Earlier quoted context omitted.
Both of you are Han Chinese, judging by your post history, correct? While this may be intellectually hostile for you, it's certainly intellectually stimulating, and helpful to the people in your country who aren't of the ethnic majority (and to people of the ethnic majority outside of your country, in places like Taiwan, that your government desires to claim so strongly).
"If you can't convince with a real argument, bring ethnicity into the discussion to discredit."
China
461–470 of 497 posts
Re: China
#462Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The West naively thought the "free market" would liberalize China (and Russia) and we were very wrong. We have all heard this idea thrown around now for some time. It’s only in the last few years it seems people have accepted that it wasn’t going to work. In the context of the trade war and everything lately, I’ve really been thinking about this theory. On one hand, we know the current reality. An ascendant authori…
Interesting. It is important to realize that experts believe the NK situation would be totally unsustainable without China. Ergo, if China were like NK, it wouldn’t last long, because there is no big-brother economy that could support the (disaster) situation.
Re: China
#463Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Suppose the US government conducts mass imprisonment of a certain population I'd argue that's not hypothetical at all, even with Xinjiang the US has by far the highest rate of imprisonment on the planet both of adults and children. Most are black. Vast majority are not violent crimes. It's entirely out of step with the rest of the developed world.
Ah, yes. Because someone convicted of a crime going to jail is the same thing as someone being sent to a camp due to their religion. Equating the issues in the US justice system to concentration camps is ridiculous.
Re: China
#464Earlier 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…
I don't see the problem. USA has practically no leverage in the trade relationships with China. They can't change China for the better. So cutting China off is a net benefit even if other countries will take its role. That also means USA can now trade with countries that actually respect American laws and do in fact share American values like democracy or human rights.
This idea that we must sell our soul for a small profit must die.
Re: China
#465Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, that's all fair and counterfactuals are impossible. My instinct, though I have nothing to back this up, is: - The US foreign policy of regime change and bullying hegemony was a complete failure, and totally counterproductive. - We should have deployed soft power, like aid, diplomacy, and the Peace Corps, to places that were vulnerable to falling into authoritarian rule long term, and invested in the development…
> We should have more seriously considered deploying hard power to places that initially fell into authoritarian rule. I know Cuba was a failure and I know military action has serious consequences (especially for civilians), but compared to authoritarian governments wielding vast nuclear arsenals and ponderous economic weight... it's a tough choice. I'm impressed how you blatantly assume that marching into some forei…
Re: China
#466Liberal societies, such as the Bay Area (where I live), it’s impossible to criticize anyone without having the doubt of “offending” someone. When it comes to China, I can’t go out in the lunch room and openly criticize CCP because you know, I could “offend” a Chinese National. This needs to stop. I see this behavior on HN, which is frustrating, counterproductive, anti-free speech and extremely left-winged. Another pr…
You're being downvoted for expressing a contrarian viewpoint. This kind of censorship isn't even targeting hate speech, and it drives me crazy. Why downvote them?
For extreme examples: "I don't vaccinate my kids because I don't want them to have autism" is both contrarian and sort of actively disproved by evidence, so downvoting on the latter grounds is entirely reasonable. If you want to run a worthwhile discussion site, the discussions have to be meaningful to discuss. "The open-source movement is a mistake and the world would be better served by changing the Open Source Definition" is a contrarian, unpopular opinion, but there isn't clear evidence either way as to its merit (among other things, it's more of a straight-up opinion than a report of facts), so it's worth discussing, and shouldn't be downvoted just for being contrarian.
The comment above mostly made testable claims about Silicon Valley's culture. "I feel like the SJWs have gone too far" is an opinion. "People cannot criticize the Chinese government in lunchrooms" is a claim that can be proven or disproven.
Re: China
#467Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
>Academics do not need to live in a place in order to study it. I mean, pretty sure biologists would disagree. Maybe economists need to rethink their trade if that’s the prevailing mindset. The idea that you are modeling a social structure that you don’t think you need to have ever been a part of or experienced is pretty rich. Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but my impression is that the US opened its arms to free tra…
The rest of the world also took hits in some industries - US farm subsidies destroyed corn farming in poor countries
Different US industries fared differently - without globalization, Silicon Valley (and American tech in general) as well as Wall street wouldn't be as globally dominant as they are
> I think it’s probably a bad policy for a democratic republic.
I think it could work great for a democratic republic with sane corporate tax and safety net policies to more evenly distribute the upside
Re: China
#468Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am still shocked by how many people do not give Trump credit for putting China on the political issue radar. Both sides of the aisle were destroying the American economy and middle class, and literally no one was talking about it. The guy has issues, and even if he fails in his endeavors, he brought trade and immigration into the national conversation. For all we know, he saved the USA
Because automation is an even bigger factor in the decline of manufacturing jobs than China. Because focusing on China specifically will not lead to outsourced jobs coming back to the US when there are many, many other countries with cheap labor (many cheaper than China at this point). Because even if you banned foreign trade altogether, automation would probably happen 10x faster since then the incentives would be s…
Why would we want this?
Because the alternative is a destruction of the USA manufacturing sector. Moving those jobs overseas only helps two groups:
1.) The Chinese 2.) The owners of capital in America, high up business men (the so described 1%).
The third group who may be helped, are everyday Americans who benefit from cheap goods.
What would imposing large tariffs do?
Goods are more expensive, so people can buy less. TVs, Clothes, Cars etc are more expensive. But middle class Americans keep middle class jobs. Right now the policies are ultra capitalist, the middle class is being gutted and replaced with a heroin epidemic.
Why dont we replace their jobs and retrain the workers?
The retraining of older workers for new industries has never been shown to work. Its an economic theory that has yet to play out in any economy on a large scale. I believe the root of Americas economic woes among the middle classes is this concept, which was conceived of and pushed hard in the 90s. Behind the scenes academics like Noam Chomsky fought hard against this concept, but the arguments never trickled down into the public.
In short, tariffs stop the outsourcing and middle class destruction. Things get more expensive, we accept that. If automation kills the jobs here, it still holds off the destruction of the middle class for another 15 - 30 years. Which is better than nothing.
Re: China
#469I'm pretty sure China had been already committed human right violation on that scale before.
Re: China
#470Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We should have more seriously considered deploying hard power to places that initially fell into authoritarian rule. I know Cuba was a failure and I know military action has serious consequences (especially for civilians), but compared to authoritarian governments wielding vast nuclear arsenals and ponderous economic weight... it's a tough choice. I'm impressed how you blatantly assume that marching into some forei…
Yeah, I agree we're bad at it. Are there alternatives you're thinking of I haven't considered?