It's Not the Job of the Government to Dictate Where Businesses Should Go

[Zhong Lu + 845]

If anything that's socialism.  

[Boat + 1,324]

It is governments job to create carrots and sticks/regulation to modify a business behavior. Like after hurricanes how a home is built has new standards to withstand high wind. Just one of hundreds of thousands of examples. You can slap any label you want on any system trying to save lives and cost.

[Zhong Lu + 845]

So you're saying it's socialism if the Democrats do it and it's not socialism if Trump does it? 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

I think that it has to do more with the desired national policy than anything else. Can the President mandate that companies do not do business with North Korea or Iran? Of course he can. If it is felt that China is detrimental to US economic security he could also invoke that priviledge.

This is not socialism, it is more of a national security issue.

Furthermore, if your adversary does not 'play by the rules' (the Politburo could easily decree that Chinese companies are banned from doing business in the US) or skirts the intent of WTO rules, why should you handcuff yourself to 'fair play'?

This is the crux of the problem. China expects everyone else to play by the rules while they simply ignore them...giving them an unfair advantage.

Other examples would be the Nine Line Map/freedom of navigation/ownership of the South China Sea and adherence to environmental norms.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

4 hours ago, Zhong Lu said:

So you're saying it's socialism if the Democrats do it and it's not socialism if Trump does it? 

I did not see anywhere where anyone has:

A). Termed this action as 'socialist', or

B). Differentiated this action as either a function of either political party.

You are creating your own narrative.

[James Regan + 1,776]

In reality and the world we live in at this point, name me one true Socialist country? -By Definition Socialism is an economic and political system where the ways of making a living (factories, offices, etc.) are owned by the workers who run them and the people who depend on them, meaning the value made belongs to the people who make it, instead of a group of private owners.

We are all capitalists, some masquerade as being utopian and fly a red flag, but the reality is far from the truth.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

46 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

This is the crux of the problem. China expects everyone else to play by the rules while they simply ignore them...giving them an unfair advantage.

^ this

[Boat + 1,324]

8 hours ago, Zhong Lu said:

So you're saying it's socialism if the Democrats do it and it's not socialism if Trump does it? 

The Supreme Court ruled that companies could contribute to political campaigns. The Dems had argued that companies had to much money and power and would be able to buy influence. Does that rule sound like socialism?

[Zhong Lu + 845]

If there is some "dear leader" at the top of the government ordering private companies what they can do or not do with their money, that's either fascism or socialism.  

If Obama had told US companies they cannot move their businesses to a country because "I hereby order them to", how do you think Republicans  would have reacted? 

Edited August 24, 2019 by Zhong Lu

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

The President is well within his rights to issue an executive order prohibiting trade with other soveriegn nations IF it is a matter of national security and not simply economic policy. He has ordered that no American company can do business with North Korea and Iran. Why do you think China should be any different IF they are determined to be a threat to nation security?

Answer me this, could Premier Xi ban Chinese companies from doing business with the US? Keep in mind that he is the "dear leader" (your term, not mine) for life.

If your answer is that he can, then why are you castigating Trump for using the same tactic?

[Zhong Lu + 845]

Because Xi is a dictator and Trump is supposed to be the president of a democratic country.  Trump's declaration is something you would expect a dictator like Xi or Putin to do.  

What I'm castigating is the hypocrisy of Trump supporters.  They declare Obama to be this or that, and yet when Trump does the very same thing or worse, such as unilateral declarations of executive privilege of what private businesses should or should not do, they find some excuse for him.  

Edited August 24, 2019 by Zhong Lu

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

On 8/24/2019 at 4:06 PM, Douglas Buckland said:

Why do you think China should be any different IF they are determined to be a threat to nation security?

How is China a threat? This is an interesting question to me.

Also, as @John Foote has mentioned on several occasions - why do western companies sell out (i.e. dig their own grave)? tackling this question might prove much more effective than any tariff.. 

Edited August 27, 2019 by Rasmus Jorgensen

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

23 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

How is China a threat? This is an interesting question to me.

Also, as @John Foote has mentioned on several occasions - why do western companies sell out (i.e. dig their own grave)? tackling this question might prove much more effective than any tariff.. 

A threat can be of an economical security nature as well as a strictly security nature. I think that this is the tack being sailed.

Western companies are capitalistic an follow profit. If they can reduce labor costs by utilizing labor in Asia then they increase their profit margin. Just business.

Globalization assumes a uniform distribution of resources and cost of labor, neither exists in the real world, it is not a level playing field.

I guarantee you if labor was less expensive in the West, Chinese companies would have moved there.

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

Just now, Douglas Buckland said:

Western companies are capitalistic an follow profit. If they can reduce labor costs by utilizing labor in Asia then they increase their profit margin. Just business.

I understand that part of issue with IP theft is that no Western companies are bringing cases to WTO to challenge this. Western companies willing allow their tech etc to be bought (stolen)... Basically capilistic greed is digging our graves. 

 

2 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

A threat can be of an economical security nature as well as a strictly security nature.

Can you elaborate - I am not sure I understand.

[Boat + 1,324]

29 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

How is China a threat? This is an interesting question to me.

Also, as @John Foote has mentioned on several occasions - why do western companies sell out (i.e. dig their own grave)? tackling this question might prove much more effective than any tariff.. 

Many of the biggest companies are multinationals. They care not about people or the environment for example. They are locked into a life and death struggle for world market control in their segment.

Countries like China can support their own companies that they own with vast resources and policy. 

Globalization in a fairness context would be regulations being similar. Environmental regulations and worker safety being similar etc. 

Mulitnationals are at the mercy of all countries they deal with. Like water they migrate towards the biggest profits they can achieve even if it means worker and environmental abuse.

The world is still crude, unfair and not very organized. Politics is a clumsy elephant in a China closet. But hey, it is what it is.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

34 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

I understand that part of issue with IP theft is that no Western companies are bringing cases to WTO to challenge this. Western companies willing allow their tech etc to be bought (stolen)... Basically capilistic greed is digging our graves. 

 

Can you elaborate - I am not sure I understand.

You can threaten a nation with force of arms and you can also threaten a country by 'attacking' their economy, the end result is the same.

The immense imbalance of trade between the US and China is being termed an economic security issue.

[Boat + 1,324]

3 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

You can threaten a nation with force of arms and you can also threaten a country by 'attacking' their economy, the end result is the same.

The immense imbalance of trade between the US and China is being termed an economic security issue.

The big threat is to the Republicans and Democrats who’s promises to multinationals may be derailed. Which is why the Koch Brothers withdrew hundreds of millions from the Reps for example. 

[SKEP + 229]

On 8/23/2019 at 11:45 AM, Zhong Lu said:

If anything that's socialism.  

CHINA is not a market economy. They should never have been allowed in WTO.

They don't play by market rules.  

The U.S. is just starting to get support to require China to comply. Vietnam prefers to work with U.S. over China. (India too)

China hegemony must be stopped.

Who would have thought.

Edited August 30, 2019 by SKEP

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

On 8/27/2019 at 1:41 PM, Boat said:

Many of the biggest companies are multinationals. They care not about people or the environment for example. They are locked into a life and death struggle for world market control in their segment.

Countries like China can support their own companies that they own with vast resources and policy. 

I appreciate this, but my fundamental question is : why do western companies agree to technology transfer when they are digging their own graves in doing so? i.e. why do business with China when they steal your tech? in the long term that should be bad for corporations, rigth?

[Boat + 1,324]

Each product line or product has its own level of sophistication but it would have to be pretty complex to avoid being reverse engineered or stolen. The charge against China I would guess would be mass producing rather simple stuff off a newer twist.

Smithfield is a pork producer the Chinese bought in the US for 10 billion. In that case besides the latest tech they probably wanted trainers for new plants in China.

Another thought would be tech moves so fast the shelf life is short and damage is limited.

I am not sure that avoiding business with China protects you. If they want something or some information it would not be that hard to get. Music, books and videos have no protection for example.

I am sure Apple and Samsung steal the latest and greatest from each other. The Chinese market is large and appealing. But it is the wild, Wild West.

 

 

[wrs + 893]

52 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

I appreciate this, but my fundamental question is : why do western companies agree to technology transfer when they are digging their own graves in doing so? i.e. why do business with China when they steal your tech? in the long term that should be bad for corporations, rigth?

Right, so why does Trump think he needs to bail them out?  On the other hand Trump does everything in his power to push oil prices down with his tweets.  

 

21 minutes ago, Boat said:

I am sure Apple and Samsung steal the latest and greatest from each other. The Chinese market is large and appealing. But it is the wild, Wild West.

 

Very true, they have already had a big lawsuit over some implementation issue.  I believe that Apple uses OLED displays manufactured by Samsung in their Iphone. 

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

1 minute ago, wrs said:

Right, so why does Trump think he needs to bail them out?

No clue. 

I don't dispute IP theft is happening I just don't think unilateral tariffs and aggressive twetting is the answer. 

[wrs + 893]

3 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

No clue. 

I don't dispute IP theft is happening I just don't think unilateral tariffs and aggressive twetting is the answer. 

Agree 100%.   I will also add that most of the tech being stolen is back level stuff.  The Chinese OEM the back level tech and pay a license fee while the US manufacturer puts the latest and greatest in it's new products.  Eventually the Chinese copy the tech that was licensed and this is called stealing when in fact, it might be legitimate.  How do you think AMD is still in business?  They made exact duplicates of the Intel chips at the pin level but the guts were entirely different.  Turns out that's completely legal.  Happens all the time with software too.

[Boat + 1,324]

I think responding with volumes of tariffs with no benchmarks is a mistake. We should look at what products China has that would be benificial to the US company and consumer. Look at matching products and value the US can offer and trade at these maximum levels with no terrifs. This would be the least amount of disruption for both countries. Other products from both countries that were not part of the agreement could start with a small tariff and would keep building until the products quit trading. Say over 15 years. At least both consumers and companies would have more time adjust to the new reality. If the goal is an even trade balance that is not necessarily a bad idea, but avoiding unnecessary economic pain just to prove stuberness/strength is called poor execution.

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

On 8/27/2019 at 2:14 PM, Douglas Buckland said:

You can threaten a nation with force of arms and you can also threaten a country by 'attacking' their economy, the end result is the same.

again - how ? 

As mentioned above Western companies sell out tech; they agree to tech transfer, nobody is forcing them. China plays the long game well. 

I am not saying that China must not be dealt with, but we also need to look at why they are able to do it. When you point 1 finger at others you point 3 at yourself.