3 ms·

Having a bunch of US companies making profits in China isn't necessarily good for China. If the choice is between, say letting AWS in and building their own. B

Having a bunch of US companies making profits in China isn't necessarily good for China. If the choice is between, say letting AWS in and building their own. Building their own would put 5000 of their own people to work, the broad technical demographic it will take, and build up all the surrounding industries like servers, networking etc. All the profits stay within China, and they now have more skilled people who can start other companies etc. IMO its clearly a better long-term strategy, even though it will cost more in the short term.

wolco 7y ago
Long term they will fall behind without stealing.
- zaptheimpaler 7y ago
  Its so weird how there were no complaints about China for the past decade or two while they were just making your iPhones, but the second they put their own interests ahead of the US all I hear & see is about how crooked & corrupt they are...
  - marvin 7y ago
    There has been plenty of criticism of China's authoritarian policies and human rights abuses, from all of the Western world, for decades. Someone better versed on the topic could probably describe it better than me, but everything from communist policy, the great leap forward, the Tiananmen Square massacre, Falun Gong persecution, the lack of rule of law and so on, has been criticised since it first happened. US authorities seem to have only stepped up the criticism recently as China has become more of a viable adversary on the global stage though. The US government doesn't particularly care about the ethics of most countries, and will mostly criticise it when it's in their own interest. There's also stuff that's only come to light in the last few years. Chinese authorities flexing their power in ways that directly affect US interests is one of these.
    - zaptheimpaler 7y ago
      Of course im sure there have always been critics but the bar is not any instance of criticism - thats an awfully low bar. its the wide shift from being nowhere in mainstream consciousness to pervasive. As an uniformed reader of mainstream media and social networking sites, China was just not on the radar a few years ago. Politicians didn’t talk about it, people didn’t talk about it, news didn’t talk about it.
      - marvin 7y ago
        This doesn’t reflect my impression as a Northern European. The criticism and sentiment has certainly stepped up in the last year, probably in part due to focused efforts by US authorities, but it’s been quite vocal all along. Famously, Norway was in the doghouse of China for 7 years after giving the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo, and government officials discussed human rights issues with Chinese officials up until that point. The media covered this in detail, along with the human rights abuses in question. Maybe what you’re describing is true for the United States. I wouldn’t know.
      - bananabreakfast 7y ago
        Gotta say, that's straight up wrong. China has always been a huge issue. Mostly from a sympathetic view for the deeply exploited people getting poisoned and dying from recycling our plastic and electronics. But also the large buddhist community in America will never forget China invading Tibet and murdering the successor to the Dalai Lama. That still gets talked about a lot.
      - shkkmo 7y ago
        I'm not sure what you have been reading, but that is simply not true. There has been an increase of coverage in the last couple of years, but China was certainly on the radar a regularly discussed in mainstream news for a long time.
Matticus_Rex 7y ago
Literally like 99.9% of all economists who don't work for the Trump administration would disagree with this, and 100% of the ones who study the effects of international trade.
- 55555 7y ago
  I don't think you are right but if you are then I don't think those economists are right. There is a balance to strike. If your country is behind them protectionism can be powerful.
  - Matticus_Rex 7y ago
    Let me illustrate: My consulting company does business in China, and when we do, we (out of self-interest, since we don't speak Chinese and it's hard to do logistics without that) partner with Chinese companies. My company has some of the leading experts in a very niche thing. In the current state, the companies we partner with get to learn from us and gain expertise. The alternative if protectionist policies stop us from doing business in China isn't for those people to become experts on their own -- that's not possible. The alternative is for them either not to gain expertise at all or to have to get it in a more difficult and expensive way. Protectionism can benefit a fledgling industry (not a whole country) in the short term in a limited set of cases (at the expense of dragging down the rest of the economy), but in most cases the protected industry is going to fall behind even more without the information transfer that comes from business leaders doing business there.
  - bananabreakfast 7y ago
    Yes, of course. Your protectionist and nationalist knee-jerk reaction and gut feeling is certainly more trustworthy than all of the world's economists.

wolco 7y ago

Long term they will fall behind without stealing.

zaptheimpaler 7y ago
Its so weird how there were no complaints about China for the past decade or two while they were just making your iPhones, but the second they put their own interests ahead of the US all I hear & see is about how crooked & corrupt they are...
- marvin 7y ago
  There has been plenty of criticism of China's authoritarian policies and human rights abuses, from all of the Western world, for decades. Someone better versed on the topic could probably describe it better than me, but everything from communist policy, the great leap forward, the Tiananmen Square massacre, Falun Gong persecution, the lack of rule of law and so on, has been criticised since it first happened. US authorities seem to have only stepped up the criticism recently as China has become more of a viable adversary on the global stage though. The US government doesn't particularly care about the ethics of most countries, and will mostly criticise it when it's in their own interest. There's also stuff that's only come to light in the last few years. Chinese authorities flexing their power in ways that directly affect US interests is one of these.
  - zaptheimpaler 7y ago
    Of course im sure there have always been critics but the bar is not any instance of criticism - thats an awfully low bar. its the wide shift from being nowhere in mainstream consciousness to pervasive. As an uniformed reader of mainstream media and social networking sites, China was just not on the radar a few years ago. Politicians didn’t talk about it, people didn’t talk about it, news didn’t talk about it.
    - marvin 7y ago
      This doesn’t reflect my impression as a Northern European. The criticism and sentiment has certainly stepped up in the last year, probably in part due to focused efforts by US authorities, but it’s been quite vocal all along. Famously, Norway was in the doghouse of China for 7 years after giving the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo, and government officials discussed human rights issues with Chinese officials up until that point. The media covered this in detail, along with the human rights abuses in question. Maybe what you’re describing is true for the United States. I wouldn’t know.
    - bananabreakfast 7y ago
      Gotta say, that's straight up wrong. China has always been a huge issue. Mostly from a sympathetic view for the deeply exploited people getting poisoned and dying from recycling our plastic and electronics. But also the large buddhist community in America will never forget China invading Tibet and murdering the successor to the Dalai Lama. That still gets talked about a lot.
    - shkkmo 7y ago
      I'm not sure what you have been reading, but that is simply not true. There has been an increase of coverage in the last couple of years, but China was certainly on the radar a regularly discussed in mainstream news for a long time.

Matticus_Rex 7y ago

Literally like 99.9% of all economists who don't work for the Trump administration would disagree with this, and 100% of the ones who study the effects of international trade.

55555 7y ago
I don't think you are right but if you are then I don't think those economists are right. There is a balance to strike. If your country is behind them protectionism can be powerful.
- Matticus_Rex 7y ago
  Let me illustrate: My consulting company does business in China, and when we do, we (out of self-interest, since we don't speak Chinese and it's hard to do logistics without that) partner with Chinese companies. My company has some of the leading experts in a very niche thing. In the current state, the companies we partner with get to learn from us and gain expertise. The alternative if protectionist policies stop us from doing business in China isn't for those people to become experts on their own -- that's not possible. The alternative is for them either not to gain expertise at all or to have to get it in a more difficult and expensive way. Protectionism can benefit a fledgling industry (not a whole country) in the short term in a limited set of cases (at the expense of dragging down the rest of the economy), but in most cases the protected industry is going to fall behind even more without the information transfer that comes from business leaders doing business there.
- bananabreakfast 7y ago
  Yes, of course. Your protectionist and nationalist knee-jerk reaction and gut feeling is certainly more trustworthy than all of the world's economists.