U.S. Designates China as Currency Manipulator - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-currency-weakening-escalates-trade-war-11565027431?mod=rsswn <comment><USER2> One thing that I think is getting lost in this discussion is the role of intent on currency manipulation.

Switzerland has the strongest currency in the world due to the country's reputation for governmental and financial stability. This makes Swiss labor extremely expensive for reasons mostly outside of their control, and the Swiss government has tried (and largely failed) to remedy this. Technically, this is devaluation but given the circumstances and Switzerland's relatively small footprint in the labor market, it's understandable and fairly benign.

The Fed cutting interest rates in 2009 had the effect of weakening the USD relative to what it would have been. But the intent of the policy was not to steal a share of the export market, but rather to provide stimulus during a deep recession.

Japan has been in ultra-low growth and ultra-low inflation for decades. To fend off the threat of deflation and economic contraction, it ran the printing press and cut interest rates. Which, again, devalue the currency but stealing export share is not a major intent.

I'm not sure what the appropriate definition of "currency manipulator" should be but, while China's currency policy history is a strange and variable beast, yesterday's devaluation was clearly a different case than those above. And depending on how far you want to go back in history, there's an argument that the intent of some previous Chinese devaluations were aimed primarily at increasing its relative attractiveness as an exporter.

Its most recent history until yesterday was to prop up the RMB, so it may be fair to argue that now is a strange time to label them a currency manipulator. Given yesterday's events and their history in this area though, it's hard to make the claim that their currency policy is altogether ordinary either.

<comment><USER3> If having two different exchange rates -- "offshore" and "onshore" \-- doesn't say currency manipulator, I don't know what does.

<comment><USER4> Every currency has onshore and offshore rates. For example, you can buy dollars or Eurodollars, which is simple US currency kept offshore.

Eurodollars have different exchange rates because they don't have the reserve requirements from the Fed. i.e: it's less regulated.

The RMB has a heavier regulation whereby the exchange rate isn't allowed to fluctuate. This does increase the difference in value for the onshore and offshore currencies.

But having that distinction does not by itself make it a currency manipulator.

<comment><USER5> Where can i buy eurodollars?

<comment><USER6> I didn't know much about eurodollars until I used google and read this article, which seems quite good.

[https://www.investopedia.com/articles/active- trading/012214/...](https://www.investopedia.com/articles/active- trading/012214/introduction-trading-eurodollar-futures.asp)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> So, really, is there any doubt that this is true? China's currency exchange rate has been abnormally stable for a long time, and the Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Reagan administrations all knew it was the result of currency manipuliation. They just found it politically unpalatable to admit it out loud.

The real question would be, why is the U.S. finally admitting this out loud? 1) amping up a trade war 2) decoupling U.S. economy from China 3) trying to leverage China into doing something differently, perhaps regarding North Korea

Some of these, of course, would interfere with others, for example you can't use it as leverage in #3 if China thinks you'll keep pursuing it anyway no matter what, due to #1 or #2.

<comment><USER8> US decoupling itself from China would have an avalanche of effects, including huge inflation on most consumer goods, and outright product shortages. China is also a huge foreign debt holder, and if presumably no longer a buyer due to decoupling, will send US interest rates skyrocketing.

<comment><USER9> The us decoupling itself from China would be an unmitigated disaster for the us as China would align itself with Russia.

<comment><USER10> Russia has the population of Nigeria and the GDP of Italy.

The cold war ended a while ago. Worrying about them today makes about as much sense as worrying about Autria in 1930 because Austrohungaria used to be a world power.

<comment><USER11> They have a large nuclear arsenal.

<comment><USER12> Which might not mean as much as you think, thanks to the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction))

<comment><USER13> That only works as long as you have targets worth destroying. China has a lot. US, fewer... Russia, we do not even know the targets.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> China have been manipulating their currency before this week's drop. They use USD to buy CNY to prop up CNY exchange rate. If they stop buying CNY using USD, the value of CNY would fall (happening now). So China is technically no longer manipulating their currency.

Why are they doing this? My guess is to respond to trade war tariff. The US is manipulating USD through Fed interest rate. The Fed lowers interest rate to prop up borrowing and economic growth. I think China has figured out a way to deal with the situation. They will adjust the USD-CNY exchange to prop up their own economy.

This trade war is turning into a silly cat and mouse game. China is not making a deal. They have ways to get around tariff and TPP. War is about deception. The US needs some sneaky attack if it wants to win.

<comment><USER15> (Don't reply to temp comments because then I can't delete them!)

<comment><USER14> Corrected.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I have no idea what all this means so tried to read [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_manipulator](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_manipulator).

Found it interesting that "Switzerland have been manipulating their currency more than China since 2009 and Germany and South Korea since 2014"

Still it is not clear what that means in terms next steps. Will there be more tariff increases or sanctions? And then China will devalue their currency even more. So where does it end?

This is US Treasury report from 2017 I started looking through: [https://www.treasury.gov/resource- center/international/excha...](https://www.treasury.gov/resource- center/international/exchange-rate- policies/Documents/2017-04-14-Spring-2017-FX-Report-FINAL.PDF)

The last paragraph explained the logic a bit more:

> The United States cannot and will not bear the burden of an international > trading system that unfairly disadvantages our exports and unfairly > advantages the exports of our trading partners through artificially > distorted exchange rates. Treasury is committed to aggressively and > vigilantly monitoring and combatting unfair currency practices.

Granted it's published by US Treasury. I imagine the Chinese government sees the picture very much differently.

<comment><USER17> Okay, no, Germany can't manipulate its currency as they don't have their own, they use the Euro. Germany does have large influence over Brussels being the economic powerhouse of the Eurozone currency union, and the European Central Bank is in Frankfurt but really accountable to no-one, being led by an Italian man from Goldman Sachs.

And yes, these 'currency manipulator' designations are a point of political convenience and are not evenly applied.

Monetary policy for the last decade worldwide has been outright currency manipulation and market interventions using devalued currency.

This excess currency has fueled bubbles in all markets: Rental, housing, stocks, venture capital, startups, art, crypto, government bonds, corporate bonds, junk bonds, collectibles, you name it.

<comment><USER18> > Okay, no, Germany can't manipulate its currency as they don't have their > own, they use the Euro.

But they use the Euro as an umbrella that doesn't behave like a single currency for Germany would. While implementing the Euro they put massive pressure on wages while other EU countries kept increasing wages. Germany is violating export-surplus rules of the EU, but no one seems to care.

[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Balance_...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Balance_of_trade_in_goods_and_services_%28Eurozone_countries%29.png)

<comment><USER19> Actually the German surplus has been brought up for discussion many times in the EU parliament. A trade surplus of over 6% triggers a so called IDR, one EU acronym among many, which means (Macroeconomic) In-Depth Review. If the review shows an excessive balance, that triggers the EIP. Excessive Imbalance Procedure!. If a country fails to follow the recommendations coming out of the EIP, that can in theory lead to sanctions, including fines. You can read the last IDR on Germany here: [https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/2018-european- sem...](https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/2018-european-semester- country-report-germany-en.pdf) This IDR concluded that a EIP was not necessary. So far an EIP has never been launched by the commission.

Whether this system was designed to ensure Germany is never sanctioned, or if it is simply a huge slow-moving bureaucracy, I leave as an open research question ;)

<comment><USER18> > Actually the German surplus has been brought up for discussion many times in > the EU parliament.

Has it? I don't follow that clown show. Looks like Germany has the power within the EU to ignore such issues while bullying other countries into following the rules "we all agreed on". Naturally this topic is a total taboo in Germany. The worst excuse I heard so far was: "Yes, we profit the most and other countries may suffer in economic terms. BUT the EU as a whole brought so much more to these countries!"

> This IDR concluded that a EIP was not necessary

I know that the rule itself is 6% for surplus and 4% for deficit (?!)... So thanks for the link but I won't read it, I don't care why EIP was not necessary for whatever opinion. I just don't take the EU serious.

<comment><USER20> > we all agreed on

I have a German boss who uses this rhetoric frequently, which is usually code for 'shut up and do what I say'

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Isn't being able to manipulate their currencies exactly the reason countries maintain currencies of their own? Don't other countries like Japan and the USA manipulate their currencies routinely?

<comment><USER22> Generally by "currency manipulation" people don't mean manipulation of the value of the currency in general but manipulation of its value with respect to foreign currencies in particular. So if the US just prints money to combat deflation that isn't currency manipulation but if it used all the money it printed to buy Yuan that would be. But really the whole public discourse around the topic is pretty confused. In the long run trade balances are governed by savings rates and its hard to keep things out of equilibrium in the long run.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> >Treasury uses three criteria to apply the designation: actively intervening in their currency markets, having large trade surpluses with the U.S., and having large overall current-account surpluses.

Monday's action by Treasury is mostly symbolic, requiring the U.S. administration to consult with the International Monetary Fund to try to eliminate the unfair advantage the currency measures have given a country.

Does that mean it is only "unfair" if it negatively affects the US? such a definition of "fair" means that no country should be allowed to do better than US

<comment><USER24> Is there a country of comparable heft that is allowed? Do you remember when Japan was rising? There was definitely a lot of anxiety on the American side.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> As the reserve currency, the USD has some weight on it due to that position, can't just manipulate it like others can as easily except printing more [1].

Being the reserve currency, it was more fair when everyone was pegged to the dollar so at least manipulation was in check a bit. Both the unpegging and the free trade agreements put more pressure on the US for being a reserve currency.

Ultimately, the USD is too high and it is the root of lots of the problems with jobs, exports/imports and the trade imbalance, national debt as the reserve currency is a safer investment due to it not being as easy to manipulate due to the sheer size of the supply. Now that we are a debtor nation rather than a creditor nation, the problems are more evident [1].

[1] [https://www.forbes.com/sites/bobmcteer/2013/09/05/reserve- cu...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/bobmcteer/2013/09/05/reserve-currency- status-a-mixed-blessing/#244e4bc14e59)

<comment><USER26> What about quantitative easing via banking regulations?

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> The best part of this is that they are being called a manipulator for not shoring up their currency artificially.

<comment><USER28> It's manipulation. The RMB has been artificially fixed for decades for targetted economic/political reasons. It's being adjusted now not so that it can seek to a market value but to target another specific value for political/economic reasons. No one argues this. The PRC manipulates it's currency. It always has. It certainly doesn't seem likely to stop.

That said: this is what trade wars look like, folks. If we didn't want to fight in one we shouldn't have started it. The currency-manipulated status quo of the past two decades or so has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and made the world richer than it ever has been.

But no, someone's gotta score domestic political points based on a poor understanding of economics and some intuition about how to make a good populist argument.

<comment><USER29> If the RMB was left to find a market value, it would fall way below 7 to probably 7.5 or even 8 something. Yes, it is being manipulated, but in the other way that Trump says it is. The Chinese are simply running out of the dollars needed to keep manipulating it so that it stays stronger than 7!

The simple irony is that if the Chinese were just to give up manipulating the RMB all together, Trump would be even more angry.

Everyone manipulated, the Japanese and Koreans do it, even the Swiss do it. The only thing that the Chinese do differently is have non market exchanges and currency controls on convertibility. (And their central bank is much less independent than the fed).

<comment><USER30> There is a certain criteria, and neither Swiss, Koreans, or Japanese meet that criteria.

<comment><USER31> Could you be more specific?

And, did China meet the criteria before this latest move?

(And, minor nit: criterion is singular. Criteria are plural.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> 3% stock market movements set in motion by the US president alone. "Great" insider trading potential. Have someone set up the right derivatives strategy and bam: instant millions.

I couldn't convince myself to immediately write that idea off as utter nonsense.

Anyone with more relevant financial experience? Can you reassure me this would be difficult to pull off? Or would you have to confirm this would be difficult to catch?

EDIT: Let me try put this in an even more neutral way. Let's say one knew down to the minute when the entire US and EU stock markets were going to sustain substantial losses. How much value one could siphon off without triggering too much suspicion? Surely market depth and trade volume must offer at least order of magnitude hints about that?

<comment><USER33> Even IF this were the case, Insider trading has been allowed in congress for a long time. There was the STOCK act passed in 2012 to prevent it, the very next year it was amended to get rid of strict disclosure requirements.

Nancy Pelosi for example (speaker of the democrat majority house) is worth 140 million dollars. One has to wonder how a life time politician has managed to get that much wealth.

<comment><USER34> Chris Collins would have been a better example instead of Pelosi.

<comment><USER33> Why?

Chris is listed at 23.83 million whereas Pelosi is at 140 million.

[https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/the-25-richest- membe...](https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/the-25-richest-members-of- congress/ss-BBmDr23?fullscreen=true?i10c.ua=1#image=7)

<comment><USER35> Collins was arrested and charged with insider trading in 2018: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Collins_(American_politi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Collins_\(American_politician\)#2018_criminal_charges)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I'm not an economist, but my impression is that if the Chinese currency is allowed to float, the major effect is that they would begin to import more goods from abroad and that their exports would be less competitive. But what would China import that they are not already importing?

Personally I would rather see the rules about local ownership of businesses open up so that foreign people can actually freely do business in China. Now that China is not a super poor country anymore, it seems fair. And this way they can keep their currency devalued as there is still a way for trading partners to use it to their advantage, while the majority of the advantage remains with China

</comment><comment><USER37> The entire premise of the post-Bretton Woods neoliberal world US currency is based on an agreement with the Saudis to sell oil in US dollars for military support and on threats to bomb countries who sell oil in non-US denominations. And China is the currency manipulator.

<comment><USER38> And this is why we have Bitcoin.

Or if you don't like that, pick a different non government asset.

<comment><USER37> Well my point is essentially that unless Saudi Arabia is willing to sell you oil for Bitcoins or that Venezuela wouldn't get 'humanitarian regime changed' for selling oil in Bitcoins, it's all kinda moot.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> >Mnuchin had warned in June that China could be designated a currency manipulator if it stopped intervening to prop up its currency.

[https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2019-08-05/u-s-t...](https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2019-08-05/u-s- treasury-department-labels-china-a-currency-manipulator)

<comment><USER40> That statement bears repeating with italics for emphasis:

"China could be designated a currency _manipulator_ if it _stopped intervening_ to prop up its currency."

In other words, if China stops manipulating its currency to tilt the table in favor of the US, the US will designate China a manipulator to reflect the fact that they are no longer manipulating it!

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> China burned through almost $1 trillion in US treasuries defending the peg when the Yuan depreciated last time[1]. They were "manipulating" the currency to make it stronger.

This time they did nothing, and they are being accused of being a currency manipulator. It is insane.

[1] [https://www.scmp.com/business/banking- finance/article/207131...](https://www.scmp.com/business/banking- finance/article/2071318/chinas-holdings-us-treasuries-sink-2016-prop-yuan)

</comment><comment><USER42> Stock futures down another 2%.

Amazing how much money one can lose in a matter of days. Stomach churning.

<comment><USER43> Not even days. I lost $24k today, and $60k since last week.

The thing that keeps you calm though is that sometimes it's amazing how much money you can actually make in a matter of days, or a single day.

<comment><USER44> This means you have about a million dollars in stock investments alone, which you put you in a different class.

<comment><USER45> That would keep me calm!

I'm pleased to report though that I lost nothing, since that's about how much I have.

<comment><USER46> Get something started ASAP.

I left a job when I was 28 with a depressing $21k in 401k. After sitting there for 16 years, it's now... big enough where it lost almost that much this last week.

Compounding... really... works...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> China has started invading Europe through Tsjechie also.

Just read a disturbing dutch article and Europe should join the US.

I wasn't sure before, but I'm sure now.

Here's a small report of the EU : [https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?re...](https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=EPRS_BRI\(2018\)625173)

Yeah, it's disturbing and it doesn't even contain all the info...

<comment><USER48> Seems like FUD without a credible source, can you link something? Plenty of dutch readers on HN.

The article linked is referencing the unfavorable economic terms of China's Silk Road project towards developing nations' economies, which has been written about and is plenty concerning on its own.

<comment><USER47> [https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2018/07/05/china-krijgt-meer- grip-...](https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2018/07/05/china-krijgt-meer-grip-op- europa-a1609076)

This was the article I originally mentioned

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Well, that's rich. Especially since dollars (which the US has "license to print", manipulate, change interest rates, subsidize whole industries, etc.) have been forced as the world's trade currency for close to a century...

<comment><USER26> I was with you until the word "forced". Who forced anyone?

<comment><USER49> Α 10000ft gorilla of a superpower, meddling in foreign countries, toppling governments, spying, downright invading to "bring democracy", blackmailing, buying foreign politicians and influence, maintaining bases all over the world, playing one neighbor country against another for support, forced them.

It might not register that much on the giving end, but it's common knowledge on the receiving end...

<comment><USER26> All those actions you list are sadly true, but they don't really force anyone to use a specific currency. Now if a country was invaded, its government replaced, and its currency literally replaced, then that would be forcing.

<comment><USER50> you can call it whatever you want as long as we're on the same page

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> China can outlast the US on this one. Next up, let's crash the price of oil and flip off the Iran sanctions:

[https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/05/brent-and-wti-price-could- cr...](https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/05/brent-and-wti-price-could-crash-if- china-buys-iranian-oil.html)

<comment><USER52> China would have a lot more room to move were the Hong Kong protests were not going on. The big problem they face is putting down the protests violently could lead towards pronouncements of them violating the agreement for it being held over. Which will lead toward countries people openly selling heavy weapons to Taiwan and maybe even building bases.

<comment><USER53> I really doubt China cares a bit about the agreement signed with the UK. They are more concerned alienating HK people which is hard not to do unless they put the integration with the mainland on hold for a few good years.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> How is Currency Manipulator different than quantitative easing which everyone does?

<comment><USER54> China sets the price of its currency directly.

QE indirectly affects the price of your currency by manipulating the price of your bonds.

<comment><USER26> That doesn't answer the question. No reasonably advanced manipulator of any system is content to operate only on the most visible level of influence.

So the question really is, how different is a direct manipulation from an ongoing secondary manipulation?

<comment><USER54> It's extremely different!

In a free market, no one truly knows how the market will respond to some signal (like the purchase of bonds). Although an unrestrained manipulator (The Fed) can get pretty close to setting the price of all bonds by buying huge quantities of certain bonds -- The Fed doesn't know with certainty how that will affect the price of the currency (USD). And they don't really care that much, to be honest. They don't measure inflation with respect to a basket of currencies. They measure inflation with respect only to the USD.

When China literally sets the price of the RMB, there's no question what will happen to the price of the RMB. It is whatever China says it is.

There's a huge difference between manipulating the price of your currency and your bonds. And it's because there's a huge difference between what bonds and currenies are, and how they're used.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> Good news for the people of Hong Kong, since the Hong Kong Dollar is tied to the U.S. dollar, and not the Chinese currency.

</comment><comment><USER56> Every country would prefer to devalue their currency relative to others in order to increase their trade surplus (or cut their deficit). Mathematically they cannot all succeed, so it ends up being a slow motion race to the bottom.

<comment><USER57> That's really not true. Being able to buy up goods and assets abroad for cheap can also be highly desirable. The evils of foreigners despicably trying to sell you their goods at cut rate prices are often exaggerated.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> All Governments manipulate currencies...

</comment><comment><USER59> China has a peg to the USD - they can peg at any given multiplier, no particular multiplier is any more valid than another, so how can they (or any other country with a peg) _not_ be manipulating their currency?

It seems to me, the US gov't no longer cares much for the new multiplier, so this is just a cynical way to put negotiating pressure on them.

</comment><comment><USER60> Pretty rich coming from the US, but I digress

</comment><comment><USER61> Little outside of the topic but:

"We expect a quick—and possibly intemperate—response from the White House, and consequently expect a more rapid escalation of trade tensions."

Haha, really? No one would expect a intemperate response out of this cool and collected admin.

</comment><comment><USER62> US sad they can't set Fed rates like the People's Republic of China without incurring interest. Federalize the Federal reserve and we would be capable of doing similar.

</comment><comment><USER63> Doesn't China have the right to do whatever they want with their currency, as a sovereign country?

<comment><USER64> Yes, and every other country has the right to respond to what China does as they see fit, which is exactly what the US is doing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> why don't all countries let their currencies float?

</comment><comment><USER66> Wouldn't a more effective US strategy against China been to get the EU, Japan, and South Korea in on the tarrifs as well? Might as well throw in Canada and Mexico as well on account of being NAFTA partners. That would account for all of Chinas major trading partners. Japan and SK might have been difficult, but a combined North America + EU might have done the trick.

Maybe the Trump Administration tried this, but I find it unlikely since this Administration opened up lambasting our traditional allies. This trade war as it stands is going nowhere. China won't budge.

</comment><comment><USER67> The long story to this is that the Chinese dont like what Trump is doing, he is the first to stand up to their tactics. The thing is, if Trump doesn't get reelected, a democratic candidate will most likely not continue the trade war. China has every incentive to place pressure on the us stock market in the hope that it ruins Trumps chances at reelection. So they play this long waiting game, in the chance that Trump doesnt get elected.

<comment><USER68> From that perspective, what is arguably good about this trade war continuing?

<comment><USER67> Its a battle for who is the world economic power in 20 or 30 years. The american public doesn't understand what is at stake here. Unfortunately the media is calling Trump a buffoon, when the trade war, and possible subsequent economic hit to the USA, is vital to our long term economic future.

<comment><USER69> If it is indeed a battle, like you say, infrastructure investment in wind + solar, reliable public transportation, a public health system, and free public education would do us 100x more than playing silly games with China.

<comment><USER67> Clean energy will never beat oil, its a pipe dream. Oil packs too much energy per barrel, its not even worth discussing. Reliable public transportation has nothing to do with competing for industries on a mass scale, it helps but I really dont see how it could cause a categorical change. Education does nothing if you have no good jobs to employ people with, education reform is largely a myth, hundreds of millions have been pored into education by Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, ZERO positive results have been shown. Bill Gates has said this himself. Education is a filtering mechanism, it doesn't upgrade people. The longer we continue with these pipe dreams the more jobs we lose.

<comment><USER69> 1) Energy density matters. You cite no data to back your claims up, in fact the opposite is true. Lithium batteries pack just as much energy per kg. Lithium is at 41.7 kJ per gram [0], Oil is at 45 kJ per gram [1]

Battery tech has more room for improvement than the hard chemical/physical limits of oil.

2) Job creation is a farce. We don't more oil riggers any more than we need more lamplighters and switchboard operators. If you want to ensure everyone has a good quality of life - a basic income looks more promising.[2]

[0]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium- ion_battery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery)

[1]: [https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/ArthurGolnik.shtml](https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/ArthurGolnik.shtml)

[2]: [https://tcf.org/content/commentary/universal-basic-income- ve...](https://tcf.org/content/commentary/universal-basic-income-versus-jobs- guarantee-serves-workers-better/?agreed=1)

<comment><USER67> 1.) By cost per barrel and energy provided, oil is impossible to beat. If there was something cheaper, it would have mass adoption.

2.) Job creation is a farce? So lets just give everyone money? We passed NAFTA and destroyed the mid west, 15 years later everyone in those states realized what happened and then voted for Trump. The whole nation was caught off guard by something that was hiding in plan sight. Government policy directly affects where companies put jobs. Ignoring and completely arguing against this is a really radical position.

<comment><USER69> 1.) Environmental externalities are not included in the full cost of oil and now we have a classic tragedy of the commons problem.[0] It's not just the CO2 emitted in the burning of oil, it's also the energy loss in distribution, the energy + environmental cost or resource extraction, etc. [1]

2.) Yes! Precisely. If you're paying people to dig a hole, then some one else to fill it, why not skip the meaningless labor and just give people the money? It wastes less energy/labor. Obviously we need some people to do important jobs for society, but this is a driving principle behind a universal basic income. It's not about entitlements or free money, it's about what's most efficient for our country. While I'm undecided whether I'd vote for him in the primaries, Andrew Yang is actually doing a great job of educating people on this, I suggest you take a look at his website if this is new to you: [https://www.yang2020.com/what-is-freedom-dividend- faq/](https://www.yang2020.com/what-is-freedom-dividend-faq/). A really good alternative to this would be reducing the hours in the work week.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons) [1] [https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/ex/sustainablecitiescollecti...](https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/ex/sustainablecitiescollective/true- cost-gasoline-15-gallon/26284/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> so what? surely it is their freedom to do with their currency as they please

</comment><comment><USER70> It means the Trump family will make a bunch of money on the volatility, and the US will capitulate in a few months.

<comment><USER16> > Trump family will make a bunch of money on the volatility,

Why not just set up a foundation and request all the governments who want arm deals or other favors to donate it. Forcing China do devalue its currency seems like a very complicated way of going about it.

<comment><USER70> They do that too.

[https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-podcast- donald-...](https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-podcast-donald-trump- jr-india-project)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> It ends with China being cut off from SWIFT and correspondent banking.

That would probably make them re-think their approach to economic warfare.

<comment><USER57> That would also do crippling damage to US and other foreign companies doing business with China. Even the current tariffs and counter-tariffs have cost US companies many billions. Qualcomm alone is estimated to have lost about a billion dollars in sales.

<comment><USER30> Boohoo, poor corps. Should we sell ourselves out entirely to China to satisfy the corporate profit motive?

Personally, I rather Qualcomm goes bankrupt entirely than see Chinese global hegemony.

<comment><USER71> Abusing our current structural position in the international monetary system is the surest way to hasten the end of our own hegemony and the beginning of Chinese hegemony--if that ever comes.

<comment><USER72> Huh?? Isn't setting up the structure and abusing the US position what has been happening for the past half century?

It actually seems like the recent change has been to let china get away with whatever they want with no struggle and simply accept a nice slow bleed out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER73> Isn't Chinese Yuan depreciation caused by Trump's relentless tariff, just like Mexican Peso's depreciation when Trump threatened tariff early this year?

I'm confused who is manipulating the market & currency.

<comment><USER30> No. It's caused by China's central bank printing currency in response to tariffs, essentially using currency as a weapon.

<comment><USER73> OK. tariffs => printing money, so tariff is the root cause, no?

<comment><USER74> There are plenty of good reasons why China deserves tariffs, why not start there as the root cause?

Protectionism, IP theft, banning or heavily restricting US tech firms from operating in (aka exporting to) China, the list goes on.

<comment><USER57> And if that was the real reason, you'd expect the US to be coordinating with other countries that have the same beef with China. Instead, the US is antagonising them as well.

Trump has been very clear the tariffs are mainly about boosting US manufacturing. It's not going to work, but that's what he keeps saying. If it really was about the issues you list, there are plenty of ways to address them in a much more coordinated and effective manner with like minded allies. Instead the US keeps their demands very vague and keeps changing the criteria, to avoid the chance of an actual agreement.

Contrast with the renegotiation of NAFTA. Clear, specific demands in areas they knew would be open to negotiation. In the end, fairly minor updates and a workable deal.

<comment><USER33> > It's not going to work, but that's what he keeps saying.

So far it has worked very well for the US and China has been suffering. US has been able to create 6 million jobs with 2 million manufacturing jobs alone created since his election. China has lost a lot of manufacturing jobs and a lot of manufacturers are moving away from China and either coming back to US or moving to places like India where IP theft isn't a huge problem.

US economy is also doing very well, GDP growth has beaten all expectations and what not.

<comment><USER75> > So far it has worked very well for the US and China has been suffering. US > has been able to create 6 million jobs with 2 million manufacturing jobs > alone created since his election.

this is nonsense. in what sectors?

<comment><USER33> Why would you call a stat nonsense?

Here's sources. Note that they are from few months ago and the number has been growing since then:

> The Trump Scoreboard shows that 5.4 million new jobs have been created under > the 45th president.

[https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-scoreboard-shows- acc...](https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-scoreboard-shows-acceleration- in-jobs-growth-even-with-unemployment-rate-at-new-lows-2019-05-03)

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2019/02/01/manufact...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2019/02/01/manufacturers- added-6-times-more-jobs-under-trump-than-under-obamas- last-2-years/#adb26485635a)

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2019/03/11/trumps-p...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2019/03/11/trumps- policy-magic-wand-boosts-manufacturing-jobs-399-in-first-26-months-over- obamas-last-26/#317ba99520a6)

[https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-december-nonfarm- payrolls-g...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-december-nonfarm-payrolls- grew-by-312-000-jobless-rate-rose-to-3-9-11546609016)

[https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-july-nonfarm-payrolls- grew-...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-july-nonfarm-payrolls-grew- by-164-000-11564749103)

[https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p- jeffrey/47900...](https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p- jeffrey/479000-under-trump-manufacturing-jobs-hit-highest-level-obama)

[https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/trumps- economy...](https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/trumps-economy- creating-manufacturing-jobs/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER76> Now what?

Is there a legal designation or meaning to currency-manipulator I'm unaware of, or is this basically like the Chinese designating Trump a "name-caller."

<comment><USER30> "The three assessment criteria are: "(1) a significant bilateral trade surplus with the United States is one that is at least $20 billion; (2) a material current account surplus is one that is at least 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP); and (3) persistent, one-sided intervention occurs when net purchases of foreign currency are conducted repeatedly and total at least 2 percent of an economy's GDP over a 12-month period."[1]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_manipulator](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_manipulator)

<comment><USER77> That seems pretty arbitrary to me.

<comment><USER30> How so? It's just a way to ban competitive devaluations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER78> This is just nonsense. All central banks "manipulate" their currencies. The FED did that by printing trillions in QE. The FED did that in 1973 when they went off the gold standard. The FED did that in 1935 when they changed the value of the dollar.

Funnily enough, the only way other major currencies can stop depreciation is by having more dollars. The way to do that would be more exports. But trade- warrer-in-chief just slapped 10% tariff on Chinese exports. If their exports go down, their currency will go down.

So, in effect, Trump caused the Yuan to devalue? So Trump is the manipulator, not China?

<comment><USER79> > So Trump is the manipulator, not China?

"currency manipulator" is a legal designation, not just an insult. It has 3 requirements (someone linked to the Wiki in another thread).

I'm pretty sure Trump wants to weaken the USD to increase US manufacturing and make our exports more competitive with the world, but I don't see that he has a plan to do it. He seems to be grabbing for any kind of leverage he can get to bully other economies into making promises to increase their imports of US exports.

It's just giving false hope to US industries which no longer have a competitive advantage in the world market... long enough to last through the next presidential election.

<comment><USER78> > It's just giving false hope to US industries which no longer have a > competitive advantage in the world market... long enough to last through the > next presidential election.

I can see that. He doesn't care what really happens in the world as long as he can win the election.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER80> Yes considering the US prints hand over fists amounts of money to deal with its economic woes, it's sort of a joke where the emperor wears no clothes, but no one says anything because he's the emperor.

[https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/090915/quant...](https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/090915/quantitative- easing-vs-currency-manipulation.asp)

> "In theory, currency manipulation and a monetary policy like quantitative > easing aren't the same thing. One is interest rate policy based and the > other currency focused. However, as central banks began their QE programs, > one result was the weakening of its currency.

> Intentional or not, it can be argued that QE is, in some way, a form of > currency engineering. Whether its manipulation that will always be up for > debate."

<comment><USER2> The USD has risen against pretty much every major currency in the past several years. Its status as the world reserve currency keeps its value artificially high despite running the printing press.

Whether this is good or bad for the US economy is debatable (and unclear), but it's not really a recipe for currency manipulation at all. I have no idea what you're talking about.

<comment><USER81> > The USD has risen against pretty much every major currency in the past > several years.

And would have risen more without QE.

<comment><USER82> > And would have risen more without QE.

And risen even more than that if they had started _destroying_ currency. But the usual target for a currency is value stability with other major currencies, and "devaluation" means that its value goes _down_ compared to most other currencies.

It's completely normal (and basically required to prevent deflation) to create some new currency during normal (i.e. growth) times to provide more currency to use for the increasing number of transactions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER80> Yeah you have manipulated a made up thing that we control and you are not playing by the rules where we put sanctions on you and then you become f*ed.</comment>


Reducing Our Redux Code with React Apollo - <AUTHOR> https://dev-blog.apollodata.com/reducing-our-redux-code-with-react-apollo-5091b9de9c2a?source=linkShare-803918030a60-1497032202 <comment><USER2> What I was hoping the article would go into a little bit more depth in is how they wrapped their heads around the "Redux" pattern of organizing your application to this much more component-centric declarative style.

With Redux, you are encouraged to do a lot of the app heavy-lifting in action creators. But with apollo-react, all of that data-fetching is happening on the component itself and is driven by the components own needs. The actions dispatched by apollo-react client are pretty generic, and I've found it difficult to use them meaningfully in my own reducers.

In other words, I can perfectly see how the author was able to drastically reduce LOCs, complexity in their app, etc. I still cannot fully see how that architecture is compatible to current Redux best-principles (which to have served me quite well so far).

<comment><USER3> > With Redux, you are encouraged to do a lot of the app heavy-lifting in > action creators.

I've seen/learned quite the opposite: do as much of the heavy lifting in your _reducers_ as possible.

Lighter actions (that more closely reflect the _cause_ of a change in your app -- not the change itself) tend to lead to less-tangled code.

<comment><USER4> There seems to be some big downsides to intermingling side effects in action creators vs immutable state changes in reducers. Reducer logic would then require complex mocks. Reasoning about side effects and immutable state changes separately feels natural to me. Would love to hear how putting the side effects in the same functions used for immutable state changes makes code _less_ tangled.

<comment><USER5> Another possibility is using sagas for handling side-effects. I've been happy with that approach.

[https://github.com/redux-saga/redux-saga](https://github.com/redux- saga/redux-saga)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> While interesting be aware of those quotes from the article:

About offline:

> Local storage action creators & epics (~1000 LOC). This is a bit unfair to > count in the total because offline support for our project is postponed, but > it's achievable if we want to add it back in by customizing the Apollo > fetchPolicy & exposing the reducer to redux-persist.

About mutations (insert/update/delete statements):

> While our server is currently "read only," we may need to introduce > mutations in the future to save a user's favorite team.

When considering GraphQL test those as well because the "loading data" part is very cool and easy to grasp. It gives instant results, really cool.

Updating data is not as easy as that and not as mature yet. There is an ongoing process of finding how to update the local data store.

See for example comments in the documentation: [http://dev.apollodata.com/react/cache- updates.html#updateQue...](http://dev.apollodata.com/react/cache- updates.html#updateQueries)

So while it's a great tool understand your app's processes before diving in completely.</comment>


Anti-corruption blogger Navalny sentenced to 5 years behind bars - <AUTHOR> http://rt.com/news/navalny-verdict-court-guilty-234/

<comment><USER3> One man's "anti-corruption blogger" is another man's the "US-funded shit- stirring puppet". It's not all exactly black and white, but it _is_ 100% political.

<comment><USER4> I don't know the case, but do you think talking about concrete corruption cases is "stirring unrest against legitimate government"?

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Although, the charges may be true, the case is undoubtedly politically motivated. Incriminated $500K is a tiny drop in the ocean of "approved" corruption routinely carried out by the state officials and their affiliated companies.

When a big fish is "caught" (mostly due to "falling out of favor", not actual crime committed), if it's of the same "party", it's gently ousted out of their position and/or the country for a comfortable retirement. If an opposition - <USER2> fancy, exemplary trial is conducted... unless they slip away to the UK :)

</comment><comment><USER6> Wait, isn't Russia the "first to stand against human rights violations carried out by the powerful rather than the powerless"? You kidder, you, Edward Snowden.

<comment> guard-of-terra Edward Snowden will be more than happy to receive asylum from Germany or Australia but they don't exactly line for that.

So he had to settle on Russia.

<comment><USER6> He had to settle on Russia because his first choice, China, sent him packing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> That's Russia for you. Anybody going against the corrupt ruling party is either killed or imprisoned.

Actually, it's worse than that. The conviction rate in Russia is something like 99%, meaning that if you get charged with a crime, you will be found guilty. There are judges that have NEVER issued an innocent verdict in their career.

<comment><USER8> Japan has 99.97%

<comment><USER9> That's because they drop any case that they have a chance of losing, since it reflects poorly on them.

<comment><USER10> Part of their strategy is also to conclude that almost any murder is a suicide, which artificially inflates those statistics quite a bit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> As a Russian, i support that. He was too stupid to try fighting the system openly, playing on their own field.

<comment><USER12> Why is fighting openly a bad move? If it's true that the case that got him in jail was fabricated, he's been detained in an unjust way and he doesn't deserve it just because he fought openly. I think he'd actually deserve even more praise for being open about his identity and fighting the system directly.

<comment><USER13> I see this in this manner: smart people in Russia know that the government is evil and that it can (and will) abuse its power to ensure they reserve their power and money. They know democracy doesn't work as intended, it's a theater.

Contrary to that, people of the western world still believe that they can oppose an abusive government in courts and by voting for another government.

<comment><USER14> Well in most of the western world you CAN do precisely that (and it happens regularly). If people get pissed off with the government, they give it the boot. Unfortunately the Russian people have never had real democracy, so they don't realise that this should be the norm. In my country we would simply never put up with that shit. You see people putting up with shitty, oppressive governments all the time in countries like Zimbabwe, Russia, China, Syria, etc. Recently people in some parts of the middle east have finally realised that they can get rid of crappy governments. It's actually quite easy if the people can actually be bothered. The people of Russia did get rid of their Tsars a while back, but unfortunately they seem to have a new Tsar.

<comment><USER11> We had real democracy, in 1993-1996. Basically we democratically voted against it. Democracy is against Russian traditions, and most people either actively opposed it or passively (i.e. voting for the funniest candidate to discredit the whole system), and people were happy we gradually returned to normalcy, which is dictatorship.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> So stealing 10.000 cubic meters of wood from organization "Kirovles" is now "political case", "fighting against the system" and "did nothing"? Ok I'll keep this in mind.

<comment><USER16> > created: 23 minutes ago

\+ 15 rubles

<comment><USER15> I have been reading HN for a long time. But yes i wanted to leave a comment because we all know how media (especially US) is independent. Independent from truth, morale and objectivism of course.

<comment><USER17> слишком толсто

you are trolling badly

<comment><USER18> Did you just call him "a little fat"?

<comment><USER19> No, it's adverb. Literally "too bold", meaning "you are trolling too bold".</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


U.S. Copyright Office Clarifies Bitcoin Whitepaper Copyright Claim - <AUTHOR> https://www.copyright.gov/press-media-info/press-updates.html <comment><USER2> Sadly, this will get a lot less press than the previous story claiming the government "agreed" he invented Bitcoin.</comment>


Twitter and VMware cut pay for remote workers - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-11/vmware-twitter-cut-pay-for-remote-workers-fleeing-bay-area <comment><USER2> Interesting, I've always wondered about the very different approaches of Basecamp and GitLab when it comes to remote salaries. Basecamp pays the same, GitLab always (as far as I know) followed the same idea as Twitter and VMware are now doing. I think I prefer the same pay for the same work, regardless of where you are – but as long as cost of living is so ridiculously different that's probably not really feasible. I'd also like that to change, though.</comment>


Ivy League school janitor graduates with honors - <AUTHOR> http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_COLUMBIA_JANITOR_GRADUATION?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT <comment><USER2> Columbia has traditionally been quite liberal with their tuition benefits for employees. Also extending to spouses and children. There have been quite a few similar stories over the years of "blue collar" employees in environmental services, security and the like getting their degrees. I'm proud of this guys achievment. Good for him.

Graduation is always lively around Columbia. Im just a bit peeved that Obama is giving the commencement for Barnard on Monday and there will be no parking on Amsterdam Ave. from 110th to 125th. Oy.

(I am a Columbia employee.)

<comment><USER3> As a car owner who lives in New York, it disturbs me how much of my celebration of events is hampered or enhanced by the impact on parking.

"Ascension Day? Anyone know what that is? All I know is I'm excited because there's no alternate side!"

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > As a Columbia employee, he didn't have to pay for the classes he took.

This sounds like a pretty good deal.

<comment><USER5> Do FTE's bypass admissions? Combined w/ free tuition, that sounds like a better deal than student loans, esp if the position allows studying on the job (e.g., security). Might lengthen your stay, but you graduate debt free.

<comment><USER6> I was thinking the same thing. I wonder how many other universities offer such programs.

<comment><USER7> NYU does this as well, either 50% or 100% tuition remission depending on the employee for up to 9 credits per semester. It also covers 50% of course registration fees.

<comment><USER8> When I worked for the University of Chicago, they offered to pay 50% of tuition as well. But 50% of tuition for full time enrollment was more than my salary there :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm a Columbia student - I'm not in GS, but a large number of my friends are, so I'd like mention two things:

First, Columbia's School of General Studies has an unusual (and oft- misunderstood) history.

Contrary to popular belief, it did not originate with the GI bill, though that is when the school took its most recent name. It was once (partly) an extension school; the continuing education program has since been separated, so GS students _are_ attending a undergraduate college working towards a bachelor's degree. GS is the only undergraduate college at Columbia that allows students to study part-time, because GS students are considered to be those with 'nontraditional' backgrounds. Officially, this means anybody who's taken more than a year off since completing high school (or who received a GED), so eligibility for GS and Columbia College (the largest undergraduate college) are mutually exclusive. Other than that, though, the requirements are nearly identical - GS students have a slightly more flexible version of the Core, though even that is being brought more in line with the Columbia College requirements[1]. They take the same classes and choose majors in the same departments, so the only difference between the degrees is that the GS degrees are not printed in Latin (which was actually a debate a few years back!)[2]

In theory, GS students are students who would be merged into the regular arts & science colleges at any other university, but the fact that we have a college dedicated to reaching out to these students and providing them with administrative support means that we end up with students from a very wide range of backgrounds. In GS, the typical icebreaker is 'What's your story?', because almost everyone has a story of how they ended up at GS. If you've taken two (and often more) years off between high school and college, you didn't end up going back for your degree by accident.

This story may be good news material, but it's not even the most touching GS story I've heard. We have veterans who were discharged under DADT, we have current and former performers and Olympic-level athletes - one of my classmates represented her country in Miss Universe 2008 and has been running her own business since then (she also graduated this afternoon). Another spent her teenage years in the foster care system and took classes at a community college to bring herself up to speed. I was the president of a student group that dealt with criminal justice reform and drug policy, and I can't count the number of students who've told me truly horrific stories of the criminal justice system and the war on drugs. Oftentimes these are stories of their family members, but a few have experienced it firsthand.

I wasn't even a GS student, but the single best part of my Columbia education was probably having the opportunity to meet people who come from such varied backgrounds and bring such a wide range of experiences to the table.

Second, some people seem to be curious about the free tuition: tuition benefits at Columbia are extensive, though controversial. Every employee, including the food servers and janitors, receive a living wage (not a market wage) and full health benefits. There's been talk of scaling the benefits back, though; this is not a matter of tuition specifically, but benefit cuts across the board.[3]. As it stands, I believe most employees are eligible for one free class per semester (three per year, including the summer). This is most commonly applied towards MA programs, as they're 1 or 2 years - doing the 124 credits required for a BA would take quite a while at this rate!

And unrelated, but possibly of interest: John Backus and Isaac Asimov were both GS alumni.

[1] [http://www.columbiaspectator.com/2012/05/02/general- studies-...](http://www.columbiaspectator.com/2012/05/02/general-studies-adds- global-core-requirement)

[2] [http://www.columbiaspectator.com/2010/03/09/gs-diplomas- rema...](http://www.columbiaspectator.com/2010/03/09/gs-diplomas-remain- english)

[3] [http://www.columbiaspectator.com/2011/04/19/report- recommend...](http://www.columbiaspectator.com/2011/04/19/report-recommends- scaling-back-fringe-benefits)

</comment><comment><USER10> Learning never stops unless the individual decides it stops. Congratulations to Mr Filipaj for overcoming obstacles and challenges.

</comment><comment><USER11> Does this remind anyone else of Good Will Hunting?

<comment><USER12> Yeah I am actually really surprised the article didn't reference the movie even once.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Al Jazeera video [http://www.aljazeera.com/video/americas/2012/05/201251242973...](http://www.aljazeera.com/video/americas/2012/05/20125124297378706.html)

</comment><comment><USER14> I studied at Complutense University in Madrid, Spain, and I didn't have to pay for my degree either, because I was working as a custodian/porter ("conserje" or "bedel", if you read Spanish) at Politecnica University also in Madrid. Even though it was a different University, all fees were waived if you worked in the higher education sector. I studied in the late 80s to early 90s, so I don't know if this is still the case.

Mine was a common enough case. In the school where I worked, two more of the conserjes were studying engineering degrees. In the school where I studied (I have a degree in English), at least one of the conserjes was studying a tertiary degree, I don't remember which.

In these circumstances, what I wondered is why didn't more of my younger colleagues pursue further study. You have a salary, a job that leaves you quite a lot of free time to study, and reasonable hours (morning and afternoon/evening shifts) that allow you to attend classes during your non- working shift. And, some years later, you could also have a degree and a modicum of learning (or, in some cases, a lot of learning and no degree: your mileage may vary).

Great for Gac! Me and my fellow worker/students did it at a younger age, in our country of birth, surrounded by a family support network, and with a much cushier jobs (a conserje doesn't have cleaning duties, for instance). Gac sends part of his salary back to his family in the Old Country, while I could use mine to travel around Europe and buy books. In fact, I nowadays I call that job my "scholarship". I didn't have to man the counter of a 7/11 or stock supermarket shelves to pay for my studies, and I graduated with some savings. I didn't always feel privileged, but I was in many ways.

In the article, Gac Filipaj quotes Seneca, the Stoic philosopher. Read his statements again after reading a bit about stoicism[1], and they gain new meaning.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism>

</comment><comment><USER15> key point in the article - he was studying law before he came in the 90s. he may have a job as a janitor, but he was definitly college material.

</comment><comment><USER16> Is the free-tuition-for-employees thing unusual? I had a couple of kids that graduated high school with me get into several different schools because their parents worked there (no professors. mostly janitors, cafeteria workers, etc.) I was under the impression that it was similar to the GI bill for american soliders - an employee could use it, or give it to a family member.

<comment><USER17> My father is a professor at Iowa State. Everyone assumed I received free tuition, but there were actually no benefits. I 've heard of it at several private schools though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I have always seen education as the most important gift that one can give because once its given excluding fatal accidents its something that can never be taken away or lost and is useful throughout you whole life, whether at a job or simply to allow you to see the world through different perspectives.

It is great the the university was able to provide a discounted education to Filipaj and allow a man that wanted to keep studying to do just that.

Just as a side note, i feel that the coursera subjects to be just fantastic, free education from some really great lecturers on some really interesting topics just can't be beat

<comment><USER19> Yes. In a very no-nonsense personal finance book I read, the author pointed out that it is not always the case that higher rewards always come with higher risk. Time and energy spent improving your health or educating yourself (though they might have opportunity cost) are essentially zero risk. And the benefits can be both financial and quality of life related.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> This is a fantastic story. I wish the world had more men like this. If could all live our lives with the same sense of purpose, the world would truly be a better place.

<comment><USER21> I completely agree, it was a really inspiring read what this man has overcome and to learn about his positive attitude.

Luckily I only have to pay a little for my studies in Germany, though many people are still complaining about the fees. I think they could learn a lot from this mans gratefulness.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> An inspiring story. I wish it would prompt a discussion about access to quality education rather than HR policies at elite universities.</comment>


Willow garage, robot research lab, heart of ROS, will shut down - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-20/robotics-research-lab-willow-garage-shuts-down?google_editors_picks=true#p1

<comment><AUTHOR> I didn't know it was funded by an ex-googler, Mr Hassan, however I did try ros a few times and it seems a very well designed platform to get started on robotics.

I really like ROS:

\- it has an arduino plugin to immediately get the arduino integrated in the ROS ecosystem (i.e. rostopic) , ideal for novices like myself

\- it has lots of packages from kinect/xtion to drive servo motors like dynamixel's

\- OpenCV bridge

I mostly use the python bindings as I find them easier to deal with than compile everything (and possibly cross compile given i'm running ROS on arm and that it would take forever to build there)

Sad news!

</comment><comment><USER2> That sucks. I always had hoped to play with a PR-2.

<comment><AUTHOR> Me too!

Have you seen the UBR-1 ? Should be fairly similar and quite cheaper!</comment></comment>


Peeve of the day - <AUTHOR> http://torvalds-family.blogspot.com/2009/05/peeve-of-day.html

<comment><USER2> His peeve is doctors giving out homeopathic eye drops. OK, I agree with him, but it doesn't make very interesting reading.

<comment><AUTHOR> The way I read it, it has to do with whether you allow a demonstrated flaw in reasoning in one's area of expertise compromise your respect for that expert. A very interesting topic, to me at least.

<comment><USER3> A lot of knowledgeable people (including doctors who very well know it's inert) use homeopathic treatments instead of placebos. Why? In some states in the US, placebo treatments cannot be purchased without a prescription. Homeopathic treatments are almost always available for a simple purchase.

Reference: <http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4151>

<comment><AUTHOR> Wouldn't such a move require informing the parent? Besides, the article describes how the doctor went out of their way to praise the virtues of the medicine provided. If helping with a condition has the side-effect of spreading dangerous memes (yes, homeopathy can be dangerous if appropriate treatment is foregone in its favour) from the mouth of a respected expert, then that is one hell of a side-effect that the parent should be at least made aware of.

<comment><USER3> True, but the confidence of the patient is instrumental in placebo effectiveness. If the doctor has a long-term relationship with the patient, then they can have it both ways. They can play up the efficacy of the "medicine" then educate the patient on subsequent visits.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> If this post weren't by Linus, would it make the front page?

It would be nice to see Hacker News remain about ideas rather than personalities.

</comment><comment><USER5> This is one thing that I have never liked about my fellow programmers/developers.

They sit around and speculate and arrogantly pontificate to no end when all that's really needed is a direct question to a person who can provide a direct answer.

Just ask the fucking doctor if he really believes in homeopathy, and if he does, switch providers.</comment>


Show HN: Mobile app to turn ebooks into high-quality audiobooks - <AUTHOR> http://gethowler.com/ <comment><USER2> While this is very cool, I'm not sure I like the name howler, as it collides with howler.js which is a library for audio. People should be a but more creative with names.</comment>


Last Exit to Loyalty - <AUTHOR> http://tim.dreamwidth.org/1890351.html <comment><USER2> > Why is it so compelling for some people to participate in a world where, > ostensibly, they will never be seen as their entire selves and will be > judged solely on some putatively objective numerical ranking within a total > ordering of all hackers from best to worse?

Not everyone sees the whole of identity as relevant to everything you do at every moment in time. This is not a failing. This is not a problem. This is not people who are different being broken.

You know what? A line of C is syntactically correct or incorrect without regard to the race, gender, sex, or other identity aspect(s) of the individual(s) responsible for writing it.

> Since "some people" includes "me", I have to guess that it's because they're > terrified to be seen as their entire selves, since I know I am.

Or maybe not. The author pleads for empathy, but displays shockingly little of it, running instead on infantilizing assumptions and generalizations.

I want to get the author to read this: [https://medium.com/@maradydd/when- nerds-collide-31895b01e68c](https://medium.com/@maradydd/when-nerds- collide-31895b01e68c)

<comment><USER3> _A line of C is syntactically correct or incorrect without regard to the race, gender, sex, or other identity aspect(s) of the individual(s) responsible for writing it._

Exactly right. Maybe some people (usually young, nerdy teenage guys) base their entire identity on their code. Most people who code professionally or recreationally over the long term strive for excellence and correctness at all times, but don't base their entire identity on coding.

The industry is a lot healthier and more balanced than the OP article makes it out to be.

<comment><USER4> > The industry is a lot healthier and more balanced than the OP article makes > it out to be.

I think that, for some who believe it is healthy (not necessarily you, but many others I speak to who make similar claims), the conclusion is arrived at incorrectly by survivorship bias: the most visible people _tend_ to seem like they're doing alright! They're usually nice people! Good intentions all around! But speak to people who left or are leaving (like OP), and you get a more complicated picture.

I think the diversity numbers posted by Google, Twitter, Apple etc., and arguments made by a number of underrepresented people in tech make a pretty compelling case to me that the industry and its culture have plenty worth criticizing.

<comment><USER5> >I think the diversity numbers posted by Google, Twitter, Apple etc.

... reflect almost precisely the pipeline of people coming out of universities. Our culture discouraged young girls from coding. We cut off our oxygen supply and we idiotically sit around arguing about how we should treat the remaining oxygen better so we don't suffocate.

There are not enough qualified women to bring the ratio of software engineers anywhere near normal. You can bitch and moan about terrible companies and culture, but you can't attract a population of people that don't exist.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is a genuinely interesting piece that touches a number of loosely related points. They are (as I read them):

\- Engineering jobs are not primarily being about problem-solving (like he had hoped)

\- High-salaries and vanity perks (chair-massage, lunch) can make us feel work-related frustrations are invalid because we have so many perks (on paper). But vanity perks don't compensate for a fundamentally unfulfilling or disrespectful workplace.

\- Programming for oneself and for a company can be fundamentally different experiences emotionally.

\- A lot of engineering drive (to work overtime) and need to be "the best" stem from overcompensating and insecurity.

\- Negating our own and each others feelings is common as exemplified through phrases like "suck it up"

\- Competitiveness and attempts to establish superiority through irrelevant disagreements (mansplaining) illustrate an unbearable culture where you won't find friends.

\- Provides an anecdote of an insensitive boss.

\- Admits to a problem of anger-swings that is exacerbated by software.

\- Admits to feeling so aimless that he has not worked for a week at a time but instead browsed social media.

Clearly the author is not without flaw himself, and doesn't try to pretend he is (anger swings). I really enjoy these candid reflections that bring up a number of great questions instead of artificially trying to answer just one.

<comment><USER7> It was interesting to read Tim's thoughts.

The flip side of the coin, however, is if he's hated every employer, perhaps it's not them but him.

Software can be a good career, compared to many alternatives. Some autonomy, relaxed hours, relaxed dress codes, a lack of interaction with certain groups of people (I worked at mcdonalds; ask anyone who's worked at low end restaurants. Their business models are to serve the dregs of humanity who delight, in turn, in shitting upon the employees), and, of course, enough money to not worry about eating or housing (well, much about housing).

I was very frustrated my first 4 years in the industry; I had many of the symptoms he had (getting emotionally involved in my job, and, in my case, caring too much about the experience of the end product). Taking a step back, leaving the industry for a while, and realizing it was just a job helped. If my employer wants to treat customers poorly, well, sometimes that's their decision to make and I'm just going to shrug and let it go. I voice my opinion, but if my boss wants something different I let it be just his or her decision.

Hopefully Tim finds what he's looking for.

<comment><USER8> He's soft. You think a softie like that could handle the intense pressures of Bell Labs or really push the dynamic?

If you want to be a whiner and work to end a paycheck, fine. But if you want to help change the world, you really gotta dig in and work x10 as hard as everyone.

What most of tech don't realize is that the whole world is looking up to us, to deliver a solution, and while guys like that, are sitting, and whining about fairness, every day we're letting people out there down.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Obviously everyone's past and background is different, so how the industry impacts them will also be different, and their views on tech culture will also be different, but many things that the author said resonated with me as well.

I've been a programming for 10 years (three fourths of a masters degree in software engineering -- will be graduating from a part-time program next year, bachelors in engineering, multiple publications, 5 years industry), and, a couple weeks ago, asked a straightforward question about a particularly complicated implementation of a Java callable pattern, to a co-worker who had done some work with the code I was expanding on. He took it as an opportunity to tell me that I'd be dealing with this stuff all the time when I started doing "real programming" and should get used to it. He then talked about the difference between "real programming" and what I'd apparently been doing my whole career for a couple minutes, and sent me links to a github repo with code he said I should look at and learn.

He wasn't more senior than I was, I had always considered us to be equals at work, he never actually answered my question, but the entire exchange unsettled me for a couple days -- I felt like what I'd been working for my entire career was just dismissed as "not real" by him, and potentially others around me (this was after a couple of other similar incidents -- class I had to drop, failed interview for a freelance job -- that had happened recently, which made it especially unnerving)

That's the worst thing about this industry. It's almost habit for some people to dismiss others if they haven't heard of a particular style of in-memory caching that you use, or haven't used some language, or even use a language that you loathe. It's obnoxious. I've been thinking quite a bit about leaving, myself.

<comment><USER10> The rude coworker probably has that attitude (i.e., the attitude that technical skill is everything) because his social skills are so bad that he has given up on the possibility of improving them.

So, if your skin is thick enough, you might take some comfort in the knowledge that the guy's probably not skilled enough to harm you even if he decides you "deserve" to be harmed :)

<comment><USER9> My social skills aren't exactly world-class, but sure, I could leave if I wanted to. It's easy enough to get another job. But what happens at the next job, or the next?

It's not the "technical skills are everything" view that I think was at play here -- it's the "a person must do X, Y, and Z for me to consider them a 'real programmer'/respect them" (where X, Y, and Z vary wildly from person to person). Java developers scoff at PHP developers, and NoSQL evangelists look down on anything with tables. If you don't know how to search a b-tree, computer science majors extol the virtues of a formal education, and if you're self-taught with 10 years in industry, you laugh at the poor CS majors who can't properly manage a Github repo.

This creates a dangerous mix when a "culture of constant learning" starts to become a "culture of constant pedantry"

<comment><USER11> I'm self-taught with 10 or 20 years in industry, depending on how you count, and my problem with the poor CS majors is not the ones who don't understand source control — although that's an important skill! — but the ones who can't write a for loop, or who use global variables when they should be using local variables.

That is, my problem is not that certain CS majors don't know things they'd never studied, but rather that they don't know the things they _did_ study, either.

I _also_ don't have much patience for self-taught people with 10 years in industry who complain that tech interviews expect them to know that a B-tree lookup takes logarithmic time, or to be able to write correct syntax (of a language they supposedly know) on a whiteboard without an IDE. I _probably should_ have patience for these people, because, objectively speaking, spelling is hard for most people, and complexity theory is rarely used in practice. But, I feel, if you've been self-teaching a subject for ten years, how do you manage to not teach yourself such basic things?

And yet, I've been self-teaching Spanish for ten years, and I constantly come upon words and senses of words that I don't know, let alone errors of gender and incorrect idiomatic expressions in my speech. Like, maybe one per sentence.

So, I think I really need to have more patience.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I don't completely (or even mostly!) agree with the author's politics or culture views.

That said, there is a still a lot here that resonates with me and, I suspect, with others.

Tech is a pretty derpy industry.

<comment><USER13> What does derpy mean in this context? I tried googling it but all I saw were some My Little Pony references.

<comment><USER14> Socially clumsy or awkward, sometimes painfully so. Non-empathetic. Unable (or unwilling) to put itself in other peoples' shoes.

<comment><USER15> budu3: Note that this is a very non-idiomatic use of "derpy". Many other words would be more suitable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Thank you for being vulnerable and passionate, Tim. This is really helpful to me right now.

</comment><comment><USER17> Everything about this reads like an binary. Most things in life are not black and white and not everything is "this way or that way". Frankly, the entire post smacks of lack of empathy and failing to seek to understand rather than being understood.

And, the honest truth is, I might be jaded, but I get the sense from this post the OP looks for reasons to be offended. This frustrates me JUST AS MUCH as people who are insensitive or seek to offend. Both have the same underlying challenge: they genuinely don't care about the person on the other side.

And, for OPs sake, I hope he can find out what he wants to do in life. However the sad truth of the world is there is no nirvana industry, profession, group or structure. Everything has faults. Mature people get this.

<comment><USER18> The biggest red flag for me was OP's complete lack of any specific examples and supportive evidence in the post.

I've seen way too many people claim some injustice or generalization that, when the other side of the story came out, was shown not to really be present to any significant degree in their case.

In most cases, if you are withholding evidence, you are not allowing others to judge the situation for themselves.

From looking around his blog, it's clear that he has some very strong political affiliations, which make the matter worse and the need for evidence even greater.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> > ultimately it's capitalism's responsibility to make me produce for it, and > within the scope of my career, capitalism failed.

Ok.

<comment><USER20> Taking the assertion as a given, which of these 3 predominate:

1\. Firms exist in which author would have been satisfied and productive, but author and one of those firms never found each other: search failure?

2\. Firms could exist in which author would have been satisfied and productive, and those firms would have a competitive advantage over firms with culture/management making author's career unsustainable, but those firms have not been created: knowing-doing gap?

3\. Firms in which the author would have been satisfied and productive are at a competitive disadvantage to firms with culture/management making author's career unsustainable. If those firms have been created, they have failed quickly. Making author produce for capitalism would have lowered overall production: the system is working?

<comment><USER11> I'm not convinced of your assertion in #3; maybe I didn't understand?

Let's take as a given that Tim's productivity per hour, making software, is strictly positive (a point on which I am not in fact convinced in fact because of the dogmatic nature of the technical viewpoints of his that I have disagreed with over the years).

It seems, then, that having Tim working on making software, rather than, say, no productive activity whatsoever, would raise overall production, not lower it. You could argue that maybe having Tim work on making software instead of _someone else_ doing it, would lower overall production; but why should we assume that's the alternative? Maybe Tim likes problem-solving so much that he would be willing to program in exchange for just enough money to rent housing in Oakland, make pizza, and go to Thai Temple Brunch once a week, so he's only displacing ⅑ of the wages of another programmer. Or maybe, like Joey Hess, he could go live in the country, program on a tiny netbook, and connect to the world over a low-bandwidth microwave link, thus reducing his necessary wages to something like US$6000 per year. Or maybe the software that Tim will write is software that competes with, say, cabbies or coal miners, or maybe bingo- card layout services from copy shops, not other existing software; in that case he isn't displacing any other programmers at all. Or maybe Tim will work on Rust, and Rust will make programmers more employable, thus "displacing" a negative number of other programmers; the failure of those other programmers' employers to subsidize Tim's work is then merely a market failure, the kind of market failure we systematically see around public goods such as free software.

It seems to me that it's easy to believe that some productive programmer believes all sustainable capitalist firms unbearable. Indeed, the free software movement was founded by just such a programmer, an even less personable one than Tim.

<comment><USER20> Most of your third paragraph would argue for my #1 or #2 cases: there's an opportunity for more arrangements that would allow productive programmers who are not happy in firms with the dominant culture/management practice to have sustainable programming careers, there just need to be more such arrangements or better ways of such programmers finding out about such arrangements.

But my #1 or and especially #2 could mean that there's a much bigger opportunity to make typical working conditions better. From this one might see an opportunity for the industry to improve itself, or an opportunity for outside regulation to stimulate such improvement.

My #3 predominating means that non-typical arrangements are irrelevant except for extreme outliers willing to make great material sacrifices and that toxic workplaces are somehow (presumably through causing people to work very long hours and work hard due to fear) more productive than bearable workplaces, and presumably there's little difference between workplaces at non- and for- profits whether producing nonfree or free software, because they're all caught up in a race to the bottom. In this case a productive programmer who finds toxic workplaces unbearable and does not want to make extreme material sacrifices would have nowhere to go other than a different full time career, and there's no opportunity to improve the industry to change this outcome from within the industry. From this one could accept that the current state of industry is optimal, or demand outside regulation, or demand the overthrow of capitalism.

To the limited extent that I know about them, I admire Tim, Joey, and RMS and assume they've all made the right choices for themselves.

<comment><USER11> Well, my third paragraph wasn't arguing that it would be profitable to employ Tim, just that him working on software in such situations would increase total production of value. If that value isn't sufficiently capturable by the employer, it still might be unprofitable. So it doesn't actually argue for your #1 or #2 case.

I agree that if #1 or #2 is true, then there's a big and profitable opportunity to make things better within capitalism. But if they're not true, that doesn't imply that regulation or the overthrow of capitalism is strictly necessary to improve the situation; it could be that non-capitalist institutions that can coexist with capitalism could solve the problem. Dominant assurance contracts on Kickstarter, for example. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> _" unpaid emotional labor"_

Term of the year, that right there. Shamelessly borrowing and reusing.

</comment><comment><USER22> Having worked at a video game company, I've probably seen about some of the worst that the tech community has to offer (and, granted, some of the best). At the time, I didn't care about most of it: I could just concentrate on writing code and ignore the "drama", but now I care as much if not more about the wellbeing of my team that I no longer have that luxury.

I'd like to think that it will be a relatively short amount of time before business figure out that a happy, well functioning team really is more productive, and things change overnight. But maybe that's too optimistic. Could it be that a boss who "doesn't care about feelings" as the author experienced is the best way to get things done? Probably not, but if so that sure sucks.

</comment><comment><USER23> Since the post doesn't mention it explicitly, it's probably worth noting that the title is an allusion to the excellent book _Exit, Voice, and Loyalty_ [1], which is short and worth reading for anyone interested in the behavior of communities.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit,_Voice,_and_Loyalty](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit,_Voice,_and_Loyalty)

</comment><comment><USER24> I am very glad I don't work with this man. This essay really makes me grateful for working with pretty chill people.

We should have better sorting mechanisms so he can work with like-minded people and I can avoid them. I don't say his style is "bad", but it doesn't fit my style.

Which is not to deny he says some valid and interesting things - like the high proportion of emotionally damaged people in tech. But the proper response to this is to work extra hard at bridging the gap with your fellow geeks when they are behaving badly.

I've only seen a few toxic people in more than a decade of tech; I suspect this guy is characterizing many normal people as toxic.

</comment><comment> bra-ket related: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit,_Voice,_and_Loyalty](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit,_Voice,_and_Loyalty)

</comment><comment><USER8> This is literal cancer on the tech industry.

</comment><comment><USER25> This is interesting for many reasons.

Tech is not _inherently_ obnoxious. Government research labs don't have cultures that repel women or where microaggressions (also known as "pissing contests") dominate. Tech is this way because it comes from the top (VCs) down, and because it's private-sector tech oriented toward products that mostly don't matter but might make a few individuals rich... and the scramble for position, to be a founder instead of an engineer in one's next gig, dominates any technical focus because most of these startups are actually technically boring and sloppy.

I admire the OP for having the courage to stand up and speak the truth about the state of this industry (to be fair, it's worse in California than almost anywhere else) but the questions that come to my mind are... (1) who's going to stick around and fight? and (2) how do we fix it?

<comment><USER26> I don't know about all government research labs - but I do have friends and family doing Ph.Ds (or postdoccing, or even on the tenure track) where the culture is far, far worse than in Silicon Valley. Get close enough to scientists and you'll see that those fields (and it's not just one...I've heard this about molecular biology, physics, and computer science) are doing their own soul-searching about oppressive cultures.

<comment><USER27> An associate professor at a relatively prestigious university that I worked under had essentially become a manager. His days were dominated by answering calls and emails, writing grants, and going to meetings, with all of the actual scientific research delegated to his grad students. Oppressive indeed.</comment></comment></comment>