The problem is that when autocratic state have new wealth (via taxing the people you are talking about) they almost always invade their neighbors or at least try to annex some land or settle an old dispute via force. Saddam with Kuwait, Russia with Ukraine, and China with the Spratly islands are obvious examples. It doesn't matter that some Chinese bureaucrat can afford an iPhone if it means we get world instability, war, and unneeded aggression in exchange. The West is probably looking at another shooting war with either of these countries sooner or later due to their unilateral aggression against our allies. Is a precious, precious iPhone worth that to you?

It seems like we lifted them out of poverty too quickly. They didn't develop democratic institutions, legitimate multiparty politics, a fair judiciary, human rights, international cooperation, etc. This is like handing a 15 year old a brand new Ferrari and acting surprised when he manages to crash it and kill someone.

The idea of committing to a trade policy which would have left them living in extreme poverty sounds horrendously evil. Likewise, pulling trade now could do great harm.

If the worst interpretation of your fears comes to pass, and we get WWIII, then yes. Maybe you're right. However, can you back up your claim with enough certainty to justify harming so many people so greatly?

And the alternative where we try to economically suppress them works so much better? It's not like the cold war didn't lead to it's own share of nail-biting episodes where we worried there would be full nuclear war.

> It seems like we lifted them out of poverty too quickly.

It's not that we lifted them out of poverty, it's that we took advantage of the favorable market forces present to our mutual benefit. If we didn't someone else would have, unless we tried to get widespread support for an embargo.

> This is like handing a 15 year old a brand new Ferrari and acting surprised when he manages to crash it and kill someone.

Or, you know, it could just be a nation of smart people and statesmen doing what they think is best for their country, based on their beliefs (which could include slow reform).

In any case, I'm sure your likening of China to an irresponsible child is useful, warranted, and even if widely believed, wouldn't in any way help to cause those shooting wars you are talking about. /s

Such sentiments are not strictly limited to China. If a government acts like an irresponsible child, talks like an irresponsible child, and trades like an irresponsible child, it is probably finally ready to get drunk and have a drag race with the big boys down in the flood control culvert behind the high sch-err... U.N. building.

Many nations have done things that shock the conscience beyond the normal human capacity for moral outrage. Some of those things were based on sincere beliefs, and a desire to serve a greater good, as defined by those serving it.

I'm not even exactly certain what is required for a government to not act like a sociopathic, immature, hormone-crazed teenaged boy.

Yes, an offhand comment on HN is going to start a war.

There's a historic basis to my comment that autocratic systems with sudden influxes of cash become violent/agressive/annexing. The reality here is that's exactly what happened in Ukraine and in the Spartly's. I don't think you can just smart-ass dismiss that and whatever future conflicts we're in for. There's certainly a relationship here. Empowering autocrats has never worked well.

As far as the Cold War goes, isolation led to the downfall of the USSR and communism, in general, which was a horrific system. Those tactics certainly worked and freed millions out of tyranny. No nuclear war, no WWIII, etc. At worst a handful of proxy conflicts that had a death toll that matched perhaps one or two good sized WWII battles. Meanwhile, communism led to the deaths of almost 100m people via internal violence and mismanagement.

Sadly, HN has a "anyone but the US" bias to it and comments like your reflect a fairly biased and uncritical "China can do no wrong" attitude.

> Yes, an offhand comment on HN is going to start a war.

Of course not, but that's obviously not what I was saying.

> I don't think you can just smart-ass dismiss that and whatever future conflicts we're in for.

Where did I do that?

> As far as the Cold War goes, isolation led to the downfall of the USSR and communism

Do you think China has learned nothing from that? Do you see China as isolationist? I think equating China to the USSR and using the same tactics would be a grave mistake.

> HN has a "China can do no wrong" bias and your comment is further proof of that.

If you truly read my comment as evidence of of a pro-China stance, then I suggest you step back and take a critical look at your interpretation. I suspect it was colored by some assumed preconception of my stance, which my comment did very little to illustrate, so I'm at a loss to explain how you would know what it is.

All I did is question what I believed were overly simplistic explanations of global power dynamics and call out your equating of an entire nation to children.

What I find most upsetting though is that much of this comes at the expense of the american middle class while the american upper class benefits. So less unrest in one country leads to more in another.

Personally, I wish values drove foreign policy more than business. And trade doesn’t equal peace. Connections lead to conflict. The USSR and US never fought despite the tensions of the cold war, while Europe, with all it’s interconnections and trade has blown apart in a world war twice in the last century.

That's a fair point. Hopefully the internet and easier travel helps mitigate future conflict.