Don't take on China alone, says ex-Australia PM Kevin Rudd(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Don't take on China alone, says ex-Australia PM Kevin Rudd
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-57264249
108 comments
I think most mainlander Chinese like me would appreciate the vision of the politicians who chose to engage with the Communist Party—-We’re glad we don’t live in a West Korea as a result.
The real problem came when the Beijing model began to free-ride on the openness of the West: internet companies can go West but not East; same with some cultural exchanges, media and information. Trade rules failing to address unique tricks the Leninist party-state is able to pull. Failing to see the risk of the system generating mini-Mao-style dictators. To be fair before Xi we were on a somewhat benign track with regular transitions of power.
The real problem came when the Beijing model began to free-ride on the openness of the West: internet companies can go West but not East; same with some cultural exchanges, media and information. Trade rules failing to address unique tricks the Leninist party-state is able to pull. Failing to see the risk of the system generating mini-Mao-style dictators. To be fair before Xi we were on a somewhat benign track with regular transitions of power.
> Internet companies can go west but not east.
Also native Chinese here. I do not quite agree with your view on that. Yes, Facebook and Google were censored in China, but were eBay and Amazon blocked in China? Neither of them found a way to do business well in the China market.
I'm totally against censorship, too. But blaming all things on the GFW is unreasonable to me. I think the reason here is that most educated Chinese people CAN speak, or at least read, simple English, while very few western people can speak Chinese. Getting into a market that speaks a language you understand is much easier than getting into a market with different language.
Everything invented in the silicon valley will be shared and discussed in Beijing/Shanghai/Shenzhen in almost no time. There are even Weibo accounts just reposting HN headlines, arxiv papers, etc. Each of these accounts has a huge amount of followers. How many westerns can read Chinese and know what is happening right now in China? China is far behind the western world when it comes to science and technology, but with a 1.4 billion population, I'm sure there are a few great ideas. However, westerners are hard to get them not because of the "closeness" of the east, but for the language barriers.
When I see a technical post on HN, the comments are always meaningful and profound. But the comments in political posts are often too simple, sometimes even naïve. I wish we could think as hard as we do when discuss the newest technologies.
Also native Chinese here. I do not quite agree with your view on that. Yes, Facebook and Google were censored in China, but were eBay and Amazon blocked in China? Neither of them found a way to do business well in the China market.
I'm totally against censorship, too. But blaming all things on the GFW is unreasonable to me. I think the reason here is that most educated Chinese people CAN speak, or at least read, simple English, while very few western people can speak Chinese. Getting into a market that speaks a language you understand is much easier than getting into a market with different language.
Everything invented in the silicon valley will be shared and discussed in Beijing/Shanghai/Shenzhen in almost no time. There are even Weibo accounts just reposting HN headlines, arxiv papers, etc. Each of these accounts has a huge amount of followers. How many westerns can read Chinese and know what is happening right now in China? China is far behind the western world when it comes to science and technology, but with a 1.4 billion population, I'm sure there are a few great ideas. However, westerners are hard to get them not because of the "closeness" of the east, but for the language barriers.
When I see a technical post on HN, the comments are always meaningful and profound. But the comments in political posts are often too simple, sometimes even naïve. I wish we could think as hard as we do when discuss the newest technologies.
Too simple, sometimes naïve. I see what your did there ;)
I pointed out GFW as one example, and actually agree with you that it’s not the only reason exchanges are so limited.
However, I do notice that examples of failed Western attempts to penetrate China usually stops at Amazon and eBay: after these, popular platforms have been so pro-actively blocked that it’s impossible to know what outcome would be if they were given to chance to freely compete. And the internet turned social, which in nature runs against the Party’s grip on speech.
I pointed out GFW as one example, and actually agree with you that it’s not the only reason exchanges are so limited.
However, I do notice that examples of failed Western attempts to penetrate China usually stops at Amazon and eBay: after these, popular platforms have been so pro-actively blocked that it’s impossible to know what outcome would be if they were given to chance to freely compete. And the internet turned social, which in nature runs against the Party’s grip on speech.
I personally think the GFW is a good thing, for now, that other developing countries may have an interest in copying. Free flowing mass communication in nations without fully developed public (security) services can be a disaster... the conflicts (and even genocides) that arose from poorer countries adopting FB come to mind.
Also a foreign entity with suspicious partners having direct access to naive citizens around the world should be viewed as an attack vector especially if the locally accepted values don't match those of foreign entity.
Also a foreign entity with suspicious partners having direct access to naive citizens around the world should be viewed as an attack vector especially if the locally accepted values don't match those of foreign entity.
You can argue same thing for Korean/Japanese, but they have no GFW.
Could you expand on what you mean by "West Korea"?
Thanks!
Thanks!
A country as bad as North Korea.
Ok that would make sense. Thanks!
I was wondering if there was in some sense a hybrid of North and South envisioned that would be not desirable for Chinese citizens but my limited experience with China kinda makes me feel like it actually is somewhere between the two in some sense.
I was wondering if there was in some sense a hybrid of North and South envisioned that would be not desirable for Chinese citizens but my limited experience with China kinda makes me feel like it actually is somewhere between the two in some sense.
GP probably meant North Korea.
How common do you think your view on "the real problem" is amongst your peers on the mainland? From my view in HK, it's
a) hard to see many agreeing with your view, and b) also very difficult to form an accurate picture
a) hard to see many agreeing with your view, and b) also very difficult to form an accurate picture
Agree with you on both. Rare I think. And those who share it are becoming more and more afraid to express them.
> all our western countries
Even Poland of Warsaw pack joined NATO. I wonder if western means the same thing to people.
It has evolved to mean North America and European democracies ?
Even Poland of Warsaw pack joined NATO. I wonder if western means the same thing to people.
It has evolved to mean North America and European democracies ?
That's almost an overly-simplistic view on the matter, it wasn't because it's a good idea, just because it's cheaper. American likely would not have any global hardware company like Apple without outsourced labor since the dollar-priced device would be way too expensive for the rest of the world and maybe Americans too. And much of the comfort Americans depend today rely on China's cheap labor (or elsewhere for that matter). When a shared bedroom in SF cost two thousand dollars, most people who earn four thousands can live a considerably comfortable life because they are getting paid in dollars but buying with Chinese Yuan, so to speak. but if they are only allowed buy things made by their fellow Americans, it simply would not be enough.
I'm sympathetic to this view but, respectfully, it too is a simplification. There are so many factors at play here probably no one person truly understands it well.
Take for example that even if there was labour available at costs close to China within the US there would not be the incredible supply chain in terms of flexibility and speed that exists in China. Something that Apple is trying slowly, without drawing too much attention, to change because being that reliant on one political territory is very dangerous.
Take for example that even if there was labour available at costs close to China within the US there would not be the incredible supply chain in terms of flexibility and speed that exists in China. Something that Apple is trying slowly, without drawing too much attention, to change because being that reliant on one political territory is very dangerous.
That supply was slowly built and a similar one existed in the US (for that time) before. That’s not something specific or special to China.
Human rights were not an issue as long as China provided cheap labour and lax environmental laws.
Now China is outgrowing its status as a cheap manufacturing and copying country and then they are an issue again.
As with oil-producing countries, as long as they supply oil, it doesn't matter if they are dictatorships, as soon as they don't supply any, they need democracy.
The real issue isn’t the size of China or its financial power housing, it’s that it’s market isn’t open.
If it was you’d see all the western oligarchs abandoning us in favour for better markets in a heartbeat.
If it was you’d see all the western oligarchs abandoning us in favour for better markets in a heartbeat.
That wasn't a problem until China started moving up the economic food chain.
Of course it was. It is a completely different issue now after it became clear that China will not open its markets, and went openly adversarial
It was a minor issue at the time and the second part should have been obvious to any half decent intelligence agency.
Greed.
Greed.
China "will not open its markets", yet foreign direct investments in 2020 were at an all time high. There are serious problems with the narrative that "China will not open its markets".
The money people still think they can change China. Maybe it’ll turn out they were right, maybe not.
I think it fits rather perfectly into a narrative with 30 years of western investments into China with the expectancy of it opening up more. The money men are just rustling their swords because it’s not happening fast enough, maybe some are even beginning to worry a little about the past year of not being capable of exploiting their insanely long supply lines, but it’s probably mostly just impatience still. Either way it’s not like they won’t do anything to keep making what money they can at the same time.
I think it fits rather perfectly into a narrative with 30 years of western investments into China with the expectancy of it opening up more. The money men are just rustling their swords because it’s not happening fast enough, maybe some are even beginning to worry a little about the past year of not being capable of exploiting their insanely long supply lines, but it’s probably mostly just impatience still. Either way it’s not like they won’t do anything to keep making what money they can at the same time.
How does that make sense? How do you surge foreign direct investments to record highs when markets are not open?
Your statement is also based on a false premise. Companies don't invest in China to change China. They invest in China to make a profit. And making a profit, they did and they do.
Wanting to change China is, ironically, something which mostly non-businesspeople want. Which makes the narrative that "we're being hostile to China because they don't open up markets" all the more insane.
China has opened up. Walk down the street in China for 10 minutes and you see a ton of foreign companies. There are so much more foreign companies in China now than 30 years ago that the entire statement "China hasn't opened up" makes absolutely no sense. Not everything is open, sure, but that's still a far cry from "China hasn't opened up". China is also continuing to open up more parts of the markets.
This comment here is on point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27333819
The fact is, even if China isn't opening up as quickly or as much as you like, the trade agreement with China was never based on symmetry in the first place. It wasn't the goal, and more importantly, symmetry isn't needed for both parties to get what they want.
Both parties did get what they want. What the US now wants has changed. It's entirely possible to renegotiate and get what you want, without devolving into useless, illogical and dishonest aggression rherotic. This whole cold war is entirely unnecessary, but I guess people care more about making up an enemy and being able to moral grandstand, than to address actual issues.
Your statement is also based on a false premise. Companies don't invest in China to change China. They invest in China to make a profit. And making a profit, they did and they do.
Wanting to change China is, ironically, something which mostly non-businesspeople want. Which makes the narrative that "we're being hostile to China because they don't open up markets" all the more insane.
China has opened up. Walk down the street in China for 10 minutes and you see a ton of foreign companies. There are so much more foreign companies in China now than 30 years ago that the entire statement "China hasn't opened up" makes absolutely no sense. Not everything is open, sure, but that's still a far cry from "China hasn't opened up". China is also continuing to open up more parts of the markets.
This comment here is on point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27333819
The fact is, even if China isn't opening up as quickly or as much as you like, the trade agreement with China was never based on symmetry in the first place. It wasn't the goal, and more importantly, symmetry isn't needed for both parties to get what they want.
Both parties did get what they want. What the US now wants has changed. It's entirely possible to renegotiate and get what you want, without devolving into useless, illogical and dishonest aggression rherotic. This whole cold war is entirely unnecessary, but I guess people care more about making up an enemy and being able to moral grandstand, than to address actual issues.
Thats a super cynical take. I would say what you said is def is a part of it but society now is more aware of these issues and more willing to take these on. Intially i think the expectation was that china would westernize and adopt our rulesets gradually but thats hasn't come to fruition.
Why is Chinese repression so much more interesting than Saudi repression? We focus on the sins, both real and perceived, of our enemies; the United States and more generally the Democratic West has zero issue with allying itself with all manner of brutal dictatorships, as long as they do our bidding. I don't think this is a cynical take, but frankly a matter of public record, and ignoring it is to fall for our own propaganda.
Saudi repression is super interesting, and I think we should talk more about it. MBS got off way too easily on his assignation of a journalist, and that the USA continues to ally themselves with him is despicable. Incidentally, we should be talking more about Turkey now, they aren’t going in a good direction, or even some of the crazy things happening in India right now. And of course, Myanmar has gone to heck recently.
China is a country on the cusp of development, they have the chance to go in the liberal society direction and it’s so sad to see them backsliding. That and their size is why they get the most attention, but because they are by any means the worst.
China is a country on the cusp of development, they have the chance to go in the liberal society direction and it’s so sad to see them backsliding. That and their size is why they get the most attention, but because they are by any means the worst.
I’ll take your what about and raise you. Why didn’t the EU sanction the US for Guantanamo bay and Extraordinary rendition aka kidnapping
Or the fabricated WMD story make Blair and bush war criminals
FWIW I don’t think 2 wrongs make a right but also to take the moral high ground a group must have the moral high ground consistently
FWIW I don’t think 2 wrongs make a right but also to take the moral high ground a group must have the moral high ground consistently
China is interesting because over 15% of the entire world's population lives there. China is interesting because it has the second largest GDP in the world. China is interesting because it has the largest military in the world.
The government that runs China may not be especially worse than any other authoritarian government in the world. But because China is a world leader, they rightfully attract the attention of the rest of the world, just like America has for decades and other great powers did before it.
I get the sense that the Chinese government wants to have its cake and eat it too - it wants to run the most powerful country in the world, but it does not want to accept the criticism that comes with that position.
The government that runs China may not be especially worse than any other authoritarian government in the world. But because China is a world leader, they rightfully attract the attention of the rest of the world, just like America has for decades and other great powers did before it.
I get the sense that the Chinese government wants to have its cake and eat it too - it wants to run the most powerful country in the world, but it does not want to accept the criticism that comes with that position.
Saudi was, at least before COVID, opening up tourism (except for the two holy cities). At least then people could go and see things for themselves, and there is a liberalizing potential if the locals crave tourist income more than they fear hardliners. China, on the other hand has made it harder to visit certain regions of the country in the last 13 years.
I think you've summed up geopolitics of the last few decades quite aptly.
The whole "they need democracy" and suddenly farmers have an absurd amount of AK47s - and talks of a coup - should not fool anyone really. But it does fool most people. Especially folks in "western industrial countries" whom one would think would see such a ruse.
But alas, who cares as long as we have netflix and iphones. Such is life. Such is dignity.
The whole "they need democracy" and suddenly farmers have an absurd amount of AK47s - and talks of a coup - should not fool anyone really. But it does fool most people. Especially folks in "western industrial countries" whom one would think would see such a ruse.
But alas, who cares as long as we have netflix and iphones. Such is life. Such is dignity.
The problem was that during the Clinton administration, it was assumed that China would become more "democratic" and open politically, as their economic advancement progressed. It was assumed that their people would slowly change the CCP as they became wealthier - turning them more and more western.
Unfortunately, that did not come to pass - their capitalism under authoritarianism is working (not to mention that CCP is trying hard to prove that their style of gov't is "better", and the trump administration, and the west's handling of covid aren't helping).
There's no real way to contain china. The only way is to let the future play out - the biggest problem china has is the demographics. Provided there is no war between the west and china, their inevitable rise cannot be denied.
This, of course, is known to CCP, and hence, why they are able to take hong kong, and increase their activities in the south china sea.
Unfortunately, that did not come to pass - their capitalism under authoritarianism is working (not to mention that CCP is trying hard to prove that their style of gov't is "better", and the trump administration, and the west's handling of covid aren't helping).
There's no real way to contain china. The only way is to let the future play out - the biggest problem china has is the demographics. Provided there is no war between the west and china, their inevitable rise cannot be denied.
This, of course, is known to CCP, and hence, why they are able to take hong kong, and increase their activities in the south china sea.
>The problem was that during the Clinton administration, it was assumed that China would become more "democratic" and open politically, as their economic advancement progressed. It was assumed that their people would slowly change the CCP as they became wealthier - turning them more and more western
And what is the plan/assumption for Saudi Arabia? Is there an assumption that they will soon start respecting human rights?
And what is the plan/assumption for Saudi Arabia? Is there an assumption that they will soon start respecting human rights?
The assumption is that there is no hope for SA and everybody is playing the game till the oil runs out.
And when oil runs out do the rest of the world remember about human rights and we at least not minimize the abuses that happen?
Do the prediction tell if there will be internal struggles when the oil ends and who will end up on top? What if some more extremist leader/group gets the power?1
Do the prediction tell if there will be internal struggles when the oil ends and who will end up on top? What if some more extremist leader/group gets the power?1
When the oil runs out SA will settle into similar importance as neighbouring Yemen or Sudan and ppl will give similar care.
The assumption is that the world will move on to EVs soon enough and we can wash our hands of the KSA completely.
And what about human rights and who what if when oil runs out some extremists ideas will popup ? When things go bad the people will try to find someone to blame and there might be a risk that extremist ideas will grow.
The Middle East has always been like that, nothing new. The extremists already exist in Saudi Arabia, a lot of the human rights violations are simply authoritarian actions to suppress extremists. It has really been a mess, what good could the USA or Europe accomplish? Getting involved just means more mistakes, probably more bad than good as it is now.
I am also against military or some other government interference with local politics, I am disgusted by politicians, companies and people that would use hman rights complaints selectively and close their eyes when there is a lot of money involved.
Sure. We as a country will always apply our military where are interests are at stake, there is no action taken just for human rights. It isn’t just the politicians, it’s the people who elect them that ultimately feel that way, the politicians are just acting this way so they don’t get unelected.
On the bright side, acting in self interest means we shouldn’t get involved in any messes either, and supporting intrinsically unstable authoritarian governments doesn’t make much sense either. There is definitely some overlap between doing the right thing and dong the thing that serves your interests the most.
On the bright side, acting in self interest means we shouldn’t get involved in any messes either, and supporting intrinsically unstable authoritarian governments doesn’t make much sense either. There is definitely some overlap between doing the right thing and dong the thing that serves your interests the most.
You admit that the Western evaluation of China was wrong, but then persist in describing their system as “capitalism under authoritarianism”. The Chinese call it the early stage of socialism. It might be worth listening at this point. As you say, their rise is undeniable, and I think there’s a lot we can learn from them in the West.
Blink twice if you/your family is being held hostage.
Pardon me for sitting here in the middle of the US and having the intellectual curiosity to wonder why the US’ middle class is shrinking while China’s middle class is growing. Must be because I’m brainwashed or coerced.
Main difference seems to be that China has a nationalist government...i.e. it pursues an economic policy that benefits a broad range of its population while the USA has a plutocratic government...i.e. it pursues an economic policy that mainly benefits the transnational business elite. USA is pro-gobalist. China is pro-China. Wonder how things would be different if USA was pro-USA. Much is made of the supposed lower labour costs in China. Initially that may have been the fuel that enabled off shoring to launch. I don't think it is what sustains it in the present time. What sustains it is the network effects industries that China dominates. I.e. electronic assembly in the Shenzhen area is maintained by the vast ecosystem suppliers and manufacturers there not just low labour costs. That ecosystem does not exist in say, SV because in recent years investment has not been made in such things as hardware assembly. Investment improves capital, capital enables productive and comparative advantage that reduces the relative importance of "dumb" low wages.
According to the political compass view, socialism is authoritarian. Not the only kind of authoritarian, but one of them.
https://www.politicalcompass.org/authLeftBooks
Do you know of any historians or academics who base their analysis of politics and economics on the political compass?
Judging by history, it's the permanent stage of socialism, and that's the problem.
History is a bit longer than 50~ years.
And, at least internally, European social democratic system is rather good at balancing both for well being, and freedom.
While the US system less so.
I don't think the problem is "socialism"
Me neither. The problem is the all powerful government that doesn't answer to the general population.
It's great when they're doing what's best for the majority. But inevitably they start doing things for the powerful minority (themselves) at the expense of the rest.
In a democratic system (which can, in fact, have heavy socialist elements) there are ways to legally and peacefully change the government. The public officials are servants of the people (well, ideally).
In the Soviet/Chinese/other "communist" style system, they take all the power with the promise of bringing true communism/socialism later, and they keep that power and never fulfill the promise. Public officials are strong "leaders" (read "rulers") of the people.
It's not that different from monarchy or feudalism, actually.
It's great when they're doing what's best for the majority. But inevitably they start doing things for the powerful minority (themselves) at the expense of the rest.
In a democratic system (which can, in fact, have heavy socialist elements) there are ways to legally and peacefully change the government. The public officials are servants of the people (well, ideally).
In the Soviet/Chinese/other "communist" style system, they take all the power with the promise of bringing true communism/socialism later, and they keep that power and never fulfill the promise. Public officials are strong "leaders" (read "rulers") of the people.
It's not that different from monarchy or feudalism, actually.
> In the Soviet/Chinese/other "communist" style system, they take all the power with the promise of bringing true communism/socialism later, and they keep that power and never fulfill the promise.
Of course US leaders are famous worldwide for keeping their promises.
Are you able to describe Soviet democracy or any of the democratic systems that exist within China today? Generally people who say these kinds of things are not.
Of course US leaders are famous worldwide for keeping their promises.
Are you able to describe Soviet democracy or any of the democratic systems that exist within China today? Generally people who say these kinds of things are not.
They do keep promises, otherwise they never get voted for again. I am able to describe the systems that exist, but I am not willing. If the majority of the Chinese like their system, good for them. And if the majority in the US or EU honestly decide they want it, too, I can live with that. People lived and thrived in the USSR, after all. But I would prefer not to.
According to this research conducted by the Harvard Kennedy School, the vast majority of people in China do like their system: https://ash.harvard.edu/publications/understanding-ccp-resil...
That is the sad truth. All the talk about democracy, open markets, are just a ruse.
There is a real economic war against China and we play dirty against them.
There is a real economic war against China and we play dirty against them.
Because China has played so cleanly with the West?
Please. The West is only returning the favor.
Please. The West is only returning the favor.
You mean China just returned the favor. China is very resentful about what happened to them especially in the Opium wars.
That was nearly two hundred years ago. It’s resented because the government finds it useful for building internal unity. Periodically stirring hate against foreigners is a tactic as old as time.
It’s a bit like America being mad at Britain for burning down the White House in 1812. At some point you need to get over it.
It’s a bit like America being mad at Britain for burning down the White House in 1812. At some point you need to get over it.
Only that the Opium Wars was just the beginning, the whole series of events lasted until the end of WWII before people can have any sort of peace, not the case for Britains burning White House
And the US caused the Chinese Civil War? I don’t think so.
The US also supported China against Japan during WW2. Apparently that doesn’t matter.
https://www.britannica.com/place/China/U-S-aid-to-China
The US also supported China against Japan during WW2. Apparently that doesn’t matter.
https://www.britannica.com/place/China/U-S-aid-to-China
Mao "thanked" Japan for invading China because CCP would not have came to power otherwise. US ambiguous support of ROC/TW since during and post war is prolonging the ongoing civil war which PRC have tried multiple times to end post war. So no, generally US "support" / intervention has been been active pernicious to PRC interests.
I'm not saying that and I acknowledge that China and the US fought along the side of the Soviet Union. Though it is funny that you ask others not talk about history while your point seems to be based on that.
I’m not asking others to not talk about history. I’m saying to get over some messy actions that happened two centuries ago, especially when the US has done more than enough to help China since then.
As I already said, it’s only an issue in China because the government uses it as propaganda.
As I already said, it’s only an issue in China because the government uses it as propaganda.
Hong Kong was returned 1997, not so long ago.
BTW Germany is still paying compensation to the churches for expropriation under Napoleon, and that was also some time ago.
They are not so willing to pay for the forced labourers of the 3rd Reich.
Who gets to decide when to get over it? Imagine telling Africans to get over their resentment for 19th century slavery because it was so long ago. Or from a more positive viewpoint, imagine telling Americans that they should not be proud of the identity they've built up as a result of the Civil War.
That's not how it works. In Chinese history, 150 years is recent. As a Chinese, I'm offended at how you can so casually brush aside an important historic period just to suit your political preferences.
You're brushing it aside and painting it as merely a tool for blaming foreigners. And yet if you actually read Chinese media you will see very little foreign-bashing. Go ahead, read Xinhua with Google Translate, read CGTN. Now compare that with BBC, CNN. Go visit some Chinese schools and learn how they teach history or about the west. Chinese people have much, much more favorable views of foreign countries than westerners tend to have about China. Heck, not few Chinese become disappointed at the west after they've traveled, because the image of the west that they built up in China was too rose-colored.
How does all that possibly fit in the idea that the Chinese government uses opium wars to stir up anti-foreign sentiment? It doesn't. What is taught about the opium wars isn't "foreigners are the cause of our suffering", but "we must not be weak".
That's not how it works. In Chinese history, 150 years is recent. As a Chinese, I'm offended at how you can so casually brush aside an important historic period just to suit your political preferences.
You're brushing it aside and painting it as merely a tool for blaming foreigners. And yet if you actually read Chinese media you will see very little foreign-bashing. Go ahead, read Xinhua with Google Translate, read CGTN. Now compare that with BBC, CNN. Go visit some Chinese schools and learn how they teach history or about the west. Chinese people have much, much more favorable views of foreign countries than westerners tend to have about China. Heck, not few Chinese become disappointed at the west after they've traveled, because the image of the west that they built up in China was too rose-colored.
How does all that possibly fit in the idea that the Chinese government uses opium wars to stir up anti-foreign sentiment? It doesn't. What is taught about the opium wars isn't "foreigners are the cause of our suffering", but "we must not be weak".
Yeah, they're worse than countries that fund terrorism. And the worst thing is their own population is oblivious to all that. It's consumerism in us that led them to power. If we all need/want a little bit less or make a conscious effort not to buy things made in countries with a track record of human rights abuse, it's gonna make a difference.
This. I’ve been avoiding “made in China” products for the last ~4 years.
ha, what about products that made by machines that are "made in China"?
Same, it’s not necessarily about human labor, it will all be automated away eventually.
The problem is that our consumerism and the race to the bottom of consumerism (eg lots of short lived or disposable stuff) made it almost impossible to find things not made in China
I personally reduced my consumption as much as I could and continue to do so but the Iphone I am typing this on has been made in China, the laptop I use as a daily driver is made in China and so on. My strategy is to squeeze as much use as possible from these as possible to avoid all that
The problem is that our consumerism and the race to the bottom of consumerism (eg lots of short lived or disposable stuff) made it almost impossible to find things not made in China
I personally reduced my consumption as much as I could and continue to do so but the Iphone I am typing this on has been made in China, the laptop I use as a daily driver is made in China and so on. My strategy is to squeeze as much use as possible from these as possible to avoid all that
Nice one mate.. It's true. Some of the products are unavoidable. They're being made in China because of corporate greed and demand for cheaper products as a result of consumerism. We don't need to replace a phone or a laptop every 2 years. It's planned obsolescence by many manufacturer. I could be wrong but buying local could make a difference. Especially when China is trying to punish Australia just for asking for an investigation. They've already started bullying others at this stage. Once they surpass the US/NATO in military power, who knows, how's it gonna end for us.
Many of those machines are made in Germany, so you can still avoid them for a few years at least.
As a side note funny how Germany has been prosperous without de-industrialising but in the USA the popular sentiment among many seems to have been we can't export our industry faster.
What phone do you use?
so buying from a country which bombed multiple countries, started multiple wars, and do not buy from a country lifting millions from poverty and keep improving lives of their citizens. Thank you!
Just an FYI to people who don't agree with me and downvoting me or thinking about flagging this, it doesn't affect me in anyway. The Hackernews karma doesn't feed me or my family. I'm just sharing what I think, without any malice towards the people of China. But I can understand why some might think that way. Just wanted to clarify that I've no personal hatred towards people who live in China. Just like I've no personal hatred towards people living in North Korea and for that matter the Germans who lived in Germany during Nazi rule. Sometimes it's just too late before the people can do anything.
This is hilarious. The nazi's finally came. Regardless, China isn't nazi nor is it north korea.
It's closing in on that very quickly. :)
I find it amusing Australia had a decades long mining boom because of China's appetite for resources but now they hate them...
It's really simple every year the West has a trade deficit and China uses those billions to strategically invest becoming the new superpower. Sound familiar? It's what America did after WW2.
It's really simple every year the West has a trade deficit and China uses those billions to strategically invest becoming the new superpower. Sound familiar? It's what America did after WW2.
There's no in-the-moment advantage to having a trade surplus. The benefits are in the future, and they are only hypothetical until the trade imbalance is canceled.
America's trade deficit means we get real stuff from China -- both consumer goods and capital ("investments") like robots for factories. China gets nothing but promises from the US. They do it because they expect we'll be able to pay them back at a higher interest rate than what they could have made with those resources themselves. Implicitly, those loans are China acknowledging that investment in the US works better than investment in China.
America's trade deficit means we get real stuff from China -- both consumer goods and capital ("investments") like robots for factories. China gets nothing but promises from the US. They do it because they expect we'll be able to pay them back at a higher interest rate than what they could have made with those resources themselves. Implicitly, those loans are China acknowledging that investment in the US works better than investment in China.
This is a super simplified and somewhat wrong interpretation of trade dynamics. Surpluses are important because 1) sustained surpluses imply structural reasons, and in this case, China's consistent upgrade in industrial production chains as it uses the funds it has acquired to invest in improving technology and human resources. 2) sustained deficits are often correlated with domestic employment moving away from manufacturing and into services, as well as a bigger share of income by corporations who are able to offshore their production, leading to greater inequality. 3) The dollar will not maintain its purchasing power forever, if its manufacturing, R&D and military dominance are perceived to be eroded. Many countries are moving away from sole reliance on dollars as the only reserve as we speak, including China. The amount of US dollar assets China has divested over the years is staggering.
Or there could just be a glut of savings in China.
We get "real stuff." China gets money some of which is re-invested in China some of which comes back to America/Canada as loans, real estate investment, etc, which in part drives American asset price inflation and also enables our government to cut us "stimulus checks" to buy more real stuff from China...see the picture...China produces we buy...
Here is a suggestion. Read the "Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith. It is still true. The long term prosperity of a nation is not based on how cheaply it can borrow money. Rather it is based on its comparative advantage in producing "real stuff." While China is investing in moving up the manufacturing value chain, the USA is taking increasing debt and experiencing rising asset values out of line with increasing real production.
We get "real stuff." China gets money some of which is re-invested in China some of which comes back to America/Canada as loans, real estate investment, etc, which in part drives American asset price inflation and also enables our government to cut us "stimulus checks" to buy more real stuff from China...see the picture...China produces we buy...
Here is a suggestion. Read the "Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith. It is still true. The long term prosperity of a nation is not based on how cheaply it can borrow money. Rather it is based on its comparative advantage in producing "real stuff." While China is investing in moving up the manufacturing value chain, the USA is taking increasing debt and experiencing rising asset values out of line with increasing real production.
> They do it because they expect we'll be able to pay them back at a higher interest rate than what they could have made with those resources themselves.
China doesn’t invest in high rate treasuries with their dollar surplus, they are getting below inflation rates in their treasury purchases. They do it because (a) their export driven economy demands that they send more things out than get things coming in and (b) putting excess dollars in treasuries is better than simply investing them back in their economy would heat things up and stoke inflation.
China currently has plenty of money for its own investment needs, so US treasuries are just convenient and not a statement on the natures of investments in the USA.
China doesn’t invest in high rate treasuries with their dollar surplus, they are getting below inflation rates in their treasury purchases. They do it because (a) their export driven economy demands that they send more things out than get things coming in and (b) putting excess dollars in treasuries is better than simply investing them back in their economy would heat things up and stoke inflation.
China currently has plenty of money for its own investment needs, so US treasuries are just convenient and not a statement on the natures of investments in the USA.
When a company get components from China they pay cash, when a person orders something from a Chinese seller they pay cash where is the loans coming from ? Bonds ? they are not at the transaction level
Can you shed light on your statement
Can you shed light on your statement
An oversimplified but useful model is that, internationally, any country's money is, in the eyes of another country, just a promise to repay. If one country sends goods to another and receives money for it, the exporting country has effectively received a bunch of promises that the importing country will eventually (repatriate the money and) give them stuff in return.
It's more complicated because the exporting country could instead give the (say) dollars to a third country in return for real stuff. But still what gives those dollars is the reasonable expectation that others will continue to value them enough to give you actual useful stuff for them.
It's more complicated because the exporting country could instead give the (say) dollars to a third country in return for real stuff. But still what gives those dollars is the reasonable expectation that others will continue to value them enough to give you actual useful stuff for them.
Yes Kevin, challenging China alone when your entire country has as many people as the Shanghai metropolitan area is probably going to end badly.
To be fair, Austrailia is just a few cities on one side of the country and the other part is just a desert.
You could almost say the same thing about china!
However, probably one or two cities in China would have more population than all of Austrailia
This kind of reaction to calls for coronavirus origin investigation does not seem like the choice made by the innocent.
I realize this is somewhat unrelated, but it still boggles my mind that it was a cancellable offense to suggest an investigation occur for a lab-leak origin from March 2020 through roughly January 2021.
I do not know what to make of it, but something about that feels terribly, horribly awry.
I do not know what to make of it, but something about that feels terribly, horribly awry.
The problem was that that wasn't a suggestion made in good faith, with the primary goal of finding out what happened or how to prevent future mistakes. The goal from the beginning was to put the blame on someone, to scapegoat. It wasn't a call for investigation: it was a demand for an investigation — a demand to grant international investigators with the equivalent of weapons inspection powers. It's treating China as a dog rather than an equal. Also consider the greater context: hostilities against China had been building up for a number of years. The call for an investigation was just the last drop for China in a long list of grievances which China previously communicated, but nobody acknowledged.
I'm in favor of an investigation to really find out what happened and how to prevent future incidents, instead of all the political games that are happening right now.
Sources:
We targeted China before they targeted us: https://www.afr.com/policy/foreign-affairs/we-targeted-them-...
Australia’s exporters should be furious at the foreign agents destroying their best market: https://citizensparty.org.au/media-releases/australias-expor...
Lessons on how not to do it: Australia and China (in Dutch): http://www.blogaap.nl/blog/3420/Lessen-van-hoe-het-niet-moet...
I'm in favor of an investigation to really find out what happened and how to prevent future incidents, instead of all the political games that are happening right now.
Sources:
We targeted China before they targeted us: https://www.afr.com/policy/foreign-affairs/we-targeted-them-...
Australia’s exporters should be furious at the foreign agents destroying their best market: https://citizensparty.org.au/media-releases/australias-expor...
Lessons on how not to do it: Australia and China (in Dutch): http://www.blogaap.nl/blog/3420/Lessen-van-hoe-het-niet-moet...
There’s the magic phrase, “good faith”. Completely meaningless
Maybe it is. But "bad faith" is definitely not meaningless. At the very least we can expect any party who can defend itself, to not respond well when they believe you are acting in bad faith.
facts matter more than intentions or narrative.
I would have no problems with adopting that standard. But this standard isn't universally applied. Many of the criticisms against China is based on what people believe China's intentions are, not on what China actually does.
For example:
China sends masks to Europe -> we should be wary, because they're engaging in "mask diplomacy"
China funds infrastructure in Africa -> it's because they're intending to colonize those countries.
China sends vaccines to the global south -> it's because China intends to spread influence.
So which one is it? Do only facts matter, or do reading of intentions also matter?
If we can judge China based on our reading of their intentions, they should be able to judge us based on their reading of our intentions as well.
Or conversely, if only facts matter, then we should judge China only by what they do and not by what we think their intentions are. Naturally, they should do the same.
For example:
China sends masks to Europe -> we should be wary, because they're engaging in "mask diplomacy"
China funds infrastructure in Africa -> it's because they're intending to colonize those countries.
China sends vaccines to the global south -> it's because China intends to spread influence.
So which one is it? Do only facts matter, or do reading of intentions also matter?
If we can judge China based on our reading of their intentions, they should be able to judge us based on their reading of our intentions as well.
Or conversely, if only facts matter, then we should judge China only by what they do and not by what we think their intentions are. Naturally, they should do the same.
Again I realize my comment is semi off topic as this has to do with Australian/Chinese relations, but my point was that, as an American, it’s amazing this question was completely off limits for roughly a year. Not trying to opine on wether Australia is in the right or wrong, or vice versa.
That first year during/after the outbreak is the best time to find the right answers regarding origination. Not play politics, on that I think I agree with you.
I do not agree that, because a topic becomes political, it is somehow better to avoid finding the truth. I read your comment to have the following logic which I strongly disagree with:
- Asking if this was a lab-leak origination is/was a politically charged question, and - politically charged questions should be avoided. (Perhaps even to the point of ignoring the topic or taking action to silence discussion) - therefore, we should not ask about the origins of the outbreak.
That first year during/after the outbreak is the best time to find the right answers regarding origination. Not play politics, on that I think I agree with you.
I do not agree that, because a topic becomes political, it is somehow better to avoid finding the truth. I read your comment to have the following logic which I strongly disagree with:
- Asking if this was a lab-leak origination is/was a politically charged question, and - politically charged questions should be avoided. (Perhaps even to the point of ignoring the topic or taking action to silence discussion) - therefore, we should not ask about the origins of the outbreak.
I think we are already in full agreement. We should not politicize the issue. We should find its origin.
I don't disagree with the statement that we should try to find the origin despite that there's politicization. But my concerns are practical in nature. Doing anything in a politicized environment is like mopping the floor during a flood. We need to address the flood first.
I don't disagree with the statement that we should try to find the origin despite that there's politicization. But my concerns are practical in nature. Doing anything in a politicized environment is like mopping the floor during a flood. We need to address the flood first.
Refreshing to have a logical back and forth these days. Good day to you!
And I don’t think it was about covid. If Trump said the sky is blue, the NYT and CNN would spend the next week trying to demonstrate it isn’t, and twitter, facebook and youtube would block you if you ever suggested it was. This was such a puerile way to oppose Trump, and certainly a reliable way to sink these institutions credibility for a long time.
Democracies have inherent inefficiencies, which need to be compensated. Everything else being equal, dictatorships can ramp up infrastructure faster than any democracy.
Tariffs should have favoured manufacturing in free countries, to encourage openness and freedom. That did not happen between 1990-2020.
Tariffs should have favoured manufacturing in free countries, to encourage openness and freedom. That did not happen between 1990-2020.
If Australia was smart, it wouldn't "take on" China period. Seems to be a losing proposition for Australia anyway you look at it seeing as Australia has somewhat less than 2% of China's population.
This is why Trump's threat to withdraw from NATO was so short-sighted. In the 20th century NATO was basically America supporting Europe against Russia. But in the 21st century it will be Europe supporting the US against China.
The way The West "takes on" a country will not work with China and I'll take a bet any day that the west cannot change its way and take on China in new functioning ways. Using the old tried and true ways we have used against everything from African rebel leaders to South American democratically elected presidents is helping CCP internally in PRC, not hurting it. It's as clear as day and reminds me of the old "Do you know the definition of insanity" quote. Either we work with China and try to influence in positive ways or we won't make any (positive) difference. Don't take on China, work with China, period. Its way too late now unless we go for full scale war or treat China as we do North Korea. The road we are on now only leads to China becoming the new top dog above the US. Change or become irrelevant.
Have no concerns, Mr. Rudd. We won't take China on.
The obsession of 'China bad' now is absurdly similar to the ’US bad' during China's darkest period before opening up.
Second we need to take a close look at ourselves, examine ourselves in a mirror. If we don’t accept and attempt to repair our flaws in thinking and human virtues and actions we’re not going to get better anytime soon. All our western countries that are now threatened by China are guilty of the same abuses that China is inflicting right now.