Hacker News Reader

Comment by ericmay | Hacker News Reader

Well, an alternative interpretation would be that Apple (like much of the world) is in a no-win situation because an assumption that they had (like much of the world) was that investment, fair trade, and bringing China into the established international organizations would result in liberalization (within reason) of China and that they'd be a full partner in global stability. The grand bargain. But instead the CCP rejected that and undermined global good will, and now the prior assumptions are no longer valid and so it will take a long time to decouple. Of course, nobody knows if Apple (and other companies) have that intention, but it's a reasonable counter-balance to the interpretation that they are "choosing Chinese profits".

And basically everyone here is choosing cheaper Chinese goods so we're all complicit too.

View on HN

Alternative view:

Apple has spent many years happily profiting from cheap Chinese manufacturing, labor, electrial engineering expertise and supply chains to the point where they are now completely beholden to a foreign country. A country whose increasing rivalry with the US in economic power and geopolitical influence (along with increased tensions) has been clear for well over a decade.

Apple is diversifying a bit into India and elsewhere (Vietnam I think?), but China could throw Apple into a huge crisis tomorrow if they were cut off, since it would take years to ramp up capacity elsewhere, and sourcing many of the components would be next to impossible.

And Apple really couldn't blame anyone but themselves for it.

It also seems to me like the are diversifying more because India demanded it and for price, rather than tho reduce dependencies ok China. But that's just unqualified guesswork.

This is the situation for the rest of the chip industry besides Intel, who also uses Taiwan TSMC fabs for some of their side operations (see Arc GPUs). Not just computer chips either, 37% of U.S. clothing imports are from China[0], for example.

0: https://www.just-style.com/analysis/analysis-china-market-sh...

So... we're in agreement that over-reliance on China is a bad thing, then?

I think so. I think the disagreement is in how to deal with the problem. Obviously tariffs are a terrible idea (if you think about it for more than a couple minutes). Alternatives like mandating exporters meet environmental and employment standards that meet or exceed ours would probably make a good sized dent.

At the same moment, the rest of the works is realizing the fact that us pretty much dictates what happens around the world.

Want to build your own x86 Chios? Guess what? You can't because Intel/and won't let you and even if they did , if it were one of the "not our allies list" people, the govt will step in. Same for Netherlands fab machine makers. They dictate who can they sell to or not..

That is why nations are investing in stuff like risc-v.

Tomorrow MasterCard/visa can be "ordered by govt " to pull out of a country and suddenly their card economy collapses. Unless they have an alternative, like India does with rupay or UPI which is being exported to other countries as a technology they can locally implement.

Same for stuff like aws or Google or github or basically the entire american internet giants.

You know if tomorrow whatsapp is ordered to stop service in say India what will happen? Without a local alternative already in place, WhatsApp and ipso facto us govt can literally hold that country for ransom. Whatsapp is a silly example but think about it.

Sure China is bad for labour but its not like Americans aren't fighting anszon for Union rights or for $15/hour pay and benefits? I'm not trying to say they are equal, just that its a spectrum.

For non Americans and non Chinese, Be it India or Russia or Iran, these two nations are just as offensive in different manners and it's just a matter of perspective

I get what you're saying; the US is far from the shining example of what a democracy should look like.

On the other side of that coin, though, China is taking us for a ride. Politically speaking, it's unwise to continue giving them power over our supply chain. Ultimately it's a monster fight with no real winners, but ensuring that world superpowers stay competitive with one another is how we prevent mutually assured destruction. Even for China's allies, I fail to see how hamstringing the CCP is a bad thing.

> but China could throw Apple into a huge crisis tomorrow if they were cut off, since it would take years to ramp up capacity elsewhere.

Would not be painless for China though. The thing about trade is, it’s trade. While Apple and American consumers benefit, so does China or obviously they wouldn’t trade. They’re not making our phones as a charity to us.

Yes, they've been taking the profits and building their military at a fast rate for 20 years...to do...something.

China has the 2nd largest military budget but only spends 1.7% GDP on it vs the global average of 2.2% and US at 3.5%. India the worlds 3rd largest spender is between them at 2.7% GDP, and #4 the UK spends 2.2% GDP.

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

I may strongly dislike China, but a relative lack of military spending is one of their strengths.

Trend rapidly changing, they were focused elsewhere previously.

The part that matters is what they’ll use it for (so far, signs point to authoritarian conquest of sovereign political entities)

As a share of GDP it was higher in 2019 at 1.9%, so it's growth it really a function of economic growth.

What about the NATO requirement to spend 2% of GDP on defense? Isn't it strategic for the US to spend disproportionately more on the military to support allies' militaries (e.g., South Korea) and prevent the rise of competing superpowers?

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm

China has the second largest military spending in the world, second only to the US. What's more, you really need to look at purchasing power parity (PPP). Basically, it costs less to do things in China, and that really matters for military spending. For example, soldiers in the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) receive far lower salaries than the equivalent US personnel. It's hard to figure out the true impact of this, but it's important to acknowledge. One article about this is here: https://voxeu.org/article/why-military-purchasing-power-pari... - which argues that US military spending is basically equal to Russia+China once that's considered. Also, there's geography to consider. If China is attacking next-door-neighbors while the US is trying to defend an ally at long distance, it would necessarily cost the US much more. All of this makes comparing military spending much more complicated, as well as depressing. It's my hope that military adventurism will be avoided.

I'm not sure the past ten months have been the greatest time for the argument that Russia gets almost a third of the US's military value after adjusting for PPP.

It's the data I had easily available.

While the amount of spending money has an effect, wisely spending the money pre-war and wisely executing war plans is obviously critical. Russia is demonstrating the weakness from widespread corruption (they got stuck on roads because they did not invest in logistics and on maintaining their vehicles), combined with spectacularly poor planning in the initial attack. It would be unwise to assume China will make such mistakes.

Anyway, it is my hope that war does not break out. The one guarantee about war is many deaths.

That 1.7% that China spends is probably equivalent (or more) to the 3.5% that the US spends. China steals the intellectual property that the US pays for. China takes advantage of lax environmental and green energy laws the the US military and supporting businesses must conform to. China takes advantage of near slave labor to build it’s weapons of war. It’s much economical for China to wage war than the United States.

> China has the 2nd largest military budget but only spends 1.7% GDP on it

Not really sure that comparisons of either GDP or state spending on a purpose as a share of it (even if GDP were comparable) are as meaningful as people pretend across regimes with vastly different degrees of state/industry integration both generally (because of effect on GDP measures) or in the field of interest (because of effects on spending measures.)

Unfortunately, there's not good alternative measures, either.

India and Vietnam, which are already sites of Apple production, are among the countries being seen as an alternative option to China[1]. However, parts for iPhone, iPad and Macs come from around the globe and are assembled in China, India and Vietnam. Apple depends upon a global supply chain to make final products. The production of the iPhone doubled this year in India because of ongoing geo-tension and strict lockdowns in China. However, that is just 7% of production iPhones. Anyway, I hope China and the USA reach some middle ground and keep Taiwan safe. Any war between these two giant countries would disaster the world economy and escalate to world war 3.

[1] https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/apple-in...

China's long bet is that greed will outstrip any desire for North Americans to intervene with their autocracy. So far they've been absolutely correct.

Well there were enough examples from the past that made that a pretty safe bet.

> Apple has spent many years happily profiting from cheap Chinese manufacturing, labor, electrial engineering expertise and supply chains to the point where they are now completely beholden to a foreign country.

Up to a point there's a cost advantage, but Tim Cook has also pointed that Apple uses Chinese factories because it allows them to take advantage of the local manufacturing capabilities, which are substantial. [0] In fact to hear him tell it those capabilities are simply not available elsewhere. I take him at his word on this topic at least.

[0] https://www.inc.com/glenn-leibowitz/apple-ceo-tim-cook-this-...

Tim Cook also invested a third of a trillion dollars in China because they did not have the manufacturing capabilities to build the iPhone how Apple wanted at the time of the investment. [1]

[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-tim-cook-275-billion-c...

And Cook mocked the US because we didn't have the right tooling to make screws for his Mac pro, he went all over the news and kept spewing how bad our industrial sector was.

One of the tooling engineers that had previously worked with Apple before they were offshored said, "Well, we couldn't wait around for him to come back to us, we have to eat too so we switched to making different things. He's welcome to invest in our production and we'll make whatever he wants"

Cook loves helping out China, not sure why. /s

A somewhat warped understanding on "manufacturing capabilities".

While Apple may have had to spend money setting up the specific assembly line, fabrication plants, train staff, etc because they simply didn't exist prior to their requirement, the fact that they were able to set it up someplace, and continuously feed raw materials, parts, labour etc with dozens of redundant suppliers for EACH component, is what indicates manufacturing capability.

Manufacturing is more ecosystem than "capability".

> In fact to hear him tell it those capabilities are simply not available elsewhere.

This is a huge overlooked factor in all of the debate regarding the supply chain.

You can't "just move" manufacturing capabilities from one place to another, and debate the labor costs. Rather, probably more importantly, there's actually a _skills supply_ problem.

People will learn the skills if the demand exists. That's what China did and Americans can do it too if multinational companies support US manufacturing.

America doesn't allow the labor or environmental manufacturing conditions that allow China to compete so effectively. We need border adjustments such that goods coming from countries with lesser labor or environmental protections cost more and those coming from countries with better labor/environmental protections cost less (it also has to be transitive so China can't just launder their products through the Czech Republic--i.e., the Czech Republic would have to have a similar border adjustment policy in order to qualify).

Companies don't have to buy from the lowest bidder. Apple could choose to support manufacturing in countries with better labor/environmental protections without any new laws.

I think border adjustments are also a good idea, but I won't give Apple a free pass for choosing to support such poor manufacturing conditions just to make more profit.

No, because then they'd get easily undercut by competition without such ethical scruples.

This is a tragedy of the commons problem, you need central enforcement.

Apple would get easily undercut by competitors with lower prices? Many have tried.

But yes, that could happen to other companies, which shows that consumers share responsibility for ignoring the labor and environmental conditions.

Consumers don't have any transparency into labor or environmental conditions. We can't even see a bill of materials for our products much less information on the labor or environmental conditions. The problem is systemic--the rules incentivize bad outcomes; litigating blame is pointless and distracting: fix the rules and move on.

That is not true. We all know China has poor environmental protections and low wages, and yet we choose to buy products made in China.

And the consumers who don't care are also voters who don't care, so the rules won't be fixed.

But a few powerful people could create huge changes all on their own. Holding them responsible is not pointless, it's our best hope for change.

> That is not true. We all know China has poor environmental protections and low wages, and yet we choose to buy products made in China.

It's 100% true, and we often buy from China because overwhelmingly there simply aren't alternatives, the alternatives are prohibitively difficult to find, the alternative is another developing country with similar labor and environmental policies, or the alternative is laundered through a country with good regulation (a car is "manufactured" in America but all of its components--the bulk of its value--are produced in developing countries without regulation).

> And those consumers are also voters. The rules won't be fixed because most people don't care either as consumers or as voters.

Right, but they don't have the same access to politicians that corporations do. This is a different and worse systemic problem. Moreover, corporations run campaigns to shift public opinion away from effectual policy. In the 70s bottling companies ran campaigns which argued, as you are arguing, that litter was a consumer problem rather than a industrial problem (e.g., the "crying Indian" advert). The cigarette industry ran a campaign that insisted that the high rate of home fires are caused by a deficiency of highly carcinogenic flame retardants in home furnishings. Similarly, the fossil fuel industry currently runs campaigns which seek to make climate change an issue of personal responsibility ("we don't need legislation, we just need consumers to decide to switch to veganism and give up their cars").

> But a few powerful people could create huge changes all on their own. Hold them responsible is not pointless, it's our best hope for change.

I strongly disagree. Our best hope for change is public policy, notably border adjustments. If you want to protest at Cupertino, be my guest but that's wholly inadequate.

Interesting examples. How'd they work out?

More disposable bottles and fossil fuels are sold now than ever before. You can still buy cigarettes, and they're still as poisonous and addictive as ever, but most people don't want to buy them anymore.

Public policy worked in 0/3 cases. Changing consumer behavior worked in 1/3.

Those weren’t public policies, they were marketing campaigns to divert away from reasonable public policy solutions.

They were also public policy goals that were not solved by public policy solutions.

No one here claimed that every problem has been solved by public policy.

You suggested that personal choice was just a distraction from policy-making, but one of your own examples, cigarettes, shows otherwise.

Personal choice works.

There was a national campaign against tobacco. Moreover, no one is accidentally buying cigarettes like they’re buying carbon. It’s not like cigarettes were added to every product in unknown quantities and the public managed to avoid purchasing them. Similarly, people can’t simply opt out of carbon—it’s not like people were previously waltzing up to the counter and asking for some carbon, and now they’re not doing it any more. If that’s your “personal responsibility” example, it’s pretty desperate.

Apparently [0] Apple is relocating production progressively in the US starting with Texas.

[0] https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/09/apples-new-mac-pro-to...

I am glad that there is native manufacturing, but let's but that in perspective:

Apple doesn't publish units-sold figures, but Iphone revenue is 5x that of Macs [0].

The Mac Pro is the least popular Mac. Again, I don't have number breakdowns, but Apple did say in the most recent keynote that launched the M2 Macbook Air that the Macbook Air, and the 13" Macbook Pro are their 2 most popular models.

So it's safe to say the Mac Pro represents an extreme fraction of Apple manufacturing.

[0] https://sixcolors.com/post/2022/07/apple-announces-83b-fisca...

Another thing to note is China is not just producer but huge consumer of Apple products. India with its rather small population of folks who can really afford Apple products, and primitive manufacturing capabilities at scale compare to China is going to remain minor distraction for at least couple of decades.

So sensible diversification is in distant future than many imagine.

> And basically everyone here is choosing cheaper Chinese goods so we're all complicit too.

I don't buy Chinese goods just because they're cheaper. I only do so when there's no choice to buy the same kind of product from anywhere else. For example, try to find a power bank made somewhere other than China.

Sooo I'd just say I'm not really "never buy anything made in China", my comment was more geared toward if you're going to criticize Apple for making things in China, ostensibly for political reasons, that doesn't excuse your own buying of things made in China, particularly when you have options (power banks notwithstanding).

For a large amount of products consumers don't have a choice, or it's hard to know. Many products simply aren't made in western countries any more because the work was all shipped overseas, regardless of what the average citizen wanted.

I would bet that many shoppers buying products fullfilled by Amazon, an American company, don't realize that they are buying from China 99% of the time.

I think there are a number of American-made or western-made products on the market. Everything from plates and dishes from Costa Nova to barbells from Rogue Fitness to honey from apiaries in Pennsylvannia. I’m not sure but I think Patagonia produces a lot of their clothing outside of China as well. An iPhone? Not so much today, but that doesn’t have to be true forever.

I think the case is that most people don’t actually care, and most people can’t be bothered to look at the origin of the products they’re buying. And I think unfortunately most people would rather have a $1,000 iPhone instead of an $1,800 iPhone.

It’s kind of like gas prices. You see the reaction once they went higher. Frankly I think it’s bewildering how cheap gas is considering what it is, what goes into producing the product, and what it takes to get it to the gas pumps. And that says nothing of the negative externalities of course. But cheaper than a gallon of milk from a farmer nearby? Always surprising to me. Every time I think about it I think the “real” price is probably like $30-$40/gallon.

> most people can’t be bothered to look at the origin of the products they’re buying

Isn't the problem that online sellers (e.g., Amazon) usually don't tell you this on the website, so you have no way of finding out until it arrives?

> But cheaper than a gallon of milk from a farmer nearby?

This is only true because the government holds the price of milk artificially high.

> Isn't the problem that online sellers (e.g., Amazon) usually don't tell you this on the website, so you have no way of finding out until it arrives?

I’d say the problem is when you (not you specifically) claim to care about buying things that are made in China and then not do any basic research on the products and their origin. Also just don’t buy from online retailers like Amazon. It’s just a digital Wal-Mart.

> This is only true because the government holds the price of milk artificially high.

Sure it was just an example.

In other words: arc of history nonsense. What should have been clear and is clear if you think about human nature for two seconds or that CCP interests do not represent Chinese interests.

Why?

Because it’s a single-party dictatorship and because the interests of the State are subordinate to the interests of the people who control the State. That’s true in America too, which is why we have elections and transfers of power, and though our elections are fair and free by a reasonable metric, the deck is still stacked in favor of those who already have power. The PRC has nothing resembling the peaceful transfer of power and therefore the only means of transferring power within the PRC as it is constituted today are less than peaceful.

> Well, an alternative interpretation would be that Apple (like much of the world) is in a no-win situation

It's a weak excuse for a company that builds its image in last 5 years as a morally superior one. Apple was very happy to heavily impact online advertising business (not saying it was a bad thing), because of those principles (and to give them huge edge to grow their business later in that area). But they are not willing to stand up for other causes, where it impacts their bottom line.

"Liberalization" in trade was always a farce. The US itself always had applied tariffs and importation quotas to even its closest trade partners and allies. "Free trade" is a PR speak that is used when pressuring other governments to open up their economy. Not your own.

The US government shoulders an inordinate amount of the cost for global trade. It seems fair that we ask countries to open their markets to us.

Does it? Didn't it enjoy the power to print infinite amounts of money thanks to oil trade being done exclusively in dollars just until a few months ago? Something which no other civilization, less, society, enjoyed ever in human history?

> And basically everyone here is choosing cheaper Chinese goods so we're all complicit too.

The only way to not be complicit is to not have a phone. China makes them all.

One option is to vote for politicians to increase tariffs or ban imports from China, but that would make the voters’ products/services more expensive. At the end of the day, the politician that wins elections is the politician that delivers lower priced goods/services to the voters.

> The only way to not be complicit is to not have a phone. China makes them all.

Not exactly:

Librem 5 USA: "The Freedom and Privacy of the Librem 5, plus Made in the USA Electronics with a Secure Supply Chain." https://puri.sm/products/librem-5-usa/

"If you want a smartphone built outside China and the walled gardens of Google and Apple, Purism's Librem 5 USA may be for you." https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/07/in_brief_security/

that's a toy

Gotta start somewhere.

Keep in mind, the Nokia bricks of the days of yore. They were still fully functional telecommunication devices. Just because the Librem is probably a glorified Raspberry Pi doesn't mean it isn't worth investing in to help grow the domestic supply chain.

The world is bound by Physics and miracles facilitated by networks. When faced with a toxic hub node, you route around, and reinforce alternative routes.

>Librem 5 USA

The problem is that it is $2000 and doesn't even run Android. The usability of a non-android Linux on a phone is just not there yet.

> The problem is that it is $2000

Well what would you expect? Lol that's the whole point! What you're saying is you care more about price than you do where the product is made. That's fine, but just be honest with yourself about it.

I am completely fine paying $2000 if I feel like it is a decent product. The problem is I don't think it is good enough to actually use on a regular basis. I wouldn't even pay the non-US price ($1300) for the US version.

Some of these things may have been fixed, but last time I looked there were multiple issues that make it a deal breaker. The battery life is not good, the phone is huge, app compatibly is not good, cooling issues, etc.

I prefer to buy Western made products even if they cost quite a bit more money. I just want to get a decent product for the price and I don't think the Librem 5 is worth anywhere near the price.

The vast majority of Samsung phones are made in Vietnam, India, and South Korea. Samsung Mobile no longer owns factories in China, though they may or may not contract out manufacturing for low end phones for the local China market.

> everyone here is choosing cheaper Chinese goods so we're all complicit too.

its not like we have much choice anymore as consumers. There's hardly anything made elsewhere.

It was the consumer's choice on what to buy and where to buy it from. But demand for low prices, regardless of where and how things are manufactured (overseas and in sweatshops) and lack of demand for accountability in the 1980s and 1990s when manufacturers shipped jobs and work overseas that resulted in where we are. Consumers always have choice, we've just made self-serving short-term choices.

I don’t know exactly where the line is when it comes to who’s responsibility it is about “products made in China” but I would make the argument that trying to push decisions focused around things like national security, geopolitics, macroeconomics etc down to the consumer level is basically a bullshit move.

Regular people don’t have the right level of knowledge to make those decisions and it’s not realistic to expect that of them. I would much rather talk about the party who not only had the right level of information but was also the one who actively made the decisions that lead to this situation to begin with.

At the end of the day Apple have a lot more to answer for than regular consumers.

> It was the consumer's choice on what to buy and where to buy it from

I'm sorry, can you remind me when companies offered the same product made outside of China and in China, as an alternative choice? The companies decided to go offshore, not the consumers.

Apple is always in a win situation for themselves. They win from cheap labor (China labor, low US prices). They win from large markets (China). They win from keeping unions out of their sweatshops. They win by imposing their large will on dependent suppliers. In what way is Apple NOT winning? There's nothing no-win about this for Apple. they know exactly how to win, whether or not anyone else does.

There was a Chinese liberalization, they got tenfold higher GDP per capita and they relaxed about some stuff that were necessities during poverty. Like punishments.

In the Cultural Revolution I remember one story about a village thief, dedicated parasite with lies passing blame and finding people's precious last reserves. You guys don't know because generally the user on HN has never felt hunger. In particular the nuance, this is marathon hunger, at a national level, long-term malnutrition under difficult work conditions. Can't say anything about it, so doggerel (like sarcastic songs, sung collectively on the field like Negro spirituals). Millions did everything right and died anyway. These thieves were cold-blooded murderers most of the time. Attempted murder in the best light.

So. The village catches him one day, really catches him and it's bad[1]. And takes him to a giant of shit. He won't open his mouth unconditionally so they open it with tongs, they feed him that shit mmm nice and full that's what you get for stealing our food, why didn't you tell us you wanted to eat our food? This is our food! He died two weeks later.

Nowadays it would be much more lax, because he wouldn't be cheating and stealing from people who are barely hanging on from starvation so...a caning for instance.

Yeah like that American in Singapore who got caned, I knew a teacher who had taught at the international school he went to and he was just BEGGING for it not just ASKING for it like WRITING LETTERS TO SANTA like how can I fuck these locals off to the point they carry out corporal punishment like I don't need to follow any law country I live because the punishment is caning and they can't cane me because I'm an American, it will make news, no amount of any anything no matter how many cops tell me what. And he did, and they did, and it did. Petulant bitchvictim.

You know I've heard stereotypes and actually met Chinese and would say...many are strictly insulting of their poverty, and slandering their correct and successful approaches for getting out of it.

Nobody sympathizes with the concept of starvation. Too well-fed to understand.

[1] I've heard a similar story about a thief on an American submarine, hard to catch but when they do catch the thief oh man.

Well, Germany is now being ridiculed for thinking that investment, fair trade (e.g. buying Russian gas), and bringing Russia into the established international organizations would result in its liberalization. Actually for China the writing has been on the wall far longer than for Russia (remember Tienanmen Square?), but hey, China is a much more important economic player than Russia, so let's continue ignoring it...

> And basically everyone here is choosing cheaper Chinese goods so we're all complicit too.

You mean big corporations and their greedy shareholders choose for us?

If you take that point of view you deprive yourself of agency.

I wasn't included in the many and various board meetings across all companies to make the decision to move production... In fact, I wasn't in any. And to be quiet frank, I probably was born yet for many of them or still shitting myself in a diaper.

Sure, but you can today buy more expensive products that are not made in China if that's of concern to you. Of course there are some products for which there are no alternatives right now, but that doesn't stop you from making economic decisions that align with your stated values. Continuing to buy Chinese products and then saying you have no agency because some nebulous entity made a decision for you is just cognitive dissonance.

Did you learn nothing from the Prisoner's Dilemma?

We don't actually have any options that leverage massive economies of scale and manufacture in the US, because our masters chose to ship the manufacturing overseas. Individual agency is trumped by control of the rules, that's the whole point of PD. Pretending that our wallets have agency is a con to fool us out of using the tool that would actually be effective: regulation.

You can enact regulation (which takes time, and which I support) and also buy things that aren't made in China right now. This same thing applies to environmental considerations as well. You don't need to wait for the government to ban plastic bags for you to stop using them. Both can happen together.

Such regulation doesn't just take time, it's basically politically unfeasible given how both entrenched interests (businesses) and the individual voter are incentivized towards cost-savings. It's essentially like calling for raising taxes- not literally impossible, but virtually so.

You're setting up an ethical dilemma that is always going to default to one direction, and castigating those who don't go the impossible route. This is "If you don't like this government, why don't you move to another country?" or "If you don't like this platform, why don't you build one?" levels of impracticality.

So all you’re telling me is “you have no options, there’s nothing that can be done, and nothing will change”. What’s the point of that? If that’s the case why bother caring?

If it’s politically impossible to do something that’s all the more reason for personal change. Sure you can’t buy a MacBook that isn’t made in China, but you can spend more money and buy other things made outside of China.

> If that’s the case why bother caring?

I don't know, you're the one who started with the "And basically everyone here is choosing cheaper Chinese goods so we're all complicit too" defeatism in the first place! And then turning around and condemning people for buying Chinese goods when 1) legislation for reducing trade dependence on China is very difficult, leading to 2) few consumer choices that have non-Chinese made alternatives in many product areas.

Everyone choosing cheaper goods is just an observation. And yea, most people were very happy to buy cheap stuff from retailers and they are in fact complicit because they want their cheap goods. And yea, most people even today would choose cheaper goods over goods sourced in western countries.

As a point of contention, I don't like the grandstanding I'm observing over stuff "made in China", especially here where we can all choose to buy products made in western countries and pay more money for those. Are there exceptions? Sure! But just because Apple makes the iPhone in China doesn't mean you can't buy a barbell made in Ohio or cast iron skillets made in Tennessee.

But what to do or how to fix it?

All I see is the cognitive dissonance of worshipping the free market, except in this case where corporate America sold the future of US away in exchange for higher profit margins today.

Plus the cognitive dissonance of government action being unpalatable yet also required, since maximum profit-seekers (the highest motive possible in the system we have set up) aren't incentivized to do anything else.

What agency do we have? Consumer choice only goes as far as the options available. What computer or phone can you buy that isn’t made under dubious or known-bad labour conditions? The option of no phone or no computer is only generally an option if you have the money to not require a job at all

I sure didn't vote to permit labor and environmental arbitrage, to usher in Dutch Disease. It was painfully obvious what would happen, who would win and who would lose, but the money swooped in and demonstrated who really owns the country.

It's wild to watch the people who pushed for it slide down the Narcissist's Creed. It's fine! Oh, it's not fine? Then it isn't a problem. Oh, it is a problem? Then it isn't a big deal. Oh, it is a big deal? Then it's not my fault. Oh, it is my fault? Well, I didn't mean it. Oh, I did mean it? Well then you deserved it.

A smartphone is probably the quintessential "Chinese only" product.

Nevertheless, there is one smartphone made in the USA (Librem 5). None of its parts appear to be sourced by Chinese companies, but some of the parts manufacturers have factories in China (I would not be too surprised to find out that the Samsung front-camera is made in China, for example). I can't say for sure that it's lacks any china-manufactured items in it, but it's at least pretty darn close.

I don't have one because I don't want to spend $1300 on a phone. If that's not me choosing cheaper Chinese goods, then I don't know what is.

> I don't want to spend $1300 on a phone

It is worse than that. The regular Librem 5 is $1300, but the one made in the US is $2000.

> But instead the CCP rejected that and undermined global good will

Can you elaborate on this? This feels a very US centric view. The US itself has repeatedly failed to comply with its own 'rules-based order', whilst expecting other powers to comply.

Yes. US routinely target and kill people inside other sovereign nations borders during peacetime, with scant regards for any "rules-based-order".

Not to mention not being a signatory to major treaties and conventions that are are part of that "rules based order", like UNCLoS, ICJ and ICC.

The mistake that you're making is suggesting that this rules based order must mean that all countries adhere to it 100% of the time. But there are gray areas, mistakes, things that are subject to interpretation, and frankly there are areas where countries disagree. The point is that it's mostly adhered to.

If you are looking for specific examples and further elaboration, frankly I can't provide that for you and you'll have to look at global events and decide for yourself.

The US heavily supported Taiwan before they were a democracy (first free elections in 1995; before that they were a military dictatorship). Our support seems to be geostrategic and for capitalism (or in other cases for access to natural resources), with democracy being ancillary. Saudi Arabia is one of our biggest allies.

If Taiwan didn't have anything to offer they'd have to rely on Brad Pitt or something instead of the US military, like Tibet.

The US values many things in its foreign policy, and some of those things are spreading democracy and self-determination. That doesn’t mean the US values them to the exclusion of other interests like trade partnerships, energy security, regional stability, and military alliances.

Countries in the US sphere of influence tend to drift toward becoming democracies, in part because of the influence of free trade. Both Taiwan and South Korea started off as dictatorships propped up by the military backing of the US to contain the spread of communism, and eventually transitioned to democratic government.

As for Tibet, if it were on an island and could have been defended by the US Navy, I’m sure it would still be independent. Even if it were merely coastal it might still be independent. But it’s landlocked and mountainous, and hard to defend from the other side of the world. The invasion was also rapid, and happened at the same time the international community was responding to the invasion of South Korea.

> The US values many things in its foreign policy, and some of those things are spreading democracy and self-determination.

I think they are valued, but ancillary.

> As for Tibet, if it were on an island and could have been defended by the US Navy, I’m sure it would still be independent.

I think at that point Tibet would be geostrategic. If they were in Antarctica and our Navy could defend we may be considerably less likely to unless there was oil exploration going on or it was an important position for an airbase.

Textbook example of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

I don't think shouting Whataboutism whenever someone points out US-centric points of view or double standards makes for an interesting conversation.

It's become a lazy way to avoid conversation and relevant comparisons of behavior of the different world powers.

Well, in all fairness, it is a powerful way to change the topic while also getting people to sow doubt in a major source of your criticism in the first place, in political contexts.

Plus it comes across as a bit of a juvenile debate tactic, IMO. I certainly became a bit of a "whataboutist" when I was younger and coming to terms of realizing that the U.S. is not "the land of the free" and that they, too, can lie.

But at a certain point you realize that things aren't great but that things elsewhere can be even less great.

And then hearing the same stuff I spouted in that whataboutist phase just kinda makes me want to hit the eject button. It's just going nowhere fast.

Frankly, I consider stuff like that to basically fall under the umbrella of "useful idiot" plays. You don't need to be a jingoistic McCarthy to feel like this kind of aimless undermining of the US government helps keep things like voter turnout and trust low, both of which are easily exploited.

Not that there isn't interesting comparisons to make, but "oh, and like the US follows the rules?" when talking about a country with Skynet and maps claiming disputed territory in this day and age, just feels a little disingenuous.

I understand what you're saying, but let's see the other side:

I -- like many others in tech and even in HN -- don't live in the US, and don't have any obligations towards the democratic system they have over there, or their government, just like the US has been historically a mixed bag towards us Latin Americans, often undermining our own democratic institutions when they weren't aligned with Washington or various American business.

So yes, I wish you the best of democracies, hopefully one that is respectful of other countries choices and sovereignty, but I'm not responsible for it, and if my criticisms undermine US democracy or their electoral system, then how weak must they really be!

So with fresh Latin American eyes, a lot of what the US says and does reeks of hypocrisy. It's not "Whataboutism" to remind everyone about this, every time a government official says something about China, Russia or whatever country "not following the rules", ignoring or rejecting international treaties, or using threat of military force to achieve their goals. "Well, yeah" -- we can claim with knowledge of our history -- "but the US also does this."

And it's not a "rebellious phase" or Whataboutism, it's a very apt remark.

Stopping all conversations about this because "now we are talking about Afghanistan/Russia/China/Saudi Arabia, not the US!" feels lazy to me.

I suppose it is a bit of a "mind your own damn business" thing of me to have said it that way, but for what it's worth (and as embarrassing as it may be, considering it's various low ratings compared to it's "middle power" brethren) the US is still barely hanging on to the torch for anti-authoriarian poster child duties, and is easily the biggest obstacle for some other large powers that appear to have an even less stellar track record.

That being said, there might also be some soft spots considering how practically duct taped together this country has been since, always. It's...a unique situation, all things considered.

To be honest though, it still doesn't feel too productive unless the audience still holds an overly optimistic assessment of the whatabout, and even then, it's a bit...Lacking. I'm not sure, it feels like I'm lowering the standards expected overall if I'm simply comparing levels of shitiness relative to other levels of shitiness.

I will say one thing: I really appreciate you replying to me politely and keeping this civil. I understand this is a sensitive topic and I appreciate being able to discuss it, and even disagree, without this turning into a flamewar.

I think it's textbook definition of Duplicity.

Rules for thee and not for me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com