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 Lam leaves the demonstrations will continue. This sets up the stage for atrocities and more international condemnation.
Already on the international front, China is in trouble. The pro-China KMT party in Taiwan may suffer greatly in the next election because of what's going on in HK now (https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3037040/tai...), making China's aggressive demands for forced unification even more unlikely in the medium term. This week, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed a HK rights bill (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-protests-usa/us-...) that, if it becomes law, will put China through an annual review, which will further erode the Sino-U.S. relationship for years to come. There have been calls for a boycott of the 2022 Olympics in Beijing which seems fringey now, but won't be if China sends in the troops.
There's also the internal question. Ordinary people in China are getting censored news, but some of the raw information about what's going on is getting through via social media. What does this mean for sentiment in Cantonese speaking areas of southern China, or for areas of China where provincial officials are resented for unjust or unfair treatment of citizens?
> 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.
> 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 authoritarian country looking to return to great power status. We have a trade war as a result of years of toxic codependency. It remains to be seen how far the trade war goes and wether or not it is the catalyst for some future war.
Now on the other hand, what direction would China have gone had Nixon not gone to China to open up trade negotiations in the 70s.
It’s impossible to know, but I can imagine quite a number of scenarios that are far worse than a trade war with China.
Imagine a North Korea type situation where the country is much larger and influential and does not have such a co dependent trading relationship with the United States.
Is that really a better outcome?
Also important noting that China already had nukes when they began joining international trade in the 70s.
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 of poorer countries.
- 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.
- We should internalize that as the US goes, the world tends to follow. Whenever we violate sovereignty, human rights, or our own values and laws, the world takes notice. Like it or not, we're responsible for showing the world how a liberal superpower behaves. We need to take that responsibility seriously.
> 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 foreign country, guns blazing, will magically turn them into a liberal democracy.
I mean, your track record is abysmal. There are exceptions (eg Japan) but generally when the US puts boots on the ground somewhere, the place turns to shit.
Yeah I think trade and economic pressure is kind of the only other road; basically put authoritarianism in quarantine. I'm a little unsatisfied with that because it's hard to fully isolate anyone. We can't isolate China from Russia, for example, and it more or less just creates a club of authoritarian regimes. But like, realistically we couldn't have done anything about the Bolshevik revolution, or the rise of the CCP. Maybe we fucked up in the Korean War by stopping, but we failed in Cuba. It's a tough problem, and smarter, more experienced people than I have been trying to crack it for longer than I have.
It's also why foreign aid doesn't work. Corrupt politicians are effectively bribed to be incompetent. If they fix their country they lose the foreign aid.
But free market did liberalize regimes in both China and Russia, if you compare to the 1980s! It also fed their populations, that is, shortages of food are now hard to imagine.
The free market did not turn either country into an efficient democracy, that's true. It did not improve the tolerance to dissent to Western levels (sadly, not a particularly high mark recently). It did not prevent an authoritarian regime in either country, too.
Social media in China is also heavily censored and manipulated. There are quite a few in mainland China who understands what's going on here in Hong Kong, but most buy into the state propaganda and wants us exterminated for being "separatists" and "traitors of the Chinese race."
Western media is diverse because they are not all controlled by the same government. For example, the China Daily US Edition is based in the NYC and therefore can be considered "Western media", but being owned by the CCP it obviously publishes pro-PRC propaganda.
Obviously if you define "Western media" as newspapers providing a certain viewpoint then by definition your argument would be correct. But that isn't an interesting argument.
Moreover, using the Internet people in the US can read diverse points of view, including e.g. those of pro-China websites. This is not possible in China, except for a small minority who have access to VPN and similar technology.
Most protesters don't want HK independence, they simply want universal suffrage which was guaranteed by the CCP in the 1997 joint declaration. But the CCP has failed their promise and almost half of the seats in the HK legislature are chosen by "functional constituencies" that do not represent the people. Of course the CCP has labeled these people as "separatists" to attract domestic hatred towards the protesters, and spreads propaganda in China that falsely represents their demands.
I am not sure you are telling the full story. It seems to me different sides have different interpretations w.r.t the 'universal suffrage' as in the joint declaration.
What I've heard from PRC nationals in the US is that the CIA is behind the "riots". I'm assuming this is the narrative being pushed by the state-run media in the PRC.
Definitely, pretty much from day one the PRC has been accusing the CIA and MI6 for inciting the "riots" designed to hurt the feelings of Chinese people.
Several highly-educated Mainland China associates and colleagues have shared such thoughts with me and expressed general disdain for the HK protestors.
This interview was in Melbourne, Australia. Many of the interviewees were mainland students in Australia.
Not saying your associates and colleagues must be like one of them. Just offering one possible explanation.
You can also test their knowledge, by asking them about the Five Demands of Hong Kong protestors, and also Hong Kong legislative and government structures. Some of the answers can be found in the original article.
I met some while I was studying at a top 5 university in the U.S. One had come out of the fog after studying a decade in Singapore. He could look back clearly at the brainwashing and described how it is done, but it takes many years on the outside for even very intelligent people to realize what has been done.
Props to China though for having a pretty effective system.
I received news from mainland China, Taiwan and US media. Most of the US news (even NYT) are indeed often biased toward China and of course same for Chinese media. The biases contribute greatly to the increasing animosity between the two worlds.
I was waiting for the orange man bad post. Do you know who built the cages for children? Do you know who banned the exact same countries for travel that Trump did? Do you know who arrested 8 whistleblowers? Do you know who killed the first US citizen without hearing? Newsflash, it wasn't the orange man.
I didn't comment on his policies, I commented on the style of politician he is. Obama was no angel, far from it, but he also wasn't elected as a populist. Trump was.
Both the west and China omit information when reporting about HK. China highlights protester violence, the west talk about police. The only difference is that west is doing it voluntarily.
If you step back and think about it, if this protest were to happen in the US, with subways burned, shops destroyed, road blocked, for 6 months. What is going to happen? Compare this hypothetical scenario with what happened in Hong Kong.
Where’s the gap? In 2019 we’ve been accustomed to export thinking to other people and import outrage from the cheapest source. And it doesn’t take a dictatorial government to push a narrative.
> If you step back and think about it, if this protest were to happen in the US, with subways burned, shops destroyed, road blocked, for 6 months. What is going to happen? Compare this hypothetical scenario with what happened in Hong Kong.
If the same protests happened in the US, with a quarter of the population marching peacefully on June 16 (as it did in Hong Kong), the government has to immediately respond to its people’s demands, for otherwise the current government will lose in landslide in the next election. And all the subway burning, shops destruction, etc will be avoided — these events happened at least three months into Hong Kong protests in September, long after the mega march on June 16.
Thank you for pointing out Hong Kong has no genuine democracy, which is directly related to one of the five key demands.
In the US I can read any English source, both ones from China and ones from US/UK media. I read that the CCP imprisoned approximately one million Uighurs in concentration camps in Xinjiang, where they are being held indefinitely without due process, and there are reports of physical torture (waterboarding and tiger chair), rape, and occasional killings. I also read from CCP's point of view that this started because there were some terrorist knife attacks in 2014. So I can get both sides' point of views. But after reading both sides, my conclusion is that even if 10,000 people are guilty it does not justify a Holocaust-scale genocide of one million Uighurs, where the overwhelming majority are innocent and did not participate or condone the terrorists. There is no difference between the logic of those perpetrating the genocide in Xinjiang and the logic of Hitler during WWII.
Let's consider a hypothetical scenario similar to the one you put forward then. Suppose the US government conducts mass imprisonment of a certain population in concentration camps, like CCP is doing to Uighurs in Xinjiang.
Well, it's not hypothetical, we already did it during WWII to Americans of Japanese ethnicity. And newspapers across the US spoke up against this atrocity [1]. Contrast that with China where the newspapers are forced to push the government's narrative, and invariably focus on the terrorism in 2014 that sparked the CCP's disproportional response rather than the barbaric violence perpetrated by the CCP.
The US government has formally apologized for the atrocities in the concentration camps where Japanese-Americans were held, and paid reparations ($42K per camp survivor in current USD). We vowed never to do something so horrible again. But in 2019 China is still playing with mass forced incarceration, and they even have the gall to call it a model for combating violence that other countries should follow. The CCP has replaced the Japanese empire in abusing their own population (but I think some in China are racist and view Uighurs as not part of the Chinese people, just like how Nazi Germany viewed the Jewish people, and how some in US during WW2 viewed Japanese-Americans).
> 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.
I've noticed a massive apathy amongst Chinese towards Xinjiang, the vast majority don't care and think they deserve it. Perhaps you have a lot more in common than you think.
Both countries have horrendous records and many from there feel not the slightest bit of shame about it.
I grew up in Jiangsu province of China. I heard some very nice stories about people in Xinjiang from my neighbours who had worked in Xinjiang for some time. I also heard some very bad stories about certain group of people from Xinjiang. It's hard to agree with you that 'a massive apathy amongst Chinese towards Xinjiang' --- as an ordinary Chinese, I want a peaceful country, and no terrorists, and I love diversity.
> If you step back and think about it, if this protest were to happen in the US, with subways burned, shops destroyed, road blocked, for 6 months. What is going to happen? Compare this hypothetical scenario with what happened in Hong Kong.
It's not hypocritical because the US has democratic avenues and Hong Kong (and China) doesn't, disruption is their only option.
When Hong Kong has universal free and fare elections I'll think about joining your condemnation.
> China highlights protester violence, the west talk about police. The only difference is that west is doing it voluntarily.
Both in the US and in China people work in media voluntarily. In neither case they have freedom to publish anything they want, they have to push specific narratives coming from the top. In China narratives come directly from the government, in the US indirectly through the system of "manufacturing consent".
China Daily has an office in NYC [1], and publishes a US edition of their newspaper. This is a newspaper directly owned by the CCP. And you can pick up a copy of the regular China Daily in many cities. Is the uncensored New York Times available in China? I think not. Trying to equate the two is ridiculous. No one is going to buy your argument that "manufacturing consent" means that the level of freedom of speech is the same in the US and China. It's just completely wrong.
When the police come in and arrest everyone working for the China Daily in NYC and send them to jail and physically torture them like the CCP did to Simon Cheng or harvest their organs like the CCP did to Falun Gong followers, then you can make your argument. And many people in the US will fight just as hard for the rights of China Daily US Edition as they fight for freedom of speech and universal suffrage in Hong Kong.
>”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 worker on America with the full complicity of Democrats, Republicans and most of Industry and even unions who didn’t oppose their cozy politicians. They all only saw starry dollar signs...
That’s where we are now. People have had enough. That’s why they put up with the guy no one likes because he’s willing to sever that codependent relationship.
Now, if you ask any pol running for the nomination who the greatest threat to America is... it’s not going to be China...
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 responding "uncertain" on the survey [0]. You can go through the other surveys on the IGM Forum to see what more common distributions looks like.
> 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" can be a highly political term. How do "economists" define it and is that the definition we should be using?
> Paul Krugman and other mainstream trade experts are now admitting that they were wrong about globalization: It hurt American workers far more than they thought it would. Did America’s free market economists help put a protectionist demagogue in the White House?
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 wealthier than it has ever been thanks to trade abroad. It makes absolutely no sense that the country that has overall benefited the most from trade, is complaining about it.
What the US hasn’t done, is spread the benefits of trade internally. The US economic problems stem from whatever led to a small percentage of the economy pocketing the vast gains. It’s far more likely that tax changes, regulatory changes, and changes in union power have a lot more to do with that than anything else.
But it’s always easier to blame Johnny Foreigner and people have been doing it for millennia, so there’s no reason to believe the US would be immune from it.
"If it wasn’t China, the US would be importing goods from elsewhere."
Other places don't cheat with market access or steal IP anywhere as much as China. Any economic rebalancing would have been far more gradual.
"What the US hasn’t done, is spread the benefits of trade internally. The US economic problems stem from whatever led to a small percentage of the economy pocketing the vast gains."
You mean policies such as open trade with China, which was inherently biased towards profits to the top, given the way offshoring worked?
This does not mean there weren't other factors at work, rather that China trade was one policy in an array of policies with a similar outcome.
"But it’s always easier to blame Johnny Foreigner and people have been doing it for millennia, so there’s no reason to believe the US would be immune from it. "
My country profited from the US's Free Trade advocacy, and I still think the US's China policy was either insane or driven by elite concerns. It's one thing to have free trade, another to have one-way free trade with a country that cheated so openly, and is now a superpower competitor.
> The US is wealthier than it has ever been thanks to trade abroad.
And more unequal than it has been since the Gilded Age, when the infamous robber-barons ruled the economy unrestrained.
As you said, the US hasn't "spread the benefits of trade internally", but that has a lot to do with globalization. Workers lost bargaining power and income as competition for their jobs increased due to globalization, and unions became weak when companies responded to strikes by moving operations overseas.
The benefits of globalization naturally flow to foreign workers and the few Americans in charge, while the cost of globalization falls on American workers.
>If it wasn’t China, the US would be importing goods from elsewhere.
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.
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..
I do not trust economists on this issue. Many doctors and even prestigious academics and journals are openly admitting that aspects of medicine have been compromised by the processed food industry and pharmaceutical industry. I posit that economics has been even more compromised by multinational corporations and financial entities, but economics is such an insular "science" that they've just built their ivory tower up higher to hide more and more bullshit.
The main benefit that they give for Americans is that everything became cheaper. We can buy cheaper phones, appliances, cars, clothing, and household goods. But that's exactly what most of these things are - cheaper. We're importing a vast quantity of crappy junk, exporting untold pollution and human suffering onto factory workers and laborers in China, and hollowing out the American middle class in the process.
When presented with evidence about the declining quality and huge externalities of imported goods, they hand-wave about rational actors and price discovery and how consumers will just select for the products that minimize heavy metal pollution in some far off mine in rural China. There's similar hand-waving about how Americans will simply find new jobs when all the factories in Ohio automate or close. When products die more frequently because they're not engineered for durability or serviceability, they hand wave again about how consumers are making informed decisions to maximize their utility at the time of purchase.
The truth is a lot of this was a great con with a thin veneer of respectable economics on it. A few of the economists were in on the con, but most of them were taken for a ride. There were a few warning us all along about market failures, wealth inequality, disruption of rapid globalization, and unchecked externalities, but most just wanted in on the money.
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 a cooperative process and protectionism affects inputs to manufacturing as well[3].
Without belaboring the argument which I'm sure everyone's seen before, I would like to re-focus on the point of my comment: 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. You can give counter examples yes, but overall trade has been a benefit to Americans, especially for lower-income Americans who rely on low cost goods. We can say with our engineering jobs that we're willing to bear the cost of protectionism, but we don't really bear that cost in the first place.
> 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.
The scientific side of economics is the description of the properties and behavior of economics systems. The political side is what we should do with this information. I think I and the sources I've cited have kept largely to the former, and I'm the only one in the comment chain to at least throw up a graph. Call it what you want, but we should be able to make observations on systems. At the very least it's a step up from say, pointing out that a source comes from libertarians.
> The scientific side of economics is the description of the properties and behavior of economics systems. The political side is what we should do with this information.
No, sorry. It's not that clean cut. Your links had economists stating things like "America’s low-income households benefit the most from free trade and having access to cheap imports." But defining good as having access to cheaper goods is an intensely political statement (even ignoring the fact that statement was made though an organization advocating for a particular political policy).
If economics was not political, economists would merely say things like "All else being equal, if our models are correct, increased tariffs will lead to increased domestic prices of international trade goods. However, all else is not equal, so we cannot comment if tariffs are good policy or not."
> "America’s low-income households benefit the most from free trade and having access to cheap imports."
This is a description of a property or behavior of a system.
> But defining good as having access to cheaper goods is an intensely political statement
This would be apolitical in all but the most semantic of arguments. "Buying the things I want to buy" is assumed to be a good thing by the vast majority of people.
>> But defining good as having access to cheaper goods is an intensely political statement
> This would be apolitical in all but the most semantic of arguments. "Buying the things I want to buy" is assumed to be a good thing by the vast majority of people.
That's a myopic view: it's not the only good thing, and it's arguable that it's not even the most important good thing. The politics are embedded in the shape of the myopia.
> The thing is: economists are hardly unbiased and neutral. Their theories are far from scientific truth, and typically embed significant political content.
That may be true, but are there any less biased and more neutral experts on the economy to turn to, or do we just throw up our hands and say that no one knows anything about the economy and thus all opinions are equally valid?
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.
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 the current rise of populist protectionism.
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.
>Finally, there’s a difference between merely studying a place from afar and enacting policies that dramatically affect said place.
Economists do not enact those policies -- they suggest policies. The fisherman also suggests policies to benefit his own work, just as the steel worker suggests his own policies, and just as the architect, the construction crews, the parents, the etc..
These policies are aggregated, and enacted, by your politician (of cascading hierarchy), whose job is to do that -- review the possible set of policies and their impact on different areas of his total domain, and with this overarching view, enact policies. The fisherman does not himself review his policies for how they would impact the steel worker, and neither does the economist review his policies for how they will impact the presidential election.
If your local politician is blindly following the recommendations of the economist, without concern for the rest of his domain, whose fault is that but the politician's?
The economist is not supposed to be an expert in all things about the world, and it would be absurd to imagine him to be. He is intended to be an expert of his domain (economics), and is meant to be one of many experts, each supplying their own, scoped, understanding of the world.
If the economist claims that his suggested policies will purely benefit all aspects of the economy, and have zero negative impact, then it would be fair to blame him, because he was plainly incorrect about the area he's intended to be an expert in. But if he fairly claimed that it would generally be beneficial, but certain areas of the economy would be impacted negatively in such a fashion, and his predictions are generally correct, then he has done his job without fault. The decision to enact the policy, knowing the benefits and the losses, is not made by him.
> The point is that academic economists pushed policies
Sure, the Chicago school of economics has been banging this particular drum for ages, but it found a responsive ear in the "deciders" in both public and private spheres from the late-80's.
This rust-belt is a symptom on ongoing class warfare, pure and simple - China only happens to be a tool (and a convenient scape goat). The global domination of Wall Street and Silicon Valley is the flip-side of the globalism coin.
I'd say on average the US benefitted, but this hasn't been evenly distributed (capital wins). How do you fix that without using any big-government, pinko communist/socialist interventions? (being sarcastic here, but that's ironically a big part of rust-belt politics).
I don't see how it was anti-intellectual. The reality is some combination of trade policy, automation and massive income inequality led us to electing a narcissistic reality TV star to be President.
The bargain of cheaper goods in return for us moving up the value chain may be good for GDP, but we have left tens of millions behind in the process, and they are pissed.
I am pro free-trade, but we need to come up with a system that more equally distributes the gains. You can't kick millions of people out of work, leave them to fend for themselves and not expect massive societal issues.
>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 trade and the rest of world shrugged and took advantage. Non-reciprocal free trade might be good for the US economy on the whole, but when a handful of people control half the wealth, and their half is the part of the economy that reaps the benefit while everyone else sees full time employment harder to come by and inflation adjusted wages stand still for 3 decades, I think it’s probably a bad policy for a democratic republic.
> my impression is that the US opened its arms to free trade and the rest of world shrugged and took advantage.
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
>I think it could work great for a democratic republic with sane corporate tax and safety net policies to more evenly distribute the upside
True. But how would modern medicine have faired?
I think the bigger issue with globalization is that it has a huge environmental impact and makes our species more susceptible to the effects of climate change.
We ought to at least enforce free trade policy better; I can tell you first hand that competing against unregulated competitors in manufacturing is hilariously unfair. If we really cared about the Environment or Human rights we would at least level the playing field in markets we control. It’s cheaper to buy from China largely because of our regulatory environment.
It's not clear to me that people discussing the overall economy should also be charged with discussing the political outcomes of the outcome -- that's the role of the politician who chooses to act on the data provided by the economist.
That is, it's not the economists job to predict that the demolishment of the rust belt will lead to Trump's election; their job is to predict that the demolishment of the rust belt will bolster the coastal cities, and improve the health of the American economy in general.
Also notably, towns come and go based the industries they support -- it has happened in the past, and will happen in the future. It's simply the inevitable outcome of an ever-evolving economy. How to mitigate the impact of that fact is not the really job of the economist.
And economists are not expected to live in the towns they discuss.. the local politician is intended to represent the local concerns. If he's failing to do so, or failing to have any impact, the economist can merely say "this is what will probably happen, if you do this and don't do that", and nothing will happen.
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.
There was most certainly massive push back against industrialization. The Luddite movement being one obvious example.
In the US we ended up with 40 hour work weeks, and universal high school as a government response. We will need similar large measures to deal with globalization and automation this time as well.
Precisely, and as the history of automation has shown, having a social safety net to retrain and shift workers is critical.
Unfortunately the focus is on blaming immigrants and other countries, not helping the disenfranchised American workers get back on their feet. It's easier to be an angry luddite but it's also historically the wrong side to be on.
At the city and regional levels, workers could at least go where the added jobs are and compete on the same terms (regulations and cost of living). At the global level that’s rarely permitted.
Modern economists are completely out-of-line with reality on many things, "life outside of George Mason University" being one of them.
Pick your flavor of elitist sub/urbanism, it doesn't matter, none are substantially different.
(HN's poor Markdown formatter transfers asterisks cross-paragraph, so what was originally "George Mason University (asterisk)" and "(asterisk)Pick your flavor" just made everything between italicized.)
It's not just China. It started with Japan, and even without China, it will continue in Pakistan, Indonesia, and Vietnam, and eventually it will be replaced by automation.
So we know international trade is a thing and we know specialization is a thing. We know economies will over time become more value add and go up the chain.
That’s not a problem if we put in place policies and regulations that put our workers on even footing with foreign workers. Benefits, protections (OSHA), anti-dumping, market-based pay (no institutional labor), IP protections, even access to markets, etc. that is handicap any imports proportionately for not meeting those baselines.
Some of those low cost areas are in the country. A lot of the Rust Belt jobs moved within the USA to the South (especially with the auto industry), which is one of the reasons top line US industrial production is pretty stable/growing but you have some very obvious depressed industrial regions.
But don't a lot of people who live in the Rust Belt shop at Walmart and benefit from cheaper prices generally? I haven't seen any "made in America" competitor to Walmart that's thriving because there's so much demand from customers who are willing to pay more to buy domestic made goods.
Having access to cheap goods might not make up lost jobs, but weren't most of the manufacturing jobs in the Rust Belt automated away rather than being offshored? Since 1990, production of metals in the U.S. has held roughly constant, but the number of people employed in the industry has fallen steadily. So it's not like the steel mill jobs from the Rust Belt were shipped overseas, they were just automated away.
The Rust Belt lost most of its jobs prior to 1990, so I’m not sure how that’s relevant data.
I find it a bit hard to understand how someone could suggest that having access to garbage cheap Walmart goods would make up for the utter destruction of a region’s economy. A good place to observe this is southwestern Pennsylvania: there are hundreds of former industrial towns which are now almost completely empty. Drug use is also rampant in these areas and indeed it’s easy to make a direct connection between offshoring jobs and the opioid epidemic.
Foreign trade policy is not defined via consumer preferences. It's the exactly the same as for environmentally sound products: the burden is not on consumers to choose better, but on government to regulate the market.
Mainstream macroeconomics still have problems dealing with real returns of capital investment and technology improvements. And free commerce with China creates some quite large unnatural changes on both of those factors. (And microeconomics can't save the day here.)
So, well, I would add disclaimer to not blindly trusts the economists on this one. Their opinion are probably much better than the one from the average Joe, and also much better than anything you'll get out of the news or a politician's mouth, but not completely reliable either... and the most certain a economist is of it, the less I would trust him.
I don't disagree with anything you are saying regarding the culpability of American politicians, but this common narrative overlooks the role of unadulterated greed on the part of American corporations. BigCo saw a billion person market. They saw cheap labor and a Wild West of regulations, especially environmental. Nevermind that they had to form joint ventures and expose their IP, it would be worth it. I saw an article earlier this year - think it was in the NYT - making the statement that now the US understood that the Chinese never had any intention of letting US companies gain a foothold in their domestic market - well duh! It was clear as day twenty+ years ago to anybody paying attention. It wasn't the Chinese that did this to the American worker and consumer, it was our own corporations with the full support of politicians.
The current buffoon political administration has identified a surface problem, but not the causes and certainly not a solution. The only solution I see comes in two parts:
1) The world needs to make China persona non grata.
2) Shareholders and corporate boards need to hold corporations accountable, not just on a moral basis, but also in terms of good business. Foreign companies cannot win there because the playing field isn't fair.
Thus, while yes we need politicians who can defend American interests, we also need to hold their corporate masters accountable.
most of the job losses of blue-collar work are the result of automation, not foreign trade (this is a statement for which ample evidence exists[1]), furthermore on the aggregate Americans do benefit from trade with not just China but also other low-cost nations, which again is economics 101. If the United States were to produce goods at the level of domestic wages a small segment of the workforce would benefit, but consumers on average would lose out due to the increase in price. The price for an iPhone could go from ~850$ to ~2000$[2]. Now imagine that this happens for every good that is produced largely in China and think again if bringing back a few ten thousand jobs is worth the total loss of consumer welfare in the states.
Also, it goes without saying of course that it would also hurt the Chinese workers who are equally deserving of good employment as their American counterparts, and it's not clear why discounting their welfare is anything other than tribalism.
> Now imagine that this happens for every good that is produced largely in China and think again if bringing back a few ten thousand jobs is worth the total loss of consumer welfare in the states.
On the other hand, perhaps a reduction in frivolous consumption would be good for an ailing planet.
> it's not clear why discounting their welfare is anything other than tribalism.
They are citizens of an authoritarian regime, and for the most part, deeply nationalistic. Their labor produces the regime's prosperity, and enables the very economic influence that leads the international community to constantly turn a blind eye to its human rights abuses.
I don't think it's controversial or inhumane to suggest that we should allocate resources to those who play by (or belong to groups that play by) fairer rules.
I, and I’m sure many many others, would be willing to pay a little more if I know that money is staying here and supporting families in this country. I can do without more plastic crap from China, and I consider it strategically important that high tech manufacturing comes back to the US. For defense reasons, among others. I’m sure someone will link the Wikipedia page with some neat plots from “economics 101”, which is fine. But some things are worth paying a little more for.
Exactly. This is the template for emerging economies. Grow your domestic economy, have your consumers support your industry. That’s the recipe, but suddenly this is “bad” for our own economy and people.
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 sake of predominantly wealthy people attempting to play geopolitics. If you're willing to harm poor Americans and cut trade then please state it like this, don't wrap it up in patriotism.
And to expand on the 'jobs coming back'. Given the high production costs that American companies would have to live with would instantly make their products unattractive in the rest of the world, where people are still going to buy Chinese phones. Giving companies like Apple an incentive to drastically increase the pace of automation, which again is the primary eliminator of jobs.
And even worse, unless you put a tariff on Samsung who will still produce in countries with access to cheap labour, american products will be uncompetitive in their own markets. If you do eliminate competition, the incentive to innovate will vanish. This in fact already happened in the US in the 80s, when the Reagan administration engaged in a trade-war with the Japanese to protect the automotor industry. We all know what this did to the american car market as a result.
> Well you may be fine if you have a lot of disposable income, but many poor Americans will not.
Why are they poor? Hasn't globalization directly contributed to making the American working class poorer? For instance: Offshoring a factory obviously eliminates those workers' jobs. The owner of a American factory can also use the threat of offshoring to keep wages down. The owner is better off, but the workers clearly aren't.
One of the obnoxious things about free-trade ideology is that the cause of problems and the proposed solutions often seem to be one and the same: more market faster.
> Hasn't globalization directly contributed to making the American working class poorer?
My understanding is that our standard of living has continued to increase throughout my lifetime, and thus that the American working class is on the whole richer than it was decades ago.
> The owner is better off, but the workers clearly aren't.
Aren't they? If they make $10/hour instead of $15/hour, but the goods they buy are 40% the cost that they would have been, their $10/hour is effectively $16/hour (I think I got the math right there).
Of course, maybe they are making $9/hour, or maybe they lost their jobs after all, or maybe the goods they buy are 95% the cost that they would have been … but the principle still holds that they can be doing less well than they would like but still better than they were.
> Aren't they? If they make $10/hour instead of $15/hour, but the goods they buy are 40% the cost that they would have been, their $10/hour is effectively $16/hour (I think I got the math right there).
I think it's a mistake to treat it like a math equation, since (among other things) that engages in the fallacy of equating Homo economicus with Homo sapiens.
But if you do want to treat it like a math equation like that. The workers may still be worse off because they don't just buy trade goods. The owner's income didn't drop, and maybe increased, so he can use greater relative income to bid up non-trade goods like real estate, healthcare, and education, pushing those things out of reach of the workers.
Yeah I don’t agree with any of this. I find it really fascinating that, after WWII, the US finds itself in this self-imposed fatalism where we can “never” compete with the rest of the world on manufacturing because of labor costs. It’s also a little odd because in multiple threads at a near daily pace I see people advocating that we explicitly cut back on consumption spending for environmental reasons (reasons I find very compelling). China is also one of the, if not the, world’s biggest polluter.
The Apple example is a good one, but, again, I find it very hard to believe that an 80% (or hell even 90%) automated manufacturing footprint here in the US is a) infeasible and/or b) undesirable relative to the status quo.
I’m tired of the fatalism about this issue. It’s pathetic and signals that America is near collapse if we are essentially just giving up on our industrial base and willing to be reliant on cheap consumer goods from China.
The US isn't near collapse at all. The postwar era and the fact that the US is the primary consumer of global goods is a different way of saying that the US is one of the most prosperous countries on the planet.
The US could compete with foreign countries on manufacturing, but not through human labour unless you want Americans to work 9/9/6 in hazardous conditions and under environmental degradation. The dematerialisation of the US economy has made it cleaner, more energy-efficient, less physically demanding, and richer, because it extracts value from its global IP, and it has given Chinese workers a step up the ladder to prosperity. If manufacturing is coming back its in the form of robots, and that does very little for displaced workers.
There is no reason for fatalism because the premise is all wrong that deindustrialisation is bad. It's not. The problem the US has is a cultural one where the vision of the Ford company man working the same job at the conveyor belt with a dog and car and a house in the suburbs hasn't been updated. Adjust the political system to compensate the segments of the population that lose out, find different ways to provide meaningful work, and we'll be better off, instead of making everyone worse off.
“We consume a lot of goods therefore we are prosperous.”
Utter nonsense. I implore you to actually hang out in, not just visit, these places that got blown up so that some companies could make some basis points on their quarterly returns.
It’s also amazing that you’re saying that the “cultural” hangings on about the mid 20th century are something to be readjusted. Dude, these people are not going to become firmware engineers at night school. There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting what was a normal family life at that time to exist in 2019. If your claim is that that is not possible, then declare what sacrifices are required. Did globalism make this impossible?
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
>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 in prices due to reduced trade.
The benefactors will be a relatively small number of American manufacturing workers (given that it's overall only a small source of employment), who already earn solidly middle-class wages.
In places like the oil boom towns in west Texas and South Dakota the average salaries for all jobs are multiplied higher. Because the average worker in an oilfield makes so much more they have to pay the cashiers 4x what they normally would make. You are wrong.
What if they are only in those jobs because there are no factory jobs for them? If we started employing a lot of factory workers, they would have to come from somewhere. A lot would come from worse jobs. This would also make labor scarcer for those jobs allowing the people who do them to demand higher wages and better conditions.
there is no such scenario because manufacturing would not have stayed. As explained in my original post, automation constitutes the bulk of replacement of manufacturing jobs. If every single manufacturing job from China came back to the United States we would be talking about a low single digit percentage number of the american workforce.
Poor Americans in the rust belt are poor largely because of the decimation of a path to the middle class.
So now we need to keep the status quo because they are no longer middle class?
Your argument doesn’t make sense and until you understand that Trump wins re-election easily.
Even if he was not particularly effective in improving their lot, at least he followed through on his promises instead of preaching to them how raping them was good for them.
That's certainly the traditional narrative, but it always smelled a bit fishy to me because I've seen far more success in outsourcing manufacturing than I've seen in automating it. Sure enough:
Both are definitely contributing, but automation/process improvements is very apparent in steel production: "In the 1980s, American steelmakers needed 10.1 man-hours to produce a ton of steel; now they need 1.5 man-hours, says Joe Innace of S&P Global Platts." https://apnews.com/cae426730cd74e64932e4be7fa5cdebc/As-Trump...
Or in Austria: "The plant, a two-hour drive southwest of Vienna, will need just 14 employees to make 500,000 tons of robust steel wire a year—vs. as many as 1,000 in a mill with similar capacity built in the 1960s."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-21/how-just-...
> he price for an iPhone could go from ~850$ to ~2000$[2]. Now imagine that this happens for every good that is produced largely in China and think again if bringing back a few ten thousand jobs is worth the total loss of consumer welfare in the states.
And it wouldn't matter one whit, because 90% of the expenses of the average American aren't going into buying consumer goods.
They go into buying transportation, medicine, education, food, and housing (With the price of housing rising to consume all of the middle class's economic surplus). None of those things are made in China.
Housing is the most fun one, because no matter how much people save, the price of houses rises to eat all of those savings. The only reason for why a house can cost a million dollars, is that people have saved that amount of money up. If that money weren't there, housing prices would be lower.
>”it goes without saying of course that it would also hurt the Chinese workers who are equally deserving of good employment as their American counterparts...”
You know what, I’ll start caring about their wellbeing soon as they give two shits about the American workers they have displaced.
It’s their economy, they can fix their own problems.
Do we still need a new phone every year or two like was necessary in the past? I've had no desire to upgrade my phone and don't see a compelling reason to in the future. If manufacturing had stayed in america there would be copious amounts of technical jobs in the (now decimated) regions, even if mechanization reduces the overall number of people.
The world has too many people to support as is, so it is beneficial if automation reduces the number of workers needed in the long run. But sending all of the factories out of the US benefits no one.
This upcoming presidential election is definitely more interesting due to this issue. My brother is a staunch Democrat, but he's made it clear that he's not voting for them if they put someone up who's soft on China. I suspect he'd be voting 3rd party in that scenario.
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, but i think this line of thinking is detrimental to our voting process and wrong to rub in peoples faces.
> 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 encourage everyone on this comment chain to read Clay Shirky's "There is no such thing as a protest vote" [0], and really take it seriously, instead of jumping to thought-terminating cliches by angrily denouncing him as a sheep or whatever. He's right.
In a Presidential election it really depends on the state you vote in. California is going team blue no matter what, Alabama team red. Voting 3rd party in one of those states is not going to change the outcome.
Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin etc the calculation totally changes of course.
"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.
Pragmatically every vote is useless. The chances that the election outcome will come down to your single vote are infinitesimal. Every individual vote is a protest vote lost in the noise. So anyone reading this should feel perfectly free to vote their conscience.
Can’t you both be right at the same time? Going all in for poker may be interpreted as an exercise of my human rights, but it can also be interpreted as giving all my money to the chip lead.
Of course I don’t wish to argue the efficacy of my poker moves. They are an expression of my free spirit.
I like to think of it as showing up to not vote. You made an effort to express your disappointment that can't just be argued away as 'people are too busy'.
Here in Australia at least I can do that every time and still have my vote go to the lesser evil due to preferences.
Well unfortunately the idealism in voting 3rd party (which I understand) to make a statement can't really stand up to the realities of game theory and the American political landscape.
> this line of thinking is detrimental to our voting process and wrong to rub in peoples faces.
Our voting framework is detrimental to our voting process. The line of thinking that a 3rd party vote is a vote wasted is simply an assessment of reality.
There are only two realistic candidates for President in a given US election. And no matter the reasoning, a vote for third party is equivalent to a half vote for both major candidates.
If you truly find equally unappealing, then a third party vote is a (very quiet) way to voice that opinion. Otherwise, you are giving a half vote to your least preferred option.
As far as fallacies that can be demonstrated to be mathematically incorrect to bright 5-year-olds go, this one is absurdly common.
0 may not be equal to 1, but it isn't equal to -1 either. It takes TWO people changing their vote from <your favored major candidate> to <third-party candidate> to match the effect of one person changing from <your favored major candidate> to <the opposing major candidate>.
Its not a full vote for the incumbent, but it is mathematically equivalent to a half vote for both candidates, so the statement that they are "voting for the incumbent" isn't incorrect.
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-serving.
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?
How is that a misrepresentation? He's started a trade war with them. In a world with a few nations with ICBMs it's often valuable to maintain some semblance of respect with countries capable of destroying you, even when initiating a trade war. Most people didn't enjoy the cold war.
> 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 with other leaders to forward his agenda. The diplomats/intelligence have long-established precedents and procedures and want everyone, including the president, to not rock their boat.
When they are unable to work together, you will see these inconsistent decisions being made.
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.
> 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.'"
Praising him doesn't mean he likes him or he'll make of him his friend. It's more of a respect thing. He respects the man for working on the interest of his country.
"Good man" implies moral endorsement, and Jinping isn't working in the "interest of his country," he's working in the interest of Han Chinese. "Hitler was a great man!" is a totally appropriate thing to say using the logic you're applying.
I mean, "Alexander the Great" was a great man by common definition. That should be pretty obvious. I'd expand that to other great conquerors - Genghis Khan, Napoleon, and many others.
Does Hitler really not belong on a list like that? So would Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt, of course - but I don't think greatness requires goodness.
Or from popular culture:
> “The wand chooses the wizard, remember … I think we must expect great things from you, Mr Potter … After all, He Who Must Not Be Named did great things – terrible, yes, but great.” - Ollivander
He’s prone to this honne tatemae and it’s hard to know his actual take. I think he’s like a used car salesman who uses and throws whatever cheap trick he has to try to get his way...
> In Japan, honne are a person's true feelings and desires (本音 hon'ne, "true sound"), and tatemae are the behavior and opinions one displays in public (建前 tatemae, "built in front", "façade").
He started a trade war with the country. He isn't just one thing, but idk how people are forgetting the last year and a half so quickly on the run up to Christmas. This guy is notorious for being 'post truth' and making off colour jokes which is bad, but what he says is surely quieter than what he does?
Pretty disingenuous don't you think? We all know trump says a lot of bullshit and contradictory things. He isn't Obama who was really good with his words.
But if all you have is trump saying "good strong leader", then you don't have much. Show actions not words.
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 one of the prisoner shows no good faith collaboration, it might be necessary for the other prisoner to also stop putting their faith in the uncollaborative one.
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.
Despite his praise of Xi (IMO it's just part of Trump's "style" of negotiating), he's willingly initiated a trade war. I think that's a good indicator that he's willing to at least threaten decoupling. Trump has taken this much farther than any preceding US president.
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.
It’s one of the only issues I agree on with the current president. Unfortunately he doesn’t seem willing to actually be effective, and he doesn’t seem to care about the actual human rights issues. I’m hopeful that he might be willing to get things done though.
I’m genuinely shocked Trump hasn’t capitalized more on the HK situation. It would have been perfect for him to, at the very least, get some major concessions from China. Instead, we’ve been ones suffering.
>Now, if you ask any pol running for the nomination who the greatest threat to America is... it’s not going to be China...
Well, that's not exactly true. There is at least one person who ran his campaign saying exactly that- China was America's greatest threat... He's "the guy nobody likes"... he is the current President!
The 1% are above any state. They will align with any state that gives them favorable tax loopholes. If America clamps down they will just leave. Look at Eduardo Saverin for example.
> The 1% are above any state. They will align with any state that gives them favorable tax loopholes. If America clamps down they will just leave. Look at Eduardo Saverin for example.
The ability for an individual to choose their favored tax jurisdiction is an artifact of law, and laws can be changed. If America decides to clamp down on the 1%, it can also create laws to disincentivize leaving for tax reasons, like Saverin did.
Given the condition of the lowest of our nation, "traitors" isn't an unreasonable way to describe the 1%, and no one in the 1% has ever seen a firing squad or the electric chair. Not even lethal injection. If they aren't subject to the same rules as Americans, are they really Americans? If they have a higher amount of wealth than sovereign countries, can they be considered anything but sovereign?
1% of the US population is something like 3 million people; let's say about 2 million adults. Do you really think that there are 2 million adults in the US who have "a higher amount of wealth than sovereign countries" and that the US should go and execute 2-3 million of its citizens?
Actually, the number of German citizens (or ex-German-citizens, given that German Jews were stripped of citizenship) executed by the Third Reich was "only" about 200,000-300,000 [1], which was about 0.3-0.4% of the population (~70 million). So sort of in the ballpark of "1%", but not even close to 2-3 million, given the much smaller population.
Lots more killing of non-German citizens, of course...
> It’s economically productive for the 1% to maintain a trade relationship with China.
This leading argument is not specific to China at all and would equally apply to India and most poor countries. Severing trade with all those countries would severely hurt their economies and their citizens.
It's the same logic behind "dey terk er jerbs" but somehow made reasonable by throwing accusations of fascism.
I think with every president there r good things and bad things they do. Would like to just say that in the good category of our current president is their stance on China. Finally someone standing up and saying no more. I have not decided who to vote for in the next election but this issue will be one of the main ones I will be looking at.
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 so high. Because manufacturing has many steps, and sometimes the US is in the middle (buy steel from China, make motorcycle, sell to Europe) and lack of access to trade can put these jobs in jeopardy. Because even if by some miracle all these issues disappear, manufacturing is a small percent of employment so you don't fix the problems for the rest of the middle/lower class.
Because the expenses that are killing us (housing, health care, education) aren't outsourced at all.
As far as I can tell (and according to most economists), the idea that "we can fix the middle class by going after China trade" is intuitive, simple, and wrong. And it's popular on both sides of the aisle. And historically, it's always been easier to find some group to blame than to fix structural economic issues.
So I think the further we go along this path, the less likely it is we will end up fixing our actual problems, and the more likely countries will be distracted by trade wars and maybe real wars in various parts of the world as those problems increase, and various groups are blamed instead of fixing economic policy.
This is separate from the human rights issues. But I think if we want to put penalties to try to address the human rights issues, we should be clear about that. Because if the penalty is for other political reasons it doesn't add an incentive to improve human rights, since that wouldn't make the penalty go away.
The alternative to allowing manufacturing to move to China is higher prices for goods in the United States. Instead of having really cheap TVs, TVs are more expensive -- they are manufactured here.
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.
For your argument to make sense, I'm going to assume by "China" you actually mean "all inexpensive 3rd world countries". So this isn't about the current trade war but tariffs in general.
I agree that retraining doesn't work. But I disagree that stopping trade can save the middle class. Manufacturing is only 7.9% of jobs [1] and stopping all trade will only slow the decline, with huge amounts of collateral damage for other jobs. Almost all jobs used to be in farming, but now they aren't. Manufacturing isn't going to be something that employs a huge number of people anymore. In China they're automating away jobs that pay $10,000 a year.
How are you going to help retail workers, 9.8% of jobs [1], as automation (Amazon warehouses) takes their jobs? Tariffs don't help them any although they'll pay for them.
There's real problems for the middle class and/or certain geographic regions, but stopping trade is a solution that almost no economists think will work. I'd rather try something more promising like UBI.
> Now, if you ask any pol running for the nomination who the greatest threat to America is... it’s not going to be China...
Well, they asked a similar question during one of the democratic party debates [1] and some candidates said Trump but others pointed out climate change, Russia meddling in elections, China, etc. But the question was greatest "geopolitical threat" so I guess it's not exactly the same.
The destruction of much of the working class industrial base also provides the opportunity to shift them into a right wing alliance with the ruling class through scapegoating. And because of both their location (the industrial Midwest) and undemocratic structures like the electoral college, allows the ruling class to maintain a tight grip on executive branch power.
This is disastrous. It's insane that the US is losing South Korea to China, considering we sacrificed tens of thousands of soldiers and considered starting nuclear war to prevent it in the 1950s. And people just shrug, because to the extent people care about politics right now, it's to focus on impeachment hearings, which themselves are happening because Trump blackmailed an important ally.
The core foreign policy of whoever is President should be recognizing China as our most formidable strategic competitor and working to maintain and build upon a system of alliances to limit its power and reach. Instead Trump is just a thug trying to shake down our allies for cheap wins and PR releases based on an idiotic understanding of American foreign policy interests.
Allegedly blackmailed, which nobody who was actually involved corroborates, to investigate exactly how it is that Joe Biden's son managed to get a very high-paying make-work job on the board of a Ukrainian oil company, and Joe Biden bragged on videotape about how he did infact blackmail the Ukrainian Government to fire the prosecutor who was investigating that.
What we're discovering is not that Trump is that out there. It's that the entire US Government and political elite has been that out there for many years now, and the entire mainstream media conspired to ignore it and cover it up. As they are continuing to do now.
It’s telling that when the establishment agrees with you executive orders and privileges are just that. If they disagree then it’s “it’s your privilege but you’re abusing it”.
What seems to be happening is people are losing some of their dirty money connections (like these post term engagements and talk circuits and appointments where you have no expertise, etc and these people are furious and upset. So they are willing to engage in destabilization or at the minimum distractive tactics (collusion didn’t work, let’s try this for that, no, let’s try bribery, if that doesn’t work it’ll be something else).
Not to say the current president is a Saint, but it would appear he’s ruffled some important feathers, otherwise they just wait him out.
i applaud your willingness to publish this content under your real name, and also understand your real name is closely associated with your software service.
i understand that gives you a certain amount of power that other employees, say of Apple, may not have. kudos to you for using it fruitfully - sincerely.
i am sure this will come across as tin foily, but i would advise you to monitor your digital assets and maybe even personal ones for probing/attack/etc. you're publishing an anti-CCP piece on a widely trafficked web property and are easily identifiable. you are making an enemy of a powerful adversary.
Author here. Thank you for your earnest concern. I'm a pretty risk-averse person and I take lots of pains to address those contingencies for all of my digital services.
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 laughing all the way to the bank.
If you really care, reach out directly to the merchants you buy from. Tell them you used to be a loyal customer, but you won't buy from them again until they stop carrying products made in China. Get your friends and coworkers to do the same, and keep the pressure on. If they go for it, follow through by rewarding them with your loyalty, and broadcast that win as publicly as possible. Talk about it, hashtag it, whatever. Organize.
Changing individual consumption habits rarely amounts to much more than virtue signalling.
And don't toss your existing stuff. You already paid for it, so it's not helping China anymore, and throwing it away doesn't hurt them. If anything, selling it to someone else reduces demand for new products (by exactly 1 unit).
It is about the principles and the message it conveys.
Gandhi protested against the British by spinning his own fabric, making his own shoes, and being completely independent. It made no difference to the British companies, but it sent a powerful message to the nation that Indians can be independent.
Do not underestimate or discourage people from doing what they principally object, even if practically it makes no sense or has no objective benefit.
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.
Hi author, wondering what you think China should do with the organs of executed prisoners? It’s easy to find fault with them for (presumably) not asking for permission but it seems it would be a pity for them not to be used to help patients in need, no? This is separate from the question of what supposed crimes led to the execution. Short waiting lists can be explained by the lack of permission not only for executions but for all deaths of healthy people... not to defend China on other points, but this one seems like a odd concern possibly just zeroed in on for dramatic emotional effect, rather than for any actual practical reason.
There's substantial evidence that China has timed executions for the benefit of organ recipients: they're executing people to do organ transplants, not because they did something wrong.
For the other part, I have trouble understanding why a dead person would care about anything after their death ...although I can understand them having wishes before death, but any such wishes should be weighed in context for their reasonableness given all factors.
It's not just about the rights of the person being executed, but also those of their loved ones.
You may say you wouldn't care if your dead carcass was, say, grotesquely abused for someone else's amusement—after all, you're dead and no longer around to have any feelings about it—but how would your children feel? How would you feel if that was the fate awaiting your life partner?
The shared endeavor of human society entitles people to dignity even in death. That includes the right to bodily integrity.
Yeah that would be disrespectful. Kind of moving the goalposts though to use that example when talking about organ transplant, something that helps people who might otherwise die. Obviously I am not saying execution is worth it for that. Just more that if someone is dead already for whatever reason, it's hard to see it as a bad thing to help the living, if that can be done.
I mean if we're going to fashion extreme examples for dramatic effect, that can be done on the other side too. Imagine if the relatives have racist objections to donating an organ, and let someone die because their own feelings would be hurt if they saw a person of the "wrong" race being helped. How do you weigh their racist feelings, versus the life being saved? It's not that clear to me that their feelings should be at the forefront when other factors are considered.
I agree that dignity in death is a good thing. Just not so certain as you that there is only one way to get there. And none of this is to claim that China does what they do with dignity... I highly doubt that. But organ transplants are not such a terrible thing.
> I have trouble understanding why a dead person would care about anything after their death
Examining the unstated implications of your argument, taken on its face, is not the same as moving the goalposts. Saying "I don't care what happens after I die, so no need to even ask if you can take my organs... except hang on, no, don't abuse my body in weird ways, I'm not okay with that"–THAT'S moving the goalposts.
> it's hard to see it as a bad thing to help the living
except to the extent that 1) harvesting organs from political prisoners is just about as close to a bad thing as you can imagine, and 2) even if we're not talking about China in particular, involuntary organ extraction harms the dignity of living kin.
> Imagine if the relatives have racist objections to donating an organ, and let someone die because their own feelings would be hurt if they saw a person of the "wrong" race being helped. How do you weigh their racist feelings, versus the life being saved?
The right to bodily integrity, to the choice about how your body is used, is unaffected by your motives. A right does not cease to become a right once you disagree with how someone wishes to exercise it.
You don't want your organs to go to a black man? Exercise your right to bodily integrity by not agreeing to be an organ donor.
True, but you can find a religious belief from some random major or minor religion to justify or prohibit just about anything.
Including things that harm others or infringe on their rights.
So if that is guiding policy, policy is going to be a mess at worst or severely hobbled at best.
China doesn’t generally hold religion in high regard when formulating policy. They are more guided by practicality and expediency.
That puts them in conflict with many western values but it’s interesting to look at it from their perspective.
For those people who believe that organ donation is a grotesque abuse, that is bad but it should be weighed against other bad things. People dying is also bad. Which is worse? Grotesque abuse of a corpse, or letting someone die? China appears to have made a decision on this question.
Step 0: Don't execute people for non-violent crimes.
That's a part of the problem here. People speak their mind, disappear into a black bag and end up donating their organs to a Party member's daughter five months later.
The other major part being that there's very little due process, or fair justice, not in the way that you or I would expect it. Certainly not with lives on the line.
Worrying about wasted organs misses the point by an absurd distance.
I would say many mainlanders are reluctant say anything in this topic so you don't know.
BTW, I'm Canadian but was from mainland. There are also a lot of debate inside WeChat groups which include oversea Chinese who have access to all information.
The very worst case, he'll be denied access to China (and possibly HongKong) but otherwise he's fine. China is more interested in Chinese living in China and not some western somewhere.
China has very publicly ran DDOS attacks against GitHub when GitHub did some things they didn't like. Specifically they used infrastructure co-located with the GFW to run a MITM on connections to Baidu and serve malicious javascript. The malicious javascript used users computers to DDOS GitHub.
It's generally always worth keeping an eye on that, but AFAIK, the CCP doesn't normally target western nationals who talk trash or take modestly effective actions. They tend to focus on their own citizens, who they can do pretty much anything to without consequences, and on spying on anybody who might have information of significant use to them.
One nitpick: Hong Kong has its own legal definition of "rioting". It's from the Public Order Ordinance[1], and carries a maximum 10 years jail sentence. The entire law itself is quite draconian and was struck down in the final days of British rule, but was reinstated immediately after the handover.
When China took the book sellers they prosecuted them in China under Chinese laws. It stands to reason China could take and prosecute some "rioters" under Chinese law and Chinese implications.
I'm a Chinese. I admire your courage to post this article.
But there's one thing that's fundamentally wrong in your article. Trading with China is, for now, beneficial to EVERYONE, including you, Drew DeVault, and the top 1% richest. Specialization and trading are the fundamental ways to advance the economy. Surely there will be blue collar workers in the US losing their jobs, but that's just how economy goes. We care about individuals, and it's a tragedy that anyone loses job, but looking at the big picture every working individual should be able to learn new skills and ready to move to new industries if the current industry no longer provides enough jobs.
When Samsung moved its factories out of China and into Vietnam, lots of Chinese workers lost their jobs. One day if Samsung pulled their factories out of Vietnam and moved to an even cheaper country, workers in Vietnam will lose their jobs too. What should those workers do? Learn new skills and move on to other industries. That's a cold thing to say but that's how the economy works. Workers in country A lose their jobs because of the trading with country B does not mean trading with country B is wrong.
If you hate (and you should) what the Chinese government has been doing, the right thing to do is work together to move factories, plants, and companies out of China and to another country, if and only if they can still provide the products/services at the same or even better quality with a lower cost.
I think it is not about not trading persay - it's about not supporting a totalitarian mercantilist. While we both benefit on paper, the fact that so much of this wealth is concentrated at the top in America slows the velocity of money, and the fact that the Chinese are using it to fuel totalitarian measures compounds the trade deficit to the point where it is no longer simply about money and jobs.
Maybe having a gigantic trade deficit is natural and okay, but when it is being used to fund the CCP it is problematic. America may have to take a short term hit, but if it moves its factories out to India, Thailand, Taiwan, Mexico, even back to America the marginal loss in wealth due to trade will be outranked by the substantial benefit to society we will get from not fuelling a nation that seeks supremacy at the cost of humanity.
Also a Chinese here, I think free trade and globalization should be coupled with strong domestic redistribution. Otherwise, inequality will go through the roof.
A company is only going to move their production to another country where production is cheaper if they know their consumers will continue consuming despite where said production is taking place. So I disagree, trading with China is NOT beneficial to everyone; we are simply feeding the dragon.
> Trading with China is, for now, beneficial to EVERYONE
No, it's beneficial from an idealized economic perspective for economies.
Economics makes no guarantee that all individuals within an economy benefit economically benefit from free trade. And if you look at the actual average effect for US workers over the past few decades (period of opening trade with China), their purchasing power hasn't increased: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us...
How can this be? "The economy" is still growing on average because the top 1% have been getting richer and richer. Also China devalued its currency to protect its own industry (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/beggarthyneighbor.asp). Not exactly "free trade"...
But coming back to this:
> every working individual should be able to learn new skills and ready to move to new industries if the current industry no longer provides enough jobs.
Yes, from an economic ideal perspective, working individuals "should" do that to maximize their own income. And in the US, people have been doing it for a while, leading to a drain of talented individuals from rural communities to urban areas and repeatedly disconnecting people from their friends and families as they chase economic opportunities around the country. Now everyone is lonely and depressed, there's a huge political divide between rural and urban areas, and, well, Trump happened.
So I don't think chasing the shiny economic ideals is necessarily going to lead where we want to go as a society.
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 has caused many civilian deaths.
But if you agree that the rest of the world should have sanctioned the US for the Iraq war (among other things) then there might be a consistency with trying to sanction China.
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.)
Meta: I think the rhetoric of humility is more powerful here.
"We are not perfect, but we can't stand by. We have sins of our own that we are trying to rectify, but we cannot allow what you're doing."
The flaw in mutual criticism without admission of guilt is that saying "we're good" even in comparison is so obviously self-serving that it gives your opponent a trivial excuse to dismiss you.
Americans are admitting our flaws, constantly. And when we do that, we don't compare ourselves to China to divert the issue. But debates about China always end up with this diversion into US flaws.
The Iraq war is just one example out of the many atrocities that the US has committed around the world. (as we speak, the US is currently supporting coups in Latin America).
So even though the US has absolutely no moral high ground - I still think that it is important for individual Americans to take a stand against atrocities around the world. I don't think we can discredit Drew's post based on the fact that the US government is just as (or more) evil than the Chinese government.
I do think that special care needs to be taken to avoid the hypocrisy and call out US atrocities as they happen - but calling out the Chinese crimes is very important in the current global climate.
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 Korea, which many forget used to be a brutal military dictatorship.
Baby steps. China has fewer political prisoners than they did during the Cultural Revolution. Crowd control uses rubber bullets instead of metal ones. They even allegedly stopped using execution victims' organs 2015, which is doubtful, but they most likely aren't doing it as often (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_transplantation_in_China).
Given that the USA has federal and state laws preventing and punishing even muttering an idea about not selling to Israel, I'd say you should consider adding a few names to that list.
South Korea achieved democracy when their GDP per capita was $4k. China's GDP per capita is approaching $9k. When will they be rich enough that they yearn for democracy?
The PRC will most likely not escape the Middle Income Trap before their population pyramid massively inverts. No other country has aged so quickly at such a large scale before. Their population and working age groups are at the largest they will ever be right now and will steadily decline starting in 5-10 years.
I think collapse of the current government is more likely than a peaceful ROC-esque (Taiwan) transition from dictatorship to democracy.
I'd argue that the ROC transition was not peaceful at all. Thousands of civilians were killed in the February 28 massacre [1] and tens of thousands imprisoned in the ensuing White Terror [2], and martial law did not end until 30+ years later. But now I think Taiwan is by far the leading democracy in east Asia.
This line of thinking just makes people sit on their hands. Individual citizens can always urge their Government to take actions against atrocities such as being committed by China.
The fact that I, a non-citizen can live in US and call out its mass killing of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan denotes the difference between US and China.
> outside of the US others will readily view this line of thought as hypocritical and self-serving
Sitting here in a former eastern block country I completely disagree. It is absolutely obvious that communism is by far humanity's greatest moral failure and China just proves it again.
United States would need need to start dropping nukes on cities to even approach communism's death toll. A regime change, however misguided, here and there won't be enough for centuries.
> Note: if you are interested in conducting an independent review of the factuality of the claims expressed in this article, please contact me.
Since the author reads HN, I'll assume this comment counts.
> The Chief Executive of Hong Kong (Carrie Lam) is elected directly by the mainland Chinese government, and the people have no representation in the election whatsoever.
The Chief Executive is elected by the Election Committee. While that includes some members representing China's National People's Congress, the majority is made up of a carefully gerrymandered selection of company representatives and professional associations, similar to the Legislature Council. https://www.elections.gov.hk/ecss2016/eng/figures.html
Also, if you intend to e.g. prevent Chinese developers from using your products, I'd advise against it. Foreign code hosting platforms are a major way for Chinese developers to organize where they can't be reached by the government.
Hey yorwba, thanks for the comments. I received similar comments from HKers earlier wrt the Chief Executive office. Minor corrections are on the way out.
I am not trying to troll but genuinely interested in figuring out the boundaries of these proposed boycotts.
What is the difference between "accept investments from China" and allowing Chinese citizens to pay for your service?
This article does not call on US companies to stop selling to China. There seems to be a baseline assumption that creating (from the US point of view) trade deficit will destroy freedom and that a trade surplus does not. Intuitively it makes some sense, but I think it is good to explicitly discuss this question.
It seems like your real issue is with US companies that "kowtow", but having your own company accept a Chinese customer or a company accept Chinese investment does not require kowtowing.
As pointed out in the above comment, some forms of trade can promote freedom, and others can contribute to its destruction, so I am wondering if an approach that was rule-based rather than blanket would make more sense (but I have no idea how to make such rules).
>I am not trying to troll but genuinely interested in figuring out the boundaries of these proposed boycotts.
No problem, I'm grateful for your comments.
The difference is subtle but important. First of all, the Chinese users of my service or a minority of a minority. Their participation has little to no effect on the direction of the site. Their $5/mo subscription fee is not going to move mountains. The kinds of investments I'm referring to are much larger, and require treading softly to avoid insulting the Communist Party of China.
Second, because I've pubically condemned China, these users will have to go out of their way to use my services, which would amount to tacit agreement with these principles. I would be happy to support them. It's not individual Chinese citizens that I have a problem with, it's the actions of the government as a whole.
Then the principle would be that it is okay to do business with China if you don't kowtow. That works well for selling to China but it can only work for buying if there is a distributor outside of China which would just encourage buying direct from China. A general boycott doesn't work with the kowtow principle because an individual or company in China isn't in a position to be able to state their opinion of the government.
The problem is that in general for most companies, especially related to discretionary spending, the proportion of customers who are from China is increasing. Over time they end up kowtowing because the Chinese users threaten to boycott them unless they "respect China", which usually means doing whatever they are told to do.
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 agree with you that China is basically a modern day nazi germany, pre WW2 at this point.
The logic behind opening things up with China (including allowing them to buy American companies) was that as they become economically successful, they would be more open to things like democracy. At what point do you realize you failed and close the barn door?
This assume the goal for China is democracy, and the one the west set for them. If they failed, we must destroy their economy, take their people into poverty, because the barn door must be closed.
This narrative basically can be taken verbatim by the CCP as propaganda material. “The west didn’t like our political system that made great economical progress, and they will try to destroy your livelihood. By the way, they think the economical success of China is entirely a gift of the west. It has nothing to do with your hard working.“
So we should continue to let them buy US companies despite the reverse not being allowed? We should continue to let their companies operate freely in our markets despite the reverse not being allowed? We must maintain this double standard because the CCP might make propaganda out of it?
Given the number of times 'national security' has been the reason for barring Chinese companies from operating in the US or anywhere else, I don't think what you describe is true any more
Name some Chinese company operate freely in US? Tiktok? What else?
Apple, Starbucks, Intel, Microsoft etc operates in China - as for freely, you define whatever that word means. American companies have a much larger namesake and presence in China than the other way around. Your complaint is the complete reverse of real life.
None of the companies you listed are allowed to operate without partnering with a Chinese company.
If you accept them as operating in China, then given 95% of consumer goods have "Made in China" stamped on them, China operates just as much in the US. The above poster's point is still wrong, but so are you.
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.
There are a lot of details, and it's definitely the case that countries like India, China, Mexico, Bangladesh, etc. have benefited tremendously from economic development.
But it's also the case that the US (and most of the West) is experiencing levels of income and wealth inequality not seen since the beginning of the 20th century. The profits from these economic miracles is indeed going largely to a very small number of people, even in the aforementioned countries (China's poverty statistics are frightening, for example, even by their laughably low standards).
> 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.
Exactly. People keep on saying people can “buy more” because things are cheaper! But that ignores the fact those people just scraping by having to work service jobs would rather pay more and have a job that would afford them raising a family.
I remember in public school, the janitor (before the whole title inflation took hold) made enough money to raise a family.
That doesn’t happen much any more. That job has been outsourced to cheap labor. Cheap because of two things people in mfg don’t have a job and will work for less and two low skilled labor coming in and adding downward pressure to wages.
The rust belt is only one part of the american economy, and China is not the only explanation of their fall. The Canadian maritime use to be a fairly wealthy region, until the fish ran out. Now it's been like the rust belt for a long time and one of the poorest regions of canada.
Other parts have become ascendant, such as our software & service industries. The american auto industry also killed themselves, mostly because peaceful Japanese competitors out competed them.
> 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.
Extreme wealth inequality is making life difficult for many, many people today. Cheap goods from China make it easier for them to tolerate this situation, and therefore less likely to take action to change it. One view of this would be that cheap goods are helping people. Another would be that cheap goods help the wealthy elite to continue unchallenged, furthering wealth inequality over time, and making overall quality of life much worse for everyone else in the long run.
> I do agree with you that China is basically a modern day nazi germany, pre WW2 at this point.
That's part of my frustration with all of this w.r.t. the Hong Kong riots. China has been this way for _decades_. Finally we get some western exposure to just how determined the CCP are to control their citizenry. I hope the resistance and world exposure keep pressure on the CCP, but honestly I don't see them caving. (If you think western politics has it's problems look no further than the CCP as an example of what real dogma is all about). I know an all-out civil war would leave a country full of wonderful people in ruins, but I don't see any other way around dismantling the CCP.
I think the mass Uighur genocide and relatively recent economic & military power was the real tipping point. Before that they were yet another dictatorship.
I would say China is more like a modern day colonial America, with their own version of “manifest destiny” and treating the Uyghurs like how Native Americans were treated, by putting them into reservations and boarding schools [1] to and forcing them to assimilate.
And I would say that US treatment of Native Americans in the colonial days and US treatment of Japanese-Americans during WWII were both similar to Nazi Germany's treatment of the Jewish people. But thankfully we have moved beyond it now, unfortunately in 2019 CCP is repeating the same mistakes in Xinjiang.
And please don't call them "boarding schools". It is so disrespectful for the Uighurs who have to endure the physical and mental torture in these camps. Japanese-American internment camps during WWII were concentration camps, and CCP's "re-education" camps in Xinjiang are concentration camps too.
> $155B worth of electronics, which we already have domestic manufacturing capabilities for [4]
The citation here is to the effect that the manufacturing technology is already present in the US. This does not at all translate to the capability to produce these goods, in at least three respects:
* Capacity of production (an industry manufacturing billions of goods requires at least new plants to be built)
* Logistics network (transportation, special zones with enough industry concentration to generate economies of scale)
* Skilled and experienced labor. Take whatever item you can think of, the people who have been in the manufacturing business for that specific item for over a decade have skill and experience above and beyond the mere technological capability to produce.
All of these things would translate at least to higher production costs (regardless of thoughts on currency exchange), market shrinkage from lower affordability, and potentially shortages as well.
The real economy is not as easy as software - you can't just install a new OS and run, it takes decades to transform industries at this scale.
Sure, it would cost the US to make a point to China that they find some of China's policies unacceptable in a trading partner, but it would also cost China - that's the point.
I am concerned with this statement appearing to make a misleading minimization of the cost on the US side, as if it was a simple matter of turning around to a different seller.
There are a lot of jobs dependent on trade with China (our company was affected by the Huawei ban, for example), and the fantasy that you can just cut-over to US manufacturing without huge transition job losses is unrealistic.
And if the US wants to get serious about the use of trade sanctions against human rights violations, there are a lot of places closer to home that it could look at. Not to mention the laws against boycotting a certain country for its human rights violations.
There's also the fantasy of assuming that China's next move after the trade sanctions would be a de-escalation. There's a lot of escalation opportunities for them. Like Taiwan.
(Let's be clear, this is not an apology for the human rights violations by China, which are very real especially in Xinjiang; what I am asking for is the same to be applied consistently and not driven by straightforward nationalism)
>> There are a lot of jobs dependent on trade with China (our company was affected by the Huawei ban, for example), and the fantasy that you can just cut-over to US manufacturing without huge transition job losses is unrealistic.
Completely agree. I very much empathize with the author and this issue is the only one where I feel some sort of connection with the current POTUS, but the engineering-at-scale capacities in the United States pale in comparison to China for a variety of reasons - some due to a cheaper labor force and more "flexible" labor laws, and some simply due to culture.
We do not have this capacity now and it is dubious that we can build it quickly without serious governmental subsidies and efforts not seen since World War 2. I'm personally good with the change, but it will cost billions if not trillions of dollars in lost productivity and marginal costs over the next decade or two, and this is not something to handwave away.
There are a hundred million+ factory workers in China producing products at massive scale for the world. Scaling up enough equipment, robots, and skilled workers in America to do even a fraction of that work is going to be a huge undertaking.
and people don't realise that china becomes manufacturing powerhouse not because of low costs. there're are many places in southeast asian alone which are much more cheaper in every aspect. What china has and other places dont have is, highly efficient logistics, very pragmatic kpi driven and arguably more efficient and definitely more business friendly local government policy makers and administration, end to end supply chain for almost every industry, well educated, very disciplined and hardworking workforce, and a unique culture that promotes perseverance, resilience, discipline and self improvement
Thank you for the article. I’ve personally stopped buying Chinese made/owned products due to the HK protests, but it has been extremely difficult to convince friends and families to do the same because I couldn’t properly explain to them why this was such a big issue. Thank you for spending the time to write up this article, and thank you for taking a stand.
If I might post an unpopular opinion, and let me assure you I'm not secretly a pro-CCP shill: what's happening HK has much more to do with changing economic realities than it does with an evil agenda from the Chinese government.
In 1997 HK had 1/3 of the GDP of mainland China and was the only way for Western companies to interact with China. Today HK has 3% of the GDP of mainland China and a huge part of this is because China has opened its borders to foreign investment. Shenzhen has a thriving economy because if you're a western company and want to do business with China, you can just go there and do business. In the past you would have had to go through Hong Kong to make this happen.
The Hong Kong riots were sparked because China wanted to extradite someone who murdered his girlfriend in Taiwan and then went to hide in HK to avoid extradition. If the same thing happened in the united states we would be equally furious. Of course I'm not stupid, I know that this extradition is part of a growing feeling of increasingly powerful influence of China on HK, and I know this because this how independent nations feel when the US similarly puts extradition pressure on other countries. Look what happened with Julian Assange!
But the protests in Hong Kong aren't just about some emergent "evil" coming from China. Their part of the economic and social anxiety that comes from having your economic power completely change in the span of 20 years. In America we know power and independence go hand in hand.
I'm equally as wary of growing Chinese political power as I am of US Hegemony. But the current strife in Hong Kong is perfect propaganda fuel for both the US and China. Both nations essentially get to stoke the flames of nationalism while HK suffers. I strong encourage people to at least question the prevailing narratives from both sides and start to look at the economic realities of what's happening.
Hong Kong is still extremely important to the CCP. Tariffs can be reduced by first moving exports through Hong Kong because of a first sale rule[0]. The recent bill passed in the US congress puts some of these rules under scrutiny[1].
Do you have any poll/survey results to support your claim that Hong Kongers keep on protesting because they feel economically less important to China? How can you attribute the protests to purely economic reasons and ignore this even more important political factor?
Second, Hong Kong is still extremely important economically to China:
> Hong Kong riots where sparked because China wanted to extradite someone who murdered his girlfriend in Taiwan and then went to hide in HK to avoid extradition.
Macau is all in on a single industry which works when the economy is going well, but not so well when it tanks. Furthermore, the concentration of wealth in Macau is even more skewed towards the top. The average Macanese is poorer than the average Hong Konger which is why so many now live in HK.
that's rich. The Hong Kong people had their freedom and autonomy. And what have they done with it? squandered it. They've been subjects of an empire. They are not equipped to rule themselves. They don't seek self-determination and autonomy and responsibility for creating their future they seek to blame the government or China or the police. and now they are seeking to destroy not to create. And yet they should possess greater freedom?
Thanks for having the guts to say this. Granted that collectively "the West", those who explicitly or tacitly support the Anglo-American banking cartel, are not without major flaws and human rights abuses as well. But execution of your political opponents to harvest their organs for money? That is above and way, way beyond the pale.
We don't need China. Increasing automation, and with other countries picking up the slack, China will become more and more irrelevant. We don't need to support in any way the completely amoral CCP.
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 <insert tech company that provides value to US DoD>.
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 responses that are not the typical fallacies (e.g. ad hominem, ad populum, straw man, etc.)
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.
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.
So in my original question, I was inquiring what people were actually doing to positively impact the world in the direction they want it to go (preferably, objectively measurable results), because I know everyone here has opinions about what someone else should do.
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.
> 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?
I personally have turned down offers such as this with regards to the NYPD so I am familiar. I didnt understand your original point, thought you were saying people should quit high paying tech jobs TO go work for the DoD. Sorry for the confusion.
I think it's a vocal minority that promotes those ideas and the rest follow because it's career suicide to go against it. I'm quite patriotic but not quite brave enough to go against the grain at this time.
What is discounted is the value of a decent middle class job to a high school graduate in many parts of the country. The qualitative value of that loss of human happiness to pride, satisfaction, purpose is not measured by traditional economists. Now, 25 years out from NAFTA and the start of major deindustrialization in the Midwest we are seeing the fruits of those globalist policies. The rise of deaths of despair which is reducing lifespan for middle aged males in the United States.
This is the tragedy so silently born by The many that eludes the “but Wal-Mary lowered prices” crowd that is enriched by free trade.
It's very easy to critisize someone else for not standing to some principles as long as you don't have to deal the the consequences of doing so. Think Blizzard for example. Sure, they could potentially publicly support Hong-Kong out of principle and immediately get banned in China. The consequence of this would be
- Millions of Chinese people (lot of whom have nothing to do with HK or goverment or human right violation) instantly lose access Blizzard products. Their lives become unequivocally shitter.
- Blizzard loses a ton of money and have to downsize significantly firing half of their staff. They can't affort investing in new projects at the scale they used to. Their products become cheaper and lose in quality. Maybe the company even have to shut down due to not being able to sustain itself. It's pretty shitty for Blizzard on all fronts here.
- A lot of Blizzard employees lose their jobs, stop paying taxes and participating in economy at the rate they could afford while being employed by Blizzard. Seems pretty shitty for them and their communities.
- Millions of consumers all over the world miss out on new Blizzard titles, stop buying their games and participating in events organized by Blizzard because company ceases to exist or can't afford to maintain the quality of their products due to less budget. This is a significant impact on the economy as a whole when a huge company generating wealth out of thin air ceases to exist or loses its steam.
- Chinese goverment is not affected by any of this and keeps doing whatever it's doing.
Overall, seems like the move will hurt everyone involved, except for the Chinese government. Remind me please, why we keep demanding Blizzard to punch themselves in a dick for no benefit whatsoever?
I'm not necessary defending Blizzard here, really. I'm just pointing out that the situation is a lot more complicated than shallow takes like in the one in the linked article tend present to it to be.
It’s the outrageous penalty that upset Blizzard supporters. Initially announced penalty to Blitzchung: [1]
(1) banned from the current tournament
(2) forfeit any prize money (approximately US$4,000 by that point)
(3) banned from other Grandmaster tournaments for one year
By contrast, Overwatch League player Josh "Eqo" Corono made a racist gesture and said "I am Korean" on a stream, and was suspended for three games and fined $3000. [2]
Not that Blizzard cannot penalize Blitzchung. Just not out of proportion.
> Millions of Chinese people (lot of whom have nothing to do with HK or goverment or human right violation) instantly lose access Blizzard products. Their lives become unequivocally shitter.
Judging from China’s ban on NBA’s that lasted only two days, China’s ban on Blizzard may be equally short-lived. [3]
> Blizzard loses a ton of money and have to downsize significantly firing half of their staff. They can't affort investing in new projects at the scale they used to. Their products become cheaper and lose in quality. Maybe the company even have to shut down due to not being able to sustain itself. It's pretty shitty for Blizzard on all fronts here.
Only 12% of Blizzard revenue comes from Asia-Pacific, which includes China but also South Korea, Taiwan, etc [4]. Some sources say only 5% comes from China [5]. Even if Blizzard loses Chinese market completely, I don’t see why they need to downsize significantly and fire half of the staff.
It really surprised me that Google staff went apeshit over Dragonfly, and GitHubbers over the ICE contract, yet Apple rank and file seem relatively content with a special backdoored iCloud service that is used in China, no doubt used daily to target people for human rights abuses via surveillance.
Same thing could be said for Microsoft, where employees were upset they were providing O365 and Azure to ICE, but there is no similar outrage directed towards the special China cloud they run
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.
Three reasons: (1) a moderation downweight that we put on primarily-political and/or flamewar submissions; (2) user flags; (3) a software penalty called the flamewar detector.
All three elements—moderators, users, software—comprise HN's moderation system. The system works this way because if it didn't, the front page would be dominated by politics and flamewars, which can't coexist with HN's organizing value of intellectual curiosity: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
That doesn't mean that all political topics are excluded here, as anyone who pays attention to HN is aware. The main things we're looking for are whether there's overlap with intellectual curiosity, and whether the topic is one that hasn't been discussed recently. Those two criteria tend to support curious conversation.
In this case, the topic has been heavily discussed in recent months—indeed it's one of the most-discussed topics on HN at present and there has been a huge number of flamewars about it—so we would tend toward downweighting the thread. On the other hand, the discussion on this one has managed to stay relatively thoughtful—far from perfect, but we didn't get a wretched flamewar, which is unusual with so provocative a post, especially on a nationalistic topic, which is probably the most inflammatory of all domains these days. So I've reduced the downweight.
Votes alone don't determine frontpage position and it's still on the front page, so clearly it's not being penalized. Some people probably flagged it too, as I did.
I noticed this happens to a greater extent the further the post is about tech. For example, opinions about the Damore memo got over a thousand upvotes, but disappeared off the front page in a few hours.
I'd beware of drawing general conclusions about HN or HN moderation from examples that stand out to you. Which particular examples stand out are going to be highly conditioned by what you're already interested in and/or feel strongly about. (I don't mean you personally, but everyone.) That tends to lead to erroneous conclusions—and people who feel the opposite way derive the opposite erroneous conclusions.
Based on how we work as moderators, I'd say it happens to a lesser extent the further the post is about tech—but that's not really what we're looking for either way. What we're looking for is topics that are intellectually interesting and can support intellectually curious discussion. Topics that have already been debated to death are much more likely to get penalized whether they're about tech or not. Initial discussions about the Damore thing spent much time on HN's front page, just like the Snowden thing in 2013, and the Stallman thing a few years later.
Why do we tend to penalize topics that have already been debated to death, unless a story contains significant new information? Because curiosity withers under repetition and people's responses become predictable. In other words, moderating this way is a simple consequence of intellectual curiosity being HN's organizing principle. That's the one thing we optimize for in everything we do here.
Even with all that, I'd say we barely get by in terms of having an intellectually curious site—but there are so many strong forces acting against it, that barely getting by is probably the best one can do. From the beginning, the idea of HN has been to stave off decline for as long as possible. I've always liked that goal, as it seems modest enough to have a chance.
Killing civilians is unfortunate and mistake. However it's controversial because the views of the leaders of a nation is quite different from average people that there are costs and risks you cannot avoid to protect more civilian death. Logically that's a legitimate claim. In statistics majority of killed were terrorists. i.e. the killing is quite effective and accurate.
The real flaw of the strategy is fundamental misunderstanding of root cause and how human society works. Killing didn’t reduce the capability of the terrorists. The growth of terrorists out paste target drone killing numbers. Killing cause more growth. That’s why US eventually talk to Taliban. The failure is on another level not accuracy of drone target killing.
This is a truly perplexing argument, especially the sourcing to "make" the argument. Ones an article about a single factory that LG opened for washing machines in the US, the other that Intel has chip manufacturing plants in the US. This does not make the argument that America has the resources, both human and raw materials, to pull off a China manufacturing pull-out.
A lot of the article, especially the parts on who gets rich off this arrangement and the human rights components are very much on point. But making it out like a China manufacturing break would just be simply accomplished because LG makes some washing machines here is pretty ridiculous. It would be very difficult, and it would require a lot of government assistance & policy encouragements to develop people, acquire access to rare earth minerals, and lay out vast sums of upstart capital to get factories built. It would take time. Making it out like it's a simple fix is convenient and simple, but like most complex things that are made out to be simple & convenient, it's just flat-out wrong.
What can I, as an average Joe living in the US, do to help?
Edit: After reading responses, I realize that there is a better question to ask: What people in the US in general do to help (vote a certain way, write to certain politicians, change purchasing habits), and how can I specifically participate in that?
You work at a multibillion-dollar company, yet live in a state with an (comparatively) uneducated population. That's far from average.
One idea would be to run workshops for children/or families teaching them how to repair their devices, and which devices to get if they want them to last (think upgradability, battery-replacement, similar). If we're wanting to lessen China's power over the working class, making people capable of maintaining electronics in the same way they can maintain cars will go a long way. Bonus points if you teach them how to reinstall operating systems without bricking their systems.
Another idea would be to use your programming ability to create software to help people: think getting past censorship, keeping communications secure, similar. China and Hong Kong both are more or less tech wonderlands, solving the UX issues that stop anyone from throwing a single-board computer (think Orange/Raspberry Pi) online and using it to communicate over the open web and store data without fear of it being compromised in some way by doing nothing more than flashing an OS image and booting would mean that almost everyone would gain, but especially people in those countries.
Seems like a pretty big omission, given that it's what smart people were putting together to give us some better leverage against them without "going cold turkey", which would tank the economy in a massive way that would absolutely crush those who are not so well off.
The problem is that doing what the author proposes and severing trade relations entirely would be extremely harmful to the 99% of Americans in the short term. Prices for virtually everything would skyrocket far faster than wages. And they would do so for everyone, not just blue collar workers. In the long term things might be better, but it would be a lot more painful to get there than I think most Americans are prepared to stomach.
Personally, my thoughts are in line with the author’s, but realistically we need to be looking at unified trade sanctions on key goods and potentially clamping down on foreign investment in both directions.
The cost of housing is a complicated matter but is mostly not due to jobs going elsewhere. Single family zoning and 'never change' rules in home owners associations and cities are some of the biggest drivers of housing prices.
The tariffs are working; companies are thinking about China as a problem and how to minimize their reliance on China in case of disaster. Supply chains are moving out of China and into Taiwan and Vietnam and the Philippines. This is happening slowly but also smoothly. Let's keep raising the tariffs and let companies know the planned tariffs schedule for several years in advance. When companies understand that they need to get out of China or lose their competitive edge, only then will we start to see a mass exodus from Chinese manufacturing.
Well I'm somewhere in that 99% of Americans, and I can tell you that "what keeps prices low for me" is very far from the top of my list of priorities. People have values and principles, that are important to us.
Honestly, I’m pretty sure if you asked some random person if they would be willing to not be able to afford anything for cutting the ties with everything made in china, they would refuse.
At the same time, I look at the ultra-cheap "deals" lists on Amazon and cringe at the amount of crap we compulsively order, all these "deals" for things we don't need that bring us little happiness beyond the brief ejaculatory pleasure of clicking "Checkout".
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.
From what I understand, the issue is dependence on an external source for those goods that we consume, and through that the implicit support for the Chinese Government & its current regime
When you refer to some resources, you'll have great responsibility to check their factuality (especially for this kind of sensitive topic), otherwise, you are wasting your efforts on making your points and the reader's time for reading and even worse misleading the audience largely.
Ok, but rather than name-calling ("completely biased", "brain washed"), it would be better to add good information in a neutral way, so readers can learn something. If you don't want to do that or don't have time, it would be better not to post, even though it's frustrating to see a thread full of comments you disagree with.
I traveled extensively in China this year. A strong sense of nationalism keeps the government strong and allows them to trample on the rights of minorities. A trade war / sanctions will only fuel that even further. (Like the humiliation of Germany after WWI helped Hitler to gain power).
The best remedy is to undermine the Great Firewall. And the easiest to hide censored content* in sites that are not filtered (like this one). Just hide it well enough that Baidu etc. cannot get to it.
*: That can include proxies to news sites, facebook etc.
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 it'll set you back $285.
I would buy usa made stuff because I have the means to, currently typing this on a Realforce keyboard wearing USA NB sneakers. But I'm pretty sure it would put a huge dent in retail sales across the board. Maybe higher volume in manufacturing would lower usa-made prices and create more jobs in the usa which might tip the revenue flow from the 1% to everyone else.
Hey Drew, just wanted to say I couldn’t agree more. I do not know about the US’s domestic manufacturing capabilities, and I don’t think I care, either; this situation is not OK. It probably wasn’t OK for a very long time. Something needs to change. It probably won’t come at a small cost.
I’m sure this thread will have a lot of whataboutism. Remember what your parents always told you: two wrongs don’t make a right.
It's also worth noting that the financial elites and the CCP aren't really doing business, they're committing fraud and theft. China isn't exporting productivity, it's exporting deflation and corruption.
Arguably, the trade war may have nothing to do with trade and, together with financial decoupling, everything to do with deliberate monetary strangulation.
The Trump administration holds all the cards, the CCP holds none. The challenge is getting the job done without more people getting killed.
I am a bit weirded out and pessimistic. If in any case in 27 years HK will be totally under Chinese control what would be the reason to fight it now temporarily? Unless the issue at stake is complete freedom. That can escalate to full blown war and possibly a global one.
The article ignores the impact on poor people in the US if trade with China was cut off. In general, poor people would pay more for everything that is currently imported from China. Everyone would pay more, but poor people would be impacted the most.
I'm not sure if that's enough to say trade with China is a good thing.
But it should turn your idea of a very simple answer into a much more complicated picture.
I mostly agree with the substance and recommendations of the article, and greatly appreciate it. The following is just a quibble.
> Let’s lay out the facts: China is conducting human rights violations on the largest scale the world has seen since Nazi Germany.
Even if you ignore events like the Cambodian genocide by the Khmer rouge or the Rwandan genocide, on the basis that, while far more intensive, they affected a considerably smaller population, China's own cultural revolution was a far greater human rights violation than what is happening now in China. (Arguably, in terms of scope, it was even worse than anything than the Nazis did, even if its intentions were probably more benign.)
I'd recommend changing the quoted sentence to something to the effect of "one of the largest scales".
The Cultural Revolution was bad, but it caused "only" 1-2M deaths. Probably a stronger comparison would be the earlier Great Leap Forward, with 20-50M deaths.
But, yes, both are far greater human rights violations than what is happening now in mainland China.
Richard Nixon carries a lot of responsibility for the current situation. He never ever put the human rights issue on the table, he never pressed on the issue, because from the beginning his sole goal was having access to a cheap workforce, and damned the rest.
The Communist Party situation at that time rested on the abuse of power. Nixon just strengthened their position by given market access and capital without pressure on the human rights issues.
Actually, the cynic in me thinks that this was by design. By reinforcing the power of the communist party, american corporations wouldn't have to worry about the chinese workers fighting for better labor and environmental conditions, thus keeping costs low.
They do work together. There is benefit in controlling the growth and rise of the Chinese and american populace. I don't know how you guarantee working conditions for 1 billion people. Just the spread of resources alone gets thin very quickly. Buy giving them the space to rise by selling to the US with subsidized shipping and what else has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty, abuses or not. That is a fundamental good assuming it is stable. I think the courageous view is to integrate the cynical view and go one step further.
> because from the beginning his sole goal was having access to a cheap workforce, and damned the rest.
Uh. His goals were to further American interests in Cold War geopolitics and increase his personal stature as a statesman. Friendly American relations with Chinese Communists put more pressure on Soviet Communists.
Free trade has nothing to due with it. You're forgetting that Nixon went to China in 1972, but the Chinese economy didn't start opening up until 1978 under Deng (and long after Nixon).
> It’s nice to believe that we would have stood up to Nazi Germany if we had been there in the 1940’s. China is our generation’s chance to prove ourselves of that conviction.
I don't think the US joined the war out of concern for the welfare of Europeans so much as out of fear of Germany's continually-expanding borders (and as a reaction to that Pearl Harbor thing)
It would be naive to say that China is the only country perpetrator of genocide today, look at its another neighbour i.e. India who is governed by extremist political party today and has locked down 8Million Kashmiri people from more than 100+ days who's land has been UN designated disputed territory. There are well documented genocides perpetrator by Indian military there. Whole of Kashmir is loced down under curfew (no mobiles, no data, no business, no healthcare services etc) from Aug 5 after Indian parliament unilaterally abrogated their rights articles. NO one talks about them :(
> It’s nice to believe that we would have stood up to Nazi Germany if we had been there in the 1940’s. China is our generation’s chance to prove ourselves of that conviction.
This, right over here, might explain why Hitler got away with what he did for a long time before the international community decided it's time to do something.
I feel like the human rights angle might add enough political capital to the economic argument (that we should have used 50 years ago) to stop the fucking CEOs from mortgaging the country's economic future for an extra zero on their bonus checks.
TVs should cost $5000, washing machines $2500, etc... that will create a domestic repair industry, be better for the environment, create skilled jobs that don't require college, and improve our national self-sufficience and thus security, and deprive a totalitarian government of revenues.
China doesn't want the protest to end. People who believe they are protesting China by supporting these terrorists and their activities in Hong Kong are only supporting the central government's plan.
The Hong Kong human rights and democracy act if enacted only supports the central government's position on Hong Kong. The unrest is an opportunity for Beijing. The media discourse suggests otherwise... only to the benefit of Beijing. Understand the true meaning of your position, so as not to look so foolish.
Or not, and keep supporting China ( I thank you ) but thinking you're not.
I'm well aware of the fact that the author lives in the US which has been and is still involved in numerous cases of human rights violations and oppression of entire countries worldwide. But the article is excellent. While China's foreign policy hasn't been as oppressive as the US so far, locally they are implementing Orwell's 1984 with precision. It is fucking disgusting.
Straight from the heart of a coding nerd and amazingly well written. I had to make an account just for this. It there were pulitzers for blogs, this nameless coder would win it.
> we, the Americans, are the ones who started this fight by goading them on
That depends on how you measure it. There's a good case to be made for the thesis that we've been in a trade war ever since opening trade with China, but it's only recently that we've actually started counter-attacking.
Also, while it's gained traction recently, the political scientists I know personally have been decrying China's human rights violations for the past 20 years. Some of them were hoping things would improve as trade continued and the Chinese economy forced liberalization on the political sphere. That doesn't seem to be the way things have played out.
Did America steal Chinese intellectual property and build entire industries based on copying Chinese products?
A trade war doesn't just mean tariffs, it can happen in various forms. American companies did not have a fair game from the getgo competing with chinese companies, it's just that no one cared until now.
I would disagree with your 'crux' of the argument, as the majority of the article is discussing human rights violations, capitulation of some of America's largest institutions to CCP demands, and recent protests in Hong Kong.
I would also disagree with calling a fairly well cited call to action as 'half baked repetitions of what we hear every day'.
Could you go deeper into how we, the Americans, 'goaded China on' to commit human rights atrocities.
> The conversation about China has shifted from being relatively peaceful during the Obama years to war like today.
Just because the fight is now verbalized and on the forefront of the public's mind doesn't mean it wasn't already occurring, just not acknowledged. And I don't see the threat of war as being a serious one, given the nuclear deterrents of both sides.
Absolutely agree. Also, as a European, I can tell you that this perceived escalation is not an American phenomenon based on Donald's rhethoric. It's based in increasing perception of Chinese misdeeds in the West and around the world. And it's real in actual escalation of what China is doing.
In 2015, during the umbrella movement, there was discontent in Hong Kong over the taken-away promise of near-future free elections in 2017. In 2019 Hongkongers have their rights taken away NOW and are affected NOW. In 2019 we have a fairly accurate picture of what's going on in Xinjiang. The list could go on...
> Not to say that China isn’t violating human rights. They are. But we, the Americans, are the ones who started this fight by goading them on.
Americans goaded them on to human rights abuses? I strongly suspect that many Uighurs would be in concentration camps even in America had done everything that Beijing wanted.
Some Chinese sources have cited the War on Terror as a template for their anti-muslim measures. Of course that could be a convenient post-hoc rationalisation.
China goaded itself on. It's really a "boiling a frog" situation if you look at it historically. China's abuses of human rights, intellectual property, dissident repression, history whitewashing, etc. have slowly ramped up over the course of decades. Then Xi came to power, declared himself de facto dictator for life, turned the Nationalism dial to 11, and refused to take US demands for trade fairness seriously.
Yes, the current presidency is partly to blame, but don't pretend that it's the only, or even primary cause of the current narrative.
This is certainly an... interesting assertion. HK is the financial conduit that made Chinese rise possible, and the engine that powers Chinese financial influence abroad. HKers enabled this, not so much the generation that's protesting mind you, but most remotely affluent HK migrant in the past 30 years was the beneficiary to this arrangement.
Overall, fairly lazy and unsophisticated, Reddit tier analysis from generic American exceptionalism lens. Just to touch on XinJiang briefly, since people in the west are quick to draw on Godwins law and make ridiculous Nazi + genocide comparisons. The leaked NYT reports confirms if anything that the CPC motivations is consistent with their past claims of de-radicalization and de-secularization. There's no intention to eliminate if only because killing all the Uyghurs means China has to revise 56 minorities into 55, that would look bad on Xi's legacy. What is happening is an extremely immoral and excessive COIN strategy, you know the kind US embarked on post 9/11 that continues to this day. Each using instruments to their strength - US bombs, Chinese infrastructure. At best it would be classified as cultural-genocide, which is basically undefined and unenforceable in UN. The silver lining is that since the motivation is counter-terrorism, there's a chance China will pivot away from the harsh strategies. Mandatory disclaimer that explanation doesn't not mean endorsement.
Regardless, it's always a little cringe to see Americans try to play the moral Trump card. Argue security, argue hegemony, argue influence, but don't argue morals like that has any weight anymore. HK rights bill passed on the same day US changed stance on West Bank settlements. Chinese containment is cold geopolitics. The appeal for international condemnation is particularly out of touch. China is a driver for global growth, economically and demographically, most countries including the majority of developed g20 has their future prosperity pegged to China. US is the least trade dependent major economy int he world with enviable geopolitical posturing that enables her to disengage with China on a long enough timeline, no one else has that benefit, and they have even less incentive to as US is becoming increasingly unreliable and withdrawn from the global order that she created. There's a reason why, including US, only 2/5 and 3/195 countries in the world banned Huawei despite years aggressive US posturing. South Korean just signed a defense agreement with China. Being near peer power with US means China is afforded the luxury of getting away with crimes against humanity like the US have.
Want the world to shun the future Chinese order? Propose and _demonstrate_ a better one.
Let's start with the very simple "have more than one viable political party". The CCP would never tolerate that. The rest of your comment is casual dismissal of "cultural genocide" and whataboutism. Rather than try and distract with transparently propagandist techniques, you should really consider reforms that the CCP could undertake to adhere to the rule of law and respect human rights in China. That at least would be constructive.
Starting with the western values as endpoint for reform is not constructive but "transparently propagandist". Different countries apply different models at different points in development - "rule of law and respect human rights - is simply not a priority for China or many developing nations, where the moral calculus is better spent on attaining other freedoms, chiefly the freedom from want.
> casual dismissal of "cultural genocide" and whataboutism
The point is cultural genocide is something that gets pragmatically dismissed everyday in the interest of geopolitics. Just like how people like to causally assert "whataboutism" whenever the brazenly obvious is pointed out: China gets away with abuses and will continue to because America led the way. If Americans want human rights to apply to large countries, start at home and demonstrate that international rule of law applies to everyone. No one takes hypocrites seriously except hypocrites themselves.
> Starting with the western values as endpoint for reform is not constructive but "transparently propagandist"
Ah but the rule of law is a global concept many disparate civilizations invented independently. Even China, here's Wikipedia:
> In China, members of the school of legalism during the 3rd century BC argued for using law as a tool of governance, but they promoted "rule by law" as opposed to "rule of law", meaning that they placed the aristocrats and emperor above the law.[15] In contrast, the Huang–Lao school of Daoism rejected legal positivism in favor of a natural law that even the ruler would be subject to.[16]
> "rule of law and respect human rights - is simply not a priority for China or many developing nations
China is the 2nd largest GDP in the world. It's no longer a developing nation. It has the ability to destroy the entire planet with pollution from its industry, its biotech research, and of course its nuclear weapons. This is not an excuse.
It's also not an excuse for any nation anywhere. No nation can be small enough to abduct, torture, murder, and harvest organs from its own citizens. The mere suggestion is disgusting.
> The point is cultural genocide is something that gets pragmatically dismissed everyday in the interest of geopolitics.
And practically everyone in this thread is lamenting that. We're ashamed of our nations for not acting against this, and OP explicitly calls for us to take action.
That is, except commenters like you, who are working extra hard to make excuses for the CCP with twisted arguments and whataboutism. Speaking of:
> Just like how people like to causally assert "whataboutism" whenever the brazenly obvious is pointed out: China gets away with abuses and will continue to because America led the way.
Besides being--again--whataboutism, you can't have it both ways. You can't say, "we're justified in doing the worst things the US has ever done" without also saying, "we're trying very hard to do the best things the US has ever done". Which, to be clear, are:
- rule of law
- respect for an expansive, equal set of human rights for all
- free, fair, open elections
This is a very basic human rule that children learn. Someone else's bad behavior doesn't excuse your own bad behavior. Take responsibility for your actions, and try to do better. Say what you want about the US, but we try and do that, and anyone with even a passing knowledge of US history knows it's working.
"global concept" =/= "global endorsement", nevermind that there are constant reforms and improvements to Chinese legal system, the anticorruption drive for instance which the west dismiss as power consolidation but subsequent analysis has concluded to be a broadly genuine effort. Or to acknowledge that reforms take time, and is subject to regression depending on conditions. How long did it take African Americans to get the right to enfranchisement.
> no longer a developing nation
Of course it is by GDP PPP, comparable to IRAQ. By multiple other other measures as well. Just because it has a few extremely well developed coastal cities doesn't mean the population as a whole as been elevated.
> It's also not an excuse
I wasn't making an excuse, explanation =/= endorsement. I specifically said the situation in XinJiang was an immoral overreaction. Nor was I suggesting the OPs letter was not warranted, just poorly reasoned and articulated. China isn't a monolith, people shit talk the government all the time, publicly. Some third rail subjects are prone to hysteric consensus, XinJiang being one of them, because anti-terrorism makes people irrational everywhere, leading to disproportionate responses.
>whataboutism
Again, when did I justify? I was drawing a comparison on why US moral arguments are not credible with respects to containing China especially when one appeals to international audiences, particularly those who suffered under US hegemony.
> best things
Best things in principle but not practice - hence need to demonstrate actual commitment to values.
> very basic human rule that children learn
I mean the CPC also indoctrinates kids with 2/3 of those values. But what we teach children is simplified platitudes, reality is murkier. The 1/3 (open elections) elected a leader that is rapidly dismantling the global order or undermining allies everywhere. Not that that the last few prior administrations were faultless. That's what children growing up in such countries learn.
>Someone else's bad behavior doesn't excuse your own bad behavior.
Your bad behaviour undermines (but doesn't invalidate) your ability to criticize others, which this open letter and many myopic US arguments couched in moralism refuses to comprehend.
> anyone with even a passing knowledge of US history knows it's working.
And anyone with passing knowledge of contemporary US history knows vast components are degrading. Which makes these appeal to values arguments particularly unsuccessful. And whenever they're met with resistance, the canned dismissal is whataboutism or shills without acknowledging that the shiny city on the hill has been tarnished. Just like there are components of the Chinese system that is working and simultaneously degrading. You have a much rosier evaluation on the US system than the last 20 year warrants.
> nevermind that there are constant reforms and improvements to Chinese legal system, the anticorruption drive for instance which the west dismiss as power consolidation but subsequent analysis has concluded to be a broadly genuine effort
This is certainly possible, and I of course applaud anti-corruption policies. We have something of a corruption problem here in the US you may have heard about.
The mistrust comes from the fact that the CCP doesn't respect the rule of law. If we had faith in its legal system, then we would have confidence. But we don't. It's also an odd coincidence that anti-corruption has consolidated Xi's power. Anti-corruption efforts need to be independent, lest they too become corrupt efforts. When they're led by those in power, how can they be anything other than a purge? Here's what Wikipedia--citing Willy Lam from the Jamestown Foundation--says the process is:
> Investigations by the party's disciplinary bodies are not part of the state judicial system. When an official is detained for an investigation, known as Shuanggui, they are essentially placed under house arrest and are isolated from the outside world. The subject often must endure days of grueling interrogation.[50] Data from the first half of 2014 showed that the conviction rate of those who were investigated in that time period to be around 99%.[50] The CCDI and its local counterparts usually gather evidence covertly well in advance of detaining the subject. Generally, when an official is announced to be under investigation, the CCDI has already collected an overwhelming amount of hard evidence. China scholar Willy Lam also wrote that the CCDI has seen a massive expansion of its powers since Xi's ascension, and that it was increasingly involved in the governance of the state. Lam also contended that the CCDI seemed to be deriving most of its power from Xi Jinping personally.
This process is a joke. It cannot be taken seriously.
> Again, when did I justify?
This is a justification:
> Different countries apply different models at different points in development - "rule of law and respect human rights - is simply not a priority for China or many developing nations, where the moral calculus is better spent on attaining other freedoms, chiefly the freedom from want.
Here you are justifying China's violation of human rights because they're a developing nation. Plain as day.
> Your bad behaviour undermines (but doesn't invalidate) your ability to criticize others, which this open letter and many myopic US arguments couched in moralism refuses to comprehend.
If your argument is that the CCP should only listen to perfect governments (or citizens of perfect governments), that's a bad faith argument. If you don't think they need to be perfect, maybe you could list some governments you would listen to, or what standard a government could meet to warrant being an authority on human rights, in your eyes, because numerous governments have spoken out against the CCP's human rights abuses. It's also worth saying that non-governmental organizations like Amnesty International and the UN have as well. Also whistleblowers in the CCP government itself, also people under the CCP's rule, etc. etc. etc.
So let's be honest, you're setting an impossible standard so you don't have to take responsibility.
> Nor was I suggesting the OPs letter was not warranted, just poorly reasoned and articulated.
So how would you articulate it? How do you justify the CCP abducting people, and murdering them by harvesting their organs? Something that, to be clear, the US definitely does not do and has never done.
> The 1/3 (open elections) elected a leader that is rapidly dismantling the global order or undermining allies everywhere.
Yeah that's how elections work. You live with the results, even when you don't like them and even when they're objectively bad. That's the commitment we have to our values. The CCP could learn from our example.
And lest you think I'm being sarcastic here, I'm absolutely not. Free and fair elections are a bedrock principle of any democracy.
> ...anyone with passing knowledge of contemporary US history knows vast components are degrading. Which makes these appeal to values arguments particularly unsuccessful.
You are again arguing that economic development trumps human rights. To be clear, this is the kind of argument used to justify human rights abuses like abduction, slavery, executions, mass censorship, and other horrors.
> You have a much rosier evaluation on the US system than the last 20 year warrants.
In the last 20 years, multiple states have rolled back laws on felon disenfranchisement. We've passed significant criminal justice sentencing reform (we have a long way to go here). We weathered the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. We passed Obamacare. We've legalized recreational marijuana use in 11 states and DC, and some of those states are reversing convictions and expunging records. We've had the longest economic expansion on record. Oh and we legalized gay marriage.
Am I all sunshine and roses about everything that's happened in the last 20 years? Absolutely not. I'm no US apologist. I've read A People's History of the US. I proudly accept being an SJW, and I'm often hypercritical of US policy foreign and domestic.
All of which is to say I might be wrong about all kinds of things. I might be overly optimistic. But I'm definitely not uninformed. And even given all that, I can say without hesitation I would never choose CCP-occupied China over the US. And I deeply hope the world won't buy the kinds of arguments you're making. In fact, I hope you come around too :) Everyone can change.
> Here you are justifying China's violation of human rights because they're a developing nation.
...
> So let's be honest, you're setting an impossible standard so you don't have to take responsibility.
Again, I'm not absolving China of their failures and abuses. But I also recognize that currently, China is operating within hegemonic standards set by 70 years of US leadership. That is, the privileged to ignore international laws and norms because as the great power, standard bearer, US set the precedence for such behavior. XJ specifically maps onto hysteric over reaction to post 9/11 attacks. There's a reason that XJ crackdown plays well to domestic audiences besides shared Islamophobic ignorance - there has no been no serious extremist attacks since the security apparatus was established. Great powers with the resources to keep their population safe will do so even if the cost is disproportionate to the risk or if the cost means eating away at domestic rights. This isn't an argument that China has a "moral right" to conduct such abuses like US in their war against terror, both are gross human right violations, rather the precedents set by the largely unchallenged US actions abroad, outside of concerned words like this letter, set the established the allowable scope of of atrocities in the name of security. So if Americans wants to have a credible podium to compel others to reduce their scope of atrocity, then they must also reduce their own. Security follows MAD logic in that regard, no one is willing to do less than what is acceptable. And if free and fair elections are the bedrock, then every American is culpable for setting the bar this low. Personally I wouldn't attribute blame to voters, because I find the US electoral system too imperfect to express populace desires when these conflict with challenge national interest.
> You are again arguing that economic development trumps human rights.
Economic development IS human rights. It's the basis for establishing the four freedoms Roosevelt preached everyone ought to enjoy - speech, worship, want, fear. There's a reason most Chinese / developing countries are preoccupied with "want" and countries that are victims to extremist attacks over react in response to "fear", because physiology and safety is the base of maslows hierarchy of needs. Not everyone has the luxury of affluence to fulfill everything freedom right now. Sometimes they must choose, moral calculus is not easy when every decision are bad trolley problems.
>And I deeply hope the world won't buy the kinds of arguments you're making. In fact, I hope you come around too :) Everyone can change.
This is your fundamental misreading of my position. I prefer liberal values as well but understand the conditions they spring from, and the long trajectory it takes / will take to get there in developing countries. All the Asian tigers that the west hoped China would emulate sprung from established authoritarian regimes who grew their economies via protectionism policies until the people reached a level of wealth that made pursuing other freedoms attractive. IMO China will be no different, even accounting current developments in surveillance society. And more specific to the quoted point, my criticism is the lack of US moral consistency and leadership is what makes the Chinese model attractive. And it is. Most developed western country that requires immigration to support their future is being destabilized by massive demographic and social changes, read non white immigration influx no small fault to US ME policy, leading to nativism and populism that's springing up in liberal societies around the world. No one has a solution to this, US is not offering a credible alternative. Nor do they have competing plans to help underdeveloped countries like Chinese B&R. If Chinese integration camps work in XJ, expect it to be adopted elsewhere relabeled as civic lessons with * characteristics. IF BRI works well, expect the many countries it touches to be Sino aligned if not out of ideology but dependence. Focusing on China bad and debt trap is ultimately deflection to the fact that an absence of US moral leadership and inability to address contemporary and global problems is causing people to lose faith in the model that US is championing.
I'll take your reluctance to defend other misdeeds committed by the CCP that I've listed as an admission that they are, indeed, indefensible. Let's finally move on to this last bit of whataboutism you're clutching.
> XJ specifically maps onto hysteric over reaction to post 9/11 attacks.
The Uighurs predate the CCP by hundreds of years. They are indigenous to their area of Xinjiang. They've resisted CCP rule--which has been imposed on them unwillingly--and because the CCP hasn't provided a political solution, some have resorted to violence (you might recognize this dynamic from what's happening in Hong Kong right now).
The 9/11 attacks had many motivations (Osama bin Laden made them all clear). But "you've annexed our homeland and are systematically erasing our religion and culture" was not one of them.
So there is no comparison between the CCP's actions against the Uighurs and the US's actions towards Muslims. The only thing they share, at all, is that the victims are Muslims. The Uighurs aren't immigrants. That's their land. It's a facile comparison, and reflexive whataboutism from a regime so used to playing this card it doesn't even think about it anymore.
If you're interested in a truer comparison, look to the US's treatment of Native Americans. Unfortunately that comparison isn't favorable to the CCP at all, because while we certainly committed atrocities when we invaded their homes hundreds of years ago, and while the reservation system has serious flaws, it's absolutely not "re-education" camps holding millions of people outside any rule of law or oversight whatsoever.
> Economic development IS human rights.
If the CCP is interested in economic development at all costs, why does it have such extreme income inequality? Let me quote the first paragraph from the Wikipedia article "Income inequality in China":
> China’s current mainly market economy features a high degree of income inequality. According to the Asian Development Bank Institute, “before China implemented reform and open-door policies in 1978, its income distribution pattern was characterized as egalitarianism in all aspects.”[1] At this time, the Gini coefficient for rural – urban inequality was only 0.16. As of 2012, the official Gini coefficient in China was 0.474, although that number has been disputed by scholars who “suggest China’s inequality is actually far greater.”[2] A study published in the PNAS estimated that China’s Gini coefficient increased from 0.30 to 0.55 between 1980 and 2002.
What's actually happening is a relatively small number of CCP elites are exploiting the people of China for their own enrichment. They use the politics of fascism to secure their hold on power, they use their extremely sophisticated and wide-reaching surveillance state to curb dissent, and they leverage their economic might to gag nations around the world.
> So if Americans wants to have a credible podium to compel others to reduce their scope of atrocity, then they must also reduce their own.
I 100% agree with this. I'm not arguing that the CCP should listen to the US though, and I'm not arguing that the US should be listened to. I'm arguing that the CCP is a violator of human rights on a scale close to some of the worst in history, and the world should do something about it.
> Not everyone has the luxury of affluence to fulfill everything freedom right now. Sometimes they must choose, moral calculus is not easy when every decision are bad trolley problems.
I 100% agree with this too. The problem I have with the CCP is that they argue that they absolutely must violate human rights on staggering scales in order to raise the quality of life for their citizens. This is, I hope obviously, a false choice. China's GDP has no relationship to putting a million Uighurs in camps. Actually that probably cost a lot of money, just like the political unrest in Hong Kong will cost a lot of money as the recession deepens and businesses leave.
But if the CCP refuses to see it this way, I'm comfortable playing on this field. Like OP, I call on everyone everywhere to make it known that if you violate human rights anywhere near the level that the CCP does, your economy will not grow. We should expel these regimes from world governing and trade bodies. We should not engage with them economically. Any diplomatic relations must be predicated on their respect for rule of law and human rights.
> All the Asian tigers that the west hoped China would emulate sprung from established authoritarian regimes who grew their economies via protectionism policies until the people reached a level of wealth that made pursuing other freedoms attractive.
Not for nothing, but this is a real bad comparison. First of all, almost every nation started out in some way as an authoritarian nation. So if your argument is that you need to spend some time in a fascist incubator before your people can be free, that's pretty dark.
Second, the Asian tigers are Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, and South Korea. It's true that South Korea has a history (again like almost every nation) of authoritarian rule. It's also true that the KMT in Taiwan imposed martial law for decades but has recently blossomed into a vibrant democracy. But Singapore is not a free country, and Hong Kong isn't a country--much less a democracy--at all.
(To be clear, Singapore has made great strides and I'm obviously not in charge of who's free and who's not. I'm going off indexes like Freedom in the World and the Press Freedom Index).
I'm sure people in the US thought free market principles would liberalize the CCP. I've brought that up elsewhere, even in this thread. That was very wrong, and it's important for us to realize that while economic development is, as you say, necessary to ensure human rights, it's far from sufficient.
> Most developed western country that requires immigration to support their future is being destabilized by massive demographic and social changes, read non white immigration influx no small fault to US ME policy, leading to nativism and populism that's springing up in liberal societies around the world. No one has a solution to this, US is not offering a credible alternative.
Let me introduce you to a place called New York City, one of the most (if not the most) diverse, densely populated places on the planet. We have literally provided a blueprint and a working model for how to build a thriving, multicultural, hyperproductive city.
Or feel free to look at other western cities like Amsterdam, Paris, London, Toronto, Los Angeles, Sydney, etc. etc. etc. Of course there are problems, and we need to work seriously to address them. But to my knowledge, we've yet to disappear a million people into a secret camp.
---
To be frank, it's clear what the CCP's values are. If you look at the economic development of Guangzhou, Shenzhen and other cities, their investments in growing their influence in the world, their policies to try and change the demographics and politics of states like Xinjiang (migration incentives for Han Chinese to move there) and Hong Kong (housing subsidies, etc.), their aggression in the South China Sea, their development of weapons to threaten their neighbors like Taiwan, their development of a sprawling propaganda and surveillance apparatus, their investment in stealing intellectual property, it's clear what kind of regime we're dealing with. If they were at all interested in multiculturalism, human rights, democracy, the rule of law, healthy political dialogue and dissent, religious freedom, or any other liberal values, they'd invest. They can build an insane metropolis in less than a decade, but they won't build a just court system. They aspire to build a national park system to rival that in the US in a fraction of the time, but they can't countenance rival political parties.
It's not because these things are hard. The CCP is obviously capable of doing hard things. It's because these things would be threats to their power.
Of course context varies but doesn't matter in relation to the response being a counter insurgency and domestic security issue. Which XJ is. It's not about GDP, it's about safety and control over security. Atrocities in the interest of that is a false argument, but it's also an predictable response as 9/11 demonstrated. Such comparison is not whataboutism, claiming so is just lazy rhetoric. Bringing up Native American treatment in NA is apt, XJ strategy is ostensibly "residential school" cultural genocide aka absolutely "re-education" with the ultimate goal of forced integration. The difference is China will backup stick of reeducation with carrot of development. XJ will have better infrastructure and growth opportunities than reservations up in Canada that doesn't have road access and water boiling notices. Incidentally Canadian Tribunal on indigenous treatment labelled it has "cultural genocide", but at the end of the day, few cares. Ultimately XJ will fall on the same deaf years as much as US and a handful of allies tries to weaponize it as geopolitical tool. Regardless, refer to explosive Tibet GDP growth and development in the last few years for context. As far as actual cost, building the infrastructure to intern a million is trivial compared to Chinese building capacities. The scope of XJ seems huge but relative to 1.4 billion people, it's literally trivial undertaking. The greater security apparatus throughout China on the other hand to maintain power is much more demanding, internal security budget exceeds that of military.
As for other strategies, they tried but it didn't work. The reason why Tibet and XJ are "autonomous regions" is because they were based of soviet oblasts where these regions and minorites retained extraordinary affirmative action privileges. Much more in the west - exemptions from taxes, family planning, bonuses to education enrollment on national test etc. The idea was multiculturalism salad bowl, but the riots and terrorists attacks failed hence integration strategy - the rational was melting pot analogy literally inspired by US and the cities you highlighted. Also these cities you named fails to recognize that multiculturalism is causing undeniable shift in nativism at the national scale, all around the world. A few liberal cities doesn't change the trend. The blue print works for some urban centres who can brain drain the best to build flourishing societies is fails in other contexts. Of course the issue in the west is immigration so the solutions / atrocities are different. Whole of EU delegates war refugees via Turkey. Australia has Nauru Regional Processing Centre. US has your camps and political pressure to Mexico to militarize their migration routes etc. Canada is chill right now, but there's backlash towards multiculturalism model all the same.
> Inequality & Corruption
This is an intentional Chinese development strategy for anyone versed in the subject matter. Deng wanted to rapidly develop successful economic models via SEZ on coastal cities, then apply these models to the interior provinces which has languished. The pivot towards interior development happening now with goal of total poverty elimination by 2030s. Current per capita GDP is $10,000 (actual forecast is $12,000), followed by complete urbanization and poverty alleviation by 2030, followed by "China Dream" of per capita GDP of $40,000 by 2050. Some of the coastal cities are currently at $20,000 or $40,000 by PPP. Rampant corruption was a tool used to direct state resources to generally meritocratically selected local officials whose opportunities to graft is connected to tied to fulfilling state mandates, i.e. take a little on the side as long as it fulfills X growth goals to meet Y targets established by politburo. This is why Chinese corruption is correlated to growth, against conventional wisdom. The nature of Chinese mixed economy allows state-directed capitalistic development. The problems you highlighted are features (well hacks) not bugs. It's the only country in the world where this is true. Everywhere else corruption leads to stagnation. But excess wealth inequity via corruption also disrupts social stability hence anti-corruption drive. This is posited by Yukon Huang, former World Bank director for China, Russia, and Former Soviet Union Republics.
> Tigers & Development
The demand for other freedoms doesn't happen until certain levels of economic development is reached. So yes, IMO absolutely "fascist incubator" is a dark but necessary stage towards eventual liberalization, because that's the default path. CPC is consistently responding to peoples needs, there's been legal reforms, environmental improvements etc. People are fixated with money right now, eventually they'll worry about values. The result will likely be something along the lines of Singapore, a rich dictatorship with more western compatible values but all that is dependent on people getting rich first. There's been large regressions under Xi, but overall I'm positive about future trajectory assuming the next phase of income equalization and development and the demographic time bomb can be negotiated successfully. My view is as long as China has GDP of Iraq there will be no broad pressure to purse values - not democracy mind you - HK instability has ruined the Chinese appetite for that.
> CCP's values
You've just listed all the goals of every great power, some manner of hegemony and political influence like that's somehow explicit to CPC. SCS claims is a multi party dispute by many nations, CPC just happen to be powerful enough to win. Building an military that makes neighbours feel threatened is the natural byproduct of a big country modernizing it's military to fit security needs. Chinese defense spending is only 2% of GDP, lower than her neighbours. Of course, the goal is going to be regional hegemony like Munro doctrine. That's not CPC values, that's just inevitable side affect of great power geopolitics and the natural reaction by neighbors in response should be concern. Like is the CPC not suppose to have an military suitable to her size or have missiles that can hit Taiwan? The island 130km away.
Obviously the primary goal for CPC is power and self-survival, but that doesn't mean it doesn't also pursue other policies that improve quality of life, it just so happens those are safety and economically related right now - hence CPC having broad domestic support. Explicitly because Chinese do not want CPC to collapse, they just crawled out of period of anarchy, it's in most Chinese people's self-interest that a competent CPC survives.
Again you have the right to call on people to antagonize CPC because you think they're the historical tier bad human rights violator, but I think you'll find that's a profoundly American-centric analysis. Relative to Chinese population, the atrocities happening in China is comparable to US prison industrial complex and wars abroad. No amount of moralizing is going to make such equivocation not true. Just because US dominated social media ceaseless spam China bad and HK protests to the exclusion of all else doesn't mean the rest of the world minus a few staunch US allies will take the bait. It's a filter bubble of American exceptionalism. Ultimately, my argument is you can't eat your morals. So trying to undermine China via moral arguments is fruitless, especially coming from Americans, who, having voting rights is individually culpable for US behaviours that undermines their ability to critique. If the west wants to contain China, they need to offer better alternatives - vaunted US democracy and values is not it. There's a reason why so many nations are taking loans from China and many Indians would trade in their democracy for a few decades of Chinese development. Because it's more appealing than what the west has offered in a long time.
> That's not CPC values, that's just inevitable side affect of great power geopolitics and the natural reaction by neighbors in response should be concern.
I am extremely confident that Canada and Mexico have no fear of the US sending missiles to their cities, or troops into their territory. That's because we don't do things like constantly assert that their land is our land, threaten them with destruction, run propaganda campaigns to that affect, and develop weapons specifically with the goal of penetrating their defenses.
> You've just listed all the goals of every great power, some manner of hegemony and political influence like that's somehow explicit to CPC.
I fully admit that the US committed atrocities against Native Americans when we invaded North America. Slavery too was an abomination; Japanese internment camps were disgusting, our treatment of Chinese laborers and immigrants (as well as those from other parts of East Asia) was abhorrent, our criminal justice system is an affront to justice itself, our border control and immigration systems are deeply inhumane and unjust, etc. We would earn and deserve international condemnation if we did any of that stuff today. And we do, look at what organizations have to say about our immigration policies and our criminal justice system. I wish the West would exert more pressure on us, truly.
I'm happy to talk about those issues, just not in a thread about the CCP's actions. When are you going to stop using the actions of others as justification for the CCP?
And again if your argument is "well the US did it", why doesn't the CCP do the good things we do (rule of law, elections, etc.)?
> Obviously the primary goal for CPC is power and self-survival...
This is the definition of a corrupt regime.
> hence CPC having broad domestic support
How could you possibly measure that, given the CCP's surveillance state, re-education camps, vast propaganda network, and lack of any kind of free speech.
> Again you have the right to call on people to antagonize CPC because you think they're the historical tier bad human rights violator
"Antagonize" means "to cause someone to become hostile". By any reasonable standard, the CCP is a hostile regime. You cannot make something hostile if it already is. Do not try and imply the CCP is a peaceful, benevolent government when the facts clearly show otherwise.
It's also very telling that you think my words, my political beliefs, could cause a government to become hostile. Of course, when you're dealing with a regime with no respect for human rights, that's a concern.
> Relative to Chinese population, the atrocities happening in China is comparable to US prison industrial complex and wars abroad.
It is not. Here are the things we do not do as a matter of policy:
- Forced sterilization
- Forced rape and impregnation
- Organ harvesting
- Interning millions of people without cause
- Forcing millions of our own citizens to violate their religious beliefs and to renounce their religion
> US dominated social media ceaseless spam China bad and HK protests...
This is pretty funny. Have you seen all the stories about the CCP's efforts to censor anything about HK? This is the CCP's playbook, whether it's 8964, Xinjiang, Tibet, or HK.
> Ultimately, my argument is you can't eat your morals.
Again, this is a false choice. You absolutely do not have to choose between human rights, rule of law, and economic development. Again feel free to look at the Democracy Index for examples.
> So trying to undermine China via moral arguments is fruitless, especially coming from Americans, who, having voting rights is individually culpable for US behaviours that undermines their ability to critique.
I'm not saying the CCP has to listen to my government or me. They obviously won't; regimes that invest in propaganda as heavily as the CCP does aren't interested in listening. I'm not even telling them what to do. You're making excuses for their behavior, and I'm offering alternatives (invest in independent legal systems, build liberal institutions that respect human rights), but I'm not saying they should. I'm saying if they don't, that's the definition of an authoritarian regime, valuing its own power and enrichment over the well being of its people.
I am imploring the West and our allies to take action though.
I also think it's funny how you're trying to tie me to every action my government takes via our democratic elections like I won't accept it. I do wholeheartedly accept it, every American is responsible for the actions of our government. That's because our government not only represents us, it is us. To paraphrase The West Wing: when you try and hurl that at my feet, as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won't work. Because I will pick it up and wear it as a badge of honor.
> [XJ is] not about GDP, it's about safety and control over security.
If this were the CCP's goal they would grant Uighurs independence--or at least religious freedom. The violence would stop immediately.
Unless it is about GDP and power, then granting independence is a terrible idea.
> Tibet's GDP really blew up
Did the CCP ask the people of Tibet before annexing their land and installing a brutal police state in the name of "GDP growth and development"? This "ends justify the means" thinking is again the exact same logic used to justify insane horrors like the Stalinist industrialization of the USSR.
> the CCP tried US-style multiculturalism, but the Uighurs messed that up.
The anti-religion policies forced on the Uighurs by the CCP are nothing like policies in NYC, LA, or anywhere else in the US. There is no comparison. I'll again point out that the Uighurs were there first, and if the CCP were really interested in multiculturalism and human rights, they would simply leave or erect a liberal system that would protect those rights. But they're obviously not; what they are interested in is, as you say, "forced integration". It's ridiculous to think that policy can be applied without violence. The policy itself is violence.
> A few liberal cities doesn't change the trend.
You were saying there were no examples, so the CCP was justified in perpetrating cultural genocide. I listed several examples to counter. You are moving the goalposts like crazy.
> The blue print works for some urban centres... but nowhere else
It's true that our cities are more diverse than the rest of the country. But it's a common misconception that minorities only live in our cities. More Black Americans live in suburbs and rural areas than cities, and the Hispanic/Latinx representation outside of cities is evening out too (27% to 22%) [1].
Incidentally, it also leads to economic growth [2], your stated chief goal. So the CCP doesn't need to worry, they can simply follow our example.
> multiculturalism is causing undeniable shift in nativism at the national scale, all around the world.
There's no denying there's a lot of passion around multiculturalism and immigration in the US. But not even a plurality of Americans think they're bad. Clear majorities believe the opposite [3]; they think they're our strength, and reinforce our responsibility in taking in refugees [4]. Incredibly, support for refugees has even increased among Republicans.
There's a propaganda campaign largely led by Russia to leverage these issues to cause instability in multicultural societies. Your rhetoric here echos that campaign, and it's similarly incorrect. Americans are proud of our multiculturalism and our freedoms.
> Inequality & Corruption -- the CCP's plans
I admit to not being interested in the CCP's justification for running kangaroo courts (if an anti-corruption process that never holds a trial can be said to use courts), even if that justification is "they used corruption for economic growth", which is a weird kind of incidental confession. It only reemphasizes the CCP's commitment to economic growth and consolidation of power over any kind of human rights.
> The demand for other freedoms doesn't happen until certain levels of economic development is reached.
Then how do you explain nations like Uruguay, Mauritius, and Costa Rica? These countries are "full democracies" according to the Democracy Index (better even than the US), and their nominal GDP per capita is $17,118, $11,693, and $12,015 respectively. Feel free to look through this list [5] for other countries with similar--arguably worse--economic development to China, but with governments far more liberal than the CCP.
I agree China has unique challenges and it's had a rough history. But you simply can't hand wave the CCP's atrocities away with "but the people are poor". There are too many counterexamples for that.
> My view is as long as China has GDP of Iraq there will be no broad pressure to purse values - not democracy mind you - HK instability has ruined the Chinese appetite for that.
This is the opposite lesson they should learn. If they granted the 5 demands--something they could instantly and easily do--HK violence would be over. Same for Tibet and Xinjiang.
> Chinese defense spending is only 2% of GDP, lower than her neighbours.
China's GDP is massive. Cherry picking stats like this is disingenuous. China's military spending is the 2nd highest in the world, after the US.
> Like is the CPC not suppose to have an military suitable to her size or have missiles that can hit Taiwan?
What they should do is not shoot missiles within 30 miles of Taiwan's major cities (3rd Taiwan Strait Crisis), not develop weapons specifically with the aim of invading and annexing Taiwan, and not threaten "profound disaster" when Taiwanese politicians assert independence from China--which it obviously has. The "One China" policy is idiotic, belligerent, and responsible for so much violence.
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.
We're already starting to get a lot of Whataboutism in the comments here. Yes there are other issues in the world, do you really think we're not aware there's a lot of bad stuff going on in the world??? If you're so concerned with those other issues go write your own blog post about your issue and gather supporters on your own.
Liberal 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 problem is to try being a moderate in these liberal pockets of America. The moment you pick out a couple of things that I agree about what Trump is doing, I get intense opposition, lose friendships, get judged, etc.
The Bay Area, the Silicon Valley, the 3 trillion dollar neighbor of America is a suffocating place for anyone who has dissenting opinion about some liberal concepts.
Silicon Valley people think that moderates and right-wing folks hate gays, lgbt community and loves guns, hates China which is far from the truth. Then they feel to justify themselves by overcompensating, supporting China and smearing the truth. Ironically, they make fun of right-wing echo chambers.
If your political ideology looks away from objective truth, you need to question it. No matter how “conservative” or “liberal”.
Hi, thanks for the words, I just wanted to get it out, upvotes or downvotes don't bother me.
I also understand that this may not apply to other people's experience in the Silicon Valley, thererfore I said that your mileage may vary.
The bigger question is - Why should we allow Chinese nationals in America (even more so in Australia) to supress free speech and promote CCP ideals? Its one thing to do it inside China, a whole another level to spread it across the world as immigrants.
I think it's ok to use the up and down arrows to express agreement. Obviously the uparrows aren't only for applauding politeness, so it seems reasonable that the downarrows aren't only for booing rudeness.
The secret about contrarian viewpoints is that they tend to be less supported by obvious evidence, which means there's a confounding factor of being downvoted for expressing a poorly-reasoned viewpoint.
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.
Because he's criticizing liberals and most people on HN are liberals. Most censorship ("hate speech" included) is code for shutting your political opponents up. HN makes this really easy by making comments hard to read by removing contrast with the background as they get voted down; post something too much against the grain and it'll get flagged and hidden by default. When you hand users the power to shut those with whom they disagree up, it will inevitably be abused.
Sure, but I think our points are missing each other. Mine is that claims of HN's ideological bias are notoriously in the eye of the beholder. Once people run into a few things they dislike—which is inevitable—they imprint on the idea that the community is biased against them. There's nothing objective about it, and all sides do it. I wouldn't say all users do it, but I suspect the more ideologically committed you are, the more you are likely to. That is, it depends on the magnitude of one's ideological vector, but not the direction. I wrote about this yesterday if anyone cares: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21577584
I think it's ok to use the up and down arrows to express agreement. Obviously the uparrows aren't only for applauding politeness, so it seems reasonable that the downarrows aren't only for booing rudeness.
It only becomes abuse when people resort to karma bombing: downvoting a lot of comments by one user without reading them in order to subtract maximum karma. Fortunately we now have several levels of software to protect against that.
Problem is, it doesn't just attach a "score" to a comment. The UI will gradually hide comments as they are voted farther down; I've seen many that are barely legible. Flagging also hides comments by default. I can't tell you how many reasonable, well-thought out points I've seen that I have to highlight with the mouse to actually read. I wouldn't even see many insightful comments had I not logged in and enabled "showdead".
There is a great deal of difference between giving users the tools to express disagreement and giving them the tools to block out the opinions of those with which I disagree.
Finally, quoting Paul Graham isn't really an argument. Fine, it's his site, but I'm allowed to say I disagree with how the voting on his site is implemented.
I think the whole voting thing is stupid. It obviously leads to censorship. Someone else's opinion should not count less than others even if you don't agree with them. Assuming we're not talking about plain spam (bots, ads, etc). Graham did not think this through properly. Everyday I come across comments that are downvoted or flagged and can see no reason why that was done apart from subjective ones.
Of course, there's a lot of subjectivity. But if you think you can make a site like HN be interesting without voting, you should give it a try. It would be an order of magnitude easier and cheaper to operate, and that would be a real innovation.
Some mentally challenged people actually downvoted you it seems. I have thought about alternatives for a few months now actually. And I admit it's not easy.
The key logical fallacy is that by cutting trade with China, the various grievances you list will somehow improve. For example, if we don't trade with China, do you think the recently passed Hong Kong Freedom And Democracy act will have any leverage with the Chinese? They will turn Hong Kong into another city in Guangdong the next day.
> The financial incentives don’t help any Americans, and in fact, most of us are hurt by this relationship.
What a weird statement. We buy Chinese goods because it makes us better off. "The US is full of idiots that engage in voluntary transactions that make them worse off" is a hard claim to accept.
Obviously some people are worse off because of trade with China. And some are worse off because of technology. And a much larger number are worse off because of domestic competition. Open source software has killed lots of commercial software jobs. That's a good thing for most of us.
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.
Empires rise and fall, and are replaced by new ones. It's the cycle of life. As much as I would hate to live in a China-dominated global economy, it now seems highly likely to happen within my lifetime. Better learn to live with it, or move to a country which isn't so dependent on the global supply chain by virtue of its Western lifestyle.
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 allies.But, Uighurs are one of the 56 ethnics groups of China, like Mongolians, Weiwer, ... not a nationality, and not the only Muslim ethnic group, there is no concentration camps or anything like that. Sorry. There are Uighurs terrorists in prison after the bomb car exploded in TianAnMen and the incident in Kunming's train station in 2013, that you probably dont know about, in the same way the US have Iraqis and afghans in Guantanamo... just because..... Good luck with your campaign, I'm sure people with join you and think you are the coolest guy in HN today. But I had to break it up to you... sorry
It is whataboutism, but the U.S. is guilty of a lot of similar things that China is, not as bad in most cases, but I think it's fair to compare the Uyghurs to Guantanamo, the way we're treating immigrants at the border, or how discriminatory our justice system is towards black people.
We have a higher percentage of people in jail then China by a lot (5x). Many of them are in jail for political/racial reasons (the Drug War, Immigration).
We have the NSA spying on all of us. As well as Google, FB, etc.
We treat our protestors horribly as well, look at what the FBI did to black rights protesters or look at how the Dakota Access pipeline protesters were treated.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with Drew on this article, and I'd support a boycott, but in the words of someone I'm not a fan of: "Set your house in perfect order before you criticise the world."
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people," former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman told Harper's writer Dan Baum for the April cover story published Tuesday.
"You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities," Ehrlichman said. "We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did." [1]
Crack cocaine carried a much harsher sentence then Cocaine, a law that very clearly targeted black people. [2]
Marijuana use is the same between white and black people, but black people are 3.73x more likely to be arrested for it.[3]
[1] Plenty of countries with homogenous populations have harsh drug laws, so it hardly seems like that was the only consideration, if at all. After all, Prohibition in the US happened a long time before 1968, and alcohol is arguably less destructive than heroin, and nobody was targeting hippies or black people with a ban on alcohol.
[3] Black people getting arrested at a higher rate doesn't make the policies racist. It either makes the cops racist (possible) or it means that there are other factors beyond skin color that are affecting the stats (most likely explanation).
> Hong Kong is the place where humanity makes its stand against oppressors.
Really? I didn’t know protesters targeted the local tycoons who made their lives unbearable in the past 20 years. Not to mention the humanity of laundering money for the worst thugs in the world. Perspective.
You may have heard reports of vandalism. I'm pretty sure the tycoons weren't too happy about their property getting damaged. They'd probably also like to keep the seats in Election Committee that they'd lose if universal suffrage were instated, but that the CCP has guaranteed them so far. https://www.elections.gov.hk/ecss2016/eng/figures.html
If you think the protesters support tycoons because they oppose the CCP, you ought to reconsider whether those are really opposites.
I applaud standing up to China's human rights violations.
But this post grossly underestimates the short term economic effects that cutting trade ties with China would have. Companies would go bankrupt. It is quite likely that the US and possibly the world would enter a recession or depression. These events will have devastating effects on people around the world far beyond the 1%.
We are part of a world economy. We are dependent on China and China is dependent on us.
Surely there are better ways to effect change in China than waging economic war. War of any kind will cause suffering.
In 10 or 15 years the the better way to effect change will be armed conflict in addition to economic recession. In another 30 years there will be no way to effect change. The time to act is now.
Full of bs that rides the trending US narrative on China. How much a self-fulfilling bubble of lies the western propaganda machine has weaved. Reading this article makes me feel like reading a white day dream that totally misses the reality, but checks all the right marks for the crusader mentality.
I see how quickly this gets down voted. I guess the media is not to be blamed for fabricating all kinds of lies, for it what does is only a reflection of what the western audience wants to see. The world is dividing just as quickly as the US is dividing internally. I would not doubt the possibility of another cold war, if the US bloc continues down this path by painting rivaling nations with a different ideology as a heretic against US' version of democracy and freedom, as an ultimate evil to be crusaded, its people as mindless zombies brainwashed and eager for a quick dose of freedom drug. After all, the zealous fever commits all the worst atrocities with the most self-righteous goals. History has repeated itself enough times to not see the obvious.
When disagreeing, try to respond neutrally and with specific, better information. I know how hard that is to do when representing a minority/contrarian viewpoint, but it's even more important to do it in that case. If instead you lash out and break the rules, you discredit your own truth and reinforce the other side's perception of it.
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).
Your probably not familiar with all the langauges of Western Europe, and, in any case, a white man living in Western Europe need not be a native speaker or any language of Western Europe (they could, e.g., be a native of Eastern Europe now living in Western Europe.)
To be fair, Western lies or Chinese lies, it's all the same.
A bit disingenuous to only call out the Western lies. What do you think about the Chinese lies?
I don't think you're any more honest than the guy who wrote this article. Neither of you are being forthright. Perhaps that's ignorance? Or maybe willful deceit? Either way, you're not to be taken seriously either.
Lies are lies. Chinese lies are easy to spot and rarely pretend it's lying. Western lies are so elaborately fabricated and that's what inspires articles like this.
It was also a big surprise that there's a significant change of the altitude towards Tiananmen Square incident. It's less obvious in the comments on Youtube but more on Chinese social media that are invisible to English readers.
No body support killing innocent people but many people think differently than before.
Already on the international front, China is in trouble. The pro-China KMT party in Taiwan may suffer greatly in the next election because of what's going on in HK now (https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3037040/tai...), making China's aggressive demands for forced unification even more unlikely in the medium term. This week, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed a HK rights bill (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-protests-usa/us-...) that, if it becomes law, will put China through an annual review, which will further erode the Sino-U.S. relationship for years to come. There have been calls for a boycott of the 2022 Olympics in Beijing which seems fringey now, but won't be if China sends in the troops.
There's also the internal question. Ordinary people in China are getting censored news, but some of the raw information about what's going on is getting through via social media. What does this mean for sentiment in Cantonese speaking areas of southern China, or for areas of China where provincial officials are resented for unjust or unfair treatment of citizens?