Chinese Cash Is Suddenly Toxic in Silicon Valley, Following U.S. Pressure(wsj.com)
wsj.com
Chinese Cash Is Suddenly Toxic in Silicon Valley, Following U.S. Pressure
https://www.wsj.com/articles/chinese-cash-is-suddenly-toxic-in-silicon-valley-following-u-s-pressure-campaign-11560263302
202 comments
Good. We raised Series A from Chinese investors a few years ago and they were toxic. Not to mention the political implications of enriching countries like China and Saudi Arabia. In hindsight would have rather closed up shop than taken their money.
Could you elaborate? What made it toxic?
Not GP, but I've pitched to a crossover fund from China and they were super seedy. On top of having a questionable website and other investments, one of the red flags was they wanted their engineers to review our source code before/without signing any NDAs or commitments.
The concept of IP rights doesn't really exist in Chinese business culture. Your source code or any other proprietary technology is fair game.
I know startup founders that have raised Chinese money and not regretted it, but it's important that it be "dumb money", i.e. they give you cash and go away while you write an occasional investor update and grow the business. Active Chinese investors (i.e. anything where you give up board seats, decision-making power, strategic partnerships, etc.) are bad news. You want to be in a position where if your investors ask you for something you can just ignore them.
I know startup founders that have raised Chinese money and not regretted it, but it's important that it be "dumb money", i.e. they give you cash and go away while you write an occasional investor update and grow the business. Active Chinese investors (i.e. anything where you give up board seats, decision-making power, strategic partnerships, etc.) are bad news. You want to be in a position where if your investors ask you for something you can just ignore them.
> You want to be in a position where if your investors ask you for something you can just ignore them.
What reasonable investor would put themselves in that position? They're just going to give their money away and not have any say in what happens?
What reasonable investor would put themselves in that position? They're just going to give their money away and not have any say in what happens?
I mean yes that’s pretty much how 90% of deals in the valley happen?
Ones who expect that the company in question is going to do well regardless of what they do and trust management to make good decisions on their behalf.
This is the same position that every retail investor, every LP of a venture or hedge fund, every shareholder of a company where the founder controls a majority of voting stock, and every person with a pension or 401(k) puts themselves into. You could argue about whether that's a stupid thing to do, but it's the vast majority of shareholders within the world, so stupid or not, lots of people do take that bargain.
This is the same position that every retail investor, every LP of a venture or hedge fund, every shareholder of a company where the founder controls a majority of voting stock, and every person with a pension or 401(k) puts themselves into. You could argue about whether that's a stupid thing to do, but it's the vast majority of shareholders within the world, so stupid or not, lots of people do take that bargain.
This is quite standard in my (limited) experience. We're raising a seed round and I've spoken to nearly 100 VC firms. The most any have asked for is an observer seat.
We also had Chinese VCs ask to review our code (their value proposition was access to Chinese hospital data). Also "system design interviews" asking to essentially how everything works in technical detail, and would work for future expansion plans.
We do tech DD, and also occasionally review code so that's pretty normal. We do take great care to ensure that no secret sauce ever makes it into our reporting, and if the situation requires it do a second round of reviewing before sending out the report to the party that commissioned it. I'm not saying we will never ever leaks bits but if you take your reputation serious in this field then you will do what is possible to ensure that the proprietary stuff stays just that in case there is no deal.
Any VC that asks non-independent third parties to review your code should be shunned.
Any VC that asks non-independent third parties to review your code should be shunned.
(their value proposition was access to Chinese hospital data)
Whose value proposition to whom?
Whose value proposition to whom?
[deleted]
Brit here. Reviewing source code before a purchase is pretty normal.
I've personally done this for multiple companies that the enterprise I work for has purchased.
In all cases it was a 1-day review, while supervised by someone from the company being purchased.
It seems perfectly reasonable to get an idea of the state of what you are planning to purchase.
I've personally done this for multiple companies that the enterprise I work for has purchased.
In all cases it was a 1-day review, while supervised by someone from the company being purchased.
It seems perfectly reasonable to get an idea of the state of what you are planning to purchase.
[deleted]
You were surprised that China has red flags?
(Thank you, I'll be here all week)
(Thank you, I'll be here all week)
I find jokes are rare on HN, but I'll always upvote one that makes me chuckle
I think people here avoid puns and offtopic humor on purpose, so that it doesn’t distract from the discussion. I like this aspect of HN.
Not only that, but we also avoid inflammatory posts, affirmations without proofs/research to back them up, criticism without offering help & better suggestions...
That is a big part of what has helped HN last so long without following Reddit down the path of becoming a cacophony of puns, memes and references.
Where are you next week? This is a show I'll travel to follow.
Their personalities and expectations were toxic. They didn't understand what they invested in and were pissed when we couldn't grow a high-touch business like a pure software business. No pleasant or helpful interactions, just rage.
Yes, please elaborate. +1
> In hindsight would have rather closed up shop than taken their money.
Very idealistic and not the way I think at all. What are you going to do? Stop using any product associated with China? Where do you draw the line exactly? And who is to say that all chinese investors are the same anyway? Are you going to vet future investors (from any place) fully to make sure they are clean in every way and their intentions are pure? Or are you simply going to decide after the fact that you did enough when it actually makes no difference at all and you can say 'wow I wish I never did that'.
Very idealistic and not the way I think at all. What are you going to do? Stop using any product associated with China? Where do you draw the line exactly? And who is to say that all chinese investors are the same anyway? Are you going to vet future investors (from any place) fully to make sure they are clean in every way and their intentions are pure? Or are you simply going to decide after the fact that you did enough when it actually makes no difference at all and you can say 'wow I wish I never did that'.
Toxic how?
I'd be more concerned about Chinese financing of Hollywood. Nearly every big-budget production these days has Chinese co-producers. This leads to farcical episodes like the remake of Red Dawn featuring feeble North Korea as the villain rather than China as originally envisioned.
This is no different than what Hollywood already does. E.g. demonizing conservative values as antithetical to a stable government (abortion, gay and lesbian rights, income discrepancy). I recall Hillary Clinton being interviewed by Terry Gross, where she was essentially charged with bigotry in reversing positions on gay marriage. Public sentiment changes in one way as a result of social and media influences, and it's not all in the direction of truth, justice and the American way. It's whomever is pulling the puppet strings (read: funding their personal agendas).
All film and media is propagandistic in some way. Just because you swing the needle in a different direction doesn't change that fact.
All film and media is propagandistic in some way. Just because you swing the needle in a different direction doesn't change that fact.
> All film and media is propagandistic in some way. Just because you swing the needle in a different direction doesn't change that fact.
To add to that, one of America's biggest exports is it's culture - see "Military Recruitment and Hollywood" https://youtu.be/N5xfBtD6rLY
To add to that, one of America's biggest exports is it's culture - see "Military Recruitment and Hollywood" https://youtu.be/N5xfBtD6rLY
America will not only send its soldiers to burn your country to the ground, years later they will also make a Hollywood movie about how bad those soldiers felt about it, and how much they suffered.
Russia was the villain in the original movie and China was on the US side (but were only briefly mentioned). Or do you mean "as originally envisioned for the remake"?
I think the Red Dawn example reflects more on the power of the Chinese box office than any financing concerns. It's just too big to ignore.
I'd say that from the outside it looks much the same as it always did, just with jingoism added for China as well as the US.
Funny you mention that, seems China is now further limiting Hollywood films within China and firing American actors:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/06/09/chinese-cinema-e...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/06/09/chinese-cinema-e...
[deleted]
And on the other side you have Occupied, a really good TV series where Norway stops to produce oil and the Russians starts an invasion of them with support from the EU. When I think about a country invading another for oil, there's always a name that comes to my mind, and it's not the one that appears on the series.
The reason is not that much about nationalism or soft-power. Filmmakers want to make money, and when you have a big enough consumer market filmmakers avoid controversial topics to get a chance to capture it.
The reason is not that much about nationalism or soft-power. Filmmakers want to make money, and when you have a big enough consumer market filmmakers avoid controversial topics to get a chance to capture it.
Part of me thinks that competing propaganda might actually be salutary.
It's not like Hollywood is currently controlled by America. ;-)
You don’t have to watch those? If million+ Chinese like it though what’s the problem?
If Hollywood can no longer do in-your-face American propaganda then the end is nigh, indeed.
It's not just Chinese investors, even having large Chinese customers raises red flags during BD work for us.
We provide a SaaS for data analytics and often we hold a copy of the client database to provide rapid answers to queries.
We were recently finalizing a deal with a US based retailer when it came out that we worked operated in China and the tone of the conversation shifted immediately. They literally sought all manners of guarantees on data security and storage that were unnecessary, but due to the current climate, seems to make everyone paranoid.
Now we have to specificlly mention in our integration docs that when we do multi-zone backups, none of those backups are in China. They never were, but now we have to be explicit because it's coming up in so many of our conversations.
Our pilot with the Chinese company ends in November. We are seriously considering terminating the deal because it's trending towards the case where we can either have China, or Non-China markets. Not both.
We provide a SaaS for data analytics and often we hold a copy of the client database to provide rapid answers to queries.
We were recently finalizing a deal with a US based retailer when it came out that we worked operated in China and the tone of the conversation shifted immediately. They literally sought all manners of guarantees on data security and storage that were unnecessary, but due to the current climate, seems to make everyone paranoid.
Now we have to specificlly mention in our integration docs that when we do multi-zone backups, none of those backups are in China. They never were, but now we have to be explicit because it's coming up in so many of our conversations.
Our pilot with the Chinese company ends in November. We are seriously considering terminating the deal because it's trending towards the case where we can either have China, or Non-China markets. Not both.
That doesn't seem too unusual to me.
I worked with US and European financial institutions who regularly requested / needed guarantees that data (not necessary financial data, all sorts of data), who had access to what, and etc.
Most of it all seemed design to ensure that the things / company / people were within a reasonable legal context, sometimes that context was just what country the data was in, the people who worked on it.
Laws provide everyone a framework to know how things might play out if something goes wrong, if someone is in a country that generally doesn't respect those laws all rules are out the window.
I worked with US and European financial institutions who regularly requested / needed guarantees that data (not necessary financial data, all sorts of data), who had access to what, and etc.
Most of it all seemed design to ensure that the things / company / people were within a reasonable legal context, sometimes that context was just what country the data was in, the people who worked on it.
Laws provide everyone a framework to know how things might play out if something goes wrong, if someone is in a country that generally doesn't respect those laws all rules are out the window.
>> Now we have to specificlly mention in our integration docs that when we do multi-zone backups, none of those backups are in China.
Here is a snippet of the article, which I am posting under the Fair Use Act (I think you should all consider a subscription):
"Silicon Valley startup Pilot AI Labs Inc. signed a Chinese-backed venture-capital firm as its first big investor. By last summer, Pilot AI wanted it gone.
The U.S. startup hoped to sell more of its artificial-intelligence software to the U.S. government after working with the Pentagon, according to people familiar with its operations, and worried its effort could be hurt by the investor’s ties to China’s government. The chairman of the Chinese-backed investor, Digital Horizon Capital, was asked to sell back its stake, said one of the people. He angrily refused.
Chinese investors were once embraced in Silicon Valley both for their pocketbooks and their access to one of the world’s largest and trickiest markets. Today, they are suddenly less welcome.
Since late last year, amid rising U.S-China tensions, venture firms with China ties have been dialing back their U.S. investments, structuring deals in novel ways to avoid regulators or shutting their U.S. offices. Some American venture firms are dumping their Chinese limited partners or walling them off with special structures. And some U.S. startups that have taken significant Chinese money are keeping the investments quiet or trying to push their Chinese investors out to avoid scrutiny..."
"Silicon Valley startup Pilot AI Labs Inc. signed a Chinese-backed venture-capital firm as its first big investor. By last summer, Pilot AI wanted it gone.
The U.S. startup hoped to sell more of its artificial-intelligence software to the U.S. government after working with the Pentagon, according to people familiar with its operations, and worried its effort could be hurt by the investor’s ties to China’s government. The chairman of the Chinese-backed investor, Digital Horizon Capital, was asked to sell back its stake, said one of the people. He angrily refused.
Chinese investors were once embraced in Silicon Valley both for their pocketbooks and their access to one of the world’s largest and trickiest markets. Today, they are suddenly less welcome.
Since late last year, amid rising U.S-China tensions, venture firms with China ties have been dialing back their U.S. investments, structuring deals in novel ways to avoid regulators or shutting their U.S. offices. Some American venture firms are dumping their Chinese limited partners or walling them off with special structures. And some U.S. startups that have taken significant Chinese money are keeping the investments quiet or trying to push their Chinese investors out to avoid scrutiny..."
That's a horrible example. Of course that's not going to wash. Of course an investor would not be willing to sell back their stake before seeing the return they were looking for. If they wanted to sell AI software to the US GOVERNMENT, they should have found US investors. If they couldn't, then investors from US allied nations. They should have seen this coming a mile away, no?
Our relationship with China looked a lot different in July, 2016 when they took that investment.
July 2016? Are you sure? If I was a US company, I'd certainly be cautious of overseas investment from China. Everyone knows they don't respect IP or Copyright laws, steal technology, and more. You would want to very carefully weigh the risks before doing business with a non-democratic nation, even outside of this administration's policies. Anyone planning on doing business with the US Government would be very aware that China is not an ally.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93United_States_tr...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93United_States_tr...
CFIUS was established in 1975, got extensive powers to block deals in 1988, and even in 2013-2015 20% of their cases involved China.
Ehhh.. no, not really. Not to anyone watching China beyond what appears in the mainstream headlines.
Things have been on a strong downtrend since 2012 and alarms have been ringing loud since around 2014.
Edit: Anyone writing a business plan including sensitive technology sales to the US government should DEFINITELY have seen this coming in 2016.
Edit2: Also, candidate Trump had loudly been yelling about China for over a year at that point
Things have been on a strong downtrend since 2012 and alarms have been ringing loud since around 2014.
Edit: Anyone writing a business plan including sensitive technology sales to the US government should DEFINITELY have seen this coming in 2016.
Edit2: Also, candidate Trump had loudly been yelling about China for over a year at that point
> Things have been on a strong downtrend since 2012 and alarms have been ringing loud since around 2014.
Can you elaborate?
Can you elaborate?
Seems like many of those who provide services to the government are familiar with the Berry Amendment and the implications of the “qualifying countries” list.
Agree, you take someone's money you have to give up something in return. It's a quid pro quo. To think that only means a hollow stake in the company without strength to influence the company's direction, culture, ethos, or mission is naive. Let the free market speak - if you want to eliminate Chinese or anyone else's investment, buy back their stake at whatever price they demand.
FYI, there is no Fair Use Act (other than a failed attempt to amend the copyright law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FAIR_USE_Act).
The principle of fair use is just part of copyright law, and there's no need to explicitly invoke it when availing yourself of it.
The principle of fair use is just part of copyright law, and there's no need to explicitly invoke it when availing yourself of it.
Hey, Chinese money is bad. But Saudi money is more than welcome. 50% of Softbank's vision fund is from Middle East sovereign funds, who have even more brutal censorship laws and commits more brazen human rights policies. US policy is completely incoherent and probably explained by who pays the bribes to Whitehouse vs. any legitimate principles.
It helps that SA isn't really a risk to export its censorship (among other ills) to the US in the near future.
I generally sympathize with the position of rejecting Saudi money where possible, but it's inaccurate to frame US policy towards China in purely moral terms. In the case of China, there's a lot of ideological self-interest at stake for the US.
I generally sympathize with the position of rejecting Saudi money where possible, but it's inaccurate to frame US policy towards China in purely moral terms. In the case of China, there's a lot of ideological self-interest at stake for the US.
It's not incoherent, because the issue with China never was about human rights or censorship.
China is a threat to US economic supremacy. And now they want to become independent from US technology etc... the US doesn’t see it that way.
Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states are vassals of the US.
Not exactly the same level of threat if you ask me
Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states are vassals of the US.
Not exactly the same level of threat if you ask me
Unlaundered Chinese cash, of course. Hop it through an "investment" somewhere else and suddenly it's the investment arm of a multinational REIT.
Dampens direct influence proportionally, though. The "cleaner" the money is, the more difficult it is for nefarious sources to dictate terms of use to the end user.
I doubt it. During the Khashoggi thing it turned a few heads but most businesses just stayed quiet for the few months it was a thing. Now biz as usual. I would expect that the same is happening for China money. Hush hush until we get out of the cloud.
The difference is that was just social pressure SA is still a US ally. China is not and given elections are coming up China will a huge talking about and looks to be approaching war on drugs level brinkmanship.
It's interesting: Chinese cash is welcome in real estate and the US treasury market. What is it about startups that makes the government concerned?
As someone who has been waiting on the sidelines to buy a home for years now, I'd love to see the Chinese begin pulling cash out of our real estate market.
It's said that most of this cash has pushed up prices mostly on the West coast, but I have this belief that a lot of money has trickled into almost all metro areas of the US. I can't see any other reason for home prices to be so out of whack in medium-sized US cities with no apparent influence (e.g. Amazon HQ2 in DC).
It's said that most of this cash has pushed up prices mostly on the West coast, but I have this belief that a lot of money has trickled into almost all metro areas of the US. I can't see any other reason for home prices to be so out of whack in medium-sized US cities with no apparent influence (e.g. Amazon HQ2 in DC).
New Zealand banned foreign investors last year.
Prices have dropped where I live (although could easily be due to other causes). Mortgage rates have also dropped recently.
Prices have dropped where I live (although could easily be due to other causes). Mortgage rates have also dropped recently.
home prices have more to do with housing policy than chinese investors. Places that don't restrict housing supply don't have housing problems because enough new houses get built to where the price of housing never exceeds the cost of building the house for too long.
I think I know why: in the USA we require growth in housing and the stock market to keep things together, to keep the system running.
Our government is worried about competition in tech, not investment in our equity markets. One is viewed as harmful, the other we depend on.
I am disappointed by this entire affair. I like to see each country have its own culture and uniqueness, but I would like the world economic and tech engines to function well for everyone. Even playing field.
Our government is worried about competition in tech, not investment in our equity markets. One is viewed as harmful, the other we depend on.
I am disappointed by this entire affair. I like to see each country have its own culture and uniqueness, but I would like the world economic and tech engines to function well for everyone. Even playing field.
China buys US debt so it can peg the Yuan to the dollar to keep volatility low and manage its export levels accordingly. China only owns 5% of outstanding US national debt, so even if they sold it off in a flash sale for some reason, someone else would buy it (other nations or more likely the Federal Reserve). Selling off US debt is not a credible economic threat for China. [1]
No powerful US entities have a vested interest in keeping foreign Chinese money out of US real estate, especially if it's due to wealthy individuals investing abroad. The real estate owners win, the developers win, construction companies win, the mortgage-underwriting banks win, the losers are the young/renters/non-capital owners seeking jobs in these hotspot areas because their rent just goes up and up per square meter. This segment of the population has no political power, they can only hope to make enough to put a down payment on a house and join the vested interests as capital owners - hopefully the bubble doesn't burst taking their job and leaving their mortgage underwater. The exception here would be if a Chinese government-owned investment vehicle tried to purchase large swathes of real estate, it could potentially use this large investment as a weapon to control cost of living/tank real estate values in that area if the government wanted to.
The real reason is because US technology (networking, telecom, A&D, automotive) companies have a huge vested interest in keeping their competitive advantage over Chinese technology companies which are on the cusp of transforming from cheaper/lower quality alternatives to preferred suppliers in building out information technology infrastructure globally, including in the US. The US government also has a huge vested interest in controlling this infrastructure, especially in the US, or at least being on good terms with the companies that build and manage it. It doesn't want partially government-owned and directed companies like Huawei supplying complicated and sometimes unvettable hardware and software over which Americans send each other vital information.
[1] China's central bank uses a modified version of a traditional fixed exchange rate. That's different from the floating exchange rate the United States and many other countries use. The People's Bank of China manages the yuan's value. It keeps it fixed to a basket of currencies reflecting its trading partners. The basket is weighted toward the dollar since the United States is China's largest trading partner. It keeps the yuan's value within a 2 percent range against that currency basket.
Why does China fix the yuan's value to the dollar? It manages its currency to control the prices of its exports. It wants to make sure its exports are reasonably priced when sold in the United States. Every country would like to do this, but few have China's ability to manage it so well. China's command economy allows it to control the central bank and many businesses. As a result, the Communist Party directs China's economy. The U.S. government regulates exchange rates instead of managing them.
https://www.thebalance.com/how-does-china-influence-the-u-s-...
No powerful US entities have a vested interest in keeping foreign Chinese money out of US real estate, especially if it's due to wealthy individuals investing abroad. The real estate owners win, the developers win, construction companies win, the mortgage-underwriting banks win, the losers are the young/renters/non-capital owners seeking jobs in these hotspot areas because their rent just goes up and up per square meter. This segment of the population has no political power, they can only hope to make enough to put a down payment on a house and join the vested interests as capital owners - hopefully the bubble doesn't burst taking their job and leaving their mortgage underwater. The exception here would be if a Chinese government-owned investment vehicle tried to purchase large swathes of real estate, it could potentially use this large investment as a weapon to control cost of living/tank real estate values in that area if the government wanted to.
The real reason is because US technology (networking, telecom, A&D, automotive) companies have a huge vested interest in keeping their competitive advantage over Chinese technology companies which are on the cusp of transforming from cheaper/lower quality alternatives to preferred suppliers in building out information technology infrastructure globally, including in the US. The US government also has a huge vested interest in controlling this infrastructure, especially in the US, or at least being on good terms with the companies that build and manage it. It doesn't want partially government-owned and directed companies like Huawei supplying complicated and sometimes unvettable hardware and software over which Americans send each other vital information.
[1] China's central bank uses a modified version of a traditional fixed exchange rate. That's different from the floating exchange rate the United States and many other countries use. The People's Bank of China manages the yuan's value. It keeps it fixed to a basket of currencies reflecting its trading partners. The basket is weighted toward the dollar since the United States is China's largest trading partner. It keeps the yuan's value within a 2 percent range against that currency basket.
Why does China fix the yuan's value to the dollar? It manages its currency to control the prices of its exports. It wants to make sure its exports are reasonably priced when sold in the United States. Every country would like to do this, but few have China's ability to manage it so well. China's command economy allows it to control the central bank and many businesses. As a result, the Communist Party directs China's economy. The U.S. government regulates exchange rates instead of managing them.
https://www.thebalance.com/how-does-china-influence-the-u-s-...
Chinese investment is being scrutinized in real estate too. The govt has been forcing chinese companies to sell various big investments.
Real estate and Treasuries don't come with any real kind of leverage in other areas.
Equity has power and influence over companies.
Equity has power and influence over companies.
Reminds me of Reddit, Uber, Tesla and Snapchat (well, LA based), they have large portions of Chinese investment.
Writer of the article here. Totally get the frustrations with paywalls. Bottom line is feature stories like this take weeks, months, sometimes a year or more to produce. Sites without paywalls have to go for clicks (which are worth close to zero now that Google/Facebook gobble up most online ad budgets). If low value clicks are all you have, you end up like dailymail.co.uk.
If you want high value news, you have to pay someone a reasonable salary to report/write it.
Anyway, hope you enjoy and here's another fun part of the story:
The FBI office has conducted hundreds of briefings for companies on cybersecurity threats and economic espionage. It discourages people from using their regular smartphones and laptops when traveling in China and warns male U.S. executives to avoid “honeypot” espionage attempts by attractive women. “If you’re not a 10 in the U.S., you’re not a 10 in China,” officials say they’ve told the executives.
If you want high value news, you have to pay someone a reasonable salary to report/write it.
Anyway, hope you enjoy and here's another fun part of the story:
The FBI office has conducted hundreds of briefings for companies on cybersecurity threats and economic espionage. It discourages people from using their regular smartphones and laptops when traveling in China and warns male U.S. executives to avoid “honeypot” espionage attempts by attractive women. “If you’re not a 10 in the U.S., you’re not a 10 in China,” officials say they’ve told the executives.
I have stayed subscribed to the WSJ since you guys broke the theranos story. The non editorial sections are the best in journalism today. NYT political bias has seeped through every article wheras WSJ clearly separates political bias between editorials and news.
WSJ didn't break the story. Other people broke the story. That story was "broken" on forums all over the internet. A WSJ journalist just collated the story and wrote a book about it. And keep in mind the WSJ journalist who broke the story refused to criticize the reporters from forbes, fortune, etc who created the theranos story. I'd have more respect for John Carreyrou if he had the professionalism and morals to go after obvious bad journalism. But he chose to stand by the journalism's equivalent of the "blue wall of silence".
Lets not forget that elizabeth holmes and the theranos nonsense was built up by journalists. Lets not forget that she was the media darling of an agenda driven "journalists" who wanted to push a narrative rather than search for the truth.
Crediting the WSJ or journalists for the theranos story is like crediting an arsonist firefighters for putting out the fire they themselves set.
Lest we forget.
https://www.vox.com/2015/10/26/11620036/theranos-ceo-elizabe...
Lets not forget that elizabeth holmes and the theranos nonsense was built up by journalists. Lets not forget that she was the media darling of an agenda driven "journalists" who wanted to push a narrative rather than search for the truth.
Crediting the WSJ or journalists for the theranos story is like crediting an arsonist firefighters for putting out the fire they themselves set.
Lest we forget.
https://www.vox.com/2015/10/26/11620036/theranos-ceo-elizabe...
“If you’re not a 10 in the U.S., you’re not a 10 in China,” officials say they’ve told the executives.
Not true. If you're a 5 in the US, you're not a 10 in China. However, being Asian might well cost you a point or two in the US, depending on whom you ask. There are some weird cultural things going on in the US, in particular, manifesting as biases. I was raised in a place where we literally had to drive almost 50 miles to visit other Asian friends of the family. I have some perspective on this matter. Up until around 2011, it was not hard to find online assertions that Asian men were fundamentally less masculine and desirable, and it's still not impossible today.
Decades ago, I'd been called a "hottie." Strangely, the reactions I've gotten from women have varied tremendously -- more than makes sense to me. My conclusion after all these years, is that it had more to do with them than with myself.
My wife is from Fujian province in China. She has 4 degrees, including a PhD from Stanford. She used to perform Salsa dance. There's a video of her dancing in a gold sequined outfit looking like a starlet from the 60's. (Not public and which I'm not going to post, thank you.) She used to date millionaires, before I somehow snagged her. I've talked to her about these issues of bias, and my conclusion from those talks, is that, yes, there's some weird, pervasive "filter" in US culture, with regards to Asian men.
(I think it's in the same category of phenomena as the "Shiksa" attraction.)
Not true. If you're a 5 in the US, you're not a 10 in China. However, being Asian might well cost you a point or two in the US, depending on whom you ask. There are some weird cultural things going on in the US, in particular, manifesting as biases. I was raised in a place where we literally had to drive almost 50 miles to visit other Asian friends of the family. I have some perspective on this matter. Up until around 2011, it was not hard to find online assertions that Asian men were fundamentally less masculine and desirable, and it's still not impossible today.
Decades ago, I'd been called a "hottie." Strangely, the reactions I've gotten from women have varied tremendously -- more than makes sense to me. My conclusion after all these years, is that it had more to do with them than with myself.
My wife is from Fujian province in China. She has 4 degrees, including a PhD from Stanford. She used to perform Salsa dance. There's a video of her dancing in a gold sequined outfit looking like a starlet from the 60's. (Not public and which I'm not going to post, thank you.) She used to date millionaires, before I somehow snagged her. I've talked to her about these issues of bias, and my conclusion from those talks, is that, yes, there's some weird, pervasive "filter" in US culture, with regards to Asian men.
(I think it's in the same category of phenomena as the "Shiksa" attraction.)
I agree as a white guy. Asian guys have never been particularly well placed in most US media, movies, etc. and there is a stigma when white women date them - you rarely ever see it outside of places like SF and NYC.
I know for a fact my white female friends (at least in high school and college) had large biases against Asian dudes.
What's worse, it seems that many American-Asian women go for white guys instead of Asian men, though I have no idea why.
On the flip side, I believe I do get an extra few points with the ladies when I travel to Asian countries. I don't know if it's because they assume I'm wealthy (which I am compared to most in low wage Asian countries) or if it is just the foreign novelty.
And it's kind of a stereotype now where the unattractive American or British gent goes over to East / SE Asia to teach English (and pick up a girlfriend or bride).
I know for a fact my white female friends (at least in high school and college) had large biases against Asian dudes.
What's worse, it seems that many American-Asian women go for white guys instead of Asian men, though I have no idea why.
On the flip side, I believe I do get an extra few points with the ladies when I travel to Asian countries. I don't know if it's because they assume I'm wealthy (which I am compared to most in low wage Asian countries) or if it is just the foreign novelty.
And it's kind of a stereotype now where the unattractive American or British gent goes over to East / SE Asia to teach English (and pick up a girlfriend or bride).
I know for a fact my white female friends (at least in high school and college) had large biases against Asian dudes.
Thanks for this! I dislike identity politics when used as a bludgeon for the sake of power. However, many of the phenomena talked about are indeed real.
There's one Brazillian rom com, where the Chinese boyfriend was something of the "bad guy" or at least the punching bag. There's nothing about the character that's actually characterization. It's all about his being an Asian guy, who furnishes his apartment in a stereotypical "Asian" fashion, teaches martial arts, only ever wears his martial arts uniform, and makes gross noises in the bathroom. Wish I could remember the name of that movie.
And it's kind of a stereotype now where the unattractive American or British gent goes over to East / SE Asia to teach English (and pick up a girlfriend or bride).
It also works like this for Irish and Scottish guys with that "cute accent."
Thanks for this! I dislike identity politics when used as a bludgeon for the sake of power. However, many of the phenomena talked about are indeed real.
There's one Brazillian rom com, where the Chinese boyfriend was something of the "bad guy" or at least the punching bag. There's nothing about the character that's actually characterization. It's all about his being an Asian guy, who furnishes his apartment in a stereotypical "Asian" fashion, teaches martial arts, only ever wears his martial arts uniform, and makes gross noises in the bathroom. Wish I could remember the name of that movie.
And it's kind of a stereotype now where the unattractive American or British gent goes over to East / SE Asia to teach English (and pick up a girlfriend or bride).
It also works like this for Irish and Scottish guys with that "cute accent."
[deleted]
There's also the thing where seemingly 90% of ads for luxury brands feature white people. If you're outside of SH/BJ, white, and over 5'10, you're a pretty interesting novelty. Definitely +2/10 at least.
I work for a media company too that has been very aggressive when it comes to charging for our content and yes; quality journalism like this costs money and ads can unfortunately not support it anymore.
It was a good read! I appreciated your work!
It was a good read! I appreciated your work!
tibaiiplus , Thanks for an excellent article.
Are you planning any follow-ups on this topic? If so, would you like to be contacted with possible leads?
Are you planning any follow-ups on this topic? If so, would you like to be contacted with possible leads?
Always looking for leads. You can hit me up on Signal 847-380-0751
Ha, good line.
Thanks for hopping in to engage here, where paywalls are met with hostility. I appreciate both sides of this argument.
But thanks especially for the reporting!
Thanks for hopping in to engage here, where paywalls are met with hostility. I appreciate both sides of this argument.
But thanks especially for the reporting!
My pleasure. And btw: the best way to support the news is to share really good tips! Always on Signal for that as you can see from my Twitter handle: @rolfewinkler. ;)
WSJ is one of the very few news outlets that are worth reading now. Keep up good work. I am glad to pay subscription
In conjunction with the trade wars and increasingly hostile posturing between leaders, I'm nervous that the ultimate consequence may be war between super powers.
If raising the number of trading partners decreases the likelihood of war, decreasing may increase it's chance instead.
https://phys.org/news/2015-12-partners-wars-nations.html
If raising the number of trading partners decreases the likelihood of war, decreasing may increase it's chance instead.
https://phys.org/news/2015-12-partners-wars-nations.html
There's been no change in number of trading partners as a result of the trade war.
Also worth noting that the claim is more trading partners lowers likelihood of war. War can still happen.
At some point, economic interdependence cannot save a situation where two sides desperately want to change/preserve the state of something (about the world) and those desires come into conflict.
IMO, with US-China, the best inoculation against war would be to push for multilateral engagement... in either direction. But speaking from the US side, US needs to bring other countries into the efforts to reform the aspects of the CCP's behavior that are unacceptable long term.
Also worth noting that the claim is more trading partners lowers likelihood of war. War can still happen.
At some point, economic interdependence cannot save a situation where two sides desperately want to change/preserve the state of something (about the world) and those desires come into conflict.
IMO, with US-China, the best inoculation against war would be to push for multilateral engagement... in either direction. But speaking from the US side, US needs to bring other countries into the efforts to reform the aspects of the CCP's behavior that are unacceptable long term.
The EU is acting after what has come to light in New Zealand, Australia, and Africa. Unfortunately it appears they are acting separately because we are such great friends these days /s .
A lot of people only familiar with the surface link this to the trade war and Huawei, but those are largely reactions to the scope and reach of China's propaganda, control, and soft-power efforts that have been coming to light over the past few years.
Ultimately I believe these are all symptoms caused by a fundamental incompatibility between China's "communist", fascist government and the liberal democracies of the world. Unless that can be reconciled, which I don't believe it really can, everything else is just managing for time.
A lot of people only familiar with the surface link this to the trade war and Huawei, but those are largely reactions to the scope and reach of China's propaganda, control, and soft-power efforts that have been coming to light over the past few years.
Ultimately I believe these are all symptoms caused by a fundamental incompatibility between China's "communist", fascist government and the liberal democracies of the world. Unless that can be reconciled, which I don't believe it really can, everything else is just managing for time.
Anyone else paranoid about TikTok (owned by Chinese co ByteDance)? The fact that it's basically a video recording app it's hard to believe there isn't a backdoor to it.
What is the legal basis, if any, for getting rid of your investors for this or other reasons?
There isn't. In order to get rid of an existing Chinese investor, you have to work out a deal. If the investor really likes their investment, the terms will have to be fairly attractive to the investor to exit.
I would expect that there are national security laws that could be used if not explicit nationalisation.
There's no legal basis. It's just Xenophobia.
It could be xenophobia. It could be money laundering regs. It could be "national security concerns" which may be xenophobia or may be legitimate.
Too bad none of us can actually read minds, so we'll never know. If there's a charitable assumption about the state of someone's mind that the facts don't contradict, then it should be taken.
It's funny how many people are emotionally attached to the delusion that they are psychic. I honestly wonder where they got that idea.
It's funny how many people are emotionally attached to the delusion that they are psychic. I honestly wonder where they got that idea.
Sinophoia, rather than xenophobia
Sinophobia, to quote Snicket, is a word which in this sentence means, not wanting to do business with China for national security and geopolitical reasons having nothing to do with race.
There's a fair dose of racism involved, just as there was with the very similar hysteria over Japanese investment in the 1980s.
The same attitude applies to Russians and I doubt you can call racism on that one. Seriously, Chinese call up the racism card far too often for unrelated things for me to take those statements seriously.
I'm not Chinese, but thanks for assuming (I'm from Sinope, but I consider myself a cosmopolitan and reside in a barrel in the Athenian market).
As you correctly point out, there is a hysteria about Russians at the moment, as well. I think the US is primed for this because of the long history of anti-Russian propaganda during the Cold War.
When it comes to China, I see all sorts of extra negative characterizations of Chinese people coming into play. I've seen threads here on HN which people go on about how Chinese students are cheaters, and how Chinese culture promotes cheating. That's just an outrageous and ignorant characterization of Chinese culture, and I do think it represents a type of widespread prejudice.
As you correctly point out, there is a hysteria about Russians at the moment, as well. I think the US is primed for this because of the long history of anti-Russian propaganda during the Cold War.
When it comes to China, I see all sorts of extra negative characterizations of Chinese people coming into play. I've seen threads here on HN which people go on about how Chinese students are cheaters, and how Chinese culture promotes cheating. That's just an outrageous and ignorant characterization of Chinese culture, and I do think it represents a type of widespread prejudice.
Regardless of the wider debate, it's very sad to learn that Shoucheng Zhang decided to take his own life. He was the only VC I've ever had a legitimate, deep technical discussion with, and I respected him as a scientist.
Even if the Chinese government never interfered with a single company, I don't want Chinese corporate culture "leeching into the groundwater" as it were. They put Europe and the US to shame when it comes to not giving a damn. About safety, the environment, intellectual property, you name it.
scarface74(1)
Don't they use the dollars they receive to finance the negative US balance of trade ? Is the dollar toxic ?
When you have a global currency that all other currencies are measured in and all oil is bought in, what happens to a country that has economic surpluses? They have to buy dollars.
What happens if countries want to buy dollars? The U.S. government (well, the Fed) has to print them. If you look at the balance of trade and look at the dollar as a printed thing, the US is very good at getting the rest of the world to buy their dollars (that can be just printed or magically made on a computer screen) and getting real stuff in return. I wish I could print money and get boxes of nice shiny iphones, shoes and other trinkets.
I think this is a pretty successful exploitation model. The dollars printed to go overseas to buy oil and other stuff don't come back to cause inflation. Apart from anything else, if another country decides to dump its dollars then if that did cause inflation in the US then that would devalue their remaining holding.
Meanwhile the US can spend as much as it wants on gunboats and the like to enforce this hegemony.
If you benefit from this system, i.e. by being an American, then the dollar is far from toxic. If you are a farmer in a developing nation trying to sell wheat then your view of the dollar may be different.
What happens if countries want to buy dollars? The U.S. government (well, the Fed) has to print them. If you look at the balance of trade and look at the dollar as a printed thing, the US is very good at getting the rest of the world to buy their dollars (that can be just printed or magically made on a computer screen) and getting real stuff in return. I wish I could print money and get boxes of nice shiny iphones, shoes and other trinkets.
I think this is a pretty successful exploitation model. The dollars printed to go overseas to buy oil and other stuff don't come back to cause inflation. Apart from anything else, if another country decides to dump its dollars then if that did cause inflation in the US then that would devalue their remaining holding.
Meanwhile the US can spend as much as it wants on gunboats and the like to enforce this hegemony.
If you benefit from this system, i.e. by being an American, then the dollar is far from toxic. If you are a farmer in a developing nation trying to sell wheat then your view of the dollar may be different.
"The dollars printed to go overseas to buy oil and other stuff don't come back to cause inflation."
I think this part is wrong. When overseas oil companies get the dollars they are going to spend them, otherwise they wouldn't sell in the first place. If the economy worked the way you suggest I think we would see inflation from those dollars sent overseas for oil etc.
This article introduces a new term 'structural' for describing the US trade deficit.
Essentially if a country is to have their currency as the world's reserve currency then they have to run at a deficit.
Since all those extra dollars that get printed go overseas they are not in the US economy to cause price inflation, i.e. too much money chasing too few goods.
https://qz.com/1266044/why-does-the-us-run-a-trade-deficit-t...
Essentially if a country is to have their currency as the world's reserve currency then they have to run at a deficit.
Since all those extra dollars that get printed go overseas they are not in the US economy to cause price inflation, i.e. too much money chasing too few goods.
https://qz.com/1266044/why-does-the-us-run-a-trade-deficit-t...
Anecdata time:
In 2012 Canada allowed the sale of Nexen (an oil company) to CNOOC. CNOOC management promised they would keep the staff in Canada, the management local etc.
Fast forward 7 years later and it's a ghost town, they cite "business need" but somehow all the jobs have moved abroad and the only thing remaining in Alberta is a resource pump sending all the value abroad.
This comment is not intended to be about racially Chinese people, but the constantly malicious and negative behavior of the communist government in China.
Fast forward 7 years later and it's a ghost town, they cite "business need" but somehow all the jobs have moved abroad and the only thing remaining in Alberta is a resource pump sending all the value abroad.
This comment is not intended to be about racially Chinese people, but the constantly malicious and negative behavior of the communist government in China.
7 years is really a long time and there is likely to be some real needs to adjust business operation. If the deal doesn’t specify a duration to keep jobs in canada, you can’t reasonably expect it to be forever.
CCP has done horrible things, but it isn’t really a CCP specific behavior; any greedy capitalist would have done the same.
CCP has done horrible things, but it isn’t really a CCP specific behavior; any greedy capitalist would have done the same.
Why would you post the paywalled version of the link?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/chinese-cash-is-suddenly-toxic-...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/chinese-cash-is-suddenly-toxic-...
Chinese cash may be toxic in Silicon Valley, but not in Silicon Wadi!
Which is why we're deliberately transferring our high-tech sector to Israel. None of this makes any sense for America.
So long as Chinese money comes with so many strings attached (political concessions, IP transfer) this is good for the US and US companies. Hard to imagine a country where investing comes with so much additional baggage.
china owns 5.6% of US national debt.
does this make US debt toxic?
Do all of you have WSJ and NYTimes subscriptions? I can't read any of those links submitted quite frequently
For WSJ submissions you can append ?mod=rsswn to the url and read the article that way.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/chinese-cash-is-suddenly-toxic-...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/chinese-cash-is-suddenly-toxic-...
Any chance WSJ or NYT devs read HN/Reddit and work on closing these loops? They only seem to last for so long. Thanks for this one.
Equally likely they notice the thundering herd of non-subscribers accessing a select few articles through a particular hole in their subscription wall. Surely can't be that hard for them to track.
Created an account just to thank you for this tip.
Oh that's cool. Thanks mate!
The real unsung hero!
When is WSJ I don't even click anymore.
Subscribing to a few major newspapers is probably not a bad idea. Otherwise we’ll only see the news/ads FANG sees fit to show us.
Christian Science Monitor is apparently an overperformer (very modest brand awareness and hence very affordable, but generally respected for its journalism).
Christian Science Monitor is apparently an overperformer (very modest brand awareness and hence very affordable, but generally respected for its journalism).
The problem for me is always which ones? If I were to dig through my browsing history and plot a frequency/frecency list of news-ish sites I visit, I don't think I'd see a small few dominate the list. I wouldn't mind throwing a couple bucks a month at the sites at or near the top, but I can't justify giving each of them even $5/mo, and certainly not the $10-$30/mo most publications charge for memberships. I just don't get that much value out of each one.
I'm still a big proponent of a micropayments system where my browser can automatically send a single- or double-digit amount of cents to the publisher (with my permission, of course) when I read an article. But I have no expectation of something like that gaining traction.
I'm still a big proponent of a micropayments system where my browser can automatically send a single- or double-digit amount of cents to the publisher (with my permission, of course) when I read an article. But I have no expectation of something like that gaining traction.
lagadu(2)
You can open them in apple News+ now. And a lot of people have it through work.
The discussions are often fruitful even if not everyone can read it.
(For News+ - open the article, click the sharesheet, select Open in News)
The discussions are often fruitful even if not everyone can read it.
(For News+ - open the article, click the sharesheet, select Open in News)
Append "?mod=rsswn" to the url. Paywall gone!
I get them through my employer.
For those who claimed Chinese cash is toxic, let me ask you an important question: what about Softbank's cash that primarily coming from Saudi? What about the Ivy League schools' endowment money donated by "morally unethical"(including but not limited to middle east) sources? Are you not going to send your children to Ivy League schools?
"Toxic" in this case isn't referring to morally questionable - it's referring to "nobody wants it". There are many sources of cash (most of them, probably) that some people would consider morally questionable. People still want most of them. The article is referring to a phenomena that's a level up from that, where the cash brings with it enough practical problems that it's not worth taking.
Japan (where Softbank is from) and Saudi Arabia are not geopolitical rivals to the USA. China is. This isn't about morality.
I think the assertion that Chinese cash is toxic is not so much because of bad things that Chinese do to their own citizens; it looks like the point you're trying to make is that Saudis : Khashoggi and gay people :: China : Uyghurs and Tiananmen, or something of that nature.
Rather, the claim of toxicity stems from the perceived tendency for Chinese investors to be difficult LPs and steal intellectual property both pre-deal during diligence and post-deal once they are in the capital structure. There's an additional perception of 'toxicity' in terms of the way that having Chinese investors might limit a company's ability to procure US Gov contracts, which is getting tighter under this administration, as described in the article.
The comparison to sending your kid to an Ivy League school makes no sense to me whatsoever, seems like a total non-sequitur.
Rather, the claim of toxicity stems from the perceived tendency for Chinese investors to be difficult LPs and steal intellectual property both pre-deal during diligence and post-deal once they are in the capital structure. There's an additional perception of 'toxicity' in terms of the way that having Chinese investors might limit a company's ability to procure US Gov contracts, which is getting tighter under this administration, as described in the article.
The comparison to sending your kid to an Ivy League school makes no sense to me whatsoever, seems like a total non-sequitur.
No reason for this to be downvoted.
IP theft/strongarming and sales opportunities are the more likely concerns from the entrepreneur/business side.
Some people are taking the moral stance, but TFA lines up with parent comment well
IP theft/strongarming and sales opportunities are the more likely concerns from the entrepreneur/business side.
Some people are taking the moral stance, but TFA lines up with parent comment well
National security Vs not
You're posting Whataboutisms. It's not all or nothing.
There are massive externalities to Chinese influence from a culture of a city/state side. I think this is a good thing.
Could somebody explain to me the vicious American hate for China from a totally uninformed viewpoint? Any links to read why I should also dislike China?
> vicious American hate for China
Nationalistic flamebait is not ok on HN. Would you please stop posting that, and political flamebait in general, so we don't have to ban you again?
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Nationalistic flamebait is not ok on HN. Would you please stop posting that, and political flamebait in general, so we don't have to ban you again?
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
You're being downvoted heavily (not surprising for a site with a strong US/Western audience), but here's what I think:
China is emerging geopolitical rival (balance) to the US (and the West in general).
Mainstream US media is great at amplifying US govt propaganda and publishing hit pieces on US rivals (see media portrayals of Soviet Union during the Cold war as an example: https://www.e-ir.info/2013/10/26/the-role-of-the-media-durin... ) or of Japan during the 80s (see https://spice.fsi.stanford.edu/docs/japan_in_the_us_press_bi...).
The same is happening against China now and there is an effort to shame anyone with contacts with China.
China is emerging geopolitical rival (balance) to the US (and the West in general).
Mainstream US media is great at amplifying US govt propaganda and publishing hit pieces on US rivals (see media portrayals of Soviet Union during the Cold war as an example: https://www.e-ir.info/2013/10/26/the-role-of-the-media-durin... ) or of Japan during the 80s (see https://spice.fsi.stanford.edu/docs/japan_in_the_us_press_bi...).
The same is happening against China now and there is an effort to shame anyone with contacts with China.
Found you comment at the bottom of the comment section. Feels like the only safe place here. I've been noticing that the past few years there has been a sharp uptick in vitriolic statements about China.
There was a great look at American 'propaganda' in one of the China in Africa podcast where they were debating whether Voice of America is American propaganda. I think their specific debate was about the term collateral debt in relation to the infrastructure projects China has undertaken in Africa and the agreements that support them. It really helped me see that while the term is still sharply defined when speaking about "other" nation's propaganda, American's have a very difficult time extracting ideas which were put out by the American government and picked up as talking points by the media.
I don't know if propaganda is still the correct term anymore, but it at least feels like group think, which worries me.
There was a great look at American 'propaganda' in one of the China in Africa podcast where they were debating whether Voice of America is American propaganda. I think their specific debate was about the term collateral debt in relation to the infrastructure projects China has undertaken in Africa and the agreements that support them. It really helped me see that while the term is still sharply defined when speaking about "other" nation's propaganda, American's have a very difficult time extracting ideas which were put out by the American government and picked up as talking points by the media.
I don't know if propaganda is still the correct term anymore, but it at least feels like group think, which worries me.
IP theft, copycat tech, and forced technology transfer [1] (US corps giving their IP to gain access to the market).
[1] https://econofact.org/what-is-the-problem-of-forced-technolo...
[1] https://econofact.org/what-is-the-problem-of-forced-technolo...
“It was the rise of Athens, and the fear that this instilled in Sparta, that made war inevitable.”
I don't think being suspicious of a country that has its citizens in literal concentration camps is "vicious hate". It's not a bad thing to turn a critical eye towards authoritarian states and questions their money and motives. Likewise, people should be critical of the US and its role in human rights violations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang_re-education_camps
https://www.france24.com/en/20190510-reporters-plus-survivin...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/the-...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang_re-education_camps
https://www.france24.com/en/20190510-reporters-plus-survivin...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/the-...
USA has 2.3 million incarcerated and prison slavery is legal under the 13th amendment, a lot incarcerated based on race and for very small crimes. A lot of those prisons also have very rough conditions and prisoners are exposed to violent and inhumane treatment. This is extremely unethical. Why is this any different? Companies send their work to these prisons for literal slave labor and I never see anyone up in arms about it. Not many seem to be critical of their own government, but love judging other governments.
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2018.html
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2018.html
Not many seem to be critical of their own government? Have you spent much time online? And you're pulling out whataboutism in reply to a comment that ends with "Likewise, people should be critical of the US and its role in human rights violations."
Ah, so you weren't asking a legitimate question, you were just baiting.
From a very broad moral perspective, their human rights violations are legion[1] including large open air internment camps for ethnic/religious minorities like the Uyghur[2], political imprisonment[3], alleged organ harvesting of prisoners[4], supporting North Korea ...
From a purely tech perspective, state-sponsored hacking[5] and IP theft[6] are common.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_China
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang_re-education_camps
[3] https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2018/country-chapters/china...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Go...
[5] https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/state-hacking-1220201...
[6] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/28/1-in-5-companies-say-china-s...
From a purely tech perspective, state-sponsored hacking[5] and IP theft[6] are common.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_China
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang_re-education_camps
[3] https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2018/country-chapters/china...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Go...
[5] https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/state-hacking-1220201...
[6] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/28/1-in-5-companies-say-china-s...
Please don't do the whole list-of-links-on-flamewar-topic thing on HN. It's internet boilerplate. Anything that predictable is off topic here.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Come on if human right were really an issue for the US, Saudi Arabia which oppress half of its population, which is an absolute monarchy (you know the medieval version), which has absolutely no respect of basic human rights would not be one of the best US allies.
> From a very broad moral perspective, their human rights violations are legion
This judgement coming from the country with the highest incarceration rate, criminalized abortion, caged immigrants, historic systematic racism, legal bribery (lobbying), genrrymandering electoral system, countless invasions with disastrous results in the middle east, africa & asia
Don't get me wrong but outside the US everyone is wondering what is the moral high ground?
This judgement coming from the country with the highest incarceration rate, criminalized abortion, caged immigrants, historic systematic racism, legal bribery (lobbying), genrrymandering electoral system, countless invasions with disastrous results in the middle east, africa & asia
Don't get me wrong but outside the US everyone is wondering what is the moral high ground?
It's whataboutism to mention that one has 1.5x more absolute and 5x more per-capita prisoners than a place one calls a police state.
Sorry, but accusing others of whataboutism doesn't detract from your own double standards:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism#Criticism
Others have criticized the usage of accusations of whataboutism by American news outlets, arguing that the accusation whataboutism has been used to simply "deflect" criticisms of human rights abuses perpetrated by the United States or its allies.
They argue that the usage of the term almost exclusively by American outlets is a double standard, and that moral accusations made by powerful countries are merely a pretext to punish their geopolitical rivals in the face of their own wrongdoing.
In fact, invoking 'whataboutism' in the way you have done is a misuse and a deliberate attempt to deflect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism#Criticism
Others have criticized the usage of accusations of whataboutism by American news outlets, arguing that the accusation whataboutism has been used to simply "deflect" criticisms of human rights abuses perpetrated by the United States or its allies.
They argue that the usage of the term almost exclusively by American outlets is a double standard, and that moral accusations made by powerful countries are merely a pretext to punish their geopolitical rivals in the face of their own wrongdoing.
In fact, invoking 'whataboutism' in the way you have done is a misuse and a deliberate attempt to deflect.
[deleted]
It kinda proves OP's point that Americans would be so outraged about somebody else violating the rights of muslims..
Can you establish that such a "vicious hatred" even exists?
I'd gladly accept their money.
My company automates things, not creates economic or political policy.
My company automates things, not creates economic or political policy.
scarface74(2)
Many people critique the system of global capitalism, however 'can we please return to feudalism', is not generally what most of them were meaning.
I'm all for openness and transparency, but wouldn't an increase in US refusal to play with China just lead to more censorship and oppression by the communist Chinese government?
Consider the following:
1. The Chinese communist government derives its legitimacy to rule almost exclusively from its massive economic growth (i.e. Chinese citizens and corporations are effectively saying to themselves "I'm ok to trade some of my human rights for lots of money")
2. The Chinese communist government wishes to remain in power
So if the US decides to target Chinese economic growth - i.e. lower the amount of money that an unit of human rights could buy - this should cause the Chinese citizens and corporations to respond by exercising the human right that the Chinese government is no longer able to buy with growth. In turn, this would cause the Chinese government to use alternative methods (i.e. straight-up oppression by force) to prevent the Chinese people from becoming unruly.
This sort of pressure on the Chinese government may lead to reform (which is indeed a good thing), but it may also lead to civil / politic unrest and a massive economic slow-down that will have aftershocks around the world (which is certainly less than ideal) - and all of this pretty much will depend on how Xi decides to handle this pressure.
Here in the US, We should at least recognize that this is a risky move and take measures to protect ourselves against this (somehow)
Consider the following:
1. The Chinese communist government derives its legitimacy to rule almost exclusively from its massive economic growth (i.e. Chinese citizens and corporations are effectively saying to themselves "I'm ok to trade some of my human rights for lots of money")
2. The Chinese communist government wishes to remain in power
So if the US decides to target Chinese economic growth - i.e. lower the amount of money that an unit of human rights could buy - this should cause the Chinese citizens and corporations to respond by exercising the human right that the Chinese government is no longer able to buy with growth. In turn, this would cause the Chinese government to use alternative methods (i.e. straight-up oppression by force) to prevent the Chinese people from becoming unruly.
This sort of pressure on the Chinese government may lead to reform (which is indeed a good thing), but it may also lead to civil / politic unrest and a massive economic slow-down that will have aftershocks around the world (which is certainly less than ideal) - and all of this pretty much will depend on how Xi decides to handle this pressure.
Here in the US, We should at least recognize that this is a risky move and take measures to protect ourselves against this (somehow)
I would like to remind that the Soviet regime was defeated by economic issues.
I think the only reason the CPC regime might change is due to economic problems. The more abrupt they would be, the better: people need to remember better times and demand change to get back there — including people at higher positions in CPC itself.
Remember how the "cultural revolution" fiasco led to serious liberalization and eventually to the "economic miracle".
I think the only reason the CPC regime might change is due to economic problems. The more abrupt they would be, the better: people need to remember better times and demand change to get back there — including people at higher positions in CPC itself.
Remember how the "cultural revolution" fiasco led to serious liberalization and eventually to the "economic miracle".
Chinese growth was slowing anyway. Now they have a convenient scapegoat for that, big bad America. The long-term consequences of deep hostility against America in the general Chinese population are hard to predict, but they are not going to be favorable to us.
The anti-American rhetoric has always been there, no matter what. The Communist party can even blame the tiananmen square massacre on the western world. This is called brainwash.
They couldn't claim Chinese growth slowdown was cause by America then. Now, they can, and it will even be the truth, if not the whole truth.
>I would like to remind that the Soviet regime was defeated by economic issues.
It was brought to its knees by economic issues. It was defeated by helping install a puppet imbecile. And looking at current affairs, I suspect they may have held a grudge.
It was brought to its knees by economic issues. It was defeated by helping install a puppet imbecile. And looking at current affairs, I suspect they may have held a grudge.
I always laugh whenever I remember how Zuckerberg was pandering to the Chinese, like insisting to poorly speak Mandarin on some QA panel with Chinese students and such.
The times they are a-changin!
The times they are a-changin!
> " like insisting to poorly speak Mandarin on some QA panel with Chinese students and such."
That's peanuts; check out this: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/119106...
> The awkward moment reportedly arose when the Facebook founder, speaking in Mandarin, asked Mr Xi if could would honour him by giving his unborn baby daughter an honorary Chinese name. According to sources, Mr Xi politely declined, saying it was “too much responsibility”, reported Page Six, a celebrity news site for the New York Post.
That's peanuts; check out this: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/119106...
> The awkward moment reportedly arose when the Facebook founder, speaking in Mandarin, asked Mr Xi if could would honour him by giving his unborn baby daughter an honorary Chinese name. According to sources, Mr Xi politely declined, saying it was “too much responsibility”, reported Page Six, a celebrity news site for the New York Post.
yeh a lot of people did this and none it worked. Now china has no allies in business
This is the turning point where tech has become a munition again. Rather than export controls, it's business blacklists.
It's a weird switch. Before we would sell billions in arms around the world with little risk of it being used against us. But digital munitions can be used against anyone, anywhere, any time. The USG will have to tightly control all tech used in the country to prevent cyber weaponry being used against us.
It's a weird switch. Before we would sell billions in arms around the world with little risk of it being used against us. But digital munitions can be used against anyone, anywhere, any time. The USG will have to tightly control all tech used in the country to prevent cyber weaponry being used against us.