China Plans Domestic Software Quotas 473
October_30th writes "In order to fight the alleged Microsoft monopoly, the Chinese government is establishing quotas for foreign software. While the details are still unclear, the government may require that up to 70% of software on Chinese computers is produced domestically. Regulations like this are, of course, expected to come under fierce criticism from the WTO."
Re:Nothing 'alleged' about Microsoft's monopoly (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Copied it from laws for US auto industry. (Score:3, Informative)
There were no such laws passed in the US. There were a whole lot of "Buy American" calls from workers and some politicians but there were no laws passed because it is illegal under the WTO and it anti-competitive behaviour and most people who understand the free-market knows that it would be counterproductive.
Japanese auto-makers opened American plants because during much it was much cheaper to produce the vehicles and sell them locally rather than import them from Japan (or elsewhere) where you are subject to import duties and the vagaries of fiscal economics where the fluctation of currencies can erode profits.
People, please mod the parent post down appropiately.
Re:bullshit argument (Score:2, Informative)
And Americans are the people who live in the United States of America.
Try telling a Canadian or a Mexican that he's American.
oh really (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I'm sick of hearing about "losing U.S. jobs" (Score:1, Informative)
I think you got it wrong. Everybody is sick of Bush.
Why doesn't the US file a complaint with the WTO? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I'm sick of hearing about "losing U.S. jobs" (Score:2, Informative)
Evidence for dramatic decline in labor force participation:
[stlouisfed.org]
St. Louis Federal Reserve Data"
This the real "unemployment" measure. It's down
to the rate in 1980s; after a decade of mass immigration and as the echo-baby boom enters the work force. The Bush administration does not count "contractors" who can't get new contracts and people who haven't found a job in more than 6 months.
Uh. 2 other points: Dukakis was a governor.
How is his voting record comparable with Senator Kerry? Also, It's John Edwards who's gonna kick draft-dodger Bush/Cheney's ass.
voluntary (Score:3, Informative)
United States of cotton goods (1957), steel (1969),
wool and synthetic fibers (1972), color televisions (1977),
and automobiles (1981).
http://www.jinjapan.org/access/trade/friction.htm
http://www.cpas.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp/cis/asia/eng/85-H
Re:I'm sick of hearing about "losing U.S. jobs" (Score:2, Informative)
The scenario pointed out does happen.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
Re:I'm sick of hearing about "losing U.S. jobs" (Score:1, Informative)
St. Louis Federal Reserve Data
This the real "unemployment" measure. It's down to the rate in 1980s; after a decade of mass immigration and as the echo-baby boom enters the work force. The Bush administration does not count "contractors" who can't get new contracts and people who haven't found a job in more than 6 months.Nice use of selective data.
Please try the 56-year-view [stlouisfed.org] instead of the 5-year-view [stlouisfed.org] you posted.
For those not willing to look, job force participation peaked at about 67.5% in 1999 or so (it's about 66% now). But it's been on a pretty steady rise from 58% or so since 1948. And FWIW, job-force participation probably rose since 1948 because of increasing number of women in the workforce. Please note that there are a lot of factors that effect job force participation ("baby-boom echo" having kids, more moms deciding to stay at home, etc). The parent poster blithely blames this on Bush, after selecting the data he wants to prove his point.
Uh. 2 other points: Dukakis was a governor.
How is his voting record comparable with Senator Kerry?
Kerry was Dukakis's Lieutenant Governer, IIRC. And Kerry's the the most liberal Senator [drudgereport.com].
Also, It's John Edwards who's gonna kick draft-dodger Bush/Cheney's ass.
He'd better decide to win at least one primary before the convention, then. Coming in a close second in one out of every 18 or so isn't going to work.
Re:In other news... (Score:5, Informative)
Americans work the most hours on average, but are NOT the most productive on average per hour worked - they rank 3rd there, I think. The researchers explained it with some relatively simple logic: after X number of hours, you start to lose some productivity. Sounds reasonable to me. They still win the overall productivity per worker prize, which isn't too shabby.
And, BTW, you look like a fool when you say "USian" (I am NOT calling you a fool, only saying you appear as one to someone who doesn't know you, such as myself). People who live in the USA are "Americans". People who live in North Americans are called "North Americans". People who live in South America are called "South Americans". There is no continent called "America", last time I checked, and thus there is no reason to get confused unless you're a total moron. By the same token, calling Mexicans "Americans" is idiotic, too, because they're not. They're "North Americans".
Sorry about that, but it's a pet peeve. Just refer to residents of the United States as that ("residents of the US"), if you can't bear to bring yourself to say the hated term "American" (which, you know, is accurate: "United States of America". Hence, "American", for the last word).
-Erwos
Protectionism != Socialism (Score:3, Informative)
In fact, IIRC, isn't Marxism opposed to tariffs, at least in theory? Aren't they mostly used to become economicly self-sustaining, so socialist states don't need to rely on their capitalist opponents? I could be wrong on that, it's been a long time since I delved very deep into the subject.
Re:In other news... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Ah the WTO (Score:2, Informative)
I'm not sure why such vague flamebaiting by an AC was modded up so highly, but if anyone wants to examine the issues beyond nationalistic ranting, you might take a look at what the US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick said on the issue U.S.-China Trade Relations [ustr.gov] in a recent speech at the Asia Society.
China is a vast nation with great diversity matched by a turbulent history. If current trends continue, sometime in the 2030s China will become the world's largest economy. Trade with China is crucial to the economic well-being of both the U.S. and the planet.
Brazil in the 80s (Score:3, Informative)
Eventually, the exception system was widely abused. Some companies used the protection to develop, some companies suffered of the lack of competition.
Re:Ah the WTO (Score:4, Informative)
Dear Mr Bush: It's not your 'FREEDOM' that the terrorists don't like...
Re:Copied it from laws for US auto industry. (Score:2, Informative)
Two Sides of the Coin... (Score:3, Informative)
The problem of child labor and the labor conditions is that what we consider right and what the people of the country consider right are two entirely different things. That is the entire problem in a nutshell.
In the case of child labor my father could have not employed children and that would solve nothing as the child would get work elsewhere. Or he could employ child labor with a minium age of say 12 and make sure that they do work which they can, get a fair wage like other workers and if possible get the entire family to work there. At least under those circumstances child labor is least disruptive for all those concerned.
Now about cheap labor? Well with time cheap becomes more expensive and people's standard of living improves. I have seen it happen in many countries and it will continue to happen.
HOWEVER, and here is what I think the root of the problem is. Many "non civilised" countries are becoming very bright and adept at doing what we took for granted (eg software, design, hardware). And that hurts because it shows Western Civilization better wake and start smelling the coffee!
EU has done this in 1989 (Score:4, Informative)
That Directive requires that European broadcasters reserve a majority of broadcast time for European works.
If China is attacked under WTO rules, they can point to this unfortunate precedent for cultural protectionism.
Re:In other news... (Score:3, Informative)
This only applies to one particular country on a reduced time scale, however. As global economic integration progresses, the amount of additional net wealth produced by free trade is bound to "trickle down" to the global (but not necessarily every local) labour market again in the form of increased economic growth, which means more jobs overall.
Re:In other news... (Score:4, Informative)
You are engaging in wishful-thinking-economics. Since one white cotton T-shirt can basically be substituted for any other white cotton T-shirt, the T-Shirt market is extremely elastic, that is, suppliers that can provide a shipload of T-shirts for just $10 less than their competitor will get the contract from the supermarket chain, no matter whether or not the individual customer would have been ready to pay $0.25 more or not. If the supermarket chain would indeed add, as a bonus, $0.25 per shirt to benefit the labourers, it would quickly be outperformed by other, not-so-generous supermarket chains, retail margins being extremely low as they are. Suppliers would, as well, underbid each other by approximately $0.25/shirt to get the contract that is now worth $0.25/shirt more to them.
This is called "market economy". Its mechanics have been well understood ever since Smith and Riccardo, and there is indeed a rational reason why trade flows are what they are. To change the equilibrium result, e.g. to raise Chinese worker's salaries, some form of government intervention would be required, which by definition would destroy some measure of wealth by disrupting the equilibrium.
Consider, though, that every single Chinese worker works at $0.25/shirt not because the State forces her to (China is now capitalist in all but name), but because she considers herself better off in that position than in any other (e.g. unemployed, other job). If any social engineering remains to be done, then, it's up to the Chinese government to institute it (e.g. with minimum wage laws), and not the U.S. or European taxpayer.
Re:In other news... (Score:3, Informative)
1. Trade doesn't effect wages - Wages depend on supply and demand curves. But trade isn't really about wages, trade is about goods. And with trade, both parties have more goods than they would have without goods. This is the only case in economics where a 'free lunch' exists. Standard of Living isn't how much money you make, but how much stuff you can buy with it. Free trade makes things much cheaper for everyone.
2. Because free trade both destroys some jobs (from importing), and creates others (from exporting), the net effect is 0. From what I read I can disagree with this most strongly. By preventing imports, and thus increasing prices, consumers have less money with which to spend on other goods or to invest in other businesses. This means that while the protected industry retains their jobs, other businesses will be unable to create new jobs. Now the question is whether the amount of new jobs created will be greater than the amount of jobs that would be lost. From what I've read, the net effect is usually positive (at least in the long run, and maybe this is where the discrepency resides), contrary to what Dr. Sykes reports.
But the true benefit of trade is less about jobs and wages, and more about getting stuff for cheaper. That is, the benefit of trade is exemplified in that $3 T-shirt you got at Wal-mart.
Re:Quotas are generally a bad idea... (Score:4, Informative)
You may or may not have a point about software. The difference to other industries are the extreme network effects. This requires some more thought than can be put in this /. post.
Please, RTFA! (Score:3, Informative)
The problem with most of the replies here is that they didn't read the article.
requiring a minimum percentage of software purchased by the government be produced in China
So, please, don't cry about companies not being able to choose the best tool. They can. It's more like the decision of the Munich local government. But it seems most of the US-based commenters lose their ability of independent thoughts when it comes to China.
Re:In other news... (Score:3, Informative)
I saw what China's government stood for when I saw the footage of the pro-democracy protesters at Tian'anmen Square being shot in the back of the head. I need no "enlightenment" to recognize a government dedicated to the opposite of freedom. I use the term "dictatorship" even though it is not perfectly accurate for China. Wen Jiabao is not actually a true autocrat. Currently it appears that the Chinese government is changing from a dictatorship to a Facism. I said "dictatorship" in a rather broad sense because there is no better term that I'm aware of.