Will You Be Trying to Boycott Chinese Products?

Hey All

With the diplomatic row between Aus and China over the last few weeks culminating in the tweets from the Chinese embassy, there’s been an obvious rising of tensions between the countries.

Given how ridiculous and ironic china’s position is, to have the gall to call out Australia for human rights abuses do you feel more strongly about trying to avoid products manufactured in China?

The report itself was Australia holding itself to account, it could have easily been covered up never to see the light of day but Australia relative to the rest of the world is one with more integrity than that.

I don’t see how China could ever lecture a country like Australia when it comes to war crimes/human rights abuse given their long track record, most notably the persecution of the Uighur population as well numerous other violations ranging from censorship to imprisonment/torture of dissidents. I don’t see China holding itself to account for those crimes anytime soon.

I like the idea in theory of boycotting Chinese made products but the reality is unfortunately from my perspective is that the supply chain is far too integrated in China to be able to boycott anything. Hopefully western businesses are more incentivised now to move their supply chains away from China but that will a long and slow process over many years possibly decades.

So TLDR will you be trying to avoid Chinese made products or are we in a situation that these products are so pervasive with our current lifestyles there’s nothing we can really do at the moment.

Edit: Poll added. Good suggestion.

Poll Options

  • 839
    Yes I will and do avoid Chinese made products wherever I can
  • 34
    Yes but only if the equivalent product is the same price and quality
  • 333
    Would like to avoid but can’t because of limited choice/availability/price
  • 239
    Don’t care whatever’s cheapest
  • 133
    Don’t care at all and would still buy Chinese made even if there was a choice of equivalent produc

Comments

                • -3

                  @LlamaOfDoom: Well, I originally said "nearly" one million, not "exactly" one million. Quite likely it's closer to one million than half a million now, so I stand by what I said. Either way there's far too many of them.

          • @dcash: Asinine, baseless, cruel. This is exactly the mindset that leads these people to never feel truly accepted and perpetuates the problem, cheers.

      • +3

        This comment goes both ways:

        It's freedom of speech, as long as your world views align with my views.

        • Agree.

    • +10
    • +1

      It happens in other countries too. Can't find the link, but there was a melon farm that killed loads of people in the US by using human waste to fertilize their melons.

      • +5

        I saw somewhere that the UK uses human waste as fertiliser as well.

      • +3

        Even Australia does it. Though we probably have better standards. Sold as sewerage ash, sewerage sludge or biosolids. Chances are you are eating food fertilised by Aussie sewerage.

        • +1

          I prefer to call it Night Soil.

          • +6

            @AustriaBargain: Soylent brown

          • @AustriaBargain: If you try working with the stuff it is more "nightmare" soil. if it gets wet it stinks, the ash gets everywhere in your hair clothes, eyes, very unpleasant to deal with all around. But makes great crop fertiliser.

        • Its just double standards. The recent caricatures are an example, meant to exaggerate but scotty is having a whinge because the states arent listening to him.

    • This, my family has been doing the same for quite sometimes now. We try to use locally made product instead of made in china. It is funny sometime they trick you by labelling the product "Made in PRC"

    • +3

      This. We try to buy local (SA) first, then Australian, then countries which have similar food and safety standards, then…

    • +6

      Food, I agree. Can't trust them. In fact even Chinese in China won't buy locally made food if possible. With milk formula being the most prominent.
      But for everything else, just sounds like you're being racist mate.

      • Yes many people here ARE.

      • -3

        Fun fact: people of china (or Chinese ppl) are NOT a race. China is not a race. It is a country.

        You can disagree a way a country behaves. You can even hate a country or people with a specific culture! That doesn't makes you racist. That makes you something else.

        Now if you just hate the Mongoloid race, or black people then you are racist.

        Chinese loves to call out racism where in fact it is their behaviour is what the problem.

        • -2

          Keep talking about racism please. You're funny.

      • -1

        China is not a race. If you were boycotting Asian products sure but that's not what this is.

    • +1

      How would that work from a practical sense?

        • +8

          Are talking about the greens? I don’t think they’re advocating for a one party system or having the government controls the means of production. Is what you mean suppressing diverse viewpoints on various issues? If it’s that I can sorta see what you mean that but I don’t think that’s commie route yet.

          • +1

            @maxyzee: I like that you used the word yet.

            But I don't just mean the Greens. Every party that thinks the government knows best and wants to increase government control/authority through either increased discretionary powers or through increased taxation.

            • +5

              @[Deactivated]: That means we have no one to vote for them?

              • +1

                @brendanm: Not ideal but vote for the lesser evil.

                No party, no form of government, no one is perfect. It doesn't mean we throw our hands up and pick at random.

                • @[Deactivated]: What do you think if someone has a serious disability? Chronic illness? Parents with disabled or chronically ill children? Is there a role for government to help them?

                  What if there's not enough jobs so obviously some people will miss out and have no means to support themselves. Should the government help them?

                  Do you want to live in a society or should we just be a collection of individuals, each person only interested in their own welfare?

                  • @dazweeja: Of course it is nice to think if we made exceptions for this cause or that, the government will limit themselves to only assisting in those issues but it is hard to delineate between willfully unemployed vs unable to find employment, and many of the welfare issues.

                    I want to live in a society where we choose to help and lift up our neighbours, not one where we are forced to pay for the lifestyle of the lazy just so that some of the crumbs will trickle to the actual needy.

                    • +13

                      @[Deactivated]:

                      not one where we are forced to pay for the lifestyle of the lazy just so that some of the crumbs will trickle to the actual needy

                      This is a myth popularised by right-wing think-tanks in the US and Australia. People who need welfare far outweigh any "dole bludgers" and to be quite frank I am happy to pay a bit extra to cover those who don't deserve it if it means everyone who does deserve help gets it. Trying to crack down on welfare hurts people who need it as much as it hurts people trying to chest the system (which, again, very for of them out there).

                      • -7

                        @[Deactivated]:

                        This is a myth

                        It is not and even if it is, it is immaterial.

                        In context to the discussion, welfare recipients are a voting block. They are the easiest voting block to win because a party does not use their own money to manipulate this group.

                        Any party pandering to welfare groups are just buying votes with our (tax-payer's) money.

                        • +4

                          @[Deactivated]:

                          Any party pandering to welfare groups are just buying votes with our (tax-payer's) money.

                          This is literally all governments do, to all groups not just welfare groups. Infrastructure in this council, tax cuts for this income class, asset write-off for this item etc etc. You'd have to be as thick as a brick to not know that.

                          When I see parties "pandering" to welfare groups, that says to me that more of my tax money will go to keeping people out of trouble (and therefore out of hospitals, jails and saving us money) as opposed to paying back donors, funding military investments, sports rorts, and building unnecessary highways and stadiums.

                          Do you have a better suggestion as to how things should be run?

                          • -1

                            @[Deactivated]:

                            Do you have a better suggestion as to how things should be run?

                            Yes. If governments behave like governments, ie. A referee, not another player.

                            Collect tax to pay for protection of our sovereignty, law enforcement and natural monopolies. Everything else with extreme discretion or not at all.

                            • +3

                              @[Deactivated]: So where does that leave things like welfare, healthcare, and education?

                              • -8

                                @[Deactivated]: Healthcare - private. I worked in both public and private and public is an inefficient mess. If the government wants to still have a hand in healthcare then they should just create major competitors, regulate them and tender contracts.

                                Welfare - capped percentage of spending. Let welfare recipients weed out who doesn't belong.

                                Education - create major competitors, regulate them and tender out contracts.

                                • +11

                                  @[Deactivated]: Bahaha libertarians are a joke. Thanks for the laugh.

                                  It's as bad as the "communism is great (on paper)" guys. It sounds like a beautiful system in theory tshow but as usual you have ignored the human components of the system. Systems are inefficient because of people. People become corrupt and want to help out people they know. This has been proven by behavioural economists myriad times. Bureaucracy is inefficient because it has enough layers to (largely) prevent corruption.

                                  Libertarians want to remove those layers and assume everything will just work out because ~the market~, without realising that they haven't removed people from the equation. The result is more corruption, less accessibility to people desperate for it, and concentration of wealth in the hands of those who had the means to take advantage early on (i.e., the already wealthy).

                                  • @[Deactivated]:

                                    Libertarians want to remove those layers and assume everything will just work out because ~the market~, without realising that they haven't removed people from the equation.

                                    Ah, I forgot government is filled with lizards and therefore will run perfectly.

                                    • +1

                                      @[Deactivated]: Guess you skimmed over the bit where I described government as having enough layers that this factor is largely removed?

                                      • @[Deactivated]: Layers of people lizard made rules.

                                        People behaving badly behave worse when given power. Your magical "layers" are subject to change in a parliament full of people, the same type of people you claim cannot be trusted to play in a free market.

                                        Maybe we should introduce some of that magical "layers" into free market. Oh yeah, it's called regulation which is the predominant role of government. I suppose if they fail at their job of regulating, they should be fine controlling the industry.

                                        I am not interested in the mental acrobatics required to justify surrendering power to people because they'll behave better if given power to change laws, immunity from certain laws and control of public funding.

                                        • +3

                                          @[Deactivated]: Interested in where you would draw the line between freedom of choice and imposing regulations? E.G should seatbelts be optional? Bring back guns and let the market decide if we like guns or not and trust that only good people buy guns? Allow tobacco advertising and let the market decide? Allow polluting businesses to keep producing and let the market decide whether they are viable?
                                          In short what kind of test would a libertarian minded person do in terms of determine what should have a freedom of choice vs being regulated.

                                • +1

                                  @[Deactivated]: I find it amazing that a doctor is advocating for privatisation of healthcare when there's overwhelming evidence worldwide showing it's a bad idea, just look at the America.

                    • +2

                      @[Deactivated]: Are you done sniffing your own farts?

                      • -1

                        @xtremehell: Given the amount of bullshit wafting through the air, I'll stick to sniffing my own.

                  • +1

                    @dazweeja:

                    What if there's not enough jobs so obviously some people will miss out and have no means to support themselves.

                    We just flew in loads of Pacific Islanders to fill jobs which locals won't do.

                    • +8

                      @Scrooge McDuck: "…which locals won't do". That part is complete bollocks. I have worked extensively in the fruit picking industry (only by blending in with a group of backpackers from the overpriced workers' hostel - you should have seen the look of disappointment on farmers' and contractors' faces when they found out I'm Aussie) and "the locals aren't willing to work" is mostly propaganda from farmers and their contractors. Covid has finally revealed their game to the masses:

                      https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2020/11/01/fruit-pi…
                      https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2020-11-30/australian-frui…

                      Do some research about Piñata Farms and the Pacific Labour Scheme and you quickly realise why they made up a "$3800/week job no one wants".

                      • +2

                        @peterpeterpumpkin: It's not all propaganda - I've got friends at workplaces where they've had chains of aussies joining and quitting to go on jobseeker with foreigners being much more reliable. The idea that nobody is happy to be on benefits is nonsense and I don't blame them if it's comparable pay or only slightly more

                        • +1

                          @sakurashu: Did you actually read the articles? I don't think you understand the context of the conversation. We're not talking about those Aussies preferring to stay on JobSeeker. Literally thousands of Aussies have been rejected from vacant farming positions, and this was occuring before the Covid marketing exercise came into play. I know 100 times more about the corruption in the farming industry that most armchair experts.

                          • @peterpeterpumpkin: I'm pointing out that the idea that there are jobs locals won't do is not all propaganda (regardless of industry) - you are referring specifically to the fruit picking industry (which has had a history of wanting to underpay employees).

                            The workplaces I was referring to are not in the fruit picking industry - the original comment about there not being enough jobs was not industry specific

                            • +6

                              @sakurashu: No worries. That clears it up. Those holier-than-thou farmers really get me triggered when they tell half-truths to the media. Imagine if it was reversed…

                              "I don't know why those drought affected farmers don't come down to Sydney to build some IKEA furniture I've got that needs building [on-and-off] for 3 weeks. We've got dorms and meals sorted as part of their contract. We normally get working holiday makers to do it to meet the requirements of their IKEA furniture building visa, but Covid has made it tough. Sure we've had thousands of farmers apply but I just couldn't take them seriously since farmers hate hard work and expect to be paid overtime hours. One IKEA furniture builder just made $3800 last week. We need a..ummm…steady flow of Pacific Islanders to make sure the wood doesn't rot before we can sell the furniture. Oh, and more transport subsidies, tax breaks and cheap loans. Or Australians will be sleeping on floors."

                        • -1

                          @sakurashu: We have relied on Chinese money to fund our extensive welfare system for far too long already. Best to start by cutting our enormous welfare budgets to save costs. Also reduce our personal income taxes to incentivise working and not have the free loaders leaching off hardworking Australians by relying on Jobseeker.
                          Too many citizens on the dole despite fruits going to waste for want of fruitpickers (because they are too lazy to pick fruits despite being unemployed and need fruitpickers from third world countries to do the job for us, really??)

                • +1

                  @[Deactivated]: There is no such things as the lesser evil. There is only interest.
                  All parties, when they are in power, want to increase government control in areas where it it fits their interest.

                  • @leiiv:

                    All parties, when they are in power, want to increase government control in areas where it it fits their interest

                    That is true but it is also true that some parties will do that more so than others.

                    For example, if I started a party that states that I want increase standards in healthcare, education, trades and law enforcement, and I will achieve that by taxing the rich.

                    All I'm really saying is I want the control of more money and use it as leverage within the aforementioned industries.

              • @brendanm: The Liberal Democratic Party are for smaller government, lower taxes and more liberty.

                • +1

                  @Scrooge McDuck: Except when they don't like something like wind turbines, in which case they're all for a totally unnecessary National Wind Farm Commissioner.

            • @[Deactivated]: So every party in Oz

            • @[Deactivated]: If the greens won an election, it would be the last election in Australia.

            • @[Deactivated]:

              Every party that thinks the government knows best and wants to increase government control/authority through either increased discretionary powers or through increased taxation.

              So every party?

              bUt KatTeR aNd OnE nAtIoN?

              Provoking China for votes is far worse. It is selfish behavour like this that is fueling the trade war with China.

          • @maxyzee: He means the Liberal Party, look at all the authoritarian stuff they've brought in (Dutton in particular).

    • +15

      CCP is only communism in name only. They are a feudalist dictatorship and can disregard their own constitution. Ie freedom of speech is allowed.

      If anything, Labor/Liberals are sending Australia down towards dictatorship too. How?
      - Candidate requirements are being increased. Leaving fewer choices on ballot unless you're rich! Did anyone also see the consolidation of authoritative departments under a certain someone? Lets call that The Head.
      - Letting Murdoch control narrative. The Mouth.
      - Ramping up surveillance and anti encryption while people freaked out about Dan Andrews not allowing parties. The Eye.
      - ABC being raided by AFP. Did you know Australia has Internet censorship? The Finger.
      - ASIO and Five Eyes. Spies on businesses for trade secrets. Look up Witness K. The Ear.

      What else am I missing?

      • CCP is like any communist party. They are communist and then they are not.

        They are communist as long as their ideological supporters accept them and when the eventually of communism manifests, they are "communist in name only."

        Please point me to a successful and true communist country.

        Every communist nation turns out like the CCP.

        • +2

          Vietnam is still communist last I heard. Yeah, lets avoid one or two party (lol usa) dictatorships. Socialists parties have a lot of the pros from communist parties without the cons of authoritarian policies unless you're filthy rich, lol.

          • +2

            @orangetrain: I'm not sure if anyone thinks that Vietnam is an exemplary country by any standard except perhaps it is the least shithole communist country.

          • @orangetrain: Vietnam is just a poor copycat of China and they rely heavily on China's ideology for existence. It is least shithole than China because it's not as good as China in keeping its communist identity (i.e. building its own social media platform to brainwash its people and limiting Western influence).

        • These are called labels. China's economy is essentially capitalist. It's political system is communist/dictatorship - label it whatever you want.

          History evidence shows a countries political system does not imply the success of that country.

        • Czechoslovakia didn't turn up like CCP. The people had yearned freedom and they achieved that. Same with Poland and other Central European countries. But I agree - communism does not work. Human nature can't be changed and communism is not economically sustainable.

    • +14

      Voting for right-wing parties (or whatever you think is the opposite to 'communism') in Australia because of Chinese trade tariffs is about as logical as boycotting Apple because you bought a fake iPhone and it stopped working after you microwaved it.

  • +29

    Can this be a good thing though?

    I mean I seem to recall a thread not too long ago saying that Australian products are much cheaper in China than they are here, so maybe our own producers can stop ripping us off as much and sell more locally.

    • +3

      Unfortunately, because of our relatively high wages (we have the second highest minimum wage in the world) and therefore overheads, they probably need to sell for a higher price here to be viable.

      • I tried getting wine direct, they offered Australian prices. I'm sure its cheaper in a different geographic region.

        Why would they undercut their distributors?

      • -2

        We have relied on Chinese money to fund our extensive welfare system for far too long already. Best to start by cutting our enormous welfare budgets to save costs. Also reduce our personal income taxes to incentivise working and not have the free loaders leaching off hardworking Australians by relying on Jobseeker.

        • +3

          If you read the breakdown of tax expenditure the ATO sends each year with your tax summary, you'll see that payments to healthy working age individuals who are unemployed make up a rather small amount of spending.

          Iirc the largest sector was hospitals, and even within financial support the largest payees were the elderly and disabled people.

          Now you're free to argue that we should axe Medicare, the age pension, and disability support pension, but that's a different argument from the one you're making.

    • +1

      Retail economics vary based on volume and logistics.

      We don't have the scale or density to allow for similar prices. Even if the profit margins could be reduced a bit, they are unlikely to be anything like what Chinese markets could achieve.

    • +17

      but also they are of good quality…

      I was waiting for a punchline.

      Also, 100 % of this account's replies are political comments and it has 0 votes on deals. Hhhmmm…

    • People who downvoted you probably sick of waiting for next Aliexpress coupon code.

    • Hahaha good one! Make me think of all the (no doubt CCP payed for) FB videos that would pop up in my feed showing "Chinese ingenuity" but were really just a showreel of $2 shop gadgets and terrible OH&S practices.

  • +8

    I would be happy to but really, there's no alternative for most things.

    • +6

      no alternative for most things

      What do you mean by most things?
      I'm pretty into electronics and computers and there are plenty of brands that manufacture in Taiwan, Korea, Thailand, Japan…

      Sure, it's hard to 100% avoid Chinese sourced components but a "completely China-free or may as well go full-China" strategy is counter-productive.

      If you're on Reddit, check /r/AvoidChineseProducts

      • +3

        I'll take a look at that sub reddit. It's not that easy though. Many brands manufacture in multiple markets so brand isn't a reliable indicator. Some products are even made in multiple markets so it may be made in Europe for example for some markets and China for others so even when you buy something expecting it to be made in X based on what someone else says you could end up with the same thing but made in Y.

        I try and buy Aust owned and made where possible as I've worked for companies manufacturing here for over 25 years and always try and be mindful of where things are made but completely avoiding things made in China is pretty much impossible. Even then, things made in China are often higher quality than things made elsewhere despite their reputation for cheap and poor quality so I'll continue to judge on a case by case basis.

        • You're right about companies using multiple factories. Often their flagship models are made in the home factory and lower end products offshore, but it's far from universal.

          It's also very difficult when most online retailers don't seem to list country of origin in the specs for their products. Maybe because of the multiple sourcing you mentioned.

          things made in China are often higher quality than things made elsewhere

          Quality is not the reason I try to reduce my money flow to China.

  • +17

    News . com . au is a right leaning (and conservative, sometimes inflammatory) media outlet and this is their opinion piece today where they think the boycott is doomed to fail.

    https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/retail/so-challengi…

    I like the view that

    "The academics explain that if the relationship were to break down completely and bring an end to imports and exports going both ways, the loss of Chinese exports to Australia would be catastrophic to us, but would be “mosquito bites by comparison” to China."

    • +6

      I think it is really weird that the free market works when it suits News Limited, but it can’t be trusted other times.
      If Chinese imports were suddenly more expensive due to tariffs, alternative suppliers would quickly fill the gap.

      • +1

        You are right about the filling the gap if something it pulled out or priced out - that would be expected.

        The biggest exporter of Ausrtralian wines to China is Treasury Wines, they sell like $500m per year to China and account for like 80% of the wines we send to them….

        Interesting article in the Guardian.

        where it says "(Chinese) Wholesalers said that in order to buy wines in the high-end Penfolds range, including company flagship Penfolds Grange, they were required to spend about the same amount on lesser labels including Wolf Blass and Rawson’s Retreat, the AFR reported.

        This left them with a glut of cheap wine and pushed the retail price of some brands down to less than they sold for in Australia, even though it costs more to ship the plonk to China."

        https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/aug/18/there…

        • I’ve seen Rawsons Retreat selling for $25 a bottle in a Beijing liquor store, so I take that report with a pinch of salt unless this is a recent development.

      • +7

        The market response will not be immediate. It takes time for importers to set up alternative supply chains (if any exist at all). In the mean time, your average Australian citizen is just going to be paying more for the same thing that they have always consumed, until a lower cost (and possibly inferior) product becomes available.

        There is a reason why Chinese products are so prevalent, it is generally because their price to quality ratio is usually exceptional - this goes all the way from Huawei telecommunications tech (there is a reason why Huawei 5G was even being considered at all - the tech itself is great and cheaper than the rest) down to mass produced plastics - so you will naturally be giving up something (price and/or quality) if you want to replace them.

        Most, if not all, Chinese exports are produced mainly for their domestic market. If Australia decides to import nothing, it pretty much doesn't matter to them. OTOH your average Australians will be paying more for less. This is why it is not a good strategy. One must appreciate the sheer consumption power of the countries in question (China has around 10 times our GDP and 50 times our population). Australia will not come out on top in a tit-for-tat battle.

    • Don't we make up 4% of imports into China? That's a fair chunk of a country and economy the size of China.

      • +8

        The bulk of what we send over is iron ore, gas and coal but we know how much the COALalition loves lumps of stuff no matter how toxic it is to the environment.

        Australia has a trade surplus with China ie we export more to China than what China sends here - unlike the USA, where it is opposite and we usually have a trade deficit with them.

        At the end of the day, even though our right wing government loves to btch and moan about China which is great for political points scoring, our government will never ever follow through with action. If Australia was tough, let's just stop exporting to China. It might be crappy for our wealthy miners *cough cough friends of the government but if I can buy lobster for $50/kg or bottles of 389 for $40, than count me in.

      • +5

        4% of imports? That's next to nothing. They could change some contracts (eg buy iron ore from brazil) and crush us overnight.
        Over 70% of our exports go solely to China. All our eggs (or balls) are in their basket. We have zero leverage.

        • Lucky we have Scotty at the helm, he'll see us through!!

        • Brazil have apparently screwed themselves over iron ore, the reason iron ore price is so high at the moment. China rely on our iron ore now, at least until they start replacing it with their planned recycling which is still a few years away.

          That said, Australia needs to dial down on it's reliance of coal & iron ore exports as soon as possible…

  • +4

    That’s playing the citizens (as fodder) from each geography against each other, doesn’t hurt the govt you want impacted. You can see the tactic shows the govt doesn’t have skin in the game (they are getting the popcorn).

  • +33

    Whoever gives me a better product at a better price, i'll take it. Both sides are equally bad. Australia invaded another country for no (profanity) reason and killed innocents, China the same towards minorities. No one has the higher moral ground. 95% of politicians are trash.

    If i want to boycott. I would rather boycott American products. They are the biggest warmongers and for some reason, we are running around doing their bidding. Now downvote me to oblivion.

    • +23

      No one has the higher moral ground

      The Australian government still has to act within the law (even if you believe they are not subject to the same level of scrutiny), subject to media opinion, popular opinion and ultimately accountable for their actions.

      The Chinese government will disappear anyone that steps out of line.

      Is that equal moral ground?

      • +10

        Yeah and Australian politicians are doing a good job dealing with the whole SAS debacle. i see more of them getting enraged and condeming China's tweet than the actions by the rogue soldiers. Like i mentioned, i couldn't care less. Both are bad.

        • +28

          We have something called due process here.

          We don't condemn our soldiers on allegations alone. We will condemn them if the due process reveals that they are indeed guilty.

          In China, they will do as they please. Maybe they'll scapegoat all the atrocities on the lowly soldier, maybe they'll just imprison the journalist that even dares to report on the atrocities.

          If you don't like it that we have a judicial process, maybe you should live in a communist regime.

          • +8

            @[Deactivated]: Right, due process, due diligence. Did we do any of that before we entered Iraq and Afghanistan?

            Funny you should mention China imprisoning journalists reporting on atrocities, remember a certain David William McBride?

Login or Join to leave a comment