How can we call this Free Trade when one side has open access to markets and the other side can doesn't.
Anybody ever manage a popular Web site that goes black for days? People forget about the web site, the momentum is gone, and you lose a lot of business.
There is nothing fair about our trade policies. This is a big part of what America does - create information systems, and it's not fair that China can block it with no good reason.
Who said international competition was fair? Presumably, the Chinese government pursues policies which it feels are to its advantage and which it has the leverage to get away with.
Also, I suspect this is more due to the government's inability to control the content on these sites than to the desire to promote local firms over foreign ones (although that's probably a bonus, from their perspective).
People asked the same question about Japan in the 70s and 80s. Japanese products like cars were over here, but it was almost impossible to sell a North American product in Japan.
But people voted for politicians who give them access to the goods they want to buy without worrying about nuänces on international trade disputes.
If we shut Wal-Mart down and blocked Honda from selling cars here, there would be an outcry.
It was a very good thing for the US that we didn't have restrictions on imports. That's why trade negotiations are so backwards, if you look at them from a consumer perspective: "I'll hurt my people less, but only IF you also hurt your people less".
Access to better cars is good. The small, small minority of people in an individual industry hurt by more competition should react like any of us would in the things we build: try to build something better.
Are you saying that as long as our consumers want whatever they're selling, we shouldn't worry about whether they permit our companies to do business with their consumers?
Let's get around the argument about crappy vs. good products and talk about two fairly competent companies. If Canada refuses to allow Boeing to sell aircraft to Canadian airlines, is it still ok for Bombardier to sell aircraft to US airlines?
It doesn't really matter if our consumers want what they're selling. That's not the government's job to decide what consumers want.
But, yes, we should permit companies owned by people outside the US to sell things to people in the US, regardless of any policies in other countries.
Would you rather have better planes for all Americans, or slightly higher profits for a single company? It turns out it is almost always huge numbers of domestic consumers vs. a very small number of domestic suppliers, and NOT natives vs. foreigners as the suppliers would like us to believe. Also, foreign companies often employ very many people in the US, which means the labor interest component of the issue is very often blurred.
Is it true that in US we didn't have restrictions on imports? I am genuinely curious on why we (in US) don't have:
1. Micro cars (things like KeiCar or Tata from India)
2. Japanese-brand Washer and Dryers which are clearly more efficient.
But then again you use past tense, did you mean the US used to NOT have restrictions?
This has nothing, nothing, to do with trade or business. This isn't about supporting local Chinese businesses, or shafting American firms.
This is all about June 4th, the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen massacre. Twitter has proven to be an effective "back channel" of communication that's outside of government control, so the fine folks in Beijing don't want it being used on the 4th.
This is all about internal Chinese politics, which trump business concerns every time.
It's a great pretence, but they have done the same thing in the past to help home grown competitors. Look at the history of Google vs Baidu and once the home grown web search become dominant they stoped messing with Google.
Edit: I don't think it's 100% one or the other as they also like having the extra control that a local company provides. However, there are always reasons why countries want to help local industries the point of free trade is the idea that doing so always reduces economic efficiency.
A few years back China was banning certain Google web properties. Then once Baidu.com got its feet off the ground and with some government subsidy became the more popular search engine in China, they un-did the blocking of those Google sites. I wonder why?
19 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 54.4 ms ] threadAnybody ever manage a popular Web site that goes black for days? People forget about the web site, the momentum is gone, and you lose a lot of business.
There is nothing fair about our trade policies. This is a big part of what America does - create information systems, and it's not fair that China can block it with no good reason.
Also, I suspect this is more due to the government's inability to control the content on these sites than to the desire to promote local firms over foreign ones (although that's probably a bonus, from their perspective).
But people voted for politicians who give them access to the goods they want to buy without worrying about nuänces on international trade disputes.
If we shut Wal-Mart down and blocked Honda from selling cars here, there would be an outcry.
Access to better cars is good. The small, small minority of people in an individual industry hurt by more competition should react like any of us would in the things we build: try to build something better.
Let's get around the argument about crappy vs. good products and talk about two fairly competent companies. If Canada refuses to allow Boeing to sell aircraft to Canadian airlines, is it still ok for Bombardier to sell aircraft to US airlines?
But, yes, we should permit companies owned by people outside the US to sell things to people in the US, regardless of any policies in other countries.
Would you rather have better planes for all Americans, or slightly higher profits for a single company? It turns out it is almost always huge numbers of domestic consumers vs. a very small number of domestic suppliers, and NOT natives vs. foreigners as the suppliers would like us to believe. Also, foreign companies often employ very many people in the US, which means the labor interest component of the issue is very often blurred.
But then again you use past tense, did you mean the US used to NOT have restrictions?
Just curiosity.
This is all about June 4th, the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen massacre. Twitter has proven to be an effective "back channel" of communication that's outside of government control, so the fine folks in Beijing don't want it being used on the 4th.
This is all about internal Chinese politics, which trump business concerns every time.
The logic is just awful; but nonetheless you're absolutely right about the reasons.
Edit: I don't think it's 100% one or the other as they also like having the extra control that a local company provides. However, there are always reasons why countries want to help local industries the point of free trade is the idea that doing so always reduces economic efficiency.