cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/6745228

TLDR: Apple wants to keep china happy, Stewart was going after china in some way, Apple said don’t, Stewart walked, the show is dead.

Not surprising at all, but sad and shitty and definitely reduces my loyalty to the platform. Hosting Stewart seemed like a real power play from Apple, where conflict like this was inevitable, but they were basically saying, yes we know, but we believe in things and, as a big company with deep pockets that can therefore take risks, to prove it we’re hosting this show.

Changing their minds like this is worse than ever hosting the show in the first place as it shows they probably don’t know what they’re doing or believe in at all, like any big company, and just going for what seems cool, and undermining the very idea of a company like Apple running a streaming platform. I wonder if the Morning Show/Wars people are paying close attention.

  • SCB@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    75
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Chinese people deserve jobs too. Comparative advantage is a good thing that helps everyone involved.

    The Yuan is currently trading at 7.32 to 1 USD

    Companies that appease the CCP are the problem, not companies that leverage exchange rates to better lives globally.

    • deaf_fish@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Chinese people deserve good jobs, not jump off of a building to kill yourself, but wait your the 4th person to do that this month so they installed a net jobs.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        I am questioning where I supported Chinese government policies here?

        Because the initial concern was pay, and that’s due to not understanding economic factors. I don’t support Chinese labor regs at all.

        In fact I said

        “Companies that appease the CCP are the problem” which I also thought was a nice little pun, given the show being discussed.

        • isles@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          9 months ago

          I don’t support Chinese labor regs at all.

          I wonder why labor is cheaper in China.

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Two big reasons

            1: currency exchange rates

            2: China is sill fundamentally agrarian and industrializing, and many workers are looking for (comparatively) higher pay

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            The show that Stewart walked out on is “The Problem with Jon Stewart”

        • InvertedParallax@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Yes, fuck the Chinese government.

          And the corporations, both Chinese and American, that help support it.

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            Depends on what that means imo. Global trade theoretically supports the Chinese government, because money is fungible, but is a net positive all around.

            The Chinese will never stop clinging to autocracy without wealth of their own.

            • InvertedParallax@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              9 months ago

              The “Chinese” will never have wealth, ask Jack ma.

              The ccp would burn China to the ground before releasing an ounce of their power and stolen wealth.

              • SCB@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                9 months ago

                That is not an excuse to stop trying to empower the Chinese to rise against their hellstate.

                Capitalism broke the USSR and it will break the CCP.

                • InvertedParallax@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  No, just like capitalism didn’t break the states that later formed the confederacy.

                  Even after they lost formal slavery they put horrible policies into effect like Jim crow and share cropping that allowed them to keep slavery in all but name, but were entirely compatible with capitalism.

                  Haiti understands this.

                  We need to stop enabling authoritarians, who do you think taught them how to build the great firewall, they bought literally all of their technology till now from us.

                  • SCB@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    5
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    No, just like capitalism didn’t break the states that later formed the confederacy.

                    It literally did though. That’s why they went to war - the writing was on the wall.

    • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      The Yuan is currently trading at 7.32 to 1 USD

      That means nothing without knowing the total supply

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        25
        ·
        9 months ago

        It means everything when talking about people’s pay.

        • Aceticon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          For that you need 2 data pieces:

          • The median pay of chinese workers in Yuan.
          • The Yuan - Us Dollar cross currency exchange rate.

          You then use the second to convert the first into US Dollars so that you compare the Chinese salaries in USD to American salaries is USD.

          Merely the second piece of data wIthout the first means nothing if you’re trying to compare salaries.

          For example, before the Euro the Italian Lira used to have a cross currency exchange rate with the dollar which was thousands of lire per dollar and that didn’t mean Italians in the 80s were incredibly poor: because for every dollar the average US worker received in their salary the average Italian worker got thousands of lire, all put together mean they got about 1/2 to 1/3 of a US salary rather that the 1/1000 that by your the exchange rate alone suffices “logic”.

          By the way, that cross currency exchange rates are meaningless to compare incomes or costs without the actual incomes and prices in the local currency, is really, really, REALLY basic financial knowledge.

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            16
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            You then use the second to convert the first into US Dollars so that you compare the Chinese salaries in USD to American salaries is USD

            You don’t need to do this because you only need to look at the fact that those jobs are competed for to see that they are desirable.

            Wage parity isn’t a meaningful discussion when discussing comparative advantage. Too many other factors come into play.

            • Bernie_Sandals@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              17
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              Okay but you realize that any job would be competitive in situations of poverty right? That’s why you need the second data point.

              • SCB@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                11
                ·
                9 months ago

                That’s specifically why comparative advantage is a good thing - lifting people out of poverty is a good thing.

            • Aceticon@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              To fully measure Comparitive Advantages, you must include the differences in manpower costs, which brings us back to salaries (plus, since this is to compare manpower costs, you also need things like the employer-side tax costs such as social security payments), which then needs to be converted to a single currency using cross-currency exchange rates.

              Further, every single monetary elements of calculating Comparitive Advantage which is in local currencies needs to go through those cross-currency exchange rates in order to be comparable.

              There is no way you can calculate comparative advantage merelly with the single datapoint which is a cross-currency exchange rate because all that tells you is the relation between two units of measurement and says nothing about the actual quantities being measured.

              As I said, this is incredibly basic financial stuff.

              To give you a really basic non-financial example which hopefully will make you understand it:

              • Two farms produce milk, one in Britain and the other in The Netherlands. The farm in Britain measures milk by the pint. The one in The Netherlands measures milk by the liter.

              What you wrote in your original post is equivalent to saying that “The farm in Britain produces more milk because 1 pint = 1.759754 liters”.

              You don’t know anything about how many pints the British farm produces, or about how many liters the Dutch farm produces, yet you claimed the ratio between two measurement units is enough by let you draw conclusions about production numbers even though you used no prodution numbers.

              If I was to bet I would say you’ve read some articles about how the exchange rate of the Yuan vs USD is kept artificially low to increase the competiviness of Chinese exports, didn’t quite understand how it works and still thought you knew enough and applied it were it wasn’t applicable and/or in the wrong way.

    • Krauerking@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Boy you sure do sound like you just got your MBA. Chasing the cheapest labor and lowest regulations really doesn’t do much for the populace other than make them slave laborers for better products for the benefits of other nations.
      If the wages are the same across multiple industries then it doesn’t really help right? It’s just taking advantage of a poor countryand enriching higher members of that country who actually do see the most profit gained.

      It might help in getting advanced manufacturing set up in the country but that actually also hurts countries that rely on advanced manufacturing to keep GDP high when they are creating their competitors while doing little investment into themselves.

      So yes it works to get the cheapest product possible but it’s really not the super helpful beneficial concept that you think it is and the whole world is not richer for these jobs we give to them to enrich further a group that just chases the quickest profit.

      • steltek@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        9 months ago

        What a strange take when a mountain of evidence is right in front of you. China went from “nothing but cheap labor” to the next world superpower because of exactly this kind of exchange. They have modern cities with rapid transit, EVs, and a top tier domestic tech industry.

        • Krauerking@lemy.lol
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          9 months ago

          Well yeah I mean I kinda covered that. They now have advanced tooling and active investments into their infrastructure and country. It’s not yet actually reaching the majority of China and there is still wide issues with these investments. But now companies will have to find the new cheap labor if there is increasing access to jobs that are to pay enough for the citizens to access these higher standards.

          A country can’t be cheap labor and an important market without either massive divide in the populace or slave labor.

          And if they can’t get cheap labor there anymore these companies will leave and create rust belts like there are in the US. At which point the advanced manufacturing arm and service economy could take over if it’s built enough but they join into a already crowded space with dwindling access to resources. Not to say things haven’t gotten better in sense of moving forward technologically and amenities wise but that is basically always a guarantee of time passing. But this hunt for cheap goods for top level enrichment is not a wholly good venture and is quite destructive in ways that take little effort to see.

    • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Companies that appease the CCP are the problem, not companies that leverage exchange rates to better lives globally.

      Companies in China ARE the CCP. Nothing is actually privately owned. Everything is owned by the government, so giving any money to a company in China is supporting the CCP.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Lots of foreign companies have branches in China, including most global corps