China-Bashing

[ZiprHead]

I would really love to know what Lumpy does for a living. His/her economic ideas are just

 

[Harry Bosch]

If China's cheating is really a problem, then
Boycotts, Sanctions, and Embargoes are not the solution.

The U.S. can steal Chinese technology just as easily as China can steal U.S. technology.

Intellectual property: We have an awful lot more for them to steal than they have for us to steal.

If "an awful lot more" means twice as much, or three times, then it doesn't matter. They still have enough for us to "steal" and benefit from their technology (or "intellectual property"). And in any case, their intellectual property will increase in the future.

Also, might there be a difference between "intellectual property" and "technology"? I don't believe a claim which says China doesn't have a lot of "technology" we could steal. Probably "we" (developed countries) are already doing much, maybe surreptitiously, to gain more knowledge from Chinese technology (analyzing it, picking it apart, etc.). I'm sure we're not so stupid to neglect any opportunity to do this. It is disingenuous for us to whine about the nasty Chinese "cheating" and not playing fair about the secret technologies.

If they have figured out ways to "steal" our intellectual property but we can't figure out how to "steal" theirs, maybe there's something wrong with us. Maybe our companies should hire some Chinese experts to teach us how to "steal" intellectual property, or maybe we can "steal" those instructional materials from them somehow. Or maybe we can figure out how to "steal" from them but have not yet really tried. (Or maybe, more likely, is that we've already done all the above.) It seems the fault lies more on our side than on theirs.

The main rule of thumb is to do whatever benefits consumers, not protect producers.


legitimate need to protect producers, creativity, etc.

Do the intellectual property laws truly reward the more efficient producers and thus benefit consumers?

Not all patents/copyrights/trademarks etc. are beneficial to consumers. So this all needs to be re-examined to make sure the original purpose is really achieved, i.e., the purpose of making the production improve for the benefit of consumers.

And probably the response of boycotts, sanctions, embargoes (BSE) etc. is counterproductive, more harm than good for consumers.

In concrete examples of it, no one has given a good explanation why we don't already have ways to counteract the "cheating" without the need for BSE. Why couldn't the U.S. simply confiscate the "stolen" products and have the property-owner (patent/copyright etc. holder) be compensated, paid their appropriate price. Instead of DESTROYING the confiscated products, these could just be put out for sale in the market, at market price, and the company paid.

What are we doing now, other than confiscating the products and destroying them? This is hardly an appropriate way to fix anything.

How does destroying the "bandit" product make things better? This approach assumes that those illegal products are somehow tainted, poisoned, contaminated, and fit only for extermination. How is this mentality any different than that of those striking auto-workers back in the 1990s who took a sledge hammer to the Japanese imported car? This symbolism doesn't make consumers better off but only worse.


inferior copycat products

How do we know that the counterfeit products are really inferior? Maybe they're just a less costly version which is either just as good, or if not that, they are a little inferior but also the price is lower enough to make it a good deal for consumers.

It's not accurate to say simply that the Asian products are inferior to the U.S. products. Because the truth is that American products are often inferior to the German and Canadian products. It's all relative.

All that really matters is the benefit to consumers, and it should be left to them to decide what is "inferior" or "superior" production. In some cases the higher quality is not worth the extra cost.


Prioritize consumer benefit over nationalism/xenophobia

So it's not clear that this "theft" is really something harmful to consumers. In some cases it's a good deal for consumers, and the domestic producers need to learn how to get the cost down, rather than try to suppress the importation of the cheaper products.

Assuming there's really an intellectual property rights violation problem, the solution to it is not something to interfere with trade or crack down on the "bandit" products etc. Rather, there are ways which ENCOURAGE trade rather than discourage it.

So it's not that there's no problem at all. Rather, it's that anti-trade solutions are always wrong. Reducing trade and scapegoating the foreign production as evil never makes it better but only worse. We can find ways to fix what's wrong without having a crusade against the damn foreigners stealin' our jobs (which really is 90% of what this is about). We first need to get rid of the xenophobic delusionalism, recognize the benefit of more trade, and reject any form of trade barriers, which gives higher priority to prejudice and xenophobia over what's good for consumers.

Meh! What is the consumer benefit? Their costs are high. They don't respect western IP. They threaten us with war all the time. They withhold rare minerals from us when they can. They threaten us with war all the time. Almost every day. They are land disputes with India, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and the Philippines. And they threaten our most important supply chain cog today, Taiwan, with total destruction. As long as war is avoided, I don't think that we should ban all trade with them. But what is the benefit to us to trade with them?

You mean other than the fact that we gave so much of our production to them? The benefit of the trade is the labor is cheap and expansive. AND, because China attacking the US and visa versa harms each other's economy substantially. Economic dependency is better than MAD.

Complaining about China's fuckery in Asia is fucked up without taking note of our own fuckery in Central America and the Middle East. Yes, we are way more open, less despotic, but we also have a not too long ago history of supporting monsters who did some pretty bad things. Support? I mean help overthrow the other guy to put them in charge.

With respect, I disagree with your position. And I'd double down on it. I think that if a country has committed wrongs in its past, that it has a greater duty to do good rather than be quiet. Should it seek to redress its past crimes, of course. Should it stop its bad behavior and learn from it. Of course. But be quiet or understanding of similar thuggery - no way. The greatest foe of imperialism has been Germany and Japan. Germany is probably the strongest defender of Jewish rights in the world outside of Israel. And etc. The US should be defenders of UN law. China routinely violates UN law against Taiwan and other countries in the East. They have no concept of the UN laws regarding territory and airspace.

I'm not against using economic dependency to prevent China from imperialism. But if they were to invade Taiwan, our economy would be finished. It would take us 10 years to replicate the chip production that comes from Taiwan. We'd be in the dark ages.

 

[bilby]

It would take us 10 years to replicate the chip production that comes from Taiwan. We'd be in the dark ages.

I suspect that it would take a tiny fraction of that time (it's amazing how quickly stuff gets done when the incentive is sufficiently large - look at all the technology that went from literally zero, to widespread use, in the few short years of WWII), and that the impact would be far smaller than you imagine - existing chips won't suddenly disappear, or stop working.

It would be bad, but it wouldn't be the end of the world, or even the end of civilisation as we know it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It would take us 10 years to replicate the chip production that comes from Taiwan. We'd be in the dark ages.

I suspect that it would take a tiny fraction of that time (it's amazing how quickly stuff gets done when the incentive is sufficiently large - look at all the technology that went from literally zero, to widespread use, in the few short years of WWII), and that the impact would be far smaller than you imagine - existing chips won't suddenly disappear, or stop working.

It would be bad, but it wouldn't be the end of the world, or even the end of civilisation as we know it.

Chip fabricators are billion-dollar pieces of equipment with long lead times.

 

[ZiprHead]

Chip fabricators are billion-dollar pieces of equipment with long lead times.

$150 to $200 million.

 

[bilby]

It would take us 10 years to replicate the chip production that comes from Taiwan. We'd be in the dark ages.

I suspect that it would take a tiny fraction of that time (it's amazing how quickly stuff gets done when the incentive is sufficiently large - look at all the technology that went from literally zero, to widespread use, in the few short years of WWII), and that the impact would be far smaller than you imagine - existing chips won't suddenly disappear, or stop working.

It would be bad, but it wouldn't be the end of the world, or even the end of civilisation as we know it.

Chip fabricators are billion-dollar pieces of equipment with long lead times.

Sure. But making chips is an existing technology, which we know how to do, and we know that it is, in fact, possible.

The Manhattan Project achieved something more technically difficult, starting from a point where it wasn't at all certain that it was even possible to do, in less than half a decade.

I can't see how it would take ten long years to establish a US chip fabrication facility, if the absence of such a facility was an existential threat to the USA.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Engineer shortage may harm US plan to turn Vietnam into chips powerhouse

A chronic shortage of engineers in Vietnam is emerging as a major challenge to the growth of its semiconductor industry and to U.S. plans of fast-tracking the Southeast Asian nation as a chips hub to hedge against China-related supply risks.

www.reuters.com

 

[barbos]

Pointing out that China has a culture of corruption is in no way a rebuttal to my point.

It absolutely IS rebuttal. Why western ways should be considered as the only correct ones?
Hell, you not only have corruption, you legalized it.

 

[barbos]

Observation: Many people are unwilling to talk about any subject matter that might be politically sensitive.

Chinese are really indifferent to politics, add the fact
that CCP brought their population out of abject poverty and you will understand why they don't want to listen to your sermons.
Western propaganda likes to take some crazy idiots and make dissidents out of them in order to paint completely distorted picture about level of dissent.

You have no idea of the situation. I'm talking about suddenly changing the topic when I gave an answer to one of their questions that didn't match up with Beijing.

Yes, you relatives are afraid that you report them to chinese government.

Look, chinese and asian cultures are really weird, that's just a fact. So stop interpreting it through your very self-aggrandizing american culture. You don't have universal health care for fuck's sake. And gun laws, and education. You ARE weird too.

 

[ZiprHead]

Pointing out that China has a culture of corruption is in no way a rebuttal to my point.

It absolutely IS rebuttal. Why western ways should be considered as the only correct ones?
Hell, you not only have corruption, you legalized it.

Wow! I finally agree with Barbos!

 

[barbos]

I finally agree with Barbos!

Good for you.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

"Slavery" in China vs. Slavery in the U.S. South

Nothing of this is improved by means of sanctions, boycotts, and embargoes, but is only made worse. China is less repressive today than it was 60 years ago before trade was opened between China and the West.

I seriously doubt Tibetans or Uighur agree.

Maybe the precise level of "slavery" is the same today. However, the living standard of everyone in China is higher today than 60 years ago as a result of trade with the West, and so trade with the U.S. has made everyone in China better off, including any "slave" workers there, of any nationality or culture or religion. (And has also made all Americans better off.)

What's the evidence that Tibetans and Uighurs today are any worse off than they were before 1970? or any worse off than the average Africans today? or most other poor populations? Haitians? Vietnamese? Cambodians? Bangladeshis?

If the U.S must impose boycotts and sanctions and embargoes everywhere in the world where people are mistreated -- "oppressed" or "enslaved" or denied "human rights," then where is trade not to be sanctioned?

Nothing about trading with China makes anyone in China worse off. The real reason for China sanctions is China hate, because China is a competitor. And the ones who are hated are not the rulers of China, but the Chinese wage-earners who are willing to work for lower wages than U.S. workers, which makes them scum and enemies of uncompetitive whining American workers who can't stand to have anyone in the world do the same job at lower cost. The China-bashing by Biden and Trump is done to pander to these crybaby American workers who want to hear that their Demagogue Leader will protect them against cheap labor from China.


Are the Uighurs "slaves"? What is "slavery"?

Slavery in the U. S. Confederate States
vs.
"Slavery" in China today
​

Refer to Uyghurs, Tibet, Hong Kong, and the South China Sea.

Regarding Uyghurs, the whole thing is a complete fabrication and western provocation.

China is authoritarian state, that's true. But 99.9% Chinese are fine with it.

I don't think so. The information comes out of China, including examples of those who were disadvantaged by it.

There are advantages and disadvantages happening every day, in the freest of countries.

There is some kind of consensus, worldwide, that "slavery" is criminal and not to be tolerated, but not "authoritarianism" such as in China and many countries. "Democracy" has not been agreed to universally, and also not "capitalism," even though almost every country practices it by trading and allowing the market. Has "Freedom" been universally agreed to? Maybe not, but universally, worldwide everyone condemns SLAVERY -- one universal value agreed to by all, though a negative: Thou shalt not.

Yet most Chinese probably are fine with the treatment of the Uyghurs and Tibetans (which is more a form of racism than slavery).

There's one major difference between real Slavery and the "slavery" in China, or rather, between the kind of historical SLAVERY in the U.S. South and todays "SLAVERY" in China:

Private ownership of slaves was not the same as today's "slavery" in China. Private ownership of slaves was the general form of slavery which was abolished by the U.S. Civil War, but not public "slavery" such as in many countries still today. This public "ownership" of humans is still practiced -- though maybe it's not "ownership" per se, but it's still INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE to the state, which is accepted throughout the world.

Several countries still practice military conscription, which is involuntary servitude. Even in the U.S. it was practiced during the Viet Nam War, before being ended. And this has not been totally abolished in the U.S. even though there is only Selective Service registration still remaining. But theoretically the Draft could be reinstated if there should be a need for it.

What China is doing today is not the same kind of slavery that was abolished in the U.S. by the Emancipation Proclamation. Or the kind abolished in Russia at about the same time, or by most of Europe earlier, or the kind practiced in the Roman Empire or in Athens. It's that private ownership of slaves which was abolished, but not public involuntary servitude.

Different countries still practice public involuntary servitude in different forms. And probably there is no way to abolish this kind of "slavery" -- it would not be practical.



What the U.S. really hates about China is not its oppression or "slave" labor, but the fact that China is the 2nd most powerful country in the world and thus is a competitor to the U.S. And for that reason we must hate it -- and everything Chinese. There are other countries doing worse evils than China, in terms of "slavery" and oppression of their population. But since they are so much smaller and weaker, we don't hate them, and so we overlook their "slavery" and other evils.

If it were not the Uyghurs, Tibetans, we'd find some other excuse for hating China.

 

[Patooka]

Typical American, Lumpy. Has to try and make everything about them...

"We talkin' about Chyyyyna? Well allow me to clumsily do a shitty comparison between Chyyyna and the Confederacy!"

 

[TV and credit cards]

Maybe the precise level of "slavery" is the same today. However, the living standard of everyone in China is higher today than 60 years ago as a result of trade with the West, and so trade with the U.S. has made everyone in China better off, including any "slave" workers there, of any nationality or culture or religion. (And has also made all Americans better off.)

What's the evidence that Tibetans and Uighurs today are any worse off than they were before 1970? or any worse off than the average Africans today? or most other poor populations? Haitians? Vietnamese? Cambodians? Bangladeshis?

Is this some "rising tide lifts all boats" bullshit?
It doesn't work for the galley slaves.

They are better off? By what standard? One put forth by Uighurs? No. By your standard. One that puts material possessions and personal comfort above all else. But this is hardly compensation for having your culture, community, identity discriminated against, attacked, imprisoned, disappeared, worked to death, and ultimately destroyed by a dominate ethnic group.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Maybe the precise level of "slavery" is the same today. However, the living standard of everyone in China is higher today than 60 years ago as a result of trade with the West, and so trade with the U.S. has made everyone in China better off, including any "slave" workers there, of any nationality or culture or religion. (And has also made all Americans better off.)

A rising tide doesn't lift a boat tied to the seabed.

What's the evidence that Tibetans and Uighurs today are any worse off than they were before 1970? or any worse off than the average Africans today? or most other poor populations? Haitians? Vietnamese? Cambodians? Bangladeshis?

1) Why are you comparing them to other populations?

2) Why 1970?

3) "Evidence": I love mountains (even though I won't consider climbing anything that's not just a walk-up), Tibet is a place I would like to visit. I'm sure my wife would go for some of the ancient temples, also. (She likes ancient buildings that are still in good shape--even though obviously they are renovated to approximate what they were like back then.) At the time of year we typically visit a trip to Tibet is unlikely to be permitted. Even when trips are permitted an escort is required for pretty much everything other than Lhasa. That's making sure the truth doesn't get out. The existence of such escorts makes it pretty clear there's stuff they feel the need to hide. (Note that this is different than what Nepal has recently done with mandating local guides for hikers. That's a combination of a tax and that they don't like the bad publicity when people go where they shouldn't and die. It's shielding people from the wilderness, not shielding them from the locals.)

4) Evidence: The security procedures for visiting Uyghur territory are too intrusive for my taste--and as a foreigner they aren't nearly as onerous as for the locals. Again, why the precautions if they aren't hiding anything? If I were to visit I would assume my hardware was compromised.

Nothing about trading with China makes anyone in China worse off. The real reason for China sanctions is China hate, because China is a competitor. And the ones who are hated are not the rulers of China, but the Chinese wage-earners who are willing to work for lower wages than U.S. workers, which makes them scum and enemies of uncompetitive whining American workers who can't stand to have anyone in the world do the same job at lower cost. The China-bashing by Biden and Trump is done to pander to these crybaby American workers who want to hear that their Demagogue Leader will protect them against cheap labor from China.

It's not just hate. It's that the US government quite rightly does not want hardware made under the auspices of Chinese State Security used in sensitive systems. And there have been sanctions because Chinese companies sold products with US-made parts to countries we don't want getting those parts despite agreeing not to.

Are the Uighurs "slaves"? What is "slavery"?

Most are not slaves, but the ones in the reeducation camps are. And that's been estimated at a million+.

Yet most Chinese probably are fine with the treatment of the Uyghurs and Tibetans (which is more a form of racism than slavery).

Agreed that there is major racism over there. We have had a relative of hers concerned about our plans to visit a part of China where the Han do not dominate. (Really, now, in a tourist-driven area you don't do serious things to tourists without a major police response!) Most of the people are fine with it because they don't realize what's going on and it's not "their" people anyway. That's like saying that Confederate slavery was ok because most whites were fine with it.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Xenophobia, China-Bashing, Hate, Crybaby Economics
vs. trade

Maybe the precise level of "slavery" is the same today. However, the living standard of everyone in China is higher today than 60 years ago as a result of trade with the West, and so trade with the U.S. has made everyone in China better off, including any "slave" workers there, of any nationality or culture or religion. (And has also made all Americans better off.)

What's the evidence that Tibetans and Uighurs today are any worse off than they were before 1970? or any worse off than the average Africans today? or most other poor populations? Haitians? Vietnamese? Cambodians? Bangladeshis?

Is this some "rising tide lifts all boats" bullshit?

No, it's not about populist metaphors and slogans for the mindless masses. It's about the Law of Supply-and-Demand, about specialization and competition -- the real tangible world where everyone struggles to survive.

It doesn't work for the galley slaves.

Yes it does. More trade works for everyone, including the "galley slaves." This is about the benefits of trading with China vs. boycotts and trade barriers. More trade benefits all, including even ethnic minorities in China. Whereas boycotts and embargoes make everyone worse off.

They are better off? By what standard?

By the same standard which says Cubans are worse off, not better, as a result of the Cuban Embargo -- the same standard which says the U.S. (and other developed countries) are better off than the poor countries, i.e., that a high living standard is better than poverty. Basic bread-and-butter economics.

One put forth by Uighurs?

They are better off, as everyone in China is, as a result of more trade. Is there a School of Uighur Economics showing that the law of supply-and-demand is different for Uighurs?

No. By your standard. One that puts material possessions and personal comfort above all else.

translation: it's true that measured by material benefit and comfort the population in China is better off as a result of trade with the West -- including the Uighurs. And we only make them worse off materially by slapping on punishments like trade barriers against China. So we agree that more trade, not less, improves the material benefits to them, while at the same time it may be that some anti-Capitalist Mystics -- who turned on, tuned in, and dropped out -- have condemned capitalism for its emphasis on material benefit.

But this is hardly compensation for having your culture, community, identity discriminated against, attacked, imprisoned, disappeared, worked to death, and ultimately destroyed by a dominate ethnic group.

Trading with China causes none of this. How do you figure that somehow all evils are eliminated by trade barriers, boycotts, embargoes? Do you imagine that cutting off trade also cures cancer? puts an end to wars? raises the average I.Q.? increases life expectancy?

Trading with someone doesn't mean endorsing or propping up all the evils which might be going on in that other country. There's no reason to think that preaching at them and threatening to not trade with them leads to people being made better off, or that it enlightens evil-doers so they convert and everyone lives happily ever after.

The real reason for the China-bashing is to provide excuses why higher-paid American workers should not have to compete with the hated cheap labor Chinese workers who are "stealin' our jobs" -- which is the real Chinese threat, for which we need Trump's China-bashing hot air and other populist demagogues (Red and Blue) to pander to the mindless masses, to tell them the lies and scapegoating they want to hear to make them feel better -- rather than telling them the truth that they need to improve their performance, or compete better, if they expect the system to reward them better.

E.g., they need to hear more of Hillary Clinton's bad news that we need to eliminate coal-miner jobs -- which likely cost her the election.

 

[ZiprHead]

E.g., they need to hear more of Hillary Clinton's bad news that we need to eliminate coal-miner jobs -- which likely cost her the election.

What color is the sky on your planet?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Real Slavery vs. Modern "Slavery" in China &
Net Benefit of Today's China Trade

Maybe the precise level of "slavery" is the same today. However, the living standard of everyone in China is higher today than 60 years ago as a result of trade with the West, and so trade with the U.S. has made everyone in China better off, including any "slave" workers there, of any nationality or culture or religion. (And has also made all Americans better off.)

A rising tide doesn't lift a boat tied to the seabed.

What "rising tide"? Once you concede that the rising tide happens, you also concede the possibility of the boats being unfastened from the seabed. Untying a boat from the seabed is an easier feat to accomplish than causing the tide to rise.

(Is this poetry & metaphors contest really necessary?)

What's the evidence that Tibetans and Uighurs today are any worse off than they were before 1970? or any worse off than the average Africans today? or most other poor populations? Haitians? Vietnamese? Cambodians? Bangladeshis?

1) Why are you comparing them to other populations?

It's all relative. How bad off are they? compared to whom? Aren't there many other oppressed populations? Should we boycott every country in the world which has an oppressed minority group in it? Almost every poor country is doing something oppressive toward someone in the population. E.g., many migrants to the U.S. from Central America where they were mistreated.

2) Why 1970?

Back before China trade. Maybe change the exact year. At some point back there we began a significant increase in trade with China. And all the economies improved as a result of that increased trade, both in China and the West. Where's the evidence that conditions for Uighurs and Tibetans got worse since then because of that increased trade? How is trading with them to blame, or how did this trade somehow cause those populations to suffer some setback different than before? making them worse off than they would have been otherwise?

3) "Evidence": I love mountains (even though I won't consider climbing anything that's not just a walk-up), Tibet is a place I would like to visit. I'm sure my wife would go for some of the ancient temples, also. (She likes ancient buildings that are still in good shape -- even though obviously they are renovated to approximate what they were like back then.) At the time of year we typically visit a trip to Tibet is unlikely to be permitted. Even when trips are permitted an escort is required for pretty much everything other than Lhasa. That's making sure the truth doesn't get out.

Whatever this horrible "truth" is -- crimes against Tibetans etc. -- what does it have to do with trade with the U.S. or other western countries? How is this trading to blame for it? How is this evil magically cured by means of boycotts and embargoes and punitive trade barriers?

The existence of such escorts makes it pretty clear there's stuff they feel they need to hide. (Note that this is different than what Nepal has recently done with mandating local guides for hikers. That's a combination of a tax and that they don't like the bad publicity when people go where they shouldn't and die. It's shielding people from the wilderness, not shielding them from the locals.)

More trade with a country serves to increase the openness, increase the contact with the outside, expose both populations to more knowledge of those from other cultures than their own. If anything happened that cut off contact and information, it could not have been an increase in trade with the West. As more trade is encouraged, there's also increased business and profits for both the populations. This encourages incentives to increasing the information and knowledge to locals and outsiders. Blaming those who invest and expand their business to new markets, hating them for wanting to make more profit, is not based on a concern to improve people's lives, but on hating the capitalists per se, and scapegoating them because of ideological prejudice.

4) Evidence: The security procedures for visiting Uyghur territory are too intrusive for my taste -- and as a foreigner they aren't nearly as onerous as for the locals. Again, why the precautions if they aren't hiding anything?

So we need boycotts and embargoes and sanctions against anyone in the world who is "hiding" something? How does that make anyone better off? or reduce their instinct to hide something? Is this punishment of them going to change them, or expose/thwart some insidious Conspiracy going on there which threatens our survival?

In general, more trading between cultures leads to increased knowledge between them, and improved interactions and reduction of the barriers. The pro-democracy movement in China was partly inspired by the increased trade with the West, happening when "precautions" against people, suppressing human rights was the worst ever.

If I were to visit I would assume my hardware was compromised.

Whatever this refers to, how is it somehow corrected by imposing boycotts, embargoes, sanctions onto trade going on there? Is anything suspicious going on made 10 times worse because it's happening in China? What if it's in India instead? Hasn't India done some underhanded insidious acts against Sikhs? If you visit some Sikh friends in India, should you assume the government there spies on you, hacks your devices, infects your computer with malware? The government of India hates the Sikhs, conspires against them and even murders some of them.

Nothing about trading with China makes anyone in China worse off. The real reason for China sanctions is China hate, because China is a competitor. And the ones who are hated are not the rulers of China, but the Chinese wage-earners who are willing to work for lower wages than U.S. workers, which makes them scum and enemies of uncompetitive whining American workers who can't stand to have anyone in the world do the same job at lower cost. The China-bashing by Biden and Trump is done to pander to these crybaby American workers who want to hear that their Demagogue Leader will protect them against cheap labor from China.

It's not just hate. It's that the US government quite rightly does not want hardware made under the auspices of Chinese State Security used in sensitive systems. And there have been sanctions because Chinese companies sold products with US-made parts to countries we don't want getting those parts despite agreeing not to.

99% of the China-bashers in the U.S. don't have a clue about some US-made parts China sold despite promising not to. They like to hear such paranoia, but such claims are not why they hate China. Rather, it's because they already hate China that they want to hear any China-bashing talking points, and why they vote for China-bashers Biden and Trump etc.

Why do we want someone not to get those parts and yet it's OK for China to get them? If China is our main Bad Guy, why do we approve of them getting the parts but make them promise not to sell them to another country which is not the bad guy?

Why should the average citizen or consumer care who has US-made parts? or whether China sells them to someone or made a promise not to sell them and then violated that promise?

It sounds like you're fishing around for some excuse to condemn China, to find some propaganda gossip to feed to China-bashers, to appease their appetite for China-bashing dirt.

Are the Uighurs "slaves"? What is "slavery"?

Most are not slaves, but the ones in the reeducation camps are. And that's been estimated at a million+.

About one out of a thousand (of the whole population of 1+ billion). ---- = .1%.

By comparison, the number of Americans drafted into military service during Viet Nam was more than 2 million, or 2/300 or so = about .5% to 1% of the U.S. population. .7 to .8%.

Which is worse? 1 or .5 percent of your population enslaved? (U.S.A.)? or

or .1% (one tenth of one percent) enslaved? (China)?

You could argue that this Chinese "slavery" is worse than the U.S. "slavery" of the draftees. But maybe not if you figure in the period before the "slavery" that was imposed onto these "slaves." Many of the U.S. "slaves" were taken out of college and other places where their lives were reasonably well off. What about those Uighurs taken away from their earlier lives of convenience and high living standard? hmmmm? Were they taken away from college and profitable careers into this "slavery"?

It matters how much worse off the "slaves" are made by the new "slavery" imposed onto them by the oppressive regime in power.

When you consider that the "slavery" you're preaching about began only with the advent of China trade with the West, not the earlier oppression during the Mao rule, it's hard to see that there really was any new "slavery" at all (after trade began). It looks like the same evils imposed onto the Uyghurs are no worse afterward, or today, than they were 50-100 years earlier. But even if we bend over backward to give some credibility to your argument and pretend that the "slavery" got worse since 1970 or so, how is it any worse than the U.S. "slavery" imposed onto 2+ million Americans (draftees) during the Viet Nam War, when their lives were disrupted and they were taken away to be made much worse off than they had been before? and the percentage of the U.S. population thrust into this "slavery" was ten times greater than that of the today's Uighurs enslaved by China? Of course you could argue that the term of "slavery" of the U.S. draftees was only 2 years. But still we're talking about 2 years of "slavery" -- right? So "slavery" is OK if it's only for 2 or 3 years?

And what about some historical cases of military conscription for much longer terms, even 20 years or longer? Should the U.S. and Europeans have imposed boycotts, embargoes, and trade sanctions against Russia forcing draftees to serve long terms to defend itself against Napoleon's Empire?

In all the modern examples, the only time trade penalties against a nation were successful was the case of South Africa, where the ruling White minority oppressed the Black majority. Let's assume this is the classic case for trade sanctions. The only reason this succeeded is that a large majority of nations cooperated with the boycott. All other cases have been failures, because there was not the needed cooperation from other nations to make it work.

If we apply the test of world democracy (among all nations), there is no case for China trade sanctions, as most countries want to trade with China, or oppose sanctions. If most nations come together to oppose China, arguably you could make a case for a global China boycott. But for the U.S. alone to lead the charge cannot work, anymore than it has worked in the case of Cuba.

Yet most Chinese probably are fine with the treatment of the Uyghurs and Tibetans (which is more a form of racism than slavery).

Agreed that there is major racism over there. We have had a relative of hers concerned about our plans to visit a part of China where the Han do not dominate. (Really, now, in a tourist-driven area you don't do serious things to tourists without a major police response!) Most of the people are fine with it because they don't realize what's going on and it's not "their" people anyway. That's like saying that Confederate slavery was ok because most whites were fine with it.

That "most whites were fine with it" is largely incorrect, or maybe only 50% correct. How can we describe this most accurately, in simple terms, without doubling this Wall of Text even longer? And how is the Chinese "slavery" of Uyghurs to be compared? Should the U.S. conduct a crusade against today's "slavery" of Uyghurs similar to the North's anti-slavery crusade against the South in the 1860s?

Rather than "most whites were fine with it," it's more correct to say that most Whites, both North and South, were apathetic about either preserving the South's slave culture or abolishing it. Most Whites were "fine" with staying out of the fight and letting the Abolitionists and pro-Slavery ideologues condemn each other.

However, the fact is that the Northern Abolitionist movement was very strong, though they were a minority of the population, whereas the South pro-Slavery crusade was very weak, because virtually no one was philosophically defending slavery. Rather, the South found other ways to oppose the North's Abolitionists' war against southern slavery. But the Northern Abolitionists won this debate decisively, and everyone, North and South, had to either admit that the Abolitionists were right, or they had to try to change the subject and find other arguments to fight back against the North (Abolitionists) who gradually won, especially persuading those in power to their side. So e.g. the North's cause at first was only to stop the spread of slavery to other states, but gradually changed to total Abolition in all the states. And the pro-slavery crusaders never seriously fought back against this. Even though they couldn't say so outright, they knew they were wrong and had to surrender by default.

So even the Southern Whites were not really "fine" with slavery. They fought back, but couldn't really articulate what they were fighting for, because hardly any of them really preached that Slavery was good for the country and for human society generally. Had they really been "fine" with it, they would have argued serious pro-slavery philosophy and economics.

Whereas in the North, even the majority of apathetic Whites were pressured by the minority Abolitionists who preached at them and virtually coerced them (with arguments) into supporting the Abolitionist cause. So the side that's right does win the war without the other side ever admitting they were wrong. Rather, they retreat and surrender by default.

How does this compare to the current "enslavement" of Uyghurs in China? This form of "slavery" is seen there as a social necessity/benefit similar to military conscription. It does not mean a Chinese citizen may purchase a Uyghur slave at a slave market and do anything they choose to this slave, on their personal property, plantation, etc. This private ownership of slaves by individual slave-owners is what was abolished in the U.S. and many other countries in the 19th century. But the practice of governments conscripting private persons into national service was not abolished.

The need for such government conscription of private individuals to serve a national purpose is something which differs greatly from one nation to another. A poor country with a huge population might more likely engage in this kind of "slavery" than a smaller and richer nation which is less desperate. The luxury of not needing to conscript private citizens is one of the benefits of the modern world, due to progress in science and technology and resulting economic improvements. But some forms of conscription -- like mandatory education of children -- are still practiced, and this is promoted by a very strong segment of society, even if a minority, whereas hardly anyone carries on a serious crusade against mandatory education.

So we should stop pretending that China's conscription of Uyghurs is the same as "slavery" which was officially abolished before 1900. The extreme evils of slavery were those of the private plantations, in both recent and ancient times, and cannot be honestly equated to the cases of modern states engaging in conscription of private persons, even though these in some cases might cause more damage than benefit.

The likely injury caused to the victim(s), or the net harm, is greatly multiplied when the decision-maker is one private property owner with virtual unlimited license to inflict anything he chooses onto victims -- vs. the state under power of several public officials who make the decisions how the victims are to be treated. It should be obvious that these 2 kinds of "slavery" are not equivalent evils.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

E.g., they need to hear more of Hillary Clinton's bad news that we need to eliminate coal-miner jobs -- which likely cost her the election.

What color is the sky on your planet?

translation: Hillary Clinton never gave any speeches in West Virginia, was never listened to by union workers, especially coal miners, was supported 100% by all the labor unions, and never said anything about doing a transition away from fossil fuels to non-carbon energy production.



". . . we're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business . . ."

 

[bilby]

2) Why 1970?

Back before China trade. Maybe change the exact year. At some point back there we began a significant increase in trade with China

I presume you are not referring to the Opium Wars?