American businesses have the power to change China’s behavior

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Indeed an idea as good as communism. It’s beautiful on paper.

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.

Else they might just have keep it for some more years because it doesn't hurt them I thing, well more like guess.

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.

If you really want to give the finger to China, dispense with the one China policy.

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...

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.