American businesses had the power to change American behavior in the 1800s and 1900s. Did they do it? No.
American businesses could have helped outlawed slavery in America. They could have forced the issue onto their politicians. Did they do it? No.
Then in the 1900s, American businesses could have outlawed racism. They could have forced civil rights onto their politicians. Did they do it? No.
And today. American businesses can force the end of police violence against minorities onto their politicians. Are they doing it? No.
American businesses can ensure fair distribution of wages, and financial equality, and social equality to help their minority citizens. Are they doing it? No.
Hence, give me some evidence that American businesses can actually do something useful at home first, before making them a pawn in this stupid game of geopolitics that the Washington elites are playing against a nation on the other side of the world, and forcing the rest of us to choose sides on. When, they themselves do nothing for us.
My point is, the problems we have in America, has nothing to do with China. This is all home grown. We have within ourselves, the ability to make life better, fairer, and more equitable to all Americans. Instead, what does the politicians do? Nothing. Instead, they do everything to support the rich, and the elite. While the rest of us gets fleeced, are lied to, and gets hoodwinked.
The biggest lie that they sold to us, is that Trickle Down Economics will work for everyone. That tax cuts for the wealthy will help drive business growth. Trickle Down Economics should instead be renamed to Trickle Up Economics.
The problem is not China. The problem is our corrupt political and financial system.
I sense your a pretty emotional person and are quite upset at your current economic decision.
So lets start with your point.
Trickle down economic does work in its truest form. It starts with a person who creates a business. This business makes money through the work it does. The owner gets paid more and decides they can create another business. A business larger with more employees. Overtime, the owner creates many more businesses and employs more. Providing its employees with cash, to spend at restaurants, on boats, on houses, on daycare and many other businesses that the employees like to spend money on. Therefore jump starting more business owners to spend more.
This is trickle down economics and its working. I think the thing your upset about is the idea that these business owners, the wealthy are not creating and doing more. I disagree and the US economy would disagree. You simply might just be detached from the economy. So your quite upset about it.
It works as long as the value created in opening more businesses actually trickles down to creating more decently paid jobs.
The fact that many people are forced to handle more than one job just to survive shows that part of this argument isn't working. These types of businesses are creating precarity, not wealth for the workers for them to pass on to others.
First of all your usage above is not trickle down. Someone opening a business is not trickle down economics. Trickle down economics is specifically the idea that tax-cuts for the wealthier and highest income earners is more effective for stimulating the economy that tax cuts for poorer and low income earners.
And when this concept is studied it is shown to be clearly false. [1]
Being against trickle down economics is not "hating businesses", nor being against entrepreneurship, or anything else it's sometimes accused of. Being against trickle down economics is simply promoting the fact that it was a failed theory. The most effective way to stimulate the economy is by giving it to the people with the least income.
Whether you want to enact is as your govt policy is a separate question - but here we're simply discussing what is the most effective way to make the economy productive and it's putting it in the hands of lowest income people. The secondary and tertiary effects simply make it the most effective method.
Separate from the paper linked above showing the effect of the impact of tax-cuts at different levels of income, there is also a pretty readily available intuition (not in the paper).
When people who have little to no money receive tax cuts they spend it. They spend it on food, they spend it on transportation, they spend it in businesses. By spending it in businesses they increase demand which drives opportunities to open new businesses and and increase the labor pool which also drives more demand.
When people with high incomes and high wealth receive tax cuts they frequently spent it in inflating valuations of existing assets. Ex real estate goes up and there is more rent seeking (no effect on economic production), stock prices go up (again marginal effect on economic production). Frequently the wealthy already had the money to open a business so a tax cut doesn't actually create as much opportunity to open a business as people imagine. And the market is already at saturation as there has been no increase in available income, so no increase in consumption.
An additional dollar available do the poorest eventually makes it to the wealthy after moving through the entire economy via consumption production cycles. A dollar provided to the wealthiest doesn't. It frequently ends up adding a zero to an account, which banks then have to loan out finding more places to invest and you get things like Housing Bubbles, or Softbank, or any other of the many credit bubbles.
And finally, quoting the paper's conclusion.
> [T]he stimulative effects of income tax cuts are largely driven by tax cuts for the bottom 90% and
that the empirical link between employment growth and tax changes for the top 10% is weak
to negligible over a business cycle frequency.
There are places where a "corrupt political and financial system" intersect with China.
I was kind of startled to find out that Chinese companies listed in the US are not held to the same standards as those from the US and other countries,[1] because the Chinese government will not allow auditing in the same way. It seems this is a genuine issue and not about xenophobia, even if it gets muddled with it by people who just don't like China. And it is corruption.
Threatening to move listings out of the US, while of course it is an option, does not seem (or should not be) relevant to the US changing policies which have been corrupted due to Chinese demands based on "national security". It's about the US fixing its problems, not China per se.
It's easy for a casual observer to see the Trump administration saying something and dismiss it, especially as their credibility is so low many news articles are automatically slanted. However, the SEC and PCAOB have some credibility to me.
> It's easy for a casual observer to see the Trump administration saying something and dismiss it, especially as their credibility is so low
Sure, if you don't know any better.
But when you look at the actual facts, Trump often has a more rational and successful approach than his opponents:
- stopping travel from China on Jan. 31 due to corona
- stopping the absurd postal discount
- tariffs on Chinese imports to counter Chinese dumping
- stopping Huawei from undermining the world's communications networks
Trump doesn't seem so crazy now, does he?
Regarding corona, we have an agency that was supposed to be on top of that - the CDC. About all I hear from them is a press interview every 2 months. I hope the next one includes a firing squad for the top 10 CDC officials.
Also concerning is the amount of resource allocation / decisions being made by companies rather than individual people. It has changed dramatically since the 1800s.
> American businesses could have helped outlawed slavery in America. They could have forced the issue onto their politicians. Did they do it?
They were instrumental in ending slavery! In the first half of the 19th century, politics was dominated by conflict over the status of slavery in the new territories that were being added to the US. The Missouri Compromise in 1820 held off the civil war for a bit, outlawing slavery in states above the 36th parallel. Over the next 40 years, after the federalists disappeared, business interests in the north mostly belonged to the Whig party. (They had little to no power in the south, which was an agrarian economy where political power rested with landowners, not people whose wealth was built on commerce, finance, or industry.) Whig Presidents compromised with Democrats to maintain the status quo. During that time, Northern industrialists resented the political power of the slave states. On policy issues like tariffs, federal investment in railroads, central banking, etc., northern commercial interests were fundamentally at odds with southern plantation interests.
In 1854, Democrats, under President Franklin Pierce, pushed through the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which repealed the Missouri Compromise by leaving it to states to decide whether to have slavery. This led to the anti-Nebraska anti-slavery movement, and violence between pro-slavery and anti-slavery interests in Kansas. The Republican Party was created out of the anti-Nebraska movement. The Republican Party was built on two principles: anti-slavery, and economic modernization.
In 1856, Republicans lost the election against James Buchanan. They ran Abraham Lincoln in 1860, on a platform of opposing the expansion of slavery, building a pacific railroad, tariffs, and improving the channels of commerce (harbors, rivers). See: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/republican-party-p.... While Lincoln said he wasn’t going to ban slavery in the southern states—the south feared he would. (Rightfully so, given that the platform called the slave trade “a crime against humanity and a burning shame to our country and age.”) Lincoln’s election precipitated the southern states to secede.
Then, of course, there was the civil war. During the civil war, Republicans worked closely with business and financial interests to modernize the economy: https://www.essentialcivilwarcurriculum.com/the-economics-of.... That paid for the massive military superiority that crushed the south.
The article doesn't really support the headline. It concedes that we can't know if it will help and makes more of a yolo argument instead:
> It’s possible, of course, that the Chinese might decide to give up U.S. markets rather than liberalize, as they gave up Hong Kong’s usefulness as a financial hub. But if we can make a difference, we should find out.
> as they gave up Hong Kong’s usefulness as a financial hub
Did they though? Many banks are still based there - but relative to the rest of the PRC, HK became less important because the rest of the country developed at lightning pace.
It’s unclear. The usefulness of Hong Kong is supposed to stem from it being a bridge between China and the global financial system (allowing Chinese firms to raise foreign capital and Chinese citizens to get their money out of China), and secondarily as a place with stable legal institutions which are useful to businesses. It seems like the former advantage is being reduced through HK’s special treatment being reduced, and the latter may or may not go away for businesses but I think that remains to be seen.
> Despite Collison’s example, most CEOs probably won’t take that risk on their own; they will be too afraid of being undercut by less scrupulous competitors who retain their access to China’s markets and manufacturing prowess. So on this Fourth of July, it falls to the American public...
This is the weakness of American individualism. Some form of organization is necessary to achieve anything meaningful here. This is a job for regulation/trade policy. Attempting to shame individual companies or "the public" is at best pointless, and at worst a distraction from a real solution.
There's a pretty funny example here from the tech world: web search, google, and microsoft. What has been achieved by google abandoning the Chinese search market? It sure as hell isn't respect for that decision. Far more vitriol (even at the level of US congress) has been directed at google over this than microsoft, who operate bing in China!
Don't get me wrong, google deserved the criticism over dragonfly. But where is the outrage over microsoft operating bing under China's censorship policies? This is why organization/regulation is required: people are really bad at maintaining a coherent position even in the absence of market pressures, which are massive in the case of trade with China.
“Out of our regard to them we gave them Bing, two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect.”
— William Trent, William Trent's Journal at Fort Pitt
2017 - I remember when Trump had initiated the trade war, it was such a taboo to support it. I am not a fan of trump but the progressives in the Silicon Valley would abandon me in a mob mentality god forbid if I said something I like about Trump. I had pretty unpleasant pushbacks during lunch breaks and then I stopped discussing things all together.
Living here in the valley, I wonder what’s the difference between aggressively progressive places and aggressively conservative places like a small town in Arkansas? To me, they are both intolerant of opposing views, don't think for themselves and subscribe to extremely strong stances.
Being a centrist, I feel like I am exiled in this country by all sides. The stronger one's view, the more burden is on them to prove their view with data, successive chain of logic and reasoning. I am constantly wary of my own views because either circumstances change, my understanding improves or new data is available. This is the HN way.
Trump's trade war was an attempt to pressure China to reduce the trade deficit and help him in the 2020 election. It had absolutely nothing to do with human rights. If anything, Trump admires dictators who violate the human rights of their citizens.
There absolutely nothing logical about supporting a policy that superficially looks like a policy you support but has entirely different goals.
Who's talking about human rights? I was talking about economics of trade, which is what this article is about.
> Trump's trade war was an attempt to pressure China to reduce the trade deficit and help him in the 2020 election.
Yes, I support this view, although I don't support his re-election.
> If anything, Trump admires dictators who violate the human rights of their citizens.
Agreed, this was absolutely reprehensible and don't forget Russia.
I honestly have no energy to debate anymore. And this is not something I want to get into right now, the point was about being tolerant to other's views and try to understand why they think that way.
Indeed. The tactics and intolerance for different opinions is pretty similar on both ends of the political spectrum.
I think the US would make a huge leap forward if different political opinions we're viewed with "I disagree with you" versus "your beliefs mean youre a bad person".
I will explain. Hackernews is a leftist ideological echo chamber. If you scroll through this thread you’ll notice downvoted posts don’t even get a good reply as to why they’re wrong.
I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but it's not new or significant. It isn't some unique phenomenon to this time and this political orientation. And people downvoted that comment not because they support political violence, but because centrism is perceived as a cop-out, as just an implicit support for the status quo.
Regarding the 7 page listing of more than 200 various acts of political violence, including attempted murder, against conservative politicians;
I searched for the same document produced during the Obama administration and could not find one. From that I infer that during his administration, neither conservative nor liberal politicians saw political violence as enough of a concern to list it and enter into the permanent record of the United States Congress.
Political violence and oppression was one of the primary motivators for the United States to seek independence from England. We are going backwards.
Parent's insightful comments about the risk for expressing even centrist views. He implies he was shunned. 'Conservatives' risk physical harm for revealing their political leanings:
>I had pretty unpleasant pushbacks during lunch breaks and then I stopped discussing things all together.
Conservatism is a poor descriptor for the driving ideology of the American right these days. Progressiveism is sometimes on the radar of the mainstream left but generally not. The notion of centrism is pretty meaningless when the endpoints are shifting constantly.
"Centrism" in the United States often means conservative views, but not Trump right wing crazy- but being conservative means trending towards maintaining existing power structures which is incompatible with those who want progressive change. The terms are all ultimately meaningless meat shields for empty rhetoric.
As a centrist saying. Irving particularly offensive your post was downvoted. I feel my days on HN are numbered. One used to be able to have an intellectually honest discussion. Now step out of line and it’s downvotes. This kind of monoculture isn’t healthy.
Downvotes are a flag for disagreement. I am interested in the reasoned points of those who disagree with me. Since I was downvoted and no comment was left, I requested that those who
downvoted come forth with their reasoned points. One or both of us have an opportunity to learn something when that happens.
Nothing Trump has done has come close to the massive gift Trump gave China by killing the TPP.
This idea that Trump is somehow harder on China is laughable.
Trump has been screaming China loudly, but his actions amount to barely a whimper, and the cost has been paid overwhelmingly by Americans.
TPP on the other hand would have actually been effective by giving American companies 4-5 alternative countries they could relocate their operations too, with the added incentive that the TPP requirements would have protected their IP from being stolen like it is in China. And it would have cost the US nothing, because the relocated businesses were not in the US anyways, but were in China.
In fact, the added diversity of countries to manufacture would have probably made it even more of a win for the US.
The idea that Trump has been anything but a massive gift for China is ridiculous. There’s a reason China has ramped up its aggressiveness worldwide towards the end of the Trump admin (although they are probably clearly overreaching, but they realize this might be their last chance to make hay without the US doing anything).
Trump did go all out with his Trump card, trade and tariff.
But he can do so much more without playing this card to this extent.
Fear is what motivates people, the ideal that China would subject to all around 25% tariffs would put Xi on the edge. But Trump actually just went and realized the consequences because he thought he could.
Now the fear factor is gone. Surprisingly little had accomplished. Decoupling is sealed. CCP headliners had proved their view of US is always right and controls the narrative.
And the means to further escalation on the table is war.
Collision could have looked at it very mathematically. It’s unlikely they would ultimately succeed in China, but if they take a stand, I’m willing to bet they win over more customers and employers. Call this a cynical view but if the majority of their revenue was from China I don’t think we would have seen that comment.
This article is incredibly ignorant, and is more of the same realities detached day dreaming that the left likes to partake.
Why should American businesses voluntarily abandon an sizable overseas market and supply chain when China keeps getting access to our home market? In effect, placing a punitive tariff over our own heads and puts our American firms at a competitive disadvantage over our European and Chinese counterparts? Why should such a tax be born by the American corporation, workers and taxpayers?
If America has decided to decouple from China, then the solution should be legislative as it creates a level playing field for all firms involved, such that no one in particular is punished by a voluntary withdraw.
The saving grace is I believe world leaders are aware of this “you withdraw you loose” dilemma and are starting to cooperate to form a unified front against China. Donald Trump did well in waking the world up against the Chinese threat, but I’m afraid we now need a diplomat to finish the war.
I've been watching economics and trade Youtube videos recently.
The summary is:
- even the idea of China "liberalizing" is nonsense, since that is not their system. What worked with Japan, SK, etc. is irrelevant for China
They feel that their rightful place is the center of the world, as it was for 5,000 years (with the exception of the last 200 years "aberration")
- the last 40 years of Westerners appeasing China at the WTO, postal, etc. was entirely a misunderstanding of the above
- China captured almost the world's entire pharma market by dumping, which is their playbook. So their rare earths processing dominance is what the endgame looks like for every industry
- China's goal is to build a navy as large as the US. You don't build such a navy without planning to use it.
The US sent 3 carrier groups to Asia recently to "change their behavior." That's the reality.
This is a capitalistic world, money will go where it can multiply itself.
US can leave China as they want, will EU follow? How about Japan? My bet will be that they will be happy to take up the vacuum US left and make a huge fortune out of it.
Corporate America, if they can act coordinately, they can fix so many things domestically in this country. Yet, they didn't and probably won't. It make zero sense that they can achieve that in China.
So rather than competing with the duopoly of AliPay and WeChat, Stripe decided to not enter the Chinese market because it will change China's behavior- Somehow letting the profits flow to two Chinese giants will help its society become more free.
That’s not the real problem. The real problem is By leaving America is doing charity work. Another player from another country is just going to fill in the void. The idea of voluntary exit is as good as we should all be model citizens.
Indeed an idea as good as communism. It’s beautiful on paper.
American Consumers have even more power, look at the human rights records of the countries you are buying products from rather than just looking at the lowest sticker price.
Currently, it's not easy. I'm a bit of a phone/tiny computer geek, so I read a lot. When I was younger, where a product was made was something everyone wanted to know. China was seen as junk, and rightly so. Now, nobody cares, so it's rarely advertised.
I'd love for us to hold companies to the standards they hold us to. Say something unpopular, and you'll get fired, or have advertising pulled away. By the same companies using sweatshops in countries that abuse people.
Consider this example: Nike pulled it's Redskins gear, because it's possibly offensive to Native Americans. Yet Nike exploits the system to have that gear made by women and children, by force or necessity, in countries that are truly horrible to their people.
Fairphone 3 is pretty open about where parts come from, where it's assembled and which (moral) standards are applied for there selection of suppliers.
It's also supper repairable (iFixit score 10 of 10).
Problems:
- It has not so good spec, for people which need a high-end (or higher middle-end) smartphone not a option.
- For the spec it has it's expensive.
- It's somewhat clunky. (But hey even a non tech person can repair it.)
- The speakers are at a strange position.
- The microphone is so-so. For usage in normal handy mode it's ok, but audio quality in speaker/video conference mode is bad (but then hey, for that you probably should use a headset anyway).
Good thinks include repairability, close to stock android, large battery, dual sim, micro sd card (yes 2 sims + 1 sd card can be used), NFC, known to get updates for as long as they can afford it, I think it's unlocked.
So if don't use your phone for things it bad at and you are not tight on money it's a totally reasonable option.
> human rights records of the countries you are buying products from
Good, idea.
I tried. I ended up with a Fairphone3. I like it, it's ok for me but unsuitable for probably many use cases.
It's hard to do so and still get performant tech. It's hard to even know where the parts came from. Not just for tech but anything you buy.
This is even worse in countries which have weak consumer protection laws and consumers can be duped into beliving it's e.g. from the US when only the last assembly step is done in the US but 90% of the work is done in e.g. China.
Lastly wouldn't that also mean that US products can't be bought. I mean the US not only never signed the human right charter they also never recognized the rights in it independent of the charter. Partially because they where committing human right violations all the times back then.
In the 1980s the West used boycotts and divestment to criticize apartheid South Africa. It's time the West does the same to China to criticize its treatment of the Uyghurs.
The problem though as an individual consumer is that electronics products made in China are so ubiquitous that it's difficult to impossible navigate a boycott.
Please HNers at big corps, if you are in any sort of position to influence where your hardware products are made, please push to have your products made elsewhere.
This is a curious comment in that the West set up apartheid in the first place. Millions of Africans suffered under it and thousands died in the struggle to overthrow it. The role that external condemnation from western countries played, if any, pales in comparison to what actual Africans sacrificed and accomplished.
Western sanctions generally produce misery and discontent as their main outcomes. North Korea has been sanctioned for decades and shows no signs of responding positively. Iraq was sanctioned for decades until the US invaded and further ruined the lives of everyone there.
The reason why north korea is still around is because China enables it's existence, and as a result, that little hell, which wasn't that much different from china 35 years ago, still persists.
South Korea was similarly ravaged after the war, and was ruled by a series of various dictators until the 90s. Luckily they were authoritarian capitalists instead of authoritarian communists, and were propped up by US aid (much better than Chinese aid, since the Chinese could barely feed themselves).
Honestly it's unlikely. At most they will delay China, maybe make it pretend for a bit it changed.
China is clearly pursing US Tech independence since a long time. They are not there yet, but they constantly get closer. If Tech companies in US/EU would have been more careful with cooperation and IT-espionage maybe then it would be true. But by now it's pretty much to late. They already have a solid enough foundation to become US Tech independent. The question is just how long it will take. And how it currently looks not too long.
Do you want to live in a world where the CCP is the dominant superpower? They have a perfect Orwellian state, destroy ethnic minorities, purge ideas that don't fit the narrative, steal land and resources, harvest organs from prisoners, ...
I think we should do anything under our power to prevent that fate. Bolster every other nation in the region, give Japan a powerful navy, replace their one belt with our own. Build out Vietnam's and India's industrial capability, and get started on Africa. Unite with all other Democratic nations in a trade agreement that shuns the China/Russia sphere.
Maybe we can make their system rupture from the inside.
When the US finally became a superpower, there were still Jim Crow laws and minorities were second class citizens that could be killed for looking at someone the wrong way.
It took decades for the US to change and for Civil Rights to truly take hold.
It’s entirely possible the China we know today will be completely different once it’s a superpower.
Honestly while many of the methods of the CCP are condemnable or outright evil the goals they purse with it are often not. It's just that they have lost their humanity to some degree in a combination of bureaucracy, capitalism and nationalism.
But even if it changes after becoming a superpower it will take time and drastic events. Most likely a insane number of lives would be lost (or "destroyed") before it. And the west pay a high price. Ironically we could say they will pay a high price for not keeping to their own moral standards...
Also one problem is that with tech advancements traditionally observed dynamics about bad rulers being dethroned might not longer work.
Let’s be real, when has an authoritarian government ever let its own people drive social changes? That never happens because such reforms would be an existential threat to that very form of government.
US institutions at least aspire to enable its society to affect social change.
The only way china will change is if the government can no longer uphold the social contract (exchange of social liberties for quality of life increases) and its people forcibly change management.
> It’s entirely possible the China we know today will be completely different once it’s a superpower.
Yes, because everything that undermines its national unity will have been obliterated!
In honor of Independence Day, here is some foreshadowing from the US Declaration of Independence and precursor to global hegemony after domestic stability following genocide
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
There is no history supporting a tendency for multicultural superpower status. There is one amorphous culture that rules with an iron fist until the other cultures conform to it or stop existing. We can try to make other countries act more enlightened in the 21st century, but it is only hypocritical and fails to consider the tolerances those places have maintained thus far.
But as racist as America was/still is, a citizen can speak out and shit all over the government with no fear of retaliation and no fear of censorship. The way secular democratic countries are set up, change is possible.
"speak out and shit all over the government" for what? Remember, democracy is for checking the power of the powerful, protect the weak, and enlighten the mass.
I see neither US nor China achieve that in their government. And in terms of protecting the weak, China probably did a better job.
Makes me think of a current superpower which committed multiple genocides against a native population, enslaved and represses to this day ethnic minorities, is in perpetual undeclared war with oil-producing countries, purposefully infected its own free citizens with syphillis and observed them over the course of 40 years....
The ideals of equality and justice in America are sacred, but we have to work hard to attain and protect them. It's a struggle, and not everyone plays fair. People are greedy by default. We are barely evolved animals that only happened to master the atom.
Despite the difficulty of our task, we know and are constantly reminded of the degree of perfect that we're aiming for. The voices of protest you see are a manifestation of that. It's beautiful and is one of our best qualities.
The CCP has no such agenda. They want to destroy us and our way of life. They're the biggest threat to freedom and a future of liberty and equality in the world. They want to export their model to other states.
Please change your perspective. We need champions of democracy. I'm not asking you to stop criticizing America - that's something required of us. I'm asking you to fight for a world where all people are free and have a voice.
>They already have a solid enough foundation to become US Tech independent.
Highly skeptical of this. All of the manufacturing infrastructure that actually makes the chips in these fabs everyone is so excited about is still made ... in the United States and Germany. China can't do this today, but they may be able to do it in the future. The opportunity for the West to cut them off is closing very fast, however. Cut them off now, before it's too late.
Note that China had been under embargo since 1989 from high technology products. There simply was no option other than independence.
Gorge Kennan, the author of the X article incept the containment strategy, often contended: there needs to be options for USSR (often in criticizing US foreign policy that is highly ideology charged and leave minimal policy maneuver for USSR).
Of course, it was totally reasonable to enforce embargo after 1989. That was an attempt to force spontaneous changes in the Chinese society, after an obviously unacceptable behavior from the government.
However, no one studied the Chinese people. They are more willing to correct the wrongs made to them in the past, than bend to external pressure. The pressure, which has been on this ancient nation since 1840, never managed to break the nation. And this time the result won't be different either.
As much as I want to believe your reasoning, I just can’t fathom how Chinese copycats could actually yield next generation tech...have you had a chance to search “Chinese structure collapses” on YouTube? I believe there are over a hundred videos showcasing their ingenuity.
Yes copycat cannot innovate. But Eric Schmidt believe China are no longer copying:
"""
"I have carried the prejudices about China in my years working with them," he said.
"That they're very good at copying things, that they're very good at organising things, that they throw large numbers of people at it. But they're not going to do anything new. They're very, very good at stealing, if you will, our stuff. Those prejudices need to be thrown out.
"The Chinese are just as good, and maybe better, in key areas of research and innovation as the West.
"They're putting more money into it. They are putting it in a different way, it is state-directed in a way that is different from the West. We need to get our act together to compete."
"""
So if you do believe that out of a billion people and all they can do is copy, I don't know if that is prejudice or racism.
Also, have you had a chance to search 'Chinese structure built' on youtube? You won't find anything because it's not newsworthy. Every now and then something gets stolen and people are upset. When Chinese companies actually invents something you'd never hear about it - or you're quick to jump on the sanction bandwagon, e.g. tiktok, huawei.
The Chinese can't innovate or create is really just a relic of 90's racism+orientalism. Seriously, only if you believe somehow the Chinese people have different brain structure, there is absolutely no reason why they can't do what West can do.
Yes Chinese wasn't doing super innovative stuff back like 10 years ago.
Reason? Because they don't have to. There is easier money to make at a lower segment of the market that fits them better. The China back then is under developed, spending in R&D isn't something that would benefit them than simply importing last-gen Western technology.
Now they have educated themselves and clambbed up the value chain, that is when the innovations become profitable to them.
The West still enjoys some advantage, in certain key areas, but it is diminishing, and diminishing fast.
It’s not about the Chinese people but about their government. Smart people don’t want to contribute to the regime and leave the country. This is where the comment “the Chinese can’t innovate” comes from - it’s about the political regime being unable to cultivate innovation, not the people lacking the faculties to do it.
The fact that China, the country, has to steal all their tech, while Chinese people contribute to innovation all around the world proves my point.
Not everyone leaves. They got families and friends after all.
And once this becomes too much of an issue, I'd wager they'll just blacklist anyone leaving from ever coming back. That's gonna make almost everyone stay where they are.
"Smart people don’t want to contribute to the regime and leave the country."
You seriously think there is only a few million "smart people" in China (about the same number as the people who go aboard for their advanced study or business)?
Don't be so quick to dismiss all of this as "racism+orientalism". There is, indeed, a fair degree of that.
But there are parallels to the situation with Japan in the late 80s to early 90s when everybody thought that Japan was going to own America (purchasing it piece by piece and/or out-innovating American companies).
I don't understand the dynamics here well enough to say how justified any of the arguments are. But we've been down a similar road before, and it's not just racism.
Let’s take a step back and look at the quote in the article’s opening paragraph: “As a US business (and tech) community I think we should be significantly clearer about our horror at, and opposition to, the atrocities being committed by the Chinese government against its own people.”
Now let’s swap the words “US” and “Chinese” around. Maybe it’s not so absurd after all.
94 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 208 ms ] threadAmerican businesses had the power to change American behavior in the 1800s and 1900s. Did they do it? No.
American businesses could have helped outlawed slavery in America. They could have forced the issue onto their politicians. Did they do it? No.
Then in the 1900s, American businesses could have outlawed racism. They could have forced civil rights onto their politicians. Did they do it? No.
And today. American businesses can force the end of police violence against minorities onto their politicians. Are they doing it? No.
American businesses can ensure fair distribution of wages, and financial equality, and social equality to help their minority citizens. Are they doing it? No.
Hence, give me some evidence that American businesses can actually do something useful at home first, before making them a pawn in this stupid game of geopolitics that the Washington elites are playing against a nation on the other side of the world, and forcing the rest of us to choose sides on. When, they themselves do nothing for us.
My point is, the problems we have in America, has nothing to do with China. This is all home grown. We have within ourselves, the ability to make life better, fairer, and more equitable to all Americans. Instead, what does the politicians do? Nothing. Instead, they do everything to support the rich, and the elite. While the rest of us gets fleeced, are lied to, and gets hoodwinked.
The biggest lie that they sold to us, is that Trickle Down Economics will work for everyone. That tax cuts for the wealthy will help drive business growth. Trickle Down Economics should instead be renamed to Trickle Up Economics.
The problem is not China. The problem is our corrupt political and financial system.
So lets start with your point.
Trickle down economic does work in its truest form. It starts with a person who creates a business. This business makes money through the work it does. The owner gets paid more and decides they can create another business. A business larger with more employees. Overtime, the owner creates many more businesses and employs more. Providing its employees with cash, to spend at restaurants, on boats, on houses, on daycare and many other businesses that the employees like to spend money on. Therefore jump starting more business owners to spend more.
This is trickle down economics and its working. I think the thing your upset about is the idea that these business owners, the wealthy are not creating and doing more. I disagree and the US economy would disagree. You simply might just be detached from the economy. So your quite upset about it.
https://whorulesamerica.ucsc.edu/power/wealth.html
https://whorulesamerica.ucsc.edu/power/images/wealth/Net_wor...
https://whorulesamerica.ucsc.edu/power/images/wealth/Actual_...
The fact that many people are forced to handle more than one job just to survive shows that part of this argument isn't working. These types of businesses are creating precarity, not wealth for the workers for them to pass on to others.
First of all your usage above is not trickle down. Someone opening a business is not trickle down economics. Trickle down economics is specifically the idea that tax-cuts for the wealthier and highest income earners is more effective for stimulating the economy that tax cuts for poorer and low income earners.
And when this concept is studied it is shown to be clearly false. [1]
Being against trickle down economics is not "hating businesses", nor being against entrepreneurship, or anything else it's sometimes accused of. Being against trickle down economics is simply promoting the fact that it was a failed theory. The most effective way to stimulate the economy is by giving it to the people with the least income.
Whether you want to enact is as your govt policy is a separate question - but here we're simply discussing what is the most effective way to make the economy productive and it's putting it in the hands of lowest income people. The secondary and tertiary effects simply make it the most effective method.
Separate from the paper linked above showing the effect of the impact of tax-cuts at different levels of income, there is also a pretty readily available intuition (not in the paper).
When people who have little to no money receive tax cuts they spend it. They spend it on food, they spend it on transportation, they spend it in businesses. By spending it in businesses they increase demand which drives opportunities to open new businesses and and increase the labor pool which also drives more demand.
When people with high incomes and high wealth receive tax cuts they frequently spent it in inflating valuations of existing assets. Ex real estate goes up and there is more rent seeking (no effect on economic production), stock prices go up (again marginal effect on economic production). Frequently the wealthy already had the money to open a business so a tax cut doesn't actually create as much opportunity to open a business as people imagine. And the market is already at saturation as there has been no increase in available income, so no increase in consumption.
An additional dollar available do the poorest eventually makes it to the wealthy after moving through the entire economy via consumption production cycles. A dollar provided to the wealthiest doesn't. It frequently ends up adding a zero to an account, which banks then have to loan out finding more places to invest and you get things like Housing Bubbles, or Softbank, or any other of the many credit bubbles.
And finally, quoting the paper's conclusion.
> [T]he stimulative effects of income tax cuts are largely driven by tax cuts for the bottom 90% and that the empirical link between employment growth and tax changes for the top 10% is weak to negligible over a business cycle frequency.
1. https://www.nber.org/papers/w21035.pdf
I was kind of startled to find out that Chinese companies listed in the US are not held to the same standards as those from the US and other countries,[1] because the Chinese government will not allow auditing in the same way. It seems this is a genuine issue and not about xenophobia, even if it gets muddled with it by people who just don't like China. And it is corruption.
Threatening to move listings out of the US, while of course it is an option, does not seem (or should not be) relevant to the US changing policies which have been corrupted due to Chinese demands based on "national security". It's about the US fixing its problems, not China per se.
It's easy for a casual observer to see the Trump administration saying something and dismiss it, especially as their credibility is so low many news articles are automatically slanted. However, the SEC and PCAOB have some credibility to me.
[1]https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-congress-china-exchan...
Sure, if you don't know any better.
But when you look at the actual facts, Trump often has a more rational and successful approach than his opponents:
- stopping travel from China on Jan. 31 due to corona
- stopping the absurd postal discount
- tariffs on Chinese imports to counter Chinese dumping
- stopping Huawei from undermining the world's communications networks
Trump doesn't seem so crazy now, does he?
Regarding corona, we have an agency that was supposed to be on top of that - the CDC. About all I hear from them is a press interview every 2 months. I hope the next one includes a firing squad for the top 10 CDC officials.
They were instrumental in ending slavery! In the first half of the 19th century, politics was dominated by conflict over the status of slavery in the new territories that were being added to the US. The Missouri Compromise in 1820 held off the civil war for a bit, outlawing slavery in states above the 36th parallel. Over the next 40 years, after the federalists disappeared, business interests in the north mostly belonged to the Whig party. (They had little to no power in the south, which was an agrarian economy where political power rested with landowners, not people whose wealth was built on commerce, finance, or industry.) Whig Presidents compromised with Democrats to maintain the status quo. During that time, Northern industrialists resented the political power of the slave states. On policy issues like tariffs, federal investment in railroads, central banking, etc., northern commercial interests were fundamentally at odds with southern plantation interests.
In 1854, Democrats, under President Franklin Pierce, pushed through the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which repealed the Missouri Compromise by leaving it to states to decide whether to have slavery. This led to the anti-Nebraska anti-slavery movement, and violence between pro-slavery and anti-slavery interests in Kansas. The Republican Party was created out of the anti-Nebraska movement. The Republican Party was built on two principles: anti-slavery, and economic modernization.
In 1856, Republicans lost the election against James Buchanan. They ran Abraham Lincoln in 1860, on a platform of opposing the expansion of slavery, building a pacific railroad, tariffs, and improving the channels of commerce (harbors, rivers). See: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/republican-party-p.... While Lincoln said he wasn’t going to ban slavery in the southern states—the south feared he would. (Rightfully so, given that the platform called the slave trade “a crime against humanity and a burning shame to our country and age.”) Lincoln’s election precipitated the southern states to secede.
Then, of course, there was the civil war. During the civil war, Republicans worked closely with business and financial interests to modernize the economy: https://www.essentialcivilwarcurriculum.com/the-economics-of.... That paid for the massive military superiority that crushed the south.
> It’s possible, of course, that the Chinese might decide to give up U.S. markets rather than liberalize, as they gave up Hong Kong’s usefulness as a financial hub. But if we can make a difference, we should find out.
Did they though? Many banks are still based there - but relative to the rest of the PRC, HK became less important because the rest of the country developed at lightning pace.
This is the weakness of American individualism. Some form of organization is necessary to achieve anything meaningful here. This is a job for regulation/trade policy. Attempting to shame individual companies or "the public" is at best pointless, and at worst a distraction from a real solution.
There's a pretty funny example here from the tech world: web search, google, and microsoft. What has been achieved by google abandoning the Chinese search market? It sure as hell isn't respect for that decision. Far more vitriol (even at the level of US congress) has been directed at google over this than microsoft, who operate bing in China!
Don't get me wrong, google deserved the criticism over dragonfly. But where is the outrage over microsoft operating bing under China's censorship policies? This is why organization/regulation is required: people are really bad at maintaining a coherent position even in the absence of market pressures, which are massive in the case of trade with China.
Living here in the valley, I wonder what’s the difference between aggressively progressive places and aggressively conservative places like a small town in Arkansas? To me, they are both intolerant of opposing views, don't think for themselves and subscribe to extremely strong stances.
Being a centrist, I feel like I am exiled in this country by all sides. The stronger one's view, the more burden is on them to prove their view with data, successive chain of logic and reasoning. I am constantly wary of my own views because either circumstances change, my understanding improves or new data is available. This is the HN way.
There absolutely nothing logical about supporting a policy that superficially looks like a policy you support but has entirely different goals.
> Trump's trade war was an attempt to pressure China to reduce the trade deficit and help him in the 2020 election.
Yes, I support this view, although I don't support his re-election.
> If anything, Trump admires dictators who violate the human rights of their citizens.
Agreed, this was absolutely reprehensible and don't forget Russia.
I honestly have no energy to debate anymore. And this is not something I want to get into right now, the point was about being tolerant to other's views and try to understand why they think that way.
I think the US would make a huge leap forward if different political opinions we're viewed with "I disagree with you" versus "your beliefs mean youre a bad person".
This is not rational in any explanation.
The down-voters are hurt and clueless.
https://wjla.com/news/nation-world/rising-political-tension
Punched in the face for wearing a hat in Russian. The assailant couldn't read it, but attacked once the wearer told him the translation:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/man-beaten-up-in-california-re...
And here is seven pages of a Political Violence Report, official congressional record:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU00/20190409/109266/HHRG...
Here are three more, including an 81 year-old man:
https://www.bostonherald.com/2019/02/28/maga-hat-wearing-vic...
This was a serious beating, an art gallery owner:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/york-city-gallery-owner-attacked-w...
Citing the Berkeley assault, this guy wrote and app to help conservatives find safe places to dine out:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/03/11/need-safe...
This is attempted murder:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/man-arrested-allegedly-driving-van...
I searched for the same document produced during the Obama administration and could not find one. From that I infer that during his administration, neither conservative nor liberal politicians saw political violence as enough of a concern to list it and enter into the permanent record of the United States Congress.
Political violence and oppression was one of the primary motivators for the United States to seek independence from England. We are going backwards.
>I had pretty unpleasant pushbacks during lunch breaks and then I stopped discussing things all together.
"Centrism" in the United States often means conservative views, but not Trump right wing crazy- but being conservative means trending towards maintaining existing power structures which is incompatible with those who want progressive change. The terms are all ultimately meaningless meat shields for empty rhetoric.
This idea that Trump is somehow harder on China is laughable.
Trump has been screaming China loudly, but his actions amount to barely a whimper, and the cost has been paid overwhelmingly by Americans.
TPP on the other hand would have actually been effective by giving American companies 4-5 alternative countries they could relocate their operations too, with the added incentive that the TPP requirements would have protected their IP from being stolen like it is in China. And it would have cost the US nothing, because the relocated businesses were not in the US anyways, but were in China.
In fact, the added diversity of countries to manufacture would have probably made it even more of a win for the US.
The idea that Trump has been anything but a massive gift for China is ridiculous. There’s a reason China has ramped up its aggressiveness worldwide towards the end of the Trump admin (although they are probably clearly overreaching, but they realize this might be their last chance to make hay without the US doing anything).
Trump did go all out with his Trump card, trade and tariff.
But he can do so much more without playing this card to this extent.
Fear is what motivates people, the ideal that China would subject to all around 25% tariffs would put Xi on the edge. But Trump actually just went and realized the consequences because he thought he could.
Now the fear factor is gone. Surprisingly little had accomplished. Decoupling is sealed. CCP headliners had proved their view of US is always right and controls the narrative.
And the means to further escalation on the table is war.
Pretty unwitty and wasteful if you ask me.
If you really want to give the finger to China, dispense with the one China policy.
Why should American businesses voluntarily abandon an sizable overseas market and supply chain when China keeps getting access to our home market? In effect, placing a punitive tariff over our own heads and puts our American firms at a competitive disadvantage over our European and Chinese counterparts? Why should such a tax be born by the American corporation, workers and taxpayers?
If America has decided to decouple from China, then the solution should be legislative as it creates a level playing field for all firms involved, such that no one in particular is punished by a voluntary withdraw.
The saving grace is I believe world leaders are aware of this “you withdraw you loose” dilemma and are starting to cooperate to form a unified front against China. Donald Trump did well in waking the world up against the Chinese threat, but I’m afraid we now need a diplomat to finish the war.
The summary is:
- even the idea of China "liberalizing" is nonsense, since that is not their system. What worked with Japan, SK, etc. is irrelevant for China
They feel that their rightful place is the center of the world, as it was for 5,000 years (with the exception of the last 200 years "aberration")
- the last 40 years of Westerners appeasing China at the WTO, postal, etc. was entirely a misunderstanding of the above
- China captured almost the world's entire pharma market by dumping, which is their playbook. So their rare earths processing dominance is what the endgame looks like for every industry
- China's goal is to build a navy as large as the US. You don't build such a navy without planning to use it.
The US sent 3 carrier groups to Asia recently to "change their behavior." That's the reality.
This is a capitalistic world, money will go where it can multiply itself.
US can leave China as they want, will EU follow? How about Japan? My bet will be that they will be happy to take up the vacuum US left and make a huge fortune out of it.
Corporate America, if they can act coordinately, they can fix so many things domestically in this country. Yet, they didn't and probably won't. It make zero sense that they can achieve that in China.
Indeed an idea as good as communism. It’s beautiful on paper.
I'd love for us to hold companies to the standards they hold us to. Say something unpopular, and you'll get fired, or have advertising pulled away. By the same companies using sweatshops in countries that abuse people.
Consider this example: Nike pulled it's Redskins gear, because it's possibly offensive to Native Americans. Yet Nike exploits the system to have that gear made by women and children, by force or necessity, in countries that are truly horrible to their people.
It's also supper repairable (iFixit score 10 of 10).
Problems:
- It has not so good spec, for people which need a high-end (or higher middle-end) smartphone not a option.
- For the spec it has it's expensive.
- It's somewhat clunky. (But hey even a non tech person can repair it.)
- The speakers are at a strange position.
- The microphone is so-so. For usage in normal handy mode it's ok, but audio quality in speaker/video conference mode is bad (but then hey, for that you probably should use a headset anyway).
Good thinks include repairability, close to stock android, large battery, dual sim, micro sd card (yes 2 sims + 1 sd card can be used), NFC, known to get updates for as long as they can afford it, I think it's unlocked.
So if don't use your phone for things it bad at and you are not tight on money it's a totally reasonable option.
Good, idea.
I tried. I ended up with a Fairphone3. I like it, it's ok for me but unsuitable for probably many use cases.
It's hard to do so and still get performant tech. It's hard to even know where the parts came from. Not just for tech but anything you buy.
This is even worse in countries which have weak consumer protection laws and consumers can be duped into beliving it's e.g. from the US when only the last assembly step is done in the US but 90% of the work is done in e.g. China.
Lastly wouldn't that also mean that US products can't be bought. I mean the US not only never signed the human right charter they also never recognized the rights in it independent of the charter. Partially because they where committing human right violations all the times back then.
The problem though as an individual consumer is that electronics products made in China are so ubiquitous that it's difficult to impossible navigate a boycott.
Please HNers at big corps, if you are in any sort of position to influence where your hardware products are made, please push to have your products made elsewhere.
Western sanctions generally produce misery and discontent as their main outcomes. North Korea has been sanctioned for decades and shows no signs of responding positively. Iraq was sanctioned for decades until the US invaded and further ruined the lives of everyone there.
Sanctions means that a country can't buy the raw materials it needs for its citizens.
Boycotts mean that foreign consumers don't buy the products the country produces.
Massive difference.
China is clearly pursing US Tech independence since a long time. They are not there yet, but they constantly get closer. If Tech companies in US/EU would have been more careful with cooperation and IT-espionage maybe then it would be true. But by now it's pretty much to late. They already have a solid enough foundation to become US Tech independent. The question is just how long it will take. And how it currently looks not too long.
I think we should do anything under our power to prevent that fate. Bolster every other nation in the region, give Japan a powerful navy, replace their one belt with our own. Build out Vietnam's and India's industrial capability, and get started on Africa. Unite with all other Democratic nations in a trade agreement that shuns the China/Russia sphere.
Maybe we can make their system rupture from the inside.
It took decades for the US to change and for Civil Rights to truly take hold.
It’s entirely possible the China we know today will be completely different once it’s a superpower.
Honestly while many of the methods of the CCP are condemnable or outright evil the goals they purse with it are often not. It's just that they have lost their humanity to some degree in a combination of bureaucracy, capitalism and nationalism.
But even if it changes after becoming a superpower it will take time and drastic events. Most likely a insane number of lives would be lost (or "destroyed") before it. And the west pay a high price. Ironically we could say they will pay a high price for not keeping to their own moral standards...
Also one problem is that with tech advancements traditionally observed dynamics about bad rulers being dethroned might not longer work.
US institutions at least aspire to enable its society to affect social change.
The only way china will change is if the government can no longer uphold the social contract (exchange of social liberties for quality of life increases) and its people forcibly change management.
Yes, because everything that undermines its national unity will have been obliterated!
In honor of Independence Day, here is some foreshadowing from the US Declaration of Independence and precursor to global hegemony after domestic stability following genocide
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
There is no history supporting a tendency for multicultural superpower status. There is one amorphous culture that rules with an iron fist until the other cultures conform to it or stop existing. We can try to make other countries act more enlightened in the 21st century, but it is only hypocritical and fails to consider the tolerances those places have maintained thus far.
I see neither US nor China achieve that in their government. And in terms of protecting the weak, China probably did a better job.
Tell that to the protestors shot with rubber bullets only a few weeks ago
No!
But if we belive that US companies can effectively change China and try to use that we are already on the losing end.
Snowden
> destroy ethnic minorities
Native Americans
> purge ideas that don't fit the narrative
“Fake news”
> steal land and resources
Native Americans
> harvest organs from prisoners
Nothing yet, but who knows under Trump
Despite the difficulty of our task, we know and are constantly reminded of the degree of perfect that we're aiming for. The voices of protest you see are a manifestation of that. It's beautiful and is one of our best qualities.
The CCP has no such agenda. They want to destroy us and our way of life. They're the biggest threat to freedom and a future of liberty and equality in the world. They want to export their model to other states.
Please change your perspective. We need champions of democracy. I'm not asking you to stop criticizing America - that's something required of us. I'm asking you to fight for a world where all people are free and have a voice.
Highly skeptical of this. All of the manufacturing infrastructure that actually makes the chips in these fabs everyone is so excited about is still made ... in the United States and Germany. China can't do this today, but they may be able to do it in the future. The opportunity for the West to cut them off is closing very fast, however. Cut them off now, before it's too late.
Edit: record reference to racial difference
Gorge Kennan, the author of the X article incept the containment strategy, often contended: there needs to be options for USSR (often in criticizing US foreign policy that is highly ideology charged and leave minimal policy maneuver for USSR).
Of course, it was totally reasonable to enforce embargo after 1989. That was an attempt to force spontaneous changes in the Chinese society, after an obviously unacceptable behavior from the government.
However, no one studied the Chinese people. They are more willing to correct the wrongs made to them in the past, than bend to external pressure. The pressure, which has been on this ancient nation since 1840, never managed to break the nation. And this time the result won't be different either.
""" "I have carried the prejudices about China in my years working with them," he said.
"That they're very good at copying things, that they're very good at organising things, that they throw large numbers of people at it. But they're not going to do anything new. They're very, very good at stealing, if you will, our stuff. Those prejudices need to be thrown out.
"The Chinese are just as good, and maybe better, in key areas of research and innovation as the West.
"They're putting more money into it. They are putting it in a different way, it is state-directed in a way that is different from the West. We need to get our act together to compete." """
Also, have you had a chance to search 'Chinese structure built' on youtube? You won't find anything because it's not newsworthy. Every now and then something gets stolen and people are upset. When Chinese companies actually invents something you'd never hear about it - or you're quick to jump on the sanction bandwagon, e.g. tiktok, huawei.
Yes Chinese wasn't doing super innovative stuff back like 10 years ago.
Reason? Because they don't have to. There is easier money to make at a lower segment of the market that fits them better. The China back then is under developed, spending in R&D isn't something that would benefit them than simply importing last-gen Western technology.
Now they have educated themselves and clambbed up the value chain, that is when the innovations become profitable to them.
The West still enjoys some advantage, in certain key areas, but it is diminishing, and diminishing fast.
The fact that China, the country, has to steal all their tech, while Chinese people contribute to innovation all around the world proves my point.
And once this becomes too much of an issue, I'd wager they'll just blacklist anyone leaving from ever coming back. That's gonna make almost everyone stay where they are.
You seriously think there is only a few million "smart people" in China (about the same number as the people who go aboard for their advanced study or business)?
But there are parallels to the situation with Japan in the late 80s to early 90s when everybody thought that Japan was going to own America (purchasing it piece by piece and/or out-innovating American companies).
I don't understand the dynamics here well enough to say how justified any of the arguments are. But we've been down a similar road before, and it's not just racism.
Now let’s swap the words “US” and “Chinese” around. Maybe it’s not so absurd after all.
Else they might just have keep it for some more years because it doesn't hurt them I thing, well more like guess.