China • Hacker News Board

Re: China

#181

Post by Barrin92 » Wed, Nov 20, 2019, 5:40 PM UTC

borkt wrote: post #162

Barrin92 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well you may be fine if you have a lot of disposable income, but many poor Americans will not. Which is of course the opposite story that the OP tried to tell. If you are a minimum wage US worker paying hundreds of dollars more for basic goods is a drastic cut into your quality of life. This mercantilism on display here will be extremely harmful to people in America who rely on low cost imported goods just for the sa…

Not everyone is as materialistic as you. The goods you are talking about are luxury products we can do without - have you read of the sacrifices people make on the homefront during all out war? Even basic necessities such as food are rationed. To complain about not having the newest iPhone is a slap in the face of the sacrifices made by our ancestors in order to endure the world wars and stave off facism.

You will be surprised how materialistic the average American will be when their basic cost of living increases.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say in your post, that you'd like to live like a WW2 soldier on the homefront rationing food without a phone? Or that you think there is majority support for your romanticised wartime lifestyle?

The replies to my original post are getting increasingly strange and unhinged

Re: China

#182

Post by a13n » Wed, Nov 20, 2019, 5:41 PM UTC

Hey mods is there a particular reason this post is being penalized? As of writing it's #22 with 400 points in 1 hour, while #5 has 119 points in 3 hours.

Re: China

#183

Post by mc32 » Wed, Nov 20, 2019, 5:41 PM UTC

Barrin92 wrote: post #154

snagglegaggle wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't know the steady state is harm to poor Americans. That Americans are poor is likely a consequence of the current trade imbalances.

>That Americans are poor is likely a consequence of the current trade imbalances. This story is improbable because the overwhelming majority of America's poorest are employed in the domestic service industry who are not facing negative exposure to international trade. Every store clerk, every McDonalds worker, every garbage man, cleaning lady, janitor, nanny, teacher and so on will be one-sided losers of an increase…

So you’re claiming if manufacturing had stayed and it offered decent wages those service workers would still choose to stay in the service industry?

Re: China

#184

Post by bachmeier » Wed, Nov 20, 2019, 5:43 PM UTC

keiferski wrote: post #40

koube wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article focuses on human rights abuses which I think is a cogent criticism of China-US trade. On the economics issue though, readers should know he disagrees with economists, who nearly universally agree that trade with China benefits Americans as a whole, with the caveat that there are concentrated losses in certain populations. Economists are highly certain on this, with uncharacteristically few people respondi…

I’m not sure these economists have spent time in the Rust Belt, then. Entire cities were economically destroyed from the offshoring of jobs to China and other low-cost areas.

Umm...economists know all about this. I taught international trade classes out in North Carolina. Talked to numerous people affected by the loss of textile manufacturing. There's a massive literature, going back decades, on the topic.

I wish there was a way to raise the level of discussion on HN. Instead, completely uninformed comments like this get upvoted.

Re: China

#185

Post by CharlesColeman » Wed, Nov 20, 2019, 5:43 PM UTC

koube wrote: post #148

CharlesColeman wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On the economics issue though, readers should know he disagrees with economists, who nearly universally agree that trade with China benefits Americans as a whole, with the caveat that there are concentrated losses in certain populations. The thing is: economists are hardly unbiased and neutral. Their theories are far from scientific truth, and typically embed significant political content. For instance: "benefit" c…

There are winners and losers in every decision, and I've already acknowledged there are concentrated losses among certain populations. It hurt certain sectors of manufacturing, yes, but as you can see pulling back from trade hurts a different set of American workers[0][1], and may not even be benefiting the manufacturing sector[2]. Manufacturing is not a simple "I make things or you make things", with free trade it's…

> There are winners and losers in every decision, and I've already acknowledged there are concentrated losses among certain populations.

Decisions are political, and these decisions have been, more or less, presented to the losers as a fait accompli by the winners. It is good and right that such a decision be challenged, and that it potentially be moderated or rolled back entirely.

These decisions also have had important effects outside of the areas typically focused on by "economists" that need to be taken into account.

> The idea that "The financial incentives don’t help any Americans, and in fact, most of us are hurt by this relationship" is counter to everything we know about economics.

The thing is, it's not inaccurate to say economics is a political ideology. We should speak about it honestly: as politics and not science. So it's more accurate to say that idea is "counter to everything we know about [my?] political ideology."

Posting links to blogs from explicitly libertarian think tanks that quote chapter and verse does little to convince me economics is something other than politics by another name.

Re: China

#186

Post by Vysero » Wed, Nov 20, 2019, 5:44 PM UTC

rlue wrote: post #141

Vysero wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you and imagine many others do as well. I think you are right it's about time I draw a line in my own personal life as well. No more Chinese manufactured goods for me. In fact, I think I will go ahead and get rid of what I currently own.

People suggest this a lot, but I don't think it does the trick. Some merchant bought a bunch of inventory from a Chinese factory, then tried to sell it to you, and you didn't buy it. When they get tired of holding onto it, they'll sell it at deep discount and eat the loss, then try to make up the loss on another product (and politically indifferent consumers will happily swoop in for a good deal). Meanwhile, China is…

Perhaps getting rid of what I currently own won't hurt China but it will help me maintain my resolve. Much like a former smoker tossing his old cigarettes in the fire.

Re: China

#187

Post by grumple » Wed, Nov 20, 2019, 5:44 PM UTC

I can't help but agree. We're supporting a nation that is basically the equivalent of Nazi Germany, only of even greater power, committing atrocities of a similar scale, if not depth, and that's just what we know of - the reality can only be worse, not better.

We do not need them, and we absolutely should not permit their behavior, or allow them to profit from it. The time for a stand has come.

Re: China

#188

Post by camgunz » Wed, Nov 20, 2019, 5:45 PM UTC

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 with the devil, and we know how that goes. Let's just hope the US doesn't need to learn this lesson as well.

The sad fact is that when these kinds of authoritarian regimes rise to power, it takes years of abhorrent violence to tear them down. The West naively thought the "free market" would liberalize China (and Russia) and we were very wrong. We're reaping the consequences of that policy mistake on a global scale.

It's the rule of law and human rights that are liberalizing (which careful readers will realize is a tautology). The West needs to stop legitimizing and funding regimes that don't respect these fundamental ideas, and here I'm thinking of China, but also other totalitarian regimes like Saudi Arabia. Furthermore we need to build alliances against these regimes across the world.

Re: China

#189

Post by aianus » Wed, Nov 20, 2019, 5:46 PM UTC

nycsamurai wrote: post #172

blfr wrote: post #133

I'm not convinced that most people are hurt by trade with China but I'm perfectly fine with paying $2 more for a keyboard and $15 more for a cupboard to not deal with a murderous communist (redundant, I know, no one is really surprised here, right) regime. What is true is that this will not meaningfully impact lives of ordinary westerners. There is no reason other than corporate greed for the status quo.

I'm just playing devil's advocate here but I don't think it would cost $2 more for a keyboard, try > $100 for a keyboard. Unicomp is one example, made in Japan Realforce keyboards go for $200-$300. New balance makes sneakers in the USA but those cost ~$200. Everything would cost 2-3x. Would you pay $3000-4000 for an iphone that's built in the USA? Ever try to find a toaster oven that's made in USA? There is one but i…

Why made in USA? Why not made in India or Vietnam?

Re: China

#190

Post by pcr910303 » Wed, Nov 20, 2019, 5:48 PM UTC

Er... why the fact that US is a net importer from China is a bad thing? (Admittedly, I'm not a US citizen, & I'm not really interested in US's trades so I don't know the numbers but...) I thought US was basically using China as a big factory?

US's exports will decrease when manufactured in the US since China's cheap labor is allowing US goods to have a not-that-high price. So really the net-import from China is just something that US should embrace to get the net-exports to other countries.