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

121–130 of 497 posts

Re: China

#121

Post by kp98 »

notadamsmith wrote: post #96

I'm a Chinese. I admire your courage to post this article. But there's one thing that's fundamentally wrong in your article. Trading with China is, for now, beneficial to EVERYONE, including you, Drew DeVault, and the top 1% richest. Specialization and trading are the fundamental ways to advance the economy. Surely there will be blue collar workers in the US losing their jobs, but that's just how economy goes. We car…

I think it is not about not trading persay - it's about not supporting a totalitarian mercantilist. While we both benefit on paper, the fact that so much of this wealth is concentrated at the top in America slows the velocity of money, and the fact that the Chinese are using it to fuel totalitarian measures compounds the trade deficit to the point where it is no longer simply about money and jobs.

Maybe having a gigantic trade deficit is natural and okay, but when it is being used to fund the CCP it is problematic. America may have to take a short term hit, but if it moves its factories out to India, Thailand, Taiwan, Mexico, even back to America the marginal loss in wealth due to trade will be outranked by the substantial benefit to society we will get from not fuelling a nation that seeks supremacy at the cost of humanity.

Re: China

#122

Post by friendlybus »

marcoseliziario wrote: post #54

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 pres…

They do work together. There is benefit in controlling the growth and rise of the Chinese and american populace. I don't know how you guarantee working conditions for 1 billion people. Just the spread of resources alone gets thin very quickly. Buy giving them the space to rise by selling to the US with subsidized shipping and what else has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty, abuses or not. That is a fundamental good assuming it is stable. I think the courageous view is to integrate the cynical view and go one step further.

Re: China

#123

Post by mc32 »

Aunche wrote: post #92
keiferski wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure these economists have spent time in the Rust Belt, then. Entire cities were economically destroyed from the offshoring of jobs to China and other low-cost areas.

It's not just China. It started with Japan, and even without China, it will continue in Pakistan, Indonesia, and Vietnam, and eventually it will be replaced by automation.

So we know international trade is a thing and we know specialization is a thing. We know economies will over time become more value add and go up the chain.

That’s not a problem if we put in place policies and regulations that put our workers on even footing with foreign workers. Benefits, protections (OSHA), anti-dumping, market-based pay (no institutional labor), IP protections, even access to markets, etc. that is handicap any imports proportionately for not meeting those baselines.

Re: China

#124

Post by codingslave »

spamizbad wrote: post #72
codingslave wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Because despite his bluster he’s been completely ineffective. Talk is cheap. Execution matters.

Talk isnt cheap when politicians wont even speak about real issues in the country

Re: China

#125

Post by hohohmm »

bilbo0s wrote: post #115
hohohmm wrote: post #101

Full of bs that rides the trending US narrative on China. How much a self-fulfilling bubble of lies the western propaganda machine has weaved. Reading this article makes me feel like reading a white day dream that totally misses the reality, but checks all the right marks for the crusader mentality. I see how quickly this gets down voted. I guess the media is not to be blamed for fabricating all kinds of lies, for it…

To be fair, Western lies or Chinese lies, it's all the same. A bit disingenuous to only call out the Western lies. What do you think about the Chinese lies? I don't think you're any more honest than the guy who wrote this article. Neither of you are being forthright. Perhaps that's ignorance? Or maybe willful deceit? Either way, you're not to be taken seriously either.

Lies are lies. Chinese lies are easy to spot and rarely pretend it's lying. Western lies are so elaborately fabricated and that's what inspires articles like this.

Re: China

#126

Post by siffland »

lazaruzatgmail wrote: post #78
christophilus wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This upcoming presidential election is definitely more interesting due to this issue. My brother is a staunch Democrat, but he's made it clear that he's not voting for them if they put someone up who's soft on China. I suspect he'd be voting 3rd party in that scenario.

which means he is voting to keep the incumbent in This is a binary choice dem or repub any other choice is a vote for the incumbent

I have someone I work with who quite literally mocks people for voting for a 3rd party and actually tries to "shame" them for it, usually using a line like "which means he is voting to keep the incumbent in" (usually with more colorful words about the incumbent and the voter).

Voting 3rd party exercises your right to say you don't like either of the other 2 candidates. I will not argue which candidate it will help, but i think this line of thinking is detrimental to our voting process and wrong to rub in peoples faces.

Re: China

#127

Post by [deleted] »

m_alexgr wrote: post #97

Thanks for having the guts to say this. Granted that collectively "the West", those who explicitly or tacitly support the Anglo-American banking cartel, are not without major flaws and human rights abuses as well. But execution of your political opponents to harvest their organs for money? That is above and way, way beyond the pale. We don't need China. Increasing automation, and with other countries picking up the s…

[deleted]

Re: China

#128

Post by ridaj »

I stopped reading here:

> $155B worth of electronics, which we already have domestic manufacturing capabilities for [4]

The citation here is to the effect that the manufacturing technology is already present in the US. This does not at all translate to the capability to produce these goods, in at least three respects:

* Capacity of production (an industry manufacturing billions of goods requires at least new plants to be built)

* Logistics network (transportation, special zones with enough industry concentration to generate economies of scale)

* Skilled and experienced labor. Take whatever item you can think of, the people who have been in the manufacturing business for that specific item for over a decade have skill and experience above and beyond the mere technological capability to produce.

All of these things would translate at least to higher production costs (regardless of thoughts on currency exchange), market shrinkage from lower affordability, and potentially shortages as well.

The real economy is not as easy as software - you can't just install a new OS and run, it takes decades to transform industries at this scale.

Re: China

#129

Post by novok »

I don't think that the cheaper goods that China gave the world only benefited the %1, and actually has helped a lot people in america and the world.

I also don't think that the economic miracle that has happened in China is a bad thing, and they could of been more singaporean/south korean authoritarian vs. genocidal authoritarian to achieve it. I really want china to become another Japan or Korea eventually.

I do agree with you that China is basically a modern day nazi germany, pre WW2 at this point.

Re: China

#130

Post by CharlesColeman »

Lammy wrote: post #62
swlkr wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know this wasn't intended but I thought it was interesting that he doesn't think of the 1% as Americans.

The 1% are above any state. They will align with any state that gives them favorable tax loopholes. If America clamps down they will just leave. Look at Eduardo Saverin for example.

> The 1% are above any state. They will align with any state that gives them favorable tax loopholes. If America clamps down they will just leave. Look at Eduardo Saverin for example.

The ability for an individual to choose their favored tax jurisdiction is an artifact of law, and laws can be changed. If America decides to clamp down on the 1%, it can also create laws to disincentivize leaving for tax reasons, like Saverin did.

Post reply on HN