The fundamental issues surrounding China 2025 which has prompted
a shift in trade posture between the United States and China affect
every other developed manufacturing nation in the world. Including
Germany and the rest of the EU Nations.
Just because the EU has not gotten publicly involved does not mean that
they are not involved privatively in negotiations. Europe along with Japan,
Korea etc have the luxury to stay quiet because the US is taking
a very public and direct strategy.
The US is the only Nation that can take that very public role.
Nothing wrong with the goal of advancing ones local industries. Competition is good, but only if it's fair.
China uses and copies a lot of western technologies yet puts a lot of restrictions on western countries that want to do business in China. To get access to their huge market certain businesses are required to share their intellectual properties with the Chinese. Is that fair? Kawasaki Heavy Industries shared their technology and now the Chinese get more contracts to build trains than they do.
Facebook is banned, Wikipedia is blocked, and Google was kicked out some years ago. Nortel networks collapsed because it is alleged that Chinese hackers stole their IP which was used by Huawei to reach its present heights. I don't consider American governments as saints but regarding China's practices I am not surprised America is acting the way it is.
I always assumed the NSA only did industrial espionage for the defense sector.. but it would make sense for them to steal e.g. foundry processes to hand to Intel. How's the hand-off work? How do they keep the (Chinese-American) engineers from realizing where the ideas come from?
It makes strategic sense to do industrial espionage but there's so many ways it can go wrong.
I don't know how they'd proceed after exfil, but I'm sure we can come up with lots of interesting ways to hide the origin of tech/IP.
Snowden mentioned more on NSA industrial espionage in an interview with German state-owned TV, but they didn't provide a lot of details. There was also quite a bit on NSA operations spying on all French companies that are active in IT/telecommunications, energy/power, natural resources, logistics, health care/biotech etc, so pretty much anything but how to make baguettes.
The issue is certainly not that China wants to advance there local industries.
The US has spent the last 40 years+ helping china develop its industry and
technology.
The Issue is that China was obligated to develop reciprocal free trade like the rest of the
WTO members. Over the last 20 years they have been moving farther away from
that into a state socialist mercantilist expansionist power.
A few of the issues includes the Theft of intellectual property,
Industrial espionage, Lack of market access and state monopoly domination of
there internal markets. Dumping of steel and other commodities. Currency manipulation, etc.
there is a very long list.
the EU has had been putting tariffs on Chinese steel for years due to aggressive
dumping of steel which has harmed EU industry and distorted prices.
I think that this confrontation has been building for a long time. and now there
is a consensus, a global consensus among the liberal democracies including the EU members that China 2025 is step to far away from the normalized reciprocal free trade system.
The US has pretty much withdrawn from all international organizations (or is simply ignoring them, see WTO). The US is not abiding by any international order.
The US is economically terrorizing the world by aggressively pushing the dominance of the US dollar. It has (successfully, to date) prevented the Iranian Oil Bourse (in €, 2008).
It interferes in the sovereignty of nations: for example, it has enforced the Iran embargo (against the will of the EU, which has been powerless to prevent it).
The world trade order is tilted in favor of the US, as are IP rules (favoring the incumbent power, with a head start of several decades), making the rest of the world subservient to the US, and forcing us to finance the life style of a minority of the planet's population (to be correct: to finance the lifestyle of a very small minority of the US population, since lots of Americans are also struggling)
The US has built its industrial and technological supremacy by industrial espionage during the late 19th and early 20th century, from the leading powers of the time (Europe).
The US has engaged in price dumping of agricultural products for ages, by illegally subsidizing farmers.
The US has interfered militarily, politically and economically around the world, often with devastating consequences in terms of life and property, creating power vacuums which have caused catastrophic consequences.
This is going on as we speak. The list is very long too.
I for one support the Chinese in this conflict, if for nothing else, simply for the possibility of putting some restraint on the out-of-control Hegemon.
I understand that US citizens will be siding with the US president on this one, and you may even feel you are being fair here.
You are not, and the rest of the world is pretty much not in agreement with the US.
> The world trade order is tilted in favor of the US, as are IP rules (favoring the incumbent power,
with a head start of several decades).
This is not a US only issue.
the only incentive to create IP whether its scientific, technology, or the arts is that the creator
can monetize there creation through copyright, patents etc. IP is the foundation of growth for this
century for the entire industrialized world. I doubt the EU or anyone else supports Chinas
IP theft, it has ill effects on all IP holders including EU companies.
> I for one support the Chinese in this conflict, if for nothing else, simply for the
possibility of putting some restraint on the out-of-control Hegemon.
your entitled to your opinion. but I don't support the tariffs and other measures because I support the
President of the US. I think the strategy behind China 2025 if implemented would lead to a destabilization of the global economy. that could very quickly lead to a serious war.
> You are not, and the rest of the world is pretty much not in agreement with the US
On some of your points Iran etc, sure there is a lot of the world that disagrees with the US position.
including many US citizens. but on the issues of China's trade abuses and the Huawei ban I think most of the the world including those in the EU, UK, Japan etc, want to see China move away from there current ambitions.
There are a number of IP rights which have dubious value, century long copyright is one, software patents are another. They do benefit the Americans because they were the first movers in terms of Hollywood and the software industry, but these rights do nothing to advance innovation, yet the United States continues to push them on other countries via trade treaties.
When a country infamous for its theft of intellectual property declares its intention to usurp the dominant power in key technology and manufacturing insustries within six years, that's an issue for the incumbent.
Why would any leading power allow another to take its throne, especially through cheating?
The have the right to try, of course, but it would be irrational to aid and abet them.
If you look at US demands in this trade war, they amount to 'play fairly and openly'.
thats a good summation, it's important to note that the "Made in China 2025" is the explicit
Official policy issued by Chinese Premier Li Keqiang. So this is not interpretation or exaggeration.
The official policy of The Peoples Republic of China is to raise the domestic sourcing of essentially all high-tech high-value goods to 75% domestic production. And also export these goods into other markets.
They may not state it publicly but I think all the industrialied producer economies Fron the US to Europe and Asia are scared to death of the implications China 2025 has for there own high-tech high-value industries.
Commercial farms generally have some form of Crop insurance along with equipment
insurance etc.
I don't think very small one man farms that sell directly at farmers markets are
eligible for most of the programs. But most of those people grow in residential
areas not properly zoned for agriculture.
Vertical could be interesting to try in those micro backyard farms.
The idea of 'Over representation' of a certain racial group based on there
percentage of the population is entirely subjective and racist.
At Cal Tech Asians are roughly 50% of students. Cal Tech does not consider race in admissions. Those students rightfully earned there places base on merit and objective criteria.
To make the suggestion that they should be systematically denied those positions because of there race and percentage of population is regressive. Who gets to decide what percentage of what race is a good percentage?
Harvard is desperately trying to cover there criteria because it more then likely runs contrary to the 1964 Civil Rights Act and they are going to louse this law suite if it goes to trial.
Lets see the exact formula that Harvard is using for race vs percentage of the population so we can apply the same formula to all races they admit. Lets compare European, Jewish, Asian student percentages based on the same formula.
I think that administration at Harvard is scared to death of that type of scrutiny but that is exactly what they are going to get. And it could seriously stigmatize the school for decades. And set some significant legal presented so Schools can not use these sort of
behind closed doors racist regressive policies any more.
I think this is going to be a watershed case that shows that race based
admissions and affirmative action programs no matter the intent are
socially and morally regressive. They inevitably lead to racist polices and
race based favoritism of one for or another.
"The court documents, filed in federal court in Boston, also showed that
Harvard conducted an internal investigation into its admissions policies in
2013 and found a bias against Asian-American applicants. But Harvard never
made the findings public or acted on them."
Harvard is being sued for racial discrimination against Asian Americans in
there admissions policies.
They created set of personality criteria for admissions. The criteria
was entirely subjective, things like 'positive personality', and 'likability'.
Then gave Asians consistently low scores on theses subjective criteria. And
then weighed the criteria high enough to knock them out of positions which
they would have otherwise qualified for if the admissions was based on standard
academic criteria.
Bias and racism is predictable when you choose to abandon Meritocracy based on
objective measurable criteria.
What sucks is that bias and racism is also baked into many “objective” criteria.
Take test scores - just having the right parents will push your sores up on average.
Having better performance regular ties into wealth and upbringing. No surprise then that the dominant economic group will hold an advantage is such tests.
The damned intertwined nature of all these issues is what makes it hard to set up an actual objective measure. Which then brings us back to subjective decision making.
I think this is the kind of mindset that is being challenged here.
You actually can set up objective criteria for entry to a college. That some groups perform better than others in no way means they are not objective.
The unwillingness to accept the possibility that objective criteria might not result in equal outcomes from all groups is the problem. The rabbit hole of "that can't be objective because it challenges my assumption that all groups would perform equally" only ends in bad places.
That's not the issue. The issue is that the objective for these schools is to have a diverse student body, not necessarily the "objectively best students based on the things we decide to measure."
Perhaps--but that wasn't the claim in the comment I was responding to.
And if that's the case, they should be comfortable saying openly that they're intentionally discriminating against Asian Americans for the good of the diversity of the student body.
Iirc the head of one of those schools has already said that they can fill their class up with valedictorians if they do choose.
If they followed the pure merit route it would be exactly like it is today in other countries - people would over prepare for the exams and entrance will depend on who got 0.05% more than another person.
That’s the main draw of the American system- these schools long ago saw that there would be a problem because of baked in bias and took steps to equalize it while keeping their own interests constant.
And let’s not ignore the raw ability of the people who are aiming for Harvard - if a candidate for
Harvard doesn’t get in, their safety school is still the first choice of a massive chunk of college applicants.m
Ps: in this sub thread I was not specifically talking about diversity; but it is an argument I do make and it is also a short throw from where my previous comment in this thread.
Its not objective criteria that is the problem. Its the interpretation and
misrepresentation by ideologues that is inadequate.
'just having the right parents will push your sores up on average'
That has little to do with the objectivity or subjectivity of the test. There
can be a wide variation of social development between racial groups, economic
classes, religious communities, geographic regions etc. Not to mention
individual IQ and ability.
A standardized test in say, mathematics is objective. The same tests that
demonstrate competency are administered all over the world in every
country and culture in the world. You can objectively determine the level of
ability of any given student regardless of race or culture.
To simply say that because disparity exist we should therefor abandon
standards and objective criteria in favor of a set of morphological
corrective fictions that look good on paper but do nothing to fix the
disparity is diminishing for everyone.
The problems are simply much harder and more complicated then peoples egos will
let them admit. Its very easy to propose a grand theory that fixes all the
problem of the world quickly and completely.
"Bias and racism is predictable when you choose to abandon Meritocracy based on objective measurable criteria."
Meritocracies aren't purely objective, either. Someone has to come up with the metrics, and someone has to decide whether someone meets those metrics. And not every metric that would be needed would be something that can be easily and objectively quantified.
The promise of a post industrial society was always that western countries would be able to have smaller families with more highly educated children who were more productive and innovative. Future generations could reduce resource usage but improve the standard of living given there continued scientific and educational progress.
Somewhere along the like that seems to have been thrown out the window and the idea of a 'consumer economy' took its place. Now we have a model of low education low wage consumers who keep the economy going by buying endless plastic junk. Perpetually distracted with entertainment and unhealthy unsustainable lifestyles.
Ok then, lets give Trump, the DOJ and Jeff Sessions the impetus to start drafting legislation to fight 'internet hate speech' and see what they come up with.
edit:
> That's a slippery slope argument
Its not. These discussions will be taken over by the political establishment and the courts very quickly with very real consequences.
This seems like a false equivalence to me, given that Google (et al) are not the government nor acting due to pressure from the government. I do understand and value the concern around legislating free speech, but I think different rules apply for governments and corporations.
It only takes one lawsuit that goes to the supreme court to turn this whole debate into a federal legislative debate about civil rights or some other expansive constitutional issue.
When your in a situation where domain registrars and other core infrastructure are making judgements about what political speech they will allow on the internet then I would imagine your very close to a whole host of issues that cut the core of fundamental rights. That's why CloudFlare is so skittish, they know where this could go.
Eventually this rough shot approach is going to hit someone with the resources to fight back. Lets imagine Breitbart gets nuked what then? It's only a matter of time before there is an incident like that. And when it happens its already to late to turn back.
Americans are legally armed and have the right to defend themselves under the constitution. This ideology that Antifa is going to use physical violence to stop people in America from exercising there constitutional rights to free speech is one of the most dangerous ideas I have seen in some time.
These people in Antifa are going to get themselves killed and the people who use deadly force to protect themselves will walk away with out any charges. Its a miracle that there has not been any deaths up to this point.
Just because the EU has not gotten publicly involved does not mean that they are not involved privatively in negotiations. Europe along with Japan, Korea etc have the luxury to stay quiet because the US is taking a very public and direct strategy.
The US is the only Nation that can take that very public role.