Hacker News Reader

Comment by wombatmobile | Hacker News Reader

When trying to understand China's commercial policies which America is supposedly retaliating against, consider that China has experienced a different mercantile history to America.

America has never been invaded by foreign gunships and forced to allow foreign merchants to import opium to addict its citizens in order to fix their own countries balance of payments problems.

Opium Wars

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars

If America were to experience something like that, how might the experience change America's future commercial policies?

If Pearl Harbour and 9/11 are any guide, America might become less tolerant of foreign businesses operating in its markets.

But then, America is a complicated marketplace.

The Promotion and Marketing of OxyContin: Commercial Triumph, Public Health Tragedy

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2622774/

View on HN

How long is China going to put on the mantle of victimhood over events 160 years in the past?!

By that standard surely Korea can complain endlessly about China and Yuan Shikai lording it over their kingdom in the 1880s, and the Czechs can cry over their subjugation for centuries by Austria-Hungary, etc. etc.

In 1949 Mao Zedong famously declared "China has stood up." Apparently though he meant, "We're such a weak people that we cry to mommy everytime others demand reciprocity."

Same can be said about the victim hood mentality regarding native Americans and slavery here in the states.

The difference is that China has been able to redress the power embalance. The decendents of slaves and indigenous Americans have not.

China is as bad as it ever was. The people of China have not had any redress. The CCP is doing fine though.

Except the native americans never got their lands & resources back, & similarly blacks have never been given a chance at their own self rule.

These other national examples are nation vs nation, where an outside oppressor came & then went. Missing from your anti-empathy sentiments is recognition that these peoples never were given their own sovereignty & resources to rebuild themselves. The most injurious piece may have ended but they remain bound up in the impacts all the the same.

If I’m reading between the lines accurately (and sans sarcasm, inform me if I’m mistaken), you presuppose any individual of color (a bit of a loaded term, but you get the idea) has a debt owed to them of land and wealth separate from other people.

I vaguely say “other people” because this notion is what entices racial sentiments. It’s no different than changing the adjective for a different skin tone, and saying they too deserve their “own self rule”

This implies “blacks” don’t have self rule as it stands today, which I disagree with. In 2020, there exists no legislature that disfavors someone based on their skin color or ethnic background. We do however have the inverse, policies that give advantages to those who have specific skin color.

This predilection for a specific kind of racism, a one-way street attitude, is what fuels our current divide. I need not say more.

Mainly just trying to call a distinction between nations & people that did get their own a chance, versus people who still had to live under other's laws & who we attempted to restore fair rights under law to.

In one case, the oppressors left & sovereignty was restored.

In the other case, the law decided it had to change to try to bring itself into alignment with some basic human rights & regards.

I do think the people living under now-more-just law still struggle, still face discrimination, and are victim to a system that was imposed on them & a system which does not favor them. I don't think it's unreasonable to identify this gap, and this "one way street" attitude seems, to me, restorative & to be what equity & justice demands. And at times, it feels like it's still not enough, that some people- some persistent negative forces- remain fixed & focused on exclusion & discrimination & their biases, in a way that makes me think perhaps these victim-folk do deserve entirely higher levels of freedom from these oppressive forces that they still face, beyond merely our ongoing & too-controversial attempts at rebalacing.

> the mantle of victimhood over events 160 years in the past?!

Yeah, it's absurd. It's like if somebody would appeal to the memory of the Battle of the Alamo.

> How long is China going to put on the mantle of victimhood over events 160 years in the past?!

160 years in the past?

The Chinese reparations, totalling $US 61 billion is today's dollar equivalents, were only completed in 1940. Then China sided with the Allies in WWII. 15 million Chinese lost their lives in that war.

But I wouldn't characterise Chinese trade policy as victimhood. Chinese entrepreneurs don't rely on any such arguments. They just make products that western consumers want to buy.

> Then China sided with the Allies in WWII. 15 million Chinese lost their lives in that war.

That was under the Kuomintang regime, who fled to Taiwan in 1949

The families and friends of the dead didn't flee to Taiwan.

This is like saying that the Poles didn't deserve reparations from Germany for WWII because the pre-war republic wasn't restored and instead there was a new regime. The country and people exist independently of the governing system.

> Then China sided with the Allies in WWII

This doesn't really make sense. The Second Sino-Japanese war predates the European theater by 2 years. It'd be more accurate to say the US sided with China to help them fight a mutual enemy.

You do know that Japan had been invading China and trying to influence it in the decades before WW2 don't you? Joining with the Allies was the common sense thing to do

China's still not regained sovereignty that was lost during that time. Eg: Hong kong

In what sense is China not "sovereign" over Hong Kong?

While it's true that the Sino-British Joint Declaration placed some temporary restrictions on China's policies regarding that region, this is an agreement between sovereign nations, thus reaffirming China's sovereignty.

I suppose that, in a sense, all international treaties are a loss of some degree of sovereignty, but in that sense nearly every country in the world has lost sovereignty in that time.

Remember even during the WW2, the US view was that concessions like HK taken by European countries from China through "Unequal Treaties" needs to be returned to China eventually.

Chinese trade policies aren't caused by the Opium War.

The trade relations that many Americans consider unbalanced are the result of the US and China being at very different stages of economic development. When China began opening up to foreign investment in the 1980s, China had no capital to invest abroad. It didn't matter if the US market was technically open to Chinese investment - there was no possibility of Chinese investment in the first place. The only question was what conditions would be placed on foreign investment in China. Reciprocity didn't matter, because trade flows were entirely in one direction.

China progressively opened up from the 1980s onward. WTO membership brought a huge number of changes, including drastic reductions in tariffs and a lot of privatization, breakup and restructuring of state industries.

Just to illustrate my point: people complain that China used to not let foreign auto manufacturers own a majority stake in their Chinese subsidiaries. The unfairness is supposedly that Chinese auto companies can own their American subsidiaries. But there were no Chinese auto companies that could possibly have competed in the American market anyways. The reciprocity argument was entirely theoretical. China now has more competitive electric vehicle companies, and it also has more open foreign investment policies for auto manufacturing.

One final point is that foreign companies benefitted massively from the ability to invest in China. The idea that China pulled a fast one and took advantage of the developed world just doesn't align with reality.

Americans don't need to try to understand the effects of mercantilism. They were subject to the same draconian economic policies by the British Empire. This is largely what prompted the American Revolution. [0]

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteen_Colonies#Economic_pol...

I think it's more accurate to say the US had a temporary (1 decade) diversion from the norm of "Benign Neglect"[1] which pissed off Americans to the point they sought explicit Independence. China has a much longer cultural history of being "self contained" (and suspicious of outsiders) which was deeply reinforced in the 19th century Opium Wars, etc.

1 - http://community.weber.edu/weberreads/salutary_or_benign_neg...

Yep. A better analogy would be if the US had lost the revolutionary war, and was subjected to a century or more of British mercantilism, which they were only now starting to recover from.

Is the claim that British mercantilism caused all of this? The Qing dynasty had many problems, the British being one. The Taiping rebellion killed millions, Japanese imperialism further weakened the empire, losing their own colonial status over Korea - we can go on as the events cascade. To solely blame British mercantilism is to drive a wholly western narrative for what was not.

They were subjected to 170 years of mercantilism prior to the American Revolution. Any American ship that dared trade with any power other than the British Empire was deemed a "pirate" and was fired upon by cannon.

America did not exist. It was a settler colony of the British Empire. It was, if anything, the beneficiary of mercantilism, and not being allowed to trade with other nations is pretty much just how things were at the time.

The American colonies were subject to mercantilism for 170 years before the American Revolution started. To suggest that the American colonies weren't subject to foreign gunships forcing trade policies upon them is simply a ridiculous statement. The American colonies were prevented, by force, from trading with the French, Spanish and Dutch. The British Empire captured New Amsterdam in 1664 in the Second Anglo-Dutch War and renamed it New York. Just because the British Empire's economic policies escalated in the decade leading up to the American Revolution doesn't mean that is either where mercantilism began or ended. Please don't belittle American history, there are far more parallels than you may realize.

While there was always some fear of foreign war, it never rose to the level of century-long occupation or and domination that China experienced. The American colonies were just too unimportant until the French and Indian War compared to the Sugar colonies.

Even taking New York was kind of a side effect of New England being nearby and English gradually settling down from Connecticut, rather than part of some grand strategy.

Mercantilism was the law, but by defacto neglect Americans were trading with everyone with very few consequences until after the French and Indian war. It simply was too expensive for the British to enforce.

One of the provisions of the Treaty of Nanking is that the British Empire agreed to not interfere with Chinese trade with other foreign powers. They also withdrew from mainland China in exchange for the island of Hong Kong. Hong Kong was not an economic power at the time and became one as a British colony. [0]

By contrast, the British Empire continued to interfere with American trade long after the American Revolution, prompting the War of 1812 where the British Empire burned the first White House to the ground. Imagine if the British had burned the Daoguang Emperor's palace to the ground?

My point is I'm not belittling the subjugation of the Chinese under the British Empire. But at the same time, lets not attempt to rewrite American history. In regards to the British Empire, the Americans and Chinese have more in common than propagandists on both sides would have us believe.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Nanking#Terms

British did burn down the Summer Palace, which action is now considered one of the worst acts of cultural vandalism ever perpetrated.

> This is largely what prompted the American Revolution

The American Revolution was much more about representation and the rights that British Parliament held (or, from the American perspective, didn't hold) over the colonies. The primary effect of mercantilism is exclusive trading agreements with the ruling empire, which was not being argued against by the colonials. It even says as much in the paragraph you linked:

"However, the colonists took pains to argue that they did not oppose British regulation of their external trade; they only opposed legislation which affected them internally."

It's not an equal comparison to China and the Opium Wars.

You're quoting an attempt in 1761 to resolve this economic dispute with King George by legal means. The American colonies, on their own, were in no position to counter the mercantile system. They would need the support of another Empire for that.

But to counter your claim that mercantilism wasn't the inspiration for the American Revolution, I recommend reading up on the "Sons of Liberty" movement that rose up after the Stamp Act of 1765. [0]

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stamp_Act_1765

I'm familiar with the Stamp Act - which I think reinforces my point because it was about direct taxation on the colonies. Even indirect taxation, e.g. on paper, tea, and glass through the Townshend Acts led to violent confrontation, infamously the Boston Massacre.

The point I am making is that the primary instigator for the war was not "we can't legally trade with the Dutch/French/whomever", which is the monopolistic cornerstone of mercantilism. I'm curious if you consider taxation to be a mercantilist policy.

I understand the sentimentality of your argument but fail to see the logic. So because China was treated badly by other countries 150 years ago they should ban our apps while we shouldnt ban theirs?

That's what they're saying, that China is a victim and gets special treatment while they put Uyghers in concentration camps, have the second largest economy in the world, and surveil every citizen as if they're guilty of treason.

So the argument is china was once invaded by foreign gunships (not american) so they should be allowed to ban american companies (Google, Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Whatsapp, Netflix & hundreds more) but allowed to operate any company they want in the U.S?

Perhaps OP wasn't making a normative statement but rather speculating on how the past could materially affect the present?

Yeah, that seems like a very weak argument.

It might be helpful to understand why China does what it does. It doesn't really excuse it though.

China does what it does because it wants as much control as possible over its populace.

That's a different argument to the one you are inferring. Both arguments could benefit from more context.

Boxer Rebellion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer_Rebellion

Eight-Nation Alliance

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-Nation_Alliance

And what context does those articles add, other than what's already presented?

China fought a land war against a coalition of invaders who attempted to subvert its economic, political and religious sovereignty.

China lost, was forced to cede Hong Kong to the British for 99 years, and paid 668,661,220 taels of silver from 1901 to 1939, equivalent in 2010 to $US 61 billion on a purchasing power parity basis.

A large portion of the reparations paid to the United States was diverted to pay for the education of Chinese students in U.S. universities under the Boxer Indemnity Scholarship Program. To prepare the students chosen for this program an institute was established to teach the English language and to serve as a preparatory school. When the first of these students returned to China they undertook the teaching of subsequent students; from this institute was born Tsinghua University.

Fascinating but doesn't seem relevant to the topic at hand.

The China of that history has been displaced by an undemocratic revolutionary regime that conquered the Chinese people.

Are you sure you have your timeline straight, srtjstsj? When were the Chinese people "conquered"?

Tsinghua University is a world leader in AI and software technology.

Chinese engineers and entrepreneurs are competing in world markets with innovative products and services, not gunships. 100 million American users of TikTok appreciate this.

Have you considered the possibility that China is not trying to take over the world, but rather to be a part of it?

https://uwaterloo.ca/tsinghua-uwaterloo-joint-research-centr...

The CCP conquered the Chinese people.

Yes, the previously free Chinese people under.... The Qing Dynasty and the Kuomintang?

You know, it is possible to conquer a people who are already not free under a different regime.

Taiwan seemed to sort things out eventually.

In 1842, Hong Kong was considered by both the Chinese and British to be uninhabited, there were only a few thousand inhabitants when the island was seceded. [0]

I know symbolically this is of great importance to the Chinese, but at the time it was an easy thing for the Emperor to give up given he was on the losing end of a war.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Island#British_colon...

It might be helpful to make the argument explicitly rather than just link to historical events when people have reached to attempting to infer it.

China's commercial policies seem designed to ensure that the CCP can deliver on their grand bargain with the Chinese people. Specially, in exchange for political subserviance to the dictates of the party the CCP will make China a economically prosperous nation. So I expect the CCP to hold on to their current exclusionary policies toward non-domestic apps as an more open playing field would endanger the dominance of domestic players.

The war of 1812 was fought because Great Britain had spent a decade boarding US ships to impress US sailors into their navy, controlling US trade, and funding Native American attacks on US settlers.

You missed the part where the US wanted Canada

The Opium Wars happened long before Pearl Harbour, yet America is happy to do business with the Japanese. Actually the Opium Wars is often referenced more by Western commentators than the Chinese, for whom the event is simply history and irrelevant to modern events.

I had an interesting conversation with a Lyft driver, they were clearly from China from the knowledge/insights they shared. It was their belief that China's populations are much more densely populated, the family unit remaining - parents living with their children and their parents - because the previous generations didn't have pensions to rely on; another pressure I imagine is that I don't believe health care and other costs are covered in China?

How is this related to the opium wars, western imperialism, or the wechat ban?

Related to economic-commercial situation?

China healthcare funding seems pretty similar to US

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_China

It’s a bit different from the states, rather than big deductibles and no caps, you have small deductibles and lowish caps. So if you break a leg, things are very affordable, but you are quickly on your own if you get cancer.

Of course there are differences, but I think the main takeway is that the variation within each country (and over time -- ACA is new and not necessarily going to stay stable long term) is larger than the difference between the countries. ACA hasn't ended medical bankruptcy.

In China there is no such thing as medical bankruptcy, because they make you pay up before treatment, they don’t send you a bill. It’s just one of those things that distinguish between developed world and developing world healthcare.

Chinese elderly have pensions, and they do cover health care etc. But the extremely rapid economic growth in the past decades means they have no chance to cover living cost today.

I don't think this is a useful argument simply because China and America are so massively different in culture, history, geography, language and demographics that there's no way you can say with any certainty that the opium wars caused any particular change.

China has a long history with isolationism or distrust of foreign powers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haijin

Its nearly tautological that any nation with a "long history" would distrust foreign powers. Foreign powers have a strong tendency to end the history of a nation.

China doesn't justify its trade restrictions based on its experience in the Opium wars.

Rather, it justifies it by saying that 1) it's communist and 2) a developing country.

Non sequitur from Bloomberg article. China bans Google, Facebook, Twitter. At least U.S. has due process.

The Opium Wars story is a cautionary tale that should apply equally to China and to the USA. Every country should think twice about excessively powerful foreign mercantile forces, especially digital ones in this era of mechanized propaganda and surveillance.

It’s rational for China to limit Apple and Google and for the USA to limit WeChat.

This will remain so as long as a basically lawless state exists internationally, which seems to be the case following the collapse of post Cold War globalism in the 20-teens.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com