I shouldn't be commenting this deep into flame but...
That's a demonization argument. If anything china-related is bad ipso facto, then I suppose discussion ends where it starts. What comes after "tyrannical, genocidal, geopolitical rival" in a sentence doesn't matter.
If talking IP/Patents... I think the american position is somewhat blind. Consider:
(1) Patents are a recent invention, not a longstanding or inevitable institution
(2) There are some decent (IMO) arguments for patents being bad in general, economically, technologically and morally.
(3) China has been forced to adopt this "western" patent system, under which it owns almost no patents. They play very loose with the rules, but they still exist within that legal framework.
The US' no. 1 priority in trade deals and foreign policy generally was and remains patent enforcement, US-like contract enforcement and other commercial law stuff... "Governance" is the categorical euphemism. The US is as serious about this stuff as China is about Taiwan. China, and almost every other country abides it, whether or not it's compatible with their interest, values, etc.
(4) Those American companies made those investments, and have enjoyed the returns. They knew the rules going in and chose to comply over decades. Are they US companies? Aren't they "global companies?" That's the approach the US itself has been evangelising for 40 years.
Is the "fair" scenario you imagine a world where US companies produce their products in china, without local technology transfers and spin off industries? That's total nonsense, and outside the (advisable) scope of a legal system to enforce. US companies take the lion's share of profits, offloading the high turnover, low margin sectors... Like the Apple/Foxconn thing. Well... everything has consequences.
You really imagine a world where china builds all the vacuum cleaners, but can't build vacuum cleaners by itself?
Exactly, our patent system is causing innovation in the US to happen on a cycle similar to the life of the patents themselves. Things don't progress until the patents expire and other companies can copy them (see also, the segway mess, electric unicycles, onewheels, or... vacuums).
It isn't at all obvious that patents are more helpful than harmful in this space.
China is a totalitarian state—the Chinese government can coerce its corporations to take any action for any reason at any time. If the Chinese government is an enemy of the US, and Chinese companies function as an extension of their country's government, then we must treat those companies as enemies. The people who work in those corporations are mostly average Joes like you and I, but the CCP can harvest their organs at any time, so we are forced to be wary.
>That's a demonization argument. If anything china-related is bad ipso facto, then I suppose discussion ends where it starts. What comes after "tyrannical, genocidal, geopolitical rival" in a sentence doesn't matter.
Yes, we shouldn't be supporting China in any way. They are an enemy and don't share our values, and it's an unfortunate consequence of poor policy that we do business with them at all.
That's a demonization argument. If anything china-related is bad ipso facto, then I suppose discussion ends where it starts. What comes after "tyrannical, genocidal, geopolitical rival" in a sentence doesn't matter.
If talking IP/Patents... I think the american position is somewhat blind. Consider:
(1) Patents are a recent invention, not a longstanding or inevitable institution
(2) There are some decent (IMO) arguments for patents being bad in general, economically, technologically and morally.
(3) China has been forced to adopt this "western" patent system, under which it owns almost no patents. They play very loose with the rules, but they still exist within that legal framework.
The US' no. 1 priority in trade deals and foreign policy generally was and remains patent enforcement, US-like contract enforcement and other commercial law stuff... "Governance" is the categorical euphemism. The US is as serious about this stuff as China is about Taiwan. China, and almost every other country abides it, whether or not it's compatible with their interest, values, etc.
(4) Those American companies made those investments, and have enjoyed the returns. They knew the rules going in and chose to comply over decades. Are they US companies? Aren't they "global companies?" That's the approach the US itself has been evangelising for 40 years.
Is the "fair" scenario you imagine a world where US companies produce their products in china, without local technology transfers and spin off industries? That's total nonsense, and outside the (advisable) scope of a legal system to enforce. US companies take the lion's share of profits, offloading the high turnover, low margin sectors... Like the Apple/Foxconn thing. Well... everything has consequences.
You really imagine a world where china builds all the vacuum cleaners, but can't build vacuum cleaners by itself?