4 ms·

I'm reading a very good book called "China Dream: Great Power Thinking and Strategic Power Posture in the Post-American Era" I haven't finished it so I'll save

I'm reading a very good book called "China Dream: Great Power Thinking and Strategic Power Posture in the Post-American Era" I haven't finished it so I'll save you all from a premature review, but from what I have read so far I believe we need a more serious national conversation on China and the role that technology companies play in enabling dictatorships.

greggarious 9y ago
>I believe we need a more serious national conversation on China and the role that technology companies play in enabling dictatorships. if this interests you, I recommend reading "IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance between Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporation" by Edwin Black https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust
mistermann 9y ago
I also think in light of recent events I think we'd benefit from people educating themselves on the actual state of free trade with respect to China, China is far more protectionist than the US, but if we try to do something about it, it's considered to be starting a trade war.
- justinzollars 9y ago
  What is strange to me is the fact in any talk on trade: Google, Facebook, Wikipedia, and The New York Times are never brought up.
  - jeffreyrogers 9y ago
    Why should they be?
- simonh 9y ago
  When it comes to trade what matters is whether or not you meet your treaty obligations. It's a rules based process, where you agree the rules and have some arbitration process, e.g. through the WTO. On that basis, what matters is whether China is following the rules it, and everyone else, agreed to. If you think some one is cheating you arbitrate. We made a deal. Trump is intent on blatantly breaking the rules the US has agreed to, and breaking the deals it committed to. That is important because companies invest billions of dollars based on the rules countries agree on trade. Arbitrarily change the rules with no warning and those billions of dollars of investment can become worthless and the jobs associated with them lost in Canada, the EU and countries all over the world aside from China.
  - mistermann 9y ago
    I strongly disagree. I believe what matters is, or should be, whether the current arrangement that has been "agreed to", is objectively fair or not. What is in the best interests of wealthy influential people and corporations may not be in the best interests of overall society. Maximizing GDP is not necessarily in the best interests of overall society. I think this article makes some good points on whether "what we've agreed to" is actually "fair", and there are numerous other articles like it, but if an alien from another planet was to come here and listen to public discourse on the topic, they'd be left with the impression that there is no debate to be had. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/business/trade-china-protectionism.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/business/trade-chin... It may be difficult to determine what is "objectively fair" in a complex globalized world, but it seems to me like there is a coordinated effort to avoid a conversation on the topic getting any kind of traction.
  - adventured 9y ago
    > what matters is whether China is following the rules it, and everyone else, agreed to That's incorrect. China is failing, to an extraordinary degree, to comply with what it said that it would do in being allowed into the WTO. Namely, opening up their economy in terms of full and equal foreign access. At every step, they've refused to go forward with that. As it turns out, most likely, they were lying and buying time. Their goal is clearly to get large enough to not have to ever comply. They've been very obviously following Deng Xiaoping stated policy - 24 character strategy - of hiding their strength and biding their time. North Korea used the same strategy to acquire its nuclear weapons. Lie, pretend you're going to do a thing, with no intention of doing the thing, buy time, get the nukes, then you no longer have to comply and or you've massively increased your bargaining position.
    - mistermann 9y ago
      It's amazing how clear this is, yet so few people can see it, it makes me wonder if there would be less confusion if we didn't have two different cultures involved. Of course, Western corporations and their executives who are profiting handsomely from it have good reason to "not notice" what's happening and continue to talk their book, but the wilful ignorance of genuinely well-meaning liberals is more complex. I always wonder if Chinese leadership sometimes leans back and marvels at how easy it is to win when the uninformed citizens of your adversaries are in an ideological war with each other.

greggarious 9y ago

>I believe we need a more serious national conversation on China and the role that technology companies play in enabling dictatorships. if this interests you, I recommend reading "IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance between Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporation" by Edwin Black https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust

mistermann 9y ago

I also think in light of recent events I think we'd benefit from people educating themselves on the actual state of free trade with respect to China, China is far more protectionist than the US, but if we try to do something about it, it's considered to be starting a trade war.

justinzollars 9y ago
What is strange to me is the fact in any talk on trade: Google, Facebook, Wikipedia, and The New York Times are never brought up.
- jeffreyrogers 9y ago
  Why should they be?
simonh 9y ago
When it comes to trade what matters is whether or not you meet your treaty obligations. It's a rules based process, where you agree the rules and have some arbitration process, e.g. through the WTO. On that basis, what matters is whether China is following the rules it, and everyone else, agreed to. If you think some one is cheating you arbitrate. We made a deal. Trump is intent on blatantly breaking the rules the US has agreed to, and breaking the deals it committed to. That is important because companies invest billions of dollars based on the rules countries agree on trade. Arbitrarily change the rules with no warning and those billions of dollars of investment can become worthless and the jobs associated with them lost in Canada, the EU and countries all over the world aside from China.
- mistermann 9y ago
  I strongly disagree. I believe what matters is, or should be, whether the current arrangement that has been "agreed to", is objectively fair or not. What is in the best interests of wealthy influential people and corporations may not be in the best interests of overall society. Maximizing GDP is not necessarily in the best interests of overall society. I think this article makes some good points on whether "what we've agreed to" is actually "fair", and there are numerous other articles like it, but if an alien from another planet was to come here and listen to public discourse on the topic, they'd be left with the impression that there is no debate to be had. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/business/trade-china-protectionism.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/business/trade-chin... It may be difficult to determine what is "objectively fair" in a complex globalized world, but it seems to me like there is a coordinated effort to avoid a conversation on the topic getting any kind of traction.
- adventured 9y ago
  > what matters is whether China is following the rules it, and everyone else, agreed to That's incorrect. China is failing, to an extraordinary degree, to comply with what it said that it would do in being allowed into the WTO. Namely, opening up their economy in terms of full and equal foreign access. At every step, they've refused to go forward with that. As it turns out, most likely, they were lying and buying time. Their goal is clearly to get large enough to not have to ever comply. They've been very obviously following Deng Xiaoping stated policy - 24 character strategy - of hiding their strength and biding their time. North Korea used the same strategy to acquire its nuclear weapons. Lie, pretend you're going to do a thing, with no intention of doing the thing, buy time, get the nukes, then you no longer have to comply and or you've massively increased your bargaining position.
  - mistermann 9y ago
    It's amazing how clear this is, yet so few people can see it, it makes me wonder if there would be less confusion if we didn't have two different cultures involved. Of course, Western corporations and their executives who are profiting handsomely from it have good reason to "not notice" what's happening and continue to talk their book, but the wilful ignorance of genuinely well-meaning liberals is more complex. I always wonder if Chinese leadership sometimes leans back and marvels at how easy it is to win when the uninformed citizens of your adversaries are in an ideological war with each other.