9 ms·

Well, an alternative interpretation would be that Apple (like much of the world) is in a no-win situation because an assumption that they had (like much of the

Well, an alternative interpretation would be that Apple (like much of the world) is in a no-win situation because an assumption that they had (like much of the world) was that investment, fair trade, and bringing China into the established international organizations would result in liberalization (within reason) of China and that they'd be a full partner in global stability. The grand bargain. But instead the CCP rejected that and undermined global good will, and now the prior assumptions are no longer valid and so it will take a long time to decouple. Of course, nobody knows if Apple (and other companies) have that intention, but it's a reasonable counter-balance to the interpretation that they are "choosing Chinese profits". And basically everyone here is choosing cheaper Chinese goods so we're all complicit too.

josephcsible 4y ago
> And basically everyone here is choosing cheaper Chinese goods so we're all complicit too. I don't buy Chinese goods just because they're cheaper. I only do so when there's no choice to buy the same kind of product from anywhere else. For example, try to find a power bank made somewhere other than China.
- ericmay 4y ago
  Sooo I'd just say I'm not really "never buy anything made in China", my comment was more geared toward if you're going to criticize Apple for making things in China, ostensibly for political reasons, that doesn't excuse your own buying of things made in China, particularly when you have options (power banks notwithstanding).
  - rurp 4y ago
    For a large amount of products consumers don't have a choice, or it's hard to know. Many products simply aren't made in western countries any more because the work was all shipped overseas, regardless of what the average citizen wanted. I would bet that many shoppers buying products fullfilled by Amazon, an American company, don't realize that they are buying from China 99% of the time.
    - ericmay 4y ago
      I think there are a number of American-made or western-made products on the market. Everything from plates and dishes from Costa Nova to barbells from Rogue Fitness to honey from apiaries in Pennsylvannia. I’m not sure but I think Patagonia produces a lot of their clothing outside of China as well. An iPhone? Not so much today, but that doesn’t have to be true forever. I think the case is that most people don’t actually care, and most people can’t be bothered to look at the origin of the products they’re buying. And I think unfortunately most people would rather have a $1,000 iPhone instead of an $1,800 iPhone. It’s kind of like gas prices. You see the reaction once they went higher. Frankly I think it’s bewildering how cheap gas is considering what it is, what goes into producing the product, and what it takes to get it to the gas pumps. And that says nothing of the negative externalities of course. But cheaper than a gallon of milk from a farmer nearby? Always surprising to me. Every time I think about it I think the “real” price is probably like $30-$40/gallon.
      - josephcsible 4y ago
        > most people can’t be bothered to look at the origin of the products they’re buying Isn't the problem that online sellers (e.g., Amazon) usually don't tell you this on the website, so you have no way of finding out until it arrives? > But cheaper than a gallon of milk from a farmer nearby? This is only true because the government holds the price of milk artificially high.
        ericmay 4y ago
        > Isn't the problem that online sellers (e.g., Amazon) usually don't tell you this on the website, so you have no way of finding out until it arrives? I’d say the problem is when you (not you specifically) claim to care about buying things that are made in China and then not do any basic research on the products and their origin. Also just don’t buy from online retailers like Amazon. It’s just a digital Wal-Mart. > This is only true because the government holds the price of milk artificially high. Sure it was just an example.
ElectricalUnion 4y ago
> And basically everyone here is choosing cheaper Chinese goods so we're all complicit too. You mean big corporations and their greedy shareholders choose for us?
- ericmay 4y ago
  If you take that point of view you deprive yourself of agency.
  - tcmart14 4y ago
    I wasn't included in the many and various board meetings across all companies to make the decision to move production... In fact, I wasn't in any. And to be quiet frank, I probably was born yet for many of them or still shitting myself in a diaper.
    - ericmay 4y ago
      Sure, but you can today buy more expensive products that are not made in China if that's of concern to you. Of course there are some products for which there are no alternatives right now, but that doesn't stop you from making economic decisions that align with your stated values. Continuing to buy Chinese products and then saying you have no agency because some nebulous entity made a decision for you is just cognitive dissonance.
      - jjoonathan 4y ago
        Did you learn nothing from the Prisoner's Dilemma? We don't actually have any options that leverage massive economies of scale and manufacture in the US, because our masters chose to ship the manufacturing overseas. Individual agency is trumped by control of the rules, that's the whole point of PD. Pretending that our wallets have agency is a con to fool us out of using the tool that would actually be effective: regulation.
        ericmay 4y ago
bodski 4y ago
> But instead the CCP rejected that and undermined global good will Can you elaborate on this? This feels a very US centric view. The US itself has repeatedly failed to comply with its own 'rules-based order', whilst expecting other powers to comply.
- publicola1990 4y ago
  Yes. US routinely target and kill people inside other sovereign nations borders during peacetime, with scant regards for any "rules-based-order". Not to mention not being a signatory to major treaties and conventions that are are part of that "rules based order", like UNCLoS, ICJ and ICC.
- ericmay 4y ago
  The mistake that you're making is suggesting that this rules based order must mean that all countries adhere to it 100% of the time. But there are gray areas, mistakes, things that are subject to interpretation, and frankly there are areas where countries disagree. The point is that it's mostly adhered to. If you are looking for specific examples and further elaboration, frankly I can't provide that for you and you'll have to look at global events and decide for yourself.
  - cma 4y ago
    The US heavily supported Taiwan before they were a democracy (first free elections in 1995; before that they were a military dictatorship). Our support seems to be geostrategic and for capitalism (or in other cases for access to natural resources), with democracy being ancillary. Saudi Arabia is one of our biggest allies. If Taiwan didn't have anything to offer they'd have to rely on Brad Pitt or something instead of the US military, like Tibet.
    - dodobirdlord 4y ago
      The US values many things in its foreign policy, and some of those things are spreading democracy and self-determination. That doesn’t mean the US values them to the exclusion of other interests like trade partnerships, energy security, regional stability, and military alliances. Countries in the US sphere of influence tend to drift toward becoming democracies, in part because of the influence of free trade. Both Taiwan and South Korea started off as dictatorships propped up by the military backing of the US to contain the spread of communism, and eventually transitioned to democratic government. As for Tibet, if it were on an island and could have been defended by the US Navy, I’m sure it would still be independent. Even if it were merely coastal it might still be independent. But it’s landlocked and mountainous, and hard to defend from the other side of the world. The invasion was also rapid, and happened at the same time the international community was responding to the invasion of South Korea.
the_duke 4y ago
Alternative view: Apple has spent many years happily profiting from cheap Chinese manufacturing, labor, electrial engineering expertise and supply chains to the point where they are now completely beholden to a foreign country. A country whose increasing rivalry with the US in economic power and geopolitical influence (along with increased tensions) has been clear for well over a decade. Apple is diversifying a bit into India and elsewhere (Vietnam I think?), but China could throw Apple into a huge crisis tomorrow if they were cut off, since it would take years to ramp up capacity elsewhere, and sourcing many of the components would be next to impossible. And Apple really couldn't blame anyone but themselves for it. It also seems to me like the are diversifying more because India demanded it and for price, rather than tho reduce dependencies ok China. But that's just unqualified guesswork.
- judge2020 4y ago
  This is the situation for the rest of the chip industry besides Intel, who also uses Taiwan TSMC fabs for some of their side operations (see Arc GPUs). Not just computer chips either, 37% of U.S. clothing imports are from China[0], for example. 0: https://www.just-style.com/analysis/analysis-china-market-share-of-us-apparel-imports-rises-after-four-year-lull/ https://www.just-style.com/analysis/analysis-china-market-sh...
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    So... we're in agreement that over-reliance on China is a bad thing, then?
    - powerhour 4y ago
      I think so. I think the disagreement is in how to deal with the problem. Obviously tariffs are a terrible idea (if you think about it for more than a couple minutes). Alternatives like mandating exporters meet environmental and employment standards that meet or exceed ours would probably make a good sized dent.
    - 2Gkashmiri 4y ago
skoskie 4y ago
> And basically everyone here is choosing cheaper Chinese goods so we're all complicit too. The only way to not be complicit is to not have a phone. China makes them all.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  One option is to vote for politicians to increase tariffs or ban imports from China, but that would make the voters’ products/services more expensive. At the end of the day, the politician that wins elections is the politician that delivers lower priced goods/services to the voters.
- miles 4y ago
  > The only way to not be complicit is to not have a phone. China makes them all. Not exactly: Librem 5 USA: "The Freedom and Privacy of the Librem 5, plus Made in the USA Electronics with a Secure Supply Chain." https://puri.sm/products/librem-5-usa/ https://puri.sm/products/librem-5-usa/ "If you want a smartphone built outside China and the walled gardens of Google and Apple, Purism's Librem 5 USA may be for you." https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/07/in_brief_security/ https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/07/in_brief_security/
  - denimnerd42 4y ago
    that's a toy
    - salawat 4y ago
      Gotta start somewhere. Keep in mind, the Nokia bricks of the days of yore. They were still fully functional telecommunication devices. Just because the Librem is probably a glorified Raspberry Pi doesn't mean it isn't worth investing in to help grow the domestic supply chain. The world is bound by Physics and miracles facilitated by networks. When faced with a toxic hub node, you route around, and reinforce alternative routes.
  - _-david-_ 4y ago
    >Librem 5 USA The problem is that it is $2000 and doesn't even run Android. The usability of a non-android Linux on a phone is just not there yet.
justapassenger 4y ago
> Well, an alternative interpretation would be that Apple (like much of the world) is in a no-win situation It's a weak excuse for a company that builds its image in last 5 years as a morally superior one. Apple was very happy to heavily impact online advertising business (not saying it was a bad thing), because of those principles (and to give them huge edge to grow their business later in that area). But they are not willing to stand up for other causes, where it impacts their bottom line.
- 30944836 4y ago
  [dead]
SllX 4y ago
In other words: arc of history nonsense. What should have been clear and is clear if you think about human nature for two seconds or that CCP interests do not represent Chinese interests. Why? Because it’s a single-party dictatorship and because the interests of the State are subordinate to the interests of the people who control the State. That’s true in America too, which is why we have elections and transfers of power, and though our elections are fair and free by a reasonable metric, the deck is still stacked in favor of those who already have power. The PRC has nothing resembling the peaceful transfer of power and therefore the only means of transferring power within the PRC as it is constituted today are less than peaceful.
ekianjo 4y ago
> everyone here is choosing cheaper Chinese goods so we're all complicit too. its not like we have much choice anymore as consumers. There's hardly anything made elsewhere.
- rexreed 4y ago
  It was the consumer's choice on what to buy and where to buy it from. But demand for low prices, regardless of where and how things are manufactured (overseas and in sweatshops) and lack of demand for accountability in the 1980s and 1990s when manufacturers shipped jobs and work overseas that resulted in where we are. Consumers always have choice, we've just made self-serving short-term choices.
  - mhoad 4y ago
    I don’t know exactly where the line is when it comes to who’s responsibility it is about “products made in China” but I would make the argument that trying to push decisions focused around things like national security, geopolitics, macroeconomics etc down to the consumer level is basically a bullshit move. Regular people don’t have the right level of knowledge to make those decisions and it’s not realistic to expect that of them. I would much rather talk about the party who not only had the right level of information but was also the one who actively made the decisions that lead to this situation to begin with. At the end of the day Apple have a lot more to answer for than regular consumers.
  - ekianjo 4y ago
    > It was the consumer's choice on what to buy and where to buy it from I'm sorry, can you remind me when companies offered the same product made outside of China and in China, as an alternative choice? The companies decided to go offshore, not the consumers.
unity1001 4y ago
"Liberalization" in trade was always a farce. The US itself always had applied tariffs and importation quotas to even its closest trade partners and allies. "Free trade" is a PR speak that is used when pressuring other governments to open up their economy. Not your own.
- rednerrus 4y ago
  The US government shoulders an inordinate amount of the cost for global trade. It seems fair that we ask countries to open their markets to us.
  - unity1001 4y ago
    Does it? Didn't it enjoy the power to print infinite amounts of money thanks to oil trade being done exclusively in dollars just until a few months ago? Something which no other civilization, less, society, enjoyed ever in human history?
daniel-cussen 4y ago
There was a Chinese liberalization, they got tenfold higher GDP per capita and they relaxed about some stuff that were necessities during poverty. Like punishments. In the Cultural Revolution I remember one story about a village thief, dedicated parasite with lies passing blame and finding people's precious last reserves. You guys don't know because generally the user on HN has never felt hunger. In particular the nuance, this is marathon hunger, at a national level, long-term malnutrition under difficult work conditions. Can't say anything about it, so doggerel (like sarcastic songs, sung collectively on the field like Negro spirituals). Millions did everything right and died anyway. These thieves were cold-blooded murderers most of the time. Attempted murder in the best light. So. The village catches him one day, really catches him and it's bad[1]. And takes him to a giant of shit. He won't open his mouth unconditionally so they open it with tongs, they feed him that shit mmm nice and full that's what you get for stealing our food, why didn't you tell us you wanted to eat our food? This is our food! He died two weeks later. Nowadays it would be much more lax, because he wouldn't be cheating and stealing from people who are barely hanging on from starvation so...a caning for instance. Yeah like that American in Singapore who got caned, I knew a teacher who had taught at the international school he went to and he was just BEGGING for it not just ASKING for it like WRITING LETTERS TO SANTA like how can I fuck these locals off to the point they carry out corporal punishment like I don't need to follow any law country I live because the punishment is caning and they can't cane me because I'm an American, it will make news, no amount of any anything no matter how many cops tell me what. And he did, and they did, and it did. Petulant bitchvictim. You know I've heard stereotypes and actually met Chinese and would say...many are strictly insulting of their poverty, and slandering their correct and successful approaches for getting out of it. Nobody sympathizes with the concept of starvation. Too well-fed to understand. [1] I've heard a similar story about a thief on an American submarine, hard to catch but when they do catch the thief oh man.
rexreed 4y ago
Apple is always in a win situation for themselves. They win from cheap labor (China labor, low US prices). They win from large markets (China). They win from keeping unions out of their sweatshops. They win by imposing their large will on dependent suppliers. In what way is Apple NOT winning? There's nothing no-win about this for Apple. they know exactly how to win, whether or not anyone else does.
rob74 4y ago
Well, Germany is now being ridiculed for thinking that investment, fair trade (e.g. buying Russian gas), and bringing Russia into the established international organizations would result in its liberalization. Actually for China the writing has been on the wall far longer than for Russia (remember Tienanmen Square?), but hey, China is a much more important economic player than Russia, so let's continue ignoring it...

josephcsible 4y ago

> And basically everyone here is choosing cheaper Chinese goods so we're all complicit too. I don't buy Chinese goods just because they're cheaper. I only do so when there's no choice to buy the same kind of product from anywhere else. For example, try to find a power bank made somewhere other than China.

ericmay 4y ago
Sooo I'd just say I'm not really "never buy anything made in China", my comment was more geared toward if you're going to criticize Apple for making things in China, ostensibly for political reasons, that doesn't excuse your own buying of things made in China, particularly when you have options (power banks notwithstanding).
- rurp 4y ago
  For a large amount of products consumers don't have a choice, or it's hard to know. Many products simply aren't made in western countries any more because the work was all shipped overseas, regardless of what the average citizen wanted. I would bet that many shoppers buying products fullfilled by Amazon, an American company, don't realize that they are buying from China 99% of the time.
  - ericmay 4y ago
    I think there are a number of American-made or western-made products on the market. Everything from plates and dishes from Costa Nova to barbells from Rogue Fitness to honey from apiaries in Pennsylvannia. I’m not sure but I think Patagonia produces a lot of their clothing outside of China as well. An iPhone? Not so much today, but that doesn’t have to be true forever. I think the case is that most people don’t actually care, and most people can’t be bothered to look at the origin of the products they’re buying. And I think unfortunately most people would rather have a $1,000 iPhone instead of an $1,800 iPhone. It’s kind of like gas prices. You see the reaction once they went higher. Frankly I think it’s bewildering how cheap gas is considering what it is, what goes into producing the product, and what it takes to get it to the gas pumps. And that says nothing of the negative externalities of course. But cheaper than a gallon of milk from a farmer nearby? Always surprising to me. Every time I think about it I think the “real” price is probably like $30-$40/gallon.
    - josephcsible 4y ago
      > most people can’t be bothered to look at the origin of the products they’re buying Isn't the problem that online sellers (e.g., Amazon) usually don't tell you this on the website, so you have no way of finding out until it arrives? > But cheaper than a gallon of milk from a farmer nearby? This is only true because the government holds the price of milk artificially high.
      - ericmay 4y ago
        > Isn't the problem that online sellers (e.g., Amazon) usually don't tell you this on the website, so you have no way of finding out until it arrives? I’d say the problem is when you (not you specifically) claim to care about buying things that are made in China and then not do any basic research on the products and their origin. Also just don’t buy from online retailers like Amazon. It’s just a digital Wal-Mart. > This is only true because the government holds the price of milk artificially high. Sure it was just an example.

ElectricalUnion 4y ago

> And basically everyone here is choosing cheaper Chinese goods so we're all complicit too. You mean big corporations and their greedy shareholders choose for us?

ericmay 4y ago
If you take that point of view you deprive yourself of agency.
- tcmart14 4y ago
  I wasn't included in the many and various board meetings across all companies to make the decision to move production... In fact, I wasn't in any. And to be quiet frank, I probably was born yet for many of them or still shitting myself in a diaper.
  - ericmay 4y ago
    Sure, but you can today buy more expensive products that are not made in China if that's of concern to you. Of course there are some products for which there are no alternatives right now, but that doesn't stop you from making economic decisions that align with your stated values. Continuing to buy Chinese products and then saying you have no agency because some nebulous entity made a decision for you is just cognitive dissonance.
    - jjoonathan 4y ago
      Did you learn nothing from the Prisoner's Dilemma? We don't actually have any options that leverage massive economies of scale and manufacture in the US, because our masters chose to ship the manufacturing overseas. Individual agency is trumped by control of the rules, that's the whole point of PD. Pretending that our wallets have agency is a con to fool us out of using the tool that would actually be effective: regulation.
      - ericmay 4y ago

bodski 4y ago

> But instead the CCP rejected that and undermined global good will Can you elaborate on this? This feels a very US centric view. The US itself has repeatedly failed to comply with its own 'rules-based order', whilst expecting other powers to comply.

publicola1990 4y ago
Yes. US routinely target and kill people inside other sovereign nations borders during peacetime, with scant regards for any "rules-based-order". Not to mention not being a signatory to major treaties and conventions that are are part of that "rules based order", like UNCLoS, ICJ and ICC.
ericmay 4y ago
The mistake that you're making is suggesting that this rules based order must mean that all countries adhere to it 100% of the time. But there are gray areas, mistakes, things that are subject to interpretation, and frankly there are areas where countries disagree. The point is that it's mostly adhered to. If you are looking for specific examples and further elaboration, frankly I can't provide that for you and you'll have to look at global events and decide for yourself.
- cma 4y ago
  The US heavily supported Taiwan before they were a democracy (first free elections in 1995; before that they were a military dictatorship). Our support seems to be geostrategic and for capitalism (or in other cases for access to natural resources), with democracy being ancillary. Saudi Arabia is one of our biggest allies. If Taiwan didn't have anything to offer they'd have to rely on Brad Pitt or something instead of the US military, like Tibet.
  - dodobirdlord 4y ago
    The US values many things in its foreign policy, and some of those things are spreading democracy and self-determination. That doesn’t mean the US values them to the exclusion of other interests like trade partnerships, energy security, regional stability, and military alliances. Countries in the US sphere of influence tend to drift toward becoming democracies, in part because of the influence of free trade. Both Taiwan and South Korea started off as dictatorships propped up by the military backing of the US to contain the spread of communism, and eventually transitioned to democratic government. As for Tibet, if it were on an island and could have been defended by the US Navy, I’m sure it would still be independent. Even if it were merely coastal it might still be independent. But it’s landlocked and mountainous, and hard to defend from the other side of the world. The invasion was also rapid, and happened at the same time the international community was responding to the invasion of South Korea.

the_duke 4y ago

Alternative view: Apple has spent many years happily profiting from cheap Chinese manufacturing, labor, electrial engineering expertise and supply chains to the point where they are now completely beholden to a foreign country. A country whose increasing rivalry with the US in economic power and geopolitical influence (along with increased tensions) has been clear for well over a decade. Apple is diversifying a bit into India and elsewhere (Vietnam I think?), but China could throw Apple into a huge crisis tomorrow if they were cut off, since it would take years to ramp up capacity elsewhere, and sourcing many of the components would be next to impossible. And Apple really couldn't blame anyone but themselves for it. It also seems to me like the are diversifying more because India demanded it and for price, rather than tho reduce dependencies ok China. But that's just unqualified guesswork.

judge2020 4y ago
This is the situation for the rest of the chip industry besides Intel, who also uses Taiwan TSMC fabs for some of their side operations (see Arc GPUs). Not just computer chips either, 37% of U.S. clothing imports are from China[0], for example. 0: https://www.just-style.com/analysis/analysis-china-market-share-of-us-apparel-imports-rises-after-four-year-lull/ https://www.just-style.com/analysis/analysis-china-market-sh...
- smoldesu 4y ago
  So... we're in agreement that over-reliance on China is a bad thing, then?
  - powerhour 4y ago
    I think so. I think the disagreement is in how to deal with the problem. Obviously tariffs are a terrible idea (if you think about it for more than a couple minutes). Alternatives like mandating exporters meet environmental and employment standards that meet or exceed ours would probably make a good sized dent.
  - 2Gkashmiri 4y ago

skoskie 4y ago

> And basically everyone here is choosing cheaper Chinese goods so we're all complicit too. The only way to not be complicit is to not have a phone. China makes them all.

lotsofpulp 4y ago
One option is to vote for politicians to increase tariffs or ban imports from China, but that would make the voters’ products/services more expensive. At the end of the day, the politician that wins elections is the politician that delivers lower priced goods/services to the voters.
miles 4y ago
> The only way to not be complicit is to not have a phone. China makes them all. Not exactly: Librem 5 USA: "The Freedom and Privacy of the Librem 5, plus Made in the USA Electronics with a Secure Supply Chain." https://puri.sm/products/librem-5-usa/ https://puri.sm/products/librem-5-usa/ "If you want a smartphone built outside China and the walled gardens of Google and Apple, Purism's Librem 5 USA may be for you." https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/07/in_brief_security/ https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/07/in_brief_security/
- denimnerd42 4y ago
  that's a toy
  - salawat 4y ago
    Gotta start somewhere. Keep in mind, the Nokia bricks of the days of yore. They were still fully functional telecommunication devices. Just because the Librem is probably a glorified Raspberry Pi doesn't mean it isn't worth investing in to help grow the domestic supply chain. The world is bound by Physics and miracles facilitated by networks. When faced with a toxic hub node, you route around, and reinforce alternative routes.
- _-david-_ 4y ago
  >Librem 5 USA The problem is that it is $2000 and doesn't even run Android. The usability of a non-android Linux on a phone is just not there yet.

justapassenger 4y ago

> Well, an alternative interpretation would be that Apple (like much of the world) is in a no-win situation It's a weak excuse for a company that builds its image in last 5 years as a morally superior one. Apple was very happy to heavily impact online advertising business (not saying it was a bad thing), because of those principles (and to give them huge edge to grow their business later in that area). But they are not willing to stand up for other causes, where it impacts their bottom line.

30944836 4y ago
[dead]

SllX 4y ago

In other words: arc of history nonsense. What should have been clear and is clear if you think about human nature for two seconds or that CCP interests do not represent Chinese interests. Why? Because it’s a single-party dictatorship and because the interests of the State are subordinate to the interests of the people who control the State. That’s true in America too, which is why we have elections and transfers of power, and though our elections are fair and free by a reasonable metric, the deck is still stacked in favor of those who already have power. The PRC has nothing resembling the peaceful transfer of power and therefore the only means of transferring power within the PRC as it is constituted today are less than peaceful.

ekianjo 4y ago

> everyone here is choosing cheaper Chinese goods so we're all complicit too. its not like we have much choice anymore as consumers. There's hardly anything made elsewhere.

rexreed 4y ago
It was the consumer's choice on what to buy and where to buy it from. But demand for low prices, regardless of where and how things are manufactured (overseas and in sweatshops) and lack of demand for accountability in the 1980s and 1990s when manufacturers shipped jobs and work overseas that resulted in where we are. Consumers always have choice, we've just made self-serving short-term choices.
- mhoad 4y ago
  I don’t know exactly where the line is when it comes to who’s responsibility it is about “products made in China” but I would make the argument that trying to push decisions focused around things like national security, geopolitics, macroeconomics etc down to the consumer level is basically a bullshit move. Regular people don’t have the right level of knowledge to make those decisions and it’s not realistic to expect that of them. I would much rather talk about the party who not only had the right level of information but was also the one who actively made the decisions that lead to this situation to begin with. At the end of the day Apple have a lot more to answer for than regular consumers.
- ekianjo 4y ago
  > It was the consumer's choice on what to buy and where to buy it from I'm sorry, can you remind me when companies offered the same product made outside of China and in China, as an alternative choice? The companies decided to go offshore, not the consumers.

unity1001 4y ago

"Liberalization" in trade was always a farce. The US itself always had applied tariffs and importation quotas to even its closest trade partners and allies. "Free trade" is a PR speak that is used when pressuring other governments to open up their economy. Not your own.

rednerrus 4y ago
The US government shoulders an inordinate amount of the cost for global trade. It seems fair that we ask countries to open their markets to us.
- unity1001 4y ago
  Does it? Didn't it enjoy the power to print infinite amounts of money thanks to oil trade being done exclusively in dollars just until a few months ago? Something which no other civilization, less, society, enjoyed ever in human history?

daniel-cussen 4y ago

There was a Chinese liberalization, they got tenfold higher GDP per capita and they relaxed about some stuff that were necessities during poverty. Like punishments. In the Cultural Revolution I remember one story about a village thief, dedicated parasite with lies passing blame and finding people's precious last reserves. You guys don't know because generally the user on HN has never felt hunger. In particular the nuance, this is marathon hunger, at a national level, long-term malnutrition under difficult work conditions. Can't say anything about it, so doggerel (like sarcastic songs, sung collectively on the field like Negro spirituals). Millions did everything right and died anyway. These thieves were cold-blooded murderers most of the time. Attempted murder in the best light. So. The village catches him one day, really catches him and it's bad[1]. And takes him to a giant of shit. He won't open his mouth unconditionally so they open it with tongs, they feed him that shit mmm nice and full that's what you get for stealing our food, why didn't you tell us you wanted to eat our food? This is our food! He died two weeks later. Nowadays it would be much more lax, because he wouldn't be cheating and stealing from people who are barely hanging on from starvation so...a caning for instance. Yeah like that American in Singapore who got caned, I knew a teacher who had taught at the international school he went to and he was just BEGGING for it not just ASKING for it like WRITING LETTERS TO SANTA like how can I fuck these locals off to the point they carry out corporal punishment like I don't need to follow any law country I live because the punishment is caning and they can't cane me because I'm an American, it will make news, no amount of any anything no matter how many cops tell me what. And he did, and they did, and it did. Petulant bitchvictim. You know I've heard stereotypes and actually met Chinese and would say...many are strictly insulting of their poverty, and slandering their correct and successful approaches for getting out of it. Nobody sympathizes with the concept of starvation. Too well-fed to understand. [1] I've heard a similar story about a thief on an American submarine, hard to catch but when they do catch the thief oh man.

rexreed 4y ago

Apple is always in a win situation for themselves. They win from cheap labor (China labor, low US prices). They win from large markets (China). They win from keeping unions out of their sweatshops. They win by imposing their large will on dependent suppliers. In what way is Apple NOT winning? There's nothing no-win about this for Apple. they know exactly how to win, whether or not anyone else does.

rob74 4y ago

Well, Germany is now being ridiculed for thinking that investment, fair trade (e.g. buying Russian gas), and bringing Russia into the established international organizations would result in its liberalization. Actually for China the writing has been on the wall far longer than for Russia (remember Tienanmen Square?), but hey, China is a much more important economic player than Russia, so let's continue ignoring it...