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

171–180 of 497 posts

Re: China

#171

Post by keiferski »

viscanti wrote: post #161
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.

But don't a lot of people who live in the Rust Belt shop at Walmart and benefit from cheaper prices generally? I haven't seen any "made in America" competitor to Walmart that's thriving because there's so much demand from customers who are willing to pay more to buy domestic made goods. Having access to cheap goods might not make up lost jobs, but weren't most of the manufacturing jobs in the Rust Belt automated away…

The Rust Belt lost most of its jobs prior to 1990, so I’m not sure how that’s relevant data.

I find it a bit hard to understand how someone could suggest that having access to garbage cheap Walmart goods would make up for the utter destruction of a region’s economy. A good place to observe this is southwestern Pennsylvania: there are hundreds of former industrial towns which are now almost completely empty. Drug use is also rampant in these areas and indeed it’s easy to make a direct connection between offshoring jobs and the opioid epidemic.

Re: China

#172

Post by nycsamurai »

blfr wrote: post #133

I'm not convinced that most people are hurt by trade with China but I'm perfectly fine with paying $2 more for a keyboard and $15 more for a cupboard to not deal with a murderous communist (redundant, I know, no one is really surprised here, right) regime. What is true is that this will not meaningfully impact lives of ordinary westerners. There is no reason other than corporate greed for the status quo.

I'm just playing devil's advocate here but I don't think it would cost $2 more for a keyboard, try > $100 for a keyboard. Unicomp is one example, made in Japan Realforce keyboards go for $200-$300. New balance makes sneakers in the USA but those cost ~$200. Everything would cost 2-3x. Would you pay $3000-4000 for an iphone that's built in the USA? Ever try to find a toaster oven that's made in USA? There is one but it'll set you back $285.

I would buy usa made stuff because I have the means to, currently typing this on a Realforce keyboard wearing USA NB sneakers. But I'm pretty sure it would put a huge dent in retail sales across the board. Maybe higher volume in manufacturing would lower usa-made prices and create more jobs in the usa which might tip the revenue flow from the 1% to everyone else.

Re: China

#173

Post by thawaway1837 »

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…

If it wasn’t China, the US would be importing goods from elsewhere.

It’s unlikely the response to not China will be America.

There are reasons to believe the US should still do not China even if it means Bangladesh or Vietnam (in fact, this is exactly what the TPP was supposed to have achieved, and would have better protected worker rights as well as IP...but I guess that wasn’t blunt enough for America).

The US is wealthier than it has ever been thanks to trade abroad. It makes absolutely no sense that the country that has overall benefited the most from trade, is complaining about it.

What the US hasn’t done, is spread the benefits of trade internally. The US economic problems stem from whatever led to a small percentage of the economy pocketing the vast gains. It’s far more likely that tax changes, regulatory changes, and changes in union power have a lot more to do with that than anything else.

But it’s always easier to blame Johnny Foreigner and people have been doing it for millennia, so there’s no reason to believe the US would be immune from it.

Re: China

#174

Post by solotronics »

Barrin92 wrote: post #154
snagglegaggle wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 places like the oil boom towns in west Texas and South Dakota the average salaries for all jobs are multiplied higher. Because the average worker in an oilfield makes so much more they have to pay the cashiers 4x what they normally would make. You are wrong.

Re: China

#175

Post by distances »

viscanti wrote: post #161
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.

But don't a lot of people who live in the Rust Belt shop at Walmart and benefit from cheaper prices generally? I haven't seen any "made in America" competitor to Walmart that's thriving because there's so much demand from customers who are willing to pay more to buy domestic made goods. Having access to cheap goods might not make up lost jobs, but weren't most of the manufacturing jobs in the Rust Belt automated away…

Foreign trade policy is not defined via consumer preferences. It's the exactly the same as for environmentally sound products: the burden is not on consumers to choose better, but on government to regulate the market.

Re: China

#176

Post by snagglegaggle »

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…

Automation that is in China, you mean? Because most of it isn't in the US.

Re: China

#177

Post by nafizh »

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…

This line of thinking just makes people sit on their hands. Individual citizens can always urge their Government to take actions against atrocities such as being committed by China.

The fact that I, a non-citizen can live in US and call out its mass killing of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan denotes the difference between US and China.

Re: China

#178

Post by rohit2412 »

kick wrote: post #7
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 guy "no one likes" isn't innocent of China-worship. Guiltier than most. On Jinping: "He is a great leader who very much has the respect of his people. He is also a good man in a 'tough business.'" Misrepresenting him as "willing to sever that codependent relationship" is harmful. He's just as complicit if not more than most politicians, and most of his actions involving China have been inconsistent and self-servi…

Pretty disingenuous don't you think? We all know trump says a lot of bullshit and contradictory things. He isn't Obama who was really good with his words.

But if all you have is trump saying "good strong leader", then you don't have much. Show actions not words.

Re: China

#179

Post by bachmeier »

> The financial incentives don’t help any Americans, and in fact, most of us are hurt by this relationship.

What a weird statement. We buy Chinese goods because it makes us better off. "The US is full of idiots that engage in voluntary transactions that make them worse off" is a hard claim to accept.

Obviously some people are worse off because of trade with China. And some are worse off because of technology. And a much larger number are worse off because of domestic competition. Open source software has killed lots of commercial software jobs. That's a good thing for most of us.

Post reply on HN