7 ms·

I imagined this was going to happen. Lately PG has been more vocal on twitter regarding Human Rights issues in China. I understand this is a very difficult dec

I imagined this was going to happen. Lately PG has been more vocal on twitter regarding Human Rights issues in China. I understand this is a very difficult decision. I'm not sure if its right or wrong. From the perspective of Human Rights its probably right, but from the perspective of investment its difficult considering China's growth prospects. I'm torn on the China issue and I personally hope our two countries can work out their differences in a constructive way.

Loughla 7y ago
As inflammatory as my last statement is going to seem, it's a genuine question, I'm not trying to bait you - But how does >investment Versus >Human Rights Equal >I'm torn on the China issue Do your morals and conscience have a price tag?
- ddevault 7y ago
  This has got to be satire. >I understand this is a very difficult decision. I'm not sure if its right or wrong. From the perspective of Human Rights its probably right, but from the perspective of investment its difficult considering China's growth prospects. I can't believe a human being would actually write this. The level of cognitive dissonance would be off the charts.
  - buboard 7y ago
    Lets not bash on one person when the worlds largest companies have been fine doing business with china for decades, knowing the HR situation. There was always the hope that growth would help improving the HR situation ( which may be what OP is referring to) , but that doesn’t seem to be in the cards with Xi
  - blotter_paper 7y ago
    Here's an attempt at interpretting it graciously: if China's economy grows, more Chinese people may be lifted out of poverty. This is obviously beneficial to their lives directly, but could also result in political shifts as the rising middle class becomes more of a stakeholder in society. More developed countries can also afford to have more environmentally friendly laws. There are a bunch of potential benefits to China and the rest of the world that could result from continued growth. Sacrificing these benefits to bring attention to human rights might actually be harmful in the long run by a wide range of metrics, and whether it's desirable to do so might depend on which metrics you value more and how you typically respond to trolley problems.
    - president 7y ago
      A noble view but giving China too much credit. The more that US invests in China, the more the US is supporting the atrocities in Chinese concentration camps, mass surveillance and censorship, and military expansion into international territories. This is not at all just an economic issue. China is acting without impunity and it is up to world leaders to step up and put a stop to their aggressive tactics. I think most people would be sold on decoupling from China or at least entertaining the idea of enacting punitive actions on China the moment they realize that more than 1 million Chinese citizens are being detained against their will and having their organs ripped out from them while still being half-conscious. All the while, their family gravesites are bulldozed [1] and the CCP sends Chinese men to sleep with their wives [2]. Unfortunately, the insane amount of influence through bribery, censorship, and propaganda exported from China has made people completely unaware of Holocaust-level atrocities. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/09/chinas-destruction-of-uighur-burial-grounds-then-and-now https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/09/chinas-destruc... [2] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7647865/Muslim-wives-forced-sleep-bed-Han-men-husbands-detained.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7647865/Muslim-wive...
    - overkalix 7y ago
      > Sacrificing these benefits to bring attention to human rights might actually be harmful So we have to tolerate human rights violations so that in the future _maybe_ there are no more human rights violations?
      - blotter_paper 7y ago
        I'm not actually arguing that this is the most desirable course of action, I'm arguing that OP's original comment can be interpretted in a manner that isn't putting personal gain above human rights. I felt like there were a lot of angry voices piling on over a potential misinterpretation.
        psds2 7y ago
        No it can't. You believe an acceptable response to Schrodingers Cat is that even if the cats alive maybe killing it is ok if it means you can sell the box. You then justify it by saying a lot of good things could come from the money we might get if we can sell the box. None of those potentials are sacrificed, they just as much both exist and do not exist as they did before a hypothetical intervention based on human rights abuses.
  - justinzollars 7y ago
    I don't really appreciate that. I would argue I'm pretty well informed on China. I've traveled to China, I've worked with the Chinese for over a decade across various roles, my grandfather helped industrialize China, and I've read many great books on China. Personally I retweeted Hillary Clinton's support of Hong Kong protestors while I was in Beijing, so I put myself at personal risk in doing this. But lets address your comment directly: "The level of cognitive dissonance would be off the charts." Is it? One book I recommend is Graham Allison "Destined for War". https://www.amazon.com/Destined-War-America-Escape-Thucydidess-ebook/dp/B01IAS9FZY https://www.amazon.com/Destined-War-America-Escape-Thucydide... One question that specifically stands out from his book - is that the West believes in Universal Human Rights. China obviously does not. This is a point of conflict and we have some very difficult questions to address in the future. Suppose China attacks Taiwan. What if China has a second Tiananmen in Hong Kong? Do we sanction China? What if China responds with more violence? What do we do? Do we go to war? This is an obvious point of conflict. And these are questions that we will have to work out in the future. From the perspective of an investor, these are also difficult decisions. We can see this in how the NBA has responded, and how South Park has responded - each differently. Is it really wise to Balkanize the world if our goal is to encourage China to adopt Human Rights? How would a second cold war help? Obviously I don't have the answers. But I can recognize the conflict from the perspective of a VC whose goal is to make money.
    - yourbandsucks 7y ago
      The west believes in universal human rights as a story to tell the rubes and a stick to selectively enforce their interests. Pinochet, the Saudis, Saddam, but then he was a bad guy, Bin Laden, but then he was a bad guy... When someone tells me we must take hostile action in the name of the greater good, I start to get suspicious.
    - CharlesColeman 7y ago
      > ...the West believes in Universal Human Rights. China obviously does not. This is probably a case where more precision is warranted. The CCP and the nearly synonymous PRC government obviously do not believe in Universal Human Rights [1]. However "China" can be interpreted as the Chinese nation/people, and many of them do believe in human rights [see Hong Kong] or have been deliberately kept ignorant of the concepts. It's not like rejection of human rights is part of the national character, or anything. > Is it really wise to Balkanize the world if our goal is to encourage China to adopt Human Rights? How would a second cold war help? The Cold War was basically about containment, and it's an acknowledgment that no good options are available. Recent history has shown that trade and investment don't necessarily lead to liberalization, and military attacks are out of the question. Besides containment, the only option left is acceptance/appeasement. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/world/asia/chinas-new-leadership-takes-hard-line-in-secret-memo.html https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/world/asia/chinas-new-lea...
- overkalix 7y ago
  > Do your morals and conscience have a price tag? Read his comment again. It's pretty clear that's the case.
  - dimino 7y ago
    Everyone has a price tag, silly to pretend otherwise.
- derefr 7y ago
  I read the GP's "from the perspective of investment" more like a sort of "corporations, despite being made of humans, are inhuman paperclip-maximizers" attitude. You can't convince a corporation to "do what's right", because caring about "what's right" requires a human definition of "right"†, and corporations don't have that, instead having other conceptual preferences in its place, that you have to appeal to instead. You can't convince a paperclip-maximizer to preserve human life because "it's right"; you have to convince it that doing so will somehow get it more paperclips. You can't convince an investment firm to stay out of China because "it's right"; you have to convince it that doing so will somehow make it more money. † https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/fG3g3764tSubr6xvs/the-meaning-of-right https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/fG3g3764tSubr6xvs/the-meanin...
president 7y ago
If he pulled out over China's human rights issues, I have a newfound respect for PG. Very few leaders today are willing to support basic rights of fellow human beings over personal profits.
- derefr 7y ago
  What would you think of a VC who was investing with a thesis that enlarging+enriching the Chinese bourgeoisie (i.e. entrepreneurs) would give Chinese citizens as a whole more power relative to the Chinese state, and thus likely accelerate the shift toward more democratic forms of government that seems to inevitably come to "developed nations" once they have enough people who've "got theirs" and now want to signal their care for the working man, rather than rising on their backs?
  - cthor 7y ago
    I'd say they're delusional. Everyone made this assumption in the '90s, that prosperity necessarily lead to freedom. 20 years later that assumption doesn't look so good.
    - derefr 7y ago
      Maybe people in the 90s assumed "prosperity" in general would be a panacea; but the hypothesis here isn't really to do with GDP more generally (because that can all be generated and captured by the state, as in middle-eastern oil-producing countries) but rather to do with a certain inevitable demographic shift. China has already started on a shift called industrialization: a massive demographic shift from poverty-class subsistence farmers, to middle-class industrial workers (e.g. construction workers.) The next shift after industrialization is a mass promotion out of the working-class and into the middle-class (a.k.a. the bourgeoisie: small-business owners/entrepreneurs), where industrial jobs dry up, people mostly live in cities, and everyone goes into business for themselves to serve a specialized role in a city. Accompanying this is, also inevitably, a massive rise in political consciousness, because you need to study the political climate to effectively run a business. Now, that second shift is far from happening in China yet. Their industrialization phase only just started 10 years ago, with a construction boom analogous to the one that the US went through in the late 1800s. It'll likely be decades more before there are no more Chinese public-infrastructure projects; before the average Chinese citizen is rich enough that everyone turns their nose up at working in the trades; before the average Chinese citizen's life-goal is to be a vlogger or whatever kids in developed countries want to do now. But, despite that phase being a ways away, it's also seemingly inevitable. We've never seen a country get stuck in the industrialization phase once it's truly begun. It's finite by definition—the same forces that create this phase of growth, push a country through and past it. The only deciding factor on how long it takes a state to become democratized, in this theory, is how long it takes to reach the industrialization phase. It took China a long, long time (probably because Communism put them at a standstill in accruing the necessary resources and talent to begin having a working class at all; they had to relent and do some top-down state capitalism just to get anywhere at all.) And many states are stuck lower down the development path, where they'll likely never reach industrialization without outside help. That "help" usually coming in the form of the world deciding to target them as the newest cheap labor outsourcer. (Luckily, once China is post-industrial, it too will be a labor outsourcer, not a labor supplier.)
tossAfterUsing 7y ago
> China's growth prospects 150% debt : gdp... gonna hinder the growth in medium term

Loughla 7y ago

As inflammatory as my last statement is going to seem, it's a genuine question, I'm not trying to bait you - But how does >investment Versus >Human Rights Equal >I'm torn on the China issue Do your morals and conscience have a price tag?

ddevault 7y ago
This has got to be satire. >I understand this is a very difficult decision. I'm not sure if its right or wrong. From the perspective of Human Rights its probably right, but from the perspective of investment its difficult considering China's growth prospects. I can't believe a human being would actually write this. The level of cognitive dissonance would be off the charts.
- buboard 7y ago
  Lets not bash on one person when the worlds largest companies have been fine doing business with china for decades, knowing the HR situation. There was always the hope that growth would help improving the HR situation ( which may be what OP is referring to) , but that doesn’t seem to be in the cards with Xi
- blotter_paper 7y ago
  Here's an attempt at interpretting it graciously: if China's economy grows, more Chinese people may be lifted out of poverty. This is obviously beneficial to their lives directly, but could also result in political shifts as the rising middle class becomes more of a stakeholder in society. More developed countries can also afford to have more environmentally friendly laws. There are a bunch of potential benefits to China and the rest of the world that could result from continued growth. Sacrificing these benefits to bring attention to human rights might actually be harmful in the long run by a wide range of metrics, and whether it's desirable to do so might depend on which metrics you value more and how you typically respond to trolley problems.
  - president 7y ago
    A noble view but giving China too much credit. The more that US invests in China, the more the US is supporting the atrocities in Chinese concentration camps, mass surveillance and censorship, and military expansion into international territories. This is not at all just an economic issue. China is acting without impunity and it is up to world leaders to step up and put a stop to their aggressive tactics. I think most people would be sold on decoupling from China or at least entertaining the idea of enacting punitive actions on China the moment they realize that more than 1 million Chinese citizens are being detained against their will and having their organs ripped out from them while still being half-conscious. All the while, their family gravesites are bulldozed [1] and the CCP sends Chinese men to sleep with their wives [2]. Unfortunately, the insane amount of influence through bribery, censorship, and propaganda exported from China has made people completely unaware of Holocaust-level atrocities. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/09/chinas-destruction-of-uighur-burial-grounds-then-and-now https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/09/chinas-destruc... [2] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7647865/Muslim-wives-forced-sleep-bed-Han-men-husbands-detained.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7647865/Muslim-wive...
  - overkalix 7y ago
    > Sacrificing these benefits to bring attention to human rights might actually be harmful So we have to tolerate human rights violations so that in the future _maybe_ there are no more human rights violations?
    - blotter_paper 7y ago
      I'm not actually arguing that this is the most desirable course of action, I'm arguing that OP's original comment can be interpretted in a manner that isn't putting personal gain above human rights. I felt like there were a lot of angry voices piling on over a potential misinterpretation.
      - psds2 7y ago
        No it can't. You believe an acceptable response to Schrodingers Cat is that even if the cats alive maybe killing it is ok if it means you can sell the box. You then justify it by saying a lot of good things could come from the money we might get if we can sell the box. None of those potentials are sacrificed, they just as much both exist and do not exist as they did before a hypothetical intervention based on human rights abuses.
- justinzollars 7y ago
  I don't really appreciate that. I would argue I'm pretty well informed on China. I've traveled to China, I've worked with the Chinese for over a decade across various roles, my grandfather helped industrialize China, and I've read many great books on China. Personally I retweeted Hillary Clinton's support of Hong Kong protestors while I was in Beijing, so I put myself at personal risk in doing this. But lets address your comment directly: "The level of cognitive dissonance would be off the charts." Is it? One book I recommend is Graham Allison "Destined for War". https://www.amazon.com/Destined-War-America-Escape-Thucydidess-ebook/dp/B01IAS9FZY https://www.amazon.com/Destined-War-America-Escape-Thucydide... One question that specifically stands out from his book - is that the West believes in Universal Human Rights. China obviously does not. This is a point of conflict and we have some very difficult questions to address in the future. Suppose China attacks Taiwan. What if China has a second Tiananmen in Hong Kong? Do we sanction China? What if China responds with more violence? What do we do? Do we go to war? This is an obvious point of conflict. And these are questions that we will have to work out in the future. From the perspective of an investor, these are also difficult decisions. We can see this in how the NBA has responded, and how South Park has responded - each differently. Is it really wise to Balkanize the world if our goal is to encourage China to adopt Human Rights? How would a second cold war help? Obviously I don't have the answers. But I can recognize the conflict from the perspective of a VC whose goal is to make money.
  - yourbandsucks 7y ago
    The west believes in universal human rights as a story to tell the rubes and a stick to selectively enforce their interests. Pinochet, the Saudis, Saddam, but then he was a bad guy, Bin Laden, but then he was a bad guy... When someone tells me we must take hostile action in the name of the greater good, I start to get suspicious.
  - CharlesColeman 7y ago
    > ...the West believes in Universal Human Rights. China obviously does not. This is probably a case where more precision is warranted. The CCP and the nearly synonymous PRC government obviously do not believe in Universal Human Rights [1]. However "China" can be interpreted as the Chinese nation/people, and many of them do believe in human rights [see Hong Kong] or have been deliberately kept ignorant of the concepts. It's not like rejection of human rights is part of the national character, or anything. > Is it really wise to Balkanize the world if our goal is to encourage China to adopt Human Rights? How would a second cold war help? The Cold War was basically about containment, and it's an acknowledgment that no good options are available. Recent history has shown that trade and investment don't necessarily lead to liberalization, and military attacks are out of the question. Besides containment, the only option left is acceptance/appeasement. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/world/asia/chinas-new-leadership-takes-hard-line-in-secret-memo.html https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/world/asia/chinas-new-lea...
overkalix 7y ago
> Do your morals and conscience have a price tag? Read his comment again. It's pretty clear that's the case.
- dimino 7y ago
  Everyone has a price tag, silly to pretend otherwise.
derefr 7y ago
I read the GP's "from the perspective of investment" more like a sort of "corporations, despite being made of humans, are inhuman paperclip-maximizers" attitude. You can't convince a corporation to "do what's right", because caring about "what's right" requires a human definition of "right"†, and corporations don't have that, instead having other conceptual preferences in its place, that you have to appeal to instead. You can't convince a paperclip-maximizer to preserve human life because "it's right"; you have to convince it that doing so will somehow get it more paperclips. You can't convince an investment firm to stay out of China because "it's right"; you have to convince it that doing so will somehow make it more money. † https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/fG3g3764tSubr6xvs/the-meaning-of-right https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/fG3g3764tSubr6xvs/the-meanin...

president 7y ago

If he pulled out over China's human rights issues, I have a newfound respect for PG. Very few leaders today are willing to support basic rights of fellow human beings over personal profits.

derefr 7y ago
What would you think of a VC who was investing with a thesis that enlarging+enriching the Chinese bourgeoisie (i.e. entrepreneurs) would give Chinese citizens as a whole more power relative to the Chinese state, and thus likely accelerate the shift toward more democratic forms of government that seems to inevitably come to "developed nations" once they have enough people who've "got theirs" and now want to signal their care for the working man, rather than rising on their backs?
- cthor 7y ago
  I'd say they're delusional. Everyone made this assumption in the '90s, that prosperity necessarily lead to freedom. 20 years later that assumption doesn't look so good.
  - derefr 7y ago
    Maybe people in the 90s assumed "prosperity" in general would be a panacea; but the hypothesis here isn't really to do with GDP more generally (because that can all be generated and captured by the state, as in middle-eastern oil-producing countries) but rather to do with a certain inevitable demographic shift. China has already started on a shift called industrialization: a massive demographic shift from poverty-class subsistence farmers, to middle-class industrial workers (e.g. construction workers.) The next shift after industrialization is a mass promotion out of the working-class and into the middle-class (a.k.a. the bourgeoisie: small-business owners/entrepreneurs), where industrial jobs dry up, people mostly live in cities, and everyone goes into business for themselves to serve a specialized role in a city. Accompanying this is, also inevitably, a massive rise in political consciousness, because you need to study the political climate to effectively run a business. Now, that second shift is far from happening in China yet. Their industrialization phase only just started 10 years ago, with a construction boom analogous to the one that the US went through in the late 1800s. It'll likely be decades more before there are no more Chinese public-infrastructure projects; before the average Chinese citizen is rich enough that everyone turns their nose up at working in the trades; before the average Chinese citizen's life-goal is to be a vlogger or whatever kids in developed countries want to do now. But, despite that phase being a ways away, it's also seemingly inevitable. We've never seen a country get stuck in the industrialization phase once it's truly begun. It's finite by definition—the same forces that create this phase of growth, push a country through and past it. The only deciding factor on how long it takes a state to become democratized, in this theory, is how long it takes to reach the industrialization phase. It took China a long, long time (probably because Communism put them at a standstill in accruing the necessary resources and talent to begin having a working class at all; they had to relent and do some top-down state capitalism just to get anywhere at all.) And many states are stuck lower down the development path, where they'll likely never reach industrialization without outside help. That "help" usually coming in the form of the world deciding to target them as the newest cheap labor outsourcer. (Luckily, once China is post-industrial, it too will be a labor outsourcer, not a labor supplier.)

tossAfterUsing 7y ago

> China's growth prospects 150% debt : gdp... gonna hinder the growth in medium term