> “The world needs China and the US to work together for a better future,” he added. “China is ready to be a partner and friend of the US.”
So if China isn't going to become more democratic / less authoritarian - it's gone on record about that - then what does this say about the USA's stance against such things? What does that say about where the USA sees its future going? Is the quarterly or so military saber-rattling legit or something drummed up by the MIC to keep the budgetary dollars flowing?
I read the article and couldn't help but feel like changing my name to Winston Smith.
The U.S. is presently grappling with its own democracy-related issues, rise in authoritarianism, and declining quality of life, as well as a lot of “de globalization” problems originating in its poor attempts at playing hardball with China and other powers (Russia) that it just doesn't like.
In my opinion, the most grim and dystopian elements of China’s system (Social Credit, censorship, mass surveillance, extreme bureaucracy) are either already present in the U.S., but with a decentralized/capitalist bent rather than a centralized/communist one.
Agreed. The 1984 reference was more about how the truths of both countries and the relationship between them reeks of newspeak (i.e., propaganda). It all feels so staged so contrived.
> In my opinion, the most grim and dystopian elements of China’s system (Social Credit, censorship, mass surveillance, extreme bureaucracy) are either already present in the U.S., but with a decentralized/capitalist bent rather than a centralized/communist one
A lot of these are over-hyped by Western media. For example's China's "social credit" system seems even more basic/low-tech than America's "credit score" and has less of an impact on people's lives than the American Credit Score. It's actually almost only used for business executives, judges, and other people in power rather than ordinary citizens.[0-3]
Similarly, "mass surveillance" has actually been going the other direction in many areas. Back in 2021 the Supreme People's Court basically made facial recognition illegal in public and nationally they're moving to even restrict business uses of it. Which puts them pretty far ahead of where the US is on the issue currently.[4-5]
As a country, we (the US) keep pointing at other political systems and governmental systems as examples of terrible practices while those with power in our country seem to be seeking the exact same sort of outcomes, doing everything they can within our system to move further in that direction, and largely succeeding.
We really need to look in the mirror, functional outcomes not just philosophical ideas of freedom and rights (how much freedom and what rights you actually have and can use), and fix it. Instead we just want to continue on with business as usual, point fingers and say at least were not that bad, and try our best to become or allow ourselves to become that bad.
IMHO we average folks in the US are losing this battle more rapidly and the underlying cause seems to be wealth disparity, the unequal levels of power wealth buys in this country safely within all our philosophical constructs, and the nature of those with the advantage to want to exploit the advantage further and further to get more power, compromise more freedoms, gain more control, etc.
It's like we're running a Democracy hypervisor and installing an Authoritarian OS within it and all our accounts are user accounts inside the Authoritarian OS. Sure, Democracy underlies it all... but when's the last time you poked around the hypervisor and cared? It's transparent and largely becoming inaccessible to you for all your real world applications.
Sounds plausible. OTOH, both Buffet's public persona and his actual personality seem to be far kinder & gentler than is normal for modern American business elites. And he certainly understands both polite fibs and "speak no ill...".
[Edit: Read "plausible" as "plausible for Buffet to have said". I'm quite aware that Buffet's sainthood is strictly relative.]
Him and his colleague Charles Munger fawn over China exactly as the grandparent post said
They are multinational panderers they know what to say for the people of the respective countries and every business leader learned from that too
I think there is merit to that though, the last thing I ask when I get an audience with the leaders of a country is whether parliament has been taken over by ideological extremists. It actually doesn't cross my mind at all
> Him and his colleague Charles Munger fawn over China exactly as the grandparent post said
I've noticed the same thing. At least since the BYD investment they do.
And it's not just not criticizing, some times they actually praise him. For example, I remember an interview where Charlie Munger was asked what he thought about bitcoin (he hates it) and he went out of his way to say that Xi Jinping was much smarter than American leadership in banning it.
Now I agree it should be banned, but could he not have made such point without bringing Xi Jinping into it? It was really weird.
Do people believe Warren Buffett?
I don't necessarily mean this statement, but every press article or video appears to be deliberately tailored by him and his team on what to say and how the message will get out. For example, he seems to only work with a few select interviewers, often gives the interview surrounded by products of the brands he invests in, and usually only gives statements to the hungry press when pushing a new deal. Other corporate "celebrities" seems to receive slightly more push back when trying to control the narrative around them. I don't necessarily disagree with him most times, but everything about how his message gets out throws up a red flag for me.
75 years ago for 4 years, vs. now and indefinitely
> Furloughs, GFC
Private sector risk and bailout vs. government dictation of the economy
> Lots of it during the Industrial Revolution ( looms come to mind )
The scale isn't even close, iterative design and ideation vs. outright copy and theft
> Let's not forget the slavery
True, few Hong Kong and free the Uyghurs. Implement a constitution that allows protection of people.
> You killed a lot of Indians, yes, yes.
Free the Uyghurs.
> The US and China are different countries, in different stages of development.
No, one country is run by an authoritarian communist party that killed 60 million of its own people whilst culturally cleansing it's neighbors. The other has a constitution that allows itself to evolve into a better and more prosperous place.
Uyghurs weren't slaughtered. Indians were slaughtered.
Yes the word "genocide" was used but that's just "erasure of culture". They were out into camps or schools. People weren't killed.
China has a different perspective on this action. You see what happened here is that Uyghur terrorists did an action of bombing equivalent to 9/11. So china took final action to stamp out that threat by forcing assimilation of Uyghurs. They actually succeeded in stamping out the terrorist threat that is in stark contrast to the American failure at stamping out any form of terrorism.
The intention is to stop violence and forcefully educate people in what china deems equivalent to what the US perceived as making someone "educated". From their perspective its like forcing nazis to to be re-educated.
So you have to see the intent here is moral. It's just the outcome of that intent is controversial. This is different from the trail of tears or slavery where the intent is exploitation and the outcome is often murder and slaughter. The evilness is incomparable.
This is the problem with western propaganda. You literally think uyghurs were sent to gas chambers and executed or something.
But all of that being said... I think the Indians thing is an unfair comparison. The US isnt like that anymore. China has done plenty of slaughter in the very far past as well.
I saw a similar piece in the WSJ and honestly my first thought was: these were arranged by the US gov to make XI happy and make it look like "hey the US really is friendly to China"
Why would the government need to be involved? It's an uninteresting self organising phenomenon where commercial entities pay attention to and show respect to bigger entities.
Is this pandering or do these business leaders truly honor and respect President Xi? By all accounts he is a dictator and many of China's governmental policies run contradictory to Western values and morals. This is not to assume that America is perfect, or without its own problems, but the basic principals of free speech, elections, and assembly in China are without question deplorable.
These same lads denounce democrats and progressives for being "socialist" or "communist" for not backing unhinged neo-liberal policies. Xi is literally an authoritarian communist quasi dictator and gets a standing ovation.
The Soviet Union was a socialist state: that was the word they used to describe themselves. It was ruled by the Communist Party, which has nothing to do with the economic or political system the country followed. The best word to describe China's economic system is Mercantilism.
I believe, academically, the phrase used to describe China's economy is "socialist market economy". However, that doesn't preclude calling Xi a "communist", as the other commenter did above. A person is not the economy, and I think there is plenty of evidence to conclude that Xi is worth of the label.
It’s a middle road between communism and capitalism. Sure, you can own capital, but annoy the regime, and you’ll soon be relieved of your assets by the ultimate owner: the state.
People need to stop defining stuff by whether or not it works the way you want it to work. We still call a capitalist system “capitalist” if it’s broken for the same reason we still call a box a box if the bottom has given out and it can’t hold anything.
Yes, but if we want to be that pedantic, we should also specify that Xi is a person and not an economy. The person you replied to above did not say that China has a communist economy, they called Xi a communist.
If someone is heavily influenced by Marxist-Leninist ideology, calls themself a communist, and leads a communist political party, it is reasonable to call them a communist.
I'm reading "Trade Wars are Class Wars" by Klein and Pettis. The thesis is in the title and his case is convincing. American elites have every reason to give Xi a standing ovation: his oppression of the Chinese worker has played a key role in pumping American assets into the stratosphere and subduing American labor interests. Not only do they love him for it, they should love him for it.
TWCW cites 40% labor-share-of-value-add (vs 70% typical) as the macro figure and gives the hukou system as one example of policy that achieves this outcome.
According to Bloomberg and a few other sources, Mark Zuckerberg wrote a letter to Xi Jinping and asked him to name his child. Like, what has to be in one's head to even consider such a thing...? Can you imagine asking Trump or Joe Biden to name your child?
Well, Zuck did exactly that. You really can't make it up.
What do the "business elite" actually care about? Power. End of story. A lot of people will say money, but money is just an indicator of power and tool for achieving it. Xi has ultimate power. He can bend the entire global south to his will. The Musks, Zucks, Bezos, Thiels of the world lust after that kind of control.
You guys are reading a LOT into this headline. The only direct quote:
> On his way into the Hyatt, Bridgewater founder Ray Dalio told the Financial Times he was “excited to have this relationship [with Xi]”.
All this is saying is they just showed up to a conference with Xi. These guys do business in a place that is very hostile to American business. Keeping a good image in their eyes helps keep all of those factories the average American depends on chugging along without interference. Image matters a lot to small minded leaders and certain Asian cultures.
But otherwise I don't see any evidence they are hyping Xi up or something. It's just "big american companies show up at conference with Xi Jinping and one guy said he's excited".
Today's business leaders are members of the managerial class. Xi is probably the world's most important manager, so there may be some sincere appreciation. (now think about what this chinese manager did to the oceans, the people, etc and what a sincere standing ovation would mean)
Right but many things in china are done better than the US such that an average business person or citizen can live a relatively happy life.
Most people don't exploit the right to protest or the right to speak Ill of their government in a public venue.
The western view of China is not fully correct. You have to take a more neutral view. It is two competing ideals. The US has plenty of deplorable that are on the scale of the "evils" china has done and china has done "good" also to to the same level of not greater than what the US has done.
It is wrong to look at this through the lens of ohh china is just another dictatorship.
What's the problem if that is the case? If we truly believe that these values are beneficial to humankind, why would we dislike Chinese to act differently, handicapping themselves?
I would argue, the only reason why we would object is if we secretly believe that these values are not in fact beneficial, but merely luxury goods rich nations can afford to make life nicer, at the cost of restricting their growth. Only then Chinese not doing the same sounds like a genuine threat.
China is a big market with a growing middle class. Read that to mean - they have money to spend. They also have a large labor pool and world class manufacturing.
More consumers, more labor - that's opportunity.
It doesn't even matter if a world leader orders the dismemberment of journalist. [1] The values and morals of American business leaders is always up for sale.
It crazy how they so eagerly hasten their own destruction of a short-term profit.
As China becomes stronger their bargaining power weakens. What use will China have for them once it moves up the technological ladder? Only screw-ups of Chinese leadership like single child policy or too aggressive foreign. policy might prevent China from becoming the by far the largest economy now. What will US business elite do then?
76 comments
[ 0.30 ms ] story [ 162 ms ] threadSo if China isn't going to become more democratic / less authoritarian - it's gone on record about that - then what does this say about the USA's stance against such things? What does that say about where the USA sees its future going? Is the quarterly or so military saber-rattling legit or something drummed up by the MIC to keep the budgetary dollars flowing?
I read the article and couldn't help but feel like changing my name to Winston Smith.
In my opinion, the most grim and dystopian elements of China’s system (Social Credit, censorship, mass surveillance, extreme bureaucracy) are either already present in the U.S., but with a decentralized/capitalist bent rather than a centralized/communist one.
A lot of these are over-hyped by Western media. For example's China's "social credit" system seems even more basic/low-tech than America's "credit score" and has less of an impact on people's lives than the American Credit Score. It's actually almost only used for business executives, judges, and other people in power rather than ordinary citizens.[0-3]
Similarly, "mass surveillance" has actually been going the other direction in many areas. Back in 2021 the Supreme People's Court basically made facial recognition illegal in public and nationally they're moving to even restrict business uses of it. Which puts them pretty far ahead of where the US is on the issue currently.[4-5]
[0] https://jamestown.org/program/far-from-a-panopticon-social-c...
[1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkpe3z/china-social-credit-m...
[2] https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/09/15/china-social-credit-sys...
[3] https://merics.org/en/comment/chinas-social-credit-score-unt...
[4] https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2021-08-15/chi...
[5] https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/08/china-releases-plans-to-rest...
We really need to look in the mirror, functional outcomes not just philosophical ideas of freedom and rights (how much freedom and what rights you actually have and can use), and fix it. Instead we just want to continue on with business as usual, point fingers and say at least were not that bad, and try our best to become or allow ourselves to become that bad.
IMHO we average folks in the US are losing this battle more rapidly and the underlying cause seems to be wealth disparity, the unequal levels of power wealth buys in this country safely within all our philosophical constructs, and the nature of those with the advantage to want to exploit the advantage further and further to get more power, compromise more freedoms, gain more control, etc.
It's like we're running a Democracy hypervisor and installing an Authoritarian OS within it and all our accounts are user accounts inside the Authoritarian OS. Sure, Democracy underlies it all... but when's the last time you poked around the hypervisor and cared? It's transparent and largely becoming inaccessible to you for all your real world applications.
Stratton Oakmont
[Edit: Read "plausible" as "plausible for Buffet to have said". I'm quite aware that Buffet's sainthood is strictly relative.]
Him and his colleague Charles Munger fawn over China exactly as the grandparent post said
They are multinational panderers they know what to say for the people of the respective countries and every business leader learned from that too
I think there is merit to that though, the last thing I ask when I get an audience with the leaders of a country is whether parliament has been taken over by ideological extremists. It actually doesn't cross my mind at all
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4559370-berkshire-hathaway-...
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/16/investing/berkshire-hathaway-...
All the fawning in the world cant help make it a great regulator and market environment or solve geopolitics
I don't think that changes my point
I've noticed the same thing. At least since the BYD investment they do.
And it's not just not criticizing, some times they actually praise him. For example, I remember an interview where Charlie Munger was asked what he thought about bitcoin (he hates it) and he went out of his way to say that Xi Jinping was much smarter than American leadership in banning it.
Now I agree it should be banned, but could he not have made such point without bringing Xi Jinping into it? It was really weird.
Assume that the Xi's briefings about (and impressions of) Munger are heavy on content like this:
And Munger wants both (1) to be relatively well thought-of by Xi and (2) to be able to criticize Xi.SWATing
> detentions,
Japanese in WW2
> economic shutdowns,
Furloughs, GFC
> stolen intellectual property,
Lots of it during the Industrial Revolution ( looms come to mind )
> slavery,
Let's not forget the slavery
> and genocide
You killed a lot of Indians, yes, yes.
The US and China are different countries, in different stages of development.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> detentions,
75 years ago for 4 years, vs. now and indefinitely
> Furloughs, GFC
Private sector risk and bailout vs. government dictation of the economy
> Lots of it during the Industrial Revolution ( looms come to mind )
The scale isn't even close, iterative design and ideation vs. outright copy and theft
> Let's not forget the slavery
True, few Hong Kong and free the Uyghurs. Implement a constitution that allows protection of people.
> You killed a lot of Indians, yes, yes.
Free the Uyghurs.
> The US and China are different countries, in different stages of development.
No, one country is run by an authoritarian communist party that killed 60 million of its own people whilst culturally cleansing it's neighbors. The other has a constitution that allows itself to evolve into a better and more prosperous place.
Yes the word "genocide" was used but that's just "erasure of culture". They were out into camps or schools. People weren't killed.
China has a different perspective on this action. You see what happened here is that Uyghur terrorists did an action of bombing equivalent to 9/11. So china took final action to stamp out that threat by forcing assimilation of Uyghurs. They actually succeeded in stamping out the terrorist threat that is in stark contrast to the American failure at stamping out any form of terrorism.
The intention is to stop violence and forcefully educate people in what china deems equivalent to what the US perceived as making someone "educated". From their perspective its like forcing nazis to to be re-educated.
So you have to see the intent here is moral. It's just the outcome of that intent is controversial. This is different from the trail of tears or slavery where the intent is exploitation and the outcome is often murder and slaughter. The evilness is incomparable.
This is the problem with western propaganda. You literally think uyghurs were sent to gas chambers and executed or something.
But all of that being said... I think the Indians thing is an unfair comparison. The US isnt like that anymore. China has done plenty of slaughter in the very far past as well.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Sad if true but maybe I'm too cynical
These same lads denounce democrats and progressives for being "socialist" or "communist" for not backing unhinged neo-liberal policies. Xi is literally an authoritarian communist quasi dictator and gets a standing ovation.
This is akin to calling everything and everyone socialist.
People need to stop defining stuff by whether or not it works the way you want it to work. We still call a capitalist system “capitalist” if it’s broken for the same reason we still call a box a box if the bottom has given out and it can’t hold anything.
Saying china is "communist" is different then saying china is communist.
Basically all economies are at least a little bit mixed. We label them based on whichever principles are predominant.
If someone is heavily influenced by Marxist-Leninist ideology, calls themself a communist, and leads a communist political party, it is reasonable to call them a communist.
You and I? Maybe not so much.
Well, Zuck did exactly that. You really can't make it up.
Bloomberg clip: https://youtu.be/S20BoxH8W9g
> On his way into the Hyatt, Bridgewater founder Ray Dalio told the Financial Times he was “excited to have this relationship [with Xi]”.
All this is saying is they just showed up to a conference with Xi. These guys do business in a place that is very hostile to American business. Keeping a good image in their eyes helps keep all of those factories the average American depends on chugging along without interference. Image matters a lot to small minded leaders and certain Asian cultures.
But otherwise I don't see any evidence they are hyping Xi up or something. It's just "big american companies show up at conference with Xi Jinping and one guy said he's excited".
Most people don't exploit the right to protest or the right to speak Ill of their government in a public venue.
The western view of China is not fully correct. You have to take a more neutral view. It is two competing ideals. The US has plenty of deplorable that are on the scale of the "evils" china has done and china has done "good" also to to the same level of not greater than what the US has done.
It is wrong to look at this through the lens of ohh china is just another dictatorship.
I would argue, the only reason why we would object is if we secretly believe that these values are not in fact beneficial, but merely luxury goods rich nations can afford to make life nicer, at the cost of restricting their growth. Only then Chinese not doing the same sounds like a genuine threat.
China is a big market with a growing middle class. Read that to mean - they have money to spend. They also have a large labor pool and world class manufacturing.
More consumers, more labor - that's opportunity.
It doesn't even matter if a world leader orders the dismemberment of journalist. [1] The values and morals of American business leaders is always up for sale.
[1] https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2019/10/29/saudi-arabia-ho...
Transcript: https://news.cgtn.com/news/2023-11-17/Full-text-Xi-s-speech-...
What happens when China invades Taiwan? Will business continue as usual?
https://mannerofspeaking.org/2010/05/12/some-chilling-public...