[HN Gopher] The World Is Splitting in Two
___________________________________________________________________
The World Is Splitting in Two
Author : memish
Score : 20 points
Date : 2022-03-28 20:22 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theatlantic.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theatlantic.com)
| aeternum wrote:
| It really seems to come down to individual freedom vs. reduced
| freedom for the collective good.
|
| Individual freedom seems like generally the right path, it
| attracts the best talent, fosters creativity and invention.
| Growing the economic pie has proven to increase overall well-
| being faster than careful central-planning and attempts to
| distribute resources equally.
|
| However the pandemic also showed the risks of individual freedom.
| It's not hard to imagine a disease that spreads quickly and but
| is 100x to 1000x more deadly. Would the west have been able to
| stop it without the willingness to put in place the strict
| quarantines and authoritarian measures that China used? I'd like
| to think so but it is unclear.
| timcavel wrote:
| rdtwo wrote:
| Honestly it's just 2 different versions of reduced freedom.
| Public vs private reduced freedom. On one side freedom is
| reduced directly via government on get other indirectly via
| corporations
| hunglee2 wrote:
| Clear propaganda piece, I am afraid
|
| A couple of pieces of evidence:
|
| De-coupling is evidently a US driven initiative, starting with
| the Trumpian 'China Bad' rhetoric starting from 2016, placing
| over 200+ Chinese firms from the prohibited list, setting up
| AUUKUS military alliance, Quad military alliance etc.
|
| China has massively benefited from status quo, no motivation at
| all to change it. Clear from Xi Jingping's speech at Davos where
| he cast China as a supporter of globalisation. It is precisely
| because China has closed the gap with the US via globalisation
| that the US is now keen to de-couple China from the system the US
| set up
|
| This piece - typical of the Atlantic (lemme guess Applebaum was
| the author?) - is recasting the 'world splitting into two' as the
| responsibility of China malfeasance, rather than US fears of loss
| of absolute hegemony
|
| Propaganda
| nebula8804 wrote:
| Seems like the loss of key industries is all but a foregone
| conclusion at this point.
|
| Example: EVs. US has lagged behind so much in this while China
| has got tons of EV companies that are about to launch in the
| US. Sure the US could ban them, the next day China will ban US
| auto companies and seize their factories. How will the big
| three survive losing the Chinese market? Isn't that the only
| major growth market? They will be forced to open up to the
| Chinese makers. Have you seen their cars? They seem very
| competitive. Only people who won't consider them are the towns
| being supported by auto jobs and the "rural" MURICA folks.
| Everyone else will eat them up.
|
| Repeat this for many other industries. I don't see how we can
| turn around from where we are at this point.
| hunglee2 wrote:
| like the analysis but I disagree somewhat. Taken to extreme,
| de-coupling with force repatriation of supply chain either
| directly to the US or to US controlled / US influenced
| countries. Also, developments new material science, 4D
| printing, hydroponic farming etc will reduce the dependency
| on the necessity of trade - which is fundamentally about the
| acquisition of resources which you could not provide for
| yourself.
|
| The course for a de-coupled future is probably set; the
| challenge for humanity is: are we able to co-exist without
| interdependence?
| yhoneycomb wrote:
| I think it's annoying how this is couched as, "This was going to
| be a Utopia!!!"
|
| Yeah, for the people in power (ie, the US/anglosphere at large)
| DiggyJohnson wrote:
| Indeed. I worry that the crises of the last few years can be
| used to dismiss the (slightly) older structural problems that
| would have led us here regardless. This vision utopia was
| already cracking before Covid and even before Trump.
| wbsss4412 wrote:
| The framing of this article strikes me as odd. The author seems
| to liken moves against US led hegemony as outright wall building.
| Yet as they note:
|
| > Unlike the Cold War, when the U.S. and Soviet blocs were
| clearly delineated, the two segments of the coming world will
| likely remain somewhat connected.
|
| They seem to be looking to analyze the present day through the
| lease of the Cold War, yet it is clear that what's happening
| isn't primarily ideological:
|
| > As the global divergence continues, however, countries will
| gravitate toward one side or the other, and (as during the Cold
| War) not necessarily on clear ideological grounds. Communist
| Vietnam, fearful of rising Chinese power, is open to American
| overtures, while democratic Pakistan, a Cold War ally of
| Washington's that is now heavily linked to China through Belt and
| Road investments, has effectively become a client state of
| Beijing.
|
| Overall, I find the thesis here lacking. Are there tensions?
| Absolutely. But the fact that sovereign nations feel they
| shouldn't be at the mercy of the global dollar hardly harkens to
| Soviet era lines on a map.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-03-28 23:02 UTC)