Next time someone on the right tries to claim Biden is soft on China bring up this little exchange

[fskimospy]

Economic efficiencies, from a national prospective, include the success of the labor force. Big business would like you to forget this, ofc. Lengthening the transition time would only have worked if the congress and administrations worked together to foster new industries as well as placing certain restrictions on existing countries. Austria puts a lot of national funds into pharmaceutical research. This is great for the pharmaceutical companies based there. The catch, if you develop a new drug therapy using technology from the national research base, you must manufacture the drug in Austria. The pharmaceutical companies lose some profits by producing in the very expensive Austrian labor market, but, they are able to develop cutting edge drugs at a much faster rate. Win-Win.

I think subsidizing research is different than trade protectionism. Investing money in something and demanding a return on that investment is fine, but trade barriers are for the most part just harming economic efficiency to prop up politically powerful people. I also think free trade should come with increased investment in the social safety net to cushion any harms inflicted on people in those legacy industries that can't compete without the government's help.

Generally though, we should just let firms compete. If your product is good, you don't need the government prohibiting your customers from buying anyone else's.

Well, Germany didn't care about it's trading partners in WWII. The Austro-Hungarian Empire considered a war's effect on Europe, but went forward anyway (starting with Serbia, IIRC). The Romans didn't give a damn how good another country or territory was as a trading partner. It's just too complex to rest any reasonable hopes on 'Trade'.

I strongly disagree! It doesn’t stop all wars, but it makes them less likely because again, it makes that war more costly. If you increase the cost, you decrease the frequency.

 

[rommelrommel]

I strongly disagree! It doesn’t stop all wars, but it makes them less likely because again, it makes that war more costly. If you increase the cost, you decrease the frequency.

Maybe, but it’s also making it harder to confront and defeat adversaries. The current Chinese regime needs defeated, and I’d rather it happens sooner than later.

 

[Brainonska511]

Maybe, but it’s also making it harder to confront and defeat adversaries. The current Chinese regime needs defeated, and I’d rather it happens sooner than later.

There was a trade and labor/environmental standards pact that would have united regional powers and smaller countries, to serve as a counterweight to China - that got thrown out the window in 2016/2017. Because of myopic decisions made then, we have a harder hill to climb and fewer tools to push back on China with.

 

[rommelrommel]

There was a trade and labor/environmental standards pact that would have united regional powers and smaller countries, to serve as a counterweight to China - that got thrown out the window in 2016/2017. Because of myopic decisions made then, we have a harder hill to climb and fewer tools to push back on China with.

TPP you mean right? Trump pulling out was very stupid, it was like he was incapable of understanding that it was actually a check on China.

 

[Brainonska511]

TPP you mean right? Trump pulling out was very stupid, it was like he was incapable of understanding that it was actually a check on China.

Yes. It didn't help that it was also being attacked from the left - a unified force of stupidity to quash the TPP.