Why is there a steady wash of pro-Trump, anti-Democrats propaganda circulating on Taiwanese social media?

The problem with “working with our allies” is that Europe won’t do anything anyway. They never do.

SOKO and Japan and AUS are still on good terms with this administration.

1 Like

AUS is certainly, especially after the way China has acted towards them. Japan and SK are always allies, nothing is so bad that it destroyed the relationship.

Go back to the many threads where I’ve outlined the potential of the TPP. If you want to hurt China you isolate and contain them. The US acting alone will not accomplish that since any other country can jump in and fill the void (i.e. UK and 5g). Trump may not have damaged relationships beyond repair but he certainly isn’t helping. Had he been able to effectively work with allies (and some of that is using diplomatic pressure, not yelling) we could have completely shut Huawei out. So while I agree with the sentiments, I guess it takes a team of experts competent in foreign policy to note that publicly shaming allies is counterproductive. I have no doubt that Biden will surround himself with competent people. Trump on the other hand…is always a gamble.

The TPP completely screws Taiwan.

This is a Taiwan based forum, Taiwan is not a part of the TPP and China wouldn’t allow them to sign without China being a part of the treaty too, do please explain how being excluded from a treaty that includes all other countries in the region, that gives those countries free trade status over a range of goods is going to help Taiwan.


Do you live in a vacuum and assume what happens in the region will have no impact on Taiwan? Successful containment of China will only be a multilateral strategy. A unilateral strategy with the US acting alone WILL NOT contain China. Get it? So if allies start cooperating to economically isolate China, then Taiwan can only stand to benefit.

Yeah, well I live in Taiwan. So don’t like the idea of being a sacrificial lamb for “the greater good” of containing China, get it?


If you have a problem being a sacrificial lamb then perhaps you shouldn’t be so eager to be Trump’s pawn in a dispute with China. Or maybe you should talk to some Taiwanese businessmen once in awhile.

Do you have any experience in global supply chains? You should note that many of the major factories throughout China and SE Asia are Taiwanese owned.

Who benefits from a trade war?
Do Taiwanese companies/factories benefit? No.
Does the American/European consumer benefit? No.

Who benefits from the TPP?
Do Taiwanese factories benefit? Yes. They are not penalized for exporting from China but incentivized to produce in Vietnam.

Do American/European consumers benefit? Yes through a diversified supply chain there are more opportunities to produce goods at accessible price points.

A trade environment that strengthens our allies leaves plenty of opportunity to capitalize on. This is the start of the pivot to Asia and increased cooperation among allies in areas other than trade. Taiwan may not be a party but directly benefits from a more secure region and favorable business environment.

Now how is Taiwan benefiting from a trade war? Do explain.

Even if Taiwan were a signatory, the benefits are aimed at corporations, not the people, the people always lose out.

But they were not and as you say it was aimed at containing China, which would have had the same dampening effect of Taiwan.

There are many ways to solve a problem, you seem heavily invested with the TPP being the “right” solution. Indeed that was the thinking of the previous administrations, which brought us wars in Afganistan, Iraq, Syria, Ukraine and a civil war in Libya that today sees people sold in slave markets for 200$ and it seemed with Hillary we would be on a path to war with Russia and WWIII.

As well as doing nothing to curb the rise of Nueclear ambitions in North Korea and Iran and seeing China expand it’s influence for over 4 or 5 decades.

So, yeah, I would say your guys have had their chance, did a piss poor job and I am willing to see someone else try something different, I agree could be worse, might be better too, but the old lot were not exactly doing a bang up job.

1 Like

And the new lot has thoroughly fucked the region so there is that.

I am invested in free trade no doubt. If you take any economics classes you will note there are few things that most economists agree on and one of those is protectionism does not work. It is a foolish strategy from the 1930s.

As for only corporations benefitting, who do you think they employ? Another reason I’m invested is because I manage a global supply chain and know what the TPP would do for American companies. Don’t think you’re seeing the last of free trade agreements to contain China. The policy of unilateral action is dead on arrival. People are already seeing how ineffective it is at getting anything done (*ahem North Korea). As I said, all it takes is for Europe to step in and fill the void that we leave behind.

Then why does China engage in protectionism of the China economy, would you argue they haven’t or that it hasn’t helped their own tech firms who steal technology from elsewhere while the Government keeps companies like Google and Twitter out of China and is in fact heavily invested in growing such companies with the help of the state. Would you argue they have not been successful using such a model?

How did China’s growth start? Through the establishment of Special Economic Zones - in other words free trade! So did the protectionism fuel their growth or was it the ability to freely buy and sell goods?

How have they benefited from protectionism? Few people can name any Chinese brands and the ones they can are reliant on expanding further into less developed economies to fuel their growth because they can’t compete on the world stage. So explain to me how protectionism is the reason for the success of the Chinese model.

Alright, I am not going into the full Chinese model that requires taking a Chinese partner who all too often ends up outing the initial investor and taking over the business entirely. Let’s just leave it at they have a questionable business model.

However back to free trade. America needs to manufacture cars, it’s cheaper to do that in Canada and thanks to NAFTA can import with no taxes so car manufacturing moves to Canada, not so good for certain states, but yay free trade.

Then manufacturers who only care about profits realize importing steel from China is cheaper than manufacturing in Canada, and there go the steel mills. So long as there is a free trade agreement with China.

Then one day you are in an actual conflict with China and realize you can’t actually manufacture planes, boats or anything without steel and suddenly you realize you are fucked. Same thing happened with medical supplies recently.

The realization you can’t offshore everything and reduce costs by free trade agreements should be self evident in the face of the coronavirus. Or did you miss that part?

1 Like

Corrupt business practices are not the same as protectionism. Nor do I think it’s a model we should follow.

If we are talking about the little guy, then it is good for the little guy. Goods need to be priced to market or people will not buy them. Companies need to make a profit or they will not make them.

As quality of living increases, the cost of living increases, as do workers wages. Thus it becomes more expensive to produce the same product, but people don’t want to pay more for the same quality. So parts of the supply chain move. Niche markets will then remain or move back for those who are willing to pay.

As production moves, the skillset and training needs to move. That’s an education problem not a production/corporation problem. If you try to stop that cycle through protectionism, your competitor will continue to innovate all aspects of the supply chain while you stagnate leaving you unable to compete. Refer to the Latin American experiment called import substitution industrialization (ISI) for the result of that policy.

You’re arguing a national security issue. Where did I ever argue for offshoring everything? I didn’t say we should let China produce our PPE, or weapons for the military.

I’m for the principle of comparative advantage and the most efficient allocation of resources. I still produce in the US. I also produce in Jakarta. And get most raw materials from Taiwan. Why? Because each market has their niche.

I don’t ask Taiwan to make cars or Indonesia to produce an iPhone. Nor do I tell Taiwan that I want to pay more for their materials because I’d like to give our guys a shot. Instead let’s make it accessible for the little guy to produce at a better margin then the big guy because he can set up production duty free in Vietnam, set up his own website and sell direct and he doesn’t cover the overhead of marketing, finance, ops etc.

Why would you want to make that harder for the little guy by telling him he has to find local producers when none exist?

Can’t believe I’m telling a conservative this. How times have changed. :wink:

Then we are in agreement, I used an extreme example but in some cases protectionism is considered a valid means to grow an industry, sit on a sidewalk on Seoul for 20 minutes and you will realize there are no foreign made cars, Koreans love their car companies, in fact I would argue they are very interventionist when it comes to their national companies.

Germany too, 20% tax on cars coming from the US while the US has a 4% tax on cars imported from the EU.

When have I ever said I was a conservative? In fact I have said on numerous occasions I am more liberal when it comes to values.

The point is, there are many methods and ways to deal with any issue, I am well aware of the good free trade deals can deliver and sometimes the harm, for example there is a free trade agreement with Korea and USA on socks (pretty sure it’s Korea, might need to check). Great, Korea get to import socks with no tax and Taiwanese need to pay a 20% tax. Not so good for Taiwan sock manufacturers trying to sell into the US.

Eh… Tiktok, Huawei, Oppo, Tencent. Except for Tiktok, you might not think of many of them as top famous brands. However, Huawei and many other infrastructure providers are close to being dominant when it comes to providing for telecomm, power and other civil infrastructures.

China began engaging in protectionism after they realized the world had become addicted to Chinese manufactured goods. They would get the money from Western countries, and they can use protectionism to keep the money in China. By the government forcing local telecomm companies to have their own standards, forcing foreign companies to comply with their practices of infringement on civil liberties, allowing local companies to steal trademarks and IPs and backing them up in court, calling for boycotts whenever they see fit, it becomes increasingly difficult for non-Chinese companies to make money in China. Google, facebook, youtube, Nintendo, Sony, even Disney, all have to bend over backwards to see if they can be allowed in.

They have secured the world’s second largest market all to themselves free from competition. By doing so they put a chock hold on any non-Chinese companies wanting to get into China.


Seriously guys. You are taking every Chinese tactic and calling it protectionism. Trump’s policy surrounds tariffs which is protectionism. I’m arguing its stupid and nobody benefits.
If you’re argument is that we should support our companies with some interventionist policies, great I agree with you. I’m talking about international trade.

Why is that important? Because simply China has been most effective at economic diplomacy as well know. And an economic response is the most appropriate response to quickly contain China. Unfortunately that requires being able to work with a few others.

When you have these interventionist policies that discriminate against non-local businesses, you have more leverage when it comes to economic diplomacy. Why lean into traditional protectionism and tax you when you can’t even get a foot in the door?

1 Like

Trump is putting in place some reciprocity, China aint playing the free trade game. Tomorrow U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer is testifying tomorrow at 10:00am to the House Ways and Means committee.

He will tell them he wants to treat the EU on a basis of reciprocity, the EU will howl, the MSM will go mental, the Chamber of Commerce won’t like it and I’m sure you will be here to tell us what an idiot Trump is.

But actually, it’s pretty common sense, if you are encouraging everyone to do business on a basis of free trade, which the US has done for decades and they are the ones taking advantage by levering tariffs against you, then it makes sense to say “fine, we will do things on a basis of reciprocity and if you want them to go away, fine we can do that on a reciprocal basis too”.

1 Like

Just don’t expect supply chains to move overnight and be prepared to support US companies who must take the hit. Why don’t instead you give them a better place to go and set up shop? Give them an incentive not a tax.

To put it simply, it’s carrot vs. stick. Stick might have a small impact for a short time but you’ll just piss everyone (US companies, foreign markets) off. Try a carrot to move away from China, see what they do with that. The pendulum will flip back before you know it.

We are actually at the starting point of an interesting topic. When we discuss the TPPA and other agreements like USMCA it quickly becomes apparent we are talking about trillions of dollars on the line.

When you dig into agreements like the TPPA there was discussion about a transfer of power away from national Governments and towards corporations, I will need to look up the details it’s been a while since I had that conversation but becomes do you want corporations ruling over you whose only sworn goal is to make money very often at the expense of local populations or a government voted in by the people, who are supposed to represent the people, I would argue for too long that is the one group the politicians haven’t given a hoot about for decades.