I think we are entering an interesting position with technology Tldr: >equipment of the drones/drones are made in China >therefore they may pass data to China
This is clearly fearmongering though it has some merit because it is possible. I wonder how far this will go with tech fearmongering and legislation. Should we never allow any tech from foreign countries or what?
The reports by local agencies of drones being "near" critical infrastructure is bogus because real estate, and commercial industry is considered critical infrastructure along with pretty much everything else?
We know this is fueled by Trump's rhetoric on China, but how far should and how far do you think governments will go?
>it's absolutely fine to be dependent on a communist country to provide you all your technology and resources
Jacob Wilson
What is your alternative? Throw comparative advantage out of the window?
Wyatt Hernandez
you either work together or you are literally still at war and should just release the fucking nukes already,
make up your mind retards,
are you friends with nothing to hide or are you mortal enemies ?
Brody Gray
I think this is a long process. The USA and Chinese misunderstand each other and conflict (limited) can be the key to better understanding, and in turn, better relationships
Adrian Green
Can there be a more brainlet position than this?
Brody Campbell
Listen to one of Peter Zeihan's talks, and all your questions will be answered.
Elijah Price
>Throw comparative advantage out of the window? Following short term comparative advantage is not always in your longterm interests.
You are arguing that it's a good idea for the mouse to eat the cheese in the mousetrap.
Joshua Myers
I'm not a big fan of "literal who" positions when it comes to China. Do you have the position of a China specialist as well?
I wouldn't mind hearing a summary of his position though It could be long term though
Christopher Richardson
>It could be long term though The point is we don't want our future to depend on the whims of a competitor.
Aaron Hughes
Isolationism won't work in the 21st century.
Jayden Clark
First of all, yes it will.
Second of all, nobody advocated for it.
Jose Wright
It won't work because your economy will slow while others progress and this will lead them to outpace you in every area. >Second of all, nobody advocated for it. >we don't want our future to depend on the whims of a competitor. This is how comparative advantage works though. You rely on another nation's "whims" for trade. Everything is done through trust, and self interest. Going away from this is isolationism
Jeremiah Powell
No, it's called hedging. We haven't closed trade with anybody.
Aiden Gray
Also you say our economy will slow more than other nations if we did an isolationist strategy.
That's ok if the economy slows. We'll be fine.
Colton Parker
You cannot have both. Either you depend on the "whims of a competitor" or you don't have trade with them. You can have limited control of the industry, but if they have advantage in that industry, there will be more control by them. You either proceed with poor economic policies, or you "depend on the whims of a competitor." The way to hedge against their "whims" are through diplomacy, military, influence, and your own economic aid/dependence.
TLDR: You either trade and depend on the "whims" or you stop trading with them
Chase Baker
We will just have to retract our military from the world and give up our dominance on the global stage. I'm sure you're okay with this as well, but over time it will diminish to the point where we depend more and more on other nations
Isaiah Brooks
>TLDR: You either trade and depend on the "whims" or you stop trading with them No this is brainlet thinking. You can use tariffs. You can use subsidies to promote the industry in your own country. You can promote trade with other countries' tech industries to hedge against chinas whims.
John Gutierrez
>but over time it will diminish to the point where we depend more and more on other nations This is a linear projection. Again, think of the mousetrap example. Following the immediate advantage does not always lead to longterm success. Entanglements in foreign nations have many benefits but also carry many risks.
Joshua Williams
Oh you meant China specifically and didn't include other nations who could at the "whim," hurt our trade ability. The point still stands that you're relying on their "whims" anytime you trade with a foreign country. >You can use tariffs. You can use subsidies to promote the industry in your own country. Both of these are usually not advised for. Tariffs are pretty obvious because they just shift price to the consumer, and subsidies because they usually are abused. washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-national-security/like-taking-candy-from-a-baby-pentagon-accuses-defense-contractor-of-gouging-our-taxpayers >Following the immediate advantage does not always lead to longterm success There are ways to manage imports and exports, but more awareness is needed when dealing with Chinese IP theft, and doing business in China for instance. Giving up comparative advantage would hurt in the short term, and long term. If you're only suggesting we deal less with the Chinese then that may be a misunderstanding I have because your statement could apply to literally any country. awareness is what is important, but things like tariffs should not be done unilaterally. The USA has created international institutions for this >Entanglements in foreign nations have many benefits but also carry many risks. Sure, but the risks go both ways. It allows us to gouge other nations, rare metals are a good example of this. "In 2010, according to one US article, China produced 130,000 tons of rare-earth elements, while the US produced zero tons. India was second with 2700 tons, which demonstrates figuratively the world’s reliance on China. According to the same article, China leads the world with 55 million tons of rare-earth reserves, with Russia second at 19 million tons, and the US third at 13 million tons." pg 207 esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/FOID/Reading Room/Other/Litigation Release - China Military Strategy 2014.pdf
>Tariffs are pretty obvious because they just shift price to the consumer, and subsidies because they usually are abused. Shifting the price is the entire point. You raise the price so that people buy less of the stuff you don't want them to buy. There are plenty of things that consumers want to buy but whose purchase harms the national interest. We should inhibit those purchases. Spending tons of money on cheap, useless chinese crap is bad for the USA and bad for the world.
Yes, I'm talking specifically about china right now. Yes I agree the risks go both ways, but the idea that "more trade is always good" is a lie. Sometimes you want to exit the game.
so amerijews loved globalism until they started losing heh
Benjamin Williams
Trade != globalism
Joseph Powell
There is no comparative advantage. China has hundreds of millions of people willing to work in slave-like conditions. If we adopt the mindset that everyone does what they're best at, and trades with others who are better at other things, then China will end up better than us at everything.
