Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

China

drewdevault.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 497 posts

Re: China

#51

Post by claudeganon »

mc32 wrote: post #2

>”It’s economically productive for the 1% to maintain a trade relationship with China. The financial incentives don’t help any Americans, and in fact, most of us are hurt by this relationship...” So true, since its inception with GHW, its execution and realization through Clinton and then once fully engaged the timid, supplicant responses from GW and BO, China has contributed to the stagnation of the blue collar work…

The destruction of much of the working class industrial base also provides the opportunity to shift them into a right wing alliance with the ruling class through scapegoating. And because of both their location (the industrial Midwest) and undemocratic structures like the electoral college, allows the ruling class to maintain a tight grip on executive branch power.

Re: China

#53

Post by geofft »

spectramax wrote: post #22

Liberal societies, such as the Bay Area (where I live), it’s impossible to criticize anyone without having the doubt of “offending” someone. When it comes to China, I can’t go out in the lunch room and openly criticize CCP because you know, I could “offend” a Chinese National. This needs to stop. I see this behavior on HN, which is frustrating, counterproductive, anti-free speech and extremely left-winged. Another pr…

That's surprising, didn't left-leaning employees at Google heavily criticize Dragonfly? Why weren't they worried about offending Chinese nationals?

Re: China

#54

Post by marcoseliziario »

Richard Nixon carries a lot of responsibility for the current situation. He never ever put the human rights issue on the table, he never pressed on the issue, because from the beginning his sole goal was having access to a cheap workforce, and damned the rest. The Communist Party situation at that time rested on the abuse of power. Nixon just strengthened their position by given market access and capital without pressure on the human rights issues.

Actually, the cynic in me thinks that this was by design. By reinforcing the power of the communist party, american corporations wouldn't have to worry about the chinese workers fighting for better labor and environmental conditions, thus keeping costs low.

Re: China

#55

Post by deweller »

I applaud standing up to China's human rights violations.

But this post grossly underestimates the short term economic effects that cutting trade ties with China would have. Companies would go bankrupt. It is quite likely that the US and possibly the world would enter a recession or depression. These events will have devastating effects on people around the world far beyond the 1%.

We are part of a world economy. We are dependent on China and China is dependent on us.

Surely there are better ways to effect change in China than waging economic war. War of any kind will cause suffering.

Re: China

#56

Post by kick »

codingslave wrote: post #33
mc32 wrote: post #2

>”It’s economically productive for the 1% to maintain a trade relationship with China. The financial incentives don’t help any Americans, and in fact, most of us are hurt by this relationship...” So true, since its inception with GHW, its execution and realization through Clinton and then once fully engaged the timid, supplicant responses from GW and BO, China has contributed to the stagnation of the blue collar work…

I am still shocked by how many people do not give Trump credit for putting China on the political issue radar. Both sides of the aisle were destroying the American economy and middle class, and literally no one was talking about it. The guy has issues, and even if he fails in his endeavors, he brought trade and immigration into the national conversation. For all we know, he saved the USA

https://www.google.com/search?q=before%3A2016%20china%20huma...

Re: China

#57

Post by nfoz »

mdorazio wrote: post #14

The problem is that doing what the author proposes and severing trade relations entirely would be extremely harmful to the 99% of Americans in the short term. Prices for virtually everything would skyrocket far faster than wages. And they would do so for everyone, not just blue collar workers. In the long term things might be better, but it would be a lot more painful to get there than I think most Americans are prep…

Well I'm somewhere in that 99% of Americans, and I can tell you that "what keeps prices low for me" is very far from the top of my list of priorities. People have values and principles, that are important to us.

Re: China

#58

Post by mendelmaleh »

piinbinary wrote: post #37

What can I, as an average Joe living in the US, do to help? Edit: After reading responses, I realize that there is a better question to ask: What people in the US in general do to help (vote a certain way, write to certain politicians, change purchasing habits), and how can I specifically participate in that?

I would suggest buying more US made products, try to be less dependent on China...

Re: China

#59

Post by gregwebs »

I don't necessarily disagree with the article, I just want to point out that outside of the US others will readily view this line of thought as hypocritical and self-serving.

As a US citizen, I try to consider how the rest of the world may view our actions (glass houses and all). Following the logic here it would make sense for the rest of the world to cutoff trade with the United States due to the Iraq war, which has caused many civilian deaths.

But if you agree that the rest of the world should have sanctioned the US for the Iraq war (among other things) then there might be a consistency with trying to sanction China.

Re: China

#60

Post by Barrin92 »

remarkEon wrote: post #50
Barrin92 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

most of the job losses of blue-collar work are the result of automation, not foreign trade (this is a statement for which ample evidence exists[1]), furthermore on the aggregate Americans do benefit from trade with not just China but also other low-cost nations, which again is economics 101. If the United States were to produce goods at the level of domestic wages a small segment of the workforce would benefit, but c…

>increase in price I, and I’m sure many many others, would be willing to pay a little more if I know that money is staying here and supporting families in this country. I can do without more plastic crap from China, and I consider it strategically important that high tech manufacturing comes back to the US. For defense reasons, among others. I’m sure someone will link the Wikipedia page with some neat plots from “eco…

Well you may be fine if you have a lot of disposable income, but many poor Americans will not. Which is of course the opposite story that the OP tried to tell. If you are a minimum wage US worker paying hundreds of dollars more for basic goods is a drastic cut into your quality of life.

This mercantilism on display here will be extremely harmful to people in America who rely on low cost imported goods just for the sake of predominantly wealthy people attempting to play geopolitics. If you're willing to harm poor Americans and cut trade then please state it like this, don't wrap it up in patriotism.

And to expand on the 'jobs coming back'. Given the high production costs that American companies would have to live with would instantly make their products unattractive in the rest of the world, where people are still going to buy Chinese phones. Giving companies like Apple an incentive to drastically increase the pace of automation, which again is the primary eliminator of jobs.

And even worse, unless you put a tariff on Samsung who will still produce in countries with access to cheap labour, american products will be uncompetitive in their own markets. If you do eliminate competition, the incentive to innovate will vanish. This in fact already happened in the US in the 80s, when the Reagan administration engaged in a trade-war with the Japanese to protect the automotor industry. We all know what this did to the american car market as a result.

Post reply on HN