Live data from Hacker News

The Future, Made in China

newyorker.com

61–70 of 112 posts

Re: The Future, Made in China

#61

Maybe we shouldn't have moved the entire supply chain to asia. "we"

It's been funny watching the slippery slope fallacy fallacy at play w/the supply chain: - We'll only move cheap plastic toys to asia - We'll only move low-value clothing to asia - We'll only move inexpensive electronics to asia - We'll only move TVs to asia - We'll only move computer assembly to asia - We'll only move low-value semi-conductors to asia - We'll only move CPU production to asia Only thing really left is…

Countries don’t have infinite supplies of labor and capital. The more of an economy dedicated to making cheap plastic toys or stitching tshirts, the less economic resources available for inventing the next iPhone. The very reason China is becoming more competitive in higher value-added economic activities is because China itself has moved away from low value economic activities - like manufacturing cheap clothing - these activities that have largely moved to poorer neighboring countries over the last decade or so.

And if you’re worried that the US is about to be out competed by China in the IP sphere, surely the US would be in a much weaker position if say 50% of its economy was focused on the production of cheap generic goods?

Re: The Future, Made in China

#62
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The belief that autocracies will inevitably fall (or perhaps that "the arc of history bends towards justice") is hopelessly naive. Technology is a force multiplier with the power to entrench autocracy, forever.

They will all fail. The difference is how brutal the end will be.

Fall how? Please be specific. The people will rise up to take down their evil leaders? With what weapons will the people be armed? With what weapons will their evil leaders oppose them?

Re: The Future, Made in China

#63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not. It's about what's going well in China, not what went wrong in the West.

*with the implied framing being that China has somehow done this and is responsible, letting those actually responsible, largely the same people who own corpo rags like the New Yorker, off the hook entirely. I refuse to believe this is a coincidence.

No, it's clear that you haven't actually read the article. You appear to be laboring under a sort of delusion, which I advise you to do your best to remedy.

Re: The Future, Made in China

#64
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't know what the solution is in the US (and West in general) to be able to think 25+ years ahead, as no material incentive would do the job Eliminate share buybacks. Raise the top tax bracket to 95% on earnings over $10m. Executive shares cannot be exercised until retirement if you really want to get aggressive. The nuclear option would be stocks cannot be used as collateral for loans, it would shore up 90% of…

How would raising the taxes force people to think 25 years ahead?

If I can reinvest my profits to grow my business or pay most of it out in taxes I’m probably reinvesting it if there’s a long term gain to be had.

Unlike trickle down economics, it’s not just a failed theory. It’s something we’ve seen in action and it works as expected.

Re: The Future, Made in China

#65
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you said about "next fiscal quarter" is exactly right, and goes along with us (in the US) only thinking politically in 4 year cycles... which means on average we are thinking only 2 years ahead. China is the master of the long-game. It's shortest cycles are 5 year tactical plans. Their strategic plans go far beyond. I don't know what the solution is in the US (and West in general) to be able to think 25+ years a…

> I don't know what the solution is in the US (and West in general) to be able to think 25+ years ahead, as no material incentive would do the job Eliminate share buybacks. Raise the top tax bracket to 95% on earnings over $10m. Executive shares cannot be exercised until retirement if you really want to get aggressive. The nuclear option would be stocks cannot be used as collateral for loans, it would shore up 90% of…

I think having wealth tax would make rich push money to innovations and production more aggressively.

Re: The Future, Made in China

#66
post #23

> Common sense says countries rise and fall in cycles Oh common sense. If you believe all countries are autocracies, maybe. But to examine the trajectory of the US on a "Chinese timescale", the US rejected autocratic rule, built a system that decentralizes power, uses ambition to check ambition, and provides for frequent, peaceful transfer of power. To an autocratic Chinese bureaucrat, this is all wasteful shortsight…

"A republic, if you can keep it". The "the trajectory of the US on a 'Chinese timescale'" barely even registers. While the CCP might not be that old, China considers itself an ancient society with a level of historical coherence that makes the United States rather insignificant as a lesson in political history. You've offered a hugely reductive and rosy view of American history. Democracy is easy until it gets hard.…

"Please consult your history?" You could replace "China" with "The USSR" in this post and be almost indistinguishable from arguments straight out of the 1950s.

You point to universal healthcare, the modern European welfare states that other nations including China have modeled were not high-minded cultural endeavors. They only exist because the devastation of the great depression and WWII made them necessary, and a greater need to make peace with actual communists/leftists that were never a strong political force in the US precisely because we were spared the devastation of WWII.

As for corruption, China recently discovered that many of its nuclear missiles had their fuel stolen and replaced with water and the lids of many of their silos failed to open. Yes the US is having unprecedented problems with corruption at the moment, but the Chinese model is hardly superior in this regard.

Re: The Future, Made in China

#68
post #2

Long-winded, as anyone familiar with the New Yorker would expect. But still very good. Whatever its other weaknesses, China has the enormous advantage that the people really in power are focused on raising China to global dominance. Vs. those really in power in America are, at best, worried about their personal status and wealth at the end of the next fiscal quarter.

What you said about "next fiscal quarter" is exactly right, and goes along with us (in the US) only thinking politically in 4 year cycles... which means on average we are thinking only 2 years ahead. China is the master of the long-game. It's shortest cycles are 5 year tactical plans. Their strategic plans go far beyond. I don't know what the solution is in the US (and West in general) to be able to think 25+ years a…

> and goes along with us (in the US) only thinking politically in 4 year cycles

One of the two parties spends most of their intellectual capital on acquiring and maintaining power. The other party spends theirs on policies which they rarely have power to enact.

Re: The Future, Made in China

#69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"A republic, if you can keep it". The "the trajectory of the US on a 'Chinese timescale'" barely even registers. While the CCP might not be that old, China considers itself an ancient society with a level of historical coherence that makes the United States rather insignificant as a lesson in political history. You've offered a hugely reductive and rosy view of American history. Democracy is easy until it gets hard.…

"Please consult your history?" You could replace "China" with "The USSR" in this post and be almost indistinguishable from arguments straight out of the 1950s. You point to universal healthcare, the modern European welfare states that other nations including China have modeled were not high-minded cultural endeavors. They only exist because the devastation of the great depression and WWII made them necessary, and a g…

Fair enough. We can point at each other or come up with examples all day long. Like I could say the United States didn't want to grant civil rights to African Americans as an example of some "high-minded cultural endeavors", but rather they wanted to avoid something like another civil war? Plus it made it sort of "awkward" shall we say for Americans to tell the Soviets and the world about human rights while bludgeoning black people in the streets for having the audacity to ask for basic civil rights.

I mean do you think any society does anything "high-minded" spontaneously? Or are we going to be adults here? You come up with some example that makes China bad. I come up with a counter. I'm not really interested in such a tit for tat. Because it obscures the central point:

The United States hasn't been around for very long. Again, as a "true democracy" not even 100 years. The overriding point I'm trying to make is to suggest that a common hubris found in American discourse should be measured. I'm not under any illusions about China or Europe. All societies have problems. The question is why is the United States any better? And why should I have confidence in that based on a track record of only a few centuries? Especially if the recent trend of the past few decades (closer to a century) has gone sharply down? No, it did not just start with Trump. And it will likely not just magically end with him either. Why does American political discourse constantly fall over itself to talk about Trump as a singular figure while ignoring the tens of millions of the electorate who keep voting for him and have kept him afloat as the dominant political force for a decade?

They will not just disappear. In my mind, the United States is just as likely to elect an even more odious figure in the near future as it is to "move on".

You can say "The Chinese model is hardly superior".

Someone else can say "The United States model is hardly superior".

It's not very interesting. The only point I'm making is maybe treat the other country with some basic respect, as a partner not an adversary. And don't allow your politicians at home to construct foreign scapegoats to distract from their internal responsibilities. The invocation of the Soviet Union along these lines is rather apt. If the Soviet Union's fall was so self evident based on its fundamental nature, one should probably be led to question how much blood and treasure America threw away because its elites convinced its people that it was an existential threat. This trend from Vietnam passed through to Iraq and now to Iran is not looking great. I mean really, what is the trend I'm supposed to see? Can you really blame some governments, especially those outside the "West" from looking for alternative global governance in China?

Re: The Future, Made in China

#70
post #23

> Common sense says countries rise and fall in cycles Oh common sense. If you believe all countries are autocracies, maybe. But to examine the trajectory of the US on a "Chinese timescale", the US rejected autocratic rule, built a system that decentralizes power, uses ambition to check ambition, and provides for frequent, peaceful transfer of power. To an autocratic Chinese bureaucrat, this is all wasteful shortsight…

Plus, China's growth to this day is built on the back of foreign, primarily American, consumption. If they ever beat us too badly, they go down with us. They'd need to find alternate consumer markets to alleviate this, and what are their options? Domestic is out, China hasn't managed to create a domestic consumer market with their current demographics, which are only getting worse as their baby bust deepens. Europe?…

Why must the consumption be exported?

Why can't they build for themselves?

Post reply on HN