The U.S. used to do this historically to European companies for sure, mostly in the 18/19th centuries[1].
Now it doesn't need to do it anymore, so it's on a high horse, because another country it's in a position the US was 200 years ago?
The US did it 200 years ago because it needed to do so, in order to kick start its own industry. China is in exactly the same situation now, so why should they have it any harder? Japan did it in the 80s etc. It's a cycle countries on path to developed each go through
P.S. Are you seriously comparing ethnic cleansing to IP theft?
Again, you are comparing owning slaves to IP theft? Not everything that was done 200 years ago is automatically somehow more immoral today than it was then. IP theft would be one of these things.
i'm using your reasoning to reach an obviously false conclusion, in order to demonstrate that your reasoning is faulty and ill-considered. i am arguing about principles, and you are arguing special pleading.
No, you're arguing as if every single act one can perform is the same, morally speaking. You're reaching 'an obviously false conclusion', because you start with a reasoning that I don't hold. I don't think every action is morally equivalent, yet that's the premise you use in order to attack my argument.
Or you know, the game theory is different when you're already the dominant power. There when you use intelligence apparatus for economic espionage, you tend to use it to keep other nations down rather than giving it to your companies.
I can't find a link for it but during Clinton's presidency in the 90s he setup a government office to disseminate NSA collected economic intelligence to private US businesses.
Neither of those links says that US intelligence agencies passed information to US companies, either.
The first link says that US intelligence exposed bribes made by European companies. That seems good. The second link says that US intelligence gave US government trade negotiators useful info on foreign government negotiators. Seems valid.
> Neither of those links says that US intelligence agencies passed information to US companies, either.
From the first link:
"But a report published by the European Parliament in February alleges that Echelon twice helped US companies gain a commercial advantage over European firms."
Echelon = US intelligence.
Some other quotes that support my comments.
"two alleged instances of US snooping in the 1990s, which he says followed the newly-elected Clinton administration's policy of "aggressive advocacy" for US firms bidding for foreign contracts."
Go and read Secret Power. After the conclusion of the cold war and before the war on terror US intelligence didn't have incredibly clear deliverables and the US had just come off a recession. Supporting the US in the global marketplace did become a priority for both the CIA and NSA, driven by Clinton.
And yes, exposing bribes is good. But exposing bribes for personal profit? That's more debatable.
It does, if you read it properly, but even assuming it doesn't for a second, the U.S. used to do this historically to European companies for sure, mostly in the 18/19th centuries[1].
Now it doesn't need to do it anymore, but China does because it is in the same position the US was 200 years ago, doing vert similar things and you somehow feel morally superior?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/09/nsa-spying-bra... https://sputniknews.com/politics/201506301024010800/