6 ms·

Honestly, I think we as in the United States have to think harder whether it is worth sacrificing our beliefs in freedom to gain a few $$$ (edit: A lot of $$$$$

Honestly, I think we as in the United States have to think harder whether it is worth sacrificing our beliefs in freedom to gain a few $$$ (edit: A lot of $$$$$) from countries that don't provide their citizens with basic rights.

greatjack613 7y ago
Not saying it is easy, but its something that should at least be strongly considered.
whoevercares 7y ago
I’ve heard from a few famous economists that attributed current low inflation to China. It’s probably a complicated and super risky move considering the impact to lower class people
- snagglegaggle 7y ago
  Allowing the rise of authoritarianism would seem like a complicated and super risky move considering the impact to lower class people
  - whoevercares 7y ago
    I agree with your point in its final form. Unfortunately it doesn’t work at the moment since you at least need to convince some tens of millions Chinese people who have been lifted from poverty under CCP during past 30 years, or you have to wait until Chinese government make things much worse. Before that, some sanction move from western might be viewed as political coercion from mainland Chinese people’s perspective and we probably could guess what it’ll lead to (wars). I think it’s good enough now to exert influence from HK &Taiwan or China’s neighbors, but I do think any other move is dangerous
    - snagglegaggle 7y ago
      Wait, are you trying to say China is more powerful than the US? Why give in to appeasement? I don't really care if their feelings are hurt.
      - whoevercares 7y ago
        Hmm maybe my written English caused some confusion, why you interpret it like that? Are you saying the more powerful ones don’t have to give in anything? In current world I don’t think such landslide advantage still exists I’m saying negotiations and better strategy are needed. Ignoring feelings and demands from millions of people won’t work beyond keyboard, virtual or physical
        snagglegaggle 7y ago
        Realize that historically we have been doing what you suggest. The West invested heavily in China hoping the increased standard of living would liberalize the country. It is clear that has not worked. It looks like the problem may become worse, and if it does, then war becomes more likely, not less, the only alternative being the West becoming subservient to China. Taking a strong stance now and cutting off China from the market is likely one of the better options if the CCP won't capitulate. They have high tech manufacturing and internal demand but likely can't support their economy at its current level with only an inward focus. Negotiations and strategy have been going on for 50 or so years. There are certain items the Chinese government does not want to budge on that are incompatible with a free market.
jsjolen 7y ago
I disagree, I don't think we will ever do the right thing if the reward is big enough. I think the right way to go is to dismantle these unnecessary power structures that allow us to do the wrong choice and replace them with better ones. For example, Apple can only do this because they have the power to remove apps from their store (fine) and because we do not have the power to install apps which aren't from their store (not fine). If the latter is fixed, then there would be no issue. HKers would be able to install the map, and no one would be able to stop them - because no unnecessary power structure that can be abused exists.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- mikeg8 7y ago
  In regards to your second paragraph, I feel a certain dissonance. We have a right to purchase the products we desire in a “free market” but at what point do we have the right to dictate how that producer chooses to design their product/platform ie. free installation of all applications. I think technologists have a too idealistic view of software as a basic right/liberating force without accepting companies should have the right make decisions we strongly disagree with.
  - leereeves 7y ago
    Are you against requiring seat belts and emissions controls in cars? Requiring homes to be built to code? Requiring utilities to provide water/power/gas to products made by other companies? Society regularly dictates how producers design their products. Technologists aren’t used to that because lawmakers have been slow to catch up, and many were intentionally hands off to foster the growth of the Internet, but the Wild West days are over and civilization is coming to Silicon Valley.
    - mistermann 7y ago
      > Are you against requiring seat belts and emissions controls in cars? Requiring homes to be built to code? Requiring utilities to provide water/power/gas to products made by other companies? This seems like a good line of reasoning that should be used when drafting up legislation to stop this behavior. All of this legislation enforcing certain behavior is to prevent harm to people. Similarly, the ability for China to so easily make Western corporations dance to their tune is an incredibly dangerous development with obvious potential for significant and frequent harm. I hope this becomes a major election issue.
metalchianti 7y ago
It's an interesting conundrum. Many values held by the US founding fathers were flawed (IMO due to the period's sentiment). But how would they feel about a globalized economy that is manipulated by a tyrannical force to infringe on liberties in the US?
- Teknoman117 7y ago
  Is 'flawed' the correct way to describe it though? Generally held beliefs of morality and ethics can differ wildly between societies and time.
1over137 7y ago
Perhaps the view is different from outside vs inside, but it's always seemed to me that the biggest 'belief' in the USA is the quest for financial profit. So I don't see any 'sacrificing our beliefs' here, I see perusing them. :(

greatjack613 7y ago

Not saying it is easy, but its something that should at least be strongly considered.

whoevercares 7y ago

I’ve heard from a few famous economists that attributed current low inflation to China. It’s probably a complicated and super risky move considering the impact to lower class people

snagglegaggle 7y ago
Allowing the rise of authoritarianism would seem like a complicated and super risky move considering the impact to lower class people
- whoevercares 7y ago
  I agree with your point in its final form. Unfortunately it doesn’t work at the moment since you at least need to convince some tens of millions Chinese people who have been lifted from poverty under CCP during past 30 years, or you have to wait until Chinese government make things much worse. Before that, some sanction move from western might be viewed as political coercion from mainland Chinese people’s perspective and we probably could guess what it’ll lead to (wars). I think it’s good enough now to exert influence from HK &Taiwan or China’s neighbors, but I do think any other move is dangerous
  - snagglegaggle 7y ago
    Wait, are you trying to say China is more powerful than the US? Why give in to appeasement? I don't really care if their feelings are hurt.
    - whoevercares 7y ago
      Hmm maybe my written English caused some confusion, why you interpret it like that? Are you saying the more powerful ones don’t have to give in anything? In current world I don’t think such landslide advantage still exists I’m saying negotiations and better strategy are needed. Ignoring feelings and demands from millions of people won’t work beyond keyboard, virtual or physical
      - snagglegaggle 7y ago
        Realize that historically we have been doing what you suggest. The West invested heavily in China hoping the increased standard of living would liberalize the country. It is clear that has not worked. It looks like the problem may become worse, and if it does, then war becomes more likely, not less, the only alternative being the West becoming subservient to China. Taking a strong stance now and cutting off China from the market is likely one of the better options if the CCP won't capitulate. They have high tech manufacturing and internal demand but likely can't support their economy at its current level with only an inward focus. Negotiations and strategy have been going on for 50 or so years. There are certain items the Chinese government does not want to budge on that are incompatible with a free market.

jsjolen 7y ago

I disagree, I don't think we will ever do the right thing if the reward is big enough. I think the right way to go is to dismantle these unnecessary power structures that allow us to do the wrong choice and replace them with better ones. For example, Apple can only do this because they have the power to remove apps from their store (fine) and because we do not have the power to install apps which aren't from their store (not fine). If the latter is fixed, then there would be no issue. HKers would be able to install the map, and no one would be able to stop them - because no unnecessary power structure that can be abused exists.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
mikeg8 7y ago
In regards to your second paragraph, I feel a certain dissonance. We have a right to purchase the products we desire in a “free market” but at what point do we have the right to dictate how that producer chooses to design their product/platform ie. free installation of all applications. I think technologists have a too idealistic view of software as a basic right/liberating force without accepting companies should have the right make decisions we strongly disagree with.
- leereeves 7y ago
  Are you against requiring seat belts and emissions controls in cars? Requiring homes to be built to code? Requiring utilities to provide water/power/gas to products made by other companies? Society regularly dictates how producers design their products. Technologists aren’t used to that because lawmakers have been slow to catch up, and many were intentionally hands off to foster the growth of the Internet, but the Wild West days are over and civilization is coming to Silicon Valley.
  - mistermann 7y ago
    > Are you against requiring seat belts and emissions controls in cars? Requiring homes to be built to code? Requiring utilities to provide water/power/gas to products made by other companies? This seems like a good line of reasoning that should be used when drafting up legislation to stop this behavior. All of this legislation enforcing certain behavior is to prevent harm to people. Similarly, the ability for China to so easily make Western corporations dance to their tune is an incredibly dangerous development with obvious potential for significant and frequent harm. I hope this becomes a major election issue.

metalchianti 7y ago

It's an interesting conundrum. Many values held by the US founding fathers were flawed (IMO due to the period's sentiment). But how would they feel about a globalized economy that is manipulated by a tyrannical force to infringe on liberties in the US?

Teknoman117 7y ago
Is 'flawed' the correct way to describe it though? Generally held beliefs of morality and ethics can differ wildly between societies and time.

1over137 7y ago

Perhaps the view is different from outside vs inside, but it's always seemed to me that the biggest 'belief' in the USA is the quest for financial profit. So I don't see any 'sacrificing our beliefs' here, I see perusing them. :(