It is the Wall Street journal.
They didn't become more serious about these things. They passed rules to kill off businesses arbitrarily to maintain power under the guise of "environment". The salad preparation rules have nothing to do with the environment.
To be fair, the perceived anti-China slant wasn't always that way. It used to be one of the most pro-China publications in the early days of the Chinese economic ramp-up. But as things have changed in China, so has the tone of the Journal.
It's a reaction to what's happening there. An over-reaction, probably. But a reaction, nonetheless.
0: https://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/young-leaders-circl...
1: I have zero affiliation with the above organization -- stumbling into the event was purely right-place-right-time circumstance.
I don't think this is particularly true of the US in comparison with, say, China. There are people who will blame Chinese nationals or immigrants in the US for behaving incorrectly or irrationally. And there are people here who will blame Americans for not accommodating or understanding the Chinese community. (I'm going to make an unfair generalization: and then there are always Europeans who pipe in to comment without really understanding American race relations, American culture, or Chinese culture. America has its own politics of race, identity, and nationality that have significant differences from the way it works in Europe. Just as I'm liable to go to Europe and, say, make a fool out of myself trying to have a conversation about Catalonia, a European is liable to make a fool out of themselves coming to America and talking about Black Lives Matter.)
Coming back to the original article, I do think these people are mostly just bad entrepreneurs trying to cash in on a fad, or being led by exoticism and memories of 19th century trade rather than an understanding of the market and a sound business plan. It's not some kind of testament to US arrogance, even though that makes a good narrative.
The average European has a much better grasp of those than the average American has of any European situation (assuming they can even pinpoint France on the map, that is).
We read lots of American news, websites and books, follow US music, movies, and so on. With a small exception of UK music, the US can hardly do 1/100th of the European following US culture we do.
Pop culture, news, and books give an incredibly limited and skewed perspective of what a country is actually like. Worse yet, if you remove these things from their context and then give them to someone who has a different culture, you end up missing large chunks. American pop culture is also stripped of realism and specificity to make it more broadly accessible to Americans and even abroad.
To draw a comparison which might be more familiar to the HN crowd, consider what happens when you learn programming by reading a bunch of blog posts, articles, and books about programming, but you never actually write a single line of code. You’ll have a very distorted idea of what programming or software engineering is like.
I’ve had similar conversations with both groups of people. A novice programmer might have an arrogant attitude and explain to me why the code base is terrible, or might have the attitude of a learner and ask me questions about the design decisions. A European might have an arrogant attitude and explain to me what the problems are with American race relations, or they could be more humble and ask me questions about what living in America is like.
I think the Euros have perspectives that are just as valid as anyone else'. I mean, Americans get their ideas from the pop media too, and then we experience life through that lens. Americans are not somehow less susceptible to pop media influence than, say, Europeans, simply by virtue of being Americans. We are just as manipulated as they are. Probably more manipulated, since we consume more of our pop media.
The media changes the perspective of people. The perspective becomes the reality. Doesn't matter who those people are, or where they happened to grow up. The media you consume, shapes your perspective, which becomes reality for you. No one is immune to it. This is deeply ingrained psychological stuff. With several decades worth of study to back it up. (Along with countless billions in profits derived from exploiting that very human proclivity.)
To say that the European perspective is invalid because they didn't grow up here, would be like saying that Americans don't have valid perspectives on life in Europe or China, because we didn't grow up in any of those nations. Well, maybe we didn't, but we can have a perspective that is as valid as anyone else'. Doesn't make our perspective more "right" than anyone else', but I'd hardly say that our perspective on those nations is outright "wrong" just because we didn't grow up in them.
Of course they are! Propaganda is much less effective when you constantly see conflicting evidence with your own lying eyes.
There is a reason why trust in the mainstream media is at an all time low in the US.
Are you implying that Europeans can't see through propaganda? That, somehow, only Americans have this gift?
I’m saying reality is a hell of an antidote to propaganda.
I’m certain French people are far better at recognizing biased and misleading reporting concerning France than I am.
Is our perspective any more misguided or arrogant than the perspective of a European, or a Chinese person? Because if it is, then we can all stop complaining about Europe and China right? Because our perspectives are all just misguided arrogance.
Now I'm not saying that our perspective on foreign nations is necessarily "right" and "factual". I'm only saying that our perspective is certainly no more "wrong" than any other perspective. Perspectives are not objective realities, but they do become subjective realities for the people who hold them. (Read, "all of us".)
So here's the thing, whether or not those subjective realities are "misguided" or "arrogant" is not really a function of where the holder of the subjective reality grew up, it's a function of a lot of other factors unrelated to national origin. Everyone will have a perspective any given issue. Everyone may even have different perspectives on different issues, but whether or not one perspective is more valuable than another is usually not a function of things like citizenship. The relative value of different perspectives usually turns more on factors such as power and influence; sometimes on other factors like intelligence, and thoughtfulness. Outside of maybe power, rarely do these factors respect national borders.
If you want to discuss your perspectives on life with other people that's fine. (Actually I think it's admirable even.) There just shouldn't be the expectation that anyone else has to sit down and discuss their perspectives on life with you.
Other than that though, I think we're in agreement. Different people can have different perspectives that become subjective realities, but are usually not even close to being objective realities. People have the freedom to discuss, or ignore, other perspectives at their sole discretion. Thereby fulfilling the promise, and conveying to us the benefits, of freedom of thought.
There's some hope, though. As recently as 1994, only 10% of Americans had passports. But now that number is above 40%. [1] Part of that's due to to no longer having passport-free travel to our nearest neighbors since the 9/11-inspired security tightening. But I think part of it's real.
Of course, the reality turned out to be way different, but back then everyone had already sunk their costs. BTW, not everyone in the article is from the US, Blue Frog for one thing is most definitely Australian (who else puts beets on their burgers?).
It's because back then Han dynasty was just getting started after the fall of Qin dynasty. You gotta give them some time.
No, you will need to follow actual laws, as both France and Switzerland are very "rule of law" countries. This actually makes doing business there much easier, because the rules are clearly defined and the same for everyone.
In China, the rule book is ambiguous and anyways, enforcement is very selective (they will get you on something if they want to). A textbook example of a "rule by law" country.
> because the rules are clearly defined and the same for everyone.
The rules are the same for citizens and non-citizens? There is a reason why the Immigration lawyer AMAs on this site are so popular.
So? The rules are still there and applied fairly consistently. Whether or not the rules should be changed is what democracy is all about.
> The rules are the same for citizens and non-citizens? There is a reason why the Immigration lawyer AMAs on this site are so popular.
You mean the rules are different because non citizens need visas and citizens do not? I guess you got me there, but I’m not sure what your point is.
China does not have rule of law, full stop. They have a constitution that guarantees freedom of press, religion, and speech, and it is completely meaningless because they do not have rule of law. What this means is that Baidu can make most of its money on medical scams and porn while any foreign company would immediately be prosecuted for any small transgression. Whatever rules China makes up, its just for convenience, if they want to get you, they'll find something.
plenty of politicians love to tell everyone ad nauseam about someone who came to the US and "found the American Dream". America is the freest, most open society in the world. it's what makes us different from other countries. blah blah blah. you hear this kind of idealism all the time. some people would say it's a foundational, fundamental feature of America. (Others would not.)
does anyone say that in China?
Unfortunately that is not really true. But it’s certainly a good idea!
I am not complaining about any of this just pointing out that foreigners always need to play by the hosts' rules if they want to be welcome.
On the other hand, if you have a light complexion, you can easily get a well paying English tutoring job. It often pays higher than what an engineering grad would make!
But with enough money and power, you can convince yourself it's working on a temporary basis, until the market distortions make things suck enough, something has to break or change.
If you don't really internalize how the laws, politics, and policies of a country shape what is, and what is not possible, you are setting yourself up to be disappointed.
Don't forget culture.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/12/06/bri-china-belt-road-ini...
Well, apart from the entire modern history of Chinese export-led growth.
Along with my credentials, I am now at a fulfilling C-level position.
I guess we’ll have to see if my luck lasts.
I was thinking more as a business.
I strongly disagree.
Since the Great Depression, farming is incredibly heavily subsidized in the United States. World-wide, but particularly in the US, agriculture is probably the most government-managed/subsidized/regulated industry you can think of.
And yet, over the past 85 years, despite the many economic ups and downs, changes in global demand for, and global prices of staples, US agriculture remains a resilient pillar of the economy. You can go to any grocery store, country-wide, and buy more cheap food then you can ever eat, despite wars, shipping problems, droughts, natural disasters, crop failures, and other calamities.
Now, all of this comes at a cost. It costs a lot of taxpayer dollars to ensure that cheap food is available for everyone. The alternative, of course, is an unresilient, market system, with fluctuating outputs, shortages, and price spikes.
These sorts of things tend to lead to bread riots, revolutions, and bourgies being strung up on lamp posts.
As a bourgie, I'd rather not risk seeing the price of bread triple.
No, I believe most gold-rush Westerners were actually looking to join up with established (or government-blessed) Chinese businesses and help them introduce their businesses back to the West and help there - such as marketing Huawei or Xiaomi to Americans for example, or working with government lobbyists on pro-China PR campaigns.
So the fundamental question is, "What did these people expect?" (and were thus disillusioned when they didn't get their expectation). Did they expect that they would be able to build large foreigner controlled businesses? Did they expect that their success would not be impeded by a desire on the part of political entities to craft a narrative? Did they expect to secure more wealth for themselves before they were shut down?
I am always surprised by people who think they can do what they do in their home country in any other country and get the same results. But it is particularly true of people in the US it seems. If you don't really internalize how the laws, politics, and policies of a country shape what is, and what is not possible, you are setting yourself up to be disappointed.