8 ms·

Both on the left and the right of US politics there has been fault found with China. I'm kinda surprised that no large brands have highlighted "No Chinese-made

by mikece 6y ago

Both on the left and the right of US politics there has been fault found with China. I'm kinda surprised that no large brands have highlighted "No Chinese-made components" on their products. We embrace "blood-free" diamonds, why not Chinese-free merchandise for similar reasons?

conanbatt 6y ago
The chinese people that build products are not the ones with the concentration camps. Pressure has to be on the top of the political spectrum, not on the regular chinese citizen.
- munk-a 6y ago
  There are many ways to pressure the political spectrum, one of them is to take a stance on refusing import from the country - that will trickle up to the top of the spectrum. It's not particularly impactful for a company to do on it's own due to the size of the chinese economy (we'd need a coordinated national effort) but if the Uyghur Genocide is something you feel strongly about as a business owner you can probably relocate to other suppliers without that much of a raise in cost.
- tablespoon 6y ago
  > The chinese people that build products are not the ones with the concentration camps. Pressure has to be on the top of the political spectrum, not on the regular chinese citizen. That sounds nice, but your suggestion reduces the available options practically to zero (pretty much left with assassination and pointless sanctions against people with no foreign assets and diplomatic immunity when traveling). The people at the top of the political spectrum derive a large part of their power from the factories where those regular people work.
  - dheera 6y ago
    By the same you could say the same cops that are murdering black lives are funded in part by the taxes of Silicon Valley companies. You could say Guantanamo Bay was funded in part by your taxes. You could say all the ruckus in Nicaragua was funded by your taxes as well. I personally firmly stand by not punishing civilians and private/mostly-private/mostly-civilian-held companies for the actions of their governments. Also, governments are not monolithic. Would you punish the National Park Service for the actions of the NSA?
    - badRNG 6y ago
      Just to add to this, the US has long held an antagonistic relationship with the International Criminal Court (ICC), and has shielded and acquitted war criminals as recently as last year. Are we going to blame American civilians for this behavior?
      - rascul 6y ago
        Regarding the relationship the US has with the ICC, see the American Service-Members' Protection Act. > ASPA authorizes the President of the United States to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court". This authorization has led the act to be nicknamed the "Hague Invasion Act". > The act prohibits federal, state and local governments and agencies (including courts and law enforcement agencies) from assisting the court. For example, it prohibits the extradition of any person from the U.S. to the Court; it prohibits the transfer of classified national security information and law enforcement information to the court. > The act also prohibits U.S. military aid to countries that are party to the court. However, exceptions are allowed for aid to NATO members, major non-NATO allies, Taiwan, and countries that have entered into "Article 98 agreements", agreeing not to hand over U.S. nationals to the court. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
    - tablespoon 6y ago
      > By the same you could say the same cops that are murdering black lives are funded in part by the taxes of Silicon Valley companies. That's nonsensical, and completely ignores the idea of power/control. The Chinese government has direct control over Chinese manufacturers, and derives power from them. Derek Chauvin or the MPD (for example) do not control or derive power from a Bay Area tech company Google, and have only a very tenuous relationship with it (if any). > You could say Guantanamo Bay was funded in part by your taxes. You could say all the ruckus in Nicaragua was funded by your taxes as well. And if you want to boycott American goods over that, be my guest.
  - conanbatt 6y ago
    This reminds me to one of the rules in Hammurabi's Code. "If someone breaks the leg on one of your slaves, you now have the right to break a leg on one of his slaves". China has 1.4 billion people: do you think it's a good plan or even morally defensible to attempt to hurt all of them to get to affect a fraction of a fraction of wealth of maybe 200 politicians?
- tomjen3 6y ago
  That would be nice, but as I recall it some companies got caught with their fingers in the cookie jar, including Apple [0]. The screen on your iPhone might be made with Muslim slave labor. [0]: https://dailycaller.com/2020/12/29/apple-uyghur-lens-technology/ https://dailycaller.com/2020/12/29/apple-uyghur-lens-technol...
- mensetmanusman 6y ago
  Some of the chinese people that help build products are in the concentration camps. Not all of course.
  - conanbatt 6y ago
    Very much in favor of not consuming products out of concentration camps.
- stjohnswarts 6y ago
  I know people are downvoting you, but you are correct. The only ones who can really apply power to China are state level actors. Nothing will come of boycotting Chinese products. If you want to buy "Made in the _________" then do it because you want to help the western (other?) economies rather than China, not because it will do anything to convince the Chinese government not to genocide a culture.
meepmorp 6y ago
Because diamonds are an exclusively luxury item that people can easily forego, and China is a whole country with a massive industrial base that makes a wide variety of products for cheap. If you have $10, you're more likely to buy a $2 item than a $5 one because 20% of your budget is easier to justify than 50%.
- mikece 6y ago
  I know it's difficult to buy a compute that doesn't have Chinese-made parts these days but not all parts of a computer are made in China. CPUs and memory chips are made in Taiwan and Korea; are there not makers of PCBs, power supplies, and the other parts of a computer such that you can get a computer to less than 10% Chinese parts? I didn't do a good job of expressing that raising awareness of the percentage of Chinese components as a differentiator would be a great marketing tool (similar to how cars sold in the US show what percentage of the parts in the car are US made versus imported).
  - wizzwizz4 6y ago
    Unless you've got to 0%, that remaining proportion is still leverage.
    - tachyonbeam 6y ago
      If you make a conscious choice, you can gradually reroute your supply chain.
      - Guest42 6y ago
        It’s very concerning that the responses on this issue are so timid. I think for individual corporations to reroute takes a bit of effort but that it would be possible for groups of corporations to do this with guidance from the government. Not doing this is funding the atrocities.
        wizzwizz4 6y ago
tablespoon 6y ago
> Both on the left and the right of US politics there has been fault found with China. I'm kinda surprised that no large brands have highlighted "No Chinese-made components" on their products. We embrace "blood-free" diamonds, why not Chinese-free merchandise for similar reasons? My guess is US corporations are too entangled with China, and it is too powerful and willing to retaliate. I wouldn't be surprised if a brand that did what you suggest would immediately be accused of "hurting the feelings of the Chinese people," and have its supply chains and markets disrupted.
praptak 6y ago
That might make some consumers feel a bit better but in the end it won't change anything. It's a political problem which can only be solved at the state level.
- mikece 6y ago
  And the state will only have the motivation to address the problem if they are facing a popular uprising -- either in fact or it's feared likely -- that could threaten the CCP as a the ruling order in China. There is a very long history in China of popular uprisings forcing political change which is why the reaction in Tienanmen Square in 1989 was so harsh and so swift (it's also why the unrest in Hong Kong is being put down the way it is). If any unrest doesn't end quickly and stay localized the CCP fears it will become nationwide before countermeasures are taken. And if we, as consumers, make it clear that we will be buying Vietnamese, Taiwanese, Japanese, Korean, Indian -- ANYTHING that isn't Chinese -- it will cause a reaction in the CCP (I just hope that reaction isn't a military first-strike).
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    China is not going to engage in a military first-strike because some consumers stop buying products that are made there. Somewhat surprised it needs to be said, but I guess as tensions are getting higher, people just say more and more ridiculous things.
  - Jtsummers 6y ago
    > (I just hope that reaction isn't a military first-strike) Whenever I read statements like this I wonder who people think China might attack militarily. The only one I can think of that wouldn't either cost them more than they'd gain (and even then it still probably would) or turn into a suicidal act would be Taiwan. Any other neighboring nation offers them little value with respect to the cost of war, and nations like the US and Russia could create such an expansive war that China would lose all the political and economic ground it's gained this century, and probably more.
    - 6y ago
ISL 6y ago
One need-not single out a nation-state in "-free" designations. If WTO membership and global free-trade were predicated on certain civil-rights ground rules like: a free press, demonstrable rule of law, democratically elected governance, due process, and a complete absence of concentration camps, the world would be a better place. Not only would it address the plight of the Uyghur people and the travesty that is occurring in Hong Kong, but it might grant the inmates at Guantanamo fair and open hearings. Bring on the "oppression-free" consumer certifications. I am certain that there is a market.
PraetorianGourd 6y ago
I just bought a new down pillow, and there was a bunch of advertising about ethical down, and that the geese were treated well and the such. And if I buy a down pillow from a place that wasn't certified, I was a monster. Which is important! But I don't see any such admonishments against buying face masks or laptop parts made by Uighur slaves/prisoners. Edit: I should note, I am saying it is disgusting that we turn a blind eye to human suffering in the name of cheaper products and higher profit margins.
phreack 6y ago
Maybe a lack of signal? I would certainly buy a more expensive product that's certified not to be made in genocidal or slave-labor countries. I've seen lists of 'blood-free' chocolate brands online before and they certainly had an effect.
tomjen3 6y ago
I don't think there is a single large brand that truthfully _could_ advertise that.
- YarickR2 6y ago
  Exactly, and competitors could easily prove such claims as lies, by pointing out second level suppliers being affiliated with China; guilty by association. We're effectively trapped in one cage with China, with no easy way out.
bjt2n3904 6y ago
Atop what everyone else says, I reckon it would take all of five minutes for Twitter to reframe it as xenophobic prejudice against China. Doesn't matter that it isn't true. It sounds true, and that's all that matters.
- president 6y ago
  You got downvoted but that's essentially what happened with Covid. You're not even allowed to say the original name anymore [1][2]. [1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/26/memorandum-condemning-and-combating-racism-xenophobia-and-intolerance-against-asian-americans-and-pacific-islanders-in-the-united-states/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-action... [2] https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/23074/ https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/23074/
  - munk-a 6y ago
    I don't know about that - I usually refer to it as COVID-19 but nobody looks askance if I mention Coronavirus.
NoOneNew 6y ago
I do agree, but I would say it's an infrastructure problem than choice. Most components and "stuff", well, comes from China. Going elsewhere is not marginally more expensive, its significantly more. This means your political stance, though righteous, will bleed dry compared to those who would actually go for the "blood diamonds" for the lower cost. It takes the consumer to also make the choice. The big arguement in the early 2000s on the fear of too much China reliance is exactly this. Can we stand a moral ground against a country whose teet we depend on? Too many companies are disgusting unwilling to. I dont watch anything hollywood (which has been silly easy oddly) over the whole self censorship to appease the chinese market. Any company that kowtows to chinese pressure for any little thing is on my shit list. But I'm just one dude. Most people dont care or are unwilling. At that, I know my computer, phone and a number of other things came from China. Anytime I can get anywhere but China, I go for it. It's real difficult. Unloading our manufacturing wasn't smart and we are reaping what we sowed.
- fakedang 6y ago
  I'm doing my part by pirating Disney movies and encouraging anyone and everyone around me to pirate them too. Do Netflix and Amazon also engage in appeasement? Those are the only two accounts we maintain now.
Chazprime 6y ago
I think that's likely because the quality of electronic components coming out of China has improved considerably while still being less expensive than manufacturing locally.
colonelpopcorn 6y ago
The cult of the MBA and their sacrament of cost-cutting measures?
fossuser 6y ago
South Park's Band In China episode had this exactly right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Band_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Band_in_China Earlier last year when people were joking about Apple not showing iPhones getting broken in their shows on Apple TV, the less talked about but much more alarming bit was their comment about China. "Today’s report also claims that Eddy Cue has told Apple TV+ leadership that “the two things we will never do are hard-core nudity and China,” referring to potentially angering China with any of its original TV shows or movies." https://9to5mac.com/2020/12/13/apple-tv-plus-gawker-show/ https://9to5mac.com/2020/12/13/apple-tv-plus-gawker-show/ Does this mean no news on Apple TV? That soft-censorship for corporate economic interest reasons will allow the CCP to do terrible things because companies are incentivized to ignore it/suppress speech around it? Apple also capitulates to the CCP, allowing them to host iCloud on CCP servers in country. They also remove the Taiwanese flag from Chinese iPhones, and remove podcast apps/content from China. On one side you could argue this inter-economic dependence lowers the likelihood of war. It is not without an ethical cost though. Is genocide an acceptable cost for stability and compromising your principles? Is access to the Chinese market worth that? https://zalberico.com/essay/2020/06/13/zoom-in-china.html https://zalberico.com/essay/2020/06/13/zoom-in-china.html The outcome of the South Park episode: "In response to the episode's criticism of the Chinese government, South Park has been entirely banned in China, including on its streaming services and social media platforms. In October 2019, insiders told Bloomberg that Apple, which has a significant portion of its users and manufacturers in China, was reportedly unlikely to bid for the streaming rights of the series due to the China ban."
eddywebs 6y ago
There is already a movement going on in India to boycott Chinese made goods. Issue or not an issue, it is imperative that manufacturing has redundancies like Apple making phones both in China and India.
ahthat 6y ago
It’s a little incendiary and perhaps would look a little racist to label things “Chinese free” or “Not made in China”. Objects should simply continue to label their country of origin. If the population really is interested in generally removing themselves from commerce with China, there will be a tendency to avoid products with the “Made in China” label. How great this tendency is will depend on how much the population values a commercial separation. Of course, it is ridiculous to assume that any individual would be completely aware of the degree to which their lives are ultimately influenced by commerce with China via their consumption of goods, let the alone the entire population. However, we can still expect the change in commerce with China to reflect the degree to which the rest of society values not doing business with those business entities that prosper in the spirit of mutual benefit with a regime that practices perverse and backwards acts against humanity entirely unbefitting of any modern world power. Anyone man of commerce with a conscience must ultimately conclude to some degree that cooperating with entities under such a regime is not ideal, if simply for the sake of attempting to do good rather than evil. However, any man or woman of reason must realize that the leaders in international commerce that make these decisions must ultimately weigh this fact against a multitude of other factors. Their service most likely is foremost to the continuing survival of the business they represent, which in turn is dependent on consumption of the goods they sell. In the case of business with China, we can assume this to be goods sold elsewhere in society. These members of society have multilayered responsibilities in their responsibilities to society. Yes, to a degree they are responsible for the strife in China— however, they are also responsible to all the members of their supply chain, fellow colleagues and employees, business partners, and then also their consumers, not to mention their dependents and other contracts such as debt obligations and taxes. These are realities for society members working in the integrated world economy. To quit business altogether means disrupting these chains. However, if society values not cooperating with that particular system that sins against mankind enough, it would by degrees remove its consumption of the goods that arrive from that system, and furthermore by degrees shame and diminish the reputations of any partner to that specific system — the greater we as a society value liberty and justice for all, in both the arenas of physical personhood and in business, the more we will pressure the partners of the system and then ultimately the system itself to cease the contraptions diminishing to our natures. The degree to which society truly values these noble aims will be shown by the collective decisions and actions of that society. In other words, in a free society, by which the actions of men and women are freely chosen, the degree to which that society as a collective values freedom will influence the degrees to which those who practice barbarism can continue doing so.
fiftyfifty 6y ago
I don't think we'll see individual brands take action unless there is significantly more consumer pressure in the west. For many manufacturers it could take years for them to create the manufacturing capacity somewhere else. This is a tricky situation, any military action has the potential to cause more death and suffering. Economic sanctions seem like the only reasonable path forward, but because of the entanglement of China with virtually everyone's economies it is likely to hurt the US and Europe as well. Is the west willing to suffer a severe recession to help the Uyghurs?
dillondoyle 6y ago
Because it's hard and there aren't yet enough legal consequences for the use of this concentration camp prisoner labor. While I agree we must get much stronger incentives/laws on our side we can't get distracted and pass all the moral consequences/imperative for action onto our side. It's less than half the equation. We need to tackle the other side of this problem because CCP is directly responsible. Bottom line Xi is perpetrating this genocide. That's the main fault & we can't 'offshore' 100% of the blame onto our corporations. Even if we did get perfect decoupling I don't think that would be enough incentive to change China's behavior? Morally, I don't think that alone is a strong enough reaction to these horrors and threats to Democracy. We must hold the CCP & Xi directly responsible
beaunative 6y ago
We don't really need diamonds, and the freedom loving people of the great united states of america do not produce most of things they use on a daily basis. They can all talk, but when a milk tea in San Francisco costs more than an earphone shipped from China, what's the choice gonna be?
wombatmobile 6y ago
The idea of boycotting goods from manufacturers whose enterprises are supported by state perpetrators of genocide might appeal to lots of people who are humanists. In practice, that would mean not buying anything that has a connection to a list of countries that includes China, Indonesia, Belgium, and several countries which I'm not going to list because the conversation would become unmanageable, just as the Uyghur conversation would become unmanageable within China. If China were the only guilty state in the world, a boycott would be a different proposition to what it is. Even then, it's not guaranteed to be effective because the way things work psychologically, commercially, and geopolitically. Even though 99% of people consider themselves humanists, they are able to compartmentalise their feelings in surprising ways when it comes to the acquisition of consumer goods, energy, copper, gold, diamonds, and real estate.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
stjohnswarts 6y ago
Because boycotts don't work on this scale. This is nation state level stuff. Only the US government can apply any pressure here on a scale that makes a difference. The best thing you can do is vote for politicians that aren't afraid of China. If you want to buy American then do it because you want to buy American and help the economy and your fellow Americans not because you want to punish China.
SkyMarshal 6y ago
Because US corporations want access to China's market, which is 2x-4x the size of the US's. Criticizing China or the CPC will get them expelled.
99_Woodcutting 6y ago
False. The right claims "Beijing Biden" is a sleeper agent for the CCP who is selling America out to China. Just check the comment section of ben shapiro youtube videos or the /r/conservative subreddit. In the minds of the right, only Republicans are truly anti-China. They think the left is giving in to China.

by mikece 6y ago

conanbatt 6y ago

The chinese people that build products are not the ones with the concentration camps. Pressure has to be on the top of the political spectrum, not on the regular chinese citizen.

munk-a 6y ago
There are many ways to pressure the political spectrum, one of them is to take a stance on refusing import from the country - that will trickle up to the top of the spectrum. It's not particularly impactful for a company to do on it's own due to the size of the chinese economy (we'd need a coordinated national effort) but if the Uyghur Genocide is something you feel strongly about as a business owner you can probably relocate to other suppliers without that much of a raise in cost.
tablespoon 6y ago
> The chinese people that build products are not the ones with the concentration camps. Pressure has to be on the top of the political spectrum, not on the regular chinese citizen. That sounds nice, but your suggestion reduces the available options practically to zero (pretty much left with assassination and pointless sanctions against people with no foreign assets and diplomatic immunity when traveling). The people at the top of the political spectrum derive a large part of their power from the factories where those regular people work.
- dheera 6y ago
  By the same you could say the same cops that are murdering black lives are funded in part by the taxes of Silicon Valley companies. You could say Guantanamo Bay was funded in part by your taxes. You could say all the ruckus in Nicaragua was funded by your taxes as well. I personally firmly stand by not punishing civilians and private/mostly-private/mostly-civilian-held companies for the actions of their governments. Also, governments are not monolithic. Would you punish the National Park Service for the actions of the NSA?
  - badRNG 6y ago
    Just to add to this, the US has long held an antagonistic relationship with the International Criminal Court (ICC), and has shielded and acquitted war criminals as recently as last year. Are we going to blame American civilians for this behavior?
    - rascul 6y ago
      Regarding the relationship the US has with the ICC, see the American Service-Members' Protection Act. > ASPA authorizes the President of the United States to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court". This authorization has led the act to be nicknamed the "Hague Invasion Act". > The act prohibits federal, state and local governments and agencies (including courts and law enforcement agencies) from assisting the court. For example, it prohibits the extradition of any person from the U.S. to the Court; it prohibits the transfer of classified national security information and law enforcement information to the court. > The act also prohibits U.S. military aid to countries that are party to the court. However, exceptions are allowed for aid to NATO members, major non-NATO allies, Taiwan, and countries that have entered into "Article 98 agreements", agreeing not to hand over U.S. nationals to the court. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
  - tablespoon 6y ago
    > By the same you could say the same cops that are murdering black lives are funded in part by the taxes of Silicon Valley companies. That's nonsensical, and completely ignores the idea of power/control. The Chinese government has direct control over Chinese manufacturers, and derives power from them. Derek Chauvin or the MPD (for example) do not control or derive power from a Bay Area tech company Google, and have only a very tenuous relationship with it (if any). > You could say Guantanamo Bay was funded in part by your taxes. You could say all the ruckus in Nicaragua was funded by your taxes as well. And if you want to boycott American goods over that, be my guest.
- conanbatt 6y ago
  This reminds me to one of the rules in Hammurabi's Code. "If someone breaks the leg on one of your slaves, you now have the right to break a leg on one of his slaves". China has 1.4 billion people: do you think it's a good plan or even morally defensible to attempt to hurt all of them to get to affect a fraction of a fraction of wealth of maybe 200 politicians?
tomjen3 6y ago
That would be nice, but as I recall it some companies got caught with their fingers in the cookie jar, including Apple [0]. The screen on your iPhone might be made with Muslim slave labor. [0]: https://dailycaller.com/2020/12/29/apple-uyghur-lens-technology/ https://dailycaller.com/2020/12/29/apple-uyghur-lens-technol...
mensetmanusman 6y ago
Some of the chinese people that help build products are in the concentration camps. Not all of course.
- conanbatt 6y ago
  Very much in favor of not consuming products out of concentration camps.
stjohnswarts 6y ago
I know people are downvoting you, but you are correct. The only ones who can really apply power to China are state level actors. Nothing will come of boycotting Chinese products. If you want to buy "Made in the _________" then do it because you want to help the western (other?) economies rather than China, not because it will do anything to convince the Chinese government not to genocide a culture.

meepmorp 6y ago

Because diamonds are an exclusively luxury item that people can easily forego, and China is a whole country with a massive industrial base that makes a wide variety of products for cheap. If you have $10, you're more likely to buy a $2 item than a $5 one because 20% of your budget is easier to justify than 50%.

mikece 6y ago
I know it's difficult to buy a compute that doesn't have Chinese-made parts these days but not all parts of a computer are made in China. CPUs and memory chips are made in Taiwan and Korea; are there not makers of PCBs, power supplies, and the other parts of a computer such that you can get a computer to less than 10% Chinese parts? I didn't do a good job of expressing that raising awareness of the percentage of Chinese components as a differentiator would be a great marketing tool (similar to how cars sold in the US show what percentage of the parts in the car are US made versus imported).
- wizzwizz4 6y ago
  Unless you've got to 0%, that remaining proportion is still leverage.
  - tachyonbeam 6y ago
    If you make a conscious choice, you can gradually reroute your supply chain.
    - Guest42 6y ago
      It’s very concerning that the responses on this issue are so timid. I think for individual corporations to reroute takes a bit of effort but that it would be possible for groups of corporations to do this with guidance from the government. Not doing this is funding the atrocities.
      - wizzwizz4 6y ago

tablespoon 6y ago

> Both on the left and the right of US politics there has been fault found with China. I'm kinda surprised that no large brands have highlighted "No Chinese-made components" on their products. We embrace "blood-free" diamonds, why not Chinese-free merchandise for similar reasons? My guess is US corporations are too entangled with China, and it is too powerful and willing to retaliate. I wouldn't be surprised if a brand that did what you suggest would immediately be accused of "hurting the feelings of the Chinese people," and have its supply chains and markets disrupted.

praptak 6y ago

That might make some consumers feel a bit better but in the end it won't change anything. It's a political problem which can only be solved at the state level.

mikece 6y ago
And the state will only have the motivation to address the problem if they are facing a popular uprising -- either in fact or it's feared likely -- that could threaten the CCP as a the ruling order in China. There is a very long history in China of popular uprisings forcing political change which is why the reaction in Tienanmen Square in 1989 was so harsh and so swift (it's also why the unrest in Hong Kong is being put down the way it is). If any unrest doesn't end quickly and stay localized the CCP fears it will become nationwide before countermeasures are taken. And if we, as consumers, make it clear that we will be buying Vietnamese, Taiwanese, Japanese, Korean, Indian -- ANYTHING that isn't Chinese -- it will cause a reaction in the CCP (I just hope that reaction isn't a military first-strike).
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  China is not going to engage in a military first-strike because some consumers stop buying products that are made there. Somewhat surprised it needs to be said, but I guess as tensions are getting higher, people just say more and more ridiculous things.
- Jtsummers 6y ago
  > (I just hope that reaction isn't a military first-strike) Whenever I read statements like this I wonder who people think China might attack militarily. The only one I can think of that wouldn't either cost them more than they'd gain (and even then it still probably would) or turn into a suicidal act would be Taiwan. Any other neighboring nation offers them little value with respect to the cost of war, and nations like the US and Russia could create such an expansive war that China would lose all the political and economic ground it's gained this century, and probably more.
  - 6y ago

ISL 6y ago

One need-not single out a nation-state in "-free" designations. If WTO membership and global free-trade were predicated on certain civil-rights ground rules like: a free press, demonstrable rule of law, democratically elected governance, due process, and a complete absence of concentration camps, the world would be a better place. Not only would it address the plight of the Uyghur people and the travesty that is occurring in Hong Kong, but it might grant the inmates at Guantanamo fair and open hearings. Bring on the "oppression-free" consumer certifications. I am certain that there is a market.

PraetorianGourd 6y ago

I just bought a new down pillow, and there was a bunch of advertising about ethical down, and that the geese were treated well and the such. And if I buy a down pillow from a place that wasn't certified, I was a monster. Which is important! But I don't see any such admonishments against buying face masks or laptop parts made by Uighur slaves/prisoners. Edit: I should note, I am saying it is disgusting that we turn a blind eye to human suffering in the name of cheaper products and higher profit margins.

phreack 6y ago

Maybe a lack of signal? I would certainly buy a more expensive product that's certified not to be made in genocidal or slave-labor countries. I've seen lists of 'blood-free' chocolate brands online before and they certainly had an effect.

tomjen3 6y ago

I don't think there is a single large brand that truthfully _could_ advertise that.

YarickR2 6y ago
Exactly, and competitors could easily prove such claims as lies, by pointing out second level suppliers being affiliated with China; guilty by association. We're effectively trapped in one cage with China, with no easy way out.

bjt2n3904 6y ago

Atop what everyone else says, I reckon it would take all of five minutes for Twitter to reframe it as xenophobic prejudice against China. Doesn't matter that it isn't true. It sounds true, and that's all that matters.

president 6y ago
You got downvoted but that's essentially what happened with Covid. You're not even allowed to say the original name anymore [1][2]. [1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/26/memorandum-condemning-and-combating-racism-xenophobia-and-intolerance-against-asian-americans-and-pacific-islanders-in-the-united-states/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-action... [2] https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/23074/ https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/23074/
- munk-a 6y ago
  I don't know about that - I usually refer to it as COVID-19 but nobody looks askance if I mention Coronavirus.

NoOneNew 6y ago

I do agree, but I would say it's an infrastructure problem than choice. Most components and "stuff", well, comes from China. Going elsewhere is not marginally more expensive, its significantly more. This means your political stance, though righteous, will bleed dry compared to those who would actually go for the "blood diamonds" for the lower cost. It takes the consumer to also make the choice. The big arguement in the early 2000s on the fear of too much China reliance is exactly this. Can we stand a moral ground against a country whose teet we depend on? Too many companies are disgusting unwilling to. I dont watch anything hollywood (which has been silly easy oddly) over the whole self censorship to appease the chinese market. Any company that kowtows to chinese pressure for any little thing is on my shit list. But I'm just one dude. Most people dont care or are unwilling. At that, I know my computer, phone and a number of other things came from China. Anytime I can get anywhere but China, I go for it. It's real difficult. Unloading our manufacturing wasn't smart and we are reaping what we sowed.

fakedang 6y ago
I'm doing my part by pirating Disney movies and encouraging anyone and everyone around me to pirate them too. Do Netflix and Amazon also engage in appeasement? Those are the only two accounts we maintain now.

Chazprime 6y ago

I think that's likely because the quality of electronic components coming out of China has improved considerably while still being less expensive than manufacturing locally.

colonelpopcorn 6y ago

The cult of the MBA and their sacrament of cost-cutting measures?

fossuser 6y ago

South Park's Band In China episode had this exactly right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Band_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Band_in_China Earlier last year when people were joking about Apple not showing iPhones getting broken in their shows on Apple TV, the less talked about but much more alarming bit was their comment about China. "Today’s report also claims that Eddy Cue has told Apple TV+ leadership that “the two things we will never do are hard-core nudity and China,” referring to potentially angering China with any of its original TV shows or movies." https://9to5mac.com/2020/12/13/apple-tv-plus-gawker-show/ https://9to5mac.com/2020/12/13/apple-tv-plus-gawker-show/ Does this mean no news on Apple TV? That soft-censorship for corporate economic interest reasons will allow the CCP to do terrible things because companies are incentivized to ignore it/suppress speech around it? Apple also capitulates to the CCP, allowing them to host iCloud on CCP servers in country. They also remove the Taiwanese flag from Chinese iPhones, and remove podcast apps/content from China. On one side you could argue this inter-economic dependence lowers the likelihood of war. It is not without an ethical cost though. Is genocide an acceptable cost for stability and compromising your principles? Is access to the Chinese market worth that? https://zalberico.com/essay/2020/06/13/zoom-in-china.html https://zalberico.com/essay/2020/06/13/zoom-in-china.html The outcome of the South Park episode: "In response to the episode's criticism of the Chinese government, South Park has been entirely banned in China, including on its streaming services and social media platforms. In October 2019, insiders told Bloomberg that Apple, which has a significant portion of its users and manufacturers in China, was reportedly unlikely to bid for the streaming rights of the series due to the China ban."

eddywebs 6y ago

There is already a movement going on in India to boycott Chinese made goods. Issue or not an issue, it is imperative that manufacturing has redundancies like Apple making phones both in China and India.

ahthat 6y ago

It’s a little incendiary and perhaps would look a little racist to label things “Chinese free” or “Not made in China”. Objects should simply continue to label their country of origin. If the population really is interested in generally removing themselves from commerce with China, there will be a tendency to avoid products with the “Made in China” label. How great this tendency is will depend on how much the population values a commercial separation. Of course, it is ridiculous to assume that any individual would be completely aware of the degree to which their lives are ultimately influenced by commerce with China via their consumption of goods, let the alone the entire population. However, we can still expect the change in commerce with China to reflect the degree to which the rest of society values not doing business with those business entities that prosper in the spirit of mutual benefit with a regime that practices perverse and backwards acts against humanity entirely unbefitting of any modern world power. Anyone man of commerce with a conscience must ultimately conclude to some degree that cooperating with entities under such a regime is not ideal, if simply for the sake of attempting to do good rather than evil. However, any man or woman of reason must realize that the leaders in international commerce that make these decisions must ultimately weigh this fact against a multitude of other factors. Their service most likely is foremost to the continuing survival of the business they represent, which in turn is dependent on consumption of the goods they sell. In the case of business with China, we can assume this to be goods sold elsewhere in society. These members of society have multilayered responsibilities in their responsibilities to society. Yes, to a degree they are responsible for the strife in China— however, they are also responsible to all the members of their supply chain, fellow colleagues and employees, business partners, and then also their consumers, not to mention their dependents and other contracts such as debt obligations and taxes. These are realities for society members working in the integrated world economy. To quit business altogether means disrupting these chains. However, if society values not cooperating with that particular system that sins against mankind enough, it would by degrees remove its consumption of the goods that arrive from that system, and furthermore by degrees shame and diminish the reputations of any partner to that specific system — the greater we as a society value liberty and justice for all, in both the arenas of physical personhood and in business, the more we will pressure the partners of the system and then ultimately the system itself to cease the contraptions diminishing to our natures. The degree to which society truly values these noble aims will be shown by the collective decisions and actions of that society. In other words, in a free society, by which the actions of men and women are freely chosen, the degree to which that society as a collective values freedom will influence the degrees to which those who practice barbarism can continue doing so.

fiftyfifty 6y ago

I don't think we'll see individual brands take action unless there is significantly more consumer pressure in the west. For many manufacturers it could take years for them to create the manufacturing capacity somewhere else. This is a tricky situation, any military action has the potential to cause more death and suffering. Economic sanctions seem like the only reasonable path forward, but because of the entanglement of China with virtually everyone's economies it is likely to hurt the US and Europe as well. Is the west willing to suffer a severe recession to help the Uyghurs?

dillondoyle 6y ago

Because it's hard and there aren't yet enough legal consequences for the use of this concentration camp prisoner labor. While I agree we must get much stronger incentives/laws on our side we can't get distracted and pass all the moral consequences/imperative for action onto our side. It's less than half the equation. We need to tackle the other side of this problem because CCP is directly responsible. Bottom line Xi is perpetrating this genocide. That's the main fault & we can't 'offshore' 100% of the blame onto our corporations. Even if we did get perfect decoupling I don't think that would be enough incentive to change China's behavior? Morally, I don't think that alone is a strong enough reaction to these horrors and threats to Democracy. We must hold the CCP & Xi directly responsible

beaunative 6y ago

We don't really need diamonds, and the freedom loving people of the great united states of america do not produce most of things they use on a daily basis. They can all talk, but when a milk tea in San Francisco costs more than an earphone shipped from China, what's the choice gonna be?

wombatmobile 6y ago

The idea of boycotting goods from manufacturers whose enterprises are supported by state perpetrators of genocide might appeal to lots of people who are humanists. In practice, that would mean not buying anything that has a connection to a list of countries that includes China, Indonesia, Belgium, and several countries which I'm not going to list because the conversation would become unmanageable, just as the Uyghur conversation would become unmanageable within China. If China were the only guilty state in the world, a boycott would be a different proposition to what it is. Even then, it's not guaranteed to be effective because the way things work psychologically, commercially, and geopolitically. Even though 99% of people consider themselves humanists, they are able to compartmentalise their feelings in surprising ways when it comes to the acquisition of consumer goods, energy, copper, gold, diamonds, and real estate.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

stjohnswarts 6y ago

Because boycotts don't work on this scale. This is nation state level stuff. Only the US government can apply any pressure here on a scale that makes a difference. The best thing you can do is vote for politicians that aren't afraid of China. If you want to buy American then do it because you want to buy American and help the economy and your fellow Americans not because you want to punish China.

SkyMarshal 6y ago

Because US corporations want access to China's market, which is 2x-4x the size of the US's. Criticizing China or the CPC will get them expelled.

99_Woodcutting 6y ago

False. The right claims "Beijing Biden" is a sleeper agent for the CCP who is selling America out to China. Just check the comment section of ben shapiro youtube videos or the /r/conservative subreddit. In the minds of the right, only Republicans are truly anti-China. They think the left is giving in to China.