Comment by noduerme | Hacker News Reader

Comment by noduerme | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>> we also don't seem to care that behemoth US companies exert their influence over other countries

In the case of United Fruit fomenting military coups all over LatAm, I agree. But in this case we're simply exporting our values through soft power, money and influence. I don't see a problem with it. Some countries outright ban our social media and films - many like Iran or China citing American corporate support for gay rights (which for most conservative dictatorships is a convenient way to redirect popular anger toward an outgroup and to clamp down on free speech).

American values as relate to what you can say and who you can love are better[0] than the values of countries which dictate who can sleep with and arrest people in their beds (e.g. Malaysia). I'm glad our corporations uphold our values overseas. What is particularly offensive is when they don't, when they cave in to the whims of totalitarian governments, e.g. Disney and the NBA kowtowing to China.

Would it be bad if our corporations were going into free democracies and spreading values that align with dictatorship and the abrogation of freedoms? Yes. That's what Chinese companies are doing here.

Good for Goldman, and all other US companies that put pressure on countries they do business with to uphold universal human rights.

[0] I don't just mean morally better, although I do believe in universal rights and ethics. I mean that American-style personal liberty has outcompeted other systems in the marketplace of ideas, in economics and development, and is a more fit model for generating broad societal wealth than totalitarianism is. This explains why it's both utilitarian for Goldman to support LGBTQ rights, and for Singapore to agree to those terms from foreign companies.

> But in this case we're simply exporting our values through soft power, money and influence

What if that shoe was on the other foot?

If people would not trade with USA because of racism?

If people would not trade with USA because of treatment if indigenous peoples? (Genocide, use plain words for that one)

The treatment of poor people? Making them live in the streets.

The treatment of poor people, leaving them to die in agony of preventable diseases?

Because of representation and exploitation of sexuality in commerce? Especially of women?

The treatment of asylum seekers and refugees?

The USA is no shining light on the hill spreading goodness with soft power. It is a huge imperialistic monster spreading its tentacles and world view with a huge military. Soft power (Goldman Sachs included) is under that military umbrella.

> If people would not trade with USA because of racism?

The US no longer has institutionalized racism and is illegal. Most of the racism of today is of a different nature, primarily among particular groups of individuals.

> If people would not trade with USA because of treatment if indigenous peoples? (Genocide, use plain words for that one)

There is no longer an attempted genocide of Native Americans occurring. But if you want to talk about Native land rights, reservations, etc. then that is something worth talking about.

> The treatment of poor people? Making them live in the streets.

> The treatment of poor people, leaving them to die in agony of preventable diseases?

Don't know what you're getting at with this. Are you implying the US is the only country that has homelessness? Homelessness is a problem in just about everywhere. You're going to have to elaborate on the 'leaving them to die in agony'.

> Because of representation and exploitation of sexuality in commerce? Especially of women?

You're going to have to elaborate and give some examples. This seems like a pretty subjective topic.

> The treatment of asylum seekers and refugees?

Again, elaborate. The US accepts a huge number asylum seekers and refugees. More than most countries.

>> If people would not trade with USA because of racism?

Are you trying to make a consistent argument that no one should use trade to pressure other countries to change policies they disagree with?

So you're okay with buying goods made by Israeli companies in the West Bank, right? And buying Russian oil? How about sneakers made by Uighur slaves in Chinese concentration camps? How about buying blood diamonds? Should companies not pressure countries they do business with to prevent child labor, or enforce minimal worker safety regulations?

If people didn't trade with us because our policies were abhorrent to them, then maybe our policies are abhorrent and that would put pressure on us to stop those policies, which would be good. For example, if Europe passed a law banning the import of goods made in US for-profit prisons, that would be good.

This tired argument that "US is evil, everything it does must be bad" is absurd if you have any knowledge of what goes on in the rest of the world. The US can be flawed without making it as flawed as a country that hangs homosexuals from cranes (Iran), or as flawed as one that prohibits all forms of speech against the government (China, Vietnam, Russia, and on, and on).

So if you don't think it's a problem to trade with anyone, you aren't really standing up for the moral position you claim to hold against the US.

My point, which you missed, is that the USA is one of the bad ones not one of the good ones.

I am not sure there are any good ones, a tangential point.

This in the context of:

> But in this case we're simply exporting our values through soft power, money and influence

To Singapore. There are values from Singapore that the USA could do with, so the fact that Goldman Sachs gets to tell Singapore what laws to make - what if that shoe was on the other foot? What of "your values" need up dating - but wait. Never mind soft power. The USA has the Pacific Fleet (and another half dozen fleets) so fuck you and you values.

>> I am not sure there are any good ones, a tangential point.

I agree, but it's not tangential at all. In fact, it is the whole point. As Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."

There are plenty of things which are not perfect, but are preferable to the other options. You might consider what position Singapore or the Philippines would be in without the US Navy sailing regularly through the South China Sea. Most likely they would be territories or dependencies of China. If Chinese Communist Party values are something you prefer to American values, then feel free to enumerate which, exactly, make it a system you would prefer to live under. (And note that this is a freedom you wouldn't have if you were posting on a Chinese message board).

Other countries can, and do, influence US policy as well as culture, in positive ways. This is also for the good. It is precisely why there is a powerful Pacific Fleet composed of people from over 100 nationalities under the US flag. When and if the Han empire begins to utilize the full capabilities of all its citizens by granting them freedom of thought, speech and movement, perhaps it will outcompete the US - other ethno-nationalist states with wise leaders have done so in the past. Even Singapore has done a fairly remarkable job of balancing speech and numerous ethnicities. Certainly better than the larger, equally strategic and yet doomed UAE.

But which values exactly do you wish to see imposed on the US which actually are practiced somewhere, and where are they practiced? That's a more interesting and fertile ground for discussion than simply "you're the bad guys"... and again, the bad guys in world history don't normally ask or care, whereas this is an intense and open topic of public debate in the US.

What you're saying is effectively: "But we're right and they're wrong, so I don't care."

Everyone thinks they're right about what they believe in, especially moral beliefs. The purpose of political systems is to provide a non-violent, transparent medium by which disagreements can be resolved.

In public health, the protocol is to maximize trust in the people you are serving. For example, if a female doctor is turned away by a sick misogynist, the correct reaction is to say, "Ok, let me find you a male doctor." The incorrect reaction is to become offended and attempt to use public health as a political chess piece to "make them more inclusive."

Global trade cannot flourish if every business attempts to install the moral values of its stakeholders in whatever country they're doing business in. There has to exist a level of professionalism where business people understand that they are not there to judge or influence other peoples and their governments.

What about all the gay people in Singapore? Do they not deserve to live full lives and be happy?

Of course I want the gay people in Singapore to flourish. That's not what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is that it is illegitimate for private companies to use their vast wealth to influence the affairs of a comparatively poorer country.

Western countries colonized entire continents with force and violence. Now we're doing it again, ideologically, with business and geopolitics.

Singapore is not a comparatively poorer country [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Singapore

The GDP of Singapore is around $340 billion.

Goldman Sachs manages $2.5 trillion dollars worth of assets.

Confusion between wealth and income. Is the housekeeper of a $2.5 million property richer than someone earning $340'000 per year?

Who should influence the affairs of a country? Take Russia now as an example. Should western countries stop Russia? Do you think western companies who pulled out of Russia are morally reprehensible because they were attempting to influence with business?

Yeah, the people who draw equivalence between US companies pulling out of Russia and Russia attempting to influence US elections are morally bankrupt and can't see that one of these things is trying to stop a war of aggression, or at least punish the murder of civilians. To even pretend not to be able to make that distinction is repugnant.

So a private company has to do business in Singapore - and isn't allowed to complain if the Singaporean government restricts the rights of its own employees? They're just supposed to shut up and take whatever insane dictat exists in whatever jurisdiction they do business with? Why? If they're powerful enough to move the needle by threatening to withdraw from the country, then good for them! It's not that "whatever I like" is right, it's that there are universal human rights, and guess what, if enough stakeholders in these companies believe that no one should be doing business in countries or states that don't respect those rights, that's a good thing for the world.

Your last two paragraphs don’t seem aligned with your first paragraph.

"If Gay patients are uncomfortable with Bigoted doctors, these patients deserve Compassionate doctors" is, I believe, a better summary of their comment.

> In public health, the protocol is to maximize trust in the people you are serving. For example, if a female doctor is turned away by a sick misogynist, the correct reaction is to say, "Ok, let me find you a male doctor." The incorrect reaction is to become offended and attempt to use public health as a political chess piece to "make them more inclusive."

People trying to demand that they be provided doctors who fit their political views would be the ones turning it into a chess piece IMO; you can't simultaneously demand that the public health system accommodate your non-public health related concerns while complaining that the public health system is now dealing with areas outside their purview.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com