Hacker News Reader

Comment by Arn_Thor | Hacker News Reader

As long as the details, possibly names or government roles, in the book doesn't get out the government can just call it speculation. If the book remains unpublished, that's probably mission accomplished for them. Remember the reason the NYT got banned from China: an expose on the corporate empire essentially owned by Xi Jinping's family and other top cadres in the CCP. That's the kind of info they are really afraid of, because it could threaten the party's domestic "legitimacy", or mandate to rule.

The CCP does not care one bit what the international community thinks (look at Xinjiang & Hong Kong). So far it has not resulted in any meaningful economic consequences for the CCP...so why worry?

View on HN

> the reason the NYT got banned from China: an expose on the corporate empire essentially owned by Xi Jinping's family and other top cadres in the CCP

For reference, the New York Times [1] and Bloomberg [2] articles. They hit a nerve because they drive a wedge between the CCP's elite and China's people, something the CCP is sensitive to in a way it's not to international criticism of its actions as a state.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/26/business/global/family-of...

[2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-06-29/xi-jinpin...

It's astounding how incompetent the US has become at propaganda, compared to the peak of the Cold War with the USSR. The US is an obese fighter that hasn't stepped in the ring for a serious match in 30-40 years. If the US had any idea what it was doing, or what it is really dealing with in China, it'd be applying enormous propaganda effort to that very wedge.

Frankly, widespread social instability in China isn't in the US's interest any more than it is in Xi's. We are very dependent on them, and will be for some time.

The fallout from a massive propaganda campaign would be very bad for us if it were to fail to depose the CCP, and not much better for us if it were to succeed.

> Frankly, widespread social instability in China isn't in the US's interest any more than it is in Xi's.

It is! The more time, and resources Xi has to spend fighting dumpster fire at home, the less it has to destabilise USA! A very simple truth.

I agree with sibling that TPTB in USA might not actually want what they pretend to want in China. Even if they did, however, in any PR effort it helps to be preaching from a position of perceived authenticity and integrity. USA isn't really in that position anymore, even if we imagine we somehow did occupy it at some point in the past.

Thank you for adding the sources!

> it has not resulted in any meaningful economic consequences for the CCP

I would strongly disagree there.

- china law blog https://harrisbricken.com/chinalawblog/chinas-cultural-revol... has mentioned that now their audience is in agreement of opinion that CCP is becoming increasingly authoritarian and less tolerant of foreigners and foreign businesses. as a result, a lot of their business clients are saying "they will never go to China ever again"

- global equity funds exposure to china and kong kong has collapsed https://www.ft.com/content/daa7a70c-23fb-467a-b245-f57bd47f6... from 0.5% in 2011 to -1.0% in 2021

- Lehman moments with rescuing hourong, and evergrande about to collapse

- CCP obfuscates any official economy numbers, so you cannot judge their economy based on official numbers. You have to see what actions the CCP is taking. And right now they are making crazy moves.

> from 0.5% in 2011 to -1.0% in 2021

How does negative exposure to China work, a hedge against? Or are these numbers derivatives (growth)?

OP is missing the additional phrase "compared to the weight in the MSCI ACWI".

We can argue about the exact economic significance—my interpretationof the facts you listed is much less severe—but whatever the cost, the CCP seems willing to pay it gladly. If that means running the economy into the ground as the alarmists warn will inevitably happen, then they're still powering on ahead undeterred. The takeaway for critics of China must inevitably be, then, that whatever the cost is it's not high enough to force the CCP to change course.

I wonder also if perhaps avoiding a change of course, despite the costs of not doing so, in the interest of "saving face" might also be playing a role here. As I understand it (and at some risk of overgeneralizing here), this is a big cultural concept that I think might be underestimated by a lot of people in "the West" as a factor here.

It’s hard to measure economic consequences when it involves people not doing things there. It hasn’t resulted in many companies leaving China but it certainly hasn’t made it any more welcoming to foreign capital and workers.

The image of China being a place for international business has really took a nose dive over the last few 5yrs.

That's a fair point! Perhaps it would have been more accurate for me to say that there doesn't appear to be quantifiable economic consequences significant enough for the CCP to change course on the issue.

What private business do matters, of course, but I think the conversation usually veers more into the territory of national action restricting companies or states from doing business with China. There doesn't seem to have been much meaningful action on that front

I don’t get it. The House of Windsor operates a lot of land and businesses through the extended family. Why should we treat the Son of Heaven any different?

Because the CCP bills itself as the opposite of a royal empire. Even Xi Jinping thought claims (at least...) it's following socialism with Chinese characteristics, with "people as the masters of the country" and that the CCP governs using rule of law. If that, heaven forbid, were not in fact the case then it raises questions about the legitimacy of the regime.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com