Hacker News Reader

> It aches my heart to be a young man in this country and see this be our so-called 'leaders'. I'm confident the tides have already turned against all this nonsense, though, and I look forward to rebuilding industries of the world with good-hearted men & women

I just got finished reading a book about the pre-war climate of 1930s Europe and man this comment sounds scary and nationalist.

I’m worried that so many people like you buy into the media positioning of China vs. America. It ratchets up tensions for the purpose of selling clicks.

Do you not see how American companies making deals with other countries is beneficial for everyone, including you? The economy is not a zero-sum game. You can create value without destroying it elsewhere. Nobody has to suffer in order for you to thrive.

When deals like this are made, it makes it less likely China will do things to piss off the US, and vice-versa. The last thing we need are more tensions.

Do you really want to hold people in other countries back from ever achieving the standards of living that you enjoy?

> When deals like this are made, it makes it less likely China will do things to piss off the US, and vice-versa. The last thing we need are more tensions.

Eh, no. That's sounds like a version of the "Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lexus_and_the_Olive_Tree#G...), and it's bunk. China's leaders are nationalists, and it's likely they're looking to strengthen themselves to the point where they can do what they want without caring if the US is pissed off or not, and their actual behavior supports this view. They've actually shown themselves to be quite adept at exploiting sentiments like yours while they play a different game.

> Do you really want to hold people in other countries back from ever achieving the standards of living that you enjoy?

It's not that simple, obviously. Do you want knock people in your own country down (and have them stay down) so that can happen? We're not just talking about standards of living, either. How do you feel about assisting the ascent of an ideologically-incompatible competitor regime (https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/world/asia/chinas-new-lea...)?

Golden Arches Theory was intended as a joke. Trying to "debunk" a joke, does nothing to negate the trend of increased economic cooperation leading to decreased conflict.

I think the author's own response is fitting to the sentiment in your comment:

I was both amazed and amused by how much the Golden Arches Theory had gotten around and how intensely certain people wanted to prove it wrong. They...insisted that politics, and the never-ending struggle between nation-states, were the immutable defining feature of international affairs, and they were professionally and psychologically threatened by the idea that globalization and economic integration might actually influence geopolitics in some very new and fundamental ways.

The link you posted at the end is a great example of what I'm talking about. The NYT has an incentive to scare you into thinking China is going to take over the US and destroy your way of life and imprison you in some dystopian hellscape. And so we must oppose them at all costs to protect our way of life, and subscribe to the NYT to read more about this growing conflict!

Sounds exactly like the scary bedtime stories Hollywood told us about the USSR during the Cold War. Or the stories Newsweek told us of how Japan was going to dominate and overtake American business in the 1980s. Oh no!

Not saying history will necessarily repeat and China will implode in a USSR-like manor, but, could it be that maybe those fears are just a little overblown?

China is an aging, shrinking population with still a long way to go towards industrializing. And a dictatorship isn't usually a great way to organize a government if your goal is stability.

Are you even willing to consider the possibility that maybe this deal was a mutually beneficial fair trade, with upside for both parties?

> Golden Arches Theory was intended as a joke. Trying to "debunk" a joke, does nothing to negate the trend of increased economic cooperation leading to decreased conflict.

I think you misunderstand. I wasn't specifically referring to the Golden Arches Theory as bunk, but the more general one you describe. It's bunk because it makes assumptions about motivations and strategies that aren't necessarily true, not because of some specific counterexample to a jokey formulation.

In China's case, I don't think it's playing the same "economic cooperation" game you assume it is. If the "decreased conflict" result has any truth behind it, it's because if increased interdependency, but it's pretty clear (for them) that's not a desired end-state, but rather a transitory state on the way to more independence and greater strength.

Those I suppose you could still have "decreased conflict" even in that case, as long as other nations remain too dependent on them to be able to object or resist if they want to do something objectionable.

This is what people don't understand, the CCP is not playing a co-operation game. They will play a co-operation game until they get what they want from you. After that its the domination game.

It's like patriotism, nationalism have become bad words in the USA. The USA and its values are really worth fighting for (am not even from the US), but this thing about "lets not be nationalistic", and if you criticize the CCP you hear "oh let's not be sinophobic" needs to stop.

All the 3rd world countries who got into the Belt and Road "co-operation" are really getting belted now.

"China's leaders are nationalists"

And the US leaders are not?

> "China's leaders are nationalists"

> And the US leaders are not?

Way less so, as displayed in their commitments to free trade and globalization.

So you mean the current administration then?

But the world kind of remembers your last 2 administration and knows that they can change just back next election.

And china seems to be focused on free global trade as well. Trade embargos are more known for the US.

Geopolitics is really not that simple.

> So you mean the current administration then?

All of them since the 80s at least (except for Trump, but he's not representative of the class "US leaders").

> And china seems to be focused on free global trade as well. Trade embargos are more known for the US.

What do embargos have to do with anything? Chinese leaders might be OK with free global trade, given the kinds of controls they have on domestic market access, they aren't really committed to "free trade" like the US has been.

"except for Trump, but he's not representative of the class "US leaders""

He was the last elected US president and was almost elected a 2. time.

So like it or not, but to the world, he is a very strong current representative of a US leader. And yes, a very nationalistic one at that. Who can be back to power very soon, or someone like him.

>> except for Trump, but he's not representative of the class "US leaders"

> He was the last elected US president and was almost elected a 2. time.

1) "US leaders" encompasses more than the presidency, and 2) at this point Trump is an n=1 aberration and no one can say if any patterns have changed.

The overall US leadership class has internalized the dogma of free trade, to the point of openly and uncritically accepting the national-level negatives (de-industrialization, etc.). I'm extremely skeptical that any other Republican besides Trump would deploy protectionist policies like tariffs or bully business leaders into doing something that puts the nation in front of their shareholders.

"The overall US leadership class has internalized the dogma of free trade, to the point of openly and uncritically accepting the national-level negatives "

I see, and this is why the US is enforcing so many global trade embargos?

And as for the collateral of them, here in eastern germany the economy suffered a lot by the embargos against russia - as did many other branches in europe. I doubt the US economy was hit by it in any significant way by comparison.

Or that the US was (and is) using massive pressure, so that germany abandones north stream (a pipeline to get russian gas directly) and rather buys cheap US fracking gas?

So sorry, but I can't really take the "free global trade" rhetoric much serious. The US is pro free trade for sure, but only as long as US interests are not hurt too much.

And all of this happens with or without Trump.

> I see, and this is why the US is enforcing so many global trade embargos?

You're not getting it. Embargos are neither here nor there, what matters is how they treat the domestic economy. They've let important bits whither, get outsourced, or slip out of their control through foreign acquisitions (which are default-allow), all often with great negative effects for the actual citizens they represent. That shows you where their commitments are.

Haha, I have seen many speeches of the US presidents and they all come off as nationalist. I imagine it would be very hard to win an election in the US without mentioning that Americans are the coolest people on Earth or something like that.

> Haha, I have seen many speeches of the US presidents and they all come off as nationalist.

Who cares about speeches? It's policy that matters. Chinese leaders actually pursue nationalist economic policy, while the US leaders dress up globalization with nationalist rhetoric.

lol. Watched any of the previous president’s speeches, for example?

Most (all?) countries look after themselves, their borders, their people etc and don’t honestly care about others. Whether this is right or wrong - that is a different question. But let’s not pretend some political leaders are saints and others aren’t.

commitments to free trade and globalization.

Sure, because it helps their country and their economy. They aren’t doing it out of the goodness of their hearts.

Global politics is not about right and wrong or love and friendship - it is about profit and loss, strength and weakness, convenience and opportunity…

US leaders are pluto-kleptocratic stooges and dotards whose only allegiance is to money and power.

American companies make manufacturing deals with China to export manufacturing environmental pollution over there, and to get compliant labor which is somewhat cheaper. I would support pollution tariffs on imported products to make the pollution export game less profitable to companies like Apple.

About 24 million people are at stake, just watch the Taiwanese Foreign minister's palpitations and the horror on his face with regards to Chinese aggression. If this doesn't convince you of the tacit reality, not sure what will: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3D0_Bhzbyo

Some level of pushback - manufacturing in this case - is the most reasonable, peaceful and rational recourse to the threat China poses to the world and its neighbors, while also creating a supply chain resiliency. I think narrative that you've spelled out is a grave danger to democracies around the world. If anything is ratcheting up that is taking an innocuous comment about globalist corporation's greed to an extreme and alarmist parallel to pre-world world nationalism which I find rather irresponsible.

Paraphrasing u/klebe:

Corporations extract concessions from US taxpayers. China extracts concessions from corporations. This is unfair. Why aren't US taxpayers getting the same deal as Chinese taxpayers?

Paraphrasing u/pembrook:

Something something nationalism. Whoa. Be careful. Corporations extracting wealth from US taxpayers is good for world prosperity. For reasons.

lol. it's so insane. Anything that is not praising globalism is smeared as some sort of nationalist nonsense. I mean this in a sincere way, people really need to stop putting things into 'boxes'. It does nobody any good, especially when media & government take advantage of these boxes to push division, etc.

How can being disappointed in American leaders be considered 'scary' and 'nationalist'? It makes no sense. America is not in good shape. We can argue the statistics all day, but it's undeniable how far we've fallen in education & health most importantly, but of course other critical parts like infrastructure, manufacturing & technology. the kids are not alright

People in America don't feel supported right now, and they haven't for awhile. Between the endless wars, and the endless focus of moving all our capital and labor overseas, not a lot has come back to the people, and they feel it.

You can say whatever about nation-building, promoting living standards, etc., but I just don't think it's fair that the American citizens who worked, fought, and often funded (through subsidies) these companies, do not get anywhere NEAR the level of attention we give elsewhere. Obviously ton of people agreed with me on here, lol, and every single person I've talked to on this topic agrees.

$275 billion in spending over a period of five years sounds like a lot, but I think you might be underestimating how much Apple would spend in China “naturally”.

When's the last CEO I heard making these same promises to America?

On Apple’s spending in the USA:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/26/business/apple-spending-u...

“The company said its overall spending would reach $430 billion in the United States over the next five years.”

Thank you! I swear some people just have blinders to things just so they can be anti-Apple. Apple makes these promises everywhere and especially to America.

> It's one thing to make these deals with a foreign hostile country - it's another to ask yourself: When's the last CEO I heard making these same promises to America? Or to any friendly country for that matter?

Thank you for saying this. I don't live in the US, but yes it's shocking.

My (unpopular) view is that we humans have the ability to focus only on a limited set of issues simultaneously, and we should pick the important ones first. It is appalling that news about secretive 200+ billion deals with Xi's CCP (the greatest threat to freedom since the Brezhnev era) has to compete for attention.

Honestly, I'm not trying to sound like I'm speaking in bad faith or provokingly, but why did you ever expect the top executives of a multi-million (or in this case, trillion) dollar corporation to care about anything but profits and their own well-being? It's just like Zuckerberg said, "Company over country".

I like to imagine those corporations as a machine with irs unique objective being profit. Every single thing that comes out of their mouths and every single action they perform is done with the expectation that it will sooner or later result in more profit. In this case, the equation came out as "the profit that Apple will earn as a result of this deal will compensate any loss of revenue that could be ever generated because of the public's reaction to it". And that's how it always works, period.

> Honestly, I'm not trying to sound like I'm speaking in bad faith or provokingly, but why did you ever expect the top executives of a multi-million (or in this case, trillion) dollar corporation to care about anything but profits and their own well-being? It's just like Zuckerberg said, "Company over country".

That's a common ideological outlook now, but IIRC it wasn't always so and it doesn't have to be so in the future.

Simplistic free market greed-sacks like you describe should be pariahs, and treated as such by society and the government to the point that they find it very hard to make profits.

> why did you ever expect the top executives of a multi-million (or in this case, trillion) dollar corporation to care about anything but profits and their own well-being?

Perhaps he expected his government to incentivize/compel them to look at more than just profits? You know, like China is successfully doing. While shady when it comes to foreign influence, it is an absolutely legitimate approach for domestic companies, instead of allowing them to sell out their home country for short-term gain in the name of free markets, that the West was duped into believing is the only moral policy.

The empathetic perspective is that these CEOs and boards don’t have national allegiance. They are trying to optimize globally, and China is more exploitable in the sense of getting a steeper growth curve out of it.

The realpolitik perspective is that some countries demand allegiance from companies that operate on their soil (China), while others don't (USA). So Apple has a national allegiance to China in that country, and an allegiance purely to profit in the USA. It's easy to guess which country's citizens will receive more corporate philanthropy. See GP comment for the answer.

What's despicable is that none of the mainstream media (WSJ, NYTimes, WaPo, Boston Globe, CNN, Fox, etc.) are covering this story. The American people atleast deserve to be informed.

How is this not the biggest blow to Apple in terms of its relationship with China?

For those who want to go to source: https://www.theinformation.com/articles/facing-hostile-chine...

Does anyone have subscription? Would love to read Archive.is copy. Thank you.

surely they will by the end of the week, after vetting sources?

> What's despicable is that none of the mainstream media (WSJ, NYTimes, WaPo, Boston Globe, CNN, Fox, etc.) are covering this story. The American people atleast deserve to be informed.

That's not true. IMHO, this is part of a larger story (Apple's obsequious compromises with China), and the NY Times has previously reported on other parts: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/17/technology/apple-china-ce....

It's seems The Information broke this story, but I doubt it will be very long before other outlets catch up.

I honestly feel like NYTimes is not going to cover it for political reasons. I am happy to be convinced otherwise.

> I honestly feel like NYTimes is not going to cover it for political reasons. I am happy to be convinced otherwise.

Explain those "political reasons," please.

NYT is extremely predictable - both in its choice of what to inform its viewers as well as what will fit their political stance (globalists). If you need this to be spelled out, either you’re being rhetorical or you’re uninformed - I suspect the former.

> If you need this to be spelled out, either you’re being rhetorical or you’re uninformed - I suspect the former.

No, I suspect you have things wrong in this case, but you're being so vague it's difficult to figure out where the error is.

> NYT is extremely predictable - both in its choice of what to inform its viewers as well as what will fit their political stance (globalists).

Even if that's true, it's no reason to assume they wouldn't publish this story for some ideological reason, especially given they've published very similar things in the past.

Btw Fox is covering this story! Very predictable.

> Btw Fox is covering this story! Very predictable.

This?

https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/apple-tim-cook-secret-de...

It's just a "The Information reported..." rehash. Everything about this except the original story that I've seen so far has been like that.

> As if the streets are paved with gold everywhere else?

They kind of are, though. Find somebody that is broadly world traveled over a multiple decade period and they will invariably have noticed the stark contrast in the way societies are inside and outside what could be broadly termed the modern western countries.

People that have been stuck in those countries their entire lives simply don't understand how badly they have been robbed.

>as well as assistance with around a dozen Chinese government causes.

Does anyone have specific info on these? Chinese government causes could be anything, ranging from benign to the truly despicable.

As a young woman I agree klebe.