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

China Frets: Innovators Stymied Here

online.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 43 posts

Re: China Frets: Innovators Stymied Here

#31

Post by Volpe »

jerf wrote: post #21
Volpe wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are? That's why they are the ones holding all the money while the "non-conformers" drown in debt.

No, they're drowning in debt issues too. Google "China debt" and you'll get an earful, one example: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/23/why-china-s... If you don't like that one pick your own. Nobody got out of the last decade unscathed, China just covered it up better. Nobody's getting out of this one unscathed, either.

I'm not saying they don't have debt, but they have consistently posted positive growth throughout the financial crisis, whilst maintaining a GDP debt percentage of 60%...

Sensationalist news articles that quote unknown economic groups are hardly a 'source of truth'. I'll stick with the officially reported numbers (from the IMF[1]) until someone successfully proves they are false.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_pub...

Re: China Frets: Innovators Stymied Here

#32

Post by Volpe »

hugh3 wrote: post #12
thinkcomp wrote: post #6

This is certainly true, but innovators are stymied in good old California as well. Try tackling a serious problem, such as finance, and you'll find that your innovation breaks a recently passed law. That won't stop someone in Shanghai from copying your work, though. http://www.1jton.com = http://www.facecash.com So who's innovating now?

An iron-clad law of the internet: if you complain about how X sucks in country Y , you'll inevitably just wind up with a thread full of comments about how X sucks in the USA.

That so needs to be one of the 'rules of the internet' (if it isn't already)

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/rules-of-the-internet#.TpJshTn...

Re: China Frets: Innovators Stymied Here

#33

Post by ramanujan »

jessedhillon wrote: post #7
thinkcomp wrote: post #6

This is certainly true, but innovators are stymied in good old California as well. Try tackling a serious problem, such as finance, and you'll find that your innovation breaks a recently passed law. That won't stop someone in Shanghai from copying your work, though. http://www.1jton.com = http://www.facecash.com So who's innovating now?

This is a simplistic view. The law -- which requires payment processors to have some large sum of money, $500k I think, in the bank -- doesn't prevent innovation. There are still plenty of innovators in the payments space. What you don't have is a space frothing with activity and losing the public's money in fly-by-night schemes run by college sophomores. This sort of thing is what the law aims to prevent. It's not a…

Logical fallacy. The fact that some payment processors still exist does not overcome the prima facie fact that at least one startup (and probably more than one) was put out of business by this law.

Thus, if you agree that startups are engines of innovation, innovation was prevented.

If you support a regulation you must be intellectually honest enough to acknowledge its empirical costs in addition to claiming its theoretical benefits.

Re: China Frets: Innovators Stymied Here

#34

Post by jessedhillon »

thinkcomp wrote: post #13
jessedhillon wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also have researched requirements for becoming a licensed money transmitter, while considering starting a payments solution. From looking over your website and your company's topic in Quora, you are clearly more educated in this than I am. However, from what I know, I believe that you are mischaracterizing the law. Perhaps this is because you feel that you have been victimized by a bureaucratic process. If what you…

You're right: I do object to the law's passing, to the entities that have been documented to be backing the law (see http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_2751-2800/ab... ; the members of The Money Services Round Table are clarified at http://www.federalreserve.gov/SECRS/2006/August/20060829/R-1... ), to its constitutionality, and to its implementation. That doesn't mean that I "have decided not to comply w…

You waive these documents around as evidence of something -- have you ever read them or did you only get to the first paragraph where member organizations were listed? They make some very good points about the public interest in regulating money transfer; do you have any rebuttals to them?

Did you see the section of the bill analysis which reads thus:

4. Opposition None received.

Why isn't your company's name there? Surely it has to be in your interest to actually register a complaint in a venue that matters?

You throw around terms like lobbying and stymied innovation so carelessly it's difficult to believe that you've actually considered these issues. Do you know that the MSRT spent so less than $20k on lobbying activities in 2009 and 2010?

The law against paid organ donation is frustrating my efforts to create an organ-matching service. It doesn't mean that innovation is stymied in the US, it means that regulation in the public interest outweighs my own interests. If you want to be taken seriously, try showing that you're familiar with the counter-argument and can rebut it point-for-point.

You should do some more research. Right now you sound like an apologist for multi-billion dollar financial corporations.

You sound like a whiny conspiracy theorist.

Re: China Frets: Innovators Stymied Here

#35

Post by thinkcomp »

jessedhillon wrote: post #34
thinkcomp wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right: I do object to the law's passing, to the entities that have been documented to be backing the law (see http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_2751-2800/ab... ; the members of The Money Services Round Table are clarified at http://www.federalreserve.gov/SECRS/2006/August/20060829/R-1... ), to its constitutionality, and to its implementation. That doesn't mean that I "have decided not to comply w…

You waive these documents around as evidence of something -- have you ever read them or did you only get to the first paragraph where member organizations were listed? They make some very good points about the public interest in regulating money transfer; do you have any rebuttals to them? Did you see the section of the bill analysis which reads thus: 4. Opposition None received. Why isn't your company's name there?…

I do have rebuttals to many of them, and you can read them at http://www.thinkcomputer.com/corporate/whitepapers/heldhosta.... This law is not a good example of regulation in the public interest.

Think Computer Corporation isn't listed in the opposition column because I had no idea that there was a hearing scheduled for April 19, 2010 in Sacramento on the issue. Did you?

It's pretty sad that you can buy a law for $20K. They only spent $3,600 in Virginia.

Also, "waive" and "wave" mean different things.

Re: China Frets: Innovators Stymied Here

#36

Post by gurkendoktor »

> "It's not that Chinese are not smart or don't have the potential. Look at Jerry Yang of Yahoo Inc. and Steve Chen of YouTube," he said, referring to the two Internet entrepreneurs who were both born in Taiwan and migrated to the U.S. at young ages.

This quotation is put into a weird context in the article. I guess what Kai-Fu Lee is saying is that ethnic/cultural Chinese have potential. But much of the article is about the political and economic framework of China as the country, and there is a difference between China and Taiwan IMHO. Arguably, it was not as big when Yang and Chen emigrated, but it muddles the point a bit.

Re: China Frets: Innovators Stymied Here

#37

Post by fraserharris »

rogerjin wrote: post #20

The greatest innovator (IMO) of China is Jack Ma from Alibaba Group en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ma

I would hope that no one here needs a link to Jack Ma.

As an added contribution, there is a well reasoned theory that Alibaba will use Yahoo as a platform to destroy Ebay: http://ebaystrategies.blogs.com/ebay_strategies/2011/10/coul...

Re: China Frets: Innovators Stymied Here

#38

Post by drieddust »

Volpe wrote: post #17
drieddust wrote: post #2

Asians are slowly realizing that culture of conformity is not going to work anymore.

They are? That's why they are the ones holding all the money while the "non-conformers" drown in debt.

Non conformers are drowning in debt because instead of letting your financial system iron out its efficiencies; your governments have chosen to artificially inject stimulus which did nothing to help the situation.

Asian did not face this crisis because money and power is accumulated in the hands of few and they can actually withstand any financial meltdown because they are not answerable to any one.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1339536/Ghost-towns-...

Do you think in western economy any company or government can afford to do this?

Re: China Frets: Innovators Stymied Here

#39

Post by dereg »

learc83 wrote: post #5
justincormack wrote: post #3

It is worth reading Krugman's 1994 argument that the Asian miracle (unlike the earlier Japanese one) is purely capital based, not productivity based. http://media.ft.com/cms/b8268ffe-7572-11db-aea1-0000779e2340...

Thanks, for posting that. I've never really like Krugman all that much, but he successfully put to paper, what my intuition has always told me about China's rapid growth. Even more remarkable considering he wasn't really talking about China, and it was written 2 decades ago.

Paul Krugman, in the 90s, was brilliant. Unfortunately, I think realized that greater fame, influence, and wealth comes from partisan hackery. He still has important thoughts to share, but his signal/noise ratio has degraded.

Re: China Frets: Innovators Stymied Here

#40

Post by trevelyan »

dereg wrote: post #39
learc83 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks, for posting that. I've never really like Krugman all that much, but he successfully put to paper, what my intuition has always told me about China's rapid growth. Even more remarkable considering he wasn't really talking about China, and it was written 2 decades ago.

Paul Krugman, in the 90s, was brilliant. Unfortunately, I think realized that greater fame, influence, and wealth comes from partisan hackery. He still has important thoughts to share, but his signal/noise ratio has degraded.

Is there even a single piece of his you can cite in support of this? Seems mindless to attack the man as a partisan hack considering he is one of the more critical voices attacking the Obama administration for its lack of fiscal policy and ongoing banking bailouts.
Post reply on HN