4 ms·

That's generally not the kind of leverage that China has. Factories bend over backwards for your business, 'we won't make it for you' is not a kind of discussio

That's generally not the kind of leverage that China has. Factories bend over backwards for your business, 'we won't make it for you' is not a kind of discussion that's had. There are almost always alternatives and they know it. The stick/carrot that China uses is market access. The thing is, there is often no actual carrot. Zuck has been on his knees forever, as have Google, they are nowhere. If you're Pizza Hut or KFC or some kind of brand, maybe, but anything else ...

joe_the_user 8y ago
I'm sure an individual Chinese factory wouldn't take reprisals on it's own or anything. This is speculative - as much for anyone doing business with China as for me in the US just thinking. But it's not individual factories doing the hacking and I assume it wouldn't be individual factories doing the reprisals, it would be the Chinese state, which has a reputation for a scorched earth approach. And yeah, given the carrot often isn't very real, the idea that provokes unanimous behavior among US companies in China seems implausible.
- Stranger43 8y ago
  Why do you assume that individual Chinese companies dont do any hacking and that the only companies being hacked by Chinese entities are "Western". In a lot of ways China is a lot like the US doing the gilded age when companies were at each other throats and no trick was to dirty in the game of markets. There is this decease in US strategic thinking of looking for an superhuman single conspiracy whenever the cartel of "no longer strong enough" conspirators the author/thinker backs or belong to is not 110% successful where as the reality is often far more chaotic where you have a series of competitors(who is competing with each other and you) essentially changing the market dynamics in a way that makes the market hostile to some organizations. The other problem is that if capitalism works as described China should be growing and the west declining as capital are supposed to flow towards stable developing(as in still poor) states as that's where the biggest payouts is, the fact that the reverse is true for America(and for the global cold war economy) proves that Smith was either wrong or that America was never a capitalist democracy. The cold hard truth is that the next wave of growth will likely bypass the west so unless you want to become a low margin(de facto state controlled) monopoly or is small enough to ignore interstate markets you need to be in China, India and in decade or two Africa to grow, and the Koreans and Chinese have already gone there so if you are an western company you are catching up from a position of weakness.
  - joe_the_user 8y ago
    FYI, I don't assume that Chinese companies don't do hacking. It's just that the article was about hacking by the Chinese state and why American companies have been reluctant to come forward as victims of this hacking. And this question in a sense has little to do with China in particular. When someone is victimized by an individual or institution that has considerable power over them, are they reluctant to come forward? You bet they are. The only thing that can convince them is an individual or institution that can protect them. The US government cannot protect a US company doing business in China. Is this something like an "abusive relationship", sure but so are a lot of things.

joe_the_user 8y ago

I'm sure an individual Chinese factory wouldn't take reprisals on it's own or anything. This is speculative - as much for anyone doing business with China as for me in the US just thinking. But it's not individual factories doing the hacking and I assume it wouldn't be individual factories doing the reprisals, it would be the Chinese state, which has a reputation for a scorched earth approach. And yeah, given the carrot often isn't very real, the idea that provokes unanimous behavior among US companies in China seems implausible.

Stranger43 8y ago
Why do you assume that individual Chinese companies dont do any hacking and that the only companies being hacked by Chinese entities are "Western". In a lot of ways China is a lot like the US doing the gilded age when companies were at each other throats and no trick was to dirty in the game of markets. There is this decease in US strategic thinking of looking for an superhuman single conspiracy whenever the cartel of "no longer strong enough" conspirators the author/thinker backs or belong to is not 110% successful where as the reality is often far more chaotic where you have a series of competitors(who is competing with each other and you) essentially changing the market dynamics in a way that makes the market hostile to some organizations. The other problem is that if capitalism works as described China should be growing and the west declining as capital are supposed to flow towards stable developing(as in still poor) states as that's where the biggest payouts is, the fact that the reverse is true for America(and for the global cold war economy) proves that Smith was either wrong or that America was never a capitalist democracy. The cold hard truth is that the next wave of growth will likely bypass the west so unless you want to become a low margin(de facto state controlled) monopoly or is small enough to ignore interstate markets you need to be in China, India and in decade or two Africa to grow, and the Koreans and Chinese have already gone there so if you are an western company you are catching up from a position of weakness.
- joe_the_user 8y ago
  FYI, I don't assume that Chinese companies don't do hacking. It's just that the article was about hacking by the Chinese state and why American companies have been reluctant to come forward as victims of this hacking. And this question in a sense has little to do with China in particular. When someone is victimized by an individual or institution that has considerable power over them, are they reluctant to come forward? You bet they are. The only thing that can convince them is an individual or institution that can protect them. The US government cannot protect a US company doing business in China. Is this something like an "abusive relationship", sure but so are a lot of things.