if you have nothing substantive to contribute other than parroting and puffing your own intestinal gas, the last thing you want to do to pretend that you are well learnt and intelligent because it will only make you that much more hollow intellectually speaking.
Give me a freak break, protecting IP just like national security is no more than just an excuse for US to disguise its own failures and as bargaining chips to gain advantages in negotiating with China.
I will just respond to your gripe just once. I can read and write (somewhat). But, I do not know how to type Chinese. I came to this country in my formative years. With that said, I thought this place is for all to voice their substantive opinions, but not as your kinds to pop empty rants.
匡吉 發表評論於 2019-04-22 19:25:51
Fair? You got to be kidding me, right? Americans cannot even agree with themselves what fairness means. It is even more so in among nations regarding to commercial interests. What is even worse that this definition of fairness is constantly shifting with time for US. According to WTO, it recognizes that developed nations with its mature industries have natural advantages over the infant industries of the developing nations. Therefore, it allows limited measures by the developing nations to protect its infant industries. All industrialized nations including US had in their past done exactly the same thing while they were in developing stage. It was with this assumptions in mind that both US and China entered negotiation for China to join WTO. At 2001 when the deal was struck, US thought it was fair deal because it believed its competitive edge would allow its industries to exploit the Chinese market. When Donald Trump cried unfairness of the deal, it was no more than a partisan politic to offer excuses for its own failures. It was like that you agreed to buy a house ten years ago with a mutually agreed price and your own belief that this house would go up in value with time. Ten years later, maybe it is due to your own mismanagement or neighborhood deterioration, your house value went down. Now, you are arguing that the house price you paid for was not a fair deal and demand that your monthly mortgage should be cut to suit your definition fairness. Do you think that is fair? To you maybe, but not to the seller and the bank.
老農民說兩句 發表評論於 2019-04-22 12:19:39
You have just highlighted one of the major shortcomings of a democracy. You know such a way cannot solve the problems and it can only aggravate the problems, but you have to do it because you are a politician and your job depends not on how well you can run the country in the long run but on how well you can satisfy the immediate desires of a bunch of short sighted and ignorant voters, who in frustrations mostly resort to their raw animalistic but often times faulty instincts rather than well analyzed rationale.
You seem to be just another economic illiterate. The initial impulses for US to move its manufactures to China came from at least two considerations: first, to lower the production cost and second, to position themselves to take advantage of the growing domestic market on China(its consumer markets is fast surpassing that of the US). There are already scores of US companies today heavily depending on China's market for its own revenue growth. Moving the manufactures out of China did not necessarily lower the production cost, most of them do not. In addition, it will put themselves out of the main loop of China's consumer market in the long run.
I suggest you to push further into the secondary effects of the heightening of prices of goods without corresponding heightening of economic activities. It will introduce higher inflation(the CPI) causing the inflation biased fed to increase the interest rate in an effort to stamp out the inflationary pressure and consequently slowing the general economic activities. At the end, governmental income from taxation will be correspondingly reduced and so will increase of the government spending deficits. At the end, it will further deepen the already heightened social and economic polarization.