12 ms·

Dealing with China Isn’t Worth the Moral Cost

• reilly3000 7y ago
  Thanks to South Park. I really credit them with changing minds.
  • batiudrami 7y ago
    it's certainly an improvement on their usual "lol everything is stupid, only lames care about things" take
    • seibelj 7y ago
      Sometimes it takes that sort of character to point out how crazy the situation is. Even if 99% of the time no one cares, they were the right at the right moment.
  • felipemnoa 7y ago
    What episode? Sorry, I have not kept up with it for a while now.
    • chillacy 7y ago
      Band in China: https://southpark.cc.com/full-episodes/s23e02-band-in-china https://southpark.cc.com/full-episodes/s23e02-band-in-china The one before that was pretty good too, that one was critical of the US
      • odiroot 7y ago
        Damn, cannot watch it in Taipei. Copyright issues.
        • spectramax 7y ago
          Could you please shed some light from Taiwan about what has been going on lately with China, US and HK? What is the public opinion?
        • ddeck 7y ago
          It was discussed extensively at the links below, where some users have also posted links to other sources for those that don't mind bypassing the copyright restrictions. After 'South Park' Censorship Episode, China Deleted the Show from the Web https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21189899 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21189899 South Park Responds to Being Banned in China for “Band in China” https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21186916 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21186916 'We good now China?' South Park creators issue mock apology https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21189967 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21189967
    • deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
• jorblumesea 7y ago
  It's interesting to see the zeitgeist of this evolve. Just 6 months ago much of the public was very blasé about China, but experts in many realms were sounding alarm bells. A few months later, now look at it.
  • JumpCrisscross 7y ago
    > It's interesting to see the zeitgeist of this evolve This is how systems exhibiting punctuated equilibria evolve. The physical analogy is a pile of sand, accruing by one grain at a time. It will eventually collapse, that is known. And it will do so suddenly, anyone who made sandcastles knows this. But knowing when it will collapse is strikingly tough. With sand, the correlation comes from friction between grains. With people, the correlation comes from social pressure. Once the friction is overcome, the social pressure breached, the system changes rapidly.
    • magicsmoke 7y ago
      Sounds very much like stock market crashes.
    • Ambele 7y ago
      I wish I could recolor the usernames of the smartest people on HN like you, so I'd be able to quickly discern in future articles whether a bright and smart person like you is commenting.
  • chillacy 7y ago
    It doesn't help when both sides were escalating constantly like two drunk blokes starting a bar fight. This is supposedly the current president's negotiation style.
• silentbeat 7y ago
  The communist is using profit to control the capitalist, the irony is painful.
  • drharby 7y ago
    I heard a cute phrase a long time ago. "We will hang the capitalist with the rope he sells us"
    • conanbatt 7y ago
      By Lenin.
  • guelo 7y ago
    Kind of reminds me of how countries like Israel and Russia use democracy against us. Capitalism and democracy are our two weaknesses now but only because our institutions have been weakened from within.
• geowwy 7y ago
  It's scary how effective the US and China are at propaganda warfare. It seems like only yesterday everyone was on friendly terms, now we hate each other. As someone with family all across Asia and the West I really hope the US and China can resolve their disputes soon. This is really not a nice position for us to be in.
  • deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  • point78 7y ago
    Hopefully, the west doesn't budge until China stops commuting human rights violations (won't happen but would be nice)
    • geowwy 7y ago
      Maybe I'm a cynic but I don't believe that's the real issue. We're friendly with plenty of countries that do far worse. I think it's about economics and strategic interests.
      • theferalrobot 7y ago
        Not nearly on the same level economically though. The problem is that China both denies basic human rights and is big enough to push these viewpoints in the west. The same can't be said of minor trading partners.
        • geowwy 7y ago
          I don't agree. The Saudis have been extremely effective at pushing Wahhabism across the world. In many places traditional (usually more tolerant) forms of Islam have basically disappeared.
          • adventured 7y ago
            The Saudis are not a minor trading partner or minor player in the global economy though. For decades they've been the cornerstone of the global fossil fuel economy and the controlling member of OPEC. While the US has been able to heavily shift off of Saudi oil more recently, now the Chinese are picking up that supply and are becoming increasingly dependent on the Saudis. That's a remarkable position of power & influence across multiple decades, to have superpowers vested in your stability and well-being (the well-being of the House of Saud specifically). Very few countries have ever had the sort of oil-derived slush fund (which enabled the Wahhabism push) that the Saudis have had since the early 1970s. However, for the Saudis those days are ending, as their population has skyrocketed and their oil output has not kept up (and can't), so they're under persistent budget crunch and their domestic population is increasingly growing restless as stagnation (more realistically they're seeing rapidly declining average standards of living) and unemployment become serious problems. Saudi Arabia's population has doubled since 1990, while their private industry has gone nowhere and their oil output has been near the ceiling. All you have to do is run that population growth forward another 20-30 years and it's obvious what's about to happen. The loose funding capabilities of the Saudis will decline markedly in the coming decades.
• rdxm 7y ago
  two decades late and a gazillion dollars short...
• erentz 7y ago
  One of the surprising things to me is how much China seems to have played their hand too early (and too strongly). People have been sounding alarms about China for a while but if they had played it cool everything likely would’ve ticked along as it was. Everyone would still ignore the human rights abuses, and IP theft, and creeping influence in our institutions around the world, etc. Instead China has managed to really put it right in front of every average persons face and now there’s a real chance things could shift away from China. And what for? Ego? On the one hand I think the CCP bought a dud with Chairman Xi. But maybe that’s good for the rest of us.
  • lefstathiou 7y ago
    What if any do you feel Trumps role was/is in any of this?
    • stochastic_monk 7y ago
      It's a reasonably valid point. During his administration, right-wing autocrats the world over have been emboldened, and he hasn't spoken against them. See, for instance, Khashoggi, the Kurds, or the Skripal poisoning incidents in recent memory, or, more to the point, the promise that Trump would say nothing of the protests in Hong Kong if he got his trade deal [0]. You're being downvoted, but while it's not a direct cause and effect, he has supported and encouraged authoritarianism the world over. [0] https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-china-promise-hong-kong-silence-trade-progress-cnn-2019-10 https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-china-promise-hong-kon...
      • puranjay 7y ago
        Would you say that Trump's trade war has also forced Xi's hand? China could afford to ignore these issues when its economy was still growing. But a shrinking economy has forced China to consolidate power and clamp down any dissent
        • throwaway66920 7y ago
• ridaj 7y ago
  Hindsight 20/20? Xi has only been a leader for 7 years. The trajectory that China was on previously was markedly different - more openness, more freedoms. Xi's turnaround hasn't been immediate either. The fact that businesses went into China a decade ago shouldn't be taken for shortsightedness — the future did look very different back then.
  • seanmcdirmid 7y ago
    The trajectory changed under Hu in 2009 just after the olympics. Xi accelerated the trend, but didn’t start it.
• seibelj 7y ago
  It’s not a bad thing that American citizens are heavily armed. If everyone in HK owned a firearm I think the situation would be far different - or at least give the government a second thought before acting.
  • spectramax 7y ago
    Don't you think the Military would step in with all these guys look like they're toys shooting 8 inch thick steel armor? In my personal view, violence is the last resort for protesting and even then, sometimes I disagree with HK approach (beating officers with pies) despite of the fact that I support the HK's cause.
    • seibelj 7y ago
      It is inevitably going to get to that point. The protestors will not quit, so it will end in genocide or guerrilla warfare through the streets. Give it a few more months.
    • eanzenberg 7y ago
      Generally, it's nigh impossible for a military force to take on an insurgency embedded in buildings throughout. That is, unless you deploy scorched-earth tactics which China may be ok with.
    • russler23 7y ago
      Yeah, violence should be a last resort. I think his point was deterrence, though. If the British had allowed HKers arms under colonial rule, would things be different now? I’m guessing China would have attempted disarmament as soon as Hong Kong returned under their control, and today’s situation would be the same.
      • fspeech 7y ago
        This was how the British handled the last HK riot https://m.facebook.com/WeNewsHK/videos/2622449657812763 https://m.facebook.com/WeNewsHK/videos/2622449657812763
• spectramax 7y ago
  In this light of recent heat up of issues with China, I want to share a positive story to contrast: I had a daily driver in Chengdu for over 1 month who spoke no English, zero, none at all - not even "yes" or "no". We communicated via Google translate (on VPN). He would play Chinese music and then some days I would play some American rock and roll. We bonded in inexplicable ways. I had always commented on how I love the carved wooden letter that hangs on the taxi's rear-view mirror. The ride was almost 1 hour in the morning and 2 hours in the evening back to the Hotel. We became friends. On the last day, he took the wooden ornament off, cupped it in his palm, held it against his chest, gave it to me with a glimmer in his eyes. Fuck, that was the most amazing human connection I've ever made. I've worked in China in the semiconductor business, stayed there and absorbed some of the things the west does not even know. I recommend reading "Poorly Made in China (2011)" by Paul Midler. It is surprisingly good - factual, objective look of deep issues with China's way of doing things. I resonate with the book with my personal experience. Diplomacy is about being able to negotiate well, build trust and foster long term relationships, acknowledge mutual interests, differences and work towards solutions to problems. China has lost the brand image, probably forever. Despite a few positive experiences on the individual level, I hate working with Chinese businesses and would never want to go there. Fuck the Chinese government and its tentacles (Chinese corporations). The Chinese leadership does not understand that leadership is about inspiring others, taking care of the weak, keeping your promises and being able to independently think, innovate and set an example for other nations to follow. The way it is going, I can guarantee with certainty that they can have all the financial leverage, moral leverage is what you need in the long term; they can never become a superpower. Edit: grammar
  • bonoboTP 7y ago
    > I had always commented on how I love the carved wooden letter that hangs on the taxi's rear-view mirror In many cultures it is disrespectful to make such comments, because they convey a thinly veiled demand to get the thing, otherwise the other person loses face for not being generous.
    • spectramax 7y ago
      Perhaps I missed this obvious cultural sensitivity, I thought his gift to me was from genuine generosity in the true sense of the word.
• burke_holland 7y ago
  It only took 3 paragraphs for capitalism to end up under the bus. Which - sure. There’s much to dislike in the inhumanity of extreme consumerism. But that same consumerism has transformed that nation. Even the NYT has extolled the virtues of China’s rise. “The world thought it would change China, but China’s success has been so spectacular that it has changed the world.” https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/18/world/asia/china-rules.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/18/world/asia/ch... Yes. We should stop giving them a pass. Who is going to be first to give up their iPhone?
  • solarwind 7y ago
    The New York Times must have a policy that it will not publish an article if it doesn't have at least a couple snarky digs at "capitalism" and Trump, no matter how tangential to the subject matter.
    • burke_holland 7y ago
      It does seem that way. Which, I get it. That’s an easy target. I just think that kind of thing undermines the legitimate point this guy is making.
• umeshunni 7y ago
  Surfacing one of the comments from the article here since HN commenters (being primarily US/European) seems to exhibit similar views -- The thesis here bespeaks of the very arrogance we have regarding "dealing" with China. China is a major world power. Its existence and growing economic prowess are not dependent upon our acceptance, investment or "good will". We continue to deal with China in an extremely condescending manner. To "deal" with China means we have to accept China for what it is; including that its political system is different from ours. It is not going to bend to our system of liberty and individual civil rights because we think that's the natural order of things. And in all frankness, our current political morass is hardly a paragon of virtue to which other should strive. We can choose to ignore China and attempt to isolate it. But that didn't work out so well when we tried it after 1949 did it? All these tariffs are accomplishing is incentivizing Chinese corporations to rapidly expand their production capabilities in facilities located in other nations. So in fact, we are financing China's increasing power and influence over both its neighbors and within the global economy. We're now at a point where China doesn't "need" us. So we simply have to decide whether we want to interrelate with another major world power as it is or move towards confrontation and chaos.
  • jimbo1qaz 7y ago
    Issue is, China is attempting to to force its viewpoints on other nations, eg. by denying prize money to the winner of a tournament for speaking about Hong Kong, and something about NBA I didn't follow.
    • chillacy 7y ago
      To be fair the US throws its weight around quite a bit on exporting its morality (human rights, democracy, freedom of speech, etc), and sometimes not to the best of results. I don't know if there's been any large political organization that wasn't super pushy about its world view. I think the issue is that its viewpoint is so different from America's. It's sort of like US politics, depending on who's in the white house the government can have a very different idea of reproductive rights, climate change, and religion/secularism. Those are big changes but China's morality is even more different. Suddenly criticizing the government is treated like hate speech.
• throwaway667543 7y ago
  I’m having a hard time reconciling this uproar when everyone is fine with the sanctions on Cuba, Iran, and Venezuela. I do find it interesting that all of this is happening during thr president’s possible impeachment along with the recent ruling that Americans were illegally spied on.
• thewholeview 7y ago
  While I've always respected the West's stance on their own judgment of values, and the continual holding of it, I'm saddened by any narrative that it's in the face of morality. Morality is an entirely subjective concept, and should not be used as a weaponry. The West has developed for many years and have ascended through times from ancient religious principles to the notion of modern basic human rights. However, I'd like to address that by saying the notion of "basic human rights" isn't universal, it's a standard of the West. The East doesn't do it perfect, but neither does the West. This whole affair is an eventual reality that happened to spark in the era of our existence, due to an inherent ideological difference. This is no right or wrong here, only a side to take, but to attack the opposite side of being immoral based on one's own judgmental system is simply not constructive. As humans, the least we can do is to be aware of the situations and stay open minded and be respectful of each other, and our differences. That's how we can together evolve to a possibly harmonious future, at least to the extent of the upper-bound of humanity. There isn't a single standard of morality, and a heavy indulgence on one single side will eventually run yourself into a corner of being seen as practicing double standard. Let's call it for what it is, a challenger to the current supremacy and that's that. Conflicts arising due to ideological differences is hard to resolve, but to only address the other party as immoral is an extremely short-sighted strategy to addressing any differences between the two. It's a greatly sad affair to see the propaganda machine on both ends flexing their muscle. Either the challenger will be defeated and we accept a new reality, or the existing supremacy loses and accept itself as a second. Bringing in a self-righteous morality to the mix is only going to incur permanent damage to humanity as a whole by prolonging the battle between ideals.
  • chillacy 7y ago
    It's an important reminder that morality is not agreed upon by different cultures (heck, even within the US people disagree about say the extent of free speech). I think it's okay for the article to make mention of human rights because it's written for a US audience. Basically the article is saying "China doesn't share western values" which is like saying "Missouri doesn't share Californian values". And if that's the case, maybe we shouldn't be cutting deals which make us feel bad.
  • blueboo 7y ago
• rdlecler1 7y ago
  If China paid the CEOs of these companies to stay quiet we’d call that bribery and corruption. Add in some market separation in the transaction and people just say that China is too big to ignore. CEOs get a free pass.
• siculars 7y ago
  Nobody cares about wonk trade policy Nobody cares about economic spreadsheets. People do care about the NBA, like in a real way. The average American will not allow a beloved American institution to cowtow to ChiComms. China has overplayed and has done it with the wrong President in the office. Trump is looking for anything to move the needle for him on China and they just gifted him something amazing.
• kresten 7y ago
  Is depending heavily on China for critical business functions such as manufacturing seen as a risk by big companies?
• crimsonalucard 7y ago
  Morality is a complicated thing. More people die of murders by gun in the united states then in china. Is it moral to deprive man of his right to own a gun in order to allow another man to keep his right to life? There's hatred raging against China due to hong kong, but the truth is far more complex. A hundred times more complex than even the example I gave. Centralized control has a cost, but it also has a benefit.
  • dunstad 7y ago
    You need to understand that just because there are upsides and downsides doesn't imply they're in any way equal, and pretending they are causes plenty of harm.
    • crimsonalucard 7y ago
      No it doesn't but if you knew what u were talking about you would know that the United States is just as bad as china. The difference is the United States isn't open about it.
      • atlantacrackers 7y ago
        Absurd.
      • fastball 7y ago
        The state allowing freedom of choice and certain members of society abusing that choice is not nearly as bad as a state which executes its own citizens for various baseless reasons.
        • crimsonalucard 7y ago
          A corrupt state controlled by corporate interests that spies on its own citizens and limits freedom of speech under the guise of national security is just as bad. China is not executing people for baseless reasons.
  • 7y ago
• throwaway122378 7y ago
  Should China split into smaller localized manageable regions?
  • s_s 7y ago
    Yes. China is actually a multi-race country. Their culture is diverse.
  • munmaek 7y ago
    Should the United States be split into smaller localized manageable regions? I would argue yes, personally.
    • fastball 7y ago
      ... it is?
      • munmaek 7y ago
        It is, but on a federal level I think it still needs to be split up into multiple regions. I.e. the north-east, south-west, etc. Choosing to subdivide further at a state level would be optional.
  • Ambele 7y ago
    Xi and China's party enjoy the power that comes with control and unity. Heck China doesn't like the Mainland, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and the South China Sea being 4 distinct areas. Other nations might be fearing China now that it has grown rapidly from 1T GDP to 13T GDP. Other nations don't really have an influence on whether China will split into smaller regions quite like how China has an influence on whether international corporate lobbiests will try to lobby (successfully or unsuccessfuly) for Trump's impeachment.
• shane369 7y ago
  just another propaganda brought up by trade war
  • throwawy4trueth 7y ago
    I would say it cannot be categorized as propaganda. NYTimes editors seem to be decent people. However, that's very dangerous because its more deceptive to spread fake information(i.e. the civilized internatinal communtity is fighting against a evil regime abusing human rights) unintentionally that eventually will cause more conflicts. It's quite insteresting that while most English speaking community blame Chinese censorship, there's an invisible censorship of political correctness that prohibit the other side of the story which might be truth. The same invisible "censorship" makes me use current throw way id because my opinion based on what I know seems very evil motivated or might take money from CPP. Chinese speaking media have different stories which lead majority of Chinese having different oppinions than Westners' naive human rights view based on their moral superiority. To them the the narrative of HK events is another lie just like WMD. The response to Morey is an angry response to defamation , not bully to freedome of speech that US politicians and journalist love to describ about Chinese government. Ironically it's also NY Time disclose some information about the other side of story[0].But thats a very small piece. There are much more than that. Westeners just don't know because of invisible collective censorship. The people under visible censorship some times know 2 sides stories while the other side are easily fooled by the "independent" journalists who distort the reality based on own their values and invisible censorship. I'm also using the opportunity to see how many downvotes I can collect as an observation of invisible censorship. [0]https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/07/world/asia/hong-kong-protesters-masks-violence.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/07/world/asia/hong-kong-prot...
• petre 7y ago
  Wow. Now that's a heavy worded article. I recommend watching The Coming War with China documentary on Al Jazeera for a more balanced perspective.
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• paxys 7y ago
  Everyone is only talking about the issue from a moral standpoint (which is of course important), but there are real financial risks as well. The government controls every aspect of business in the country. Deals can be altered or nullified at any time without recourse. No contracts can be enforced since the government will always be on the Chinese business's side. There is zero IP protection. You could invest a billion dollars in the country and be kicked out for no reason without seeing any returns, as the NBA just found out. Yes there is a lot of opportunity in China, but relying on the goodwill of an authoritarian government is always a mistake in the long term.
  • xiphias2 7y ago
    Tesla is doing just this right now. It looks scary actually that they got so much freedom in theory. It will probably bite back some time.
• avanti 7y ago
  Whenever the issue with China comes up, there is this axiomatic notion of "freedom of speech" without further defining what it means. Then there is some "speech" that is more free than the other. And people can thus paper talk and finger pointing and assume they have the best solution. But in reality, they don't even know the difference between Hui and Uyghur. If a bunch of fat guys sitting on couch eating McDonald's, living on land forcibly taken from others, wants to shout out their canonical free speech, it's up to the listener to judge it's validity. And I know this will be downvoted because this is a less free speech.
• DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
  Yet more propaganda by people itching for war. Call me when they write an article warning of the moral hazards of dealing with a country that invaded Iraq without provocation, causing hundreds of thousands of people to die; which overthrew the government of Libya, plunging the country into chaos; which armed Sunni extremists in Syria; which has backed Israel's occupation of Palestine for decades; which ran a global kidnapping and assassination program; which operates a vast, unaccountable global surveillance network; where tens of millions of people go uninsured or under-insured because profits are paramount. Once the NY Times publishes that Op-Ed, maybe I'll consider their moral posturing as something other than propaganda.
• remarkEon 7y ago
  In a perhaps humorous way to look at a difficult situation, this was all started because of some memes about Pro Basketball. It's sort of snowballed from there, but maybe this is a good cultural touchstone to comment on. American culture permeates a lot of world culture. It dominates pretty much everything. China thought it could import some of it, and then export some of theirs back when the taste of what they'd brought in started to sour. Not so, it seems. Americans like their crass free speech and their memes. ... I'm actually fairly amenable to arguments about national sovereignty and am willing to hear ones about how we (read: the West) need to back off about Hong Kong because, well, we made that deal and China wants to follow through with integrating them into the Mainland. That has been the plan since 1990s. But is this the price I have to pay? Importing Chinese cultural norms to my country? My pro sports stars literally kowtowing to insistence that we "respect" the wishes of an authoritarian Communist government? Fans at games getting kicked out for waving Hong Kong flags? Well fuck that, and fuck anyone who thinks that's just "the cost of doing business". We've let this charade go on long enough. Since the 1990s we've pretended that the more their economy "liberalized" the more they'd become "open" to "democracy". This is a rhetorical ploy, used by elites to mostly just enrich themselves in the process of selling out the rest of us - via IP theft or moving the manufacturing base elsewhere to save some basis points. Free Trade Maximalism is what got us here, and yeah you get cheap goods from China ... but is it really worth it. No really. Is it worth this? Here's what this is really about, and what people who are upset about this are really getting at: we're pretty dissatisfied with how US corporations (and our own government, frankly) have behaved for the last ~30 years or so. It's manifesting with the NBA and video games in China because that pulls in a lot of cash right now and it's run by a lot of characters we don't really like (video games more so than the NBA, if I'm being fair). So, yes, people should be mad at the behavior of Chinese corporations and the Chinese government (but I repeat myself) ... who they should also be mad at is leaders of US corporations who haven't had anything else as a goal but maximizing shareholder returns on a time horizon that matters for no one but themselves.
• AFascistWorld 7y ago
  > Clinton began his term believing that trade sanctions could pressure China to improve human rights conditions. But after a year of debilitating debate, he was forced to reverse his policy of link- ing trade to human rights. >He was right to do so. By continuing to grant MFN to China, Clinton will help advance the $38 billion trading relationship which the U.S. now enjoys with the world's fastest growing economy. Moreover, by increasing prosperity in China through greater trade, the U.S. can help to create the economic freedoms that are the foundation upon which political freedom will someday emerge. >Clinton began to end this spectacle of confusion last week when he decided to renew MFN almost with- out condition. Perhaps the most important aspect of his decision is philosophical; the President has now adopted the view that trade relations must be separated from U.S. political goals with China. Moreover, he has endorsed the view that increased U.S.-China trade can promote economic freedoms, which in the long run will spur the growth of political freedoms in China. >This step alone will help to reassure Asian friends and adversaries that Clinton plans to get a better grip on foreign policy. >Now that Clinton has reversed his policy, he should move quickly to exact a price-of Beijing's cooperation in two areas of critical concern to the U.S. They are: * Ending North Korea's nuclear threat... * Better treatment for Hong Kong and Taiwan... - https://www.heritage.org/report/the-collapse-clintons-china-.. https://www.heritage.org/report/the-collapse-clintons-china-.... June 3, 1994
• pimmen 7y ago
  My grandfather ran a company that designed sawmills. During the 70s and 80s, he did a lot of business in the USSR and he has told many stories from that crazy time. I don't know if he ever was involved in bribery (he has alzheimer's now so even if I asked him I don't know if I'd get an answer that makes sense, and my grandmother has no idea) but he did however experience the corruption of the communist party first hand. Some of the people he did business with became the oligarchs of modern day Russia, leveraging the power and influence they gained from the forest industry to move in on the energy industry. I'm a bit conflicted about what my grandfather did. As a child and teenager, I always heard the stories as bringing propserity to a poor country, one sawmill could supply tens of thousands of jobs. However, the people he did business with was some of the most dishonest and bad people ever, and my grandfather went into great lengths to make sure that they were never too dependent on the Soviet market and always travelled to Moscow with a lawyer. He never trusted them, and in the 90s and 00s when it surfaced that some of his old clients had become wealthy off the breakup of the Soviet Union, and was now using that wealth to suppress and gouge working people, my grandfather just reacted with "yeah, that sounds like something a shifty guy like him would do". I still don't know how I should view my grandfather's role in this. The deals he made supplied the USSR with jobs which helped the people, but it also empowered really bad people. I think the same way about business in China, on the one hand the billions of Chinese deserve global abundance just like the rest of us, on the other hand fuck the CCP.
• adultSwim 7y ago
  Is dealing with the US worth the moral cost?