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

241–250 of 497 posts

Re: China

#241

Post by response777 »

koube wrote: post #32
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 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…

Because everyone having taken Econ 101 knows what principle of comparative advantage is.

Re: China

#242

Post by pinkfoot »

nafizh wrote: post #177
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.

I am sure the relatives of the mass killings in Iraq and Afghanistan appreciate this subtle difference.

Re: China

#243

Post by kd3 »

I'm well aware of the fact that the author lives in the US which has been and is still involved in numerous cases of human rights violations and oppression of entire countries worldwide. But the article is excellent. While China's foreign policy hasn't been as oppressive as the US so far, locally they are implementing Orwell's 1984 with precision. It is fucking disgusting.

Re: China

#244

Post by jeffdavis »

Aunche wrote: post #165
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…

The US has always valued "principle" over actual results. In Iraq, Saddam was "evil", so he had to go, even though it would leave the entire country in the power vacuum and destroy the livelihoods of the average Iraqi. Ditto for Gaddafi in Libya. This post is much the same way. A poorer China is only going to deteriorate their human rights. A wealthier China is going to crave for more freedom. This happened in South…

"A wealthier China is going to crave for more freedom."

We've been testing that theory for decades with negative results.

Maybe it works other places, but it doesn't seem to be working in China.

Re: China

#245

Post by CharlesColeman »

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…

> because from the beginning his sole goal was having access to a cheap workforce, and damned the rest.

Uh. His goals were to further American interests in Cold War geopolitics and increase his personal stature as a statesman. Friendly American relations with Chinese Communists put more pressure on Soviet Communists.

Free trade has nothing to due with it. You're forgetting that Nixon went to China in 1972, but the Chinese economy didn't start opening up until 1978 under Deng (and long after Nixon).

Re: China

#246

Post by Aunche »

a13n wrote: post #182

Hey mods is there a particular reason this post is being penalized? As of writing it's #22 with 400 points in 1 hour, while #5 has 119 points in 3 hours.

I noticed this happens to a greater extent the further the post is about tech. For example, opinions about the Damore memo got over a thousand upvotes, but disappeared off the front page in a few hours.

Re: China

#247

Post by baddox »

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…

> The thing is: economists are hardly unbiased and neutral. Their theories are far from scientific truth, and typically embed significant political content.

That may be true, but are there any less biased and more neutral experts on the economy to turn to, or do we just throw up our hands and say that no one knows anything about the economy and thus all opinions are equally valid?

Re: China

#249

Post by koube »

CharlesColeman wrote: post #185
koube wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> There are winners and losers in every decision, and I've already acknowledged there are concentrated losses among certain populations. Decisions are political, and these decisions have been, more or less, presented to the losers as a fait accompli by the winners. It is good and right that such a decision be challenged, and that it potentially be moderated or rolled back entirely. These decisions also have had impor…

The scientific side of economics is the description of the properties and behavior of economics systems. The political side is what we should do with this information. I think I and the sources I've cited have kept largely to the former, and I'm the only one in the comment chain to at least throw up a graph. Call it what you want, but we should be able to make observations on systems. At the very least it's a step up from say, pointing out that a source comes from libertarians.

Re: China

#250

Post by sangnoir »

keiferski wrote: post #234
bachmeier wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Your comment seems very anti-intellectual, which is surprising to find on HN. Academics do not need to live in a place in order to study it rigorously.

Not being blasé, but the rust-belt is the trade-off for globalization. The US asked the rest of the world to open up their markets for American goods and services and promised to do the same.

Post reply on HN