• DdCno1@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    As expected, the article doesn’t even mention China’s own extremely restrictive tariffs, including those on foreign-made cars.

      • DdCno1@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 month ago

        Because context matters. In the same vein, the hidden and thereby illegal state subsidies Chinese electric car makers are receiving should also be mentioned. Biden’s tariffs aren’t happening in a vacuum.

          • DdCno1@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 month ago

            I’ll let you figure out where Chinese car makers are getting their subsidies from.

            • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              I think their point is legality is relative … surely what China is doing is legal in China. “Unreasonable” would be a better term than illegal.

              • DdCno1@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 month ago

                It’s not relative. The moment a Chinese good is being sold outside of China, it has to follow local laws, which includes laws against market manipulation. Chinese manufacturers and sellers have been ignoring them for a long time, but there is finally some pushback.

  • leetnewb@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Not all that convincing, particularly when it draws quotes from other libertarian sources.

      • leetnewb@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Strangely, no notification of your response on my screen like I normally get from post responses.

        Anyway, I’m just saying that an article from an expressively libertarian education platform citing an outwardly libertarian think tank is a double whammy of credibility degradation. A communist source would generally be bad, a communist source citing a communist source would be double bad. I just don’t think publications with a proud ideological bent make for reliable sources, but that charge is less meaningful if they draw on information and content that is unaligned with their core beliefs.