wanted to they could even begin to approach anything like that? Industrializing the UNITED STATES, which is a tenth the size of China, took generations to accomplish because it was done, predominantly, with domestic investment. That's what it takes.

 

[Cheetah]

No, of course the USSR couldn't help mainland China as much as the USA could help the island of Taiwan. As I said, I already accepted that part of your argument.

I still think the other part, that just because China is bigger it therefore had to lag decades behind Taiwan in development, and that it had nothing to do with Mao murdering 60+ million, or the CCP destroying anyone that did something beyond taking orders or paying bribes, is wrong.

And if you actually think the USA's side wasn't the least immoral part of the Cold War, then I guess you and innonimatu do have something you can agree on. I don't, but I really can't be bothered to argue over it.

 

[innonimatu]

What I do not buy is the ridiculous argument that just because a political entity is bigger, therefore it is harder to do anything! It's not true that democracy in the US must be worse than in Norway just because the US is a bigger country! It is not true that Romania is more corrupt than Iceland just because it is a bigger country! And it is not true that just because mainland China is bigger than the island of Taiwan it is harder to industrialise it!

More land and more people does mean more to do, but it also means more resources and more people to do it!

I think all those are true. More people means more complicate power structures to manage those people, less scope for democratic participation (replaced with "representativeness"), more opportunity for the representatives to abuse power or be corrupted, more waste drained by leaches installed taking advantage from a complex system that cannot react quickly (or at all) to kick the rentiers from privileged positions and force them to actually contribute towards society. Bigger countries tend to be more corrupt, more unjust, always busy setting up structures to crush the individual.

 

[El_Machinae]

Wouldn't the easiest comparison be to India? A billion people? Democracy?

 

[Farm Boy]

It's one we need a lot of hope for. It's the counterweight.

 

[Lexicus]

All other things equal, more people = more resources = easier to industrialize.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

And if you actually think the USA's side wasn't the least immoral part of the Cold War, then I guess you and innonimatu do have something you can agree on. I don't, but I really can't be bothered to argue over it.

Holding hundreds of millions hostage to get your way is difficult to place on a "more or less" moral scale.

 

[Hrothbern]

Wouldn't the easiest comparison be to India? A billion people? Democracy?

India:
A failed family program to stabilise population growth (started in the 50ies)
Childs labour
Caste system
High rate of sexism/suicide/almost genocide of girls and women
Religious polarising of such strenght that separating East and West Pakistan from British India was not enough and nukes were developed by both as soon as they were able

GDP per capita at low growth rate compared to China and other Asian tigers.
A good example of chaotic free market development with a big gap between formal and practical empathy for humanity

 

[Farm Boy]

Might be more on the same page if they had gotten their 8 million casualties out of the way earlier?

 

[tetley]

I support the China tariffs, and I would support the $200 billion in tariffs. To me, it's not about the economics or competing fairly--it's about the human rights abuses and China bullying their neighbors. Including the independent, free, sovereign country of Taiwan.

 

[Zelig]

I support the China tariffs, and I would support the $200 billion in tariffs. To me, it's not about the economics or competing fairly--it's about the human rights abuses and China bullying their neighbors. Including the independent, free, sovereign country of Taiwan.

That would make sense if the US administration was demanding better respect of human rights or recognition of Taiwanese independence. The current tariffs have nothing to do with either of those.

 

[tetley]

It's not just about the administration--it's about the people. The people mostly don't care about Xi's recent crackdown on religion, their manmade islands in international waters, or Yulin. They care about gas prices.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

I support the China tariffs, and I would support the $200 billion in tariffs. To me, it's not about the economics or competing fairly--it's about the human rights abuses and China bullying their neighbors. Including the independent, free, sovereign country of Taiwan.

If we follow that line of thought I support all tariffs by the Trump administration and think there should be more.
I fully support a worldwide trade embargo on the USA as long as climate change denialists are in power.