China • Hacker News Board

Re: China

#211

Post by api » Wed, Feb 11, 2015, 9:09 PM UTC

dkural wrote: post #114

sama wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Certainly working really hard without an expectation of being compensated it (either with equity or cash) is dumb. I've argued a lot that startups should give employees more equity, and I think that's shifting. Also, most startups I'm aware of, at least in the bay area, pay large salaries at this point.

Working too much, to the detriment of your health, sleep, family, and friendships, for any amount of money, even if you are the founder, is dumb. Perhaps Steve Jobs would've caught up with science and stopped his cancer earlier if he took a break. I run a start-up with 100+ people. Vacations, family time, sleep - these are good and ultimately productive things. The normal person works so they can live, be healthy. Th…

Your startup's employees are far more productive per hour worked than those at 80-hour shops.

Re: China

#212

Post by adventured » Wed, Feb 11, 2015, 9:15 PM UTC

drt1245 wrote: post #129

marcusgarvey wrote: post #71

Why ignore the elephant in the room? The U.S. is more unequal than it has been since before WWII [1], and that is a big reason why its growth is stagnating.[2] It's time to stop taking seriously any analyses that do not address this. [1] http://www.epi.org/publication/income-inequality-by-state-19... [2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/income-inequa...

https://www.google.com/search?q=china+income+inequality If that was the case, China's growth would be stagnating as well. Not everything is caused by income inequality.

China's growth is stagnate. That's why they needed tens of trillions in new debt since the great recession to juice the GDP numbers. Subtract out the $30 trillion in new debt, throw in the real inflation rate (like many governments, China lies about their real inflation rate), you get economic contraction. That means the only difference between their fake growth today, and the horrific outcome on the way, is a little bit of time and tens of trillions in additional debt that will never be repaid.

Re: China

#213

Post by bduerst » Wed, Feb 11, 2015, 9:17 PM UTC

tdees40 wrote: post #47

I don't mean to eye-roll, but Sam on economics tends to be, well, meh. The thing I always remind people when they say that China will take over the world is that everyone said the same thing about Japan in the 1980s (remember the movie/novel Rising Sun?). What happened? Well, the mercantilist economic toolkit has an endgame. Neither Sam nor I knows when it's going to let them down, but building an entire economy on c…

Japan's economic demise in the 1990's is actually attributed to foreign investment and a massive, speculative asset price bubble - caused by the land lease laws, property taxes, and poor policy on interest rates.

China is not perfectly communist, but their planned economy is a bit more robust than most other capitalist markets when it comes to reacting to negative market forces.

China has the population for domestic demand, and their rising middle class is filling that with their wages, so don't write of China for Japan's faults just yet.

Re: China

#214

Post by Alex3917 » Wed, Feb 11, 2015, 9:21 PM UTC

GregBuchholz wrote: post #199

adventured wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your source proves me right. You're wrong in your claim that the majority of college graduates are not functionally literate. 2% of college graduates fall below a basic level of literacy. 14% of total adults fall below basic on prose; 12% on document; 22% on quantitative. The numbers of college graduates are vastly lower than those. And further, digging into the data, I'd be willing to bet that half of those numbers…

It is certainly interesting that the "National Assessment of Adult Literacy" report indicates that only 13% of adults can perform that sample task of "computing and comparing the cost per ounce of food items".

Same for comparing and contrasting two newspaper articles, which is probably even more relevant -- if you can't do that, then you're immediately disqualified from pretty much every profession that pays a living wage. And that's not even a very high bar, considering that newspapers are written at what's supposed to be a 6th - 8th grade reading level.

Re: China

#215

Post by pen2l » Wed, Feb 11, 2015, 9:23 PM UTC

nostrademons wrote: post #194

paul wrote: post #91

It's difficult to explore this question without being accused of racism, but I'd like to better understand why some cultures are so much more economically successful than others. The Chinese are such a great example of this. Wherever they go, they seem to end up being very successful. For example, in the Philippines it's claimed that Chinese are 1% of the population, but control 60% of the economy ( http://opinion.in…

(I'll probably get accused of cultural imperialism for this comment, but well, it's the Internet and people can accuse anyone of anything. I'll probably also get some facts wrong, but corrections are welcomed for that.) I think a lot of it comes down to "culture has consequences". It may not be possible to say that one culture is "better" than another, but that doesn't mean that the collection of habits & worldviews…

A lot of great thoughts, thanks for taking the time to write it.

Re: China

#216

Post by bduerst » Wed, Feb 11, 2015, 9:24 PM UTC

jrbapna wrote: post #51

What's interesting is that it's very common for wealthy Chinese to invest in / move their families and their money into the States. Just look at places like Seattle, where around one-third of all $1+ homes are purchased by foreign Chinese, and according to this NYT article, three-quarters of their purchases are all cash. * * http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/21/business/in-suburban-seatt...

San Francisco and Vancouver are in the same boat. Bids for property that are all cash and 20-30% over market price are commonplace.

Hopefully with the USD strengthening to foreign currencies, 2015 will be the year this trend reverses, as foreign investors advantageously start to move capital back into their home countries.

Re: China

#217

Post by cbgb » Wed, Feb 11, 2015, 9:35 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #103

Afforess wrote: post #55

I disagree with a lot of this. The Chinese value the appearance of working hard, not actual hard work. Cheating among Chinese students is pandemic. Chinese companies regularly publish misleading or outright fraudulent earning statements and quarterly reports. While the Chinese government seems to be taking steps to reverse these trends, it will take a long time to undo their culture of corruption. Contrast this with…

I don't understand economics enough to address the point on debt, but I have to comment on that: > American culture of honesty; fraud and cheating are national scandals, not the norm Wait what. Fraud and cheating are sometimes national scandals if media bothers. But there's absolutely no honesty. Corporations lie and steal. Journalists lie. Startups... well, things like astroturfing, lying to users, tricking them int…

I would argue that the very notion that cases of fraud and dishonesty make such large media headlines underscores the American culture of honesty the OP is referring to.

Brian Williams was just suspended for six months without pay for lying about a single news story more than a decade ago. From a business perspective, NBC knows their viewers won't take them seriously if they keep a potentially dishonest news anchor on the air.

I agree that fraud and otherwise unethical behavior is still pretty present in the American system, but there's at least a cultural understanding that these things are bad; this, of course, presupposes that A) you can prove that the behavior was either fraudulent or unethical, and B) that the perpetrator was caught.

Re: China

#218

Post by drzaiusapelord » Wed, Feb 11, 2015, 9:37 PM UTC

nissimk wrote: post #172

JonFish85 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with pretty much all of what you said, and I also wanted to add a bit more along these lines. It's all pretty much anecdotal, so take it for what it's worth. Engineers that I've worked with in China are wildly different from what I consider engineers in the US. They seem to be better at making a given process ruthlessly efficient, but they're not so great at creative problem solving--I suspect it's a cultural…

I think that 15 years ago that was true of Korean manufacturers, and look at them now. Hyundai was a brand that was fairly reliable, but was ridiculed in popular media. Now it's on par with Japanese brands and often considered premium. Also, Samsung went from making parts for everything to developing and marketing their own premium products. Chinese manufacturers can easily follow this same path and I think it is alr…

Except Korea and Japan aren't autocracies. They're just so much more flexible by having an open democratic process and open markets. The CCP is its own roadblock in China. Sure it can make special economic zones and play command economy with construction and development (lets ignore the ghost towns they have built for now), but that approach is self-limiting.

China won't liberalize the way Korea and Japan did after the war. They're very much in bed with complete political, economic, and cultural control. That means worse outcomes from a capitalist point of view. They can only manufacture US widgets and steal blueprints for so long. They really don't have a capitalist and innovators culture. Usually that's a temporary problem in western-style governments, but in an autocracy its fatal. Look at Putin's terrible oil-based economy. Autocrats can't play the open liberalization game because autocracy is naturally very, very conservative and controlling. Part of this game, if not the most important part, is giving up quite a bit political control and performing regulatory actions that hurt the top players like fighting corruption, preserving competition, protecting IP and property rights, helping labor movements go forward, and cleaning up the environment. Autocracies dont often do these things. If they did, they would probably cease to be autocracies.

Re: China

#219

Post by seanmcdirmid » Wed, Feb 11, 2015, 9:38 PM UTC

akgerber wrote: post #196

nissimk wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that 15 years ago that was true of Korean manufacturers, and look at them now. Hyundai was a brand that was fairly reliable, but was ridiculed in popular media. Now it's on par with Japanese brands and often considered premium. Also, Samsung went from making parts for everything to developing and marketing their own premium products. Chinese manufacturers can easily follow this same path and I think it is alr…

The same process took place in Japan. The camera industry is a familiar example— both Canon & Nikon began by making copies of German Leica and Contax cameras, then tweaked them, then moved into innovative original designs. By the 70s or 80s, Canon and Nikon had surmounted their industry, while Contax was bought by a Japanese bit player and Leica was reduced to a niche luxury manufacturer. http://www.canon.com/camera-…

And yet, Japanese and Korean engineers still have problems with creativity relative to their western counterparts. A lot of that has to do with a hierarchical Confucian culture. Sure, they've mastered quality and efficiency, but some areas need more than that, namely software.

Re: China

#220

Post by 6stringmerc » Wed, Feb 11, 2015, 9:41 PM UTC

Afforess wrote: post #55

I disagree with a lot of this. The Chinese value the appearance of working hard, not actual hard work. Cheating among Chinese students is pandemic. Chinese companies regularly publish misleading or outright fraudulent earning statements and quarterly reports. While the Chinese government seems to be taking steps to reverse these trends, it will take a long time to undo their culture of corruption. Contrast this with…

I agree with your assessment. There is a research firm, Muddy Waters, that specializes in exposing fraudulent companies, and from what I understand, they are doing very well. This article is devoid of the 'counter points' that I see brought up regularly (sometimes too much, or too hyperbole oriented) over at ZeroHedge. That site is by far the other side of the coin to this article, such as the following postulation:

The McKinsey graph on China tells it all. For the moment, forget about leverage ratios, debt carrying capacity and all the other fancy economic metrics. Does it seem likely that a country which is still run by a communist dictatorship and which was on the verge of mass starvation and utter impoverishment only 35 years ago could have prudently increased its outstanding total debt (public and private) from $2 trillion to $28 trillion or by 14X in the short span of 14 years? And especially when half of this period encompassed what is held to be the greatest global financial crisis of modern times

And don’t forget that most of this staggering sum of debt was issued by a “banking” system (and its shadow banking affiliates) which is bereft of any and every known mechanism of financial discipline and market constraints on risk and credit extension. In effect, it is simply a vast pyramidal appendage of the Chinese state in which credit is conjured from thin air by the trillions, and then cascaded in plans and quotas down through regions, counties, cities and towns.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-06/china%E2%80%99s-mon...