6 ms·

Looks like it's to protect domestic Chinese films, as the 3-D version is still playing in theaters. Alternate point of view: "According to a report in the Hon

Looks like it's to protect domestic Chinese films, as the 3-D version is still playing in theaters. Alternate point of view: "According to a report in the Hong Kong newspaper Apple Daily, the move was made at the urging of propaganda officials who are concerned that "Avatar" is taking too much market share from Chinese films and drawing unwanted attention to the sensitive issue of forced evictions." Apparently only 20 foreign movies are allowed to be shown in Chinese theaters every year. Regardless of the reasons, it's still a very fenced-in society.

yummyfajitas 17y ago
Someone tell me again why we allow Chinese imports? We should seriously consider allowing only 20 kinds of Chinese-made consumer electronics into the US, and banning any model which gets popular enough to threaten non-Chinese manufacturers.
- dejb 17y ago
  > Someone tell me again why we allow Chinese imports? It's called freedom.
  - bjelkeman-again 17y ago
    ... and don't forget the greed. Looked at where stuff is made recently? I see a ton of stuff around me that comes directly from China. We like to buy stuff cheap from China, and we like to ignore the fact that China is not a free society. If we cared we would vote with our wallets, but we don't care. And in my opinion so don't a lot of Chinese (I didn't say all, or even most, but a lot) as long as it brings in the cash and the BMWs.
- maxklein 17y ago
  But...that's what THEY are doing. Do you not become the same when you do that?
  - yummyfajitas 17y ago
    If someone punches you and you punch them back, do you become the same as them? There is an important difference between starting a fight and finishing one.
    - ErrantX 17y ago
      > There is an important difference between starting a fight and finishing one. Not really. The difference is usually in how you do it.
  - pcc 17y ago
    Funny, when I read this initially my first thought was: it would be inconsistent for the US, as champion of the free market, to attempt to impose its will on a country such as China by itself acting contrary to free market principles. Then I remembered: the US has not had a problem doing just this with/to other countries before; for example South Africa. There were not only the apartheid-era sanctions; there have also been the post-apartheid era "negotiations" (for example, 'halt your satellite development program or we will oppose your entry to GATT'). It seems fair to say the US has used "steamroller" tactics like this before. So maybe the question should rather be: why is the US handling China differently?
    - DougWebb 17y ago
      A) We like the toys. B) We already get occasional shipping containers full of Chinese illegal aliens sneaking into the country. We don't want them to be armed and trained soldiers too.
- eru 17y ago
  Even if somebody else bangs their head against a wall, you do not magically become better off by banging your head against a wall. (See http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/negot.html http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/negot.html)
  - yummyfajitas 17y ago
    If another person starts banging their fist in your face, you do not magically become better if you start banging your fist in their face. In the short run your hand will hurt and it won't make your face better, but in the long run it might prevent them from continuing to bang their fist into your face. Similarly, in the short run, cutting off china will hurt economically (both our people and theirs). In the long run, if it causes them to open up, it will probably benefit us and their people (though not necessarily their leadership).
    - felixc 17y ago
      That plan (opening up society by economic isolation) didn't work particularly well for Cuba, Iran, North Korea, or any other embargoed country that I know of.
      - eru 17y ago
        "[And] as Frederic Bastiat put it, it makes no more sense to be protectionist because other countries have tariffs than it would to block up our harbors because other countries have rocky coasts."
        yummyfajitas 17y ago
        That's an excellent equilibrium analysis, and I completely agree with it. In the short run, treating protectionism as constant, retaliatory trade restrictions will harm the US as well as China. The only flaw in that reasoning is that it treats tariffs as being unchangeable. China and other countries have eliminated protectionist policies in response to retaliation. As far as I know, no coast has even become less rocky in response to a blockaded harbor.
- andreyf 17y ago
  Someone tell me again why we allow Chinese imports? Because if everyone responded to import quotas with import bans, we wouldn't have this nice world economy everyone's so fond of.
  - yummyfajitas 17y ago
    Because if everyone responded to import quotas with import bans... I proposed an import quota identical to the Chinese one, except that it only applies to China. If every country responded in kind, then no country would be doing what China is doing. (No one provoked China's bad behavior.) If every other country responded in kind only to the one country who is behaving badly, that single country would be isolated and might change their behavior.
    - andreyf 17y ago
      That works better in middle school than it does in macroeconomics. Each country has different economic needs - strict tit for tat won't necessarily lead to an optimum. Don't worry, America has its share of import quotas and tariffs, as well.
    - sounddust 17y ago
      If society reaches the point where all countries but one are aligned on the same principles, and only one country in the world is behaving badly, then I think your solution will work.
      - jpwagner 17y ago
        haha, well said
- padmanabhan01 17y ago
  Think about it. If Chinese Govt is willing to sell stuff to us dirt cheap by using dirt cheap labor, It is beneficial for us to buy them. It makes economic sense for us to buy something for less than what it's worth. We gain by doing so. The Chinese Govt gains too, by getting more than what they pay for the people. The real losers are those who work dirt cheap. So, end of the day, it's not our problem. If I can save 200 or 300 dollars on my iPhone because of them, I am glad.
albertcardona 17y ago
"...and drawing unwanted attention to the sensitive issue of forced evictions."

yummyfajitas 17y ago

Someone tell me again why we allow Chinese imports? We should seriously consider allowing only 20 kinds of Chinese-made consumer electronics into the US, and banning any model which gets popular enough to threaten non-Chinese manufacturers.

dejb 17y ago
> Someone tell me again why we allow Chinese imports? It's called freedom.
- bjelkeman-again 17y ago
  ... and don't forget the greed. Looked at where stuff is made recently? I see a ton of stuff around me that comes directly from China. We like to buy stuff cheap from China, and we like to ignore the fact that China is not a free society. If we cared we would vote with our wallets, but we don't care. And in my opinion so don't a lot of Chinese (I didn't say all, or even most, but a lot) as long as it brings in the cash and the BMWs.
maxklein 17y ago
But...that's what THEY are doing. Do you not become the same when you do that?
- yummyfajitas 17y ago
  If someone punches you and you punch them back, do you become the same as them? There is an important difference between starting a fight and finishing one.
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    > There is an important difference between starting a fight and finishing one. Not really. The difference is usually in how you do it.
- pcc 17y ago
  Funny, when I read this initially my first thought was: it would be inconsistent for the US, as champion of the free market, to attempt to impose its will on a country such as China by itself acting contrary to free market principles. Then I remembered: the US has not had a problem doing just this with/to other countries before; for example South Africa. There were not only the apartheid-era sanctions; there have also been the post-apartheid era "negotiations" (for example, 'halt your satellite development program or we will oppose your entry to GATT'). It seems fair to say the US has used "steamroller" tactics like this before. So maybe the question should rather be: why is the US handling China differently?
  - DougWebb 17y ago
    A) We like the toys. B) We already get occasional shipping containers full of Chinese illegal aliens sneaking into the country. We don't want them to be armed and trained soldiers too.
eru 17y ago
Even if somebody else bangs their head against a wall, you do not magically become better off by banging your head against a wall. (See http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/negot.html http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/negot.html)
- yummyfajitas 17y ago
  If another person starts banging their fist in your face, you do not magically become better if you start banging your fist in their face. In the short run your hand will hurt and it won't make your face better, but in the long run it might prevent them from continuing to bang their fist into your face. Similarly, in the short run, cutting off china will hurt economically (both our people and theirs). In the long run, if it causes them to open up, it will probably benefit us and their people (though not necessarily their leadership).
  - felixc 17y ago
    That plan (opening up society by economic isolation) didn't work particularly well for Cuba, Iran, North Korea, or any other embargoed country that I know of.
    - eru 17y ago
      "[And] as Frederic Bastiat put it, it makes no more sense to be protectionist because other countries have tariffs than it would to block up our harbors because other countries have rocky coasts."
      - yummyfajitas 17y ago
        That's an excellent equilibrium analysis, and I completely agree with it. In the short run, treating protectionism as constant, retaliatory trade restrictions will harm the US as well as China. The only flaw in that reasoning is that it treats tariffs as being unchangeable. China and other countries have eliminated protectionist policies in response to retaliation. As far as I know, no coast has even become less rocky in response to a blockaded harbor.
andreyf 17y ago
Someone tell me again why we allow Chinese imports? Because if everyone responded to import quotas with import bans, we wouldn't have this nice world economy everyone's so fond of.
- yummyfajitas 17y ago
  Because if everyone responded to import quotas with import bans... I proposed an import quota identical to the Chinese one, except that it only applies to China. If every country responded in kind, then no country would be doing what China is doing. (No one provoked China's bad behavior.) If every other country responded in kind only to the one country who is behaving badly, that single country would be isolated and might change their behavior.
  - andreyf 17y ago
    That works better in middle school than it does in macroeconomics. Each country has different economic needs - strict tit for tat won't necessarily lead to an optimum. Don't worry, America has its share of import quotas and tariffs, as well.
  - sounddust 17y ago
    If society reaches the point where all countries but one are aligned on the same principles, and only one country in the world is behaving badly, then I think your solution will work.
    - jpwagner 17y ago
      haha, well said
padmanabhan01 17y ago
Think about it. If Chinese Govt is willing to sell stuff to us dirt cheap by using dirt cheap labor, It is beneficial for us to buy them. It makes economic sense for us to buy something for less than what it's worth. We gain by doing so. The Chinese Govt gains too, by getting more than what they pay for the people. The real losers are those who work dirt cheap. So, end of the day, it's not our problem. If I can save 200 or 300 dollars on my iPhone because of them, I am glad.

albertcardona 17y ago

"...and drawing unwanted attention to the sensitive issue of forced evictions."