So apparently, there aren't any Chinese companies making a point of telling people they are Chinese, and US consumers don't care enough to look for the "Made in ..." notice.
I sort of avoid food from China. Oddly, chemicals from China are ok, but I rationalize because they're in milligram quantities, so impurities are also relatively small, and they get GC/MS'd.
I also avoid software/security products from China and Chinese-controlled entities. To some extent, I'd like to include hardware, but that's essentially impossible. I avoid Huawei and ZTE at least, but I still buy Apple, Lenovo, etc.
I would probably not trust security software written by a Chinese citizen in the US who had extensive ongoing personal/family connections to China. I would use a game, and probably general purpose stuff. It makes me sad that this position is justified by the threat environment. I tend to feel the same way about most of Eastern Europe/Russia, too, although perhaps less acutely.
The horrible thing about all of this is that Chinese and fUSSR developers are some of the smartest/best in the world.
There are some things I will not buy if they're made in some countries, of which China is just one. There are other things that I don't care where in the world they were produced.
There's a definite relationship between the length of time I expect to own or use a product, the country's reputation for products of that type, and which of the two categories it falls in.
>There's a definite relationship between the length of time I expect to own or use a product, the country's reputation for products of that type, and which of the two categories it falls in.
Same.
How I intend to use (entertainment vs work) the product and the implications of its failure (annoyance vs injury) factor as well.
I feel the same way. You can infer quality by the packaging (and country of manufacture) in some cases, but other times it's a tossup between Chinese, Indian, U.S. or wherever else. The safest bet it is to limit purchases by reputation for that particular type of item depending on cost and lifetime.
"Knowingly" seems to be the key word here: if you surveyed most Americans (or consumers elsewhere, for that matter) on how many of them know the country of origin for most brands, the results would be very hit or miss. I don't think too many people realize or remember that Samsung is Korean, nor that Nokia is Finnish. And to a concrete example of a Chinese company, I think hardly anyone knows Lenovo's origins.
The article even points out as much: in many cases, the Chinese brands go out of their way to do nothing that would reveal themselves to be Chinese brands. And by the time the brand is successful in a country, I'd suspect that brand's origin will matter very little.
Yes, but is this really relevant? You can't actively do or not do something at all unless you do so "knowingly." Of course it's an important part of the question, but even there it's redundant, and belaboring it seems pointless.
Of course the same 3/10 Americans will not flinch when they buy Chinese manufactured iPods and other gadgets. Since, China doesn't own the brand. It's clearly not about nationalism, but about a general distaste for China. The same Americans will probably snag a BMW or a Mercedes without a second thought.
For those of you defending Chinese made goods, that's understandable. I don't think anyone should take a nationalist viewpoint on these issues.
However, you should note that political prisoners in China's Laogai are often manufacturing some of the Chinese goods you consume, which are not labeled as such, and made in violation of Chinese law. A quick google turns up this: http://laogai.org/system/files/pdf/inland_web.pdf More googling will inevitably turn up that products such as sesame street (tm) slippers, toilet paper, and other big box store staples are made this way. See also: http://laogai.org/blog/laogai-museum-window-china%E2%80%99s-...
Though the term "Laogai" is dated and China stopped referring to them that way in the 90s, a documentary by Al-Jazeera English (Which got the news network EXPELLED from China) makes me think a lot different:
Yeah, but... actually export products already have much better quality control than domestic-oriented products we ordinary chinese consume everyday, except our great leaders who have special farms around the countries producing organic "特供品"s for them) , We envy you Americans!
At the outskirt of my city there's a special farming zone producing high quality vegetables for Japan, I always wonder what dose that taste like, must be very delicious.
There're many merchants/stores here selling defective items (B品/外單） western companies rejected. It's very popular among young people, especially clothes.
Ownership doesn't bother me as much as quality control. Cheap stuff often compromises quality regardless of source. As much as possible I try not to buy food sourced from outside Australia or New Zealand as I don't trust the regulatory environments elsewhere and don't want to be eating European mystery meat or Chinese melamine. I don't really care about source so much if it is a phone or tv.
Given the US's annual trade deficit with China is more than a quarter of a trillion dollars and growing every year by some $20 billion (i.e. an extra month's worth of trade balance per annum), surveys of this kind are not worth the pixels they are printed on.
One day at home we played a game where we all reached for some random thing within arms reach and I think it was 8 out of 10 had 'Made in China' on them somewhere.
I don't care what country owns the brand as long as it is dependable and well made. Chinese products have a big stigma of being cheaply made. There are also a lot of reports of products from China containing unhealthy levels of lead. It would be great if most of the products being sold are made in your home country, but until prices are matched, it would be a while until that happens.
There is a nice psychological feeling that some people feel when they are connected in some way to the manufacturer of goods which they consume.
Personally, I enjoy the experience of purchasing bread from my local independent baker, as compared to purchasing a factory-made loaf at the grocery store.
This doesn't necessarily mean the good has to be made in the person's home country; I think a similar feeling is derived after traveling to a brewery in another country, for example, and then drinking that same brew when you get back home. (In which case, problems like this might even been partly attributed to a lack of tourism to the exporting country!)
Because I'd rather support the economy of Wisconsin than the economy of Chengdu. I like people in Wisconsin, can't really relate to people in Chengdu, and then there is the whole militarily adverse repressive communist regime thing.
Beyond that, I have no desire to contribute to the externalization of pollution, health and safety risks, etc, that come from exporting production overseas.
I think globalization is utterly ridiculous when countries are allowed to engage in a "race to the bottom" as China has by destroying its environment and poisoning its people to be more competitive against Western nations that aren't willing to do those things.
"I like people in Wisconsin, can't really relate to people in Chengdu"
I was raised multiculturally and have grown more cosmopolitan since leaving home, so I understand my reaction is a marginal one, but this emotion scared me. I am familiar with your comments on HN and so know you are an incredibly intelligent human being. Why, still, do you exclusively penalise the other party for unfamiliarity, which is a bilateral function? Why are intranational and international wealth inequality seen as diametrically opposed subjects?
Even as a monoculturally raised Midwesterner (US), I share this feeling (certainly not specific to or directed at the GP, but in general).
Why one person deserves to work more than another, or one company deserves your business more than another, solely based on where they are on the globe, is beyond me.
Personally, I think it's one of the last vestiges of patriotism/nationalism that otherwise rational, worldly people for some reason still hold on to. Hopefully we can get past it.
> Why, still, do you exclusively penalise the other party for unfamiliarity, which is a bilateral function?
Because social relations aren't symmetric. Successful societies are built on: families, local communities, and national unity (in that order). This is nearly universal. Certainly, someone in Chengdu cares far more about his neighbors than he cares about me!
> Why are intranational and international wealth inequality seen as diametrically opposed subjects?
I view things that way because poor people in America are part of the same body politic as myself, while poor people in China are not. The well-being of people on the south side of Chicago or in the Bronx affects me directly. The well-being of people in China does not.
The ironic thing is that the Chinese wouldn't find my viewpoint curious. Of course your own community is more important than other peoples' communities, and your nation more important than other peoples' nations. It's a self-evident truth in Asian culture.
> poor people in America are part of the same body politic as myself, while poor people in China are not.
...and you don't see that as the problem worth fixing?
I live in Canada, where we get copies of all the social-policy laws from the US forced upon us as treaties [to ensure Americans don't just drive up here for their marijuanas or what-have-you] with no ability to actually vote in the US elections that control these laws. This is just a mild case of a power imbalance that's much more pronounced in countries that rely on the US for much of their GDP (usually based entirely around exports.)
There's only one world economy, and it affects all of us, but only some of us are living in countries that get to affect it with each swing of local political sentiment. It would probably be beneficial to all of us--even you all in the US--for that to change.
Treaties aren't forced on Canada; they're bought from Canada, and Canada sells them. Complain to your own government.
I like how quickly the framing of discussions jumps around in political arguments on HN; we start by talking about a government so authoritarian that individual police officers can arrest, try, and sentence you for up to a year in a labor camp on the spot, and we end up talking about how repressive the US is because we still criminalize marijuana.
China, by the way, publicly executes drug prisoners.
As I said, it's a power imbalance, with "force" being in the economic-coercive sense, not the threat-of-physical-violence sense: "do this, or we won't let you sell anything to us, so no entrepreneur or investor who cares about 'size of market' will want anything to do with you, so you'll run out of GDP-growth and your economy will stagnate." See: Cuba. Alternatively, "we'll take away the sweet deal [usually a tariff on a more productive country] that you've built your entire economy upon." See: Cambodia.
Don't see China in either case, though--they're in a very special position; they have enough population to sell to on their own, but they're also heavily invested in American credit markets. America has economic-coercive power over them in the same way a bad debtor has economic-coercive power over their credit card company: if you default, they get screwed, so they want to make sure they don't do anything that screws up your ability to pay them back, even if it would be good for their profit otherwise.
---
Also, as a note on framing: by thinking of the conversation as "jumping around," you're committing the Fallacy Of Linear Discourse In A Threaded Comment System (which I obviously just made up the name for, though I've heard it described before.)
Posts organized into a tree-structure are by default tangents from, not replies to, their parent. Only one subthread of each thread needs to actually "continue the conversation" -- the rest can have whatever other purpose their authors wish. Soapboxing for their personal issues, pedantry and pointing out typos, wordplay on the parent's speech, &c.
It's a self-perpetuating fallacy, since people who think threaded conversations are linear actually cause this jumping-around in the first place, by trying to force "the" conversation "back to the topic at hand."
This confuses enough people that I'm trying to work out a threaded-commenting UI where replies move down--like a message board--and only tangents move to the right (and default to closed.)
Notice that this post is actually two posts: one is a reply, and then the other, after the line, is a tangent. Don't they seem like they should be treated separately by the UI? :)
I'm not sure how you can look around the world and decide that what would make people in the U.S. better off is to make our body politic even more heterogenous and schizophrenic. We have enough trouble with Texas and California in the same union.
I look around the world and what I see is that the countries people generally admire from the point of view of quality of life: the Scandinavian countries, Japan, etc, have a high degree of cultural and political homogeneity and unity. Meanwhile, I see a European Union in meltdown because of the difficulty of forming a political union between people in countries with very different economies and cultures.
I also see international organizations like the United Nations that are deeply dysfunctional, and fundamentally compromised by the influence of a number of Asian, Middle Eastern, and African countries who bring to it their basically corrupt political systems. Don't get me wrong, I think the U.N. is great for things like coordinating disaster relief and whatnot, but I can't imagine a world where something like the U.N. exercising political influence in the U.S. would in any way be good for Americans.
Oh, I'm definitely not suggesting that American's own body politic should grow, by any means. If anything America could do with being split into about four different countries. (Not on any usefully-simple geographical lines, though; something more like "charter cities"/"special economic zones" might do better. An ideal division might be "The United Farmlands of America" and "The United Metropolises of America", since each group has pretty homogeneous opinions on how "their country" should be run.)
It would certainly be nice, though, if countries of people who do have homogeneous bodies politic, where country A is interested in the political decisions country B make because they affect A, could somehow trade something of their own for the right to have their own people get some control over A's affairs. They might, perhaps... buy stock in A? :)
(There's actually a lot of things putting governmental-policy "stocks" on a global market would solve, when you think about it. Certainly problems too, of course, but consider, for one thing, that it offers a workable alternative to "takeover by war" and "eternal austerity" that some Eurozone countries have been looking for for years now: "takeover by transfer of controlling equity as a liquidated asset during default.")
Sure, but let's make no mistake: the people in Chengdu don't buy into this silly idea that they should care as much about the people in Wisconsin as they do about their neighbors just because "everyone is just people."
And yet I've met people from Xinjiang and Sichuan who share my feelings about other people and view things through the lens of international solidarity on a personal, human level. What's your point? That the risk of 'white guilt' is a reason not to discard indefensible perspectives like xenophobia and othering?
I have no control over what people in Chengdu think about me. I can only control what I think. I think I'm stronger as a result of free trade, and I even think that's true for my family, community, state, and nation.
Sure, but they probably feel more a connection to people locally. This is reflected by the psychological concept of propinquity. It's a powerful influence in our world.
> I like people in Wisconsin, can't really relate to people in Chengdu, and then there is the whole militarily adverse repressive communist regime thing.
Think about the cute pandas.
> I'm happy to pay a little more
The problem is that its not just a "little more." I remember the 80s before China became a manufacturing powerhouse, and many things just got so much cheaper in the 90s.
I like people in Wisconsin, can't really relate to people in Chengdu
The people in Wisconsin will be better off if they produce something at which their comparative advantage is the highest. You'd harm them, as well yourself and the Chinese people, by shifting the allocation of resources slightly away from optimal for all these parties.
I would like to believe that, but I really don't. I'm not convinced that people in Wisconsin are better off in the long run if we trade with China rather than bomb it (to set up two extremes). That is to say, I'm not convinced free trade is Pareto efficient.
Would you mind if I ask you to elaborate? I can think of two ways to read this
1. If the USA bombs China, and China fights back, that means a global war and global wars accelerate the progress of science and technology, therefore in the long run people in Wisconsin will be better off just like quite possibly they are better off now than they'd be in the alternative universe where World War II never happened (where they might not have satellite TV, GPS navigation, nuclear energy, computers etc.)
2. If the USA continues to trade with China, in a number of years China may become equally as powerful as USA or more and then China may choose to go to war with America and win.
Did you mean any of the two? I'm assuming the long run part is critical since in the short term it's fairly obvious that people in Wisconsin and everywhere would be worse off if the US bombed China.
So a common reason given for U.S. prosperity in the 1950's and 1960's was that the industrial base of the rest of the world was decimated which made the U.S. the unmatched economy in the world. I'm not saying whether it's true or not, I'm just saying that it's something people say. To the extent that's true, doesn't that mean it would be better to bomb countries like China and India to keep them from competing with us? I'm not saying we should, but isn't that the implication?
My point is that while I think globalized free trade probably maximizes world GDP (to the extent you can deal with externalities like pollution in the developing world), I don't think it's necessarily the course of action that maximizes prosperity for Americans. I wouldn't say that it definitely doesn't--I'm just not convinced.
Whereas I actually identify more strongly with a hacker in Chengdu than with an old age pensioner, former government worker, in the Bronx. Or a banker.
China is a debunking of the idea that you need either free markets or political freedom to have an effective economy. It's still a tightly planned economy where the state either has a heavy involvement with or outright owns key industries. And politically, it's not a "democracy" in any sense of the word.
Presumably because they would like to support people closer to home. International commerce is very important for exchange of ideas and cultures and is enriching for all involved so long as the makers of the goods aren't being exploited as is sometimes the case.
Presumably because they would like to support people closer to home
But does making most of the stuff locally really do that? By making e.g. cellphones here, you need to either pay Americans the same as Chinese workers make, or make Americans pay much higher prices for their cellphones. How does that help people closer to home? Seems like an handicap to me.
If nothing else, shortened supply chains mean more responsive product development, and in general help promote the general notion of localized/efficient goods production and distribution.
To some extent yes, but advances have got to the point that spatial separation isn't nearly the handicap it used to be. Take Apple manufacturing for instance. They hardly ever carry an excess inventory.
I take it as sort of an extension of "looking out for number one". Your local community is the closest extension of that, and buying local keeps the money local.
People pay lip service to wanting to buy locally made, but they don't vote with the only thing that matters, the willingness to pay more. As long as consumers demand the absolute lowest price, regardless of the exploitation required to achieve it, things will be made in poorer countries with an impoverished workforce.
In a marxist perspective, workers in the developed countries are being exploited too. In a free market perspective, Chinese workers are choosing to leave their farms and go to factories because it's a much better alternative for them, which has raised their wages and standards of living as a whole.
Prices are never going to be matched, and why should they? Things made in China are cheap simply because they have a huge population of people desperate to work, so they can exploit this and pay them a fraction of an American salary and have them work under much worse conditions. Until you are prepared to work for the same money in the same conditions, don't expect the cost of something made domestically to ever be the same as if it were made in China.
I suspect the reality is wildly different to the survey result - after all, "made in China" is hardly a secret.