5 ms·

Sure, a "trust process" can be a useful workaround for that problem. So can a functioning legal system that enforces that such criminals can't actually make mon

Sure, a "trust process" can be a useful workaround for that problem. So can a functioning legal system that enforces that such criminals can't actually make money from their shenannigans. You just said what the gp post said in a different order. Both processes are at play here in both the US and China. I've met guys who did work for someone in the US, who then turned around and said, "You want to get paid? Sue me!" Yes, brazen as that. That said, it can be argued that using legal mechanisms may be more reproducible and sustainable long term, than having charismatic people running around having relationships with everyone who must perform at a high level to ensure quality. Again, both are at play in both cultures, but having more of the mechanistic legal side may well allow for better scaling. One thing that may make a difference between China and the US is the degree of independence of the judiciary, the degree of the rule of law, and checks and balances on the government. If the government gets up to too many shenanigans in the US, people will call them out, using principles, frameworks, and processes which are already laid out. In principle, you can't get jailed for doing this. It's in our rights to be able to hold the government to account. In China, there's just far less independence of the judiciary, less independence of the press, and more latitude for the government to pragmatically do what it wants. This means that crooked actors who want to bribe themselves into a little immunity have a more favorable market. This is what you always have to ask yourself in any such context, government or corporate: Is concentrated power having its way with the public? Is there a way for people to call it out, or is dissent suppressed? Are people in power playing by rules, or are they making it up as they go along? FWIW: I don't buy for a minute that this has anything to do with chinese "culture". This is the big bone of contention between me and my chinese wife. She requested to me that I tell an outright lie about how we met on a dating site, so her coworkers don't rib her. I would rather just never lie, short of something like saving the life of an innocent from evil people. She seems to think my position is extreme and unreasonable.

ajross 8y ago
> I've met guys who did work for someone in the US, who then turned around and said, "You want to get paid? Sue me!" Yes, brazen as that. I don't see how that logic is responsive. Obviously "it happens" anywhere in the world. The point was about frequency. I mean, sure, fraud like that by a machine shop probably happens in the US, but in the US it's fraud, which is a crime, and people go to jail for it. (Not to mention the fact that a machine shop that tried this would be sued for at least the liquidation value of its equipment, which is not insubstantial). So it's rare. In China it's so common it's become a meme. It happens all the time, so much so that there's a posited "trust process" that exists to counter it. But obviously (seriously, obviously) that process doesn't work as well, because fraud is common there and rare here. That's just silly. The Rule of Law works better than palm greasing and back watching, and to argue otherwise is just ridiculous. (And in context, holding up the PRC as an example of a libertarian wonderland is hilariously so). (And your culture point makes the same logical mistake in reverse, assuming that since one chinese woman told a white lie and her husband was truthful that you can extrapolate honesty to a whole population. Again, frequency matters!)
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Maybe I'm not reading correctly, but you keep on roaring on, as if you are saying something completely different than the comments you're replying to. Please re-read. We are actually saying the same things. No one is denying that there's more of certain kinds of fraud in China. No one is disagreeing with you that Rule of Law works a lot better in the US, nor has anyone suggested that personal relationships work better than Rule of Law. All I'm saying -- and this is something I go on about consistently -- is that cross cultural differences are commonly seen as differences in kind, when they are actually differences in degree. I don't think you are thinking clearly and really understanding the terms you are using if you interpret a "bribery market in corruption" as some kind of "libertarian wonderland." No libertarian worth listening to would advocate for an environment without accountability and rule of law. You've got things so near to 180 degrees turned around, it's a bit of a wonder and maybe a wee bit worrying. (And your culture point makes the same logical mistake in reverse, assuming that since one chinese woman told a white lie and her husband was truthful that you can extrapolate honesty to a whole population. Again, frequency matters!) No one actually says the things you're trying to put into other people's mouths. There, you're merely displaying your biases and what axes you're grinding. All I can offer is a factual account of my own anecdotal experience. (In other words, I'm trying to have a nuanced discussion here, while you seem to be operating on the assumption that everyone's polarized at either extreme.)

ajross 8y ago

> I've met guys who did work for someone in the US, who then turned around and said, "You want to get paid? Sue me!" Yes, brazen as that. I don't see how that logic is responsive. Obviously "it happens" anywhere in the world. The point was about frequency. I mean, sure, fraud like that by a machine shop probably happens in the US, but in the US it's fraud, which is a crime, and people go to jail for it. (Not to mention the fact that a machine shop that tried this would be sued for at least the liquidation value of its equipment, which is not insubstantial). So it's rare. In China it's so common it's become a meme. It happens all the time, so much so that there's a posited "trust process" that exists to counter it. But obviously (seriously, obviously) that process doesn't work as well, because fraud is common there and rare here. That's just silly. The Rule of Law works better than palm greasing and back watching, and to argue otherwise is just ridiculous. (And in context, holding up the PRC as an example of a libertarian wonderland is hilariously so). (And your culture point makes the same logical mistake in reverse, assuming that since one chinese woman told a white lie and her husband was truthful that you can extrapolate honesty to a whole population. Again, frequency matters!)

stcredzero 8y ago
Maybe I'm not reading correctly, but you keep on roaring on, as if you are saying something completely different than the comments you're replying to. Please re-read. We are actually saying the same things. No one is denying that there's more of certain kinds of fraud in China. No one is disagreeing with you that Rule of Law works a lot better in the US, nor has anyone suggested that personal relationships work better than Rule of Law. All I'm saying -- and this is something I go on about consistently -- is that cross cultural differences are commonly seen as differences in kind, when they are actually differences in degree. I don't think you are thinking clearly and really understanding the terms you are using if you interpret a "bribery market in corruption" as some kind of "libertarian wonderland." No libertarian worth listening to would advocate for an environment without accountability and rule of law. You've got things so near to 180 degrees turned around, it's a bit of a wonder and maybe a wee bit worrying. (And your culture point makes the same logical mistake in reverse, assuming that since one chinese woman told a white lie and her husband was truthful that you can extrapolate honesty to a whole population. Again, frequency matters!) No one actually says the things you're trying to put into other people's mouths. There, you're merely displaying your biases and what axes you're grinding. All I can offer is a factual account of my own anecdotal experience. (In other words, I'm trying to have a nuanced discussion here, while you seem to be operating on the assumption that everyone's polarized at either extreme.)