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

291–300 of 497 posts

Re: China

#291

Post by bduerst »

godtoldmetodoit wrote: post #277
bduerst wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where do you think the jobs in the rust belt came from? The same thing happened to artisan economies with factories during modernization, yet people didn't decry the loss of the local blacksmith when the rust belt took over their jobs too. The transition from local to city to regional to global specialization is a natural effect of economies of scale. Trying to freeze economic development and preserve the status quo…

There was most certainly massive push back against industrialization. The Luddite movement being one obvious example. In the US we ended up with 40 hour work weeks, and universal high school as a government response. We will need similar large measures to deal with globalization and automation this time as well.

Precisely, and as the history of automation has shown, having a social safety net to retrain and shift workers is critical.

Unfortunately the focus is on blaming immigrants and other countries, not helping the disenfranchised American workers get back on their feet. It's easier to be an angry luddite but it's also historically the wrong side to be on.

Re: China

#292

Post by kick »

Aperocky wrote: post #287
bcrosby95 wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So we should continue to let them buy US companies despite the reverse not being allowed? We should continue to let their companies operate freely in our markets despite the reverse not being allowed? We must maintain this double standard because the CCP might make propaganda out of it?

Name some Chinese company operate freely in US? Tiktok? What else? Apple, Starbucks, Intel, Microsoft etc operates in China - as for freely, you define whatever that word means. American companies have a much larger namesake and presence in China than the other way around. Your complaint is the complete reverse of real life.

None of the companies you listed are allowed to operate without partnering with a Chinese company. If you accept them as operating in China, then given 95% of consumer goods have "Made in China" stamped on them, China operates just as much in the US. The above poster's point is still wrong, but so are you.

Re: China

#293

Post by indemnity »

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…

Poor Americans in the rust belt are poor largely because of the decimation of a path to the middle class.

So now we need to keep the status quo because they are no longer middle class?

Your argument doesn’t make sense and until you understand that Trump wins re-election easily.

Even if he was not particularly effective in improving their lot, at least he followed through on his promises instead of preaching to them how raping them was good for them.

Globalization went too far.

Re: China

#296

Post by philsnow »

natch wrote: post #279
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.

Hi author, wondering what you think China should do with the organs of executed prisoners? It’s easy to find fault with them for (presumably) not asking for permission but it seems it would be a pity for them not to be used to help patients in need, no? This is separate from the question of what supposed crimes led to the execution. Short waiting lists can be explained by the lack of permission not only for execution…

If the prisoners didn't consent to their organs being used (to bolster the health of the people who imprisoned them), they should not be used.

Anything else sets up a perverse incentive to execute more undesirables.

Re: China

#297

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: China

#298

Post by perennate »

zzzcpan wrote: post #231
Aperocky wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 "manufactur…

China Daily has an office in NYC [1], and publishes a US edition of their newspaper. This is a newspaper directly owned by the CCP. And you can pick up a copy of the regular China Daily in many cities. Is the uncensored New York Times available in China? I think not. Trying to equate the two is ridiculous. No one is going to buy your argument that "manufacturing consent" means that the level of freedom of speech is the same in the US and China. It's just completely wrong.

[1] http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/2011-04/13/content_12319455.htm

When the police come in and arrest everyone working for the China Daily in NYC and send them to jail and physically torture them like the CCP did to Simon Cheng or harvest their organs like the CCP did to Falun Gong followers, then you can make your argument. And many people in the US will fight just as hard for the rights of China Daily US Edition as they fight for freedom of speech and universal suffrage in Hong Kong.

Re: China

#299

Post by jjcc »

baby wrote: post #149
__sy__ wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

I would say many mainlanders are reluctant say anything in this topic so you don't know.

BTW, I'm Canadian but was from mainland. There are also a lot of debate inside WeChat groups which include oversea Chinese who have access to all information.

Re: China

#300

Post by chrchang523 »

lazaruzatgmail wrote: post #78
christophilus wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This upcoming presidential election is definitely more interesting due to this issue. My brother is a staunch Democrat, but he's made it clear that he's not voting for them if they put someone up who's soft on China. I suspect he'd be voting 3rd party in that scenario.

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

As far as fallacies that can be demonstrated to be mathematically incorrect to bright 5-year-olds go, this one is absurdly common.

0 may not be equal to 1, but it isn't equal to -1 either. It takes TWO people changing their vote from to to match the effect of one person changing from to .

Post reply on HN