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

321–330 of 497 posts

Re: China

#321

Post by yyyk »

thawaway1837 wrote: post #173
CharlesColeman wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 w…

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

Other places don't cheat with market access or steal IP anywhere as much as China. Any economic rebalancing would have been far more gradual.

"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."

You mean policies such as open trade with China, which was inherently biased towards profits to the top, given the way offshoring worked?

This does not mean there weren't other factors at work, rather that China trade was one policy in an array of policies with a similar outcome.

"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. "

My country profited from the US's Free Trade advocacy, and I still think the US's China policy was either insane or driven by elite concerns. It's one thing to have free trade, another to have one-way free trade with a country that cheated so openly, and is now a superpower competitor.

Re: China

#322

Post by DuskStar »

kick wrote: post #138
csomar wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.'" Praising him doesn't mean he likes him or he'll make of him his friend. It's more of a respect thing. He respects the man for working on the interest of his country.

"Good man" implies moral endorsement, and Jinping isn't working in the "interest of his country," he's working in the interest of Han Chinese. "Hitler was a great man!" is a totally appropriate thing to say using the logic you're applying.

I mean, "Alexander the Great" was a great man by common definition. That should be pretty obvious. I'd expand that to other great conquerors - Genghis Khan, Napoleon, and many others.

Does Hitler really not belong on a list like that? So would Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt, of course - but I don't think greatness requires goodness.

Or from popular culture:

> “The wand chooses the wizard, remember … I think we must expect great things from you, Mr Potter … After all, He Who Must Not Be Named did great things – terrible, yes, but great.” - Ollivander

Re: China

#323

Post by bart_spoon »

chrchang523 wrote: post #300
lazaruzatgmail wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 .

Its not a full vote for the incumbent, but it is mathematically equivalent to a half vote for both candidates, so the statement that they are "voting for the incumbent" isn't incorrect.

Re: China

#324

Post by Aperocky »

perennate wrote: post #289
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…

In the US I can read any English source, both ones from China and ones from US/UK media. I read that the CCP imprisoned approximately one million Uighurs in concentration camps in Xinjiang, where they are being held indefinitely without due process, and there are reports of physical torture (waterboarding and tiger chair), rape, and occasional killings. I also read from CCP's point of view that this started because t…

You’re right and entirely sideway to my point, which is that narrative pushing are not just from one side alone.

Re: China

#325

Post by zarkov99 »

ddevault wrote: post #27
maximente wrote: post #12

i applaud your willingness to publish this content under your real name, and also understand your real name is closely associated with your software service. i understand that gives you a certain amount of power that other employees, say of Apple, may not have. kudos to you for using it fruitfully - sincerely. i am sure this will come across as tin foily, but i would advise you to monitor your digital assets and mayb…

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.

You are a brave and principled man. Thank you for posting that.

Re: China

#326

Post by brobinson »

baby wrote: post #157
spacehunt wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Social media in China is also heavily censored and manipulated. There are quite a few in mainland China who understands what's going on here in Hong Kong, but most buy into the state propaganda and wants us exterminated for being "separatists" and "traitors of the Chinese race."

There’s a lot of mainland people in the US who think the western medias are all biased and that they are helping HK to separate from China.

What I've heard from PRC nationals in the US is that the CIA is behind the "riots". I'm assuming this is the narrative being pushed by the state-run media in the PRC.

Re: China

#327

Post by perennate »

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…

> Now, if you ask any pol running for the nomination who the greatest threat to America is... it’s not going to be China...

Well, they asked a similar question during one of the democratic party debates [1] and some candidates said Trump but others pointed out climate change, Russia meddling in elections, China, etc. But the question was greatest "geopolitical threat" so I guess it's not exactly the same.

[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/2020-democratic-debate-respo...

Re: China

#328

Post by spacehunt »

gscott wrote: post #275
spacehunt wrote: post #49

As a Hong Konger, thank you for writing this. One nitpick: Hong Kong has its own legal definition of "rioting". It's from the Public Order Ordinance[1], and carries a maximum 10 years jail sentence. The entire law itself is quite draconian and was struck down in the final days of British rule, but was reinstated immediately after the handover. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Order_Ordinance

When China took the book sellers they prosecuted them in China under Chinese laws. It stands to reason China could take and prosecute some "rioters" under Chinese law and Chinese implications. https://qz.com/1110266/two-years-later-the-last-of-the-vanis...

Of course. But I'm specifically talking about "rioting" as referenced in the Five Demands.

Re: China

#329

Post by jariel »

To be clear - moral issues notwithstanding - everyone who has a job (i.e. participating in the economy) benefits quite a lot from 'China'.

90% of the value derived from China goes to 'consumer surplus' - i.e. 'cheaper goods'. What we gain is immense, much more than Apple and Google are profiting.

The 1% get most of the profits, true, but most of win.

Also remember: that 'cheap goods' are most beneficial to poor people. We all love to hate Walmart - but Walmart (supplied by China) is what enables 150 million Americans to have 'stuff' that enables the quality of their lives that they simply would not have. It's been immensely positive at least on those terms (again ignoring all those externalities).

The 'losers' on 'our side' are of course those who have been put out of work. The 'losers' on 'their side' are those stuck in factories and concentration camps. And of course, we all 'lose' due to the pollution etc..

But can make thew world a better place; China is not immune to pressure and if we acted collectively I bet we could get them to close those camps, though I doubt the surveillance state will end. They want better justice and less pollution - that will get worked on - and a more advanced economy will empower workers will yield benefits for their 'regular folk' as well.

Re: China

#330

Post by brobinson »

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 poorer China is only going to deteriorate their human rights. A wealthier China is going to crave for more freedom.

This was the lie told to the American people in the 90s to justify PNTR with the PRC. We know it was a bald-faced lie now. Why are you saying this?

Post reply on HN