My guess is US corporations are too entangled with China, and it is too powerful and willing to retaliate. I wouldn't be surprised if a brand that did what you suggest would immediately be accused of "hurting the feelings of the Chinese people," and have its supply chains and markets disrupted.
If you have $10, you're more likely to buy a $2 item than a $5 one because 20% of your budget is easier to justify than 50%.
Decision theory says that the best outcome comes from me adopting the “companies are groups of people” model. I'll try to remember that, and do so.
And that applies to other areas. China does tons of industrial manufacturing for materials that are subsequent inputs to other products - the chemistry to create your medicines might happen in the US, but it's nearly certain that a big fraction of the reagents used came from someplace in China.
More information is available from the FTC web site: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/com...
Fun stuff, Afghanistan has some of the largest deposits in the world for lithium, rare earths, gemstones and uranium, but good luck convincing them now of mining that. Also, yep, China has started both mining operations in Afghanistan, and an open declaration from the Taliban stating they won't touch their facilities.
Tibet would like a word.
Well, true, but that still does not give you a right to invade and rule another nation.
Until you can stop trade between Taiwan/Korea with China, there is no point in buying those parts instead of Chinese parts.
That money will eventually be recycled towards China.
Buy American. Buy European.
The big arguement in the early 2000s on the fear of too much China reliance is exactly this. Can we stand a moral ground against a country whose teet we depend on? Too many companies are disgusting unwilling to. I dont watch anything hollywood (which has been silly easy oddly) over the whole self censorship to appease the chinese market. Any company that kowtows to chinese pressure for any little thing is on my shit list. But I'm just one dude. Most people dont care or are unwilling. At that, I know my computer, phone and a number of other things came from China. Anytime I can get anywhere but China, I go for it. It's real difficult. Unloading our manufacturing wasn't smart and we are reaping what we sowed.
Do Netflix and Amazon also engage in appeasement? Those are the only two accounts we maintain now.
Earlier last year when people were joking about Apple not showing iPhones getting broken in their shows on Apple TV, the less talked about but much more alarming bit was their comment about China.
"Today’s report also claims that Eddy Cue has told Apple TV+ leadership that “the two things we will never do are hard-core nudity and China,” referring to potentially angering China with any of its original TV shows or movies."
https://9to5mac.com/2020/12/13/apple-tv-plus-gawker-show/
Does this mean no news on Apple TV? That soft-censorship for corporate economic interest reasons will allow the CCP to do terrible things because companies are incentivized to ignore it/suppress speech around it?
Apple also capitulates to the CCP, allowing them to host iCloud on CCP servers in country. They also remove the Taiwanese flag from Chinese iPhones, and remove podcast apps/content from China.
On one side you could argue this inter-economic dependence lowers the likelihood of war. It is not without an ethical cost though. Is genocide an acceptable cost for stability and compromising your principles? Is access to the Chinese market worth that?
https://zalberico.com/essay/2020/06/13/zoom-in-china.html
The outcome of the South Park episode:
"In response to the episode's criticism of the Chinese government, South Park has been entirely banned in China, including on its streaming services and social media platforms.
In October 2019, insiders told Bloomberg that Apple, which has a significant portion of its users and manufacturers in China, was reportedly unlikely to bid for the streaming rights of the series due to the China ban."
In practice, that would mean not buying anything that has a connection to a list of countries that includes China, Indonesia, Belgium, and several countries which I'm not going to list because the conversation would become unmanageable, just as the Uyghur conversation would become unmanageable within China.
If China were the only guilty state in the world, a boycott would be a different proposition to what it is. Even then, it's not guaranteed to be effective because the way things work psychologically, commercially, and geopolitically.
Even though 99% of people consider themselves humanists, they are able to compartmentalise their feelings in surprising ways when it comes to the acquisition of consumer goods, energy, copper, gold, diamonds, and real estate.
Objects should simply continue to label their country of origin.
If the population really is interested in generally removing themselves from commerce with China, there will be a tendency to avoid products with the “Made in China” label. How great this tendency is will depend on how much the population values a commercial separation. Of course, it is ridiculous to assume that any individual would be completely aware of the degree to which their lives are ultimately influenced by commerce with China via their consumption of goods, let the alone the entire population. However, we can still expect the change in commerce with China to reflect the degree to which the rest of society values not doing business with those business entities that prosper in the spirit of mutual benefit with a regime that practices perverse and backwards acts against humanity entirely unbefitting of any modern world power.
Anyone man of commerce with a conscience must ultimately conclude to some degree that cooperating with entities under such a regime is not ideal, if simply for the sake of attempting to do good rather than evil. However, any man or woman of reason must realize that the leaders in international commerce that make these decisions must ultimately weigh this fact against a multitude of other factors. Their service most likely is foremost to the continuing survival of the business they represent, which in turn is dependent on consumption of the goods they sell. In the case of business with China, we can assume this to be goods sold elsewhere in society. These members of society have multilayered responsibilities in their responsibilities to society. Yes, to a degree they are responsible for the strife in China— however, they are also responsible to all the members of their supply chain, fellow colleagues and employees, business partners, and then also their consumers, not to mention their dependents and other contracts such as debt obligations and taxes. These are realities for society members working in the integrated world economy. To quit business altogether means disrupting these chains. However, if society values not cooperating with that particular system that sins against mankind enough, it would by degrees remove its consumption of the goods that arrive from that system, and furthermore by degrees shame and diminish the reputations of any partner to that specific system — the greater we as a society value liberty and justice for all, in both the arenas of physical personhood and in business, the more we will pressure the partners of the system and then ultimately the system itself to cease the contraptions diminishing to our natures. The degree to which society truly values these noble aims will be shown by the collective decisions and actions of that society.
In other words, in a free society, by which the actions of men and women are freely chosen, the degree to which that society as a collective values freedom will influence the degrees to which those who practice barbarism can continue doing so.
In the minds of the right, only Republicans are truly anti-China. They think the left is giving in to China.
Edit: I should note, I am saying it is disgusting that we turn a blind eye to human suffering in the name of cheaper products and higher profit margins.
If WTO membership and global free-trade were predicated on certain civil-rights ground rules like: a free press, demonstrable rule of law, democratically elected governance, due process, and a complete absence of concentration camps, the world would be a better place.
Not only would it address the plight of the Uyghur people and the travesty that is occurring in Hong Kong, but it might grant the inmates at Guantanamo fair and open hearings.
Bring on the "oppression-free" consumer certifications. I am certain that there is a market.
While I agree we must get much stronger incentives/laws on our side we can't get distracted and pass all the moral consequences/imperative for action onto our side. It's less than half the equation.
We need to tackle the other side of this problem because CCP is directly responsible.
Bottom line Xi is perpetrating this genocide. That's the main fault & we can't 'offshore' 100% of the blame onto our corporations.
Even if we did get perfect decoupling I don't think that would be enough incentive to change China's behavior?
Morally, I don't think that alone is a strong enough reaction to these horrors and threats to Democracy.
We must hold the CCP & Xi directly responsible
Doesn't matter that it isn't true. It sounds true, and that's all that matters.
[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-action...
It's a political problem which can only be solved at the state level.
And if we, as consumers, make it clear that we will be buying Vietnamese, Taiwanese, Japanese, Korean, Indian -- ANYTHING that isn't Chinese -- it will cause a reaction in the CCP (I just hope that reaction isn't a military first-strike).
Somewhat surprised it needs to be said, but I guess as tensions are getting higher, people just say more and more ridiculous things.
Whenever I read statements like this I wonder who people think China might attack militarily. The only one I can think of that wouldn't either cost them more than they'd gain (and even then it still probably would) or turn into a suicidal act would be Taiwan. Any other neighboring nation offers them little value with respect to the cost of war, and nations like the US and Russia could create such an expansive war that China would lose all the political and economic ground it's gained this century, and probably more.
IMO, anyone who has spent extensive time in China can see what a pipe dream overthrowing the 100 million strong CCP is. Think about the likelihood of overthrowing the United States government.
Okay, you buy their products instead of China. They grow richer and trade more with China.
Until we pressure our fellow Asian "allies" to stop trading with China, that money will just be recycled towards China anyways.
Buy American. Buy European.
It's not particularly impactful for a company to do on it's own due to the size of the chinese economy (we'd need a coordinated national effort) but if the Uyghur Genocide is something you feel strongly about as a business owner you can probably relocate to other suppliers without that much of a raise in cost.
That sounds nice, but your suggestion reduces the available options practically to zero (pretty much left with assassination and pointless sanctions against people with no foreign assets and diplomatic immunity when traveling).
The people at the top of the political spectrum derive a large part of their power from the factories where those regular people work.
I personally firmly stand by not punishing civilians and private/mostly-private/mostly-civilian-held companies for the actions of their governments.
Also, governments are not monolithic. Would you punish the National Park Service for the actions of the NSA?
> ASPA authorizes the President of the United States to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court". This authorization has led the act to be nicknamed the "Hague Invasion Act".
> The act prohibits federal, state and local governments and agencies (including courts and law enforcement agencies) from assisting the court. For example, it prohibits the extradition of any person from the U.S. to the Court; it prohibits the transfer of classified national security information and law enforcement information to the court.
> The act also prohibits U.S. military aid to countries that are party to the court. However, exceptions are allowed for aid to NATO members, major non-NATO allies, Taiwan, and countries that have entered into "Article 98 agreements", agreeing not to hand over U.S. nationals to the court.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
That's nonsensical, and completely ignores the idea of power/control. The Chinese government has direct control over Chinese manufacturers, and derives power from them. Derek Chauvin or the MPD (for example) do not control or derive power from a Bay Area tech company Google, and have only a very tenuous relationship with it (if any).
> You could say Guantanamo Bay was funded in part by your taxes. You could say all the ruckus in Nicaragua was funded by your taxes as well.
And if you want to boycott American goods over that, be my guest.
So does the US government. There entities in the US government that have direct control over US companies, and derive power from US companies.
> Derek Chauvin or the MPD (for example) do not control or derive power from a Bay Area tech company Google
You're emphasizing my point here. The US government is not a monolithic entity and neither is China's.
Just like you mentioned Derek Chauvin, you should rightfully be critical of the Derek Chauvins of China instead of the "Chinese government". Those Derek Chauvins have very little to do with Chinese manufacturers of high-tech goods (other than being tax-funded, which is the same with the Derek Chauvins of USA).
> And if you want to boycott American goods over that, be my guest.
I boycott neither American nor Chinese goods over government issues.
China's government is actually far more of a monolithic entity than the US's. It doesn't have sovereign subdivisions or separation of powers, and is organization around centralized hierarchical control. The center makes policy, and the periphery implements it.
> Just like you mentioned Derek Chauvin, you should rightfully be critical of the Derek Chauvins of China instead of the "Chinese government". Those Derek Chauvins have very little to do with Chinese manufacturers of high-tech goods (other than being tax-funded, which is the same with the Derek Chauvins of USA).
The Chinese government is basically a government of Derek Chauvins, and the the point of boycotting is to weaken it or at least slow its growth.
Think of it this way: you have a mob boss who owns a legitimate restaurant staffed by honest people, and he uses the profits from it to pay for criminal acts (say hits against his enemies). If you patronize the restaurant because you're concerned that the staff shouldn't have their income reduced on account of their boss's assassination hobby, you also provide the boss with money to enable or increase his assassination activity. Maybe the result of this is the boss grows powerful enough to take over the whole local government, because he could assassinate everyone in his way.
On the one hand, you have some people who could make less money or have to find different work. On the other hand, you have murder and a breakdown of honest government.
It's a moral dilemma, and you have to weigh the pros and cons. It feels like you're taking a hard stand on relatively minor moral issue in a way that compromises more important ones.
No. Just no. Stop right there. You might be thinking of North Korea, but that is not China. The western media wants you to believe this, but if you even take a little time to experience China first-hand you'll realize that -- and this may come as a surprise to you, understandably from the brainwashing that western media does -- China's government is doing mostly good things.
Literacy in China is at 96%, well above the United States, and 99.8% for the 16-24 age group, 95% have access to a safe water source, access to electricity went from 93% in 1990 to >99.9% in 2018, famine is almost absent, they regularly haul people out of earthquakes and other disasters to safety, street assaults are seldom (females regularly freely take walks at night downtown!), 350 km/h trains shuttle people between cities safely several times an hour (compare to the mostly non-existent and <120 km/h passenger trains in the US), violent street crime is almost zero, there are fast, clean, safe electric transportation systems in most cities, there is healthcare for all citizens, and there are massive clean energy efforts underway.
Do you really believe it is a government full of Derek Chauvins that accomplished all that? Have you ever lived there? You'll be surprised.
And yes, there are atrocities and censorship as I should duly note. But by far, no, it's not a government full of Derek Chauvins. It's rather a few Derek Chauvins in a vast system of mostly good people that the western media largely doesn't want to talk about because they enjoy the ad revenue they get from fear-mongering and jumping on the anti-China bandwagon.
And yes, I advocate for being critical and holding accountable the people responsible for atrocities. However, I still stand against boycotting and punishing average civilians for any of those things. Those civilians are just living their lives and doing hard work to feed themselves or their families just like you and me, and have absolutely nothing to do with atrocities committed by a few Derek Chauvins.
You forgot to add that they just "eliminated poverty."
> Do you really believe it is a government full of Derek Chauvins?
You've twisted my wording. I didn't say it was a government full of Derek Chauvins, but a government of Derek Chauvins. And in any case, it was a cartoonish riff on your previous comment, so it shouldn't be taken too literally.
> Have you ever lived there? You'll be surprised.
I think you'd be surprised.
> It's rather a few Derek Chauvins in a vast system of mostly good people
That "rather a few" are the ones setting and enforcing policy. That's the important fact. You don't rise up in the Communist Party by being a good person.
China has 1.4 billion people: do you think it's a good plan or even morally defensible to attempt to hurt all of them to get to affect a fraction of a fraction of wealth of maybe 200 politicians?
[0]: https://dailycaller.com/2020/12/29/apple-uyghur-lens-technol...