6 ms·

As someone with parents who experienced the USSR, this is what really terrifies me about China's rise, and the reason I can't say I'm against a trade war if it

by alehul 9y ago

As someone with parents who experienced the USSR, this is what really terrifies me about China's rise, and the reason I can't say I'm against a trade war if it hinders them more than us. Imagine a world in which China holds more control... a country with little legal or social respect for individualism, where your fate is 'centrally planned' by how impressive your maths skills are. By contrast, ~30% of American billionaires are dropouts. We highly value ambition in the U.S., and we attract (and reward) people who have it; those people, upon coming here, largely have the freedom to create and build and be in charge of their own future. It just seems like the U.S. will self-select for the ambitious and the inspired and those who desire freedom, and it would be immensely worrying if this model we have appears wrong.

qweqw123 9y ago
arent's you romanticizing the US a bit much? the country was built by slaves. "the US will self-select for the ambitious and the inspired and those who desire freedom" this is just hogwash
- alehul 9y ago
  Sorry if you found it offensive. I'm definitely romanticizing the U.S. quite a bit. At the same time, that romanticization is inspiring (at least to me) and largely true today when you compare us to countries like China, where you have much less control over your future. Also, moving to a country that provides greater freedom and opportunity at the cost of less of a social net and lower taxes will almost definitely self-select for the ambitious. Slavery also continued in practice in China until at least 1949 [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_China
  - pm90 9y ago
    Forced labor camps still exist in China, to this day https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laogai https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laogai
    - arcticbull 9y ago
      What do you call a US prison farm? [1] Even Wikipedia acknowledges that "the concepts of prison farm and labor camp overlap." Labor camps are even explicitly permitted by the 13th amendment "... which ended slavery, specifically perpetuated the concept of penal servitude – i.e., unfree labor as a punishment for a crime." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_farm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_farm
      - pm90 9y ago
        There is a difference between political prisoners and criminals. There is a rule of law in the US which means you cannot arbitrarily imprison anyone; there is due process and a trial. That is missing from the Chinese Judicial System which makes it much more akin to Slave Labor.
  - cambalache 9y ago
    You are just human. So that means in general you are xenophobic, nationalist, racist and operate on the unstated assumption that you and your fellow nationals are 100X more worthy than any foreigner.
  - 3242342sadf 9y ago
    "moving to a country that provides greater freedom and opportunity at the cost of less of a social net and lower taxes will almost definitely self-select for the ambitious" That's flawed logic. 1. There is no study that stated less social net and lower taxes will definitely self-select for the ambitious. 2. US does not have the lowest tax in the world.
- i_am_nomad 9y ago
  The vast majority of physical and intellectual labor that “built” the United States was performed by free men. I’m not saying there wasn’t slavery, but your assertion is absurd.
  - 3242342sadf 9y ago
    His assertion is absurd as much as OP's.
- adrianN 9y ago
  Are there any countries that don't have a bloddy past?
  - 3242342sadf 9y ago
    You aren't refuting his point. His point was that OP was romanticizing his own country.
- venomsnake 9y ago
  > the country was built by slaves Only the agrarian south. The industry was in the North.
collyw 9y ago
> where your fate is 'centrally planned' by how impressive your maths skills are Is it better than a fate that is generally determined by how rich your parents are? I give you that there are more options in the States, but this plays a huge role. Social mobility has been declining in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioeconomic_mobility_in_the_United_States#Current_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioeconomic_mobility_in_the_... Not saying I prefer the Chinese model, but most people prefer the idea of meritocracy to inherited wealth.
- pm90 9y ago
  This isn't really a good comparison. The US has its problems and rising inequality has been a huge one for sure. But the biggest strength of the US has been its institutions and a society and economy that is based on laws. The independent Universities, Judiciary etc. are all extremely hard to get it right and the US has managed to do so (mostly; there are still many many problems e.g. school-prison pipeline, unequal treatment for minorities and poor communities etc.) It seems much more likely to fix the US's problems with inequality rather than try to build all these institutions from scratch in China, at least in its current environment.
  - justicezyx 9y ago
    I am puzzled by the reasoning. If your claimed good mechanism cannot reach a good outcome, what's the use or value of them. Op said, AFAIK, is that China is doing seemingly bad thing, but if the outcome is not worse than others doing, what's the ground of criticizing? You cannot argue that something should be citicized just because itself not from their effects...
    - pm90 9y ago
      You can shoot yourself in the head today. You’re going to die anyways. Why do you continue to live? It’s the same outcome right?
      - justicezyx 9y ago
throwaway414 9y ago
> By contrast, ~30% of > American billionaires > are dropouts. How is it a contrast when more than ~50% of Chinese billionaires are dropouts? [1] Added to that, of the 78 self-made women billionaires, 49 of them are from China. [2] 1. http://en.yibada.com/articles/195121/20170220/new-hurun-list-reveals-chinese-billionaires-university-dropouts.htm http://en.yibada.com/articles/195121/20170220/new-hurun-list... 2. http://www.scmp.com/business/china-business/article/2117158/china-has-most-self-made-women-billionaires-globally http://www.scmp.com/business/china-business/article/2117158/...
- iguy 9y ago
  The claim about American dropouts is about success not needing the blessing of the establishment. How many of those billionaires aren't Party members?
  - sgroppino 9y ago
    Some people may think of Wall Street as "the establishment", too.
  - powerapple 9y ago
    you become a party member after you become a billionaire. Then there is responsibility comes with it, you will need to help the government with jobs and other things. Sometimes you will need to help to revive a bankrupt company for example.
    - iguy 9y ago
      Yea I agree, it's far from an exact analogy. Some certainly did get very rich from Party power, and some were invited to join once already rich... does anyone refuse such an invitation, and stay rich?
TangoTrotFox 9y ago
I think that's a severe misrepresentation of China. They're communist in name, but extremely capitalist in practice. Jack Ma is the man behind Alibaba and now one of the richest people alive, let alone Chinese alive. Check out his background [1]. In my opinion, the main difference between China and the US is nationalism. And that's also what I think that slogan is indicative of. It also, I think, explains their government actions. Supporting their companies is not about nationalizing them, which implies a motivation of state driven control, but growing and improving Chinese companies on the national scene. I think we have a great analogy in the US today versus the US in the past. Think about our space program in the 60s. We dumped immense amount of money into US companies and managed to, in 7 years, go from having never even put a man into orbit to putting a man on the moon. The primary motivation there was nationalistic - showing how kick ass America, and implicitly capitalism, was. Compare that space program to today where there's no real nationalism. Now a days we're building the Space Shuttle 2.0, known as the SLS. And we've spent 8 years on it so far, obscene amounts of money, and it's still not going anywhere. The thing is now the motivation for the spending is not about America, but about a handful of congressmen using it as a job's program for their election campaigns, and of course shelling out kickbacks everywhere. If we handed out a fraction of the SLS money to a private company like SpaceX we'd have a man on Mars in the 2020s, but again - the goal is no longer about America or space. It's become about the individual, instead of the nation. So essentially I think China's goal here is not state control, but about showing dominance of the Chinese system. If there is any problem with the American system it's that I think we've become somewhat conservative with ideas. Elon Musk's ideas should not be as unique as they are. I mean they aren't - everybody has them, but funding for revolutionary ideas seems (based on the lack of these sort of companies) to be much more difficult to come by. Ostensibly it makes sense. Investors want to invest in things likely to turn a profit, and investing in something that's never been done before is not the easiest EV to predict. But with our technology and wealth today we could be doing so many much more interesting things than we are. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ma
- jlarocco 9y ago
  > In my opinion, the main difference between China and the US is nationalism. And that's also what I think that slogan is indicative of. It also, I think, explains their government actions. Supporting their companies is not about nationalizing them, which implies a motivation of state driven control, but growing and improving Chinese companies on the national scene. I've noticed that a few times recently when comparing American and Chinese policies. In the United States we've made a cargo cult religion around individual freedom, to the point where we often don't do what's best for the country and society as a whole. The Chinese government seems much more concerned about making their country and society better as a whole.

by alehul 9y ago

qweqw123 9y ago

arent's you romanticizing the US a bit much? the country was built by slaves. "the US will self-select for the ambitious and the inspired and those who desire freedom" this is just hogwash

alehul 9y ago
Sorry if you found it offensive. I'm definitely romanticizing the U.S. quite a bit. At the same time, that romanticization is inspiring (at least to me) and largely true today when you compare us to countries like China, where you have much less control over your future. Also, moving to a country that provides greater freedom and opportunity at the cost of less of a social net and lower taxes will almost definitely self-select for the ambitious. Slavery also continued in practice in China until at least 1949 [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_China
- pm90 9y ago
  Forced labor camps still exist in China, to this day https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laogai https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laogai
  - arcticbull 9y ago
    What do you call a US prison farm? [1] Even Wikipedia acknowledges that "the concepts of prison farm and labor camp overlap." Labor camps are even explicitly permitted by the 13th amendment "... which ended slavery, specifically perpetuated the concept of penal servitude – i.e., unfree labor as a punishment for a crime." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_farm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_farm
    - pm90 9y ago
      There is a difference between political prisoners and criminals. There is a rule of law in the US which means you cannot arbitrarily imprison anyone; there is due process and a trial. That is missing from the Chinese Judicial System which makes it much more akin to Slave Labor.
- cambalache 9y ago
  You are just human. So that means in general you are xenophobic, nationalist, racist and operate on the unstated assumption that you and your fellow nationals are 100X more worthy than any foreigner.
- 3242342sadf 9y ago
  "moving to a country that provides greater freedom and opportunity at the cost of less of a social net and lower taxes will almost definitely self-select for the ambitious" That's flawed logic. 1. There is no study that stated less social net and lower taxes will definitely self-select for the ambitious. 2. US does not have the lowest tax in the world.
i_am_nomad 9y ago
The vast majority of physical and intellectual labor that “built” the United States was performed by free men. I’m not saying there wasn’t slavery, but your assertion is absurd.
- 3242342sadf 9y ago
  His assertion is absurd as much as OP's.
adrianN 9y ago
Are there any countries that don't have a bloddy past?
- 3242342sadf 9y ago
  You aren't refuting his point. His point was that OP was romanticizing his own country.
venomsnake 9y ago
> the country was built by slaves Only the agrarian south. The industry was in the North.

collyw 9y ago

> where your fate is 'centrally planned' by how impressive your maths skills are Is it better than a fate that is generally determined by how rich your parents are? I give you that there are more options in the States, but this plays a huge role. Social mobility has been declining in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioeconomic_mobility_in_the_United_States#Current_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioeconomic_mobility_in_the_... Not saying I prefer the Chinese model, but most people prefer the idea of meritocracy to inherited wealth.

pm90 9y ago
This isn't really a good comparison. The US has its problems and rising inequality has been a huge one for sure. But the biggest strength of the US has been its institutions and a society and economy that is based on laws. The independent Universities, Judiciary etc. are all extremely hard to get it right and the US has managed to do so (mostly; there are still many many problems e.g. school-prison pipeline, unequal treatment for minorities and poor communities etc.) It seems much more likely to fix the US's problems with inequality rather than try to build all these institutions from scratch in China, at least in its current environment.
- justicezyx 9y ago
  I am puzzled by the reasoning. If your claimed good mechanism cannot reach a good outcome, what's the use or value of them. Op said, AFAIK, is that China is doing seemingly bad thing, but if the outcome is not worse than others doing, what's the ground of criticizing? You cannot argue that something should be citicized just because itself not from their effects...
  - pm90 9y ago
    You can shoot yourself in the head today. You’re going to die anyways. Why do you continue to live? It’s the same outcome right?
    - justicezyx 9y ago

throwaway414 9y ago

> By contrast, ~30% of > American billionaires > are dropouts. How is it a contrast when more than ~50% of Chinese billionaires are dropouts? [1] Added to that, of the 78 self-made women billionaires, 49 of them are from China. [2] 1. http://en.yibada.com/articles/195121/20170220/new-hurun-list-reveals-chinese-billionaires-university-dropouts.htm http://en.yibada.com/articles/195121/20170220/new-hurun-list... 2. http://www.scmp.com/business/china-business/article/2117158/china-has-most-self-made-women-billionaires-globally http://www.scmp.com/business/china-business/article/2117158/...

iguy 9y ago
The claim about American dropouts is about success not needing the blessing of the establishment. How many of those billionaires aren't Party members?
- sgroppino 9y ago
  Some people may think of Wall Street as "the establishment", too.
- powerapple 9y ago
  you become a party member after you become a billionaire. Then there is responsibility comes with it, you will need to help the government with jobs and other things. Sometimes you will need to help to revive a bankrupt company for example.
  - iguy 9y ago
    Yea I agree, it's far from an exact analogy. Some certainly did get very rich from Party power, and some were invited to join once already rich... does anyone refuse such an invitation, and stay rich?

TangoTrotFox 9y ago

I think that's a severe misrepresentation of China. They're communist in name, but extremely capitalist in practice. Jack Ma is the man behind Alibaba and now one of the richest people alive, let alone Chinese alive. Check out his background [1]. In my opinion, the main difference between China and the US is nationalism. And that's also what I think that slogan is indicative of. It also, I think, explains their government actions. Supporting their companies is not about nationalizing them, which implies a motivation of state driven control, but growing and improving Chinese companies on the national scene. I think we have a great analogy in the US today versus the US in the past. Think about our space program in the 60s. We dumped immense amount of money into US companies and managed to, in 7 years, go from having never even put a man into orbit to putting a man on the moon. The primary motivation there was nationalistic - showing how kick ass America, and implicitly capitalism, was. Compare that space program to today where there's no real nationalism. Now a days we're building the Space Shuttle 2.0, known as the SLS. And we've spent 8 years on it so far, obscene amounts of money, and it's still not going anywhere. The thing is now the motivation for the spending is not about America, but about a handful of congressmen using it as a job's program for their election campaigns, and of course shelling out kickbacks everywhere. If we handed out a fraction of the SLS money to a private company like SpaceX we'd have a man on Mars in the 2020s, but again - the goal is no longer about America or space. It's become about the individual, instead of the nation. So essentially I think China's goal here is not state control, but about showing dominance of the Chinese system. If there is any problem with the American system it's that I think we've become somewhat conservative with ideas. Elon Musk's ideas should not be as unique as they are. I mean they aren't - everybody has them, but funding for revolutionary ideas seems (based on the lack of these sort of companies) to be much more difficult to come by. Ostensibly it makes sense. Investors want to invest in things likely to turn a profit, and investing in something that's never been done before is not the easiest EV to predict. But with our technology and wealth today we could be doing so many much more interesting things than we are. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ma

jlarocco 9y ago
> In my opinion, the main difference between China and the US is nationalism. And that's also what I think that slogan is indicative of. It also, I think, explains their government actions. Supporting their companies is not about nationalizing them, which implies a motivation of state driven control, but growing and improving Chinese companies on the national scene. I've noticed that a few times recently when comparing American and Chinese policies. In the United States we've made a cargo cult religion around individual freedom, to the point where we often don't do what's best for the country and society as a whole. The Chinese government seems much more concerned about making their country and society better as a whole.