Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)

[darrelljs]

It actually sounds like Nicolae has personal experience in this area, which makes me cut him some slack.

This is a debate that I wanted no part of, but can't help but share some guiding principles I believe in.

• Every nation has the right to a cultural identity.
  
• There is a certain level of immigration a nation can handle while maintaining its identity.  Nations can get better at this by having policies that welcome and integrate. 
  
• Immigrants who are culturally similar can be absorbed in great numbers.
  
• Immigrants who are culturally diverse take longer to absorb, but what's left after the melting are things that somehow "fit" and augment the cultural identity to the benefit of all.
  
• Economic rationalizations for and against immigration are a waste of time, because in the end how many, and who, you want to let in comes down to your preferred identity.  This can be driven by language, race, religion, liberals values...not money.
  

Darrell

[TheHumanHydra]

I was very disappointed to hear about tarrifs with China this morning.  Already disappointed about the tarrifs on our allies.  Here though, the economic interdependence has meant both the US and China have had incentives to avoid direct confrontation.  If that relationship starts to break down not only is it bad for world wide economic growth, but world peace as well.  Hopefully this gets worked out at the WTO.

Granted I am concerned somewhat about intellectual property transfers, but surely there was a more nuanced way to handle that issue.  In truth spreading of tech is generally something I support, though in this case China's support of highly authoritarian uses of that technology is what gives me pause.  If China was a full democracy I would not care.

How would you propose to get China to back down?

How would you propose to get the USA to back down?

[Banzailizard]

I was very disappointed to hear about tarrifs with China this morning.  Already disappointed about the tarrifs on our allies.  Here though, the economic interdependence has meant both the US and China have had incentives to avoid direct confrontation.  If that relationship starts to break down not only is it bad for world wide economic growth, but world peace as well.  Hopefully this gets worked out at the WTO.

Granted I am concerned somewhat about intellectual property transfers, but surely there was a more nuanced way to handle that issue.  In truth spreading of tech is generally something I support, though in this case China's support of highly authoritarian uses of that technology is what gives me pause.  If China was a full democracy I would not care.

How would you propose to get China to back down?

How would you propose to get the USA to back down?

Maybe I misunderstood but I think his implied question was "how do you propose to get China to back down on forced technology transfers." The administrations messaging on these tarrifs has been confusing.  They are supposed to punish China for the transfers, and to harm their "made in China 2025" program where they are seeking dominance in certain high tech feilds. Many of these industries are reciving subsidies from the Chinese government. However mixed up in that is Trump's obsession with the trade deficit (which is nonsensical), and his protectionist tendencies in general.

The truth is I do not know how you get China to back down I am not a foreign policy expert, but these tarrifs probably are the wrong way to go about it. To me the real problem is the outright theft and other forms of tech transfers not the subsidy per say. Broad based tarrifs don't really address that.

As some general sugestions though there are mechinisms in the WTO to address such concerns. We could also work with our allies in Europe,  South Korea and Japan who are also harmed by these practices to set standards of practice. Targeted sanctions on specfic goods might be ok if it is clear what behavior will get them removed. Perhaps we can find ways to put pressure on the touted belt and road initiative? Again not really my area but there must be other levers like these to pressure China.

[Tasunke]

It actually sounds like Nicolae has personal experience in this area, which makes me cut him some slack.

This is a debate that I wanted no part of, but can't help but share some guiding principles I believe in.

• Every nation has the right to a cultural identity.
  
• There is a certain level of immigration a nation can handle while maintaining its identity.  Nations can get better at this by having policies that welcome and integrate. 
  
• Immigrants who are culturally similar can be absorbed in great numbers.
  
• Immigrants who are culturally diverse take longer to absorb, but what's left after the melting are things that somehow "fit" and augment the cultural identity to the benefit of all.
  
• Economic rationalizations for and against immigration are a waste of time, because in the end how many, and who, you want to let in comes down to your preferred identity.  This can be driven by language, race, religion, liberals values...not money.
  

Darrell

That is exactly my point. USA no longer has any binding identity (just money)

[Gavagai]

I was very disappointed to hear about tarrifs with China this morning.  Already disappointed about the tarrifs on our allies.  Here though, the economic interdependence has meant both the US and China have had incentives to avoid direct confrontation.  If that relationship starts to break down not only is it bad for world wide economic growth, but world peace as well.  Hopefully this gets worked out at the WTO.

Granted I am concerned somewhat about intellectual property transfers, but surely there was a more nuanced way to handle that issue.  In truth spreading of tech is generally something I support, though in this case China's support of highly authoritarian uses of that technology is what gives me pause.  If China was a full democracy I would not care.

I bet you were just as disappointed in 2009: https://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/12/busin...tires.html Right?

[Gavagai]

This tariffs situation is a great illustration of how ridiculously dishonest American mainstream media has become. This kind of stuff happens all the time, under all kinds of presidents, but when Trump does it, it is suddenly the end of days.

[Banzailizard]

I was very disappointed to hear about tarrifs with China this morning.  Already disappointed about the tarrifs on our allies.  Here though, the economic interdependence has meant both the US and China have had incentives to avoid direct confrontation.  If that relationship starts to break down not only is it bad for world wide economic growth, but world peace as well.  Hopefully this gets worked out at the WTO.

Granted I am concerned somewhat about intellectual property transfers, but surely there was a more nuanced way to handle that issue.  In truth spreading of tech is generally something I support, though in this case China's support of highly authoritarian uses of that technology is what gives me pause.  If China was a full democracy I would not care.

I bet you were just as disappointed in 2009: https://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/12/busin...tires.html Right?

In 2009 I was 19 years old and not particularly politically opinionated or aware. If you want, you can consider me retroactively disappointed. I was not enamored with his tariffs on steal latter either. That being said, the scale of the tariffs from your example still do not match up.  35% on one good is very different from 25% on a large list of goods totaling $34 billion with additional threats for more. Ideally there should be no tariffs on anything except in cases of legitimate dumping, and then only as a temporary measure.

[TheHumanHydra]

How would you propose to get the USA to back down?

Maybe I misunderstood but I think his implied question was "how do you propose to get China to back down on forced technology transfers."

Sorry (to ipecac as well), I spoke out of ignorance.

[ipecac]

Maybe I misunderstood but I think his implied question was "how do you propose to get China to back down on forced technology transfers." The administrations messaging on these tarrifs has been confusing.  They are supposed to punish China for the transfers, and to harm their "made in China 2025" program where they are seeking dominance in certain high tech feilds. Many of these industries are reciving subsidies from the Chinese government. However mixed up in that is Trump's obsession with the trade deficit (which is nonsensical), and his protectionist tendencies in general.

It's not merely about technology transfers. The EU quietly agrees with "almost all" of Trump's complaints about China, but despite not being able to do much about them, they can only complain about Trump's approach.

The answer is that you need to play hardball with China.

We could also work with our allies in Europe,  South Korea and Japan who are also harmed by these practices to set standards of practice. Targeted sanctions on specfic goods might be ok if it is clear what behavior will get them removed.

This will also start a trade war, a worldwide one in fact.

[ipecac]

The US left could easily have supported protectionism. In fact, it would make a lot of sense for them to protect their own voting base. Bernie Sanders, for instance, could easily have expanded on his stance against the TPP into protectionism.

Instead, on the national level the left have abandoned their old voters and given Trump a monopoly on telling workers that 'you were in bad shape with a worse outlook, but I'll help and protect you.'

I came across this. Sanders on mass migration in the past:

But in 2007, Sanders was part of the charge from the left to kill an immigration overhaul bill. Back then, the Vermont independent warned that the immigration bill — a product from then-Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) — would drive down wages for lower-income workers, an argument that’s been used by hard-liner reform opponents. He paired with conservative Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) on a restrictive immigration amendment.

“He adamantly put his foot down and said these kinds of programs [allow] employers to bring in more and more vulnerable workers.”

“What concerns me are provisions in the bill that would bring low-wage workers into this country in order to depress the already declining wages of American workers,” Sanders said in May 2007. “With poverty increasing and the middle-class shrinking, we must not force American workers into even more economic distress.”

The new program, Sanders argued, would “allow large corporations to import hundreds of thousands of blue-collar and white-collar workers from overseas.” And for good measure, Sanders also ripped a section in the sweeping bill that would have bolstered the number of high-skilled immigrant workers into the country — a less contentious provision.

“One of the areas I have serious concerns about and want to see improved as the bill progresses is the huge increase in guest-worker programs. At a time when unemployment remains extremely high, these programs bring hundreds of thousands of skilled and unskilled workers into our economy making it harder for U.S. citizens to find jobs.”

“At a time when the middle class is shrinking, poverty is increasing and millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages it makes no sense to me to have an immigration bill which, over a period of years, would bring millions of ‘guest workers’ into this country who are prepared to work for lower wages than American workers,” Sanders said after that year’s bill died. “We need to increase wages in this country, not lower them.”

He really could have ran on protectionism too. What a pity.