Jack Huang

Luminary Consulting
Palisades Park, NJ, United States

About Jack

Languages

English

Areas of Expertise

Physics, Economics, China

Favorite talks

Comments & conversations

Noface
Jack Huang
Posted almost 2 years ago
Eric X. Li: A tale of two political systems
I agree that Mao's personal reign was, to put it almost comically lightly, inefficient. But, after his death, the CCP allowed itself to admit that it needed to change with the times. I agree that gradual economic evolution under Mao would've been better than Deng's sudden, massive reforms, but if we look at the CCP now, and of the last twenty years, it's behaviorally quite different from the CCP under Mao's rule. While it may adopt fewer changes than a comparable democracy and misprioritize which changes to adopt first, it has the advantage of likely acting quickly and decisively once the CCP decides on what it wants to do. You'll find little disagreement from me regarding the state of the CCP directly under Mao, but (and yes, I know I'm exaggerating your position a bit) the same criticisms don't simply carry over to the modern CCP. To address both of your points at once, I'm curious as to whether you can actually make a solid argument that the Chinese economy would be significantly better off without CCP rule. How would you support the argument that hypothetical China, starting from its real historical state of affairs in the 1960s, would transition effectively to a functional democracy (I assume your alternative to the CCP isn't simply a different authoritarian regime) capable of greater economic growth, industrialization, and urbanization than the real China has experienced in the last 30 years?
Noface
Jack Huang
Posted almost 2 years ago
Eric X. Li: A tale of two political systems
"I wrote nothing about 'millionaires'" False. Reread your bit about the Bernie Madoff investor. Aside from perhaps a scant handful of people in his personal circle of influence, you likely won't find a single Madoff investor who wasn't worth double-digit millions. Also, it's amusing that, in your singular quest to troll those you deem to be inferior to yourself, you've apparently just trolled none other than yourself. A couple of quotes from your comments: 1. "This is a very accurate, chilling and universal expression of middle class complacency... Her values and ideas, with minor adjustments and a little less about ethnic homogeneity even if she has no idea why, would find ready companions in middle class circles in India, Singapore, Brazil, the USA, Germany, Japan, Russia, Canada, etc., etc.." 2. "For the most part the middle classes everywhere look sideways and up, not down. They aspire." Please, take all the time you need to think of a way to reconcile those two statements using something even remotely resembling logic. "Although I am very happy in my days lately I cannot be as contented as you and your friends given the consistently appalling behavior of our species world wide in the "modern" era." I see. So, given your link, you're apparently "very happy" being fully and inexorably immersed in a long and darkly fruitful history of human genocide. How lovely. It's actually quite understandable that you would have nothing more to add. After all, you just personally deflated your initial haughty judgments of the "middle class," and you elaborated on your position as that of feeling immense joy while apparently constantly "questioning" deep, deep issues tangential to the dark history of human genocide, with a few dashes of vapid self-superiority for added zest. Fun times. Cheers. ;-)
Noface
Jack Huang
Posted almost 2 years ago
Eric X. Li: A tale of two political systems
If your idea of "middle class complacency", and "middle class circles in India, Singapore, Brazil, the USA, Germany, Japan, Russia, Canada, etc." is attending meet-and-greets with millionaires and going on shopping sprees in Milan, then you're either lying simply for the sake of b----ing at Cecilia, or so far removed from middle-class society that you literally have no idea what the term means. Add to that the fact that you presume to chastize someone else (anyone else, really), of opining with "no knowledge... of a subject," and the experience of reading your comment starts to eerily resemble watching a rhesus monkey repeatedly punching itself in the face.
Noface
Jack Huang
Posted almost 2 years ago
Eric X. Li: A tale of two political systems
While it's amusing that your rebuttal begins with idly dismissing Li (and any PRC citizen who happens to disagree with you) as essentially "just another mindless little Maoist robot", it's disappointing that your rebuttal falls completely flat after that brief but impressive display of vapid arrogance. "worship two things: money and the central Chinese party-state. Both of these are seen as inviolable and inherently superior things." Replace "central Chinese party-state" with "American exceptionalism", you could just as well be describing just about every American (both pre-Maoist and post-Maoist) alive. "any system leading to greater economic growth is better than any system that does not." Given China's 19th-century experiences with economically and technologically superior Western powers, it's a bit presumptuous to sneer at your reductionist caricature of modern Chinese values when modern capitalism, which the US incessantly claims to be the paragon of, adheres fervently to this one, single, inviolable mantra. "This makes little sense on an economic level (China's growth is high because it started from an artificially low level)" "Artificially." I don't remember reading, in any history-oriented text, a CCP Politburo meeting that ended with the conclusion of "Hey, we should purposely make our economy suck for a while, so we can say 'A-ha!' with our GDP growth stats a decade from now." This could have happened, though, and it'd be wonderful if you could link me to some relevant documentation. If you believe the material of this talk is "NOT reasoning," then you have rebutted it superbly on, as far as you believe, its own terms.
Noface
Jack Huang
Posted almost 2 years ago
Eric X. Li: A tale of two political systems
"As an insider," I can lay down rational analyses without shallow emotional bulls---. "In the speech, Eric poses several stages experienced by Chinese people from 1949 until now and says that this is the proof of the capability to change of CCP. But isn't it also a proof of the fragility of CCP? It doesn't have any constant ideological goal which could channel Chinese society to a sustainable and gradual progress." Cute wordplay. The CCP has, as part of its bid to stay in power, an ideological goal to maintain steady progress for the Chinese economy. The fact that it's changed strategies doesn't mean that this core goal has changed. Similarly, an oncologist may initially try to treat cancer using surgery, then switch to chemotherapy if that fails. However, just because the oncologist switched strategies doesn't mean that he's abandoned his core goal of trying to save his patient. Further, you essentially completely contradict what you said in your previous comment: "A truly democratic polity doesn't have meta-narrative, doesn't have a whole ideological package to govern the mind of everybody." So, which is it: is a "whole ideological package" an undemocratic (and thus, "bad") thing, or is a "constant ideological goal" a good thing? Or, are you just making things up as you go along, with your sole personal ideological goal being "The CCP is a bunch of poopyheads?" "Economical booming without guarantee of basic social justice can not be called effective." By the standards of most mainland Chinese, it absolutely can be called "effective." Thus, the Party's overwhelming emphasis on GDP growth figures. "What westerners ask for their government is asymmetrical to the Chinese. That is the reason why there are so many distortions and asymmetrical refractions among all these conversations." And you're espousing a Western-oriented perspective, while pretending that you represent a mainland Chinese perspective.
Noface
Jack Huang
Posted almost 2 years ago
Eric X. Li: A tale of two political systems
While I fully agree with your second point, and marginally agree with your last point, your first point is absolute and unabashed nonsense. China's economy is still highly controlled by the CCP: it has market-economy characteristics because the CCP (notably beginning with Deng Xiaoping) wants it to. The fact that it has pivoted so dramatically so quickly isn't any indication of failure on the part of the CCP, since, once again, the CCP is still very much in control of China's economic evolution. The "reluctant change" you so casually dismiss was so seismic and so rapid that many Western observers, even after it was well underway, insisted on dismissing the idea that such a massive, rapid change was even possible for such a huge nation. On your last point, the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward were, in many ways, tragic mistakes. But, China had strong Confucian values during its century of humiliation. It's absurd to argue that Confucian values rebuilt China when those same values were present (and even stronger) during China's decline in the 19th century. The adoption and exaggeration of Western capitalistic values, as well as Mao's push towards emphasizing industrialization, is what turned China from an agrarian third-world nation back into a world superpower, albeit a superpower that still has serious problems.
Noface
Jack Huang
Posted over 4 years ago
Martin Jacques: Understanding the rise of China
Jacques actually directly addressed your little "ask a Uighur!" quip early on in his speech. Perhaps you should rewatch the talk if you have no memory of this. Jacques' talk hardly overgeneralizes to the extremes that you claim, nor is "a leveling out of income across the world" anything close to guaranteed "in the end." Heck, it's not even remotely anywhere within a capitalistic society. Try again.
Noface
Jack Huang
Posted over 4 years ago
Martin Jacques: Understanding the rise of China
While much of China's growth can be ascribed to its self-positioning as the world's manufacturing base, to claim that China's growth was predicated upon human rights violations is silly. The phenomenon of cheap Chinese labor primarily comes from sizable CPI differences between China and Western nations and the fact that Chinese urbanization was one of the largest single human migrations in known history. Simple supply & demand takes care of the rest, aided by Deng Xiaoping's economic reforms in the 80s and 90s. Further, if we are to harp about China's workers' conditions, I'll point you to the recent case of multiple suicides at Foxconn's China-based factory. Straight to the point: it's directly run by Taiwanese management. The same goes for the Mattel factories that were at the heart of the tainted toys scandal. As long as we're playing the blame game, we shouldn't stop halfway through the first round.