5 ms·

Nah, it would require them to put principles over the profit of a few constituents. China's geopolitical strategy is brilliant. They see that their adversarie

Nah, it would require them to put principles over the profit of a few constituents. China's geopolitical strategy is brilliant. They see that their adversaries in democratic western countries are beholden to the quarterly profits of a handful of corporations. China, unlike any of the Western nations, WILL take a stand on their principles over profit (At least they seem to, but more on that in a second.) So, they've really effectively backdoored our politicians. If US companies don't comply with their demands, they just pull their rights to do business in China. When that's worth like $100-150 million annually, the corporations care, and so the politicians care. Seems like nobody in these corporations or in politics has a spine anymore and is willing to say, "Yeah, I understand, but No, and fuck you for even asking." Now all that said, I think if they saw some real unified push-back Xi would drop that shit in a hot second, but for now it comes at very little cost.

hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
> China, unlike any of the Western nations, WILL take a stand on their principles over profit Surely that's a joke, right? China, which still has the audacity to call itself a "Communist" nation, which is basically much closer to a Fascist system, with their authoritarian and state-directed control of capitalism? China has one primary governing principle, which is to keep the CCP in power. Their primary way of doing that has been ensuring that bargain of "we get 8-10% annual growth, the populace is happy enough not to revolt", but they've also been phenomenally successful in using the Internet to stoke nationalism and Xi's personality cult.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  >> China, unlike any of the Western nations, WILL take a stand on their principles over profit > Surely that's a joke, right? Nah, it's just an obvious truth. > China, which still has the audacity to call itself a "Communist" nation, which is basically much closer to a Fascist system, with their authoritarian and state-directed control of capitalism? That's pretty much what "communism" worked out to in the Soviet Union -- well, in the entire Warsaw Pact -- too. So in practice, that's pretty much what "communism" means nowadays. > China has one primary governing principle, which is to keep the CCP in power. Yup, exactly. And they sure do stand by that principle, don't they? Q.E.D.
- sodality2 5y ago
  A state-directed control of capitalism, of which the façade will be dropped immediately if their ironclad control of the political will is threatened for a second. They have punished huge companies for placing profit over human life, because it threatens "communist values". In my opinion that is placing principles over profit. Despite these principles being what they are. That is not a value judgment of China, simply a statement that they are not willing to throw away a percentage point of authoritarian control for a few more bucks. > China has one primary governing principle, which is to keep the CCP in power. Yes, which they place above profit motive. It seems like you agree with above
  - astrange 5y ago
    It's strange to claim US companies all put profit over everything when they're not nearly dynamic enough to do that. Why do mattress companies sell mattresses instead of cocaine? That'd be more profitable.
- manquer 5y ago
  The principle does not have to be ethical or moral or consistent to a philosophy. What OP saying is china does the ability (and uses it) to make unpopular decisions both to Chinese corporations or people unlike other politicians who are beholden to either voters or corporations. The kind of censure that Jack Ma had for example would be impossible to imagine to say Elon Musk in the US .
  - Enginerrrd 5y ago
    OP of the subject comment here: Yes, this is the correct interpretation. I wasn't trying to argue that China's principles are superior, let alone even ethical.
    - lmilcin 5y ago
      You can be both lawful and evil character, at the same time, as any D&D player will tell you. Sadly, people misunderstand those two basic concepts. Autocratic systems are better in some ways. For example, they can be very efficient. CCP says something and it is done. Is it good/right? It is completely different topic.
- awakeasleep 5y ago
  When a “too big to fail” company misbehaves, China doesn’t bail it out, they nationalize the useful parts, send the rest to bankruptcy, and jail the responsible executives. We’re talking past each other a bit, but this is evidence of principle driven behavior rather than government capture by the wealthy like we have in the west.
  - astrange 5y ago
    The US doesn't do free bailouts either, we nationalized GM and gave banks loans that we made a profit on. People misread this and just started claiming it was free money. Airline bailouts last year were good because they saved subcontractors and union contracts.
- Enginerrrd 5y ago
  We're actually in agreement I think. I think I just wasn't sufficiently clear what I meant by "principles". I am not in any way condoning China's national principles, nor did I mean to even suggest they were ethical. (My personal belief there is quite the antithesis.) ....but rather that they are willing to play hardball even if it harms Chinese companies over the issues they care about as a nation. Many of those principles are humanitarian disasters, but that's not the point.
yeetman21 5y ago
To play devils advocate to prevent this place from turning into an echo chamber: You say "put principles over the profit of a few constituents", and that is a very widely held slogan or catch phrase. Whose constituents? I, as a constituent, very much like not having a war going on where I could be drafted and sent to die for some people I do not know or really care about. I, as a constituent, very much like not having to pay 5k for a phone or 10k for a computer. I, as a constituent, like the cheap products that trade has allowed me to buy. Whoes principles? America's manifest destiny principle is to take everything you can take and then fight weaker neighbors to take some more. Is it fair that we, Americans, got to do our dirty work in the past and make our country whole while other countries have to be plagued by a civil war? The only actual principle that maters when it comes to countries is might makes right. The US was mighty so it could crush the Indians, the Mexicans, the Spanish and take what was "rightfully ours". The US was mighty so it could crush the CSA during the civil war. The US was mighty so they could use the threat of force to protect Taiwanese independence or de facto-independence. The UK was mighty so they could crush China and take HK. Now that China is (questionably? maybe?) mighty, they want to take back HK, they want to take over Taiwan. Now when other countries are mighty, the rules of the game suddenly change so that it is no longer might makes right but human rights and democracy and peace and sham pretending about principles? I like human rights and I would generally support people being free (whatever that means), but is it not hard to see the hypocrisy in it all? Where were the principles when we beat up the Indians and Mexicans and grabbed up all of California? Where were the principles when we beat up all the LATAM countries who tried to have democratic elections. Where were the principles when we drone striked every adult man and called them all combatants since they were within the age range?
ngc248 5y ago
Exactly, Whatever factions there maybe in the CCP, externally they project a coherent policy, which is not possible in democratic countries. >>> So, they've really effectively backdoored our politicians. Not just politicians, they have backdoored hollywood, wallstreet everyone of em. They will suck up to the CCP and pander to any of their demands

hn_throwaway_99 5y ago

> China, unlike any of the Western nations, WILL take a stand on their principles over profit Surely that's a joke, right? China, which still has the audacity to call itself a "Communist" nation, which is basically much closer to a Fascist system, with their authoritarian and state-directed control of capitalism? China has one primary governing principle, which is to keep the CCP in power. Their primary way of doing that has been ensuring that bargain of "we get 8-10% annual growth, the populace is happy enough not to revolt", but they've also been phenomenally successful in using the Internet to stoke nationalism and Xi's personality cult.

CRConrad 5y ago
>> China, unlike any of the Western nations, WILL take a stand on their principles over profit > Surely that's a joke, right? Nah, it's just an obvious truth. > China, which still has the audacity to call itself a "Communist" nation, which is basically much closer to a Fascist system, with their authoritarian and state-directed control of capitalism? That's pretty much what "communism" worked out to in the Soviet Union -- well, in the entire Warsaw Pact -- too. So in practice, that's pretty much what "communism" means nowadays. > China has one primary governing principle, which is to keep the CCP in power. Yup, exactly. And they sure do stand by that principle, don't they? Q.E.D.
sodality2 5y ago
A state-directed control of capitalism, of which the façade will be dropped immediately if their ironclad control of the political will is threatened for a second. They have punished huge companies for placing profit over human life, because it threatens "communist values". In my opinion that is placing principles over profit. Despite these principles being what they are. That is not a value judgment of China, simply a statement that they are not willing to throw away a percentage point of authoritarian control for a few more bucks. > China has one primary governing principle, which is to keep the CCP in power. Yes, which they place above profit motive. It seems like you agree with above
- astrange 5y ago
  It's strange to claim US companies all put profit over everything when they're not nearly dynamic enough to do that. Why do mattress companies sell mattresses instead of cocaine? That'd be more profitable.
manquer 5y ago
The principle does not have to be ethical or moral or consistent to a philosophy. What OP saying is china does the ability (and uses it) to make unpopular decisions both to Chinese corporations or people unlike other politicians who are beholden to either voters or corporations. The kind of censure that Jack Ma had for example would be impossible to imagine to say Elon Musk in the US .
- Enginerrrd 5y ago
  OP of the subject comment here: Yes, this is the correct interpretation. I wasn't trying to argue that China's principles are superior, let alone even ethical.
  - lmilcin 5y ago
    You can be both lawful and evil character, at the same time, as any D&D player will tell you. Sadly, people misunderstand those two basic concepts. Autocratic systems are better in some ways. For example, they can be very efficient. CCP says something and it is done. Is it good/right? It is completely different topic.
awakeasleep 5y ago
When a “too big to fail” company misbehaves, China doesn’t bail it out, they nationalize the useful parts, send the rest to bankruptcy, and jail the responsible executives. We’re talking past each other a bit, but this is evidence of principle driven behavior rather than government capture by the wealthy like we have in the west.
- astrange 5y ago
  The US doesn't do free bailouts either, we nationalized GM and gave banks loans that we made a profit on. People misread this and just started claiming it was free money. Airline bailouts last year were good because they saved subcontractors and union contracts.
Enginerrrd 5y ago
We're actually in agreement I think. I think I just wasn't sufficiently clear what I meant by "principles". I am not in any way condoning China's national principles, nor did I mean to even suggest they were ethical. (My personal belief there is quite the antithesis.) ....but rather that they are willing to play hardball even if it harms Chinese companies over the issues they care about as a nation. Many of those principles are humanitarian disasters, but that's not the point.

yeetman21 5y ago

To play devils advocate to prevent this place from turning into an echo chamber: You say "put principles over the profit of a few constituents", and that is a very widely held slogan or catch phrase. Whose constituents? I, as a constituent, very much like not having a war going on where I could be drafted and sent to die for some people I do not know or really care about. I, as a constituent, very much like not having to pay 5k for a phone or 10k for a computer. I, as a constituent, like the cheap products that trade has allowed me to buy. Whoes principles? America's manifest destiny principle is to take everything you can take and then fight weaker neighbors to take some more. Is it fair that we, Americans, got to do our dirty work in the past and make our country whole while other countries have to be plagued by a civil war? The only actual principle that maters when it comes to countries is might makes right. The US was mighty so it could crush the Indians, the Mexicans, the Spanish and take what was "rightfully ours". The US was mighty so it could crush the CSA during the civil war. The US was mighty so they could use the threat of force to protect Taiwanese independence or de facto-independence. The UK was mighty so they could crush China and take HK. Now that China is (questionably? maybe?) mighty, they want to take back HK, they want to take over Taiwan. Now when other countries are mighty, the rules of the game suddenly change so that it is no longer might makes right but human rights and democracy and peace and sham pretending about principles? I like human rights and I would generally support people being free (whatever that means), but is it not hard to see the hypocrisy in it all? Where were the principles when we beat up the Indians and Mexicans and grabbed up all of California? Where were the principles when we beat up all the LATAM countries who tried to have democratic elections. Where were the principles when we drone striked every adult man and called them all combatants since they were within the age range?

ngc248 5y ago

Exactly, Whatever factions there maybe in the CCP, externally they project a coherent policy, which is not possible in democratic countries. >>> So, they've really effectively backdoored our politicians. Not just politicians, they have backdoored hollywood, wallstreet everyone of em. They will suck up to the CCP and pander to any of their demands