5 ms·

So we shouldn't hold anyone accountable? Just give up? Yesterday Hackernews talked about how Apple was just focused on making money and they should ignore any

So we shouldn't hold anyone accountable? Just give up? Yesterday Hackernews talked about how Apple was just focused on making money and they should ignore any moral implications, today we are supposed to feel compassion and understanding for poor Tim Cook? It just sounds like everyone has Apple as their idol and they can't do any wrong.

michaelt 9y ago
So we shouldn't hold anyone accountable? Just give up? What's needed here is a coalition. If N companies pulled out of China and it didn't liberalise, they've incurred a cost for no benefit. If N+1 pulled out and it did trigger China to liberalise, they'd benefit from doing it. The trick is finding the N+1 companies and convincing them they're enough to be the trigger.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  I mean it's probably more effective to make it more painful for them not to act than to act.
- Chaebixi 9y ago
  > If N companies pulled out of China and it didn't liberalise, they've incurred a cost for no benefit. If N+1 pulled out and it did trigger China to liberalise, they'd benefit from doing it. > The trick is finding the N+1 companies and convincing them they're enough to be the trigger. It seems like China has been pretty successful at preventing the actual dependence on foreign companies needed for that strategy to have its indented effect. For instance, if Apple pulls out, Chinese who can afford an iPhone are just going to have to settle for a Huawei. The only chance I see is a general reduction in trade or foreign-driven manufacturing hurting the overall Chinese economy, but that would take a lot of companies to accomplish. https://9to5mac.com/2017/05/23/iphone-market-share-gartner-q1-2017/ https://9to5mac.com/2017/05/23/iphone-market-share-gartner-q...
- mistermann 9y ago
  The funny thing is, not doing this is just kicking the can down the road. Chinese companies with their protected access to the gigantic and prosperous Chinese market, will eventually be "good enough" to crush all others, across virtually all markets.
Fnoord 9y ago
We can, but you end up as signal within a vast amount of noise (Gandhi's "first they ignore you" phase isn't always passed). If you eventually do get contact it will end up with a kind of theatrical act where we are acting that they should care and are being heard, and the CEO may end up acting as if he does care. Perhaps even with more than mere actions. Maybe he even cares as a human being (if he doesn't -> psychopath), but with his CEO hat on he certainly does not.
- Chaebixi 9y ago
  > Maybe he even cares as a human being (if he doesn't -> psychopath), but with his CEO hat on he certainly does not. Aren't CEOs and managers even trained to think that way in business school? For instance the "shareholder value maximization" idea, which teaches the sole responsibility of a corporation is to make the most money it can for its shareholders, and damn everything else. That's a problem the Chinese have managed to avoid, even if it's been in a corrupt way. It seems like they make the local companies prioritize the policy objectives of the authoritarian government ahead of absolutely maximizing the profit interests of their shareholders. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareholder_value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareholder_value
3pt14159 9y ago
It's less straightforward than you're letting on. China is slowly, slowly liberalizing. The trendline is towards more civic freedom, less inhumane practices. If they started to do something destabilizing or genocidal, that is the time to pull out.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  Not really. If anything it's the opposite. They're clamping down on Hong Kong ahead of schedule and Xi is going in a more authoritarian direction. I think China is actually demonstrating the fallacy of our idea that as a country develops it has to become a liberal democracy.
  - Chaebixi 9y ago
    Yeah, they played the West. The Communists got what they wanted (technology transfer), while keeping everything firmly under their control. > I think China is actually demonstrating the fallacy of our idea that as a country develops it has to become a liberal democracy. I don't think that's necessarily been proven a fallacy, the idea that liberalizing China would be simple and automatic certainly has been. The Chinese Communists aren't stupid: they've been carefully studying things like post-Communist Russia and the Arab Spring in order to avoid mistakes that might cause them to lose power. If China liberalizes, it will take a unique path that the Communists probably couldn't see.
    - 3pt14159 9y ago
      Things in China are dramatically better than they were 30 years ago. Yes they played the west wrt techology, and we should have hit back harder after Nortel got nailed, but overall Chinese people are more knowledgeable about the world around them and their middle class would never put up with the types of things that Mao got away with. Harmonizing HK with the rest of Chinese policies doesn't really change my mind.
      - emodendroket 9y ago
emodendroket 9y ago
I'm just saying that there is always this idea that companies will do the right thing out of the kindness of their hearts when in reality they usually need to be compelled to do so. That's why, for instance, they passed the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act instead of kindly asking companies to stop bribing foreign governments (not that that is bulletproof.

michaelt 9y ago

So we shouldn't hold anyone accountable? Just give up? What's needed here is a coalition. If N companies pulled out of China and it didn't liberalise, they've incurred a cost for no benefit. If N+1 pulled out and it did trigger China to liberalise, they'd benefit from doing it. The trick is finding the N+1 companies and convincing them they're enough to be the trigger.

emodendroket 9y ago
I mean it's probably more effective to make it more painful for them not to act than to act.
Chaebixi 9y ago
> If N companies pulled out of China and it didn't liberalise, they've incurred a cost for no benefit. If N+1 pulled out and it did trigger China to liberalise, they'd benefit from doing it. > The trick is finding the N+1 companies and convincing them they're enough to be the trigger. It seems like China has been pretty successful at preventing the actual dependence on foreign companies needed for that strategy to have its indented effect. For instance, if Apple pulls out, Chinese who can afford an iPhone are just going to have to settle for a Huawei. The only chance I see is a general reduction in trade or foreign-driven manufacturing hurting the overall Chinese economy, but that would take a lot of companies to accomplish. https://9to5mac.com/2017/05/23/iphone-market-share-gartner-q1-2017/ https://9to5mac.com/2017/05/23/iphone-market-share-gartner-q...
mistermann 9y ago
The funny thing is, not doing this is just kicking the can down the road. Chinese companies with their protected access to the gigantic and prosperous Chinese market, will eventually be "good enough" to crush all others, across virtually all markets.

Fnoord 9y ago

We can, but you end up as signal within a vast amount of noise (Gandhi's "first they ignore you" phase isn't always passed). If you eventually do get contact it will end up with a kind of theatrical act where we are acting that they should care and are being heard, and the CEO may end up acting as if he does care. Perhaps even with more than mere actions. Maybe he even cares as a human being (if he doesn't -> psychopath), but with his CEO hat on he certainly does not.

Chaebixi 9y ago
> Maybe he even cares as a human being (if he doesn't -> psychopath), but with his CEO hat on he certainly does not. Aren't CEOs and managers even trained to think that way in business school? For instance the "shareholder value maximization" idea, which teaches the sole responsibility of a corporation is to make the most money it can for its shareholders, and damn everything else. That's a problem the Chinese have managed to avoid, even if it's been in a corrupt way. It seems like they make the local companies prioritize the policy objectives of the authoritarian government ahead of absolutely maximizing the profit interests of their shareholders. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareholder_value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareholder_value

3pt14159 9y ago

It's less straightforward than you're letting on. China is slowly, slowly liberalizing. The trendline is towards more civic freedom, less inhumane practices. If they started to do something destabilizing or genocidal, that is the time to pull out.

emodendroket 9y ago
Not really. If anything it's the opposite. They're clamping down on Hong Kong ahead of schedule and Xi is going in a more authoritarian direction. I think China is actually demonstrating the fallacy of our idea that as a country develops it has to become a liberal democracy.
- Chaebixi 9y ago
  Yeah, they played the West. The Communists got what they wanted (technology transfer), while keeping everything firmly under their control. > I think China is actually demonstrating the fallacy of our idea that as a country develops it has to become a liberal democracy. I don't think that's necessarily been proven a fallacy, the idea that liberalizing China would be simple and automatic certainly has been. The Chinese Communists aren't stupid: they've been carefully studying things like post-Communist Russia and the Arab Spring in order to avoid mistakes that might cause them to lose power. If China liberalizes, it will take a unique path that the Communists probably couldn't see.
  - 3pt14159 9y ago
    Things in China are dramatically better than they were 30 years ago. Yes they played the west wrt techology, and we should have hit back harder after Nortel got nailed, but overall Chinese people are more knowledgeable about the world around them and their middle class would never put up with the types of things that Mao got away with. Harmonizing HK with the rest of Chinese policies doesn't really change my mind.
    - emodendroket 9y ago

emodendroket 9y ago

I'm just saying that there is always this idea that companies will do the right thing out of the kindness of their hearts when in reality they usually need to be compelled to do so. That's why, for instance, they passed the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act instead of kindly asking companies to stop bribing foreign governments (not that that is bulletproof.