General > General Technical Chat
I have the feeling that the whole trade war starts from a pile of nonsense.
apis:
--- Quote from: blueskull on May 26, 2019, 01:48:31 am ---
--- Quote from: bsfeechannel on May 26, 2019, 01:09:48 am ---Last time I checked, Adam Smith, the Father of Capitalism, was Scottish. I'm looking at his book, "The Wealth of Nations", right in front of me, while I write this.
--- End quote ---
Who cares about Adam Smith? Who is he? Who cares about your definition of capitalism? What makes his definition accurate?
My economy teacher gave me a very clean, diluted definition of capitalism: use money to make money, which has been there for centuries.
--- End quote ---
Capitalism/Communism is about who owns the means of production I think (i.e. if they are owned privately or communally). In theory you can combine a free market economy and communism, but the Soviet Union went with a centralised, planned economy for some reason.
I don't think we have well functioning free market economy in our modern capitalist societies either though, it's obvious by the fact that there are so many monopolies (or at least oligopolies) which is an example of a so called market failure and the worst of both worlds, but no one seems to care much.
I'm out of my depth here though, I don't know that much about political/economic theory.
apis:
--- Quote from: james_s on May 26, 2019, 12:10:36 am ---
--- Quote from: soldar on May 25, 2019, 07:22:25 pm ---I share your low opinion of Trump and I disagree that tariffs are a good idea but, in any case, even if you think tariffs are a good idea, there are ways and there are ways to implement them.
--- End quote ---
Well I'm not an economist and frankly most aspects of business and finances make my eyes glaze over so unlike Trump I'm not going to belligerently push to implement things I do not fully understand. It's just that on the surface they sound like a reasonable idea, a way to even out the playing field a bit given much of the reason China is able to be so competitive is that they are allowed to trash their environment and abuse the workers who do not enjoy nearly the standard of living or the protections those of us in many of the places buying these cheap goods have come to expect. Again though this is not my area of expertise so I'm not flat out saying I think they're a good idea, but I do feel the pinch of competing with people overseas who can live for a fraction of what it costs me and I'm frustrated by the race to the bottom with a lot of formerly good quality products being steadily cheapened to compete with low cost garbage.
--- End quote ---
Every country have tariffs unless you share the same market (like within the EU or the US) for all the reasons you mention. I believe it's commonly agreed that tariffs are a necessary evil.
That's what free trade agreements are superficially about, trying to agree on standards and subsidies that level the playing field so that the tariffs and bureaucracy can be minimalised. Personally I don't trust the "agreement" process of those free trade agreements thought. The bigger country (or the mulitnationals) are going to set the terms at the expense of the smaller countries (or the poor in either country). Once a free trade agreement is in place, the agreed upon standards are written in stone and will be very difficult and cumbersome to change, it will be very hard for a country to introduce new regulations without upsetting the trade balance (which will result in the country getting sued in special draconian arbitration courts that lack democratic oversight/legitimacy).
A trade war is when you start using tariffs for increasingly protectionstic reasons, it causes a negative spiral which hurts everyone. To use Wikipedia's definition:
"A trade war is an economic conflict resulting from extreme protectionism in which states raise or create tariffs or other trade barriers against each other in response to trade barriers created by the other party. Increased protection causes both nations' output compositions to move towards their autarky position."
apis:
--- Quote from: soldar on May 26, 2019, 07:51:19 am ---China, as it gets richer, is already implementing pollution laws and will continue to do so as they get richer. Environmental laws are expensive and rich countries can afford them. But lecturing China on this is like lecturing the homeless beggar at the stoplight about showering every day. How is he supposed to do it?
--- End quote ---
I agree with much of what you wrote but at the same time it's sad to see China repeat the same mistakes that industrialised nations made in the past. They don't have to ruin the environment like we did, we have identified the problem and come up with solutions already. It's stupid not to use them more. And one has to ask who benefits from all the economic growth in China. Is it the people who work in the factories with suicide nets? The wealth-gap in China is much larger than the US.
technix:
--- Quote from: soldar on May 26, 2019, 07:51:19 am ---I believe American supremacy is waning fast and America is not adapting well to the new world order. America wants to remain "sole superpower" and can only do so militarily so there is danger of America disrupting things and using force. And all will be supported by very good ostensible reasons. Those with the wealth and the power have always found good support in the Bible or any other source of morality.
--- End quote ---
I really wish that the American supremacy don't go out with a bang literally, as it can take the whole humanity as we know it with it. China being one of the few countries that has proven nuclear force is a whole different beast than those countristan places whose nuclear capability is at beast an unproven one. As of late China has also rescinded the "no first use" nuclear weapon policy, so I have the fear that a war against China can go nuclear pretty quick.
--- Quote from: apis on May 26, 2019, 08:15:10 am ---Capitalism/Communism is about who owns the means of production I think (i.e. if they are owned privately or communally). In theory you can combine a free market economy and communism, but the Soviet Union went with a centralised, planned economy for some reason.
I don't think we have well functioning free market economy in our modern capitalist societies either though, it's obvious by the fact that there are so many monopolies (or at least oligopolies) which is an example of a so called market failure and the worst of both worlds, but no one seems to care much.
I'm out of my depth here though, I don't know that much about political/economic theory.
--- End quote ---
The Chinese system is currently a hybrid one.
State-owned enterprises forms a safety net in certain capital-intensive life-critical fields of business (e.g. infrastructure, power grid, telecommunication, banking, public transport etc.) They are actually designed not to be competitive in the market but as a provider of last resort, and there is no law banning private companies entering the field, however no private company is currently rich enough to take up the task nation-wide though since it is just too capital intensive. It is not unlike there aren't local attempts at those critical fields though and they can be successful if the owner is smart enough.
As of all other fields the current policy is to promote competitiveness among small players while a bit limiting on bigger ones - think this as a more aggressive form of antitrust law that prohibits not only a monopoly but also an oligopoly from forming. Just look at the example I used above - Huaqiang North SEG - instead of a market with 4 or 5 player Chinese government prefer a market with 1000+ players.
--- Quote from: apis on May 26, 2019, 07:45:07 am ---Better educated people will benefit all aspects of society I believe, it makes people smarter which means they make better choices on average.
I'm not sure it's the US falling back as much as China that has shifted up a gear or two. Creativity wise It's even worse here in Europe, if you are tinkering in your garage here, unless it's with an old car, people will look at you suspiciously. Lot of people doesn't like change. I don't really know what it's like in China, but China is huge and things are changing quickly. Maybe people there are more open new ideas, or maybe it's just the size (2.8 times as big population as EU), or maybe it's the rapid economic growth?
--- End quote ---
Ooh the environment though... The super short supply chain, cheap component prices and extreme fast turnaround time in Shenzhen really promotes experimentation and innovation at all levels. It is so easy and cheap to experiment with things, things rolls on an extremely fast pace, and failures don't hit the wallet too hard.
As of education, education is very cheap and heavily subsidized in China, at least for Chinese citizens. Primary education is free and mandatory, secondary education is very cheap - free in some cities even, as of higher education for an undergraduate engineering degree the yearly tuition is usually no more than US$1000, and postgraduate degrees are usually free again between all the national general scholarship and national academic scholarship. The standardized tests is heavily used in primary and secondary education to keep the quality of education high and uniform, so the difference between public and private schools differ little. Chinese companies pays a fairly hefty education tax to fund this, as if the companies are paying the government to train up their future employees for them.
Chinese government is also heavily subsidizing patent applications by college students, young people and small companies - up to 80% subsidized at a national level, likely as much at a local level if Shenzhen follows the Shanghai example, and those subsidization stacks, resulting in people only having to pay 4% of the full price if they want to apply for a patent.
--- Quote from: apis on May 26, 2019, 09:08:29 am ---I agree with much of what you wrote but at the same time it's sad to see China repeat the same mistakes that industrialised nations made in the past. They don't have to ruin the environment like we did, we have identified the problem and come up with solutions already. It's stupid not to use them. And one has to ask who benefits from all the economic growth in China. Is it the people who work in the factories with suicide nets? The wealth-gap in China is much larger than the US.
--- End quote ---
At least not until recently China can't afford those solutions though. China is implement such solutions at a breakneck pace though as soon as funds arrived. As of the wealth gap it is a global phenomenon and the fix is going to be global too.
windsmurf:
--- Quote from: apis on May 26, 2019, 09:08:29 am ---... The wealth-gap in China is much larger than the US.
--- End quote ---
Not so, according to the GINI index.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version