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

381–390 of 497 posts

Re: China

#381

Post by honest_tovarich »

feelthepress wrote: post #140
honest_tovarich wrote: post #24

I lived in China for 5 years, most of the time in Xinjiang, and is sad how the media manipulates people in the west, you clearly have never been in XinJiang or in China at all. You can believe whatever you want and I'm sure most readers here will support you, because like you , they have been deceived. What is happening in Hong Kong is sad, I agree with you there, and something should be done by the US and their alli…

[flagged]

All of this links are allegations, not facts. from reddit, the guardian, ..... really?

Re: China

#382

Post by resters »

All governments use the same playbook of tactics. China is in some ways worse than the US, but the US has caused a lot more harm and destruction around the world than China has over the past few decades.

It’s absurd to spend one’s moral indignation on foreign countries that are marginally worse than the US in a handful of ways.

Organ donation in the US is hamstring by one main factor: Christianity.

American views on US atrocities are colored by one main factor: the religion of American Exceptionalism.

The essay’s take on the economic consequences of economic freedom is utter rubbish, but the larger issue is the absurd and misplaced moral indignation. What a shameful, naive rant. Wow.

Re: China

#383

Post by deusofnull »

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…

So what are you suggesting then? that tech workers leave "high paying jobs" to work for the DoD? To what end? Exert military force against China? I'm not sure thats the right course of action, even though the 21st century almost certainly will see escalating conflict between USA and China.

Rather than the DoD, i could see what you mean if instead we were talking about other federal and local departments of trade, labor, environmental policies, etc. Exerting soft power instead of hard, military force. NGOs with a focus of international labor organizing might be applicable too.

Re: China

#384

Post by deusofnull »

jayliew wrote: post #254
driverdan wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 knoc…

Doesnt excuse it either way but do you believe the USA and its intelligence agencies doesnt conduct similar black hat cyber actions in China / Russia? That status quo is simply what modern espionage looks like and doesnt constitute hard military action until it crosses lines it has yet to (shutting down a power grid, for ex).

To build on my other response, perhaps intead of being a China warhawk, which could be the most devastating and destructive war in history if escalated to nuclear war, how about instead we revist things like permenant normalized trade relations with china? How about we invest in local high tech skilled and automation assisted manufacturing such as can be found in south korea? there are many other options besides hard military force and to rush to that is immature and dangerous.

Re: China

#385

Post by surfcao »

thawaway1837 wrote: post #173
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…

If it wasn’t China, the US would be importing goods from elsewhere. It’s unlikely the response to not China will be America. There are reasons to believe the US should still do not China even if it means Bangladesh or Vietnam (in fact, this is exactly what the TPP was supposed to have achieved, and would have better protected worker rights as well as IP...but I guess that wasn’t blunt enough for America). The US is w…

Agree with you. That's how free market-based economic works, seeking maximum return. Inside an economy, free market tends to increase economic inequality and monopoly, which seems to be the major source of many things going on (Trump elected, protests in HK, France). When this happens, blaming Johnny Foreigner is easier..

Re: China

#386

Post by Aperocky »

kick wrote: post #331
Aperocky wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrong, Microsoft/Apple/Starbucks did not partner with anyone. That requirement was specifically for auto/manufacture industry.

You are spreading misinformation. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208351

Originally we were talking about the 51/49 ownership split for partnership. You posted a domestic contracting to satisfy Chinese government regulation? How is that related to the partnership criteria that we were talking about? You are comparing apples to orange here.

Re: China

#387

Post by ng12 »

novok wrote: post #129

I don't think that the cheaper goods that China gave the world only benefited the %1, and actually has helped a lot people in america and the world. I also don't think that the economic miracle that has happened in China is a bad thing, and they could of been more singaporean/south korean authoritarian vs. genocidal authoritarian to achieve it. I really want china to become another Japan or Korea eventually. I do agr…

> I don't think that the cheaper goods that China gave the world only benefited the %1

I look at this from the perspective of the rust-belt. It doesn't really help that you can buy a Chinese-made couch for only $500 if you've long since lost your job at the furniture factory.

Re: China

#388

Post by dlp211 »

rohit2412 wrote: post #266
dlp211 wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump abandoned the TPP which would have put actual pressure on China in favor of this visible trade war which is nothing more than a tax on American consumers.

Even Bernie Sanders was against TPP. Do you also think he's in bed with the Chinese government? Chinese economy is definitely struggling. I don't buy the argument that the trade wars do not work. They hurt both sides. Question is who does it hurt more? It feels like you haven't thought of it in a game theoretic perspective. In the classical prisoner paradox, the two prisoners gain the most by collaboration. But if on…

Sanders is an ideologue who was against the TPP on anti-business position and nothing to do with its impact on China.

The TPP set up an alliance between all of the players in that region and explicitly left out China in order to give that group negotiation power over China. But nuanced policy debate is dead in America so let's use the tool that fucks us all.

The worst part about the trade deal is the harm on our agricultural sector, but I guess at least they voted for their own demise.

Re: China

#389

Post by noobermin »

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…

The problem with Trump is that he says many different things at different times which are contradictory and then people hone in on one thing over another. His actions too are contradictory, he has tried to curry personal favor with Xi whilst engaging with a trade war with the same.

Re: China

#390

Post by jayliew »

deusofnull wrote: post #383
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…

So what are you suggesting then? that tech workers leave "high paying jobs" to work for the DoD? To what end? Exert military force against China? I'm not sure thats the right course of action, even though the 21st century almost certainly will see escalating conflict between USA and China. Rather than the DoD, i could see what you mean if instead we were talking about other federal and local departments of trade, lab…

> So what are you suggesting then? that tech workers leave "high paying jobs" to work for the DoD

No. Have you not heard about the tech workers who voluntarily quit their civilian day jobs in protest of their employer, because their employer was working (or planning to work) with the DoD?

Post reply on HN