4 ms·

To be fair the issue is a lot more nuanced than that. For example, because of that trade we live in a quite peaceful period. This income in China has been used

To be fair the issue is a lot more nuanced than that. For example, because of that trade we live in a quite peaceful period. This income in China has been used to bring hundreds of millions of people out of absolute poverty and into a middle class - where people have some luxury money and aren't engaged only in sustenance farming. I think this is an extremely valuable and positive thing, would you really want to stop this trade and put hundreds of millions back into poverty in order to feel a little more morally correct? Sure, it's not perfect, but it's a lot more complicated than you might think at first glance. https://ourworldindata.org/world-poverty/#declining-global-poverty-share-of-people-living-in-extreme-poverty-1820-2015-max-roserref https://ourworldindata.org/world-poverty/#declining-global-p... - look at the second graph here, trade with China and other developing countries has simultaneously brought more people out of poverty than ever before.

poof131 10y ago
Sure. A good thing. Or possibly a bad thing if we strengthen a tyranny that can’t find a path to freedom for its people. History will tell. What I find most upsetting though is that much of this comes at the expense of the american middle class while the american upper class benefits. So less unrest in one country leads to more in another. Personally, I wish values drove foreign policy more than business. And trade doesn’t equal peace. Connections lead to conflict. The USSR and US never fought despite the tensions of the cold war, while Europe, with all it’s interconnections and trade has blown apart in a world war twice in the last century.
- studentrob 10y ago
  > Europe, with all it’s interconnections and trade has blown apart in a world war twice in the last century. That's a fair point. Hopefully the internet and easier travel helps mitigate future conflict.
- zpharer 10y ago
  I'd weigh lifting 100's of millions of people out of extreme poverty as much more morally important than avoiding stagnant American middle class wages.
  - poof131 10y ago
    But what if we could lift 100's of millions more if the american upper class contributed more. It's not that the task isn't worth doing but if that is the point, we should all be choosing to do it together.
drzaiusapelord 10y ago
> where people have some luxury money The problem is that when autocratic state have new wealth (via taxing the people you are talking about) they almost always invade their neighbors or at least try to annex some land or settle an old dispute via force. Saddam with Kuwait, Russia with Ukraine, and China with the Spratly islands are obvious examples. It doesn't matter that some Chinese bureaucrat can afford an iPhone if it means we get world instability, war, and unneeded aggression in exchange. The West is probably looking at another shooting war with either of these countries sooner or later due to their unilateral aggression against our allies. Is a precious, precious iPhone worth that to you? It seems like we lifted them out of poverty too quickly. They didn't develop democratic institutions, legitimate multiparty politics, a fair judiciary, human rights, international cooperation, etc. This is like handing a 15 year old a brand new Ferrari and acting surprised when he manages to crash it and kill someone.
- kbenson 10y ago
  > The West is probably looking at another shooting war with either of these countries sooner or later due to their unilateral aggression against our allies. And the alternative where we try to economically suppress them works so much better? It's not like the cold war didn't lead to it's own share of nail-biting episodes where we worried there would be full nuclear war. > It seems like we lifted them out of poverty too quickly. It's not that we lifted them out of poverty, it's that we took advantage of the favorable market forces present to our mutual benefit. If we didn't someone else would have, unless we tried to get widespread support for an embargo. > This is like handing a 15 year old a brand new Ferrari and acting surprised when he manages to crash it and kill someone. Or, you know, it could just be a nation of smart people and statesmen doing what they think is best for their country, based on their beliefs (which could include slow reform). In any case, I'm sure your likening of China to an irresponsible child is useful, warranted, and even if widely believed, wouldn't in any way help to cause those shooting wars you are talking about. /s
  - drzaiusapelord 10y ago
    > wouldn't in any way help to cause those shooting wars you are talking about. /s Yes, an offhand comment on HN is going to start a war. There's a historic basis to my comment that autocratic systems with sudden influxes of cash become violent/agressive/annexing. The reality here is that's exactly what happened in Ukraine and in the Spartly's. I don't think you can just smart-ass dismiss that and whatever future conflicts we're in for. There's certainly a relationship here. Empowering autocrats has never worked well. As far as the Cold War goes, isolation led to the downfall of the USSR and communism, in general, which was a horrific system. Those tactics certainly worked and freed millions out of tyranny. No nuclear war, no WWIII, etc. At worst a handful of proxy conflicts that had a death toll that matched perhaps one or two good sized WWII battles. Meanwhile, communism led to the deaths of almost 100m people via internal violence and mismanagement. Sadly, HN has a "anyone but the US" bias to it and comments like your reflect a fairly biased and uncritical "China can do no wrong" attitude.

poof131 10y ago

Sure. A good thing. Or possibly a bad thing if we strengthen a tyranny that can’t find a path to freedom for its people. History will tell. What I find most upsetting though is that much of this comes at the expense of the american middle class while the american upper class benefits. So less unrest in one country leads to more in another. Personally, I wish values drove foreign policy more than business. And trade doesn’t equal peace. Connections lead to conflict. The USSR and US never fought despite the tensions of the cold war, while Europe, with all it’s interconnections and trade has blown apart in a world war twice in the last century.

studentrob 10y ago
> Europe, with all it’s interconnections and trade has blown apart in a world war twice in the last century. That's a fair point. Hopefully the internet and easier travel helps mitigate future conflict.
zpharer 10y ago
I'd weigh lifting 100's of millions of people out of extreme poverty as much more morally important than avoiding stagnant American middle class wages.
- poof131 10y ago
  But what if we could lift 100's of millions more if the american upper class contributed more. It's not that the task isn't worth doing but if that is the point, we should all be choosing to do it together.

drzaiusapelord 10y ago

> where people have some luxury money The problem is that when autocratic state have new wealth (via taxing the people you are talking about) they almost always invade their neighbors or at least try to annex some land or settle an old dispute via force. Saddam with Kuwait, Russia with Ukraine, and China with the Spratly islands are obvious examples. It doesn't matter that some Chinese bureaucrat can afford an iPhone if it means we get world instability, war, and unneeded aggression in exchange. The West is probably looking at another shooting war with either of these countries sooner or later due to their unilateral aggression against our allies. Is a precious, precious iPhone worth that to you? It seems like we lifted them out of poverty too quickly. They didn't develop democratic institutions, legitimate multiparty politics, a fair judiciary, human rights, international cooperation, etc. This is like handing a 15 year old a brand new Ferrari and acting surprised when he manages to crash it and kill someone.

kbenson 10y ago
> The West is probably looking at another shooting war with either of these countries sooner or later due to their unilateral aggression against our allies. And the alternative where we try to economically suppress them works so much better? It's not like the cold war didn't lead to it's own share of nail-biting episodes where we worried there would be full nuclear war. > It seems like we lifted them out of poverty too quickly. It's not that we lifted them out of poverty, it's that we took advantage of the favorable market forces present to our mutual benefit. If we didn't someone else would have, unless we tried to get widespread support for an embargo. > This is like handing a 15 year old a brand new Ferrari and acting surprised when he manages to crash it and kill someone. Or, you know, it could just be a nation of smart people and statesmen doing what they think is best for their country, based on their beliefs (which could include slow reform). In any case, I'm sure your likening of China to an irresponsible child is useful, warranted, and even if widely believed, wouldn't in any way help to cause those shooting wars you are talking about. /s
- drzaiusapelord 10y ago
  > wouldn't in any way help to cause those shooting wars you are talking about. /s Yes, an offhand comment on HN is going to start a war. There's a historic basis to my comment that autocratic systems with sudden influxes of cash become violent/agressive/annexing. The reality here is that's exactly what happened in Ukraine and in the Spartly's. I don't think you can just smart-ass dismiss that and whatever future conflicts we're in for. There's certainly a relationship here. Empowering autocrats has never worked well. As far as the Cold War goes, isolation led to the downfall of the USSR and communism, in general, which was a horrific system. Those tactics certainly worked and freed millions out of tyranny. No nuclear war, no WWIII, etc. At worst a handful of proxy conflicts that had a death toll that matched perhaps one or two good sized WWII battles. Meanwhile, communism led to the deaths of almost 100m people via internal violence and mismanagement. Sadly, HN has a "anyone but the US" bias to it and comments like your reflect a fairly biased and uncritical "China can do no wrong" attitude.