5 ms·

> The real theft that mainly originates from China (no matter if via the "legal" route of buying up Western companies or force "technology transfer" via joint v

by chvid 7y ago

> The real theft that mainly originates from China (no matter if via the "legal" route of buying up Western companies or force "technology transfer" via joint ventures or via hacking) Honestly; how can you call it "theft" if it is done via buying or a joint venture?

mschuster91 7y ago
> Honestly; how can you call it "theft" if it is done via buying or a joint venture? Joint ventures are compulsory. What China does is extorting market access. As for buying: Systematically undermining them by price-dumping and then buying up the carcasses isn't exactly fine business practices either. China is definitely going to be the enemy of the next 20-30 years, pitting a ruthless dictatorship against whatever freedom and democracy will be left in the Western world.
- ewngzen 7y ago
  Right joint venture is compulsory while the ban of HW is completely voluntary.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
    Despite what our parents may have told us growing up, it does matter who starts things. If we had banned HW, and China responded by requiring joint ventures for all market entrants, that would be our bad. But the opposite is the case.
- codedokode 7y ago
  I think you are making a mistake here. You try to present the situation as if there were restrictions for doing business only in China, and no restrictions in developed countries. That is simply not true; US also has tariffs for importing goods, and also sets the rules on what foreign companies can or cannot do. US also has much stronger negotiating power than China, and it makes international agreements that are mostly beneficial for them. China cannot do that. For example, if you want to sell your goods in Western countries, your country is often required to join an organisation like WTO. But to do it, you have to comply with their rules. So basically, developed countries are setting the conditions for developing countries. Of course, it is their right, but then it is nothing like a "free" trade. Also, disrupting Huawei's or Kaspersky's business in US without any international court case, without being able to defend itself, just because government suspects something, doesn't resemble free trade too. It resembles what China does though.
tw04 7y ago
Depends on how you view theft. If China has been artificially keeping their currency low while the government has been pouring cash into companies to allow them to sell at a loss - causing competitors to declare bankrupcty, then buying up the assets. I'd call that "stealing" from both shareholders and the insert country of origin of the asset they're acquiring.

by chvid 7y ago

mschuster91 7y ago

> Honestly; how can you call it "theft" if it is done via buying or a joint venture? Joint ventures are compulsory. What China does is extorting market access. As for buying: Systematically undermining them by price-dumping and then buying up the carcasses isn't exactly fine business practices either. China is definitely going to be the enemy of the next 20-30 years, pitting a ruthless dictatorship against whatever freedom and democracy will be left in the Western world.

ewngzen 7y ago
Right joint venture is compulsory while the ban of HW is completely voluntary.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
  Despite what our parents may have told us growing up, it does matter who starts things. If we had banned HW, and China responded by requiring joint ventures for all market entrants, that would be our bad. But the opposite is the case.
codedokode 7y ago
I think you are making a mistake here. You try to present the situation as if there were restrictions for doing business only in China, and no restrictions in developed countries. That is simply not true; US also has tariffs for importing goods, and also sets the rules on what foreign companies can or cannot do. US also has much stronger negotiating power than China, and it makes international agreements that are mostly beneficial for them. China cannot do that. For example, if you want to sell your goods in Western countries, your country is often required to join an organisation like WTO. But to do it, you have to comply with their rules. So basically, developed countries are setting the conditions for developing countries. Of course, it is their right, but then it is nothing like a "free" trade. Also, disrupting Huawei's or Kaspersky's business in US without any international court case, without being able to defend itself, just because government suspects something, doesn't resemble free trade too. It resembles what China does though.

tw04 7y ago

Depends on how you view theft. If China has been artificially keeping their currency low while the government has been pouring cash into companies to allow them to sell at a loss - causing competitors to declare bankrupcty, then buying up the assets. I'd call that "stealing" from both shareholders and the insert country of origin of the asset they're acquiring.