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

391–400 of 497 posts

Re: China

#391

Post by koube »

CharlesColeman wrote: post #373
koube wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "America’s low-income households benefit the most from free trade and having access to cheap imports." This is a description of a property or behavior of a system. > But defining good as having access to cheaper goods is an intensely political statement This would be apolitical in all but the most semantic of arguments. "Buying the things I want to buy" is assumed to be a good thing by the vast majority of people.

>> But defining good as having access to cheaper goods is an intensely political statement > This would be apolitical in all but the most semantic of arguments. "Buying the things I want to buy" is assumed to be a good thing by the vast majority of people. That's a myopic view: it's not the only good thing, and it's arguable that it's not even the most important good thing. The politics are embedded in the shape of t…

Arguing against that being the most import good thing is the most ridiculous straw man.

Re: China

#392

Post by mac01021 »

> It’s nice to believe that we would have stood up to Nazi Germany if we had been there in the 1940’s. China is our generation’s chance to prove ourselves of that conviction.

I don't think the US joined the war out of concern for the welfare of Europeans so much as out of fear of Germany's continually-expanding borders (and as a reaction to that Pearl Harbor thing)

Re: China

#393

Post by jayliew »

deusofnull wrote: post #384
jayliew wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We're not going to invade them. So, that is your opinion. The whole point of having a credible option to use violence, is that one is willing to use it. Otherwise, there is no credibility in the threat, which defeats the entire purpose of peace and security that is backed by the potential use of violence. In that sense, if one misses a court ordered appearance, one shouldn't be surprised to see law enforcement knoc…

Doesnt excuse it either way but do you believe the USA and its intelligence agencies doesnt conduct similar black hat cyber actions in China / Russia? That status quo is simply what modern espionage looks like and doesnt constitute hard military action until it crosses lines it has yet to (shutting down a power grid, for ex). To build on my other response, perhaps intead of being a China warhawk, which could be the m…

So in my original question, I was inquiring what people were actually doing to positively impact the world in the direction they want it to go (preferably, objectively measurable results), because I know everyone here has opinions about what someone else should do.

Re: China

#394

Post by deusofnull »

jayliew wrote: post #390
deusofnull wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what are you suggesting then? that tech workers leave "high paying jobs" to work for the DoD? To what end? Exert military force against China? I'm not sure thats the right course of action, even though the 21st century almost certainly will see escalating conflict between USA and China. Rather than the DoD, i could see what you mean if instead we were talking about other federal and local departments of trade, lab…

> So what are you suggesting then? that tech workers leave "high paying jobs" to work for the DoD No. Have you not heard about the tech workers who voluntarily quit their civilian day jobs in protest of their employer, because their employer was working (or planning to work) with the DoD?

I personally have turned down offers such as this with regards to the NYPD so I am familiar. I didnt understand your original point, thought you were saying people should quit high paying tech jobs TO go work for the DoD. Sorry for the confusion.

Re: China

#395

Post by mc32 »

ng12 wrote: post #387
novok wrote: post #129

I don't think that the cheaper goods that China gave the world only benefited the %1, and actually has helped a lot people in america and the world. I also don't think that the economic miracle that has happened in China is a bad thing, and they could of been more singaporean/south korean authoritarian vs. genocidal authoritarian to achieve it. I really want china to become another Japan or Korea eventually. I do agr…

> I don't think that the cheaper goods that China gave the world only benefited the %1 I look at this from the perspective of the rust-belt. It doesn't really help that you can buy a Chinese-made couch for only $500 if you've long since lost your job at the furniture factory.

Exactly. People keep on saying people can “buy more” because things are cheaper! But that ignores the fact those people just scraping by having to work service jobs would rather pay more and have a job that would afford them raising a family.

I remember in public school, the janitor (before the whole title inflation took hold) made enough money to raise a family.

That doesn’t happen much any more. That job has been outsourced to cheap labor. Cheap because of two things people in mfg don’t have a job and will work for less and two low skilled labor coming in and adding downward pressure to wages.

Re: China

#396

Post by DarthGhandi »

spacehunt wrote: post #334
brobinson wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Definitely, pretty much from day one the PRC has been accusing the CIA and MI6 for inciting the "riots" designed to hurt the feelings of Chinese people.

For reference here's the known efforts of the CIA in stirring the pot around the world. They are prolific by any comparison.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...

Re: China

#397

Post by remarkEon »

sangnoir wrote: post #250
keiferski wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

“The rust belt is the trade off for globalization”

I want to frame this.

If that’s the trade off, it wasn’t worth it. Glad we are finally being honest, though. Could’ve used a bit more of this frankness in the 1990s.

Re: China

#399

Post by treebeard901 »

camgunz wrote: post #188
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…

> 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. Yeah I don't have any sympathy for him or for the CCP. Appealing to nationalist sentiment to amass political power is making a deal…

> The West naively thought the "free market" would liberalize China (and Russia) and we were very wrong.

We have all heard this idea thrown around now for some time. It’s only in the last few years it seems people have accepted that it wasn’t going to work.

In the context of the trade war and everything lately, I’ve really been thinking about this theory.

On one hand, we know the current reality. An ascendant authoritarian country looking to return to great power status. We have a trade war as a result of years of toxic codependency. It remains to be seen how far the trade war goes and wether or not it is the catalyst for some future war.

Now on the other hand, what direction would China have gone had Nixon not gone to China to open up trade negotiations in the 70s.

It’s impossible to know, but I can imagine quite a number of scenarios that are far worse than a trade war with China. Imagine a North Korea type situation where the country is much larger and influential and does not have such a co dependent trading relationship with the United States.

Is that really a better outcome?

Also important noting that China already had nukes when they began joining international trade in the 70s.

The situation could’ve been much worse.

Re: China

#400

Post by jeffdavis »

pjc50 wrote: post #8

There are a lot of jobs dependent on trade with China (our company was affected by the Huawei ban, for example), and the fantasy that you can just cut-over to US manufacturing without huge transition job losses is unrealistic. And if the US wants to get serious about the use of trade sanctions against human rights violations, there are a lot of places closer to home that it could look at. Not to mention the laws agai…

What you are missing about the Chinese Communist Party is that it is an existential threat to freedom globally.

We were very worried about the USSR for the same reason. But there was an iron curtain, and you had to actually be invaded to lose your freedom.

Now, the CCP seems able to curtail worldwide freedom through its trade policy, which is a weird thing nobody expected.

Post reply on HN