←back to thread

China

(drewdevault.com)
847 points kick | 8 comments | 20 Nov 19 15:44 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
novok ◴[20 Nov 19 17:11 UTC] No.21585835[source]▶
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.

replies(6): >>21586113 #>>21586363 #>>21586428 #>>21587162 #>>21588073 #>>21588427 #
bcrosby95 ◴[20 Nov 19 17:32 UTC] No.21586113[source]▶
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?
replies(2): >>21586636 #>>21587374 #
Aperocky ◴[20 Nov 19 18:14 UTC] No.21586636[source]▶
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.“

replies(1): >>21587097 #
1. bcrosby95 ◴[20 Nov 19 18:52 UTC] No.21587097{3}[source]▶
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?
replies(2): >>21587214 #>>21587266 #
2. hungryhobo ◴[20 Nov 19 19:02 UTC] No.21587214[source]▶
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
replies(1): >>21591305 #
3. Aperocky ◴[20 Nov 19 19:06 UTC] No.21587266[source]▶
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.

replies(1): >>21587318 #
4. kick ◴[20 Nov 19 19:11 UTC] No.21587318[source]▶
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.
replies(1): >>21587415 #
5. Aperocky ◴[20 Nov 19 19:21 UTC] No.21587415{3}[source]▶
Wrong, Microsoft/Apple/Starbucks did not partner with anyone. That requirement was specifically for auto/manufacture industry.
replies(1): >>21587585 #
6. kick ◴[20 Nov 19 19:36 UTC] No.21587585{4}[source]▶
You are spreading misinformation. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208351
replies(1): >>21588377 #
7. Aperocky ◴[20 Nov 19 20:52 UTC] No.21588377{5}[source]▶
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.
8. novok ◴[21 Nov 19 03:54 UTC] No.21591305[source]▶
That is a fairly recent development, while the opposite has been status quo for multiple decades.