Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Xi Jinping’s Capitalist Smackdown Sparks a $1T Reckoning

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 125 posts

Re: Xi Jinping’s Capitalist Smackdown Sparks a $1T Reckoning

#81

Post by Danieru »

naveen99 wrote: post #32
mattmanser wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because such calculus what ? Why don't they teach calculus, i'm genuinely interested, you've left us hanging! Edit: thinking on it a little, I'm guessing the missing sentence is 'because such calculus is not on the test '.

Something doesn’t add up. It’s not like there is a shortage of challenging material to learn and test on. I don’t know why tests are easy and then the people who can’t ace the watered down tests compete amongst themselves for the less less able titles. why don’t they just put some general relativity, quantum field theory, regular expressions, group theory, Elliptic curves, taxes, sec regulations, emacs, vim, options…

> I don’t know why tests are easy and then the people who can’t ace the watered down tests compete amongst themselves for the less less able titles

The tests are not easy, and the "passing score" is set by the sum of competition. The techniques allowed to be taught, and which get tested are obtuse. Instead of allowing brilliant students to progress into more difficult subjects the tests funnel the entire country into the same testing flow. It would be like trying to score everyone based on arithmetic.

Yes arithmetic is easy, but given enough volume of overly complex questions even easy skills can be tortured to create a grading curve.

Re: Xi Jinping’s Capitalist Smackdown Sparks a $1T Reckoning

#82

Post by 0dayz »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #26

I can't imagine Xi is thrilled with this. More likely: zealous deputies, looking ahead to next year's National Party Conference, are looking to curry favor and build their resumes. When everyone is simultaneously dialing it to eleven in a zero-sum game, fuckups are almost assured.

What you mean? Its literally his idea/policy.

The previous leader however must be reeling in pain.

Re: Xi Jinping’s Capitalist Smackdown Sparks a $1T Reckoning

#83

Post by wastedhours »

bumbada wrote: post #78
Zardoz84 wrote: post #68

> 22-year-old motorbike courier Mr. Tang complains about the lack of medical insurance. “There’s nothing I can do about it if Meituan doesn’t pay for it,” he added. “The wealth gap between people in this society is too big”. People should stop calling China a communist state, when isn't. If they we are truly communist, not will be medical insurances or a "entrepreneur" driving it. It would have a public medical syste…

China is a communistic state precisely for that. You would also say that Venezuela or Cuba is not communistic. The only communistic country that had a moderately good public medical system was German Democratic Republic, and it was because the constant influx of help and resources from the West. The more communist a State is, the more miserable it is. You had China with Mao making tens of millions of people die of Hu…

I don't think you're arguing the same thing - the "idealised" version of a communistic state is what the OP is referring to. The "actual" version of a communistic state is what you are.

They're correct that a state built on communist principles would have free healthcare for all, and would have proper free education for all. However, the reality is markedly different, and all the so-called communist countries are anything but.

Re: Xi Jinping’s Capitalist Smackdown Sparks a $1T Reckoning

#84

Post by refurb »

bllguo wrote: post #66
refurb wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Authoritarian decision making is great until the authority starts making the wrong decisions. The bipartisan politics of the the US is not a bug, it’s a feature. It was entirely intentional that power was split and broad consensus was required to get anything done.

nobody disputes if it was (broadly) by design, it's whether the design is outdated and needs modernization. by the way, i actually really disdain founding fathers veneration, but two-party deadlock was infamously _not_ intentional. neither was our increasingly corporatocratic government.

i actually really disdain founding fathers veneration, but two-party deadlock was infamously _not_ intentional

It absolutely was.

Canada, where the majority party can pass whatever they want (their majority practically guarantees it), the unelected Senate almost always rubber stamps it and the head of state is one and the same as the ruling party, it's clear that the US design is intentional.

Nothing gets passed in the US unless: 1) House approves it, 2) Senate approves it, 3) President signs it. All three bodies are independently elected.

It was clearly intentional to be much more challenging to pass legislation in the US. What you call gridlock, I call the system operating as designed.

Re: Xi Jinping’s Capitalist Smackdown Sparks a $1T Reckoning

#85

Post by uCantCauseUCant »

tedk-42 wrote: post #58
chii wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Bitcoin is the obvious example of something that should have been banned years ago (and all proof of work crypto) not that i would invest in bitcoins (or any crypto), but i don't see it as an obvious ban. The only reason i can deduce from your "obviousness" comment is that proof of works "wastes" energy. But then it is hypocritical to argue this when other modern conveniences also "waste" energy, and yet you don't…

It's the scale of the wastefulness of bitcoin that matters. If a car burnt through a months worth of electricity for your home just so you could drive to the shops to get groceries and come back, then that would quickly be banned. Bitcoin and other currencies have a lot of money being pumped into the system by people who refuse to account for the wastefulness that is crypto and instead, want to drive up their investm…

China prioritizes control over currency flows out of the country abroad (for which crypto has been mainly used). The leadership in china, does not give a damn about its people. Crypto delivered in totalitarian environments on its freedom promise, unfortunately at a exorbitant price for the environment. Thus yes, it has to be replaced with a better version.

Re: Xi Jinping’s Capitalist Smackdown Sparks a $1T Reckoning

#86

Post by koonsolo »

reader_mode wrote: post #75
chii wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Bitcoin is the obvious example of something that should have been banned years ago (and all proof of work crypto) not that i would invest in bitcoins (or any crypto), but i don't see it as an obvious ban. The only reason i can deduce from your "obviousness" comment is that proof of works "wastes" energy. But then it is hypocritical to argue this when other modern conveniences also "waste" energy, and yet you don't…

What is the utility provided by crypto ? Money laundering, avoiding capital controls, financial speculation ? All while burning insane amount of energy and hoging up limited chip making supplies. It's clear cut that o the whole crypto is a huge negative for society.

Are computer games also a huge negative for society?

With your reasoning, they provide no utility, waste an insane amount of energy, mostly involve violence, etc.

I don't want to live in a country that starts banning things for those reasons.

The utility of cryptocurrencies is not decided by governments, or companies, or you. The utility will be decided by reality. I like living in democracy and capitalism, but it seems you prefer a dictatorships.

Re: Xi Jinping’s Capitalist Smackdown Sparks a $1T Reckoning

#87

Post by tmule »

tmule wrote: post #20

In America, politicians are controlled by billionaires. This comes at the cost of national interest, given that winner-takes-all systems are gini coefficient maximizers. In China, politicians control billionaires. At least in theory, especially given how much the Chinese political establishment is attuned to the needs of the Chinese commoner, this does protect the national interest.

Am seeing a lot of pushback against this take. There are two things to keep in mind: 1. On execution: The track record of the Chinese political establish in bringing hundreds of millions of Chinese out of poverty is arguably the greatest political achievement of the last four decades. Their track record here gives them legitimacy as a national-interest optimizing function (despite admittedly terrible human rights abuses for minorities). The contrast with, for example, the neocon-military-industrial complex that jumps from one failed international adventure to the next is astounding! 2. On planning: They’ve demonstrated a phenomenal understanding of key issues that the nation currently faces and expects to face, and has prioritized them appropriately — often using Western failures and failure modes as data points to inform their strategy. The contrast with the constant bickering in American politics is astounding. How can America succeed if there’s no general agreement even about what the problems are?

Re: Xi Jinping’s Capitalist Smackdown Sparks a $1T Reckoning

#88

Post by tmule »

strogonoff wrote: post #37
tmule wrote: post #20

In America, politicians are controlled by billionaires. This comes at the cost of national interest, given that winner-takes-all systems are gini coefficient maximizers. In China, politicians control billionaires. At least in theory, especially given how much the Chinese political establishment is attuned to the needs of the Chinese commoner, this does protect the national interest.

> In China, politicians control billionaires. The problem is when said politicians are a small faction of fallible people with unlimited power and no procedure of being peacefully replaced. Such a setup strongly hints at the fact that they really don’t want to give up control, which implies any policy is bound to protect their position first. They might act selflessly or benefit the nation at some particular point in…

“ They might act selflessly or benefit the nation at some particular point in time, but blindly counting on it being consistently so seems foolish.” I think you’re right. But Chinese politicians are yet strongly motivated by nationalistic impulses, which are long dead in the thuggish political establishment of the West where nationalistic impulses are long dead (the GOP does performative nationalism very well, but they’re always ready to jump into the next war that’ll kill tens of thousands of Americans).

Re: Xi Jinping’s Capitalist Smackdown Sparks a $1T Reckoning

#89

Post by ralfn »

chii wrote: post #53
reader_mode wrote: post #40

I feel like investing in market pathologies has become too common and modern democratic governments are far too slow at doing there roles and curbing such behaviour. Bitcoin is the obvious example of something that should have been banned years ago (and all proof of work crypto), but there are so many examples coming up daily, if there was ever any faith in institutions it's eroding quickly, and once you remove that…

> Bitcoin is the obvious example of something that should have been banned years ago (and all proof of work crypto) not that i would invest in bitcoins (or any crypto), but i don't see it as an obvious ban. The only reason i can deduce from your "obviousness" comment is that proof of works "wastes" energy. But then it is hypocritical to argue this when other modern conveniences also "waste" energy, and yet you don't…

It wastes entrepreneurial energy too, since it doesn't actually provide value to anyone.

Not the way a car, a phone, a hairdresser, a movie or Google maps does. The economy is just what everyone does/make. Think of the opportunity cost of all that human resource being wasted on a pyramid/ponzi scheme, which does not produce any value. It only redistributes it, poorly. Yeah thanks. We really need more gambling infrastructure with even less oversight.

If we would make a list of important things we want to explore further, how would crypto be on it? Why?

It's ok as a storage of wealth, but the amount of investment money and energy wasted on this stuff. And in the end it's going to bankrupt gullible idiots that put their pension in dogecoin. Maybe in the US you just let these morons starve, but in the most of the world, you wouldn't. So it makes sense to protect society against having to bail out suckers from a completely useless and pointless economic exploitation.

So I can imagine banning on on the sheer notion the existence is a net loss for society.

Re: Xi Jinping’s Capitalist Smackdown Sparks a $1T Reckoning

#90

Post by reader_mode »

koonsolo wrote: post #86
reader_mode wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the utility provided by crypto ? Money laundering, avoiding capital controls, financial speculation ? All while burning insane amount of energy and hoging up limited chip making supplies. It's clear cut that o the whole crypto is a huge negative for society.

Are computer games also a huge negative for society? With your reasoning, they provide no utility, waste an insane amount of energy, mostly involve violence, etc. I don't want to live in a country that starts banning things for those reasons. The utility of cryptocurrencies is not decided by governments, or companies, or you. The utility will be decided by reality. I like living in democracy and capitalism, but it se…

>The utility of cryptocurrencies is not decided by governments, or companies, or you. The utility will be decided by reality.

No the utility is determined by you me and everyone else collectively. The problem is financial mechanisms that allow inflating these bubbles are not market driven, central banks are flooding the markets with low interest rates, if they want to direct the markets they need to react to negative distortions they cause.

Post reply on HN