posted
I've been mulling over the google.cn story. If you haven't heard about it, the short story is that Google discovered hackers breaching Gmail accounts that are presumably acting from within the Chinese intelligence agencies. As retaliation they are threatening to uncensor their mainland (google.cn) search site and expect that they will have to pull out of China totally as a result. http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html
The original story is evocative and fascinating enough, complete with protests in mourning link (which should make anyone pause when the realize the history of protests that involve mourning in Beijing).
But what strikes me are the small bits of news that are unsaid between the lines.
Google's business in China is potentially huge, despite harassment on topics relating to censorship, they still command a 30% share of the search market and Google Android is expected to make a big splash.
However, they're threatening to pull out of China in retaliation for hackers striking at accounts of Chinese dissidents. I have my doubts about how much Google actually cares about Chinese dissidents but the bigger issue seems to be that even if they go through with 1) pulling their offices out of China 2) uncensoring their search and 3) aborting mobile businesses in China, none of those three steps really does do anything to protect Gmail accounts. Hackers ignore the firewall, censors, and national boundaries after all.
So a thought occurs after viewing the following tidbits:
quote:Everyone's getting hacked. The big search engine news in China over the last few days hasn't been Google, but number one search engine Baidu. Baidu was just hacked by a group calling itself the Iranian Cyber Army.
Why only subject lines? If the attackers could get access to subject lines, why couldn't they access entire e-mails? Apparently because the hackers infiltrated automated systems set up to provide such information to law enforcement in the US and elsewhere. (Getting access to the contents of e-mail messages is harder under US law than getting access to addresses, subject lines, etc, which are considered to be on the "outside of the envelope" and subject to pen register searches).
According to a Macworld source, "Right before Christmas, it was, 'Holy s—, this malware is accessing the internal intercept [systems].'" Later, Google cofounder Larry Page supervised a Christmas Eve meeting on the security breach.
quote:While Google denies other reports stating that its China employees would effectively stop working today and that business in China is ‘operating as normal’ according to Bloomberg, the IM conversation that we were forwarded reveals that Google China workers no longer have access to company systems.
The fact that Google employees are seemingly unable to log onto internal systems could be a result of the internal security tests and scans, but Google has apparently also asked China employees to ‘relax at home’ for an unspecified time.
quote:Were insiders involved? Sources told CNET that Google is looking into whether there was insider involvement. Companies that are attacked that do business in China will typically investigate, as a matter of course, whether someone in their Chinese office might have ties to the government there or have been involved in some way, either by planting malware inside the company or passing it on to unwitting targets in the company, sources said.
What was stolen from the companies? iDefense says source code was targeted at the companies and that most of the attacks appear to have been successful. Google said some intellectual property was stolen but did not elaborate. The company also said limited account information of two Gmail users was accessed.
After all this, a darker possibility comes to mind. What if the whole censorship thing is just a big smokescreen? It does seem totally unconnected with the real story of hackers.
What if the real story is that Google can no longer trust its employees in China, perhaps being the victim of Chinese intelligence agents infiltrating their hiring (which is why they're being given time off)? What if the colourful accusations of "hackers" are really just another way of referring to the old-fashioned methods of social engineering and relying on insiders?
And what if the real story is not CCP hackers getting information on Chinese dissidents, but them getting access to source code (as in the cnet article), but not just any source code but the source code for the internal intercept systems that Americans use to eavesdrop on other Americans? And what if those intercept systems were turned, not just against dissidents but US government officials and industry?
The US government would hardly want to broadcast that their efforts to intercept email from a rag-tag group of terrorists were hijacked and turned against US citizens, making us more in danger rather than safer. Google would hardly want to broadcast their role in such an event, which would draw questions on privacy on the whole GMail model and about "don't be evil." Even the Chinese government would be hardly inclined to reveal that some of their agents were caught infiltrating Google's offices.
Food for thought maybe.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I'm sure they were hacked, but yes, one hack isn't likely the cause of everything. They've no doubt been developing this strategy as a likely contingency for months, and things have just reached a point where action is necessary.
After all, China's industrial espionage + mandated tech transfer requirements are serious threats to businesses like Google, and it is entirely possible that things have just become too painful to operate (plus there's the huge preference for Chinese companies). Unfortunately for China, that's going to come back and bite them -- they're going to need serious FDI at some point, and they're busy poisoning the well.
Also, I have absolutely no doubt that there are Chinese intelligence agents working for Google. China would be stupid not to make that happen. There are no doubt numerous Chinese corporate agents, too (and the line might frequently be blurry). They might well have become far too blatant disruptive, though.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I worked with a guy who got a job at Google working in classified areas. He had top secret clearance, which, when he described it to me, seemed like the ordeal of a lifetime to get. He said there were months of federal agents interviewing his family, his former teachers, people he hadn't seen since he was a kid. I don't know how hard it would be to get a Chinese spy into sensitive areas at Google, but I'm guessing pretty difficult.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
While Top Secret is hard, it has been given to people it shouldn't have been given to numerous times. Given the rewards, of course a lot of governments would try. And I'm not sure how you think the vetting process would eliminate someone who has been in tech their whole life, but has been sending information back to the Chinese government (or some other destination)?
However, I suspect most infiltrators don't go for the posts requiring Top Secret clearance. Getting a spy to work for Google China would be trivial, and once there, that person can use their increased access to, for instance, be vectors for attacks like these.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Unfortunately for China, that's going to come back and bite them -- they're going to need serious FDI at some point, and they're busy poisoning the well.
I'm not sure if the Chinese are really that short-sighted, or if they think they can just use their economic/political muscle to force things to happen. Either way, I agree with you. Crap on people long enough, and they will take their money and invest elsewhere. I seriously doubt the Chinese are really ready to deal with the full consequences of this type of behavior.
Actually, come to think of it, I'm going with "short-sighted".
Blayne, I'm making a pre-emptive request for you to please not respond to my posts in this thread.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you're referring to the Wen Ho Lee case, he was actually cleared. Presidential apology and everything
quote:Lee is a 66-year-old Taiwan-born U.S. citizen who now lives near Sacramento, California.
He was indicted in late 1999 on 59 counts of stealing nuclear weapons data from the Los Alamos facility. He was jailed, denied bail, placed in solitary confinement and labeled a national security threat.
Months later, he walked free on time served after the government's case collapsed. All but one count was dismissed, and Lee pleaded guilty to mishandling classified material, a felony.
The federal judge overseeing the case sharply criticized the prosecution's case, in particular "top decision makers in the executive branch ... who have embarrassed our entire nation and each of us who is a citizen."
Then-President Clinton issued a public apology to Lee over his treatment.
But I think Google China in Beijing proper right next to Tsinghua is a pretty different case than Los Alamos.
quote:Originally posted by steven: ... Crap on people long enough, and they will take their money and invest elsewhere.
Arguably, the Canadian experience disproves that. After taking crap from the US for decades, we're still heavily investing in the US. I think you underestimate the human capacity for enduring crap when balanced against making money.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
In this case, the crap is such that companies frequently have their ability to make money taken from them. That's what's poisoning the well.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Regarding Los Alamos, while it isn't clear if the leak was there, someone leaked details of the W-88 to China.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: In this case, the crap is such that companies frequently have their ability to make money taken from them. That's what's poisoning the well.
Again, not different from the Canadian experience with the US. For example, we're still hashing out 'Buy America' months later.
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Regarding Los Alamos, while it isn't clear if the leak was there, someone leaked details of the W-88 to China.
True, but there is no proof that the leak was either at Los Alamos or due to a Chinese spy which was what I was responding to.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think you underestimate the human capacity for enduring crap when balanced against making money.
After all, to be balanced against making money, one has to be, well, making money.
For that matter, I'm aware of very few (I can think of one or two instances, maybe) Canadian businesses that tried to do business in the US, but then had the rug pulled out from under them. That is a common occurrence when western businesses try to do business in China (frequently with their former Chinese business partner that they were required to do tech transfer to then entering the same market).
Much as I'm against the crap the US pulls against Canada (which is greater than the crap going the other way), it isn't really comparable.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh: a) Ok, so we burned the White House. Have a band-aid on me. b) If Canada does give crap to the US and the US persists in investing here, that merely *supports* my claim rather than hurting it.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mucus: as far as nuclear secrets, a spy of Chinese nationality, quite possibly not.
A spy for somebody we don't want to have the W-88, at some link of the chain (and probably a spy for China -- another meaning of "Chinese spy"), almost certainly. And, given the whole point of the example in the first place, that extensive security vetting doesn't prevent China from getting their hands on internal information due to the actions of moles, still a good example.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: In this case, the crap is such that companies frequently have their ability to make money taken from them. That's what's poisoning the well.
Again, not different from the Canadian experience with the US. For example, we're still hashing out 'Buy America' months later.
Really? You're comparing what America's intentions are for the world with Chinese intentions?
Look, my country isn't perfect, I know that. The Abu Ghraib stuff made me hang my head in shame, literally, when I was in another country, and found out about it. Don't even get me started on other stuff. HOWEVER...China is to human rights what hard candy is to teeth. That's not true for the US, in a general sense. The US's intentions are way less shady. Not perfect, not at all...but yes, thanks in large part to the US, we do NOT all speak German now. That counts for something, and I doubt that, if China were in a similar position to the US's position right after WWII, that China would be as generous with its defeated foes.
Look, all I'm saying is, China is a whole heap of a lot closer, in terms of intentions to Darth Vader than the US is. You can trash-talk all you want, but Tibet is a perfect example of China's record on religious freedom. Note that I am not endorsing Tibet's Buddhist culture/religion in a general sense, merely noting that the Chinese are not afraid to come down with the iron boot anytime they feel like it.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: ... I'm aware of very few (I can think of one or two instances, maybe) Canadian businesses that tried to do business in the US, but then had the rug pulled out from under them.
There are two examples in just this article
quote: A Toronto company that has been exporting pipe to the United States market for 60 years recently landed a contract to supply plastic piping for a new health-care centre at the Camp Pendleton Marine base in California.
But the piping is now being ripped out of the ground. Why? Because the pipes are branded with the words Made in Canada. ... "Camp Pendleton is a perfect example of how an excellent product, a brand new product, is going to be pulled out of the ground and be replaced by an American-made product," said Veso Sobot, spokesperson for IPEX Inc., the Don Mills-based company that sold the pipe to the California Marine installation.
"We've never seen such a wave of protectionism as at this moment," he said, adding that he's also being pressed by project organizers in other states to certify that his pipes are all made in the U.S. – which they aren't.
"Many Canadians believe the issue" of U.S. protectionism "was settled when (Obama) came into Canada back in February and made assurances that all is well. But it's not," Sobot said at a news conference organized by Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters (CME).
That article was in 2009. In 2010, the ongoing toll is in the hundreds of businesses affected
quote:The rules, which bar foreign-made steel and other manufactured goods from construction projects financed from the $787 billion fund, have affected hundreds of Canadian firms, according to Ottawa-based Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters. Some Canadian companies have decided to move parts of their production south of the border to avoid losing sales.
The Camp Pendleton example is about one business deal being done under, not the entire business being unable to do business profitably. Ditto the other examples in there. The businesses are still able to engage in profitable sales to the US (which isn't even comparable in the first place, as what was being talked about was businesses operating in China).
Many businesses are finding themselves unable to operate in China, after being assured they'd be able to do so and undertaking substantial investment. They aren't just not making as much money as would be ideal, they're being driven out and having their former business operations taken over by people who have taken knowledge of their business operations.
The situations are not comparable.
(And again, I think the situation with US-Canada trade, including with the "Buy American" idiocy, is stupid. It just isn't even remotely the same sort of situation. The US is a font of openness to Canada in comparison to how the Chinese gov't has been treating foreign businesses -- Canadian businesses can own US subsidiaries wholly; they receive equitable tax treatment; they're not required to engage in IP transfers to US partners. None of those things is true in China, and that's just the short list).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: Really? You're comparing what America's intentions are for the world with Chinese intentions?
I enjoy your thoughts on things unrelated. But I was speaking about things economical and if I thought that US businesses took things like your ethical concerns about Tibet to heart when doing business in China, that would be awesome (but unfortunately unrealistic).
The point of comparison I was making is that Canada is negotiating and dealing with the US from very much a disadvantageous position far in excess of the disadvantage the US has when dealing with China.
In short: Canada's relationship with the US is more like the relationship between Hong Kong/Singapore/South Korea/Taiwan with China and similarly "crappy." Yet in each of those situations, business investment has hardly stopped and in fact has increased. I find it unlikely that the US would prove an exception and act differently much beyond that point.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I see part of the problem. You think I am predicting something.
On the contrary, I am talking about something that is already happening. China has seen gradually declining FDI since about two years ago, and has seen a large increase in the ratio of FDI companies agree on vs the amount actually happening.
I was remarking on a well-known trend in trade economics, and pointing out a well-known cause: China's policies are so bad that a lot of companies are ceasing operation, and that other companies are no longer entering China.
So, if your argument is that people are going to keep investing heavily in China because they're willing to put up with the level of crap China pulls, you're going to need to deal with the significant evidence to the contrary.
edit: I will note that the evidence is confounded by the recent recession; the trend in Chinese FDI had been slowing before that, though, and dropped more than would have been expected. Also, there are numerous concrete examples of the phenomena I describe happening to US businesses operating in China, but we're awaiting a single example of the phenomena happening to a Canadian business operating in the US.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: Really? You're comparing what America's intentions are for the world with Chinese intentions?
I enjoy your thoughts on things unrelated. But I was speaking about things economical and if I thought that US businesses took things like your ethical concerns about Tibet to heart when doing business in China, that would be awesome (but unfortunately unrealistic).
The point of comparison I was making is that Canada is negotiating and dealing with the US from very much a disadvantageous position far in excess of the disadvantage the US has when dealing with China.
In short: Canada's relationship with the US is more like the relationship between Hong Kong/Singapore/South Korea/Taiwan with China and similarly "crappy." Yet in each of those situations, business investment has hardly stopped and in fact has increased. I find it unlikely that the US would prove an exception and act differently much beyond that point.
In any industry where intellectual property is of vital and central importance, the Chinese are very far along the road to 100% discouraging American investment and involvement.
It's just sour grapes. They can't innovate like Americans can. Theft can only get you so far. The rest would have to involve huge cultural and governmental shifts, which are highly unlikely.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: On the contrary, I am talking about something that is already happening. China has seen gradually declining FDI since about two years ago ...
?
quote:China’s Foreign Direct Investment More Than Doubles (Update1)
Foreign direct investment in China more than doubled in December from a year earlier as the effects of the financial crisis fade.
Investment rose 103 percent from a year earlier to $12.1 billion, the Ministry of Commerce said at a briefing in Beijing today. That compared with a 32 percent increase in November. Investment fell 2.6 percent in all of 2009 to $90.03 billion, the government said.
Friction between the Chinese government and overseas companies such as Google Inc. and Rio Tinto Group may not be enough to temper investor enthusiasm for the world’s fastest- growing major economy. Rupert Stadler, CEO of Volkswagen AG’s Audi division, said this month that China is the best answer when seeking growth, after the nation supplanted the U.S. as the world’s No.1 auto market in 2009. ... Foreign direct investment adds to the flood of cash in the financial system from record lending and the trade surplus, increasing the risk of bubbles forming in asset markets and inflation surging back. Property prices rose at the fastest pace in 18 months in December, a report yesterday showed.
If anything, the government is trying to discourage the amount of FDI into China rather than having problems the other way around.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep, there will be a rebound, because business in China will do well for a while, now.
Take a look back to my original point, please: when China's economy is in trouble, investors will be reluctant to invest.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I don't see that anywhere in your original point. I do see it in the part starting with "edit: I will note that the evidence is confounded by the recent recession;" which I believe was posted after my last (or rather after I saw it and quoted it).
quote:Originally posted by steven: It's just sour grapes. They can't innovate like Americans can. Theft can only get you so far. The rest would have to involve huge cultural and governmental shifts, which are highly unlikely.
*shrug* Detroit said that about Japan's innovation, complete with theft (and sour grapes!) right up to the point that they were proved wrong. I gotta say, I can sympathize with you and think it would be *nice* to think that cultural and government shifts are necessary for innovation.
I just don't really believe it.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Unfortunately for China, that's going to come back and bite them -- they're going to need serious FDI at some point, and they're busy poisoning the well.
I thought "need serious FDI" was a clear allusion to a time of economic problems, but perhaps I needed to be clearer?
Steven's statement about not being able to innovate is ridiculous. I've made no such claims (unsurprising, because I don't believe them).
Interestingly, though, Japan's institutional structures have proven huge barriers to their economic growth. You might be familiar with how they've lost nearly two decades of economic growth? That is one advantage the US has over just about every country; our institutional structures let the US economy reconfigure rapidly, and keep per-worker productivity extremely high.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: I thought "need serious FDI" was a clear allusion to a time of economic problems, but perhaps I needed to be clearer?
Oh. No, I didn't follow the allusion. Sorry for the miscommunication.
I mostly agree with the rest of the post.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Actually, I don't see that anywhere in your original point. I do see it in the part starting with "edit: I will note that the evidence is confounded by the recent recession;" which I believe was posted after my last (or rather after I saw it and quoted it).
quote:Originally posted by steven: It's just sour grapes. They can't innovate like Americans can. Theft can only get you so far. The rest would have to involve huge cultural and governmental shifts, which are highly unlikely.
*shrug* Detroit said that about Japan's innovation, complete with theft (and sour grapes!) right up to the point that they were proved wrong. I gotta say, I can sympathize with you and think it would be *nice* to think that cultural and government shifts are necessary for innovation.
I just don't really believe it.
LOL how's fantasy land treating you?
The Japanese and Chinese couldn't innovate their way out of a paper sack, when it comes to IT, software, etc. Microsoft, Apple, Sun Microsystems--these are Chinese companies, right?
Oh wait...they're not.
American culture is practically predicated on change and innovation. Chinese culture...yeah, no. It's a rich culture, but...with that richness comes the inevitable baggage.
You notice how Europeans use Windows and Apple OS? They're smart, right? They have access to investment capital, right? They're technologically advanced, right? Why no European-developed OS?
Yeah. They also have cultural and governmental baggage, just like China.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
steven: you seem to have confused path dependence with inability to innovate. Of course companies that are well-entrenched due to the much earlier start of IT innovation in the US are what Chinese companies use; they'd be stupid to try to develop their own examples of those technologies from the beginning, and it will be decades before Chinese companies can compete with those companies' decades of experience in such complicated and specialized areas.
But China has numerous large, high-tech startups doing very well.
edit: and Japan has plenty of high tech companies that do extremely well (so does Korea, while we're listing Asian countries filled with people capable of innovation).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: steven: you seem to have confused path dependence with inability to innovate. Of course companies that are well-entrenched due to the much earlier start of IT innovation in the US are what Chinese companies use; they'd be stupid to try to develop their own examples of those technologies from the beginning, and it will be decades before Chinese companies can compete with those companies' decades of experience in such complicated and specialized areas.
But China has numerous large, high-tech startups doing very well.
edit: and Japan has plenty of high tech companies that do extremely well (so does Korea, while we're listing Asian countries filled with people capable of innovation).
Riiight...I've got a bridge to sell you, while we're discussing East Asian OS.
Besides, I was talking to Mucus, who seems to think that China can abuse American IT companies with impunity, without losing anything at all. Of course, maybe they don't care. Maybe they figure they can make up for it by dominating other industries. Or maybe they're just short-sighted. I really don't know.
Rivka, if you can't say something nice...
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: you seem to have confused path dependence with inability to innovate.
Indeed.
Not to mention that high-tech and IT firms aren't particularly good cases that there is something superior about American culture given the rather disproportionate number of South Asian and East Asians that go into and stay in those fields in the West (or America for that matter).
Arguably other industries like financial or automotive would be better representatives if you want to (relatively) strip out Asians and judge American innovation in isolation.
quote:Originally posted by steven: ... I was talking to Mucus, who seems to think that China can abuse American IT companies with impunity, without losing anything at all.
No. I think that China can abuse specific American IT companies to the extent that they will lose companies that they want to lose. Google is a perfect case. You can rest assured that the CCP will rest easy seeing Google's troublesome market-share go to Baidu by default.
But I don't think that a significant number of companies will pull out of China in sympathy for Google or anything (barring a recession as noted by Fugu).
Don't get me wrong, I think that might be an interesting development. I just don't think that it is a likely one.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Riiight...I've got a bridge to sell you, while we're discussing East Asian OS."
You know what would make a country look really innovative? Ignoring all the innovations that were produced elsewhere and starting from the ground up, just to prove that they, too, could come up with the same sort of thing.
Sure, you can buy a hammer for a couple of bucks and use that to build your house...but it really makes you look pathetic compared to the guy who reinvents iron smelting and makes his own hammer. Right? Right?
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: you seem to have confused path dependence with inability to innovate.
Indeed.
Not to mention that high-tech and IT firms aren't particularly good cases that there is something superior about American culture given the rather disproportionate number of South Asian and East Asians that go into and stay in those fields in the West (or America for that matter).
Ahh, but you have missed my point. I specifically avoided saying ethnic East Asians are incapable of true innovation, because I don't believe it. East Asian culture, OTOH, was relatively isolated for many centuries, and is still struggling to adapt. That is the reason for the lack of real innovation, versus the tendency to just improve and mass-produce American inventions.
What concerns me for China is that IT continually changes and develops, and, when quantum computing becomes viable and dominant, the base code will be fundamentally different. That will require serious, from-the-ground-up innovation. I hope, for China's sake, they haven't driven away all the companies that will be driving that particular revolution. That will be a big one. Or heck, drive them away...more money for America.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: Rivka, if you can't say something nice...
Seriously?
Wasn't it you who just called another poster delusional? And another one gullible?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Unfortunately for China, that's going to come back and bite them -- they're going to need serious FDI at some point, and they're busy poisoning the well.
I'm not sure if the Chinese are really that short-sighted, or if they think they can just use their economic/political muscle to force things to happen. Either way, I agree with you. Crap on people long enough, and they will take their money and invest elsewhere. I seriously doubt the Chinese are really ready to deal with the full consequences of this type of behavior.
Actually, come to think of it, I'm going with "short-sighted".
Blayne, I'm making a pre-emptive request for you to please not respond to my posts in this thread.
And I am pre-emptively going to ignore your request.
The above hypothetical of this somehow actually going to "hurt" China in someway is the same kind of simple minded Tom Clancy view of economics. There may be a short bump or fallout but in the end nothing will come of it, google cannot ignore Chinese markets for long otherwise a Chinese competitor will rise up with government backing to take its place and the easy opportunity will be lost.
And considering the current trend for the Chinese to begin filling up space taken up by foreign firms by indigenous Chinese ones its going to happen sooner or later, this will probably be the moment where we see whose top and whose bottom in the relationship the State or the Corporation.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: In this case, the crap is such that companies frequently have their ability to make money taken from them. That's what's poisoning the well.
Again, not different from the Canadian experience with the US. For example, we're still hashing out 'Buy America' months later.
Really? You're comparing what America's intentions are for the world with Chinese intentions?
Look, my country isn't perfect, I know that. The Abu Ghraib stuff made me hang my head in shame, literally, when I was in another country, and found out about it. Don't even get me started on other stuff. HOWEVER...China is to human rights what hard candy is to teeth. That's not true for the US, in a general sense. The US's intentions are way less shady. Not perfect, not at all...but yes, thanks in large part to the US, we do NOT all speak German now. That counts for something, and I doubt that, if China were in a similar position to the US's position right after WWII, that China would be as generous with its defeated foes.
Look, all I'm saying is, China is a whole heap of a lot closer, in terms of intentions to Darth Vader than the US is. You can trash-talk all you want, but Tibet is a perfect example of China's record on religious freedom. Note that I am not endorsing Tibet's Buddhist culture/religion in a general sense, merely noting that the Chinese are not afraid to come down with the iron boot anytime they feel like it.
You have single handedly pushed my Russophile buttons, allow me to kick your ass.
80% of the German Heer casualties were on the Eastern front, by the time the D-Day landings occured the Soviet Union was already pushing into Romania and Operation Bagration which shattered Army Grup Center was to be launched within a week with no time for any significant reployment of German troops from East to West.
I am sick and tired of this revisionist american my country right or wrong jingoism that seeks to rewrite all of recent history as single handed American military victories. The Soviet Union lost 20 million people to grind down to dust the German war machine to exhaust them to the point that the American/Anglo-Canadian forces could relatively effortlessly take France.
I will concede Lend-Lease as a significant contributor to Russian military victory but if you think D-Day somehow magically caused the defeat of German you are clearly wrong.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Actually, I don't see that anywhere in your original point. I do see it in the part starting with "edit: I will note that the evidence is confounded by the recent recession;" which I believe was posted after my last (or rather after I saw it and quoted it).
quote:Originally posted by steven: It's just sour grapes. They can't innovate like Americans can. Theft can only get you so far. The rest would have to involve huge cultural and governmental shifts, which are highly unlikely.
*shrug* Detroit said that about Japan's innovation, complete with theft (and sour grapes!) right up to the point that they were proved wrong. I gotta say, I can sympathize with you and think it would be *nice* to think that cultural and government shifts are necessary for innovation.
I just don't really believe it.
LOL how's fantasy land treating you?
The Japanese and Chinese couldn't innovate their way out of a paper sack, when it comes to IT, software, etc. Microsoft, Apple, Sun Microsystems--these are Chinese companies, right?
Oh wait...they're not.
American culture is practically predicated on change and innovation. Chinese culture...yeah, no. It's a rich culture, but...with that richness comes the inevitable baggage.
You notice how Europeans use Windows and Apple OS? They're smart, right? They have access to investment capital, right? They're technologically advanced, right? Why no European-developed OS?
Yeah. They also have cultural and governmental baggage, just like China.
I would like to direct you to China: Fragile Superpower which if I recall lists China as rapidly catching up with American patents.
The idea that your are suggesting that Japan/Korea/China can't be capable of innovation is sounding like White Supremacy jargon.
Your going to need citations to prove that China somehow isn't capable of innovating.
IP: Logged |
posted
I would, y'know, care more about the not insubstantial Soviet contribution to the Allied victory over Nazi Germany if there hadn't been a massive Soviet contribution to Nazi dominance in Europe in the first place.
I care about the sacrifices the soldiers themselves made, and that it was a terrible time for the Soviet Union...but I don't really see how the Russian nation gets some big credit for suffering greatly to solve a problem they were neck-deep in creating.
Here's what I'm sick of: people just ignoring what the actual Soviet plan was for its involvement with Germany and how that would be reflected on Europe and Asia. They were just fine working with the Nazis to grab territory and power until the Nazis turned on them, specifically. Then they started making these sacrifices to thwart Nazism.
Also, 'relatively effortlessly'? C'mon, Blayne, you're sounding like a partisan hack again. And it's strange to hear you being tired of revisionist history.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Really now last I heard Stalin/Molotov had actually tried repeatedly to get a combined effort to restrain fascist expansionism with both Italian invasion of Ethiopia and the German carving up of central Europe signing the Molotov-Pact was an pragmatic act of survival due to the fact that negotiations with Britain and France were being stonewalled.
I could just as easily extend additional criticism to various US business practices pre Pearl harbor such as IBM designing the tabulation machines eventually used in the Final Solution, or the British Naval agreement with Germany that allowed them to rebuild their navy, or ultimately the Anglo-French appeasement tactics that allowed Germany to get so strong in the first place that joining the bandwagon seemed the preferable alternative then joining a suicidal war that until then the British and French were more then happy to allow Germany to expand towards.
Do not for even a second seek to pin this on the USSR for 'causing' WWII when we could argue it back to US refusal to join the League of Nations or a dozen other factors, but the Molotov Rippentrop Pact? Puhlease, like please actually read up on the diplomatic behind the scenes events that led up to the war before pinning it on them.
And yes, relatively effortlessly as in relative to Soviet victories the Allied effort in Western europe was relatively easy, notice the usage of the world 'relatively' in that sentence as a method of comparison?
I know the Soviets definitely weren't happy with it, in Gabriel Temkin's memoirs (Polish Jew serving in the Red Army since 1941) the Soviet reaction in his divisional HQ was pretty much "meh" too little too late the war was already nearly won.
But all of this aside considering steven pretty much said "If it weren't for America..." Bullshit. That's what I'm calling him out on, if the Sovet Union wasn't in the war it'ld take a massive nuclear bombardment campaign to end the war in Europe and then in only then would the US be able to claim "victory".
Without the US Russia would hardly been able to win either, and even if it had it would have taken generations MORE to recover. Germany was in Russia's back yard, and they did nothing until forced to, so I wouldn't try and make a case for them being blameless.
And the US not being in the League of Nations was hardly the cause either.
Without the sacrifices of the French before D-Day, their cooperation ON D-Day, and without the pressure on Germany from the D-Day landings, it is improbable that Russia would have continues to have much success.
Fact is that it was a European problem, primarily, and we entered late, but even before our troops were on the ground we were helping defend England, and lending monies, equipment, and munitions to the Allies while Russia did everything but actively HELP Germany.
I am not saying we won the war. I AM saying that the Allies might not have won it without us. And most of the people who actually KNOW anything about it agree with me on that.
On August 23, 1939, Germany and the USSR signed a secret non-agression pact dividing up Poland. In September, the Soviets invaded eastern Poland.
On November 30, 1939, the Russo-Finnish War began when the USSR invaded Finland. On March 12, 1940, Finland surrendered.
On June 18, 1940, the USSR invaded the Baltic states.
On April 13, 1941, the USSR and Japan signed a neutrality pact.
All of that HELPED Germany, and allowed them to focus on ONE front.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Only after as I said, that the Soviet Union gave up on a military confrontation because of the at the time British and French unwillingness to consider Soviet assistance, its called bandwagoning.
I've already conceded Lend-Lease was significant however it is open to argument whether it was THE decisive factor but god man actually look at the link above and fast forward it to 1943/44 you'll see that Soviet advances against German positions are rapidly accelerating in a rate consistent with their own mechanization.
The Normandy Landings were unnecessary towards the defeat of Germany by the time D-Day occurred the Germans were a week away from being utterly crippled in Operation Bagration.
German troop positions in Italy and France were by 1943/1944 insignificant compared to the troops deployed in the East and the casualties incurred.
Also I can think of at least 3-5 history texts books off the top of my head that pretty much all unanimously agree that the US refusal to ratify the League of Nations destroyed its credibility and effectiveness allowing for Fascist expansion and the turning to appeasement as an alternative policy.
IP: Logged |
quote:Really now last I heard Stalin/Molotov had actually tried repeatedly to get a combined effort to restrain fascist expansionism with both Italian invasion of Ethiopia and the German carving up of central Europe signing the Molotov-Pact was an pragmatic act of survival due to the fact that negotiations with Britain and France were being stonewalled.
Blayne. Listen to yourself. You're defending the good intentions of Stalin. Pragmatic act of survival? The plan was to partition Europe between themselves! That's not pragmatic survival, that's pragmatic expansion.
quote: I could just as easily extend additional criticism to various US business practices pre Pearl harbor such as IBM designing the tabulation machines eventually used in the Final Solution, or the British Naval agreement with Germany that allowed them to rebuild their navy, or ultimately the Anglo-French appeasement tactics that allowed Germany to get so strong in the first place that joining the bandwagon seemed the preferable alternative then joining a suicidal war that until then the British and French were more then happy to allow Germany to expand towards.
So, IBM doing business with the Nazis is equivalent to an entire nation signing agreements with the Nazis to mutually conquer Europe? Blayne: you're going off the reservation again. Slow down, remember that the USSR doesn't need you to defend it, and actually listen to yourself, man!
France and England have a lot of responsibility, it's true. Their appeasement was a very bad thing. But y'know what they didn't do? They didn't say, "We don't want to fight you, so we'll join you and conquer territory while you're doing your own conquering." That's what the USSR did. Blayne, that's a fact. This isn't the PRC where you can say that they had the best of intentions but there were mistakes made. Geeze, why don't you find a Pole and ask `em: what was the Soviet involvement in WWII, exactly?
quote: Do not for even a second seek to pin this on the USSR for 'causing' WWII when we could argue it back to US refusal to join the League of Nations or a dozen other factors, but the Molotov Rippentrop Pact? Puhlease, like please actually read up on the diplomatic behind the scenes events that led up to the war before pinning it on them.
First off, I didn't seek to pin the whole thing on the USSR. I simply correctly recited the facts of the matter which are that, up until the Nazis turned on the Soviets, the Soviets were quite satisfied to be on their own war of aggressive conquest themselves. What's the diplomatic behind-the-scenes on that, exactly?
What diplomatic back channels entitled the Soviet Union to invade Poland?
quote:That's what I'm calling him out on, if the Sovet Union wasn't in the war it'ld take a massive nuclear bombardment campaign to end the war in Europe and then in only then would the US be able to claim "victory".
The problem with this is that the Soviet Union was never simply not going to be in the war. They were going to be on one side or the other. And before they were on our side, they were on theirs. Again, that's a fact.
And really, drop the condescending attitude, would you please? If you're going to defend the 'pragmatism' of Stalin, you've got a helluva lot of ground to cover before you can start sneering at people for disagreeing with you.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm a little lost of why this (Rakeesh v. BB) is a controversy. The narrow claim is "thanks in large part to the US, we do NOT all speak German now."
First, "we" is pretty iffy. It is not hard to see that such a result is fairly dubious for someone from Asia. Neither is it particularly guaranteed for the majority of American posters here.
Second, I was under the impression that it was a fairly mainstream idea that a non-American entry into WWII would merely lead to the Soviets conquering Western Europe from the Nazis rather than the Nazis managing to conquer both Europe and Russia with strength leftover to attack North America.
Interestingly, I recently bought What If? which claims to be a survey of the world's foremost military historians (albeit rather Euro/Amero-centric). Two scenarios describe a failure of the US to make a substantial impact due either the British seeking a non-aggression pact with Hitler after initial losses or due to the failure of D-Day. Both scenarios end with Soviet domination of Western Europe.
quote:Originally posted by steven: I specifically avoided saying ethnic East Asians are incapable of true innovation, because I don't believe it. East Asian culture, OTOH, was relatively isolated for many centuries, and is still struggling to adapt. That is the reason for the lack of real innovation...
Technically, what you said was "The Japanese and Chinese couldn't innovate their way out of a paper sack, when it comes to IT, software, etc."
I suppose one could approach this with the view that you meant the Japanese and Chinese "cultural groupings," but I find that fairly unlikely.
That said, this is is still a pretty dubious assertion.
But let's examine actual data:
quote:According to a new report by Boston Consulting Group, though, the center of innovation is not in the U.S. BCG, working with the Manufacturing Institute of the Washington-based National Association of Manufacturers, last week released a survey of 110 countries worldwide looking at the ones with government policies and corporate performance most encouraging to innovation. The U.S. came in No. 8, ahead of Japan (No. 9) and Germany (No. 19) but well behind the two leaders, both of them so-called tiger economies from Asia: Singapore at No. 1 and South Korea at No. 2.
quote:ITIF uses 16 indicators to assess the global innovation-based competitiveness of 36 countries and 4 regions. This report finds that while the U.S. still leads the EU in innovation-based competitiveness, it ranks sixth overall. Moreover, the U.S. ranks last in progress toward the new knowledge-based innovation economy over the last decade.
Both are based in the US, so one would think they'd be relatively free of bias against the States. However, both rank South Korea and Singapore ahead of the States and the one that includes Hong Kong ranks that ahead of the States as well. (For Europeans, a couple of European countries rank ahead as well) Two of those are East Asian while the other has a large Chinese majority.
I think you can find a much more parsimonious explanation.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm a little lost of why this (Rakeesh v. BB) is a controversy. The narrow claim is "thanks in large part to the US, we do NOT all speak German now."
Because he's gone far beyond that narrow claim, Mucus.
quote: Second, I was under the impression that it was a fairly mainstream idea that a non-American entry into WWII would merely lead to the Soviets conquering Western Europe from the Nazis rather than the Nazis managing to conquer both Europe and Russia with strength leftover to attack North America.
Really? Without an American entry into the war, where would those hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of German soldiers have gone, exactly? To say nothing of all the supplies.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: I specifically avoided saying ethnic East Asians are incapable of true innovation, because I don't believe it. East Asian culture, OTOH, was relatively isolated for many centuries, and is still struggling to adapt. That is the reason for the lack of real innovation...
Technically, what you said was "The Japanese and Chinese couldn't innovate their way out of a paper sack, when it comes to IT, software, etc."
I suppose one could approach this with the view that you meant the Japanese and Chinese "cultural groupings," but I find that fairly unlikely.
I do have to admit that South Korea is kicking some butt in terms of innovation. Honk Kong too, no question. However, there is a tiny little difference, maybe, between the PRC and South Korea.
The only reason Hong Kong keeps being innovative is because the PRC has partially succeeded in being "hands off".
Let's not forget that South Korea and Hong Kong are relatively small. The US is much larger, and has more resources available to focus on large-scale high-tech innovation. That's a big part of the reason why the US is so dominant in that area.
The reason that China lags in high-tech innovation is very clear...it's the cultural and governmental baggage, period. The evidence supports it. They fail for the same reason that there's never been a European OS, and may never be one...cultural and governmental baggage.
I do think it's rather funny that you're accusing me of racism, when, earlier in the thread, I actually mentioned the lack of a European OS as proof that it's cultural and governmental baggage that slows innovation, not race.
Did you not read my posts carefully?
I get the feeling you didn't.
But then, hey, I'm just steven...steven never has valid points.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You might have had a valid point if you had written your point carefully. You didn't. You wrote something overbroad that wasn't true. You've considerably moderated your statement from "The Japanese and Chinese couldn't innovate their way out of a paper sack, when it comes to IT, software, etc." (which you backed up with things that are incredibly irrelevant, like not having a native operating system, making your point seem even more silly) to "China lags in high-tech innovation" (I assume you'd include Japan as well).
That's a considerably weaker statement.
Btw, the insistence on operating systems shows you really don't understand IT innovation at all. OS are one of the areas it makes the least sense to expend effort innovating in, provided the landscape has sufficiently good options available (which it does).
Just to drive the not understanding IT innovation point home, with that whole 'no European OS' thing . . . you do realize Linux was created in Europe, and is still substantially developed by European kernel developers? What's more, the influential educational OS it was based on, Minix, was developed in Europe.
So no, you didn't really have a point, and your current point is at best mildly interesting. Making dramatic statements and then saying "well, I really meant something very minor" is not good discussion, it is bad discussion. If you want people to treat you reasonably, treat them reasonably and make statements that aren't blown out of proportion to your meaning.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
We helped the Soviet's mechanize, we gave them and the other European countries tons of aid and munitions, and we didn't try to parcel up any part of Europe for ourselves.
It is possible, although I doubt likely, that the Russians could have beaten Germany without help from the US, but then what?
The rest of Europe might be speaking Russian now. We didn't do enough to back Russia up after the war, but without our aid, and our armies on European soil, Europe would NOT look the way it does today.
We absolutely torpedoed the League of Nations, Blayne. I never said otherwise. However, that is hardly the main reason WWII happened. There is NO proof how effective the LoN might have been, no proof that it would have mitigated German expansion. It MAY have, but considering the structure of it, and the fact that neither Germany OR Russia would have been allowed in at the inception, it was hardly America's sole fault it failed.
The fact is that Russia didn't just sign a non-aggression pact. They actively participated in advancing the Nazi agenda and war efforts, because it benefited them.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ... Without an American entry into the war, where would those hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of German soldiers have gone, exactly? To say nothing of all the supplies.
Hey don't shoot the messenger.
Anyways, each of the two scenarios are different. However, in short in the D-Day fails scenario, the British and US are only able to continue bombing and the Soviets essentially are able to conquer all the way to the English Channel. The insignificant number of troops shifted away from France are insufficient to make a difference fighting Russia.
In the Great Britain-Germany sues for peace scenario, not only are the Americans taken out of the way but the British are taken out of the war due to a non-Churchhill government suing for peace in order to evacuate the troops at Dunkirk. The Americans and the British refuse to pool anything, not atomic bomb research, nor supplies. The result is just that the Germans do a bit better managing to capture Moscow. However, there is still no doubt that the Soviets would eventually win for many of the reasons that they did in real life and the Soviets continue on to France.
The book has more details of course. There is a scenario where the Germans do beat the Russians, but that decision point predates the decision by Hitler to invade Russia so is not entirely relevant.
(Of course, I think that their literary credentials do lend their arguments some weight. But I use this more just to illustrate that Blayne's opinion doesn't seem particularly off the map) Edit to add: Initial opinion about us "speaking German" anyways
quote:Originally posted by steven: However, there is a tiny little difference, maybe, between the PRC and South Korea.
Governmental, yes. Cultural as your preceding points emphasize, not particularly. Certainly, they both fit the bill for East Asian cultures as you've defined.
(I may also add, I missed your assumption that immigrants from East Asia and South Asia quickly lose their culture when working in IT fields in North America. I find this highly dubious as well, but let's not widen the conversation further)
quote:The only reason Hong Kong keeps being innovative is because the PRC has partially succeeded in being "hands off".
Again, a striking governmental division, but not a striking cultural division.
quote: The US is much larger, and has more resources available to focus on large-scale high-tech innovation.
Which is again, not a cultural reason.
quote:They fail for the same reason that there's never been a European OS, and may never be one...cultural and governmental baggage.
See Fugu.
(Also, I find it curious that you find the differences between South Korea v. China/Japan sufficient to support innovation. Same with Hong Kong v. China/Japan. However, the Europeans are homogenous enough to be characterized as a group distinct from America and are all incapable of innovation. Intriguing but perhaps a different discussion)
quote: I do think it's rather funny that you're accusing me of racism ...
No. Blayne was accusing you of being racist, sounding like a white supremacist specifically. I'm just accusing you of being ignorant.
However, your shift from arguing on cultural grounds to governmental grounds (and others, such as size) is satisfactory.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
