4 ms·
> I think in general we're far too willing, far too often, to dismiss Chinese business tactics as benevolent. Who are "we" in this context? I don't really thi
by fredkbloggs 11y ago
> I think in general we're far too willing, far too often, to dismiss Chinese business tactics as benevolent.
Who are "we" in this context? I don't really think anyone in the western world seriously believes there is anything benevolent about China, full stop. What's happening here, and what IBM's statements clearly indicate, is that western CEOs think they might be able to goose their quarterly earnings for a year or two by kowtowing to whatever China demands. That means bigger bonuses and maybe more valuable stock for the CEOs, possibly (who are we kidding, certainly) lower profits in the long run as everyone knows China steals everything not bolted down and much of what is. But the CEO has no incentive to care about that.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- vegabook 11y ago"We" = the vast majority of people whose short term consumption addiction is being financed by China, which conversely is investing in our long term economic serfdom.
- fredkbloggs 11y agoI see. That's not assumption of benevolence, it's simple greed. The same "I'll be gone, you'll be gone" attitude that created the mortgage implosion and so much else that's gone wrong throughout human history. Xbox buyers don't really think China is benevolent, they just don't care because they figure most of the harm they do will be visited on others.
- vegabook 11y agoThe assumption of benevolence is convenient for everyone, consumers and capital alike.