China • Hacker News Board

Re: China

#231

Post by zzzcpan » Wed, Nov 20, 2019, 6:21 PM UTC

Aperocky wrote: post #216

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…

Both the west and China omit information when reporting about HK. China highlights protester violence, the west talk about police. The only difference is that west is doing it voluntarily. If you step back and think about it, if this protest were to happen in the US, with subways burned, shops destroyed, road blocked, for 6 months. What is going to happen? Compare this hypothetical scenario with what happened in Hong…

> China highlights protester violence, the west talk about police. The only difference is that west is doing it voluntarily.

Both in the US and in China people work in media voluntarily. In neither case they have freedom to publish anything they want, they have to push specific narratives coming from the top. In China narratives come directly from the government, in the US indirectly through the system of "manufacturing consent".

Re: China

#232

Post by sct202 » Wed, Nov 20, 2019, 6:21 PM UTC

keiferski wrote: post #40

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…

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.

Some of those low cost areas are in the country. A lot of the Rust Belt jobs moved within the USA to the South (especially with the auto industry), which is one of the reasons top line US industrial production is pretty stable/growing but you have some very obvious depressed industrial regions.

Re: China

#233

Post by snogaraleal » Wed, Nov 20, 2019, 6:21 PM UTC

It's also worth noting that the financial elites and the CCP aren't really doing business, they're committing fraud and theft. China isn't exporting productivity, it's exporting deflation and corruption.

Arguably, the trade war may have nothing to do with trade and, together with financial decoupling, everything to do with deliberate monetary strangulation.

The Trump administration holds all the cards, the CCP holds none. The challenge is getting the job done without more people getting killed.

https://mises.org/wire/china-trouble

https://mises.org/wire/chinas-biggest-problem-isnt-trump-its...

https://thesoundingline.com/chinas-money-supply-has-outgrown...

Re: China

#234

Post by keiferski » Wed, Nov 20, 2019, 6:22 PM UTC

bachmeier wrote: post #184

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.

Umm...economists know all about this. I taught international trade classes out in North Carolina. Talked to numerous people affected by the loss of textile manufacturing. There's a massive literature, going back decades, on the topic. I wish there was a way to raise the level of discussion on HN. Instead, completely uninformed comments like this get upvoted.

Perhaps my comment was a bit dismissive, but I think the general point stands: academic economists don’t live in the places that have been economically ruined by offshoring jobs. University professors are white-collar professionals and don’t live in run-down, economically-dead towns.

It’s easy to draw abstract analyses from afar, but without actual hands-on experience, you end up with unexpected side effects - like the current rise of populist protectionism.

Re: China

#235

Post by scarmig » Wed, Nov 20, 2019, 6:23 PM UTC

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 biggest issue with Trump isn't his domestic policies, which aren't too divorced from typical Republican ones. It's not even his uncouth persona.

The biggest issue with him is how he's destroyed our system of alliances, which administrations of both parties have defended and cultivated over decades. See, for instance, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/11/18/china-signs-defe....

This is disastrous. It's insane that the US is losing South Korea to China, considering we sacrificed tens of thousands of soldiers and considered starting nuclear war to prevent it in the 1950s. And people just shrug, because to the extent people care about politics right now, it's to focus on impeachment hearings, which themselves are happening because Trump blackmailed an important ally.

The core foreign policy of whoever is President should be recognizing China as our most formidable strategic competitor and working to maintain and build upon a system of alliances to limit its power and reach. Instead Trump is just a thug trying to shake down our allies for cheap wins and PR releases based on an idiotic understanding of American foreign policy interests.

Re: China

#236

Post by swagasaurus-rex » Wed, Nov 20, 2019, 6:23 PM UTC

natalyarostova wrote: post #79

kick wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How is that a misrepresentation? He's started a trade war with them. In a world with a few nations with ICBMs it's often valuable to maintain some semblance of respect with countries capable of destroying you, even when initiating a trade war. Most people didn't enjoy the cold war.

Countries routinely disrespect each other all the time.

"War is the continuation of politics by other means." - Carl_von_Clausewitz

Re: China

#237

Post by swagasaurus-rex » Wed, Nov 20, 2019, 6:26 PM UTC

cobookman wrote: post #191

Lammy wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think you mean .01%. The 1% maybe have 1-10million of savings.

And likely invest in assets that can't be moved to foreign soil.

Re: China

#238

Post by driverdan » Wed, Nov 20, 2019, 6:27 PM UTC

echelon wrote: post #87

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…

You're being downvoted for expressing a contrarian viewpoint. This kind of censorship isn't even targeting hate speech, and it drives me crazy. Why downvote them?

I downvoted him because what he said isn't true.

Re: China

#239

Post by dlp211 » Wed, Nov 20, 2019, 6:27 PM UTC

rohit2412 wrote: post #178

kick wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Trump abandoned the TPP which would have put actual pressure on China in favor of this visible trade war which is nothing more than a tax on American consumers.

Re: China

#240

Post by jjcc » Wed, Nov 20, 2019, 6:29 PM UTC

AdeptusAquinas wrote: post #209

Didn't the US blow up 30 afghani civilians a few months ago with drone strikes? Didn't even make the front page. We all make deals with monsters for economic safety, or because there is near nothing we can do about it. That includes China AND the US.

Killing civilians is unfortunate and mistake. However it's controversial because the views of the leaders of a nation is quite different from average people that there are costs and risks you cannot avoid to protect more civilian death. Logically that's a legitimate claim. In statistics majority of killed were terrorists. i.e. the killing is quite effective and accurate.

The real flaw of the strategy is fundamental misunderstanding of root cause and how human society works. Killing didn’t reduce the capability of the terrorists. The growth of terrorists out paste target drone killing numbers. Killing cause more growth. That’s why US eventually talk to Taliban. The failure is on another level not accuracy of drone target killing.