You must log in or register to comment.
As expected, the article doesn’t even mention China’s own extremely restrictive tariffs, including those on foreign-made cars.
Why would it? Reason has never targeted a Chinese audience.
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.
“Illegal state subsidies?” From whom?
I’ll let you figure out where Chinese car makers are getting their subsidies from.
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.
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.
Got it in one.
Not all that convincing, particularly when it draws quotes from other libertarian sources.
Did you want communist sources?
Wait what source would you consider Communist outside of relevant state medias?
anyone left of NewsMax
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.
