_______ __ _______
| | |.---.-..----.| |--..-----..----. | | |.-----..--.--.--..-----.
| || _ || __|| < | -__|| _| | || -__|| | | ||__ --|
|___|___||___._||____||__|__||_____||__| |__|____||_____||________||_____|
on Gopher (inofficial)
HTML Visit Hacker News on the Web
COMMENT PAGE FOR:
HTML 2025 Letter
ryukoposting wrote 4 hours 49 min ago:
I've lived in Silicon Valley for exactly 3 days now. Recently moved
from the Midwest.
There are two kinds of people in San Jose: locals who are normal folks
you'd find anywhere, and techies with the AI brainworm. People who are
astonished by the natural beauty of this place, and people who are
astonished by an office park because there are Apple and Nvidia logos
on it. It's all incredibly weird and I don't like it much.
saagarjha wrote 2 hours 6 min ago:
Some people are both, I assure you
keiferski wrote 2 hours 51 min ago:
It is really quite unfortunate that one of the most naturally
beautiful places in the world is full of jobs that require sitting
inside in front of a computer all day long.
deaux wrote 6 hours 47 min ago:
I've been convinced for years now of 90% of what Dan Wang wrote here
about China, though I don't even have 20% of his talent in writing it
up in a coherent way. Nor do I have enough on-the-ground experience in
the country, nor the surname, to make me credible.
During all this time I've tried to think of a way to invest in this
belief in a monetary way, but I've failed to come up with anything.
Chinese stocks? Foreigners' holdings will likely be worthless when the
slightest crisis happens. Then what is left? Without going and living
there, I'm not sure. Has anyone thought about this?
keiferski wrote 6 hours 49 min ago:
The insights on American and Chinese industry / tech are undercut by
the generic stereotypical âEuropeans are smug and
backward-lookingâ comments. A bit disappointing that someone who
spends a ton of time analyzing two complex societies (China and the US)
falls into Reddit-tier caricature on a third.
mns wrote 2 hours 29 min ago:
The attitude here is quite astounding, seeing how any criticism of
the author or this piece is seen as some sort of reductionism of his
views and european smugness (?!?), all the while the author reduces
an entire nation (Germany in this case) to the anecdote of a Georgian
mass murderer, probably one of the most ruthless and diabolical
people that ever existed, so yeah, very balanced discussion here.
snake_doc wrote 5 hours 6 min ago:
Would you be able provide some evidence to the contrary when it comes
to the topics discussed in the letter?
On industrial infrastructure
On technology innovation
On internet regulation
On central planning
Otherwise, your comment becomes an anecdote supporting the common
stereotypes (assuming youâre from Europe).
throwaway132448 wrote 2 hours 30 min ago:
I mean, you only have to quote the letter itself:
"I have a hard time squaring the poor prospects of Europe over the
next decade with the smugness that Europeans have for themselves. I
spent most of the summer in Copenhagen. Thereâs no doubt that
quality of life in most European cities is superb, especially for
what I care about: food, opera, walkable streets, access to nature.
But a decade of low economic growth is biting. European prices and
taxes can be so high while salaries can be so low."
This particular kind of American perspective on Europe always falls
into the same trap: Not understanding a world where economic
performance is _not_ the be-all-and-end-all, not understanding the
connection between the benefits of such a world (things that
consider externalities - not individuals - in order to exist) with
the costs of such a world (taxes).
snake_doc wrote 53 min ago:
What exactly is wrong with Americans or for the most part the
rest of the world valuing economic performance as a measure of
prosperity and progress?
Your comment is again another anecdote confirming European
stereotypes. Itâs not a âtrapâ, itâs a different world
view.
keiferski wrote 4 hours 38 min ago:
Iâm responding to comments like this in the article:
So I am betting that the US and China are more compelling forces
for change. Stalin was fond of telling a story from his experience
in Leipzig in 1907, when, to his astonishment, 200 German workers
failed to turn up to a socialist meeting because no ticket
controller was on the platform to punch their train tickets, citing
this experience as proof of the hopelessness of Germanic obedience.
Could anyone imagine Chinese or Americans being so obedient?
This isnât a serious analysis of German culture. Itâs perfectly
fine to argue that certain countries are economically or
industrially problematic, but when you throw in comments like this,
it really doesnât help your argument.
And Iâm not from Europe, but I have lived here for years. The
constant clueless comments by my fellow North Americans about the
somehow monolithic entity of âEuropeâ are irritating.
enraged_camel wrote 1 hour 41 min ago:
>> This isnât a serious analysis of German culture.
Who said itâs meant to be a serious analysis? This is an essay
that shares anecdotes and personal opinions, not a PhD
dissertation.
snake_doc wrote 3 hours 38 min ago:
What part of the quote are you criticizing? Why is it irritating?
NooneAtAll3 wrote 10 hours 35 min ago:
> For tragedies too widely experienced in modern times to be censored
â the Cultural Revolution, the one-child policy, Zero Covid ...
this part has me confused
can someone explain to me why Zero Covid - the most successful program
that minimized Covid deaths - is a tragedy?
imo it was better than whatever clusterfuck was happening pretty much
everywhere else
jjcc wrote 7 hours 29 min ago:
There are two parts of the Zero Covid policy which actually is a
continuous one :
1.At the beginning of the pandemic. It was successful in terms of
reducing the death count of population but at the cost of freedom
that also widely criticized in Western countries.
2.Because of the early success, the government continued the policy
even it was not necessary till close to the end of the Covid. This is
one of the biggest policy failure in recent Chinese history. It
caused resentment and was exploited by anti-government parties, even
partially caused the illegal emigrant wave to the States through
south border during 2023, which was reported on mainstream media.
Finally it ended due to protests.
Dan Wang's observation about China in his book is mostly accurate,
except this part that he has some twisted view on CPP, which is not
his fault but CPP's fault.
deaux wrote 6 hours 51 min ago:
> Dan Wang's observation about China in his book is mostly
accurate, except this part that he has some twisted view on CPP,
which is not his fault but CPP's fault.
Give us your take, we're listening. Curious to hear.
whoevercares wrote 10 hours 21 min ago:
Zero-COVID was an absolute disaster. It involved severe human rights
violations and caused immense social and economic damage, including
unnecessary displacement, homelessness, and even deaths. The number
is lower sure, but China had the capacity to do much better
NooneAtAll3 wrote 9 hours 34 min ago:
again, how is it a disaster if nobody else managed to do better?
and it's kinda stupid to say "even deaths" on the background of
Italy, India and even million dead in the US
deaux wrote 6 hours 52 min ago:
China's statistics on COVID deaths are entirely unreliable. In
reality, in all likelihood China was the least successful in its
region of East-Asia, less successful than Japan, Korea and
Taiwan.
Note that I'm not including the large-scale suffering caused by
the way it was executed besides deaths - if you include that,
it's beyond any doubt they did worse than the countries mentioned
above, and it's not even close.
whoevercares wrote 9 hours 6 min ago:
many people especially those with chronic illnesses died because
Zero-COVID blocked access to basic medical care and food. Those
deaths were policy-driven and avoidable.
jjcc wrote 7 hours 25 min ago:
You watch too much anti government media and mixed narratives
with solid facts. You need to read both sides of stories
ChrisMarshallNY wrote 11 hours 56 min ago:
> If the Bay Area once had an impish side, it has gone the way of most
hardware tinkerers and hippie communes.
Woz had that (still does). He was smart enough to take his winnings and
bail. I think that many in SV can't fathom why, but I suspect I know
exactly why.
I do remember the tech community as being full of humor and whimsy. I
miss that.
blurbleblurble wrote 12 hours 6 min ago:
All, please keep the discussion civil and free of humor
ralph84 wrote 13 hours 40 min ago:
The Europe of today is the result of 400 years of brain drain. It would
take generations to reverse the effects, if anyone even wanted to.
jimnotgym wrote 12 hours 31 min ago:
Where were the brains draining to 350 years ago?
senordevnyc wrote 10 hours 5 min ago:
America
jimnotgym wrote 5 hours 11 min ago:
So brains were leaving Europe for European colonies then? Hardly
a brain drain if they were still in your country.
OGEnthusiast wrote 14 hours 27 min ago:
Spot on by Dan as always, especially about the decline of Europe and
the rise of China.
AJRF wrote 14 hours 44 min ago:
Great read. I listened to Dan on Tyler Cowenâs podcast and found him
to be a very interesting thinker. He has the air of someone who is a
lot more intellectually honest than a lot of our pundits (Tyler is
pretty good though, heâs not that target of this comment)
gaaz wrote 14 hours 49 min ago:
0
maxglute wrote 14 hours 49 min ago:
>But American problems seem more fixable to me than Chinese problems
Dan still one of the sharper PRC writers, but like all analysts who
moves from PRC to stateside, he used to be Canadian in China writing
about China to US, now Canadian writing in US about China, Dan starts
peddling Murican dynamism cope, maybe something in the water. i.e. see
his his post breakneck Chinatalk interview: Humorless engineering
governance can't beat very funny Trump/US governance is... certainly a
take. Maybe he should do his audience a favor and elucidate why boring
competent engineer government is less dynamic/resilient than lawyers
other than elections can pivot fast to reduce lawyers (kek) and
something something and see see pee can't pivot fast to make productive
innovative libtards, since seeseepee STEM can't innovate. Because as we
know fast 4 year election cycles work better than slow 5 year plans.
CCP certain needs 50% more lawyers... to slow it down.
performative wrote 14 hours 49 min ago:
he makes enough odd claims about cities and countries in the beginning
that i can only assume aren't really meant to be taken seriously, so
i'm at a bit of a loss for how i should be reading this
constantcrying wrote 15 hours 54 min ago:
As a European, the commentary felt very biting and accurate. An entire
continent defined by being smug about not being the USA. Where not
competing is seen as a great virtue and where significant parts of the
electorate are actively voting against fixing the glaringly obvious
problems.
The supposed niceness of the cities also is just not true. Many
European cities are awful places. Where, maybe with the exception of a
few tourist areas, you will only find dirty streets, rows of old
apartment building regularly smeared with graffiti, shops selling used
phones and vapes and food stores competing over who can sell the
cheapest, still edible Kebab.
xandrius wrote 14 hours 21 min ago:
You haven't been much around outside of Europe then.
And given what is currently coming out of the US in terms of
worldwide cultural impact, I'm ok to be anti-whatever that is.
RagnarD wrote 16 hours 41 min ago:
To my surprise I found myself reading the entire rather long piece. His
thoughts on AI, San Francisco, China, and other topics, are well worth
the time.
dalyons wrote 9 hours 35 min ago:
Agreed! Heâs a great writer stylistically and w.r.t information
density.
almostdeadguy wrote 16 hours 59 min ago:
> I believe that Silicon Valley possesses plenty of virtues. To start,
it is the most meritocratic part of America. Tech is so open towards
immigrants that it has driven populists into a froth of rage. It
remains male-heavy and practices plenty of gatekeeping. But San
Francisco better embodies an ethos of openness relative to the rest of
the country. Industries on the east coast â finance, media,
universities, policy â tend to more carefully weigh name and
pedigree.
I believe I read that 27% of the founders in the YC Spring 25 class
went to an Ivy League school and 40% previously worked at a magnificent
7 company. I'm not saying this is any worse than the east coast, but so
much for name and pedigree not mattering.
Northern California is what it always has been: the barrier wall of
manifest destiny, where instead of crossing the ocean the pioneers and
all subsequent generations stayed to incubate the same incentives, and
have been relentlessly in pursuit of the next gold rush. Gold, yellow
journalism, semiconductors, personal computing, SaaS, crypto, AI, etc.
It's the sink drain attractor of people looking to improve their
fortunes in one way or another, but almost always around some kind of
bonanza of concentrated opportunity. The concept of it being
"meritocratic" is a rephrasing of ideology that's always existed about
the region: you too could get rich here. But I don't really see any
difference in the networks of power that exist in SV as do the rest of
the country.
I grew up in the bay area and am far happier living outside it. I'm
happier to be in a place where art and the humanities are valued
instead of cast aside as immaterial or silly or a distraction. I'm
happier to live in a place where people have varied interests instead
of orienting their life around whatever the prevailing Big Thing is.
> So the 20-year-olds who accompanied Mr. Musk into the Department of
Government Efficiency did not, I would say, distinguish themselves with
their judiciousness. The Bay Area has all sorts of autistic tendencies.
Though Silicon Valley values the ability to move fast, the rest of
society has paid more attention to instances in which tech wants to
break things. It is not surprising that hardcore contingents on both
the left and the right have developed hostility to most everything that
emerges from Silicon Valley.
I see some positive aspects as to more inclusive definitions of autism
and neurodivergence, but I hate that we're at the point where "trying
to get rich at all costs" is now perceived as autistic (and let's be
clear: using mobile gas turbines that get people sick to generate power
for AI is not "autistic"). Greed is not autistic, but of course the
ideology of SV is that nobody actually cares about money there. Why
else would they have apartments without furniture and piles of pizza
boxes. It must be the autism.
> While critics of AI cite the spread of slop and rising power bills,
AIâs architects are more focused on its potential to produce surging
job losses. Anthropic chief Dario Amodei takes pains to point out that
AI could push the unemployment rate to 20 percent by eviscerating
white-collar work. I wonder whether this message is helping to endear
his product to the public.
The animating concern of developing AI since 2015 has basically been
"MAD" applied to the technology. The Bostrom book mentioned later in
this article was clearly instrumental in creating this language to
think about AI, as you can see many tech CEOs began getting "concerned"
about AI around this time, prior to many of the big developments in AI
like transformers. One of the seminal emails of OpenAI between Musk and
Altman talks about starting a "Manhattan Project for AI". This was a
useful concept to graft the development of these companies onto:
1. Firstly, it's a threat to investors. Get in on the ground floor or
you will get left behind. We are building tomorrow's winners and losers
and there are a lot of losers in the future.
2. Secondly, it leads to a natural source of government support. This
is a national security concern. Fund this, guarantee the success of
this, or America will lose.
On both counts, this framing seems to be working pretty well.
kalkin wrote 17 hours 13 min ago:
I have nonspecific positive associations with Dan Wang's name, so I
rolled my eyes a bit but kept going when "If the Bay Area once had an
impish side, it has gone the way of most hardware tinkerers and hippie
communes" was followed up by "People arenât reminiscing over some
lost golden age..."
But I stopped at this:
> âAI will be either the best or the worst thing ever.â Itâs a
Pascalâs Wager
That's not what Pascal's wager is! Apocalyptic religion dates back more
than two thousand years and Blaise Pascal lived in the 17th century!
When Rosa Luxemburg said to expect "socialism or barbarism", she was
not doing a Pascal's Wager! Pascal's Wager doesn't just involve
infinite stakes, but also infinitesimal probabilities!
The phrase has become a thought-terminating cliche for the sort of
person who wants to dismiss any claim that stakes around AI are very
high, but has too many intellectual aspirations to just stop with
"nothing ever happens." It's no wonder that the author finds it "hard
to know what to make of" AI 2027 and says that "why they put that year
in their title remains beyond me."
It's one thing to notice the commonalities between some AI doom
discourse and apocalyptic religion. It's another to make this into such
a thoughtless reflex that you also completely muddle your understanding
of the Christian apologetics you're referencing. There's a sort of
determined refusal to even grasp the arguments that an AI doomer might
make, even while writing an extended meditation on AI, for which I've
grown increasingly intolerant. It's 2026. Let's advance the discourse.
dworks wrote 7 hours 19 min ago:
It's a very Silicon Valley thing to drop things like Pascal's Wager,
Jevon's paradox etc into your sentences to appear smart.
anthuswilliams wrote 9 hours 11 min ago:
I'm not sure I understand your complaint. Is it that he misuses the
term Pascal's Wager? Or more generally that he doesn't extend enough
credibility to the ideas in AI 2027?
kalkin wrote 6 hours 38 min ago:
More the former. Re the latter, it's not so much that I'm annoyed
he doesn't agree with the AI2027 people, it's that (he spends a few
paragraphs talking about them while) he doesn't appear to have
bothered trying to even understand them.
NooneAtAll3 wrote 8 hours 53 min ago:
seems to be yes and yes
Pascal's wager isn't about "all or nothing", it is about "small
chance of infinite outcome" which makes narrow-minded strategizing
wack
and commenter is much more pro-ai2027 than article author (and I
have no idea what it even is)
siavosh wrote 17 hours 23 min ago:
I read the whole post. Really revealing - so much analysis but not a
single mention of a global system that is reaching a singularity in
wealth concentration, and maybe how that might be an important
dimension to reflect on. Its like using so many words to deeply analyze
the speed differentials in a car race, but not looking up to see that
all the drivers are racing towards a brick wall.
Animats wrote 6 hours 49 min ago:
US Per-capita real income tracked productivity growth until about
1975. After that, productivity continued to climb, but per-capita
real income did not. This is why life sucks worse than it used to for
everybody but the top 10%.
With AI coming along, productivity is about to get another boost.
Maybe a big boost. But will most people benefit from it? Under
capitalism as currently implemented, no.
That's the meaning of Sam Altman's âI think that AI will probably,
most likely, sort of lead to the end of the world. But in the
meantime, there will be great companies created with serious machine
learning.â
Universal basic income is not the answer. That's welfare 2.0, leading
to high-rises of useless people. Altman doesn't have the answer. Wang
doesn't have the answer. They both see the problem coming but suggest
no viable solutions.
This is a problem.
HTML [1]: https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/
siavosh wrote 6 hours 31 min ago:
I agree. The center of capitalism may have shifted to China, but
they'll have to deal with (are already) dealing with the same
problems and it'll probably happen even faster for them.
Instability in the system is only overshadowed by the growing
instability in peoples lives. I think most people feel this and the
discourse has fundamentally shifted in the west, but these are
tectonic and unpredictable forces.
A parting thought: from a geo-political perspective, I understand
the purpose of essays like this but like I said I think its losing
the forrest for the trees and at great risk.
gen220 wrote 8 hours 29 min ago:
Sometimes I wonder if our system evolved the discipline of economics
as an incredibly expensive intellectual distraction to pacify the
petit bourgeois.
We can read Dan Wang and Tyler Cowen and whoever else to educate
ourselves on the idea that {interests aligned with the further
concentration of capital} are the real reason why we the people of
the middle class canât afford to buy a home, and actually you
should be grateful you have antibiotics and shelf-stable, flavorless
tomatoes and Instagram Reels. Your forebears were not so lucky!
jdross wrote 7 hours 9 min ago:
You canât afford to buy a home because the current owners vote to
restrict new housing through zoning and expensive regulation on
construction permitting, so supply is limited in the places
youâre trying to live (a higher income region?).
The government also subsidized mortgages for the prior generation
to increase asset values and now that time is up. Subsidized demand
= inflation
Finally, you likely want a bigger house than your parents had. And
most people want it to be in the cooler area, not somewhere in Iowa
where schools are great but restaurants and non-remote jobs are
lacking
Animats wrote 6 hours 38 min ago:
> And most people want it to be in the cooler area, not somewhere
in Iowa where schools are great but restaurants and non-remote
jobs are lacking
This is a fundamental problem. People in big cities are on
average richer. That's not just a US thing. People in a Tier 1
city in China have a substantially higher standard of living than
people in lower tier cities. There is a very real hierarchy.[1]
City tier is determined by size, not income, but income tracks
size.
This is the phenomenon that induces over-concentration. Go to the
big city and make your fortune, or at least find enough scraps to
keep you alive. That's why US homelessness is a rich city thing.
Figuring out how to make mid-sized cities, at the 0.5M to 1M
population level work, is something the US currently is not doing
well. Those cities have housing, but not jobs.
HTML [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_city_tier_system
Barrin92 wrote 8 hours 46 min ago:
>but not a single mention of a global system that is reaching a
singularity in wealth concentration
that's not the case though and Dan is implicitly addressing this
given that China is the subject of a decent chunk of the letter.
Wealth in the global system is much more evenly distributed these
days. We're much closer to a multi-polar world than we used to be in
a long time. A lot of the emerging economies are building middle
classes of serious size, it's a whole other world compared to 20 to
30 years ago. The developed world's been mostly stable inequality
wise, the only outlier being tech oligarchs in the US but that's
hardly a defining feature of the global system.
But globally we're likely living now in the first time in human
history when the median human is going to see a drastic increase in
their fortunes.
HTML [1]: https://ourworldindata.org/the-history-of-global-economic-in...
ineedaj0b wrote 8 hours 52 min ago:
those articles were written a plenty about the Davos Elite - even
precovid. Itâs a tad lazy now.
Sure there was some evidence of wealth concentration mattering. But
there was also evidence against it (like Jack Ma). Power is still the
ring to kiss.
And hopefully itâs very understood to the parent comment and
agreers, wealth creation is not zero sum. When something new is
created the pie gets bigger. All wealth inequality discourse is
driven by that misunderstanding and a lack of building more homes [1]
Maybe your brick wall is the singularity instead and I misread you
but I donât think so.
HTML [1]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001429212...
Uhhrrr wrote 13 hours 47 min ago:
A wealth singularity is not obvious at all to me, perhaps you should
write an essay about it.
ceuk wrote 17 hours 35 min ago:
As a Brit, I struggled to get much interesting out of this considering
how many times he mentions "Europe" (in that condescendingly general
way that only US folks seem to manage).
He talks about "European" prospects and his trip to Denmark but then
cites London as a representative example?
This almost broke my brain it felt so incoherent.
Never mind that (despite my personal wishes) we're not even part of the
EU (which I assume is what he means by "Europe"). Surely he knows what
an anomaly London is? It's not representative of anything except
itself.
Referencing the extreme wage dispersion and severe housing pressure of
London in a rant about Europe in general is a completely pointless
endeavour.
He did say one thing I agree with. If you like good food, rich culture
and great surroundings, "Europe" is indeed a lovely place to be for the
most part.
Maybe I'll just keep that as my takeaway. It's too early in the year
for doom and gloom anyway
dworks wrote 7 hours 22 min ago:
>As a Brit, I struggled to get much interesting out of this
As someone who didn't study China's tech sector, but spent more than
a decade working in it, my view is similar on Dan Wang's writing on
China.
j7ake wrote 8 hours 43 min ago:
I found it the right granularity. He talks about USA, China, and
Europe: within each have considerable diversity in culture, history,
and identity.
He mentions Europe without more nuance for the same reason he
mentions China without more nuance: heâs talking big picture.
DiscourseFan wrote 12 hours 17 min ago:
Since Iâve lived in the UK before, I will say that yes it is not
the same as continental Europe, but culturally, socially, and
economically it is deeply tied into Europe, is European. One could
say the same thing about Irelandâexcept the majority of Ireland is
in the EU. Does Europe stop at the border of Northern Ireland?
hdgvhicv wrote 1 hour 42 min ago:
Northern Ireland is quite different to Great Britain, moreso than
the difference between England, Wales and Scotland.
maxglute wrote 15 hours 56 min ago:
He's a Canadian in America writing about China. He writes about bloc
strategic competition. EU+UK is treated as bloc in this context,
individual European countries are generally irrelevant alone.
tshaddox wrote 16 hours 37 min ago:
> Never mind that (despite my personal wishes) we're not even part of
the EU (which I assume is what he means by "Europe").
Nah, Americans arenât particularly interested in which Europeans
are offended by being identified as âEuropeansâ this week. If we
say âEuropeâ without qualification weâre probably just talking
about the continent. (And no, we donât even use the word
âcontinentâ as a distinction within Europe, except when referring
to hotel breakfasts.)
Americans donât really have much of a concept of what European
identity is, and we donât really care (other than being grateful
for a few decades of relative peace after 1,000 or so years of near
constant war).
ceuk wrote 13 hours 14 min ago:
> Americans donât really have much of a concept of what European
identity is, and we donât really care
Cool. Look, I made that comment with a lot of fondness, but if this
is the case, maybe leave the European analysis to someone else..
senordevnyc wrote 12 hours 4 min ago:
Yeah, it was dripping with fondness.
ceuk wrote 4 hours 42 min ago:
It was really poorly written in hindsight. I didn't mean for it
to come across as bitter/accusatory as it does and you don't
deserve to read people talking random jabs at you when browsing
HN comments, I'm sorry
kubb wrote 16 hours 47 min ago:
Heâs a Chinese guy in the US. He thinks in terms of large
monoliths. The nuance of 40 different cultures on a small continent
might be lost on him.
Thatâs OK.
We all have some approximation of reality in our brains which is
necessarily shaped by our life experiences.
ViktorRay wrote 15 hours 25 min ago:
Your statement here is pretty ironic.
China also has many different cultures, languages and so on for the
over 1.4 billion people who live there. Why would the ânuanceâ
of Europe be âlostâ on a Chinese person?
NooneAtAll3 wrote 9 hours 44 min ago:
double ironically, your comment precisely answers your question
the two of you operate on different scale of unification - what
you see as "many different cultures", chinese and americans see
as "a single country". What they see as "Europe pulling in many
directions" - you might see as independent national interests
perhaps the best way to recognize the attitude is to think what
you feel about subsections of your country - while
Scotland/England divide is common, it's rarer to hear in what
Yorkshire differs from the Cornwall; and I bet not many people
would guess what beef is there between french citizen from
Normandy and from Nice
it is this kind of scale that allows China to build transmission
lines through the whole country's diameter. It is that kind of
scale that made americans scream at each other because of
abortion high court decision - while said decision simply said
"let states decide"
it's a lot of difference, and there's a lot of nuances "on both
sides" - but simply of a different kind
seanmcdirmid wrote 15 hours 18 min ago:
China mostly has a single national identity, and provincial
differences are way too nuanced to be mapped in the same way that
country differences in Europe would be. It would be like trying
to get Americans to understand that "Henan man" is a meme similar
to the "Florida man" meme.
canjobear wrote 6 hours 27 min ago:
I thought it was Guangxi man...
seanmcdirmid wrote 3 hours 57 min ago:
No, guangxi isnât even technically a province (another
weirdness), but having been to guangxi a few times (Guilin,
Liuzhou, and Nanning), I donât think anyone thinks much of
it beyond itâs beautiful karst and southern culture.
Anyways, there is actually a wiki article on henan:
HTML [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Henan_sentiment
tshaddox wrote 16 hours 34 min ago:
> The nuance of 40 different cultures on a small continent might be
lost on him.
I donât know about the author in particular, but Americans are
generally aware of the ânuancedâ European history of near
constant war between rival nations, states, factions, and
religions.
kubb wrote 16 hours 28 min ago:
I think they could do a better job communicating that, but Iâm
glad that Americans are educated and curious about other parts of
the world.
kankerlijer wrote 16 hours 40 min ago:
There is something very irritating seeing someone dismiss someone
else on the internet using condescending therapy speak 'Thats Ok',
nevermind the fact that calling him out as some ignorant Chinese
guy while China has hundreds of cultures and languages, as if a
Chinese person couldn't comprehend... Europe.
hahaxdxd123 wrote 5 hours 38 min ago:
It's a European guy coping on HN.
That's OK.
They have no idea my sub-region of California produces the entire
GDP of their country.
booleandilemma wrote 5 hours 46 min ago:
Europe and China are quite different, historically and
culturally. It would make sense that people from the two regions
wouldn't know about each other. The world is full of detail. As
someone who's lived in both the west and asia I'm still surprised
by little differences I see every week.
kubb wrote 16 hours 31 min ago:
The way to respect isnât through shaming people into it. Itâs
through demonstration of value, in this case understanding of
nuance.
Instead we get an application of external logic and values which
canât be used to properly reason about the entity theyâre
applied to.
Thereâs no need for frustration. We take the stoic approach
here. Itâs OK. You are a product of your environment.
Everything youâve ever experienced told you this is the way to
act.
dalyons wrote 9 hours 40 min ago:
FWIW this comes across as very condescending to me too. Maybe
try a different framing.
kubb wrote 2 hours 36 min ago:
Interestingly, youâre demonstrating arrogance.
All youâre bringing to the discussion is âmy feelings are
hurtâ. And youâre putting the onus to fix that on me.
You have the power to change your paradigm, but you refuse
to. Others have to see things through your lens, you wonât
have the flexibility to change yours for a moment.
Meanwhile Iâve started with a plausible explanation of why
someone sees things differently.
From the get go, I had more willingness to understand than
you did.
Howâs that for a framing?
npalli wrote 16 hours 58 min ago:
Just like San Francisco and Dallas/Texas (from his article) are very
different in the US, we should expect lot of differences in Europe
(as others mentioned, he clubs UK with EU). Housing is a general
problem for all major cities though, not sure why you think it is
unique to London in the whole continent. Stockholm, Paris, Dublin,
Lisbon to name a few, are pretty bad for housing in their own unique
ways. Certainly shouldn't be "breaking your brain".
verbify wrote 16 hours 27 min ago:
> Just like San Francisco and Dallas/Texas (from his article) are
very different in the US, we should expect lot of differences in
Europe
Dallas and San Francisco are both English speaking cities with a
shared recent history of being part of the same nation. Most cities
in Europe are as close as New York and Mexico City - Dallas and San
Francisco is probably more analogous to Milan and Naples (different
cultures, different histories, but now speak the same language and
are part of the same nation).
BrokenCogs wrote 17 hours 23 min ago:
It's pretty clear he meant Europe as the continent, which London is a
part of.
It's very similar to "Europeans" broadly generalizing the US as one
homogenous country, assuming everyone and everything in Chicago is
the same as New York or Dallas.
Source: me, a brit, who has lived and worked in UK and US.
xixixao wrote 17 hours 24 min ago:
Heâs writing about China and US. Sure, you can call Europe more
diverse, but still it makes sense to draw some generalizations, and I
donât think heâs far from the mark (having myself lived in EU, UK
and US).
yunnpp wrote 17 hours 30 min ago:
"Africa"
ksec wrote 17 hours 55 min ago:
In the thread "Roomba maker goes bankrupt, Chinese owner emerges" [1],
I wrote about China'a hardware capability now going far beyond what US
can imagine. In Dan's article;
>A rule of thumb is that it takes five years from an American, German,
or Japanese automaker to dream up a new car design and launch that
model on the roads; in China, itâs closer to 18 months.
Not only is China 3 - 5 times faster in terms of product launches, they
would have launch it with a production scale that is at least double
the output of other auto marker. If you were to put capacity into the
equation as well, China is an order of magnitude faster than any
competing countries, at half the cost if not even lower.
Every single year since 2022 China has added more solar power capacity
than the entire US solar capacity. And they are still accelerating,
with the current roadmap and trend they could install double the entire
US solar power capacity in a single year by 2030.
CATL's Sodium Ion Battery is already in production and will be used by
EVs and large scale energy storage by end of this year. The cost
advantage of these new EV would mean there is partially zero chance EU
can compete. And if EU are moaning about it now, they cant even imagine
what is coming.
Thanks to AI pushing up memory and NAND price. YMTC and CXMT now have
enough breathing room to catch up. If they play this right, I wont be
surprised by 2035 30 - 40% of DRAM and NAND will be made by the two
Chinese firms. Although judging from their past execution record I
highly doubt this will happen, but expect may be 10-15% maximum.
Beyond tech, there are also other part of manufacturing that China has
matched or exceeded rest of the world without being noticed by many.
Lab Grown Diamond, Cosmetic Production, Agricultural Machinery,
Reinforced glass etc. Their 10 years plan on agricultural improvement
also come to fruition especially in terms of fruit and veg. I wont be
surprised if they no long need US soy bean within 10 years time.
All in all a lot of things in China has passed escape velocity and
there is no turning back. China understand US better than US understand
themselves, and US doesn't even have any idea about China. I think the
quote from the article sums this up pretty well.
"Beijing has been preparing for Cold War without eagerness for waging
it, while the US wants to wage a Cold War without preparing for it.".
HTML [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46273326
dworks wrote 7 hours 27 min ago:
Whenever the topic of "China Speed" comes up, I feel the need to add
that speed is not a strategy but an outcome of the previous four
decades of relentless hard work:
HTML [1]: https://dilemmaworks.com/on-china-speed
mns wrote 2 hours 26 min ago:
Relentless work, or simply not caring about the people that you
need to crunch in order to achieve the outcomes that you want. The
western world could also build things fast again and innovate
faster, we just seem to value human life a bit more now that we
used to...
jjcc wrote 7 hours 20 min ago:
That's a very important point that most people missed. China spent
decades to achieve the current status. Especially the investment in
education, i.e. Human Resource, the most effective ROI but need
very long term commitment.
Western countries should do the same and do it continuously without
consider the economic reward.
dworks wrote 7 hours 10 min ago:
Indeed. What we need to do in Europe is spend the next three
decades building the industrial, social, technological
environment that gives China the advantages it has today, and
enables "China Speed". I am worried that we will not do it until
after we have gone through a deep crisis, however.
riku_iki wrote 13 hours 39 min ago:
that's obvious that some country with 1.5B working people will have
edge in some niches, and will demonstrate tremendous growth from the
bottom where they were 20 years ago.
But for global picture, if we are comparing Western World:
US+Canada+EU vs China in technological domination, the picture is
likely not super-clear and more complex analysis is required. Even if
we consider manufacturing output, where China is supposedly global
leader, we see it is 5.5T for Western world vs 4.6T for China
(according to my brief google searching).
ksec wrote 6 hours 54 min ago:
>we see it is 5.5T for Western world vs 4.6T for China (according
to my brief google searching).
I would bet the unit volume of manufacturing with those 4.6T is
more than double that of 5.5T. And those 5.5T likely have some very
high value, high margin leading edge equipment.
Not only is China catching up to those sectors, they are continuing
their momentum to accelerate and expand in other low value market.
They key here isn't to maximise profits, it is to maximise control.
If Trade is war, which is the fundamental of principle of what "Art
of War" is about, then I dont see how the west could win this war
without some very drastic changes.
riku_iki wrote 6 hours 34 min ago:
> I would bet the unit volume of manufacturing with those 4.6T is
more than double that of 5.5T. And those 5.5T likely have some
very high value, high margin leading edge equipment.
sure, and what's your point? My opinion is that high margin
leading edge equipment is more interesting direction than low
cost low tech produce.
immibis wrote 2 hours 0 min ago:
They keep increasing and increasing the level of what they can
produce. Within a couple of decades they will overtake TSMC,
ASML, etc. If you're thinking about how the west still does all
the design, they will produce their own computer architectures
(Loongarch is outpacing RISC-V) and chips and operating
systems. IIRC they're now able to make their own chips and
chip-making equipment at a decade-old technology level and
that's rapidly catching up.
nradov wrote 17 hours 47 min ago:
China doesn't particularly need US soybeans but they're going to have
to continue importing soybeans from somewhere (like Brazil or Canada)
indefinitely. Like any commodity, soybeans are (somewhat) fungible.
China doesn't have the right combination of arable land and cheap
fertilizer necessary to be self-sufficient in soy at an economically
viable cost. Of course, China's population is now declining so
ironically that could increase their food security in a few decades.
maxglute wrote 15 hours 17 min ago:
Along ops reasoning, PRC will find domestic slop to feed pigs.
There's already soybean replacement program in the pipelines, i.e.
synthetic science + cheap power = future industrial substitutes.
Because soybean conundrum is arable land (all sorts of soybean
yield, lack of GMO, small plot farmer complexity mixed in), but
pork prices fall under broad food (national) security so expect
autarky > comparative advantage / cost when domestic pipeline in
place. Like there's no reason for PRC to pay US soybean premium
over Brazil, but they would because economic viability not as
important.
TBH Anything strategic, expect PRC to adopt energy-to-matter to
substitutes when the teach stack is figured out. Or at least have
as less economic backup, i.e. PRC has unlimited cheap fertilizer
(was top fertilizer producer via coal gasification) just more
emission heavy. They're on way to displace all oil imports with
coal to olefin/liquidation and EV. HQ steel via simply hammering
energy into mid ores. All signs point they're moving towards
strategic domestic abundance / autarky where they can.
dzonga wrote 18 hours 9 min ago:
London has the house prices of California and the income levels of
Mississippi.
the UK is seriously broken, I always reflect on the energy generation
statistics of the UK per capita
while in the US you see automated car washes, in the uk most car washes
are Albanians n other immigrants etc
Nextgrid wrote 5 hours 41 min ago:
The UK is a third-world country with first-world cost of living.
i_love_retros wrote 13 hours 10 min ago:
Yes but London isn't in America so there's that.
Have you lived in the UK at all, or at least spent considerable time
there?
I've lived in the UK and America, and America seems far more broken
to me.
zeroonetwothree wrote 9 hours 35 min ago:
Iâve lived in an actual âbrokenâ country. Compared to that
both the US and UK are great.
pron wrote 13 hours 18 min ago:
London doesn't have the income level of Mississippi, although that
might be true for the UK average. I'd say that the UK may be
"seriously broken", but not more so than other post-industrial
countries, including the US (or France, or Japan). It's just broken
in different ways. E.g. life expectancy in the UK is significantly
higher than in America even though they were the same in the '80s.
Education levels (and measures such as literacy profficiency and
skills etc.) are also significantly better in the UK than in the US.
Somewhat tongue in cheek, Americans are richer but they don't seem to
be putting their money to good use, as Brits are better educated and
live longer.
jemmyw wrote 14 hours 6 min ago:
> while in the US you see automated car washes, in the uk most car
washes are Albanians n other immigrants etc
Er what? I moved away from the UK in 2007 but even then the only
place I or my parents washed a car was the ubiquitous petrol station
automated car wash.
hereonout2 wrote 12 hours 51 min ago:
Is it that unimaginable things might have changed in the almost two
decades since you left?
jemmyw wrote 11 hours 26 min ago:
Yes, it is unimaginable that the UK has replaced most of their
automated car washes with immigrants washing cars manually. I've
been back there and I've still family there, it's not that
different "on the ground" as it were, despite the big political
changes.
whyleyc wrote 12 hours 12 min ago:
I live in the UK now, have done for 40+ years and there are
(still) automated car washes everywhere.
basisword wrote 13 hours 4 min ago:
No idea where OP is based but like most suggestions about the UK or
London online it's bullshit. Most petrol stations have the same
automated car washes they've always had. If you want your car hand
washed there are lots of people doing that too, as there always
have been. Like all places, the UK and/or London has plenty of
issues including serious ones - but I'd still pick it over anywhere
in the US regardless of salary differences.
hereonout2 wrote 12 hours 52 min ago:
Conversely, I've no idea where you or the parent has the idea
that the UK is full of automated car washes and the OP is talking
bullshit. I live in London and can think of a only a handful of
the old fashioned automatic car washes.
Whereas I can get a hand carwash at pretty much any supermarket
car park I land on. From a guy with a bucket and trolley to a
full team of four going at it with a power wash. Tesco,
Sainsbury's, wherever.
The Albanian angle feels loaded, but it's true that many of the
employees do seem to be recent immigrants.
I don't see much point denying this reality, it feels a bit like
trying to argue there's always been high streets full of betting
shops, charity shops, vape stores and American candy shops.
hdgvhicv wrote 2 hours 4 min ago:
London is a small part of the U.K. with a below average number
of cars. Itâs an anomaly compared to the 85% of the U.K.
which is normal.
basisword wrote 12 hours 9 min ago:
London is an odd one as space is limited and the hand wash
places can pop up anywhere quite easily. If I look at the more
suburban place I'm from most petrol stations still have the
automated ones (contactless payment now instead of the tokens).
And most of the larger supermarkets there that have petrol
stations still have the automated car washes too.
drcongo wrote 13 hours 53 min ago:
I can only think of one automated wash in my UK town, and well over
10 "Albanian" hand washes. Personally I go to the Albanians every
time - they take pride in what they're doing, handle the vehicle
with care and do a far, far better job than an auto wash.
verbify wrote 16 hours 11 min ago:
I spot checked some of this and from what I can find, the median
salary in London is about $12k more than Mississippi, and the median
house price in London is about $100k less than California.
Bear in mind that obviously the mean salary in London is going to be
far higher than the median (the finance industry will skew it), while
I'm not sure that's as extreme as Mississippi. Additionally median
salaries reflect a lot of service jobs and similar labour. Dubai has
a lower median wage than either London or Mississippi, but people
don't think of it as economically broken.
Comparing California (an extremely large state that I presume has
cheaper housing outside major urban areas) to a city seems a bit of a
poor comparison.
I don't disagree that the UK has high energy costs.
SamDc73 wrote 7 hours 52 min ago:
> Dubai has a lower median wage than either London or Mississippi,
but people don't think of it as economically broken.
Dubai isnât sold as a place to belong long-term. Most people move
there knowing itâs temporary.
The Bay Area is drifting in the same direction too with the
increased cost of living around here. (but the same could be said
about most big cities, maybe?)
financetechbro wrote 13 hours 29 min ago:
Dubai is absolutely economically broken lol. The city was built on
cheap foreign slave labor. And the luxurious amenities of the city
are only for the wealthy royal and foreigners. Their main export
besides oil is the illusion of a thriving metropolis
Cyph0n wrote 13 hours 4 min ago:
The example I like to use to demonstrate how broken labor vs.
service costs are in the UAE is to compare the price of a Big Mac
meal to the price of a standard manual car wash (closer to
detailing tbh).
In the UAE, a Big Mac meal costs approximately 35 AED ($10). On
the other hand, a manual car wash - approx. 1-2 hours of labor -
can cost you around 20 AED.
In other words, you could get almost two manual car washes for
the price of a Big Mac.
ineedaj0b wrote 8 hours 47 min ago:
You can probably get that here in the US near a high school
during team sports donation times.
Not a great car wash but probably $5-10 on the low end.
One should be uncomfortable the Arab States are doing so well.
They have no democracy but seem to be thriving. Not expected
post 9/11 imo.
Cyph0n wrote 7 hours 21 min ago:
Why should one feel uncomfortable?
robkop wrote 11 hours 19 min ago:
Can you elaborate? I would have thought the main driver for the
price of a service is the labor?
Cyph0n wrote 10 hours 23 min ago:
You essentially have two stratums of society:
(1) the middle class (and above) who have money to spend on
services
(2) the migrant working class, the bulk of whom send every
last extra penny back home as remittances to support family
The second class of people are not considered as a market for
the majority of services in the UAE. In the case of food,
when they do eat out, they frequent traditional, low
cost/quality establishments.
As for why a Big Mac costs that much, labor definitely
doesnât have much to do with it. My impression is that
prices continued to get pushed up as long as sales didnât
take a hit, which means itâs mostly pure profit.
Keep in mind that the median salary isnât that high.
Without looking it up, I would guess itâs approx $25k
USD/year, but I havenât lived there in a while.
kortilla wrote 13 hours 51 min ago:
If this was meant to be a rebuttal, it wasnât.
Compare the housing costs of London to the housing costs of San
Francisco and then swap out those Bay Area salaries with your
âslightly above Mississippiâ wages and youâll see why London
looks so broken to people used to LA/SF/NY.
lukevp wrote 14 hours 34 min ago:
If youâre trying to do a rebuttal, saying that wages are slightly
higher than Mississippi and house prices are slightly lower than
Cali doesnât refute anything, it just serves to make the example
more extreme and concrete. Look at house prices in Mississippi in
relation to their income and then compare the same ratio for Cali
and for London.
piker wrote 14 hours 7 min ago:
Also, taxes?
butvacuum wrote 6 hours 10 min ago:
tax numbers are irrelevant except as part of a takehome pay
calculation.
at the very least, pretending that health insurance isnt
another tax is a common way to derail these discussions.
piker wrote 3 hours 17 min ago:
Thatâs right if the quote is net of income tax, but that
wasnât clear. While weâre on the subject we should
include the 20% VAT (delta 5-10% sales tax in the states)
which is the most regressive tax on the poor there is.
hdgvhicv wrote 2 hours 10 min ago:
No vat on the majority of spending - from rent to food.
But buy a £50k Rolex and yes there is vat.
piker wrote 2 hours 5 min ago:
Roughly the same with sales tax, it's just 1/3rd of that
number.
> But buy a £50k Rolex and yes there is vat.
This is wildly ignorant of how less fortunate people
live. They are hit with VAT on many daily expenses.
Ignoring that fact and "tsk tsk"ing them for being
frivolous is the [British] way.
pixelpoet wrote 1 hour 26 min ago:
> the European way
There we go, the European monolith strikes again.
Because the UK and Germany and Spain and Italy and
Poland and Finland and and and are just so alike.
piker wrote 1 hour 20 min ago:
For purposes of this discussion, I believe VAT is
roughly uniform across the EU + UK and some other
European jurisdictions. Correct me if I'm wrong, but
I did update the comment to limit the critique to the
UK.
kubb wrote 16 hours 38 min ago:
Nobody will admit that the housing is overpriced, so they would have
to be forced to do so.
This is terrible for normal people, and slightly bad for the
investors, but only a crisis or organized government action can reset
the damage done by decades of investment in already existing
buildings.
The former is much more likely to happen.
xixixao wrote 17 hours 20 min ago:
There are differences, but this is oversimplified, and market is
âmostlyâ working. You need more money in California, for
transportation, for health care. The standard is bigger houses
(bigger everything) in Cali. Life might be richer, in some ways more
pleasant, in London (itâs not weather though), including shorter
flights to many interesting places.
From my experience the ratio of savings was similar, but the ppp of
course favored US for absolute numbers.
bix6 wrote 17 hours 59 min ago:
House prices are out of wack anywhere desirable because the local
income is irrelevant when non-locals are allowed to scoop up the
local supply.
socalgal2 wrote 13 hours 49 min ago:
This is a common opinion that never actually matches the facts.
The issue is all the things blocking supply. As long as supply is
blocked, prices will go up, Period
amelius wrote 12 hours 36 min ago:
But why allow e.g. Chinese investors to buy property in SF if
they aren't even going to live there?
socalgal2 wrote 10 hours 21 min ago:
1. It's only an investment because of limited supply.
2. Chinese investors buying up and not living there is
effectively a myth. There just are aren't very many of them.
3. What's special about "Chinese"? If a rich NYC finance person
buys a vacation home in SF is that ok? How about a Brit or
German?
cycrutchfield wrote 12 hours 17 min ago:
Do they pay property taxes?
fragmede wrote 11 hours 11 min ago:
In California? With prop 13? Hardly.
We invented money as a way of distributing scares resources.
When there is housing going empty while people live on the
streets in tents with no running water, no electricity, no
sewage, one has to realize that something's gone wrong.
cycrutchfield wrote 1 hour 5 min ago:
I donât think you understand how prop 13 works
amelius wrote 12 hours 13 min ago:
Maybe but that will certainly not bring down prices for the
average US citizen looking for a home.
cycrutchfield wrote 1 hour 5 min ago:
Why not?
carlosjobim wrote 15 hours 27 min ago:
Real estate prices are out of whack everywhere. Even in places with
no good jobs, low population density, and rapid depopulation, real
estate prices are increasing exponentially. There are no market
forces in play anymore.
hdgvhicv wrote 2 hours 6 min ago:
House prices in the U.K. have remained roughly the same multiple
of wages as they have been since about 2005. Thatâs not really
exponential growth.
shimman wrote 17 hours 27 min ago:
House prices are only "out of wack" in areas with poor social
housing programs.
Housing in Vienna is still affordable, only due to their very
successful public housing programs. Public housing can be both
beautiful and highly affordable if you want it to be, it's not like
we don't know how to make good quality homes with lovely public
amenities. It's mostly developers that want to skim on everything
while selling it at the highest cost possible.
Poor system if this is the outcome: unaffordability.
hdgvhicv wrote 2 hours 7 min ago:
How does Vienna ration housing - social or otherwise - if not via
price?
lifeisstillgood wrote 14 hours 9 min ago:
I am interested in what is working in Vienna when âhousing
problemâ is what almost every city in âthe Westâ has or
thinks it has.
To me it seems to be a combination of
- wealth inequality (eg 20/30 trillion dollars was printed and
furloughed out in Covid, which funnels its way up to the holders
of the most assets, seeing asset price inflation but no attempt
to tax back the money printed). Repeat on different scales for
unfair tax systems and poor infrastructure and and and
- urban planning (we think the ideal city is dense using seven
storey or so apartment buildings and fairly aggressive anti-car
(ie far less parking than seems possible) with better public
transport and lots of pedestrian access. This describes almost no
cities
- mortgages and other pro house incentives. You want house price
inflation for decade after decade, just allow people to borrow a
greater ratio against their salary â and allow married women
into the workplace. Suddenly turning a mortgage limit of 2.5 x a
manâs salary into 5x a dual couples salary. People bid up
prices, forcing more couples to have two salaries to compete. And
companies donât have to increase salary to compensate â¦
people combine salaries and go deeper into debt. Hell if you
only had one policy weapon, forcing 2.5 borrowing against one
highest paid persons salary is not a bad one. You wonât get
re-elected however.
yunnpp wrote 17 hours 51 min ago:
Countries like Indonesia have banned foreigners from owning land
altogether. You can apparently still own property through
land-lease agreements and other arrangements, but not the land. I
think they've cracked down on illegal rentals too.
klysm wrote 18 hours 8 min ago:
Income and wealth inequality! I donât see a way out for the UK
turbonaut wrote 17 hours 55 min ago:
Median wealth per adult in the UK is 176k. In the US it is only
124k.
Source: UBS Global Wealth Report 2025
Of course US does has a much higher mean wealthâ¦
hdgvhicv wrote 2 hours 3 min ago:
The wealth inequality in the U.K. is very genratioanly skewed,
mainly from the source of that wealth (housing and final salary
pensions) which is no longer available to younger people.
stackbutterflow wrote 18 hours 23 min ago:
> Narrowness of mind is something that makes me uneasy about the tech
world.
> The Bay Area has all sorts of autistic tendencies. Though Silicon
Valley values the ability to move fast, the rest of society has paid
more attention to instances in which tech wants to break things.
> Thereâs a general lack of cultural awareness in the Bay Area.
Itâs easy to hear at these parties that a personâs favorite
nonfiction book is Seeing Like a State while their aspirationally
favorite novel is Middlemarch.
It's refreshing to read someone addressing this aspect of the Mecca of
the tech word.
For the reasons above the tech elites are the ones I trust the less and
fear the most when they are involved in national and international
politics. And I think the current state of the US is directly caused by
the rise of post dot com Silicon Valley.
Anton_Ingachev wrote 18 hours 23 min ago:
Happy New year
mxschumacher wrote 18 hours 31 min ago:
My copy of Breakneck arrived a few days ago and I'm rushing through the
book, hard to put down, highly recommended
nullorempty wrote 18 hours 31 min ago:
>Lack of action due to the expectation of long timelines is one of the
sins of the lawyerly society.
>But American problems seem more fixable to me than Chinese problems.
China has stayed on trajectory of improving life of its society for a
long time. USA has been in decline all that time and decent accelerated
after Cold War with Russia ended.
All of China's growth comes from its internal resource. Growth in the
USA had been driven by exploiting other countries.
>I made clear in my book that I am drawn to pluralism as well as a
broader conception of human flourishing than one that could be
delivered by the Communist Party.
Pluralism had been eradicated in the western society. I can't speak
freely in Canada. People get cancelled or jailed for speaking their
mind in UK. US is not too far behind in that.
There is no meaningful pluralism in the West. They never make a long
term plan they can follow for many years.
China has monolithic ( more so ) society with shared culture,
language(s) and national identity that runs deep to the gene level.
They don't don't allow foreign influence to erode it. It's much easier
to make progress when people share the same long term vision and goals.
CPC is doing just fine leading the country into the future. Sure, it
has a monopoly on power, but it also owns its mistakes and fixes them.
Multiparty systems of the USA and the rest of the West are just two
curtains on the stage, and when you draw the curtains you see the same
people attending the same party.
Elected officials aim to earn as much as they can in their short stay
in power. After all, they only have a few years before they get
replaced, better make use of the short time you got.
China IMO has a much brighter outlook for the future
nradov wrote 17 hours 32 min ago:
China has very limited internal natural resources. Much of their
growth has been enabled by massive imports of raw materials including
soybeans, fertilizer, fossil fuels, iron ore, copper ore, etc. Their
prosperity and even their survival is heavily dependent on the
post-WWII global free trade system. Ironically, China's expansionist
foreign policy is one of several factors now causing that system to
fray. In another decade they might find it's not so easy to import
soybeans from Brazil and crude oil from Saudi Arabia and ores from
Australia.
I share your concerns over effective loss of freedom of expression in
western countries. In the USA at least cancel culture seems to be
dying out and people no longer feel as obligated to be politically
correct or self-censor. But the UK may be permanently lost.
NooneAtAll3 wrote 8 hours 35 min ago:
> China has very limited internal natural resources.
this kinda ignores the whole "Asia unification" that is happening
right about now
Russia created connection from Iran to North Korea. SCO coordinates
economy of the internalities. India-Russia-China are cooperating in
BRICS. China stabilized Afghanistan and builds trade routes in the
Pakistan. Even US' efforts of supporting Turkey-centered Pan-Turk
organizations in the Middle Asia turn un-american as Israel-Turkey
tensions are on the rise
China may have resources limited. Whole Asia tho? Don't really
think so
MangoToupe wrote 10 hours 54 min ago:
> In the USA at least cancel culture seems to be dying out and
people no longer feel as obligated to be politically correct or
self-censor
Americans have always been assholes and proud pedophiles. What are
you referring to?
nullorempty wrote 17 hours 27 min ago:
They have that which matters the most - people with certain set of
beliefs. That's the wealth of China, which they share generously
with the West - just look at the Chinese developers and scientists
that work in the West.
dpark wrote 10 hours 7 min ago:
Are you quoting straight out of a CCP propaganda book?
America supposedly has no resources so we are exploiting other
countries. Someone says China has no resources and suddenly the
only resource that matters is the spirit of the Chinese people.
Give me a break.
dpark wrote 18 hours 3 min ago:
> USA has been in decline all that time and decent accelerated after
Cold War with Russia ended.
Exactly when do you believe this decline started? I have some major
concerns about the current trajectory of the USA, but it seems like
nonsense to say that the US has been in decline since well before the
Cold War ended.
> I can't speak freely in Canada
I wonder what it is that you want to say but canât.
Comparing China positively against western nations and then griping
about limits on freedom of speech in western nations seems suspect
regardless.
> Elected officials aim to earn as much as they can in their short
stay in power.
Thatâs true. Unelected officials can stay in power and accrue
wealth for much longer than elected officials.
nullorempty wrote 17 hours 48 min ago:
> Exactly when do you believe this decline started?
with 'perestroyka' in the USSR which predates end of the cold war -
ever since they thought they won over communist/socialist ideas and
accelerated with the breakup of the USSR
>I wonder what it is that you want to say but canât.
Nice try, this won't provoke me.
>Thatâs true. Unelected officials can stay in power and accrue
wealth for much longer than elected officials.
Sure, sure. The systems are setup differently but you are using the
same logic for both coming from the assumption that power is used
to acquire personal wealth.
For some (many) power isn't about acquisition of wealth but about
responsibility, taking care of a hard chore. It's a mistake to
think that Xi is in power for wealth.
I often draw a parallel with being a father. You have some power,
but mostly you have responsibilities.
dpark wrote 17 hours 13 min ago:
> ever since they thought they won over communist/socialist
ideas, i.e. with the breakup of the USSR
You seem to have redefined the timeframe significantly.
Previously you indicated that the decline was happening even
before the end of the Cold War.
I donât believe that this is a true statement even since the
fall of the USSR, though. Iâd be interested in what data or
metrics this claim of decline is based on.
> Nice try, this won't provoke me.
Youâre so unprovoked that you didnât even address the
concern. You could have pointed at what you believed was
problematic suppression of free speech (of which there are
certainly some examples in western nations) without actually
divulging your apparently controversial beliefs.
Bluntly, I believe your criticism here is dishonest. Pearl
clutching about apparent suppression of free speech in the west
while pointing to a nation that sends ethnic Muslim minorities to
reeducation camps as a better system is deeply disingenuous.
> It's a mistake to think that Xi is in power for wealth.
> I often draw a parallel with being a father. You have some
power, but mostly you have responsibilities.
This is a man who refused the traditional transfer of power
within the CCP and had the Chinese constitution revised so that
he could remain in power. This is absolutely a man who wants
power and wealth.
Youâre plainly biased.
paulpauper wrote 18 hours 37 min ago:
This is such a long letter it would take me probably 3 months to write
it. I would have to end my year by September and spend the rest of the
year writing the letter.
scubbo wrote 18 hours 40 min ago:
A fascinating and eye-opening read.
One of my intentions for this coming year is to critically examine and
(if appropriate) alter or dispel some preconceptions I have. To that
end, I'm curious about this part:
> You donât have to convince the elites or the populace that growth
is good or that entrepreneurs could be celebrated. Meanwhile in Europe,
perhaps 15 percent of the electorate actively believes in degrowth. I
feel itâs impossible to convince Europeans to act in their self
interest.
Can someone elaborate on how growth is aligned with the general
interest? To my mind, although growth could _theoretically_ lead to a
"lifting all boats" improvement across the board, in practice it
inevitably leads to greater concentration of wealth for the elite while
the populace deals with negative externalities like pollution,
congestion, and advertizing. Degrowth, on the other hand, would
directly reduce those externalities; and, if imposed via progressive
taxation, would have further societal benefits via funded programs.
I'd very much like to hear the counter-argument. It would be pleasant
and convenient to believe that growth and industry are Good, Actually,
so that I needn't feel guilty for contributing to them or for
furthering my own position - but (sadly!) I can't just make myself
believe something without justification.
NooneAtAll3 wrote 8 hours 59 min ago:
it is prisoners' dilemma
if you grow - you increase total progress (and your influence on it)
but if you degrow - you concentrate your progress into smaller amount
of hands, making their life better
seems reminiscent of "left vs right" debate in politics with its
"wealth disperse vs wealth squeeze" - but with humans themselves
instead
constantcrying wrote 15 hours 40 min ago:
Believing in growth just means believing that the future will be
better than the past.
And believing this, is the single thing keeping the entire world
running.
Germany is currently ruining itself because its stagnating economy
means that it can not keep up with the rising costs for its pension
system and has to increasingly raise more funds from a smaller,
population which is seeing little productivity gains.
>Degrowth, on the other hand, would directly reduce those
externalities; and, if imposed via progressive taxation, would have
further societal benefits via funded programs.
Do you think that Germany will have social benefits at all, when the
auto industry collapses. Where is the money coming from?
Economic growth has enabled mass literacy. It has created industrial
agriculture, which eliminated hunger for economic reasons in all
countries which practice it. Degrowth means turning our back on the
single process which caused the greatest increase in human quality of
life.
elp62 wrote 17 hours 42 min ago:
In the vibrant capitalist society envisioned by Joseph Schumpeter,
all boats are lifted because better businesses replace incumbents,
both improving products for the larger society and continually
redistributing wealth. In my view, since 2008 my country (the US) has
distanced itself from this policy, instead focusing on protecting
incumbents for fear of loss of employment. The unpopular policy of
bailouts pursued in 2008-2009 and then again during the pandemic has
led to a stagnant, top-heavy economy with most of the disadvantages
of capitalism and less and less of the upside.
I don't think degrowth is necessary to solve this problem, although
I'm sure it has its merits. But I think growth can still occur
without the trend toward oligarchic or feudal society, and in fact a
society with a vibrant economy would have more growth than we do
today.
PedroBatista wrote 18 hours 3 min ago:
For all the insightful takes about everything under the Sun, Dan's
cynicism and skewed view towards "Europe" are shown in this letter.
It's not that all his takes are wrong, it's the exaggeration, the
doom and gloom and a somewhat dismissal or some unsolved personal
issues he has with "Europeans".
The irony is not lost that Dan acts as smug and dismissal as he
accuses Europeans to be.
Regarding the whole "Degrowth" thing: yes Europe has those and they
found their gold in Governmental entities and they entertain the
rich. But.. that's exactly what happens in the US too and Dan as
knowledge as he is should know this was mostly an American academia
export, he just needs to talk with some people in the very same
colleges he regularly set foot into.
Also, he should take a hint when he says historically liberal
societies have fared much better than autocratic ones even if those
are very focused and appear to make progress very quickly. Having a
few mega-bilionaires directing what the populace do or not do might
not be a smart move as it sounds. We'll see when the AI musical
chairs stops.
Btw, Europe has been dead and on the brink of destruction for a few
centuries by now. And according to experts the EU is about to
collapse 3 or 4 times a year - minimum.
crubier wrote 18 hours 20 min ago:
> Can someone elaborate on how growth is aligned with the general
interest?
Empirically, the past 200 years have seen high growth globally, and
human well being has improved massively as a result. Life expectancy
has skyrocketed, infant death, hunger have gone down to near zero,
literacy has gone up, work is much more comfortable, interesting and
rewarding, etc. But at a more fundamental level, our material quality
of life is that of literal kings. The 1st decile poorest people in
the US or Europe have much better living conditions than a king of
500 years ago. We are so lucky to benefit from this, yet we
completely forgot that fact. You complain about congestion and
advertizing, but with degrowth you would complain about hunger and
dying from cold during winter.
MontyCarloHall wrote 18 hours 13 min ago:
>But at a more fundamental level, our material quality of life is
that of literal kings.
This cannot be overstated. To wit, a Honda Accord (or equivalent
mid-range car of today) is objectively superior to a Rolls Royce
from the 90s in terms of amenities, engine power/efficiency,
quietness, build quality, safety, etc. The same is true for
quality-of-life improvements across a vast swath of consumer goods,
and therefore consumer lifestyles.
Without growth, it's unlikely we'd see those improvements manifest.
Carefully consider the lifestyle of someone living several decades
ago. Would you honestly want to live such a lifestyle yourself?
That's where degrowth likely leads. As the article says, "I feel
itâs impossible to convince Europeans to act in their self
interest. You canât even convince them to adopt air conditioning
in the summer."
allturtles wrote 16 hours 40 min ago:
> Carefully consider the lifestyle of someone living several
decades ago. Would you honestly want to live such a lifestyle
yourself?
Sure, I lived it, and it was very pleasant at the time and in
many ways better than now in retrospect. e.g. always-on access to
infinite content engines like YouTube, TikTok, X, Facebook, etc.
is probably a net negative, both for individuals and society. I
wouldn't want to go back a century or more and give up air
conditioning, dishwashers, washing machines, air travel, electric
lights. But a few decades, sure, in a heartbeat.
jimnotgym wrote 12 hours 38 min ago:
I agree, 30 years ago a working man doing 40 hours a week in a
factory could still support a family on one income and expect
to own a house. We hit a peak 30-40 years ago.
ford wrote 10 hours 54 min ago:
I hear this often, but I think this discounts the fact that
this was mostly true for the US/Western Europe at a time
where they enjoyed unilateral super-powerism as a result of
winning WWII. I'm not sure that kind of prosperity is normal
(though I hope it could be).
I'm worried the harsh reality for most humans is that life is
often not that easy. And if it is, it won't be for long
jimnotgym wrote 5 hours 9 min ago:
But there is still enough wealth for all of those houses to
exist. That tells me the world is wealthy enough, but it
is in the hands of different people
brokencode wrote 18 hours 32 min ago:
Wealth inevitably concentrates in the hands of the elite no matter
the economic conditions. There are plenty of failed states where all
the wealth ended up in the hands of warlords and dictators.
Itâs something that regularly has to be dealt with in societies
separately from the economic situation.
typeofhuman wrote 17 hours 59 min ago:
Exactly _how_ should society deal with it, and exactly _when_
should society deal with it?
brokencode wrote 16 hours 48 min ago:
Opinions vary.
There are those who think massive concentration of wealth is not
a problem at all and is just a product of healthy capitalism. Tax
is theft, and individual property rights are above all else.
There are others who want some kind of communist revolution,
where the entire structure of society and property ownership is
changed. The workers should benefit from their work as much as
the managers.
Personally, I feel like there's a middle ground to hit. We should
be able to make changes to our current system in the US without
needing anything too radical.
We have some good examples from the last century, such as trust
busting, the New Deal, and the Great Society. These programs made
major improvements without changing the country's fundamental
economic system or growth trajectory.
macintux wrote 13 hours 23 min ago:
> trust busting, the New Deal, and the Great Society.
I don't know what sea change it would take for today's GOP to
even tepidly support any of these.
jimnotgym wrote 12 hours 35 min ago:
An electorate that looks like it will certainly vote them out
if they don't change
websiteapi wrote 18 hours 50 min ago:
USA is cooked sadly, that being said being Britain 2.0 ain't too bad.
pretty much all the YC companies in the past few cohorts just are
desperately rent seeking, sad but true - go look urself
teiferer wrote 19 hours 9 min ago:
> One way that Silicon Valley and the Communist Party resemble each
other is that both are serious, self-serious, and indeed, completely
humorless.
There is a commedy show literally called Silicon Valley making fun of
what's going on in the valley and everybody I know in tech loves it and
appreciates the humor.
skeeter2020 wrote 17 hours 44 min ago:
More accurate:
There WAS a comedy called Silicon Valley that wrapped more than 5
years ago ABOUT the valley made in Hollywood by a guy with a science
background who grew up in NEW MEXICO and SAN DIEGO, featuring ACTORs,
none of them actual techies from the bay area.
otterley wrote 18 hours 54 min ago:
Right, but itâs written and produced in Hollywood, not in Silicon
Valley. The Valley, so the argument goes, could not produce
âSilicon Valleyâ the show. It provides the topic to be skewered,
but it canât skewer itself.
ossa-ma wrote 19 hours 11 min ago:
The beginning perfectly embodies the culture in Silicon Valley and
touches on a crucial part that I notice when I visit: the complete lack
of self expression or as I would put it ZERO drip.
Remove the tech, what does SF contribute to the world wrt culture?
Especially when compared to other metropolitan cities: NY, London, LA,
Tokyo.
saagarjha wrote 2 hours 4 min ago:
I think the tech unfortunately drives out the people who would
contribute this
dpark wrote 19 hours 0 min ago:
Maybe Iâm missing some nuance but are you just saying that folks in
Silicon Valley arenât cool?
decimalenough wrote 11 hours 8 min ago:
How many musicians, artists, fashion designers from the Valley can
you name? Even SF seems to be punching below its weight now that
gentrification has forced out the producers, and (as noted in the
article) the tech elite seems aggressively uninterested in
patronizing art of any kind, be it opera or nightclubs.
mjmsmith wrote 18 hours 11 min ago:
The only problem with Silicon Valley is they just have no taste.
dpark wrote 17 hours 6 min ago:
I think most people in general have no taste. But taste is also
so subjective that itâs hard to meaningfully discuss. Everyone
probably thinks they have great taste.
Part of the Silicon Valley ethos (and techie ethos in general) is
the rejection of fashion. Comfort over style. Casual over classy.
Even the âstealth wealthâ thing that trended for a while
seemed to be an expression of this. Casual wear, but really
expensive.
mopsi wrote 11 hours 23 min ago:
Rejection of fashion has always seemed like a fear of failure
to me. Trying to dress well means exposing yourself to
evaluation, comparison and the possibility of getting it wrong.
The traditions and standards of fashion have accumulated over
centuries and are fairly resistant to being redefined
(especially by rookies), which makes success depend on external
criteria and not on personal rules. Rejecting fashion
altogether removes the risk of failure.
I think this is reflected in how techies are drawn to the
safety of techwear, where fit and color matter less and
clothing can be chosen and justified through objective criteria
like weather resistance parameters.
dpark wrote 9 hours 36 min ago:
Iâm sure thatâs also a factor. But I do think itâs one
of many. Non-techies often take their fashion cues from
people they admire. If we assume techies do the same, then
they will likely be looking up to people who have largely
rejected fashion.
strange_quark wrote 19 hours 15 min ago:
> I believe that Silicon Valley possesses plenty of virtues. To start,
it is the most meritocratic part of America.
Oh come on, this is so untrue. Silicon Valley loves credentialism and
networking, probably more than anywhere else. Except the credentials
are the companies youâve worked for or whether you know some founder
or VC, instead of what school you went to or which degrees you have.
I went to a smaller college that the big tech firms didnât really
recruit from. I spent the first ~5 years of my career working for a
couple smaller companies without much SV presence. Somehow I lucked
into landing a role at a big company that almost everyone has
definitely heard of. I didnât find my coworkers to necessarily be
any smarter or harder working than the people I worked with previously.
But when I decided it was time to move on, companies that never gave me
the time of day before were responding to my cold applies or even
reaching out to _me_ to beg me to interview.
And donât get me started on the senior leadership and execs Iâve
seen absolutely run an entire business units into the ground and lose
millions of dollars and cost people their jobs, only to âpart waysâ
with the company, then immediately turn around and raise millions of
dollars from the same guys whose money they just lost.
152334H wrote 18 hours 22 min ago:
note that the first chunk of the piece spends time to analogize SV to
the CCP, in terms of its willingness to take attacks (of humor).
So, for your quote, a skeptical interpretation of the text may assert
the author was merely praising SV in the same fashion one might
appraise the party.
usui wrote 19 hours 9 min ago:
I guess I'll ask since you strongly disagree and ignoring the fact
this is very reductionist: In your opinion, what is the most
meritocratic part of America?
fhsm wrote 18 hours 55 min ago:
Isnât the obvious answer that many would refute the premise of
meaningful regional variation? In which case the claim isnât that
somewhere else is that place but rather than all places are
substantially equivalent on this difficult to measure concept (or
difference is unknown).
fastball wrote 19 hours 11 min ago:
Judging you based on the work you've done seems... very meritocratic
to me?
NooneAtAll3 wrote 9 hours 9 min ago:
meritocratic means "judgement on merit (aka skill)"
and the story told is "no judgement on skill, only on being
in-group. It's just the in-group is caused by previous employment
and not birth-right/nationality/etc"
fastball wrote 8 hours 23 min ago:
Previous employment isn't an "in-group", it's an endorsement of
your skill (assuming your references pass muster).
flumpcakes wrote 18 hours 32 min ago:
I think the OP was making the point that it isn't meritocratic, at
least that is how it read to me: they thought people where not
meaningfully different in skill level (the people at the exclusive
company being comparable to everywhere else) and that where you
worked was the new way to find the 'in' people, rather than what
university you graduated from (saying they had job offers based
purely on getting the job at the exclusive company).
You could argue that getting a job at X or Y company by itself
conveys some level of skill - but if we are honest, that is just
version of saying you went to Harvard.
There's lots of cliques everywhere in life, and various ways to
show status, SV is definitely not immune to that.
fastball wrote 15 hours 18 min ago:
Yes, that is what OP is saying, I'm just not very convinced.
Primarily because his sample size is quite small â he says the
people in his smaller, non-SV jobs were just as competent as
those in the SV company, but that could mean a number of things
that are not "SV isn't meritocratic". For example, it could just
be that his previous colleagues were more competent than the
actual national/global average, which seems probable.
coderatlarge wrote 19 hours 17 min ago:
from the piece:
â
the median age of the latest Y Combinator cohort is only 24, down from
30 just three years ago
â
does yc publish stats to validate?
bix6 wrote 18 hours 40 min ago:
Quoted as 24 vs 30 in 2022 from one of the partners here:
HTML [1]: https://www.businessinsider.com/yc-founders-younger-under-mo...
et1337 wrote 19 hours 4 min ago:
Didnât we just have a front page article about the average founder
age increasing well beyond 30 this year? Is it a non-normal
distribution or what?
bix6 wrote 18 hours 38 min ago:
Tunguz shows early 40s as the median [1] YC trends younger given
what theyâre looking for
HTML [1]: https://tomtunguz.com/founder-age-median-trend/
InitialLastName wrote 18 hours 39 min ago:
Lots of explanations with power here:
- There's a hard edge to the distribution that isn't far from 24
(I'd expect relatively few sub-18-year-old YC founders, but more
31+-year-olds)
- Older founders (with more experience, larger networks and less
life flexibility) aren't a good fit for incubators.
pr337h4m wrote 19 hours 21 min ago:
> Which of the tech titans are funny? In public, they tend to speak in
one of two registers. The first is the blandly corporate tone weâve
come to expect when we see them dragged before Congressional hearings
or fireside chats. The second leans philosophical, as they compose
their features into the sort of reverie appropriate for issuing
apocalyptic prophecies on AI.
This is just not accurate though? For example, this post from a tech
titan might not necessarily be that funny but it's neither blandly
corporate nor philosophical:
HTML [1]: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/2006548935372902751
thundergolfer wrote 18 hours 44 min ago:
1. Elon is not funny. Heâs deeply unfunny.
2. âTend toâ is the key bit youâre missing. It âtends toâ
be true that titans speak in those registers, even if it is true that
Elon, a titan, a does not.
jstummbillig wrote 19 hours 21 min ago:
Wait, how funny is this guy. That's an easy top 10 funny person out of
nowhere in my life.
bix6 wrote 19 hours 28 min ago:
Dam Wang, good read!
152334H wrote 19 hours 29 min ago:
> Beijing has been preparing for Cold War without eagerness for waging
it, while the US wants to wage a Cold War without preparing for it.
great line
DustinEchoes wrote 13 hours 50 min ago:
Too bad itâs not true. China has wanted this for a long long time.
They view their relative weakness vs the West as humiliating and
temporary, and want to correct that by any means available.
slfreference wrote 18 hours 51 min ago:
I don't care who the next hegemon will be; US or China. But please
pray, can these people tell what their next strategy is for the rest
of the world after the Cold War ends. Will the next regime advance
sciences further after whichever side wins the Cold War? Can't that
be done without the war? US has been hegemon since last 5 or so
decades; has it worked out best even ONLY for the Americans if not
for the rest of the world. I will ask a very obvious question taught
as a intuition pump by Daniel Dennett, "Then What? Then What? Then
What?". Do these blob forces have post-Cold War steps figured out for
the best of humanity, if not for whole of humanity but a national
subset.
Here is a fun representation I have in my mind:
Galactic Emperor
HTML [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfQbm8Wk2vU
NooneAtAll3 wrote 9 hours 19 min ago:
from my understanding, US strategy "for the world" is "you sell me
things, I sell you dollars, do democracy or else" - while best
China guess seems to be "build business, together, don't push your
agenda on others or else" (as with anything, these will change over
several decades tho)
but main divide seems to form on "ngo vs government" lines, imo -
and ironically the exact opposite way of the proclaimed
"authoritarian China vs USAID america" of the previous
decade-or-two. (As always, best path is somewhere in the middle
between the two)
the main thing that will happen for sure - globalization,
unification into bigger and bigger pieces will continue. Sure, big
pieces might go further from each other - but smaller ones will
will get closer and closer (unless we all die, of course)
bigyabai wrote 18 hours 31 min ago:
I don't know if it's that hard to figure out, at least in the
short-term. China's #1 goal should be to keep the value of their
currency stable and push hard on the neoliberal expansionist path.
If the United States' financialized economy starts to sag, this is
China's opportunity to provide discount stability to the nations
that China needs as allies.
NooneAtAll3 wrote 9 hours 15 min ago:
> China's #1 goal should be to keep the value of their currency
stable
this kinda goes against the very policy of China for the last
decade-2-3 of almost-manual depreciation of RMB to make export
easier
> this is China's opportunity to provide discount stability to
the nations that China needs as allies
and it's US strat to boost allies with money donations - while
China seems to be more about joint infrastructure and industry
building
apples_oranges wrote 19 hours 9 min ago:
It's not clear what the US plan even is. Move all manufacturing back
home and compete with China ASAP?
alexashka wrote 11 hours 45 min ago:
It all falls into place if you contemplate the possibility that
there is no US.
There's stock market bros, kill people bros, government welfare
bros and some mega business bros.
None of them want to know anything beyond my kids go to private
school, get nepo baby job.
This is what humans are capable of - not just in USA, as a species.
USA's 'plan' or rather inevitability is to fall apart. China will
be the next power and it'll also fall apart, like USSR fell apart
and USA is falling apart for the world to see.
Maybe in another few thousand years it'll be different, I doubt it.
Read Plato's Republic you're above 140 IQ - it spells it all out so
nicely that one you grok it, you need not know much of anything
else regarding politics.
loudmax wrote 17 hours 50 min ago:
The "US plan," is driven by the executive office. That is to say,
the by the US president.
Insofar as there is any plan, the current officeholder's priorities
are to project the appearance of personal power on television. If
you're wondering what's going on strategically, don't go thinking
that there's some grand plan, or even an intention to benefit the
United States in the long term. There are some people in the
cabinet who are thinking long term, but that's not universal, and
that's not what they're selected for. Every action that is taken
is to satisfy the president's narcissism and ego in the present
moment. You have to understand the "US plan" in this light for
anything coming out of the executive office to make sense.
glitchc wrote 18 hours 14 min ago:
The US doesn't have a plan, it has a framework. The framework
allows it to be nimble in a way that centralized economies (like
China) can never match. My money's on the US out-competing everyone
else in the long run.
seanmcdirmid wrote 17 hours 47 min ago:
I canât tell if this is sarcasm or if you are serious. The
USAâs framework is to just wish for things to happen and then
be surprised when those things donât happen. There is basically
no executing plan beyond grifting money to a few corporations
because they supported the president during the election.
shimman wrote 17 hours 10 min ago:
Seriously, and we have one of the most centrally planned
economies in existence, it's just controlled by the elites
rather than through democratic norms as it was during the new
deal coalition.
lawn wrote 18 hours 22 min ago:
Plan?
They don't even have a concept of a plan.
dfxm12 wrote 18 hours 33 min ago:
The US plan is to enrich oligarchs who are friendly with Trump and
to enact white nationalist policies.
Anything beyond that is just like a kid playing an arcade game
without putting any quarters in.
jaapz wrote 19 hours 0 min ago:
With trump at the helm, do you think there is much of a plan?
anon7000 wrote 19 hours 5 min ago:
Even if itâs a goal, itâs not a plan. The article talks about
it, but Bidenâs push for manufacturing wasnât very aggressive,
and Trump has basically stopped it. Weâve seen a loss in
manufacturing jobs from tariffs and Trump idiotically deported
Korean engineers working in local battery production plants. Simply
protecting our existing companies (which are not very efficient,
see shipbuilders) is not even close to enough to competing
pityJuke wrote 19 hours 31 min ago:
As someone unfamiliar with the author, I had a deep amount of cynicism
for the length of this piece... but damn, it's good, top to bottom.
andrepd wrote 11 hours 48 min ago:
Hard disagree. How many paragraphs of fawning over the unique culture
of the Bay Area must I endure before he arrives at the point?
Such gems as
> I like SF house parties, where people take off their shoes at the
entrance and enter a space in which speech can be heard over music,
which feels so much more civilized than descending into a loud bar in
New York. Itâs easy to fall into a nerdy conversation almost
immediately with someone young and earnest.
senordevnyc wrote 10 hours 20 min ago:
Just quoting a paragraph means nothing, whatâs the actual problem
you have here?
Iâve lived in both SF and now NYC, and that characterization is
painting with a broad brush, but isnât ridiculous.
nozzlegear wrote 19 hours 3 min ago:
I agree. At first I briefly skimmed it and thought it was going to be
a puff piece on China's AI efforts (unfair of me), but a couple
paragraphs caught me and I read the whole thing. I'm glad I did.
url00 wrote 19 hours 38 min ago:
As often the case with Dan's letters, a well balanced take on many
issues. I particularly appreciated the thoughts on AI and (what I read)
the undertone of infrastructure being the real differentiator between
the US effort and China. We'll see how it plays out this year. "May you
live in exciting times" etc.
kaonwarb wrote 19 hours 39 min ago:
I recommend Danâs book ( [1] ) to those wanting to better understand
China - and the United States.
HTML [1]: https://danwang.co/breakneck/
mattding wrote 4 hours 38 min ago:
+1 biggest takeaway from me was that China / Asian societies
emphasize process knowledge, which does not seem to be the case for
U.S. tech in my working experience.
decimalenough wrote 15 hours 7 min ago:
+1, it's a great read.
It also defies easy summaries, but my biggest takeaways were that 1)
the CCP really doesn't care about the costs any of its policies
(one-child, zero COVID, etc) impose on its citizenry, and 2) that the
CCP is actively preparing China for a world where it's entirely cut
off from the West, because it realizes that's the price to pay for
invading Taiwan.
libraryofbabel wrote 19 hours 15 min ago:
One of the best books I read this year. I think a lot of HN readers
will like it. A really balanced take on China that also digs deep
into the perennial question of âwhy canât we build big
infrastructure projects in the US?â that comes up here quite often.
veritascap wrote 15 hours 56 min ago:
We used to build those infrastructure projects.
libraryofbabel wrote 15 hours 41 min ago:
Well of course, and the book digs a little into the history as
well, and what changed around the 1960s/70s. There is a long
section on Robert Moses, for example. He draws a lot of parallels
between modern China and the US in the 19th and early 20th
centuries - totally different political systems, but similar
âbreakneckâ ability to build.
DIR <- back to front page