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

151–160 of 497 posts

Re: China

#151

Post by chrchang523 »

baron_harkonnen wrote: post #21

If I might post an unpopular opinion, and let me assure you I'm not secretly a pro-CCP shill: what's happening HK has much more to do with changing economic realities than it does with an evil agenda from the Chinese government. In 1997 HK had 1/3 of the GDP of mainland China and was the only way for Western companies to interact with China. Today HK has 3% of the GDP of mainland China and a huge part of this is beca…

You're missing the point, which is that the people of HK are obviously capable of a higher level of self-government, and the CCP could have chosen to allow that under the "one country, two systems" framework. All of the other members of its "Asian Tiger" cohort (South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore) have that.

The CCP was not legally obligated to do so, of course; Drew IS wrong about the illegality of the CCP's behavior here. And as a practical matter, trying to deprive China of the territory of Hong Kong is a fool's errand.

But the talented people of HK who stayed in 1997 in the hopes that the rest of China would meet them closer to halfway do not need to remain. And, now that close to a billion Chinese have been lifted out of grinding poverty by the economic policies of the last 40 years, any economic moral obligation the West had towards the Chinese people has been met; there's no particular reason for the West to further subsidize Chinese development over further development of India, Indonesia, etc.

Re: China

#152

Post by AlexandrB »

I agree with all of this, but also can't help thinking about the old Bastiat quote: "When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will."

Re: China

#154

Post by Barrin92 »

snagglegaggle wrote: post #143
Barrin92 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>That Americans are poor is likely a consequence of the current trade imbalances.

This story is improbable because the overwhelming majority of America's poorest are employed in the domestic service industry who are not facing negative exposure to international trade. Every store clerk, every McDonalds worker, every garbage man, cleaning lady, janitor, nanny, teacher and so on will be one-sided losers of an increase in prices due to reduced trade.

The benefactors will be a relatively small number of American manufacturing workers (given that it's overall only a small source of employment), who already earn solidly middle-class wages.

Re: China

#155

Post by gnomewascool »

I mostly agree with the substance and recommendations of the article, and greatly appreciate it. The following is just a quibble.

> Let’s lay out the facts: China is conducting human rights violations on the largest scale the world has seen since Nazi Germany.

Even if you ignore events like the Cambodian genocide by the Khmer rouge or the Rwandan genocide, on the basis that, while far more intensive, they affected a considerably smaller population, China's own cultural revolution was a far greater human rights violation than what is happening now in China. (Arguably, in terms of scope, it was even worse than anything than the Nazis did, even if its intentions were probably more benign.)

I'd recommend changing the quoted sentence to something to the effect of "one of the largest scales".

Re: China

#156

Post by borkt »

Barrin92 wrote: post #38
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…

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…

Do we still need a new phone every year or two like was necessary in the past? I've had no desire to upgrade my phone and don't see a compelling reason to in the future. If manufacturing had stayed in america there would be copious amounts of technical jobs in the (now decimated) regions, even if mechanization reduces the overall number of people.

The world has too many people to support as is, so it is beneficial if automation reduces the number of workers needed in the long run. But sending all of the factories out of the US benefits no one.

Re: China

#157

Post by baby »

spacehunt wrote: post #82
ilamont wrote: post #43

Xi's in a trap. The nationalist fervor that the CCP has whipped up for decades, coupled with the demonization of the HK protestors by Chinese media and Xi's 'no compromise' stance, makes it impossible for him to lighten up -- and the protests to de-escalate -- without him seeming weak. The HK protestors/population at this point are so angry and the radical wing so large, that they won't willingly de-escalate. Even if…

Social media in China is also heavily censored and manipulated. There are quite a few in mainland China who understands what's going on here in Hong Kong, but most buy into the state propaganda and wants us exterminated for being "separatists" and "traitors of the Chinese race."

There’s a lot of mainland people in the US who think the western medias are all biased and that they are helping HK to separate from China.

Re: China

#159

Post by jmartrican »

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 think with every president there r good things and bad things they do. Would like to just say that in the good category of our current president is their stance on China. Finally someone standing up and saying no more. I have not decided who to vote for in the next election but this issue will be one of the main ones I will be looking at.

Re: China

#160

Post by CharlesColeman »

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…

> Well you may be fine if you have a lot of disposable income, but many poor Americans will not.

Why are they poor? Hasn't globalization directly contributed to making the American working class poorer? For instance: Offshoring a factory obviously eliminates those workers' jobs. The owner of a American factory can also use the threat of offshoring to keep wages down. The owner is better off, but the workers clearly aren't.

One of the obnoxious things about free-trade ideology is that the cause of problems and the proposed solutions often seem to be one and the same: more market faster.

Post reply on HN