5 ms·

“American companies account for 121 of the world’s largest corporations by revenue. Chinese companies account for 129 (including 10 Taiwanese companies).” Bit

by chvid 7y ago

“American companies account for 121 of the world’s largest corporations by revenue. Chinese companies account for 129 (including 10 Taiwanese companies).” Bit of a stretch to include Taiwan here ... sure it is ethnically Chinese but more of an ally of the us than mainland China at this point.

christophilus 7y ago
I mean, 119 vs 121 is still impressive, if true. With China’s momentum, I wouldn’t be surprised if they pass the US soonish. That said, any article that includes Taiwan as part of China immediately makes me think it’s a propaganda piece.
- jerf 7y ago
  Perhaps, but in the last year things have taken a turn that suggest China's momentum may be taking a turn for the worse recently. Trump's trade war is just a leading indicator, but it's not the only problem they're facing; increasing amounts of the world are seeing them as a direct threat. I'm not sure we can project out China's progress from a politital/economic regime where they were at least effectively unopposed (beyond the normal give and take of any economy), if not actively being given a helping hand, to a regime where they are being actively opposed by an increasing number of economies. It's possible a trade war will end up being the best possible thing that could happen to them by putting some stress on their economy and helping them sharpen their game, but, then again, it may end up being the case that once again, a Communist regime turns out to be a paper tiger pumped up by a lot of people heavily invested in seeing Communism succeed, only for it to collapse spectacularly once all the internal contradictions are laid bare. Stay tuned for the next couple of years.
  - lonelappde 7y ago
    That's valid, but the US might have peaked as well, considering recent internal turmoil. China is totalitarian/single-party, not very Communist anymore (central planning of economy? Wages and welfare predominantly provided by the State?), and getting less Communist every day. China's CCP is as Communist as the US Greens are "green" or the Democrats are "democrats" vs Republicans being "republican". At a glance, China is converging with US, with China becoming a single-party-rule corporate oligopoly, and US becoming a libertarian corporate oligopoly.
    - madengr 7y ago
      What internal turmoil? Trump? He will be gone in 1-5 years, then it is another political cycle. Nothing unusual. China has had 1 party (communist) rule for 70 years?
      - 1PlayerOne 7y ago
        What about the political polarization? Do you see it going away as soon as Trump is gone? Or will it get even worse?
        madengr 7y ago
        The same or worse, which is fine, as it causes gridlock. The last thing I want is single party control.
        1PlayerOne 7y ago
        well I am glad you like the gridlock. Good luck with that.
- lonelappde 7y ago
  It's not propaganda so much as not letting inconvenient facts get in the way of a good story. Lots of ways to looks at numbers. China has 3x the population of US, so should we divide the company count by 3? Does number of companies matter, or market cap? Or revenue? Or profit + salary? Does purchasing power parity affect the weighting? What about the effects of US alliances with Europe vs China's alliances? What about the fact that US companies are multinationals, not purely American? At best you can say that China is on the rise and is a force to be reckoned with. Can't say if it's more or less powerful than USA.
kenneth 7y ago
It's not just a stretch, it's ridiculous. It's a fact made up to make their narrative fit because it wouldn't work if it was 119 vs. 121 Taiwan is an entirely different entity politically no matter if you subscribe to the one China doctrine. China has little to no control over it and therefore derives no power from its companies.
- yoz-y 7y ago
  > China has no control over it This is quite a stretch too. The relationship and interdependence of the two is very complicated. China is one of the largest market to which Taiwan exports their goods (and in large part, the culture) and China has used this to pressure Taiwan in the past.
  - ForHackernews 7y ago
    Ok, but then by that logic, Mexican and Canadian companies should count to the USA total. After all, the US is their largest export market and the USA frequently puts diplomatic and economic pressures on her neighbours.
    - Barrin92 7y ago
      Under the one-china-policy endorsed by the United States Taiwan is not a sovereign state, in contrast to Mexico and Canada, with the recognition of Taiwan steadily falling. This is a strange comparison.
      - adventured 7y ago
        > Under the one-china-policy endorsed by the United States Taiwan is not a sovereign state That's incorrect. The US does not endorse that Taiwan is owned by China and that there is only one China (which includes Taiwan), in the terms that China recognizes it. The US policy is to recognize China's position, and that is all it represents. If your premise were correct, the US would not be selling military weapons to Taiwan to defense itself from China. This explains it moderately well: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-38285354 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-38285354 > What is the 'One China' policy? > It is the diplomatic acknowledgement of China's position that there is only one Chinese government. Under the policy, the US recognises and has formal ties with China rather than the island of Taiwan, which China sees as a breakaway province to be reunified with the mainland one day. > The One China policy is a key cornerstone of Sino-US relations. It is also a fundamental bedrock of Chinese policy-making and diplomacy. However, it is distinct from the One China principle, whereby China insists Taiwan is an inalienable part of one China to be reunified one day. > The US policy is not an endorsement of Beijing's position and indeed as part of the policy, Washington maintains a "robust unofficial" relationship with Taiwan, including continued arms sales to the island so that it can defend itself.
dragonsh 7y ago
It's not a stretch given majority of those companies are economically dependent on China as China is dependent on them, also some of their major customers are in China. That's the reason Taiwan selected KMT to forge closer ties with China during this elections. In Kaohsiung which was an impenetrable constituency for KMT, Han Kuo-yu won by a landslide based on closer economic ties with China to bring jobs as the main issue. Taiwan and China are politically different but economically both are intertwined be it Foxconn, Asus, Quanta, Winstron, Gigabyte or TSMC etc. So including those 10 within greater China is correct. They are political ally of USA and economic ally of China. It's again a minority opinion against the majority of the HN community so this comment might be downvoted as usual.
- eastendguy 7y ago
  There are strong hints that Han Kuo-yu's victory was helped by Chinese influenced media companies, e. g. here: https://www.hongkongfp.com/2019/06/28/taiwan-braces-pro-china-fake-news-deluge-elections-loom/ https://www.hongkongfp.com/2019/06/28/taiwan-braces-pro-chin... As of the last months, Han Kuo-yu's support is steadily declining. But most importantly, it is clear beyond any doubt that >90% of all Taiwanese do not want to be part of the CCP ruled China.
  - dragonsh 7y ago
    Have very close friends in Taiwan and among majority (especially the middle aged and older generation) its an accepted fact that the chance Taiwan had to declare itself sovereign state, independent of China has already passed. Most are hoping to keep the status quo and enjoy the existing political freedom, instead of endless fights and economic ruin. It was Chiang Kai-Shek's decision for Taiwan to quit United Nations in 1971 due to insistence on "One China policy" [1][2]. Today China demands the acceptance of same One China policy for which Chiang Kai-Shek fought. In my view Taiwan can keep its political structure along with its economic ties with China, it doesn't need to change. But its not in the interest of many nations. If Taiwan becomes a separate entity the situation will be worse like it's happening between India and Pakistan where both countries are suffering due to enmity although both were one country for thousands of years. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_2758 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembl... [2] http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2005/10/23/2003277026 http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2005/10/...
nashashmi 7y ago
If you want to look at it only in terms of politics, then Hong Kong should also be excluded. I don't think it is. Taiwan claims all of China as theirs, less so with the current political party, and US policy is also one China. (No surprise if the US is trying to bet on Taiwan to turn China one day into a democratic place.) So it makes sense to lump all of Chinese power into one big force of influence even if it is politically separated into three or more parts.
empath75 7y ago
People who live in Taiwan are ethnically Chinese and speak Chinese and consider themselves Chinese, and the Taiwanese government considers itself the legitimate government of China (or at least used to until fairly recently). I would say that it is fair to call them Chinese, even if they are not part of the PRC. Still doesn’t really excuse the article calling it ‘a nation’ when referring to both of them.
api 7y ago
Ahh, but that wouldn't have gotten as many clicks. The important thing to remember about China is its population. If China achieves even some degree of "first world" status, it's inevitable that it will dominate on aggregate statistics simply because it has over 1.2 billion people. Personally as long as China doesn't become truly belligerent I don't think it matters all that much. I'm more interested in America forging ahead than what China is doing. Focus on one's competitors / enemies distracts from focus on the future.
simonh 7y ago
I agree, let's look at the article itself and what it means by "China's World". It writes about two main dimensions, economic and military. >Nations have always competed economically, but the U.S. >and China are engaged in direct battle over the world’s >economic life force: technology. Taiwan has an independent intellectual property system and it's firms hold their intellectual property close. While they do have extensive assembly facilities on the mainland, much of their most specialised facilities are on the island or abroad outside China, see TSMC for example. I don't think it's reasonable to include Taiwan's companies with mainland China in this way. >..a goal that China expert Graham Allison of Harvard says >includes being “unambiguously No. 1,” with a military >“that can take on and defeat all adversaries.” Taiwan has an independent government and it's own military which is well armed and lined up in direct opposition to the PROC military, which is permanently poised to annex the island on command. There is no justification for including Taiwan with China when calculating military capability. So the premise of the actual article argues against including Taiwan with mainland China when calculating it's economic strength.

by chvid 7y ago

christophilus 7y ago

I mean, 119 vs 121 is still impressive, if true. With China’s momentum, I wouldn’t be surprised if they pass the US soonish. That said, any article that includes Taiwan as part of China immediately makes me think it’s a propaganda piece.

jerf 7y ago
Perhaps, but in the last year things have taken a turn that suggest China's momentum may be taking a turn for the worse recently. Trump's trade war is just a leading indicator, but it's not the only problem they're facing; increasing amounts of the world are seeing them as a direct threat. I'm not sure we can project out China's progress from a politital/economic regime where they were at least effectively unopposed (beyond the normal give and take of any economy), if not actively being given a helping hand, to a regime where they are being actively opposed by an increasing number of economies. It's possible a trade war will end up being the best possible thing that could happen to them by putting some stress on their economy and helping them sharpen their game, but, then again, it may end up being the case that once again, a Communist regime turns out to be a paper tiger pumped up by a lot of people heavily invested in seeing Communism succeed, only for it to collapse spectacularly once all the internal contradictions are laid bare. Stay tuned for the next couple of years.
- lonelappde 7y ago
  That's valid, but the US might have peaked as well, considering recent internal turmoil. China is totalitarian/single-party, not very Communist anymore (central planning of economy? Wages and welfare predominantly provided by the State?), and getting less Communist every day. China's CCP is as Communist as the US Greens are "green" or the Democrats are "democrats" vs Republicans being "republican". At a glance, China is converging with US, with China becoming a single-party-rule corporate oligopoly, and US becoming a libertarian corporate oligopoly.
  - madengr 7y ago
    What internal turmoil? Trump? He will be gone in 1-5 years, then it is another political cycle. Nothing unusual. China has had 1 party (communist) rule for 70 years?
    - 1PlayerOne 7y ago
      What about the political polarization? Do you see it going away as soon as Trump is gone? Or will it get even worse?
      - madengr 7y ago
        The same or worse, which is fine, as it causes gridlock. The last thing I want is single party control.
        1PlayerOne 7y ago
        well I am glad you like the gridlock. Good luck with that.
lonelappde 7y ago
It's not propaganda so much as not letting inconvenient facts get in the way of a good story. Lots of ways to looks at numbers. China has 3x the population of US, so should we divide the company count by 3? Does number of companies matter, or market cap? Or revenue? Or profit + salary? Does purchasing power parity affect the weighting? What about the effects of US alliances with Europe vs China's alliances? What about the fact that US companies are multinationals, not purely American? At best you can say that China is on the rise and is a force to be reckoned with. Can't say if it's more or less powerful than USA.

kenneth 7y ago

It's not just a stretch, it's ridiculous. It's a fact made up to make their narrative fit because it wouldn't work if it was 119 vs. 121 Taiwan is an entirely different entity politically no matter if you subscribe to the one China doctrine. China has little to no control over it and therefore derives no power from its companies.

yoz-y 7y ago
> China has no control over it This is quite a stretch too. The relationship and interdependence of the two is very complicated. China is one of the largest market to which Taiwan exports their goods (and in large part, the culture) and China has used this to pressure Taiwan in the past.
- ForHackernews 7y ago
  Ok, but then by that logic, Mexican and Canadian companies should count to the USA total. After all, the US is their largest export market and the USA frequently puts diplomatic and economic pressures on her neighbours.
  - Barrin92 7y ago
    Under the one-china-policy endorsed by the United States Taiwan is not a sovereign state, in contrast to Mexico and Canada, with the recognition of Taiwan steadily falling. This is a strange comparison.
    - adventured 7y ago
      > Under the one-china-policy endorsed by the United States Taiwan is not a sovereign state That's incorrect. The US does not endorse that Taiwan is owned by China and that there is only one China (which includes Taiwan), in the terms that China recognizes it. The US policy is to recognize China's position, and that is all it represents. If your premise were correct, the US would not be selling military weapons to Taiwan to defense itself from China. This explains it moderately well: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-38285354 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-38285354 > What is the 'One China' policy? > It is the diplomatic acknowledgement of China's position that there is only one Chinese government. Under the policy, the US recognises and has formal ties with China rather than the island of Taiwan, which China sees as a breakaway province to be reunified with the mainland one day. > The One China policy is a key cornerstone of Sino-US relations. It is also a fundamental bedrock of Chinese policy-making and diplomacy. However, it is distinct from the One China principle, whereby China insists Taiwan is an inalienable part of one China to be reunified one day. > The US policy is not an endorsement of Beijing's position and indeed as part of the policy, Washington maintains a "robust unofficial" relationship with Taiwan, including continued arms sales to the island so that it can defend itself.

dragonsh 7y ago

It's not a stretch given majority of those companies are economically dependent on China as China is dependent on them, also some of their major customers are in China. That's the reason Taiwan selected KMT to forge closer ties with China during this elections. In Kaohsiung which was an impenetrable constituency for KMT, Han Kuo-yu won by a landslide based on closer economic ties with China to bring jobs as the main issue. Taiwan and China are politically different but economically both are intertwined be it Foxconn, Asus, Quanta, Winstron, Gigabyte or TSMC etc. So including those 10 within greater China is correct. They are political ally of USA and economic ally of China. It's again a minority opinion against the majority of the HN community so this comment might be downvoted as usual.

eastendguy 7y ago
There are strong hints that Han Kuo-yu's victory was helped by Chinese influenced media companies, e. g. here: https://www.hongkongfp.com/2019/06/28/taiwan-braces-pro-china-fake-news-deluge-elections-loom/ https://www.hongkongfp.com/2019/06/28/taiwan-braces-pro-chin... As of the last months, Han Kuo-yu's support is steadily declining. But most importantly, it is clear beyond any doubt that >90% of all Taiwanese do not want to be part of the CCP ruled China.
- dragonsh 7y ago
  Have very close friends in Taiwan and among majority (especially the middle aged and older generation) its an accepted fact that the chance Taiwan had to declare itself sovereign state, independent of China has already passed. Most are hoping to keep the status quo and enjoy the existing political freedom, instead of endless fights and economic ruin. It was Chiang Kai-Shek's decision for Taiwan to quit United Nations in 1971 due to insistence on "One China policy" [1][2]. Today China demands the acceptance of same One China policy for which Chiang Kai-Shek fought. In my view Taiwan can keep its political structure along with its economic ties with China, it doesn't need to change. But its not in the interest of many nations. If Taiwan becomes a separate entity the situation will be worse like it's happening between India and Pakistan where both countries are suffering due to enmity although both were one country for thousands of years. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_2758 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembl... [2] http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2005/10/23/2003277026 http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2005/10/...

nashashmi 7y ago

If you want to look at it only in terms of politics, then Hong Kong should also be excluded. I don't think it is. Taiwan claims all of China as theirs, less so with the current political party, and US policy is also one China. (No surprise if the US is trying to bet on Taiwan to turn China one day into a democratic place.) So it makes sense to lump all of Chinese power into one big force of influence even if it is politically separated into three or more parts.

empath75 7y ago

People who live in Taiwan are ethnically Chinese and speak Chinese and consider themselves Chinese, and the Taiwanese government considers itself the legitimate government of China (or at least used to until fairly recently). I would say that it is fair to call them Chinese, even if they are not part of the PRC. Still doesn’t really excuse the article calling it ‘a nation’ when referring to both of them.

api 7y ago

Ahh, but that wouldn't have gotten as many clicks. The important thing to remember about China is its population. If China achieves even some degree of "first world" status, it's inevitable that it will dominate on aggregate statistics simply because it has over 1.2 billion people. Personally as long as China doesn't become truly belligerent I don't think it matters all that much. I'm more interested in America forging ahead than what China is doing. Focus on one's competitors / enemies distracts from focus on the future.

simonh 7y ago

I agree, let's look at the article itself and what it means by "China's World". It writes about two main dimensions, economic and military. >Nations have always competed economically, but the U.S. >and China are engaged in direct battle over the world’s >economic life force: technology. Taiwan has an independent intellectual property system and it's firms hold their intellectual property close. While they do have extensive assembly facilities on the mainland, much of their most specialised facilities are on the island or abroad outside China, see TSMC for example. I don't think it's reasonable to include Taiwan's companies with mainland China in this way. >..a goal that China expert Graham Allison of Harvard says >includes being “unambiguously No. 1,” with a military >“that can take on and defeat all adversaries.” Taiwan has an independent government and it's own military which is well armed and lined up in direct opposition to the PROC military, which is permanently poised to annex the island on command. There is no justification for including Taiwan with China when calculating military capability. So the premise of the actual article argues against including Taiwan with mainland China when calculating it's economic strength.