Hacker News Reader

Comment by rukittenme | Hacker News Reader

This article makes me sad. Not because I believe its true but because other people will.

I really don't want to write a 3000 word comment in response to this article. After all, only a few people will read it and those that do will not read it with the seriousness of a New York Times article.

I'm very disappointed in this piece. Half truths, omitted details, and bad history all rolled into Communist apologia.

For those who do not have time to read paste the headline: one sided "free" trade agreements benefit one side. Who would have thought? All other "conclusions" the author draws from this fact have no bearing on reality.

View on HN

Please don't post unsubstantive comments or snarky dismissals to HN. All a comment like this is likely to do—and did do—is lead to a tedious back-and-forth that sucks oxygen away from interesting discussion. When feeling annoyed in this way it's much better not to post at all.

It's particularly important to avoid generic commentary about ideological themes like "Communism" and (worse) "Creationism", which is where you went downthread.

I don't really care for commentary like this. Either argue with the piece or don't; don't bore us with how you're sad that people will find it persuasive without bothering to refute any of its ideas.

> Either argue with the piece or don't

There are more options than A or B. By expressing displeasure with the article I can at the least demonstrate there are other viewpoints.

There is a large wealth of knowledge and information out there. All of it detailing how China owes its economic success to economic liberalization.

This article stands out for its contrarianism. That's why it will get some many clicks and comments as opposed to yet another study proving what we already know. If anything I should be lamenting the "death" of "popular knowledge". If knowledge isn't constantly in flux its "boring" and not worth reading. Thus knowledge must constantly change for papers like the NYTimes to continue to exist.

Imagine if a Creationist wrote an article in "Nature" (the scientific journal). What would you say in response? What would you say if it was well received? Would you rebut the same old lies over and over and over again or would you just be sad that the world never seems to learn?

Considering the piece is a polemic against a different view, I don't see how you could possibly read and it and walk away confused as to whether a different view exists.

Yes of course but you could be confused as to the popularity of the two views.

Again, why doesn't the journal Nature run a piece detailing how "evolution got it wrong"? Because it is incorrect and unnecessarily muddies the water. Because "Nature" has a shred of credibility and wishes to keep it. It is certainly possible to point to blind spots in our knowledge and say "Hah, you can't explain that!" Or to point at past errors and say "Hah, you're always getting it wrong!"

It is up to the paper or journal to screen such plainly and obviously fallacious information. Or at the very least categorize it in such a way that it is plainly evident that these are emerging or not-widely-held viewpoints.

It is less than "plainly obvious," to me, that Japan, South Korea, and China (not to mention the older historical examples of the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany, which are mentioned but get less attention in the piece) were all successful in their project of industrialization in spite of, rather than because of, common traits of the paths they all took to get there. Certainly I would not consider it comparable to arguing against evolution to claim the opposite.

Economics is a far more fallible science than biology.

read it with the seriousness of a New York Times article

Maybe it's time we all stopped taking New York Times seriously. They do not have a fantastic track record.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com