The problem was started by our own disfunctional system of crooks who convinced us all a few decades ago what a good idea shipping all the factories to China was. It will take half a decade more for this lesson to sink in
Second we need to take a close look at ourselves, examine ourselves in a mirror. If we don’t accept and attempt to repair our flaws in thinking and human virtues and actions we’re not going to get better anytime soon. All our western countries that are now threatened by China are guilty of the same abuses that China is inflicting right now.
I think most mainlander Chinese like me would appreciate the vision of the politicians who chose to engage with the Communist Party—-We’re glad we don’t live in a West Korea as a result.
The real problem came when the Beijing model began to free-ride on the openness of the West: internet companies can go West but not East; same with some cultural exchanges, media and information. Trade rules failing to address unique tricks the Leninist party-state is able to pull. Failing to see the risk of the system generating mini-Mao-style dictators. To be fair before Xi we were on a somewhat benign track with regular transitions of power.
The agreement was never a symmetric "free trade" agreement. Everyone knew China wasn't going to be as open to imports as the US was. Chinese consumers, in the late 70s, were so poor that it didn't matter anyway. Mcdonalds and Coke were symbolic outliers, but all the negotiators knew these things.
US negotiators did get what they actually wanted, US "FDI" investments in China protected by western style corporate laws.
Foxcon-Apple stuff is exactly what both parties had in mind. Foxconn (Taiwan is pax americana) invest in building the factory, funded by Western/US banks. Apple own the IP and gain most of the equity. China gets jobs, a trade surplus, and builds foreign currency reserves.
The game has been played for a while, and all parties got a lot of what they wanted. Foxconn really does generate a ton of equity for Apple. China really has built up a ton of foreign currency reserves. Etc.
I'm not saying this is good. China should stop being so surplus oriented and let salaries rise. The US should give some attention to domestic labour, etc.... That's my opinion though. It was not the opinion of negotiators in the 70s and 80s.
Trade agreements don't need to be symmetric to be beneficial for both parties. Even if China didn't buy a single American good, it is beneficial for US to sell to china.
Export is what you pay for import. If China sells goods to US they will get dollars in return. These dollars are worthless except for buying American goods.
Even if China can't buy American goods, they can buy some other country's goods using their newly acquired dollars. Eventually someone somewhere will use those dollars to buy American goods.
Sure, the USD is the world's reserve currency. And, while it's also the currency of the international trade, the US's share of China's import isn't as significant -- in 2019, China imported over $2T, or $2,000B, worth of goods and services globally and, of that, only $163B, came from the US. In fact, the US is not even the biggest import nation, it's South Korea, followed by Japan and Taiwan.
This topic actually really depresses me. The whole "crisis" is unnecessary. The US and China can easily, and probably should renegotiate trade terms amicably. It just seems to be politically impossible to say "we got what we wanted then, but now we have different priorities." It doesn't seem possible to actually spell out priorities, or admit that in a negotiation, the other party has priorities too.
Geopolitics, or humans rights issues are a different matter. There are real dangers at play, now that the two countries are equal rivals. China's way of disciplining companies (eg Nike when they made a Xinjiang, or John Cena's little speech) is directly at odds with the US' MO. It's quite zero sum. I don't see how that gets resolved, in a way that doesn't (for example) have the potential knock a whole $trn off Apple's market cap.
Also native Chinese here. I do not quite agree with your view on that. Yes, Facebook and Google were censored in China, but were eBay and Amazon blocked in China? Neither of them found a way to do business well in the China market.
I'm totally against censorship, too. But blaming all things on the GFW is unreasonable to me. I think the reason here is that most educated Chinese people CAN speak, or at least read, simple English, while very few western people can speak Chinese. Getting into a market that speaks a language you understand is much easier than getting into a market with different language.
Everything invented in the silicon valley will be shared and discussed in Beijing/Shanghai/Shenzhen in almost no time. There are even Weibo accounts just reposting HN headlines, arxiv papers, etc. Each of these accounts has a huge amount of followers. How many westerns can read Chinese and know what is happening right now in China? China is far behind the western world when it comes to science and technology, but with a 1.4 billion population, I'm sure there are a few great ideas. However, westerners are hard to get them not because of the "closeness" of the east, but for the language barriers.
When I see a technical post on HN, the comments are always meaningful and profound. But the comments in political posts are often too simple, sometimes even naïve. I wish we could think as hard as we do when discuss the newest technologies.
Too simple, sometimes naïve. I see what your did there ;)
I pointed out GFW as one example, and actually agree with you that it’s not the only reason exchanges are so limited.
However, I do notice that examples of failed Western attempts to penetrate China usually stops at Amazon and eBay: after these, popular platforms have been so pro-actively blocked that it’s impossible to know what outcome would be if they were given to chance to freely compete. And the internet turned social, which in nature runs against the Party’s grip on speech.
I personally think the GFW is a good thing, for now, that other developing countries may have an interest in copying. Free flowing mass communication in nations without fully developed public (security) services can be a disaster... the conflicts (and even genocides) that arose from poorer countries adopting FB come to mind.
Also a foreign entity with suspicious partners having direct access to naive citizens around the world should be viewed as an attack vector especially if the locally accepted values don't match those of foreign entity.
I was wondering if there was in some sense a hybrid of North and South envisioned that would be not desirable for Chinese citizens but my limited experience with China kinda makes me feel like it actually is somewhere between the two in some sense.
But we're not. All our western countries have, in the past, committed heinous crimes against out fellow human beings. All those western countries admit to these heinous crimes and teach them to our children today. Where are the schools in China that teach of the CCP's own heinous crimes?
If the Westerners have done it before, surely China can do it now, right? That's like saying Israel can continue its campaign of infanticide and oppression because hey, it happened to them!
In Washington State I was educated from childhood for the next decade in the genocide of our native people. I am well aware of our sins. The Chinese people and the world's are lied to, from Tiananmen to Tibet to Taiwan in a ruthless campaign of disinformation that warps the narrative every moment we draw equivalence to such tawdry narratives as US prisoners for hire equivalent to a genocide as large as half (I'm including the numbers for the estimated half-million Tibetans sent to camps [1]) the number of all Native Americans in the US at their height.
If the CCP wins this global narrative we are condemning these people to their erasure forever in the memory of the world. This is carte blanche for these abuses to continue.
I stand with all human beings, everywhere, as my sisters and brothers. May none of them come to harm.
Past? Libya is in shambles 2 million fled a country of 3 million. The richest country of Africa just a few years ago. The secretary of state bragged about the killing of its leader. He was impaled on a spear! Afghanistan is a place where people see other kids killed in the streets. Syria has had most of its old metropols destroyed by people where the US "accidently" dropped their military equipment on. Iraq is still birthing countless mutilated children due to the use of depleted uranium. Lebanon is in freefall. It's but one example of 20 years of constant war with millions of people thrown into misery.
Taiwan, Japan and South Korea are so weak on protecting their own borders, because the US actively sabotaged their domestic defence.
I'm no friend of China and much less the Soviet Union, but if anything, you can see that the reason why North Korea at the beginning of their war basically steamrolled the South was because the Soviets left them with a functional military and the US did not.
Keep in mind that the US didn't work against China receiving nuclear weapons, but actively sabotaged any nuclear development in Taiwan, both locally and at the UN.
China actually started releasing a human rights report on the US a few years back.
I'm not saying China is right. I'm saying that if you want to be taken seriously by the global south you better get your act together. But I actually fear it's too late. One thing Trump did well was drop the curtain on the whole Charade albeit probably not intentionally. Remember when he said they're leaving Syria, but will still occupy the oil fields?
How many troops did the Americans send into Libya during its revolution? And what American units were responsible for killing Gaddafi?
Why does America always get blamed for the Libya when we (and the rest of the world) were just spectators to a country falling apart due to an internal revolution? America supported the revolution, sure, they even provided some air support, but it was by no means much of a military player in it, it didn’t set it into action. China was only pissed off about this because they had lots of deals with Gaddafi at the time, they didn’t care how unstable the regime was (most authoritarian regimes that aren’t China are incredibly unstable) and got burned for it.
The same with Syria. Again, nothing started by the USA or any other country, internal revolution caused by unstable authoritarian regime, which coincidentally made a lot of business deals with China because everyone else was wary of dealing with them. We’ve seen this before, we will see it again. They’ll happen regardless of whether the USA or Russia get involved.
"The U.S. dropped an average of 72 bombs every day — the equivalent of three an hour — in 2016, according to an analysis of American strikes around the world."[1]
US, UK and France dropped so many bombs on Lybia they ran out and Germany happily restocked them.[2]
No, just that they didn’t make them successful. Without the rebels, the revolution would have failed, and even with them, it would have failed if they weren’t numerous enough. I don’t think the air strikes did much more than show some support for them, they were useful and made things easier but not material in its success.
I find this back and forth weird. It seems to me that you are saying that the air strikes did not make the revolution successful because it also needed troops on the ground to be successful.
You are also saying that they were not material in its success. I would argue that the revolutionary ground troops would have suffered more losses if Gaddafi had had air support but the revolution didn't. Nevermind the tanks and such destroyed by NATO via air strikes. Potentially enough to make the revolution fail.
You should read some more about the Libyan war, because you're significantly misinformed.
The airstrikes were absolutely crucial to the rebels victory, and no one with any idea of how the war progressed would try to claim otherwise.
Before the airstrikes qadaffis forces were overrunning the rebels and were well on their way to benghazi off the back of their armored corps and air superiority, it was the airstrikes that put a stop to that.
We'll never know, but at that number of sorties, you figure we destroyed the regime's air power and mechanized units, aka the edge they have over a popular revolt.
> China actually started releasing a human rights report on the US a few years back.
This is exactly my point. Why would I be interested to read anything the CCP has to put out when there is no freedom of the press in China? So long as we allow the CCP to have its equivalencies we will never know of the total harm inflicted and these people will die, erased.
You have also neatly sidestepped my very first question asking where China's own schools are that teach these human abuses?
That is unironically written on a website hosted in the us were it is fully possible to write information as critical as you want about any American political party or more or less who you want.
When responding to criticism against China, people who point out that western countries human rights records are also very problematic, or people who point out that western propaganda is at work, are often accused of whataboutism. The reasoning is that misconduct by western countries doesn't make their criticism against China invalid.
If we accept that, then the reverse should also apply:
Misconduct by China doesn't make China's criticism against the US invalid.
Indeed, the blatant subtext of whataboutist arguments is that these things are ok, they're fine, they're normal and justifiable or should be, and here's a reason why.
How would you like me to respond? I have not declared any argument whataboutism. I am only interested in sources from governments which guarantees and exercises a free press.
You cannot write a piece of paper in bad faith and declare it legitimate if you are the only source of legitimacy.
You could focus on what China actually accused the US of, and whether that accusation has a point, rather than on the fact that the accusation came from China. Where it comes from doesn't matter: only the content matters.
The forcibly sterilized immigrants you cite, based on the ongoing investigation, point to a rogue doctor from a single camp. This does not excuse these actions but it's such a far cry from genocide that it appears disingenuous.
I agree with your sentiment about the relative scale of current US and Chinese detention crimes, but you may want to rethink just how genocide happens.
It was not official policy to torture children in Canada, and yet St. Anne's residential school had an electric chair. And so Canada refused responsibility, instead deflecting blame to the Catholic Church and "rogue" nuns. Eventually you need to accept that depraved individuals acting with impunity is part of the plan.
Consider just how hard ICE works to keep lawyers and journalists away to limit oversight. It is a recipe for abuse. Congressional leadership, and the president were very clear -- dissuasion through vindictive treatment was the goal.
That's almost an overly-simplistic view on the matter, it wasn't because it's a good idea, just because it's cheaper. American likely would not have any global hardware company like Apple without outsourced labor since the dollar-priced device would be way too expensive for the rest of the world and maybe Americans too. And much of the comfort Americans depend today rely on China's cheap labor (or elsewhere for that matter). When a shared bedroom in SF cost two thousand dollars, most people who earn four thousands can live a considerably comfortable life because they are getting paid in dollars but buying with Chinese Yuan, so to speak. but if they are only allowed buy things made by their fellow Americans, it simply would not be enough.
I'm sympathetic to this view but, respectfully, it too is a simplification. There are so many factors at play here probably no one person truly understands it well.
Take for example that even if there was labour available at costs close to China within the US there would not be the incredible supply chain in terms of flexibility and speed that exists in China. Something that Apple is trying slowly, without drawing too much attention, to change because being that reliant on one political territory is very dangerous.
Human rights were not an issue as long as China provided cheap labour and lax environmental laws.
Now China is outgrowing its status as a cheap manufacturing and copying country and then they are an issue again.
As with oil-producing countries, as long as they supply oil, it doesn't matter if they are dictatorships, as soon as they don't supply any, they need democracy.
This is only half correct. Until Mr. Xi came to power, China was getting wealthier and (somewhat) more open. Since ~2010 China is becoming more closed and more aggressive. See for example Xinjiang, Hongkong and Taiwan.
1938's Germany was also much worse than 1934's Germany. So it is no point of saying, well, you did not complain about Hitler in 1934, so no right to complain about him in 1938.
Another geek datapoint: I travel to China often, and every year it gets harder and harder to access outside websites (yes, even with proxies).
Not mean to correct you, but China's still getting wealthier. Xi has generally kept his economy policies along the lines of his predessors, though politically it does seems he is much more conservative and nationalistic.
China biggest problem is he has stamped out opposing views from the communist party. China has 1 party system but previously their were different factions in the party so opposing views did come up that is becoming less and less so as Xi has consolidated power.
Its hard to have an anti-corruption movement without the side effect of consolidating power. Hopefully the US will soon have an anti-corruption movement (long overdue), so the world can see an example of how one can be properly executed.
That is also only half of the story. Prior to Xi, China was on the verge of collapse due to internal corruption, and its economic strategy was too focused on cheap labor and low-quality products. That wasn't sustainable.
This doesn't mean I'm supporting Xi. I'm just pointing out that China's direction had to change, some way or another, so it makes no sense to look back at previous administrations with rose-colored glasses.
Openness is irrelevant, the issue is their rise in power and the fear of losing hegemony in America.
If they had continued on the Hu Jintao trajectory, getting slightly more open while amassing economic and political power at the same rate, you'd see the exact same moralizing from Americans about how bad they are.
I don’t think the Pooh censorship was Xi’s doing, and the apparatus would have done some similar proactive censoring for the previous president as well.
Xi crossed into dictator territory when he was able to declare himself president for life. Otherwise, we’d be talking about his successor by now.
Xi never declared himself president for life, the National People's Congress simply passed a law removing term limits. Angela Merkel has been chancellor of Germany for twice as long as Xi has been president of China.
What’s the difference? Xi got the assembly to remove term limits, and the next president won’t be selected until the end of his term. Merkel has to go through national parliament elections every so often, and her party must still vote for her as chancellor after those. None of those apply to Xi.
Are you saying the national people’s congress isn’t a rubber stamp body? If you are Chinese, who is your congress person or who did you vote for in the last election?
No, I'm an American disappointed in the ignorance of my countrymen. My congressperson has been in office consecutively since 1997 with no serious challenges, and I couldn't name a single thing she's done for me in that time.
That’s fine. I’ll tel you how it works: in the USA, almost anyone can run for congress, there are primaries to sort out the top contenders for a general election. Congress people get “unelected” all the time which is how the house changes parties every so often.
In China, you are given a list of 41 names and have to select 40 of them, that one not being picked not getting a seat. Ironically enough, Xi was in that position before but his status as a princeling meant he still got a seat anyways.
That didn’t happen though. Even today you can find Winnie the Pooh memes on Chinese social media. Most Chinese people think they’re racist and uninteresting, but that’s a different matter.
Yes, absolutely. The Deng era was characterized by a like of Gorbachev like opening, far fewer things were censored. After the whole Falun Gong purge, which it seems was partially used as an excuse for the hardliners to purge the moderates, a series of increasingly fascist leaders have taken power, culminating with Xi (now "president for life").
Under Xi, they have stoked nationalism a lot more, the same as Trump did here, at the same time as they have built a surveillance state like no other. Yes, the US isn't innocent here, but let's not draw false equivalences between what the NSA was doing, and installing cameras every 10 feet with deep neural nets to track everyone movement from the time they leave their home to the time they return, and even tag ethnic features (label video detected features as "uighur")
There's been a rise of nationalism around the globe, with fascists being elected everywhere. And that's why the West should resist China, not because China's rise is bad, but because China's rise with Xi at the helm is bad.
I wouldn't have said resist Germany prior to Hitler either, as there was nothing wrong with their economy improving after the horrors of WW1. It's all the other shit they were doing under the Nazis that called for a boycott.
Ditto for Japan and the US oil embargo. Japanese economic growth? Not a bad thing. Japanese economic growth used to invade, pillage, and rape China? A good reason for resistance.
This is something hard to get through to a lot of people, but criticism of the CCP is not criticism of the Chinese people, China, or Chinese culture. But the CCP has thoroughly convinced people that to oppose them, is to "insult China" and provoke a nationalist response.
The resistance we need is to fascism, of all forms.
China "will not open its markets", yet foreign direct investments in 2020 were at an all time high. There are serious problems with the narrative that "China will not open its markets".
The money people still think they can change China. Maybe it’ll turn out they were right, maybe not.
I think it fits rather perfectly into a narrative with 30 years of western investments into China with the expectancy of it opening up more. The money men are just rustling their swords because it’s not happening fast enough, maybe some are even beginning to worry a little about the past year of not being capable of exploiting their insanely long supply lines, but it’s probably mostly just impatience still. Either way it’s not like they won’t do anything to keep making what money they can at the same time.
How does that make sense? How do you surge foreign direct investments to record highs when markets are not open?
Your statement is also based on a false premise. Companies don't invest in China to change China. They invest in China to make a profit. And making a profit, they did and they do.
Wanting to change China is, ironically, something which mostly non-businesspeople want. Which makes the narrative that "we're being hostile to China because they don't open up markets" all the more insane.
China has opened up. Walk down the street in China for 10 minutes and you see a ton of foreign companies. There are so much more foreign companies in China now than 30 years ago that the entire statement "China hasn't opened up" makes absolutely no sense. Not everything is open, sure, but that's still a far cry from "China hasn't opened up". China is also continuing to open up more parts of the markets.
The fact is, even if China isn't opening up as quickly or as much as you like, the trade agreement with China was never based on symmetry in the first place. It wasn't the goal, and more importantly, symmetry isn't needed for both parties to get what they want.
Both parties did get what they want. What the US now wants has changed. It's entirely possible to renegotiate and get what you want, without devolving into useless, illogical and dishonest aggression rherotic. This whole cold war is entirely unnecessary, but I guess people care more about making up an enemy and being able to moral grandstand, than to address actual issues.
Thats a super cynical take. I would say what you said is def is a part of it but society now is more aware of these issues and more willing to take these on. Intially i think the expectation was that china would westernize and adopt our rulesets gradually but thats hasn't come to fruition.
Why is Chinese repression so much more interesting than Saudi repression? We focus on the sins, both real and perceived, of our enemies; the United States and more generally the Democratic West has zero issue with allying itself with all manner of brutal dictatorships, as long as they do our bidding. I don't think this is a cynical take, but frankly a matter of public record, and ignoring it is to fall for our own propaganda.
China is interesting because over 15% of the entire world's population lives there. China is interesting because it has the second largest GDP in the world. China is interesting because it has the largest military in the world.
The government that runs China may not be especially worse than any other authoritarian government in the world. But because China is a world leader, they rightfully attract the attention of the rest of the world, just like America has for decades and other great powers did before it.
I get the sense that the Chinese government wants to have its cake and eat it too - it wants to run the most powerful country in the world, but it does not want to accept the criticism that comes with that position.
Saudi repression is super interesting, and I think we should talk more about it. MBS got off way too easily on his assignation of a journalist, and that the USA continues to ally themselves with him is despicable. Incidentally, we should be talking more about Turkey now, they aren’t going in a good direction, or even some of the crazy things happening in India right now. And of course, Myanmar has gone to heck recently.
China is a country on the cusp of development, they have the chance to go in the liberal society direction and it’s so sad to see them backsliding. That and their size is why they get the most attention, but because they are by any means the worst.
I’ll take your what about and raise you. Why didn’t the EU sanction the US for Guantanamo bay and Extraordinary rendition aka kidnapping
Or the fabricated WMD story make Blair and bush war criminals
FWIW I don’t think 2 wrongs make a right but also to take the moral high ground a group must have the moral high ground consistently
Saudi was, at least before COVID, opening up tourism (except for the two holy cities). At least then people could go and see things for themselves, and there is a liberalizing potential if the locals crave tourist income more than they fear hardliners. China, on the other hand has made it harder to visit certain regions of the country in the last 13 years.
I think you've summed up geopolitics of the last few decades quite aptly.
The whole "they need democracy" and suddenly farmers have an absurd amount of AK47s - and talks of a coup - should not fool anyone really. But it does fool most people. Especially folks in "western industrial countries" whom one would think would see such a ruse.
But alas, who cares as long as we have netflix and iphones. Such is life. Such is dignity.
That was nearly two hundred years ago. It’s resented because the government finds it useful for building internal unity. Periodically stirring hate against foreigners is a tactic as old as time.
It’s a bit like America being mad at Britain for burning down the White House in 1812. At some point you need to get over it.
Who gets to decide when to get over it? Imagine telling Africans to get over their resentment for 19th century slavery because it was so long ago. Or from a more positive viewpoint, imagine telling Americans that they should not be proud of the identity they've built up as a result of the Civil War.
That's not how it works. In Chinese history, 150 years is recent. As a Chinese, I'm offended at how you can so casually brush aside an important historic period just to suit your political preferences.
You're brushing it aside and painting it as merely a tool for blaming foreigners. And yet if you actually read Chinese media you will see very little foreign-bashing. Go ahead, read Xinhua with Google Translate, read CGTN. Now compare that with BBC, CNN. Go visit some Chinese schools and learn how they teach history or about the west. Chinese people have much, much more favorable views of foreign countries than westerners tend to have about China. Heck, not few Chinese become disappointed at the west after they've traveled, because the image of the west that they built up in China was too rose-colored.
How does all that possibly fit in the idea that the Chinese government uses opium wars to stir up anti-foreign sentiment? It doesn't. What is taught about the opium wars isn't "foreigners are the cause of our suffering", but "we must not be weak".
Only that the Opium Wars was just the beginning, the whole series of events lasted until the end of WWII before people can have any sort of peace, not the case for Britains burning White House
Mao "thanked" Japan for invading China because CCP would not have came to power otherwise. US ambiguous support of ROC/TW since during and post war is prolonging the ongoing civil war which PRC have tried multiple times to end post war. So no, generally US "support" / intervention has been been active pernicious to PRC interests.
I'm not saying that and I acknowledge that China and the US fought along the side of the Soviet Union. Though it is funny that you ask others not talk about history while your point seems to be based on that.
I’m not asking others to not talk about history. I’m saying to get over some messy actions that happened two centuries ago, especially when the US has done more than enough to help China since then.
As I already said, it’s only an issue in China because the government uses it as propaganda.
BTW Germany is still paying compensation to the churches for expropriation under Napoleon, and that was also some time ago.
They are not so willing to pay for the forced labourers of the 3rd Reich.
The problem was that during the Clinton administration, it was assumed that China would become more "democratic" and open politically, as their economic advancement progressed. It was assumed that their people would slowly change the CCP as they became wealthier - turning them more and more western.
Unfortunately, that did not come to pass - their capitalism under authoritarianism is working (not to mention that CCP is trying hard to prove that their style of gov't is "better", and the trump administration, and the west's handling of covid aren't helping).
There's no real way to contain china. The only way is to let the future play out - the biggest problem china has is the demographics. Provided there is no war between the west and china, their inevitable rise cannot be denied.
This, of course, is known to CCP, and hence, why they are able to take hong kong, and increase their activities in the south china sea.
>The problem was that during the Clinton administration, it was assumed that China would become more "democratic" and open politically, as their economic advancement progressed. It was assumed that their people would slowly change the CCP as they became wealthier - turning them more and more western
And what is the plan/assumption for Saudi Arabia? Is there an assumption that they will soon start respecting human rights?
And when oil runs out do the rest of the world remember about human rights and we at least not minimize the abuses that happen?
Do the prediction tell if there will be internal struggles when the oil ends and who will end up on top? What if some more extremist leader/group gets the power?1
And what about human rights and who what if when oil runs out some extremists ideas will popup ? When things go bad the people will try to find someone to blame and there might be a risk that extremist ideas will grow.
The Middle East has always been like that, nothing new. The extremists already exist in Saudi Arabia, a lot of the human rights violations are simply authoritarian actions to suppress extremists. It has really been a mess, what good could the USA or Europe accomplish? Getting involved just means more mistakes, probably more bad than good as it is now.
I am also against military or some other government interference with local politics, I am disgusted by politicians, companies and people that would use hman rights complaints selectively and close their eyes when there is a lot of money involved.
Sure. We as a country will always apply our military where are interests are at stake, there is no action taken just for human rights. It isn’t just the politicians, it’s the people who elect them that ultimately feel that way, the politicians are just acting this way so they don’t get unelected.
On the bright side, acting in self interest means we shouldn’t get involved in any messes either, and supporting intrinsically unstable authoritarian governments doesn’t make much sense either. There is definitely some overlap between doing the right thing and dong the thing that serves your interests the most.
You admit that the Western evaluation of China was wrong, but then persist in describing their system as “capitalism under authoritarianism”. The Chinese call it the early stage of socialism. It might be worth listening at this point. As you say, their rise is undeniable, and I think there’s a lot we can learn from them in the West.
Pardon me for sitting here in the middle of the US and having the intellectual curiosity to wonder why the US’ middle class is shrinking while China’s middle class is growing. Must be because I’m brainwashed or coerced.
Main difference seems to be that China has a nationalist government...i.e. it pursues an economic policy that benefits a broad range of its population while the USA has a plutocratic government...i.e. it pursues an economic policy that mainly benefits the transnational business elite. USA is pro-gobalist. China is pro-China. Wonder how things would be different if USA was pro-USA. Much is made of the supposed lower labour costs in China. Initially that may have been the fuel that enabled off shoring to launch. I don't think it is what sustains it in the present time. What sustains it is the network effects industries that China dominates. I.e. electronic assembly in the Shenzhen area is maintained by the vast ecosystem suppliers and manufacturers there not just low labour costs. That ecosystem does not exist in say, SV because in recent years investment has not been made in such things as hardware assembly. Investment improves capital, capital enables productive and comparative advantage that reduces the relative importance of "dumb" low wages.
History is a bit longer than 50~ years.
And, at least internally, European social democratic system is rather good at balancing both for well being, and freedom.
While the US system less so.
I don't think the problem is "socialism"
Me neither. The problem is the all powerful government that doesn't answer to the general population.
It's great when they're doing what's best for the majority. But inevitably they start doing things for the powerful minority (themselves) at the expense of the rest.
In a democratic system (which can, in fact, have heavy socialist elements) there are ways to legally and peacefully change the government. The public officials are servants of the people (well, ideally).
In the Soviet/Chinese/other "communist" style system, they take all the power with the promise of bringing true communism/socialism later, and they keep that power and never fulfill the promise. Public officials are strong "leaders" (read "rulers") of the people.
It's not that different from monarchy or feudalism, actually.
> In the Soviet/Chinese/other "communist" style system, they take all the power with the promise of bringing true communism/socialism later, and they keep that power and never fulfill the promise.
Of course US leaders are famous worldwide for keeping their promises.
Are you able to describe Soviet democracy or any of the democratic systems that exist within China today? Generally people who say these kinds of things are not.
They do keep promises, otherwise they never get voted for again. I am able to describe the systems that exist, but I am not willing. If the majority of the Chinese like their system, good for them. And if the majority in the US or EU honestly decide they want it, too, I can live with that. People lived and thrived in the USSR, after all. But I would prefer not to.
Yeah, they're worse than countries that fund terrorism. And the worst thing is their own population is oblivious to all that. It's consumerism in us that led them to power. If we all need/want a little bit less or make a conscious effort not to buy things made in countries with a track record of human rights abuse, it's gonna make a difference.
I expected comments like these. You can't avoid everything, as nearly everything has been outsourced to be manufactured there. But sure we can stop buying useless crap sold at Kmart/Target etc. May be buy clothes made in our own countries. There are still people who do that. May be a little more expensive but more incentive to buy less and support local as well as help the environment. To answer the "phone" question, it's made in Taiwan!
Same, it’s not necessarily about human labor, it will all be automated away eventually.
The problem is that our consumerism and the race to the bottom of consumerism (eg lots of short lived or disposable stuff) made it almost impossible to find things not made in China
I personally reduced my consumption as much as I could and continue to do so but the Iphone I am typing this on has been made in China, the laptop I use as a daily driver is made in China and so on. My strategy is to squeeze as much use as possible from these as possible to avoid all that
Nice one mate.. It's true. Some of the products are unavoidable. They're being made in China because of corporate greed and demand for cheaper products as a result of consumerism. We don't need to replace a phone or a laptop every 2 years. It's planned obsolescence by many manufacturer. I could be wrong but buying local could make a difference. Especially when China is trying to punish Australia just for asking for an investigation. They've already started bullying others at this stage. Once they surpass the US/NATO in military power, who knows, how's it gonna end for us.
As a side note funny how Germany has been prosperous without de-industrialising but in the USA the popular sentiment among many seems to have been we can't export our industry faster.
Samsung doesn't "make" its phones in Vietnam. It assembles its phones in Vietnam using parts imported from China. 5G, battery protection circuits, microphones and speakers... Those are all Chinese in every phone regardless of where it is assembled AFAIK.
Likewise the displays are made in Japan or Korea no matter where the phone is assembled, the RAM is made in Korea or Taiwan or Japan, etc...the same proximity boost that China got when they started with assembly.
so buying from a country which bombed multiple countries, started multiple wars, and do not buy from a country lifting millions from poverty and keep improving lives of their citizens. Thank you!
Just an FYI to people who don't agree with me and downvoting me or thinking about flagging this, it doesn't affect me in anyway. The Hackernews karma doesn't feed me or my family. I'm just sharing what I think, without any malice towards the people of China. But I can understand why some might think that way. Just wanted to clarify that I've no personal hatred towards people who live in China. Just like I've no personal hatred towards people living in North Korea and for that matter the Germans who lived in Germany during Nazi rule. Sometimes it's just too late before the people can do anything.
There is a fundamental dishonesty in the US' (and Australia's) recent turn in sentiment re: Chinese trade relations. There was a deal, partly unstated and largely codified in trade agreements between the two parties. Mainstream notions about economics and trade shifted, and they're no longer happy with the deal.
You can pursue new policies, new trade agreements, change your mind or whatnot... but it wasn't China that decided on American priorities.
The US wanted to invest in China. It wanted US companies to be governed (largely) by US/washington consensus laws. It wanted US/Western patent law to apply in China, which mean is an even bigger deal now. Can you imagine the US or Australia adapting their legal systems to accommodate trade with China?
China wanted trade surpluses, and employment promotion policies. Western economics of that era considered this a freebie. They actually valued Chinese imports more highly than US exports. Deng Xiaoping also wanted to moderate cultural-political influences, and keep about democratic urges. US political scientists thought this was futile, economic liberalisation would end totalitarianism on its own. Older economists/politicians still maintain the economic ideas, but have moved to denying they ever believed in the political ones.
Geopolitically, both compromised on Taiwan. China got to keep its "One China" policy. The US maintains its "No Invasions" policy.
Both got what they bargained for. The US chose not to bargain for pro labour trade conditions. They didn't want them. Now they do. So bargain again. Random aggression isn't going to get you what you want, if you can't define what you want.
Belligerence is just politically easier than addressing the topic directly, admitting that ideas have changed, etc.
^Piracy in China does not invalidate this fact.
Incidentally, I spoke to Kevin Rudd at length once (I was an intern), before he was PM. He seemed very pro chinese att.
As a whole, the HN crowd has jumped the shark when it comes to takes on China. But once in a while, we get gems like your comment, which really understand the issue, and address the issue without being partial and biased. Bravo.
I find it amusing Australia had a decades long mining boom because of China's appetite for resources but now they hate them...
It's really simple every year the West has a trade deficit and China uses those billions to strategically invest becoming the new superpower.
Sound familiar? It's what America did after WW2.
There's no in-the-moment advantage to having a trade surplus. The benefits are in the future, and they are only hypothetical until the trade imbalance is canceled.
America's trade deficit means we get real stuff from China -- both consumer goods and capital ("investments") like robots for factories. China gets nothing but promises from the US. They do it because they expect we'll be able to pay them back at a higher interest rate than what they could have made with those resources themselves. Implicitly, those loans are China acknowledging that investment in the US works better than investment in China.
> They do it because they expect we'll be able to pay them back at a higher interest rate than what they could have made with those resources themselves.
China doesn’t invest in high rate treasuries with their dollar surplus, they are getting below inflation rates in their treasury purchases. They do it because (a) their export driven economy demands that they send more things out than get things coming in and (b) putting excess dollars in treasuries is better than simply investing them back in their economy would heat things up and stoke inflation.
China currently has plenty of money for its own investment needs, so US treasuries are just convenient and not a statement on the natures of investments in the USA.
This is a super simplified and somewhat wrong interpretation of trade dynamics. Surpluses are important because 1) sustained surpluses imply structural reasons, and in this case, China's consistent upgrade in industrial production chains as it uses the funds it has acquired to invest in improving technology and human resources. 2) sustained deficits are often correlated with domestic employment moving away from manufacturing and into services, as well as a bigger share of income by corporations who are able to offshore their production, leading to greater inequality. 3) The dollar will not maintain its purchasing power forever, if its manufacturing, R&D and military dominance are perceived to be eroded. Many countries are moving away from sole reliance on dollars as the only reserve as we speak, including China. The amount of US dollar assets China has divested over the years is staggering.
Or there could just be a glut of savings in China.
We get "real stuff." China gets money some of which is re-invested in China some of which comes back to America/Canada as loans, real estate investment, etc, which in part drives American asset price inflation and also enables our government to cut us "stimulus checks" to buy more real stuff from China...see the picture...China produces we buy...
Here is a suggestion. Read the "Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith. It is still true. The long term prosperity of a nation is not based on how cheaply it can borrow money. Rather it is based on its comparative advantage in producing "real stuff." While China is investing in moving up the manufacturing value chain, the USA is taking increasing debt and experiencing rising asset values out of line with increasing real production.
When a company get components from China they pay cash, when a person orders something from a Chinese seller they pay cash where is the loans coming from ? Bonds ? they are not at the transaction level
An oversimplified but useful model is that, internationally, any country's money is, in the eyes of another country, just a promise to repay. If one country sends goods to another and receives money for it, the exporting country has effectively received a bunch of promises that the importing country will eventually (repatriate the money and) give them stuff in return.
It's more complicated because the exporting country could instead give the (say) dollars to a third country in return for real stuff. But still what gives those dollars is the reasonable expectation that others will continue to value them enough to give you actual useful stuff for them.
I realize this is somewhat unrelated, but it still boggles my mind that it was a cancellable offense to suggest an investigation occur for a lab-leak origin from March 2020 through roughly January 2021.
I do not know what to make of it, but something about that feels terribly, horribly awry.
The problem was that that wasn't a suggestion made in good faith, with the primary goal of finding out what happened or how to prevent future mistakes. The goal from the beginning was to put the blame on someone, to scapegoat. It wasn't a call for investigation: it was a demand for an investigation — a demand to grant international investigators with the equivalent of weapons inspection powers. It's treating China as a dog rather than an equal. Also consider the greater context: hostilities against China had been building up for a number of years. The call for an investigation was just the last drop for China in a long list of grievances which China previously communicated, but nobody acknowledged.
I'm in favor of an investigation to really find out what happened and how to prevent future incidents, instead of all the political games that are happening right now.
Again I realize my comment is semi off topic as this has to do with Australian/Chinese relations, but my point was that, as an American, it’s amazing this question was completely off limits for roughly a year. Not trying to opine on wether Australia is in the right or wrong, or vice versa.
That first year during/after the outbreak is the best time to find the right answers regarding origination. Not play politics, on that I think I agree with you.
I do not agree that, because a topic becomes political, it is somehow better to avoid finding the truth. I read your comment to have the following logic which I strongly disagree with:
- Asking if this was a lab-leak origination is/was a politically charged question, and
- politically charged questions should be avoided. (Perhaps even to the point of ignoring the topic or taking action to silence discussion)
- therefore, we should not ask about the origins of the outbreak.
I think we are already in full agreement. We should not politicize the issue. We should find its origin.
I don't disagree with the statement that we should try to find the origin despite that there's politicization. But my concerns are practical in nature. Doing anything in a politicized environment is like mopping the floor during a flood. We need to address the flood first.
Maybe it is. But "bad faith" is definitely not meaningless. At the very least we can expect any party who can defend itself, to not respond well when they believe you are acting in bad faith.
I would have no problems with adopting that standard. But this standard isn't universally applied. Many of the criticisms against China is based on what people believe China's intentions are, not on what China actually does.
For example:
China sends masks to Europe -> we should be wary, because they're engaging in "mask diplomacy"
China funds infrastructure in Africa -> it's because they're intending to colonize those countries.
China sends vaccines to the global south -> it's because China intends to spread influence.
So which one is it? Do only facts matter, or do reading of intentions also matter?
If we can judge China based on our reading of their intentions, they should be able to judge us based on their reading of our intentions as well.
Or conversely, if only facts matter, then we should judge China only by what they do and not by what we think their intentions are. Naturally, they should do the same.
And I don’t think it was about covid. If Trump said the sky is blue, the NYT and CNN would spend the next week trying to demonstrate it isn’t, and twitter, facebook and youtube would block you if you ever suggested it was. This was such a puerile way to oppose Trump, and certainly a reliable way to sink these institutions credibility for a long time.
For those not aware, China has considerable economic leverage over Australia. Much of Australia’s boom has been due to the massive exports of natural resources to China.
Recently China had been doing things like delaying seafood inspections until shipments spoil. Refusing iron ore and coal imports from Australia.
It’s clear that China is trying to pick off Australia from the Western alliance. Since Australia is uniquely at risk from Chinese economic actions (Highly dependent on China, but China won’t be hurt that much) it makes a great test case for China.
And all China is looking for from Australia is “neutrality”. Don’t align with the US on territorial disputes, don’t back Taiwan as an independent country, don’t condemn China for its treatment of Uighurs.
Australia is right that as long as the Western countries stick together they have the power to check China in the region. But if they get picked off one by one, China will win.
Are you open to being "enlightened" tho? Or was the enlightened your mockery of how you perceive my view as arrogant, indicating you've already prejudged it and in effect you will be resistant to hear it. Asking because I want to know if I should spend my time responding. Can't make people see something they don't want to see.
Democracies have inherent inefficiencies, which need to be compensated. Everything else being equal, dictatorships can ramp up infrastructure faster than any democracy.
Tariffs should have favoured manufacturing in free countries, to encourage openness and freedom. That did not happen between 1990-2020.
If Australia was smart, it wouldn't "take on" China period. Seems to be a losing proposition for Australia anyway you look at it seeing as Australia has somewhat less than 2% of China's population.
This is why Trump's threat to withdraw from NATO was so short-sighted. In the 20th century NATO was basically America supporting Europe against Russia. But in the 21st century it will be Europe supporting the US against China.
The way The West "takes on" a country will not work with China and I'll take a bet any day that the west cannot change its way and take on China in new functioning ways. Using the old tried and true ways we have used against everything from African rebel leaders to South American democratically elected presidents is helping CCP internally in PRC, not hurting it. It's as clear as day and reminds me of the old "Do you know the definition of insanity" quote. Either we work with China and try to influence in positive ways or we won't make any (positive) difference. Don't take on China, work with China, period. Its way too late now unless we go for full scale war or treat China as we do North Korea. The road we are on now only leads to China becoming the new top dog above the US. Change or become irrelevant.
Just a friendly reminder that the current communist regime in mainland China is not legitimate - the republic of China (currently in Taiwan) is the original member of both the League of Nations and the UN, and has actually transitioned to a stable, transparent, and prosperous democracy, and should be in charge of all of China.
Second we need to take a close look at ourselves, examine ourselves in a mirror. If we don’t accept and attempt to repair our flaws in thinking and human virtues and actions we’re not going to get better anytime soon. All our western countries that are now threatened by China are guilty of the same abuses that China is inflicting right now.