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

141–150 of 497 posts

Re: China

#141

Post by rlue »

Vysero wrote: post #75
ddevault wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Author here. Thank you for your earnest concern. I'm a pretty risk-averse person and I take lots of pains to address those contingencies for all of my digital services.

I agree with you and imagine many others do as well. I think you are right it's about time I draw a line in my own personal life as well. No more Chinese manufactured goods for me. In fact, I think I will go ahead and get rid of what I currently own.

People suggest this a lot, but I don't think it does the trick. Some merchant bought a bunch of inventory from a Chinese factory, then tried to sell it to you, and you didn't buy it. When they get tired of holding onto it, they'll sell it at deep discount and eat the loss, then try to make up the loss on another product (and politically indifferent consumers will happily swoop in for a good deal). Meanwhile, China is laughing all the way to the bank.

If you really care, reach out directly to the merchants you buy from. Tell them you used to be a loyal customer, but you won't buy from them again until they stop carrying products made in China. Get your friends and coworkers to do the same, and keep the pressure on. If they go for it, follow through by rewarding them with your loyalty, and broadcast that win as publicly as possible. Talk about it, hashtag it, whatever. Organize.

Changing individual consumption habits rarely amounts to much more than virtue signalling.

And don't toss your existing stuff. You already paid for it, so it's not helping China anymore, and throwing it away doesn't hurt them. If anything, selling it to someone else reduces demand for new products (by exactly 1 unit).

Re: China

#142

Post by blfr »

gregwebs wrote: post #59

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 ha…

> outside of the US others will readily view this line of thought as hypocritical and self-serving

Sitting here in a former eastern block country I completely disagree. It is absolutely obvious that communism is by far humanity's greatest moral failure and China just proves it again.

United States would need need to start dropping nukes on cities to even approach communism's death toll. A regime change, however misguided, here and there won't be enough for centuries.

Re: China

#143

Post by snagglegaggle »

Barrin92 wrote: post #60
remarkEon wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 sa…

You don't know the steady state is harm to poor Americans. That Americans are poor is likely a consequence of the current trade imbalances.

Re: China

#144

Post by sct202 »

icelancer wrote: post #76
pjc50 wrote: post #8

There are a lot of jobs dependent on trade with China (our company was affected by the Huawei ban, for example), and the fantasy that you can just cut-over to US manufacturing without huge transition job losses is unrealistic. And if the US wants to get serious about the use of trade sanctions against human rights violations, there are a lot of places closer to home that it could look at. Not to mention the laws agai…

>> There are a lot of jobs dependent on trade with China (our company was affected by the Huawei ban, for example), and the fantasy that you can just cut-over to US manufacturing without huge transition job losses is unrealistic. Completely agree. I very much empathize with the author and this issue is the only one where I feel some sort of connection with the current POTUS, but the engineering-at-scale capacities in…

There are a hundred million+ factory workers in China producing products at massive scale for the world. Scaling up enough equipment, robots, and skilled workers in America to do even a fraction of that work is going to be a huge undertaking.

Re: China

#145

Post by ThisIsBrilliant »

jchw wrote: post #25

Hey Drew, just wanted to say I couldn’t agree more. I do not know about the US’s domestic manufacturing capabilities, and I don’t think I care, either; this situation is not OK. It probably wasn’t OK for a very long time. Something needs to change. It probably won’t come at a small cost. I’m sure this thread will have a lot of whataboutism. Remember what your parents always told you: two wrongs don’t make a right.

My parents told me two eyes for an eye.

Re: China

#146

Post by mc32 »

siffland wrote: post #126
lazaruzatgmail wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, b…

Yup. Votes are earned, they are not owed anyone. You want my vote? Earn it.

Re: China

#148

Post by koube »

CharlesColeman wrote: post #95
koube wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article focuses on human rights abuses which I think is a cogent criticism of China-US trade. On the economics issue though, readers should know he disagrees with economists, who nearly universally agree that trade with China benefits Americans as a whole, with the caveat that there are concentrated losses in certain populations. Economists are highly certain on this, with uncharacteristically few people respondi…

> On the economics issue though, readers should know he disagrees with economists, who nearly universally agree that trade with China benefits Americans as a whole, with the caveat that there are concentrated losses in certain populations. The thing is: economists are hardly unbiased and neutral. Their theories are far from scientific truth, and typically embed significant political content. For instance: "benefit" c…

There are winners and losers in every decision, and I've already acknowledged there are concentrated losses among certain populations. It hurt certain sectors of manufacturing, yes, but as you can see pulling back from trade hurts a different set of American workers[0][1], and may not even be benefiting the manufacturing sector[2]. Manufacturing is not a simple "I make things or you make things", with free trade it's a cooperative process and protectionism affects inputs to manufacturing as well[3].

Without belaboring the argument which I'm sure everyone's seen before, I would like to re-focus on the point of my comment: The idea that "The financial incentives don’t help any Americans, and in fact, most of us are hurt by this relationship" is counter to everything we know about economics. You can give counter examples yes, but overall trade has been a benefit to Americans, especially for lower-income Americans who rely on low cost goods. We can say with our engineering jobs that we're willing to bear the cost of protectionism, but we don't really bear that cost in the first place.

[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/07/the-costs-...

[1] https://fee.org/articles/tariffs-hurt-the-poorest-the-most/

[2] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/07/the-costs-...

[3] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-steel/in-michig...

Re: China

#149

Post by baby »

__sy__ wrote: post #132
chvid wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't worry; your political views are completely mainstream as the discussion here also demonstrates.

Mainstream in America. But far from it in mainland China.

I’d add that mainlanders here in the US completely disagree with you as well. (I am not, but know many.)

Re: China

#150

Post by GhettoMaestro »

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.

Technicality: You're not referring to the 1%, but something like the .01% or even .001%. The difference between 1% and .01% income is staggering.
Post reply on HN