3 ms·

Any move China takes that blocks foreign competition can be seen as an extreme version of an import tariff. Instead of protecting low level industries like corn

Any move China takes that blocks foreign competition can be seen as an extreme version of an import tariff. Instead of protecting low level industries like corn producers either subsidizing domestic production or taxing foreign imports, China focuses on higher level industries like technology companies, culture companies, etc. While China doesn't have the benefit of Google in the short term, by blocking them it gives it a chance for local companies to develop the technology and catch up. Also take the example of TOMs shoes giving away free shoes replacing local markets and producers. These poor countries of weak governments, and even a small foreign company can impact the local the economy in uncertain ways. http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2014/10/economics-toms-shoes http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2014/10/economic... If you can understand this you can understand the viewpoint of Chinese officials. We come in with the viewpoint of "how can I have my fair and equal opportunity to extract wealth from China" while the capitalists in China are thinking "how can I extract wealth from China and prevent the foreigners from doing so." In reality the playing field isn't level. Our counterparts in China don't have the same education, quality of life, and financial status. Therefore a foreign company with foreign talent would already enter the market with an upper hand. By the time local companies are ready, they'd be fighting an uphill battle against foreign incumbents, or worse yet, not develop at all. If you're familiar with Star Trek, there's the concept of the Prime Directive. It's principle is that the developed races must never contact or interfere with an undeveloped race because doing so would alter their natural development. Foreign companies don't have an inherent right to the Chinese market. If they feel they do, or want to enter, it's because they feel there is profit in it. The profit comes from exploiting the opportunity in the local market, and in an underdeveloped market such opportunities are ripe. This isn't exactly fair if mature companies are allowed unfettered access.

rsanek 11y ago
In the linked article regarding TOMS shoes: "While statistical significance is nowhere to be seen, by dint of their consistency the results are reasonably convincing." That's not how statistical significance works; if you don't reach it, you can't say anything about whether or not there is an effect. The actual research paper is here: http://repository.usfca.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=econ http://repository.usfca.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005.... In it, the authors say "After controlling for household and parental characteristics as well as ADP-level fixed effects, we can uncover no statistically significant negative impact on shoe purchases in local markets."
- chrischen 11y ago
  TOMs practice was small scale. But the effects of if they increased their impact and handouts would be anticompetitive to underdeveloped local competition.
prewett 11y ago
This isn't about money or protectionism. This is about information control. The government states what they wish the truth were as if it were true. This is not believable if there is other evidence, or even a broad discussion. Hence, viewpoints contrary to the government's "truth" must be stamped out. Apparently Xi's predecessors did not think this was as important, but Xi seems to be old-school. I do not think this is a good idea for China or the government. It seems like the government only has one solution for a problem: more control. More control is like pressurizing a container. The more pressure you put, the bigger the explosion when the container eventually ruptures. I don't think this is in the interest of anyone in China, so I hope they rethink things before the pressure gets too high.
- fisheuler 11y ago
  Yeah，Xi's recent action is just like turn the clock back 30 years,not just more foreign media control,but also more domestic media control.Also,a teacher of East China Normal University(华东师大)just committed suicide yesterday night,despairing with those bad news broadcasting from our national CCTV for about 20 minutes.
- chrischen 11y ago
  China's still not developed enough. Foreign media and foreign freedom of the press doesn't mean all press are publishing good things, or things good for the public. In a developed nation this is OK because the public has fewer problems to worry about and can devote the time to punish bad press or filter out bad actors. In China where people worry about many things including clean water and corruption, having to have to worry about a large portion of the population being swindled by a bad acting foreign media propaganda is a real concern. In the US if some nazi propaganda publication gets published its ok. Most people know well enough to dismiss them. In an undeveloped country this could potentially result in a nazi takeover. See impoverished Germany after World War I as an example. This doesn't mean the Chinese government isn't spewing its own propaganda, but at the least its working well enough to drive economic growth at the moment, and they don't want to derail that with chaos or dissent.
  - 11y ago

rsanek 11y ago

In the linked article regarding TOMS shoes: "While statistical significance is nowhere to be seen, by dint of their consistency the results are reasonably convincing." That's not how statistical significance works; if you don't reach it, you can't say anything about whether or not there is an effect. The actual research paper is here: http://repository.usfca.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=econ http://repository.usfca.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005.... In it, the authors say "After controlling for household and parental characteristics as well as ADP-level fixed effects, we can uncover no statistically significant negative impact on shoe purchases in local markets."

chrischen 11y ago
TOMs practice was small scale. But the effects of if they increased their impact and handouts would be anticompetitive to underdeveloped local competition.

prewett 11y ago

This isn't about money or protectionism. This is about information control. The government states what they wish the truth were as if it were true. This is not believable if there is other evidence, or even a broad discussion. Hence, viewpoints contrary to the government's "truth" must be stamped out. Apparently Xi's predecessors did not think this was as important, but Xi seems to be old-school. I do not think this is a good idea for China or the government. It seems like the government only has one solution for a problem: more control. More control is like pressurizing a container. The more pressure you put, the bigger the explosion when the container eventually ruptures. I don't think this is in the interest of anyone in China, so I hope they rethink things before the pressure gets too high.

fisheuler 11y ago
Yeah，Xi's recent action is just like turn the clock back 30 years,not just more foreign media control,but also more domestic media control.Also,a teacher of East China Normal University(华东师大)just committed suicide yesterday night,despairing with those bad news broadcasting from our national CCTV for about 20 minutes.
chrischen 11y ago
China's still not developed enough. Foreign media and foreign freedom of the press doesn't mean all press are publishing good things, or things good for the public. In a developed nation this is OK because the public has fewer problems to worry about and can devote the time to punish bad press or filter out bad actors. In China where people worry about many things including clean water and corruption, having to have to worry about a large portion of the population being swindled by a bad acting foreign media propaganda is a real concern. In the US if some nazi propaganda publication gets published its ok. Most people know well enough to dismiss them. In an undeveloped country this could potentially result in a nazi takeover. See impoverished Germany after World War I as an example. This doesn't mean the Chinese government isn't spewing its own propaganda, but at the least its working well enough to drive economic growth at the moment, and they don't want to derail that with chaos or dissent.
- 11y ago