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

China

drewdevault.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 497 posts

Re: China

#251

Post by bduerst »

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.

Where do you think the jobs in the rust belt came from?

The same thing happened to artisan economies with factories during modernization, yet people didn't decry the loss of the local blacksmith when the rust belt took over their jobs too.

The transition from local to city to regional to global specialization is a natural effect of economies of scale. Trying to freeze economic development and preserve the status quo is like trying to push water uphill.

Re: China

#253

Post by pinkfoot »

jeffdavis wrote: post #244
Aunche wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US has always valued "principle" over actual results. In Iraq, Saddam was "evil", so he had to go, even though it would leave the entire country in the power vacuum and destroy the livelihoods of the average Iraqi. Ditto for Gaddafi in Libya. This post is much the same way. A poorer China is only going to deteriorate their human rights. A wealthier China is going to crave for more freedom. This happened in South…

"A wealthier China is going to crave for more freedom." We've been testing that theory for decades with negative results. Maybe it works other places, but it doesn't seem to be working in China.

Perhaps you just need to wait longer?

Re: China

#254

Post by jayliew »

driverdan wrote: post #227
jayliew wrote: post #192

Tech people: Rant about egregious things that China and Russia does (political, freedom, basic human rights, etc.) Also tech people: Vehemently oppose helping the US DoD with their highly-sought after skills, sign online petitions, protest and/or quit their high-paying jobs at . Serious question for these tech people: What are you exactly doing to help solve the issues you've ranted about? I'd like to hear thoughtful…

How is the DoD going to help with China and Russia? We're not going to invade them. If you're referring to the NSA or CIA they're both organizations that ignore the US constitution so there's great reasons to not work for them.

> We're not going to invade them.

So, that is your opinion. The whole point of having a credible option to use violence, is that one is willing to use it. Otherwise, there is no credibility in the threat, which defeats the entire purpose of peace and security that is backed by the potential use of violence. In that sense, if one misses a court ordered appearance, one shouldn't be surprised to see law enforcement knocking on one's doorstep with the threat of violence for legal non-compliance.

Do black hat cyber attacks constitute an "invasion"? If you say no, then that's what Russia / China is banking on, because they're doing it, and betting that the US won't resort to conventional military use of force in retaliation. Since there's no real threat of painful retaliation, they can continue hacking away with no consequence then?

If you say yes, then you're saying that the US should respond to cyber attacks with conventional military use of force, tanks, planes, boots on ground, etc. because you see cyber attacks as no different than a conventional attack by those countries.

Regardless, the US needs more cyber security professionals and other technical professionals (e.g. machine learning etc.) to help with the defense against these actors, but that's hard to do with all this backlash from techies.

Re: China

#255

Post by ufmace »

kick wrote: post #7
mc32 wrote: post #2

>”It’s economically productive for the 1% to maintain a trade relationship with China. The financial incentives don’t help any Americans, and in fact, most of us are hurt by this relationship...” So true, since its inception with GHW, its execution and realization through Clinton and then once fully engaged the timid, supplicant responses from GW and BO, China has contributed to the stagnation of the blue collar work…

The guy "no one likes" isn't innocent of China-worship. Guiltier than most. On Jinping: "He is a great leader who very much has the respect of his people. He is also a good man in a 'tough business.'" Misrepresenting him as "willing to sever that codependent relationship" is harmful. He's just as complicit if not more than most politicians, and most of his actions involving China have been inconsistent and self-servi…

This is how negotiations work. It's rarely productive to simply trash and call out the guy on the other side in speeches from the top level. The real sticks and carrots are mostly in fine print and smaller-time negotiations. They call him "unsophisticated", but how sophisticated are the people who think that public speeches towards you geopolitical rivals really mean what they say?

Re: China

#256

Post by jeffdavis »

gregwebs wrote: post #59

I don't necessarily disagree with the article, I just want to point out that outside of the US others will readily view this line of thought as hypocritical and self-serving. As a US citizen, I try to consider how the rest of the world may view our actions (glass houses and all). Following the logic here it would make sense for the rest of the world to cutoff trade with the United States due to the Iraq war, which ha…

There's no moral equivalence between China's totalitarianism and the U.S. China is worse by orders of magnitude both in degree and kind.

Comparing the two is just an excuse to do nothing.

In the meantime, feel free (pun intended) to protest misdeeds by the U.S., vote for new leaders, organize with like-minded individuals, or buy weapons.

(Aside: many people feel like buying weapons is completely futile against oppression. But it reduces your dependence on the government for protection, and makes it harder for the federal government to convince local police to carry out their dirty work. Also, really bad governments never seem to want citizens to be armed, so perhaps there's a reason for that.)

Re: China

#257

Post by siffland »

Analemma_ wrote: post #219
siffland wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have someone I work with who quite literally mocks people for voting for a 3rd party and actually tries to "shame" them for it, usually using a line like "which means he is voting to keep the incumbent in" (usually with more colorful words about the incumbent and the voter). Voting 3rd party exercises your right to say you don't like either of the other 2 candidates. I will not argue which candidate it will help, b…

> Voting 3rd party exercises your right to say you don't like either of the other 2 candidates You can say whatever you want, but no one is listening. Voter turnout is so low that the signal of voting 3rd-party is completely lost in the noise of passive non-voting. 3rd-party votes might feel good, but pragmatically (and what is voting except a pragmatic attempt to advance your preferred policy), they are useless. I e…

Just for a clarification, when I said

"Voting 3rd party exercises your right to say you don't like either of the other 2 candidates"

I actually voted for a third party, i liked better than the other 2. It was not a protest. I did just read your link and won't denounce him as anything, but I do think telling people who vote for someone they like who is not in the main 2 parties that their vote was a "throw-away" is again not a good thing.

We will have to agree to disagree on this. Although it is interesting in some other countries where there are more than 2 parties that do all compete.

Re: China

#258

Post by [deleted] »

jayliew wrote: post #192

Tech people: Rant about egregious things that China and Russia does (political, freedom, basic human rights, etc.) Also tech people: Vehemently oppose helping the US DoD with their highly-sought after skills, sign online petitions, protest and/or quit their high-paying jobs at . Serious question for these tech people: What are you exactly doing to help solve the issues you've ranted about? I'd like to hear thoughtful…

[deleted]

Re: China

#259

Post by keiferski »

sangnoir wrote: post #250
keiferski wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps my comment was a bit dismissive, but I think the general point stands: academic economists don’t live in the places that have been economically ruined by offshoring jobs. University professors are white-collar professionals and don’t live in run-down, economically-dead towns. It’s easy to draw abstract analyses from afar, but without actual hands-on experience, you end up with unexpected side effects - like t…

Your comment seems very anti-intellectual, which is surprising to find on HN. Academics do not need to live in a place in order to study it rigorously. Not being blasé, but the rust-belt is the trade-off for globalization. The US asked the rest of the world to open up their markets for American goods and services and promised to do the same.

The attitude that “it’s just a trade off” is exactly the problem with abstract analysis. Millions of people in the Rust Belt lost their livelihoods and thousands of cities were economically destroyed. Maybe it was overall beneficial for Americans, but that isn’t the point I’m making.

The point is that academic economists pushed policies that had unintended side effects (populism and protectionism) that perhaps they would have anticipated if they had actual experience in the areas that were affected.

Finally, there’s a difference between merely studying a place from afar and enacting policies that dramatically affect said place.

Re: China

#260

Post by jimbokun »

cabaalis wrote: post #44
kick wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The guy "no one likes" isn't innocent of China-worship. Guiltier than most. On Jinping: "He is a great leader who very much has the respect of his people. He is also a good man in a 'tough business.'" Misrepresenting him as "willing to sever that codependent relationship" is harmful. He's just as complicit if not more than most politicians, and most of his actions involving China have been inconsistent and self-servi…

> and most of his actions involving China have been inconsistent and self-serving. I think what we're seeing is a president who is at odds with the intelligence and diplomatic communities. It's truly testing the ideas of who's actually in charge. The president assumes since he was elected and runs the executive branch that he has the final say on what will be done, and will go "off-script" in direct communications wi…

Every US President has had the final say on what will be done, within the laws established by Congress. Including this President.

The problem is this President does not take into account the knowledge and capabilities of his intelligence and diplomatic communities, leading to stupid and naive decisions because the other heads of state are better informed and are better negotiators than him.

The intelligence and diplomatic communities are resources at his disposal he often chooses to ignore, so his screw ups are squarely his own with no one else to blame.

Post reply on HN