Live data from Hacker News

China

drewdevault.com

311–320 of 497 posts

Re: China

#311
post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Wrong, Microsoft/Apple/Starbucks did not partner with anyone. That requirement was specifically for auto/manufacture industry.

Re: China

#312

Tech people: Rant about egregious things that China and Russia does (political, freedom, basic human rights, etc.) Also tech people: Vehemently oppose helping the US DoD with their highly-sought after skills, sign online petitions, protest and/or quit their high-paying jobs at . Serious question for these tech people: What are you exactly doing to help solve the issues you've ranted about? I'd like to hear thoughtful…

How is the DoD going to help with China and Russia? We're not going to invade them. If you're referring to the NSA or CIA they're both organizations that ignore the US constitution so there's great reasons to not work for them.

[deleted]

Re: China

#313
post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Votes alone don't determine frontpage position and it's still on the front page, so clearly it's not being penalized. Some people probably flagged it too, as I did.

Why did you flag it?

It's flamewar fuel. (I didn't flag it, but only because I enjoy the heat too much.)

Re: China

#314
post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There’s a lot of mainland people in the US who think the western medias are all biased Isn't it ? I mean, I don't respect China much but this is not a false statement.

Personally I'm biased in favour of rights. If HK ruled over China I'd be in favour of Chinese independence. I want Beijing to have universal suffrage just as much as I want the Cantonese to.

Most protesters don't want HK independence, they simply want universal suffrage which was guaranteed by the CCP in the 1997 joint declaration. But the CCP has failed their promise and almost half of the seats in the HK legislature are chosen by "functional constituencies" that do not represent the people. Of course the CCP has labeled these people as "separatists" to attract domestic hatred towards the protesters, and spreads propaganda in China that falsely represents their demands.

At least SCMP still gives a truthful view: https://yp.scmp.com/hongkongprotests5demands

Re: China

#315

"not beneficial to anyone but those who are already obscenely rich, and certainly not for our poorest" An otherwise fact-driven post is undermined with this claim. Even if true, it would be very hard to support this claim.

while exaggerated, he s probably referring to this:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/2/16868838/el...

Re: China

#316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The attitude that “it’s just a trade off” is exactly the problem with abstract analysis. Millions of people in the Rust Belt lost their livelihoods and thousands of cities were economically destroyed. Maybe it was overall beneficial for Americans, but that isn’t the point I’m making. The point is that academic economists pushed policies that had unintended side effects (populism and protectionism) that perhaps they w…

> The point is that academic economists pushed policies

Sure, the Chicago school of economics has been banging this particular drum for ages, but it found a responsive ear in the "deciders" in both public and private spheres from the late-80's.

This rust-belt is a symptom on ongoing class warfare, pure and simple - China only happens to be a tool (and a convenient scape goat). The global domination of Wall Street and Silicon Valley is the flip-side of the globalism coin.

I'd say on average the US benefitted, but this hasn't been evenly distributed (capital wins). How do you fix that without using any big-government, pinko communist/socialist interventions? (being sarcastic here, but that's ironically a big part of rust-belt politics).

Re: China

#317
post #32
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…

Mainstream macroeconomics still have problems dealing with real returns of capital investment and technology improvements. And free commerce with China creates some quite large unnatural changes on both of those factors. (And microeconomics can't save the day here.)

So, well, I would add disclaimer to not blindly trusts the economists on this one. Their opinion are probably much better than the one from the average Joe, and also much better than anything you'll get out of the news or a politician's mouth, but not completely reliable either... and the most certain a economist is of it, the less I would trust him.

Re: China

#318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Propose and _demonstrate_ a better one. Let's start with the very simple "have more than one viable political party". The CCP would never tolerate that. The rest of your comment is casual dismissal of "cultural genocide" and whataboutism. Rather than try and distract with transparently propagandist techniques, you should really consider reforms that the CCP could undertake to adhere to the rule of law and respect h…

>That at least would be constructive. Starting with the western values as endpoint for reform is not constructive but "transparently propagandist". Different countries apply different models at different points in development - "rule of law and respect human rights - is simply not a priority for China or many developing nations, where the moral calculus is better spent on attaining other freedoms, chiefly the freedom…

> Starting with the western values as endpoint for reform is not constructive but "transparently propagandist"

Ah but the rule of law is a global concept many disparate civilizations invented independently. Even China, here's Wikipedia:

> In China, members of the school of legalism during the 3rd century BC argued for using law as a tool of governance, but they promoted "rule by law" as opposed to "rule of law", meaning that they placed the aristocrats and emperor above the law.[15] In contrast, the Huang–Lao school of Daoism rejected legal positivism in favor of a natural law that even the ruler would be subject to.[16]

> "rule of law and respect human rights - is simply not a priority for China or many developing nations

China is the 2nd largest GDP in the world. It's no longer a developing nation. It has the ability to destroy the entire planet with pollution from its industry, its biotech research, and of course its nuclear weapons. This is not an excuse.

It's also not an excuse for any nation anywhere. No nation can be small enough to abduct, torture, murder, and harvest organs from its own citizens. The mere suggestion is disgusting.

> The point is cultural genocide is something that gets pragmatically dismissed everyday in the interest of geopolitics.

And practically everyone in this thread is lamenting that. We're ashamed of our nations for not acting against this, and OP explicitly calls for us to take action.

That is, except commenters like you, who are working extra hard to make excuses for the CCP with twisted arguments and whataboutism. Speaking of:

> Just like how people like to causally assert "whataboutism" whenever the brazenly obvious is pointed out: China gets away with abuses and will continue to because America led the way.

Besides being--again--whataboutism, you can't have it both ways. You can't say, "we're justified in doing the worst things the US has ever done" without also saying, "we're trying very hard to do the best things the US has ever done". Which, to be clear, are:

- rule of law

- respect for an expansive, equal set of human rights for all

- free, fair, open elections

This is a very basic human rule that children learn. Someone else's bad behavior doesn't excuse your own bad behavior. Take responsibility for your actions, and try to do better. Say what you want about the US, but we try and do that, and anyone with even a passing knowledge of US history knows it's working.

Re: China

#319
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…

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

[deleted]
Post reply on HN