I'm done with Apple.

This all is highlighting the dangers to public companies about political positions potentially destabilizing the business. Part of the responsibility of C level execs is to shield the shareholders from such uncertainty. AAPL should not be dependent on any single region for product and the political climate & COVID restrictions are prime examples why businesses now need to dramatically shift their supply chain dependencies to dilute the risk.

You cannot offend China if your company is a China-based manufacturing company. Tim Cook didn't make sure Apple was am America-base manufacturing company and spent a lot of Apple's money on China. Thinking that Tim Cook will not march to Xi Jinping's drum is absurd. His criticisms of American manufacturing can all be solved by Apple investing the same money.

This should be a bigger story. He should be seen as someone who spent American money to build China's supply chain.

[edit: gotta love the Tim Cook apologists]

We need to fix the systems that allowed and made this decision in the first place or another stupid one will follow.

In some ways, and I know this will be unpopular, but is it free market capitalism that enabled the CCP to rise to such power? ie "You're freedom to choose cheap shit"?

I'm certainly not arguing for communism ourselves, but I mean, China didn't force us to move manufacturing there, won't it just happen again ?

Hey, I'm so glad you recognize this principle!

I'm of the belief that Hawaii belongs to the native Hawaiian people who the islands were stolen from by the US one hundred years ago, and whose descendants have been advocating that it be returned to them as a free and independent people and country.

You're in favor of that, right?

They'll actually still do it for Israel and Iran I believe.

Citizens of middle eastern countries that are hostile to Israel would care the most, but other international travelers also benefit from avoiding the Israel passport stamp to avoid unnecessary difficulties if they need to visit those middle eastern countries in future.

They presumably were shipped from Taiwan To the US where these rules do not apply.

This rule only applies to goods manufactured in Taiwan and shipped to China.

China is Taiwans largest trade partner. For example, 33% of its steel is from China (Taiwan being in the top 7 steel importer, in the world). With Harbor Freight being the destination, it's not unlikely that 90% of the materials in those tools are from China, including a good majority of the standard cogs, switches, and doo-das within.

That's true, but as far as the world is concerned, Taiwan is de jure part of the One and only China, which is the PRC as of now. And of course the PRC has zero desire to recognise the fact that Taiwan is an independent country. So the status quo here, same as the one between the Koreas, is basically the only way things can remain peaceful until some drastic change happens (e.g. the PRC falling).

And that is fiction which has held the peace for 70 years

First, it’s China’s policy that US claims to adhere to.

Second - yeah, your point being?

Third - yes, it is a democratic nation, and the prevalent majority of that democratic nation wants to keep things as they are, as evidenced by polls[1]. This nation doesn’t want war. Compare this with the standard modus operandi of US. Sometimes they are the good guys, sometime they kill a million people in Middle East, but it’s always about a war somewhere far away from US.

1. Notice how different this is from Ukraine. Ever wondered why there are so many… persons equating China and Russia?

At least from the East German side this was only the case for a short period during the 50s (the idea that there was only "one Germany" - which from the point of view of the GDR and Moscow should of course be a "socialist Germany").

In the 60's and early 70's the GDR dropped this idea and worked towards being recognized as its own souvereign state, and insisted that there are two German states (the GDR and the FRG).

This eventually resulted in the "Basic Treaty" from 1972, and the GDR joining the UNO in 1973 (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Treaty,_1972, or the much more detailed entry in the German Wikipedia: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grundlagenvertrag)

That isn't the issue here; the requested "Taiwan, China"/"Chinese Taipei" labeling does still distinguish the source.

Maybe Apple shouldn't be in China then?

It's not unjust or morally wrong to post prices including VAT, so I have no complaint about Apple doing that. When a foreign country's laws require companies to do things that are unjust or morally wrong, I want companies to choose not to operate there rather than follow them. Similarly, I'd want companies to pull out of Australia rather than backdoor their encryption.

If they were operating in North Korea, should they be leaking the names of anti-Kim Jong-un employees to the authorities as well if that were the law?

This is getting less true every day as the old die out and the new are born.

When open conflict with China would also "end the world" the exact same could be applied to OP. You want a world in which China is not appeased, and you're okay with ending it all if that's what it takes.

Well said, I do mostly agree with your points. They are mostly consistent with the backdrops of my comment.

sorry, I'm not English native speaker, I intended exactly that: it should be there, because it's where they were physically manufactured.

Made in Taiwan is, at the moment, legally like "made in California", which is a fine Beach Boys album, but not a recognized country of origin label.

That was a rhetorical question - I know the answer to it already. I don't think you do though.

Ask Apple, they are more knowledgeable than you and I combined.

It's worth noting that in the ROC (Taiwan) that position is losing popularity, and since about 2007 they seem to be moving towards becoming an independent nation that claims only the island of Taiwan. It's a politically difficult topic however, which is why no name change happened so far.

[edited op] Yes.

Yeah I agree.

I don't think Apple is overtly advertising any morality in it's policies.

I think that's something that we have to do as shareholders of Apple. Shareholders and customers. We have to say, "Hey we don't like how your company is from our moral perspective. Please change your policies so that they conform to our morality."

I think it's only reasonable to place blame on the population if you figure elected officials are representative of their constituents, and that the population has a responsibility to make sure it stays that way. Simultaneously you could make a pretty good case going the other way, or that we're well past that point.

Apple has repeatedly said that it’s not China’s cheaper labor. They don’t have as cheap labor anymore, especially compared to India, Vietnam, Philippines, etc. they say it’s because of the complex specialized knowledge of suppliers around Shenzhen and I’m inclined to believe them. You can choose to not trust them.

Even for a company like Apple it will take years to move manufacturing out of China.

This is also something they are already in the process of doing. They have been significantly ramping up manufacturing in Vietnam and India.

Taiwan doesn't differentiate from PRC, they were the ROC first. The PRC named themselves after the ROC.

PRC came after when the ROC lost control of mainland China in 1949 to the communists and escaped to Taiwan.

But yes communistic names are confusing because they try to hijack existing terms and create misnomers like it's for the people.

Oh, are you aware of how "Wu Mao" or "US dollars" parties work? Teach me, so that I could start earning some "immoral" income. Or we might actually can work together on this.

Jokes aside, I got my impression on general history and personally deemed reputable sources. Nothing from what I said would have comprehensive references, because I am not a full-time political practitioner.

Feel free to draw your conclusion, but opaque derogatory comments help no one.

They aren't just a tech company though are they? They are one of the largest companies in the world with an annual turnover comparable with small countries like Denmark or Norway.

I don't think there will be a agreement as long as China is still held by current government.

Although we still speak chinese. The culture already differs too much to the point that there isn't any belongingness in young people.

And thing that is more interest is. Statistically, the lower the age is, the lower the belongingness to PRC they have.

When people grows. The average belongingness will be even lower.

I think that is why PRC is so eager about that currently. 'Before everything is too late.'

OP is free to say "Shame on Apple", boycott Apple, and publicly pray for the gods to smite Apple from On High. If OP's actual interest is in discouraging such corporate behavior, then only the second of those options seems likely to accomplish anything.

Re: Cotton - even if every ill-treated cotton worker suddenly became a well-treated union member, there's still the huge moral problem of how much of the Earth's scarce fresh water and farmland are devoted to growing cotton - when millions of poor people face grim shortages of food and safe water. I admit that being an old geezer makes it easier, but my approach is to buy far fewer new clothes & textile products than the average American. That strategy completely fails to grant me 100% moral purity on the issue. OTOH, it does far more good than fashionable kids decrying the deplorable status quo.

Yes, but the own country on the island of Taiwan is called the "Republic of China".

Got new banc accounts, changed owner, etc.

Most prominent example: Germany Launches €10 Billion Bailout for Gazprom’s Local Unit

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31773314

I don’t think you can pass it off as PR when their CEO is out, and publicly supports the cause.

100% of Apple's important chips depend on Taiwan continuing to be Taiwan (and TSMC continuing to be TSMC).

~100% of Apple's manufacturing depends on China continuing to permit hundreds of thousands of Chinese nationals in Chinese factories (Foxconn's plants in Zhengzhou and elsewhere) building Apple products.

I'm not sure what you mean by "knuckle under" in this context, but Apple is, today, wholly dependent upon Taiwanese and Chinese manufacturing (for chips, and assembly, respectively).

If there is a war between China and Taiwan, or China and the US, Apple stands to lose the most of any single organization, I think.

> Look at what happened to Nike and H&M after they voiced concerns about Xinjiang.

A global company that wastes resources engaging in hysterically overblown State Department propaganda is a company that compromises the credibility of its leadership to make intelligent strategic decisions.

We're out of the unipolar era, and companies that are stuck it in it will get outpaced.

But competing messages are allowed so while the rich manipulate public opinion, they are not unitary and other voices are still heard, wealthy battling wealthy and large social movements too.

These false equivalence’s are really tiring. China’s control of public speech and media is on a wholly different plane.

It’s not even remotely comparable to manipulation in the West.

Trump appeared to make money during his election versus the billion the Hillary campaign spent…

Neutrality in politics doesn't refer to a Platonic ideal where the existence of a conflict doesn't affect you in any way. Neutrality is a pragmatic message: "I understand you two have a conflict, I'm not going to take it upon myself to solve it, but I'd like to operate here regardless".

One option is of course to say that nobody should be neutral in the conflict between China and Taiwan, but the obvious objection is that Taiwan does not want this. Taiwan's economic links with the mainland are enormous and it's absolutely routine for Taiwanese businesses to export to China or do business in China under Chinese regulations. (For example, you may be familiar with Foxconn, a Taiwanese company with over a million Chinese employees.)

The Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) is an act of Congress that requires America to make weapons available to Taiwan so they have the means of defending themselves. What that means precisely is decided by the President and Congress.

You should ask reputable international law experts for these.

Fox news might not be reliable on this matter. Nor myself, or any other unidentified HN visitor.

You still can in the US. [0] This exact use case is listed as one of the reasons the US Department of State will issue a second passport book.

[0] https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/passports/have-pa...

Israel stopped stamping passports years ago, as I understand it. They give you a separate piece of paper/plastic instead.

There may well be other combinations of countries that justify a person having multiple passports.

Differs by country, but certainly true some places. Norway for example allows you to apply for a second passport, and the need for a "clean" one is one of the valid reasons you can give.

I meant citizens of the other countries that don't have diplomatic relations trying to go to Israel. They only have one passport and would be in trouble if they visited as their passport would be stamped, thus the scheme of a separate document. Meanwhile, the government buys things from Israel that transit via some nearby country to "simplify imports" through "creative incoterms" and naming and all.

European here: Is Club Fed slang for prison?

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.

Looks great, a well rounded analysis of the situation.

But, it misses the critical historical heritage for the event and the actual international laws at the time of the end of WWII.

The situation is more like the China domestic war was not ending, and US intervened China's unification out of the strategic goal of contain communism. PRC of cuz had been the Vanguard of political insurgency across the east Asia.

One China policy is recognized by international law not because of US, one China policy is derived from a series of international treaties after ww2. Those are the laws actually has the most legitimacy.

And the other so called general men's agreement of PRC's representation of this one China. That's just an automatic derivation from that fact that PRC inherits the ROC seat in UN. You are reversing the cause and effect. But this is quite common for people living in US, as they tend to view everything as if they were always under US leadership, and claimed that a lot things that actually sanctioned under check and balance of geopolitical struggles into some kind of US concession out of necessary strategic goal that eventually US are going to revert.

Precisely that's one wrong lesson of geopolitical struggling. You can always claims a moral superiority and legal high ground from ones own perspective. That's the case for US, Taiwan, PRC, and even for Japan's refusal to admit it war crimes. But the underlying facts of power and strength, which has always been the driven force of geopolitical struggles, is always the foundation.

Aren't you required to turn in your expired passport to get a new one, or report it as lost.

Apple has about $40 billion cash on hand. A nuclear-powered aircraft carrier is about $10 billion, plus another 6 billion for the aircraft (taking a Nimitz class with 90 Super Hornets). Add in ammunition, crew, training, support craft, operational expenses. Buying more than one would seriously strain Apple's budget.

And all of that to expose it to China's anti-ship missiles and dare them to shoot. Seems like a terrible way to spend that money.

> Pelosi was quite bold in her little stunt recently with Taiwan. She's willing to send our boys and girls to war for a political stunt is pretty disgusting

The only reason she went was because the US military deemed it safe to do so. No one wants a war right now.

> I wonder what she was really trying to accomplish.

Why not listen to her words?

"We must stand by Taiwan, which is an island of resilience. Taiwan is a leader in governance … . At the same time, Beijing is squeezing Taiwan economically, pressuring global corporations to cut ties with the island, intimidating countries that cooperate with Taiwan, and clamping down on tourism from the [mainland]. In the face of the Chinese Communist Party’s … accelerating aggression, our congressional delegation’s visit should be seen as an unequivocal statement that America stands with Taiwan, our democratic partner, as it defends itself and its freedom."

Hmm Military Watch Magazine places China into "TIER ONE MILITARY POWERS" list https://militarywatchmagazine.com/forceapp/countries/

Do you have any source saying that China's military is not as strong as it appears to be?

Apple didn't either (for premium smartphones) until, arguably, basing their manufacturing there helped standup a large infrastructure that could easily be turned around to make Huawei, Xiaomi, and other devices.

If Apple had somehow managed to make iPhones in Vietnam instead of Shenzhen, would they really be facing the premium tier competition from Huawei they face in the EU?

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.

> As part of free speech, can a company from somewhere in south send out parts in boxes with confederate flag on the box?

Yes. Yes they can.

I'm not American, so I may be missing some details, but is that actually not allowed? Or is it rather the case that some people may not like that, so companies try to avoid upsetting some customers?

I’m sure they could and I bet some do. How that maps into sales is a different story.

A link [1] referenced in your supporting evidence suggests it is but a remnant of the Chinese Civil War. But even then, Taiwan's constitution does state that a vote may be held in order to change such territorial claims. This only made it in the 7th revision, in 2004 [2].

I would also like to make it clear that mainland China is the only one that has ever put these claims (except for Mongolia) into practice.

[1] https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2021/05... [2] https://english.president.gov.tw/Page/93

And a guy in US was harassed by NSA for a YouTube video of his. Look, it’s not that this stuff doesn’t happen in China - rather, it’s also happening in US, you’ve just learned to ignore it.

Ok got it.

So then the answer is no, those weapons companies are not breaking the law. They have been selling weapons to taiwan for decades, and they do not have to worry about international law.

Yes, it's a lie as CCP has had no meaningful governmental role in Taiwan so far.

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).

My point is that the UAE is a sovereign country. The only law that prevented trade with Israel was the one they made themselves. There wasn't any legal price for repealing it.

  political issues between Muslim & Jews

There are no political issues between muslim and jews. You maybe meant : - there are political issues between the jewish state and it's muslim majority neighbours - there is a conflict between jews and muslims in Palestine and Israel

That's what I thought too, not sure why OP said "Emirates cannot trade with Israel", maybe its an old anecdote.

Sure. My point is just that the UAE could have done that whenever they wanted; nobody was ever forcing them to not trade with Israel.

I’m an American, but not involved in any kind of federal purchasing. I would have assumed that a federal purchaser would make up a reason not to buy my otherwise-perfect product if it had some unpopular statement on it, like a Confederate flag.

Do you know of any counter examples where a company was able to make a successful bid with a product that had good fit, but an inconvenient non-functional addon like that?

> Taiwan is a sovereign country by definition.

There is nothing "by definition" when talking about the legality of sovereignty of countries.

Is Palestine a sovereign State, if "it is by definition"?

> Sovereignty is something you observe, not something you declare

You are confusing sovereignty (or trying to confuse the readers on purpose) with being a recognized sovereign country, which is a legal construct, we have developed International legal frameworks for that, we enforce them, using the force if necessary, or I could declare the land where my house is built upon "a sovereign country".

I clearly can't, can I?

If China attacks Taiwan, technically it's not really an invasion.

It makes a big difference.

> Taiwan's regime has been able to control its territory for decades

So has done Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.

edit: technically the Taiwanese one is not a regime, it's an elected government.

> Just a little English vocabulary lesson!

maybe you should focus more on "text comprehension" than on the vocabulary.

A buffer state can still have sovereignty. For example, North Korea is a buffer state between Chinese/Russia and South Korea / Japan, America. This is more about geopolitical realities than territory and culture claimed by ethnic groups.

If you are thinking of _vassal_ states, historically, Imperial China had some. A more complicated example, Qing-dynasty, Manchurian-controlled China tried to treat the kingdom of Korea as one.

As far as I know, neither Ukraine or Taiwan were or are vassal states.

There is a large faction in the US that supports Taiwan independence.

This has nothing to do with your claims of colonialism. Some people just want Taiwan free from the CCP. Ask HK how great things are under unification.

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.

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

> 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/

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.

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.

Once again you're over-complicated this. The organization could have invited Taiwan to participate and asked them what they'd like to be called. That would certainly satisfy those questioning the organization's neutrality.

> except international recognition of the territory and the amount of sovereignty it has

You can be 100% sovereign and be a buffer state and 0% sovereign and not be one (see French Polynesia)

> It is about geopolitical situation, where states A and C happen to have state B between them

then Germany is a buffer state, Poland is a buffer state, Israel is a buffer state, Afghanistan is a buffer state. Sweden is a buffer state, Finland is a buffer state, Bulgaria is a buffer state, Switzerland is a buffer state, Mongolia is a buffer state, Canada is a buffer state etc.

except that

Ukraine has been described as a buffer state between Russia and the NATO bloc, at least up to the ousting of former President Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014

We let them be an independent Nation when they agreed to become a kinda democratic country.

Donbass is the buffer state there, between Ukraine and Russia.

As far as we are concerned, Russia is not at war with Europe or NATO, but with Ukraine, for reasons belonging entirely to a Russian-Ukraine conflict.

A buffer state is a "neutral area" that two powers agree on, Russia never really agreed on Ukraine independence and tried to make it a buffer between them and NATO. If Russia wins the war against Ukraine, then Ukraine will become a buffer state.

If Ukraine was really a buffer state, we would be at war with Russia now, we surely would be if Russia attacked Finland or Sweden or Bulgaria or Romania or Poland, because it's Europe, or if USSR entered west Germany or when Iraq invaded Kuwait etc. etc.

What happened when Yugoslavia (a buffer state) dissolved?

Do you really believe USA would have missed a chance to go to war, given the motivation?

> 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.

My point is about the hypocrisy all around, not about making perfect comparisons between all these situations.

Cuba getting stuff from America, pro-life manifestants getting abortions, USSR smuggling US computers, KKK members surfing Ebony adult sites.

That's just humanity at this point.

We are full of contradictions.

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.

I don’t think it would be ww3 as China would get roflstomped by US and Japan.

They might take Taiwan though and ruin the global economy for a few decades.

But I’m not seeing how this gets to be ww3 and not a regional war of just blowing shit up with missles. I don’t think Europe, Africa or South America would get involved unless China fired icbms or bobbed Hawaii or something.

China’s military just isn’t strong enough yet. Maybe in 20-50 years.

Only when provoked by US.

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.

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

Are you okay?

>Are we really doing this? Are you really serious?

See, there's your problem: when you realise facts don't match your beliefs, you start "are we really" instead of reconsidering those beliefs.

>Besides the fact that most of the country is firewalled off from foreign media

Foreign media is easily accessible in China using VPN. Meanwhile, Chinese (or non-western in general) media is pretty much entirely unknown in US. It's largely because of language barrier, but not only that.

>and besides the fact that only one political party is allowed

Only until you realise that party is something entirely different from what we in the West call parties. But even if it was similar, it wouldn't be much worse than the American system, where you have two parties that are very closely related and sponsored by the same corporations.

>and besides the fact that political prisoners are routinely jailed for nothing more than denying a government narrative

In US people are routinely killed on the street for nothing more than being black. Seriously though, do you really believe there's no political discourse in China?

>and I don't mean held for a day or two like in the West, but jailed for years

In US you can get jailed for years for literally nothing, simply because it's less risky to give up and go to jail for a shorter sentence than prove your innocence, and prosecutors abuse this all the time. Or for any minor infraction because the three strikes law, which was literally created to get as many people into jails as possible. And let's not forget the forced labor.

>Yes, US citizens can publicly call for the highest level politicians in the land to lose their jobs, and with no real repercussions.

... to those politicians. That's the point: in US you are allowed to say whatever you want, because it doesn't matter; the election system is already rigged, everyone knows that it's not the majority choice that wins elections, and nobody cares - because nobody can do anything about it. Compare this to China, where government officials can actually get convicted and jailed. Chinese prime minister responsible for Tienanmen spent the rest of his life in house arrest. American officials responsible for Kent State shootings, or for the bombing a city block, killing a number of random kids and shooting at survivors, which name escapes me - nobody got prosecuted.

>But Weibo, Wechat, Bilibili, Douyin, frequently censor even the most milquetoast sarcastic remarks about the CCP or Xi

[citation needed]

>Can a famous Chinese public individual/celebrity/intellectual, in China, tell a huge crowd and media, that I think the CCP are horrible and that Xi Jinping needs to be booted from power?

Can a famous US public individual, in US, tell a huge crowd and media that they believe US supreme court and Senate need to be booted from power?

>Sure, where the CCP select and approve the candidates, control the election progress

Exactly like in US; the party nominates various public officials who oversee the elections, not to mention gerrymandering.

>And no direct nationwide elections.

Just like US presidential elections. Although I'm not sure if in China it's legal to corrupt electors; in US it is and it has already happened in the past.

>Think anything will change? I don't.

So, here's the thing: things do change, all the time. If you actually read anything about Chinese political system, you'd noticed that the "old" communist party, the one which stood for Cultural Revolution, has been delegalised. China wouldn't be able to develop order of magnitude faster than US without changes to law. Meanwhile in US you can still land in prison for life just because you're out of luck.

>There's practical no competing, transparent system in these so called 'democratic elections' making them in effort

And here we go again, Americans believing there is no political discourse in other countries, and at the same pretending with straight face that the US is a functional democracy.

>Meanwhile, there are 100+ CCP members in the Congress who are billionaires.

Thank you, that's interesting. Source?

>For all of the flaws in the Western systems, and there are a vast number, it is really tiring seeing tankies try to say "everything's the same" with zero nuance, as if none of it matters.

See, here's the thing: I do understand your point; it was my point of view for the past two decades. Until I realised it just doesn't match observable reality. What you are describing is just prejudice; a colonial mindset based on a combination of racism and ignorance, which is what American exceptionalism boils down to.

Also, we're not talking about "Western systems"; there are many western countries that are proper democracies. But US is not one of them. It's a pseudo-democracy, like China, except it serves corporations, not people. That's why the quality of life in US is dropping, while in China it's skyrocketing. Ever wondered why Americans get so surprised whenever some Chinese oligarch gets into trouble? Or how comes an American court can let a convicted pedophile free because "he wouldn't feel good in a jail", assuming of course he's wealthy enough?

Why would they? England itself is only a minor part of the British Isles. They would however have a chance of being part of a broader Commonwealth of Nations, were it not for a troublesome Declaration they circulated in 1776. This is why claims to "independence" should not be made carelessly, and why official U.S. policy is especially careful to avoid them wrt. Taipei.

> 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.

After WWII, Germany lost a large section of their Eastern Territory to Poland, and everyone from there was resettled within the new German borders. Those people were furious, and as a result German policy was to demand that territory back, and a refusal to recognize the new borders. A couple decades later a lot of the people who grew up there had died of old age, and the new generation had no relation to the old territory. As a result public sentiment changed, and Germany publicly recognized the new borders when it was politically advantageous.

Taiwan is probably going through the same process, just a bit slower since it's not just about territory but about national identity. Each generation weakens the ties to the old "Chinese" identity and strengthens a "Taiwanese" identity, until a tipping point is reached.

Asking for sources while not providing the ones you claim to have is kind of ironic.

If you check Taiwanese opinion polls https://esc.nccu.edu.tw/PageDoc/Detail?fid=7801&id=6963 you'll see that there's a plurality of opinions. People who want independence outnumber people who want unification, but the majority prefers to keep the status quo, for now or forever.

As you stated there are many steps before Pelosi is in a position to "push the button." Xi today at this vary moment is practicing/simulating the murder of the people in Taiwan so he can complete his grand vision of 'unifying' 'China'.

One is using words and the other weapons. We should not tolerate such attempts to stifle an open dialog. I know it's popular now to say 'words are violence,' but at the end of the day they are still not military drills and missile launches.

Xi's posture is one of murder. Pelosi's (who I don't agree with on most things) is one of democratic freedom for the people of Taiwan.

People trying to compare the threat level of Pelosi speeches to Xi missile launches are almost unbelievable in their level of sophistry.

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.

Being neuro-atypical, I understand the desire to be "technically correct, the best kind of correct". It would be so much better if we used each word for their exact meaning.

But that's not how most human communication work. When people say "I cannot come tomorrow", they usually don't mean they can't. If you gave them one billion dollars to come, chances are they would.

This is a fairly common convention, and most people in the English language are using this approximation and assumption.

You can chose to ignore it of course.

I consider I've done my part in this conversation, and wish you a nice day.

Someone with alpha-gal can absolutely eat meat. Nothing is stopping them from chewing and swallowing meat.

It would be a terrible idea, with drastic consequences. But they absolutely can.

> Contrast this with if I had alpha-gal syndrome and someone me offered me a steak. In that case, I could truthfully say "I can't eat that".

If the person said: "eat this steak and I'll give you a billion dollars or don't, and I'll kill everyone on this planet in the most painful way imaginable, including you", I doubt your response would be "I can't eat that".

What's the relevance of any of this? You originally said that Taiwan's language and writing system made them Chinese. I've repeatedly demonstrated that such reasoning is nonsense.

There may be other arguments that Taiwan is Chinese, but I haven't really given you my thoughts on those (hypothetical) arguments.

"Dehumanizing" to the Chinese people? You know, I was under the impression that total government surveillance, in-person monitoring of religious minority communities and regular internet censorship was the most dehumanizing part. Whatever the CCP calls 'oppressive' should be taken with a grain of salt.

China and Taiwan can share a history, but that doesn't entitle them to reconciling their differences. Much like the other commenters brought up, establishing Taiwanese independence is obviously the smartest path from here. China has had their feelings hurt for almost a century over Taiwan. Entire generations of humans have lived and died in the time Taiwan has enjoyed sovereignty. China knows it's time to let go, but they can't look weak or suffer the same fate as Russia. Continuing to threaten Taiwan is just part of their political-industrial complex, nothing more.

No, actually. I do not think many people would care if Xi made some speech in texas.

Mostly that sounds just funny. He can go ahead and do that.

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.

No, what I wonder is why you make a lot of statement like "state propaganda" without knowing which state I live in and without quoting any source. Please prove a/ my state (Germany) is doing propaganda and b/ I am only listening to this propaganda.

Also, you're sentences do not make sense. "Why you are doing this" => what is "this", you forgot to define it.

Meanwhile, China is a country where people live in fear of publicly expressing their opinion, this is well documented. 10s on the web finds this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press_in_Chin...

> 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-...

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...

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...

> 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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

> People in the US are free to talk all they want about fantastical topics.

It's one thing to talk between US people on various topics. Another is for head of foreign state to covertly enter your country and espouse a topic that's controversial and could cause problems for you down the line.

> And to give a more historical example

To give a more recent historical example. Election of Donald Trump. And the role Russia played. Steele dossier non-whistanding.

From what I gather, merely buying up trolls and doing some marketing was enough for US to have hissy fit, over it.

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.

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).

In democratic countries they are not, because the society can control the state. In US they pretty much are, because the companies control the state. In particular, in US the company can fire you on the spot, strip you of healthcare, and make sure you won’t be able to find another job simply because you said something - anything - it doesn’t like. And it’s all legal.

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.

> 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.

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

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)

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.

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.

> 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.

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

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.