161–170 of 209 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, China is a U.S. vassal state?
Civilization games taught me that vassals, when powerful enough can break their vassalage and become free again. Perhaps that's what is happening with China. It's no longer dependent on the US in the way it was and in time, will eclipse the US as the largest superpower.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, there's a world of difference between being able to choose from one option or 2. As to the choice being an illusion because two parties often rule: tell that to the Whigs (one of the two parties that no longer exists in the UK), or to anyone that's held a balance of power in a coalition government.
current choices are between different shades of the same colour. it ultimately does not make a difference, it is an illusion
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There has been a big push to normalize the idea that "macroeconomists have figured out x and y". However, macroeconomists aren't scientists, and their messes like the Reinhardt-Rogoff affair should make everyone skeptical that they can claim they "know" anything with any degree of certainty. I first encountered this when economists kept attacking rent control saying it destroyed cities, while Montreal remained the be…
There are huge amounts macroeconomists don’t know but if they’re not scientists neither are epidemiologists or nutritionists. Experiments are impossible or necessarily tiny and of low quality in all those fields. Macroeconomics is not a healthy field making rapid progress. David D. Friedman’s verdict on it is that we know very little is true but we know plenty that isn’t. If you want to see someone really ripping int…
You invoked "economics textbooks" like some kind of conversation-ender, and I showcased several things economists treat as hard natural law that end up being, at best, oddly amiss in key cases:
- Rent control (Montreal has it, best city in North America)
- Free trade (China doesn't do it, most reduction of poverty world-wide)
- Sweatshops are desired (Except in a controlled experiment where they are not imposed, they are rejected)
- Debt is bad (Incredibly damaging pro-austerity garbage study boosted in spite its flaws)
Feel free to make each subsequent case on its own merits and evidence as you understand it, but please don't point at economists and act like they possess an authority that they do not.
And preponderance of studies doesn't eclipse a key result. Montreal routinely ranks as the best city on the continent, so even if something "works in most places", it doesn't mean it's something you should pursue when you're trying to be the best, or when you're trying to do well by yourself and not trying to be the best. You surely know about the economics "Theory of the Second Best"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree on the market access point, to an extent. There an assymetry that can't stand forever, given the size of China's economy today. But, free trade has never really been free. There are tons and tons of caveats, exceptions, special rules and bad faith. So, I think it's misleading to represent china as "closed" and other countries as "open." On the second point, I disagree. IP is not some basic, natural law. It's…
> IP is not some basic, natural law. It's a relatively recent invention, ostensibly invented to promote certain economic incentives. Why is china morally obligated to respect it? > At any given point in time, the biggest effect of an IP system is how it affects the current portfolio of patents & copyrights. That's what tends to dictate the rules. When copyright law is updated, it's the impact on Disney's IP asset por…
Unless you play by the same rules, free trade is unfair.
That argument is extremist, imo. It creates a dichotomy between trade or sovereignty. Want your own environmental laws, liability laws, pension schemes, oh&s rules? No trade for you.
It leads to both conflict, and the extension of the massive and very problematic trade agreements into every every facet of legislation.
IP laws can stay local. I agree on the middle point. Whatever the case for china making its own IP laws, they need to follow their own rule of law. Hacking/stealing is not justifiable. Deciding that pharma patents are not valid in China is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you raise a lot of valid points, the US is hardly innocent on a historic global basis. That being said, what's your take on China's behavior specifically, do you believe they are acting in a "fair" manner? Do you believe the advantages they enjoy are all justified? (Note: for the sake of this argument only, karmic payback for US historic behavior is not considered a valid justification.) EDIT: I'm curious why…
I have found criticism of China gets downvotes without a lot of responding comments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be honest, last time China accepted major trade deals from the West to fully open their market, they got their cities flooded by opium and got land ruled by foreign law, and then got their government toppled. The lessons learned from that was that if you are not careful, western countries will come and dominate you. Look around, the same happened in India and many other countries with often exctintion of natives F…
Definition of "developing country" from WTO. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/devel_e/d1who_e.htm China is no longer a developing country. The can say they are developing but that is no longer true.
Any justification? China's GDP per capita is lower than Mexico's.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You’re saying you dislike or hate his principles. I get it. Actually, I was only commenting on the claim that he didn't receive criticism for his 'principles', when he clearly did. I did not pass any other judgment. > Noam Chomsky is deeply principled. If someone opposes the US he’ll support them, whether they’re the Khmer Rouge or the Serbs in the Yugoslav Civil War. Think of Chomsky what you want, but this is a t…
>> You’re saying you dislike or hate his principles. I get it. > Actually, I was only commenting on the claim that he didn't receive criticism for his 'principles', when he clearly did. I did not pass any other judgment. If your interpretation of someone’s writing makes no sense try rereading it to see if there’s a sensible interpretation. No one who supports Milton Friedman is going to be unaware he’s widely hated.…
This is what you said. People have thoroughly proven you wrong.
As someone who watches the very unusual moderation of China-critical comments on HN (+3 one moment, -3 a few hours later) I'm wary of a political piece praising China hitting #1 on HN. I also don't see the value of Singapore - which is openly anti democratic ( https://www.huffpost.com/entry/singapore-challenges-democrac... ) providing advice here - as the same concerns about authoritarian corruption that apply to Chi…
I think it is very polarised topic. I noticed a pattern few month ago: you have a lot of bashing during East coast morning hours, followed by much more conciliatory toned wave of comments few hours after, when East coast wakes up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you raise a lot of valid points, the US is hardly innocent on a historic global basis. That being said, what's your take on China's behavior specifically, do you believe they are acting in a "fair" manner? Do you believe the advantages they enjoy are all justified? (Note: for the sake of this argument only, karmic payback for US historic behavior is not considered a valid justification.) EDIT: I'm curious why…
> That being said, what's your take on China's behavior specifically, do you believe they are acting in a "fair" manner? Regarding trade: I think China (and any country) should have absolute say in how they do business, and who they want to do business with, who to allow in their internal market, etc. And of course other countries should be free to reciprocate. That would be actually free trade in my book: with any n…
This answer seems to pretend the prisoner's dilemma doesn't exist.
The world grows more when it works together. If China doesn't want to play by the rules of the global trading system, it should stop reaping the benefits while undermining it for everyone else.
As others has observed the economies of USA and China are tied at the hip. China sells goods cheaply to USA and takes the dollars it makes and invest in US treasuries. This keeps inflation low and keeps interest rates low. And allows the US to maintain an unnatural high living standard with low savings and asset price inflation. The central bank may be able to compensate from the lack of Chinese buying but it is an u…