15 ms·

The entire western world should treat China exactly the same way China treats them. Western companies have a difficult time operating in China, but Chinese com

• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• kgersen 6y ago
  But seen from Europe, your 'western world' = mainly USA ... which "existing western chat and social media" aren't from the US ?
  • bjo590 6y ago
    kik is from Canada, but I couldn't find a European example I would consider popular.
    • coffeemug 6y ago
      Viber
      • bjo590 6y ago
        Isn't Viber a Japanese company owned by Rakuten?
    • rrrazdan 6y ago
      Telegram. Now taking off in India as well.
  • cwhiz 6y ago
    Telegram and Kik, to name a couple off the top of my head. There is far more to this than just social media and chat.
• tfcata 6y ago
  China has not forcefully seized foreign company's promising assets so good so it's impossible to consider for sale, by both a measly 'offer' of maybe 1/10, or less, of the market value and threatening from the leader, has it?
  • cwhiz 6y ago
    They haven’t directly done that, but what they have done is force American companies to form joint ventures with a Chinese company in order to operate in China. This requires the American company to hand over intellectual property and trade secrets. And then, amazingly, some state funded competitor comes along doing the same thing the American company wants to do. Would a Chinese company have this same problem entering America??? No. We need to treat China the exact way they treat us. The entire western world.
    • yushuf 6y ago
      No one is forcing companies to do joint ventures. These companies have the option to refuse and not operate in China. Are countries not allowed to impose restrictions on foreign companies?
      • cwhiz 6y ago
        What is being proposed here is to treat China, and Chinese companies, the exact same way as American companies are treated in China. So, yes, countries are free to have whatever restrictions they want. But we, the western world, must not allow China to abuse our open markets while shielding their markets.
        • yushuf 6y ago
          I have no problem with this. Though US' strength has always been insidiously entering foreign markets and forcing developing countries to be dependent on US tech (e.g India, EU, GB). The more US decouples from China in terms of tech, the more incentive you are giving China to be tech independent and thus, be free of US hegemony.
• bjo590 6y ago
  > We should outright ban any goods or technology that originates in China If we were to start that ban many of Walmart's non-grocery (and some groceries) shelves would be empty for considerable time. I'm unsure there even are alternatives that can meet US demand for everything China provides.
  • cwhiz 6y ago
    It would be a painful transition but we must do it to avoid the extremely painful long term costs of continuing this horribly lopsided arrangement with China.
    • vernie 6y ago
      Americans are famous for their love of sacrifice and compromise; this should be no problem.
      • deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
  • guessbest 6y ago
    Because the US can't provide consumer goods or because the US can't provide consumer goods at below cost to manufacture and distribute?
    • bjo590 6y ago
      Often times it's raw ability to produce the product. We cannot suddenly produce the iPhone in the US. Other times the products produced are just too expensive. Go to your local Honda Powersports dealership and price a motorcycle then go to your local Harley-Davidson dealership and price a similar motorcycle. Even a made in Japan motorcycle, with Japan's most premium motorcycle brand, will be much cheaper than the made in America variety. Made in China is significantly cheaper compared to made in Japan. Finally it's also the raw quantity of products we important from China. $539.5B worth of goods imported in 2018. Producing this much would put a strain on our infrastructure, on our labor force, and on our ability to manage cultural shifts. https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/china-mongolia-taiwan/peoples-republic-china https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/china-mongolia-taiwan/peo...
• supergirl 6y ago
  so china won is what you're saying? their system is superior if the west has to switch to it
  • yushuf 6y ago
    Yes. Once US starts playing China’s game, China has won.
    • arcturus17 6y ago
      China has been playing free market economics despite being a communist dictatorship, so by that logic, liberalism has won?
    • almost_usual 6y ago
      Chinese investors care way more about money than nationalism. Capitalism is brutally efficient, even in the guise of Communism.
      • yushuf 6y ago
        Not unless the investor is the government itself
        • almost_usual 6y ago
          Who funds the government? Will the Chinese government turn down an investor who will give them more wealth and power by investing overseas? Their competition will use it to their advantage.
  • Wolfenstein98k 6y ago
    Might is right, in many short-term scenarios. We don't have to agree that "kidnapping and imprisonment is good", to conclude that some people need arresting and imprisonment. China is intentionally playing the rules duplicitously, and so the West is going to have to play hardball. The opening up to China was based on the belief that we would treat each other as equals. That has not happened and Xi has made clear that will not happen.
• krtkush 6y ago
  All this is leading me to have a stronger belief in Nassim Taleb's "The Most Intolerant Wins" theory[1]. Though, in this case there is no minority as such. China was intolerant to the US's ideology and exploited its openness for its own benefit. Now, unfortunately, it has come to a point where even US has to be intolerant like China to be able to get back at it. Thoughts? [1] https://nassimtaleb.org/2016/08/intolerant-wins-dictatorship-small-minority/ https://nassimtaleb.org/2016/08/intolerant-wins-dictatorship...
  • pradn 6y ago
    A related idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance 'The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly paradoxical idea that, "In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance."'
    • nickbauman 6y ago
      Yes, Popper was the original on this thinking. Not Taleb. This is where the phrase "freedom requires we be intolerant of the intolerant"
      • firmnoodle 6y ago
        I didn't know about Popper before. This rings so true today more than ever. I often joke about my home town of San Francisco that we are very open minded as long as you believe exactly the same things we believe.
      • Udik 6y ago
        Unfortunately, everyone seems to be keen on justifying their own intolerance with the supposed intolerance of the other. If all it takes people to be freely intolerant is to convince themselves that the object of their intolerance is intolerant too, intolerance spreads everywhere.
• minusSeven 6y ago
  I think China already promised that one or two years ago during the trade war with US but nothing major has come of it. I doubt China would follow through because it can have potential consequence in their censorships rules. I guess eventually all other countries would resort to having laws specific to handling Chinese companies and all laws common for companies of all other countries.
  • mikechen233 6y ago
    China already enacted foreign investments law. Tesla uses it to enter the Chinese market freely. Build factories, sale electric vehicles, enjoy all tax and subsidy that local companies are. And so will VW, and any other auto maker. IP protection is strengthening as well. In the areas of internet service there is still the internet security law, which requires all internet services providers to store data locally and moderate content. Google fb Twitter doesn't want to comply so they don't operate in that market. Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, Uber, Airbnb and more are complying so they are operating in China. In other sectors, it's already open access to Chinese market and equality between local and foreign businesses. China is responding to criticisms.
    • minusSeven 6y ago
      Can I buy shares of Chinese companies when I am not a Chinese citizen? Until that happens I am not buying what you are saying.
• nafizh 6y ago
  Add to this the current ongoing Genocide against the Uighurs. Utterly insensible to let such a Government access western markets which eventually only bolsters its genocidal prerogatives.
• svara 6y ago
  It's one thing to call for a system of fair regulations that provide a level playing field; it's another thing altogether to essentially expropriate a company through executive action because it was doing too well. Your comment makes sense and I mostly agree with it, but not on this submission.
  • cwhiz 6y ago
    I understand the sentiment but there has to be a first company. Someone has to be the first casualty in forcing China to either open their markets or exit our markets. I do wish this was part of a broader policy instead of a one-off.
    • mikechen233 6y ago
      The EO on bytedance is forcing Bytedance to sell all global tiktok operations. How is that a reciprocate issue? A reciprocate would be deny tiktok market accesses in US only. But clearly US gov doesn't want bytedance to exist at all. They want to kill it everywhere.
• dontcarethrow2 6y ago
  Quite frankly, the entire world can learn from China on how to protect its own economy from bullies. I'd hate to live in a world where the Microsofts buys all the Skypes and ruins all sorts of innovations you all claim comes from this freedom. You shareholders only have $ in your eyes, this means shit to the young people looking towards their future. I don't mind you all protecting your interests, you're human.. but it definitely adds too much taint to your 'genuine' perspectives.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• jeswin 6y ago
  > The entire western world should treat China exactly the same way China treats them. You could use "democratic nations" instead of western world. I agree with you otherwise. What will a dictatorship do if it had hundreds of billions in trade surplus every year? Well, they are eventually going to spend it on weapons.
  • gruez 6y ago
    >You could use "democratic nations" instead of western world. even that's problematic. "democratic" ranges from truly democratic (eg. Norway or Canada) to despotic (eg. Democratic People's Republic of Korea).
• cd_2001 6y ago
  Please excuse me for my semi-rant. I don't mean to be too critical, but I think framing every news about China in this "the West vs China" angle is really counterproductive. First of all, "the West" is a very vague concept, quite unlike talking about China. Does it include all of Europe? Does it include Moscow then? Does it include parts of Latinamerica? Maybe you mean NATO (but then you should include Turkey too). Or maybe you only mean Five Eyes (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, United States). This isn't just nitpicking: your point might make sense if you mean Five Eyes, but it might not make sense at all if you include, say, Greece , Turkey and Israel. Second, talking only about "the West" vs China marginalizes the rest of the world. Most of the people in this world live in neither the West nor in China and yet they never seem to matter according to most discussions I see here in Hacker News (I, for one, identify with neither). This is specially bad when people implicitly say things like "the West values freedom and democracy, whereas China...". If democracy and human rights were something unique for "the West", then you shouldn't be surprised that China doesn't like those concepts (in fact, they oppose liberal value precisely because of this: "this only works in 西方, not here in China"). 西方 = the West
  • tomp 6y ago
    Freedom, rational thought, free speech, democracy, rule of law etc. aren't "Western" values, they're "Enlightenment" values. After the "West" adopted them, it (the countries, and the people) enjoyed unprecedented improvement in living standards, a scientific boom and so on. China is free to adopt those values anytime. In the meantime, I (and looks like many other Westerns) will be working towards ensuring that non-Enlightenment values don't creep back up into the West (from China, the Islamic world, Russia, etc. - not limited to what I wrote above but also things like corporal punishment, women's rights, separation of church and state, ...) - that would be a regression from our point of view.
    • chucknthem 6y ago
      The majority of Chinese people have seen an unprecedented improvement in living standards over the past 3 decades, with scientific and engineering breakthroughs to boot. Hard to see them adopt western values from their perspective, they're doing fine without it.
• AndyMcConachie 6y ago
  Are folks unaware of the history of westerners and trade in China, and how this kind of attitude could be interpreted by Chinese people not ignorant of their country's history? In the late 19th century Great Britain fought two Opium Wars to force China to open up its markets to British opium. The British were forcing Indian farmers to grow opium and then taking it to sell to China. They wanted access to Chinese silver, but China had little reason to give it to them. So Britain's answer was to get Chinese people addicted to opium and get the silver through trade of opium for silver. The Qing dynasty, for obvious reasons, didn't like this idea and forbid the British from importing their opium. So the British fought two wars to force them to accept their imports. The Economist magazine was established in the mid 19th century as a pro-slavery, pro-imperialist magazine. Their arguments during the lead up to both opium wars sound a lot like yours. I want to make people aware of this, because it's important we understand how that kind of argument sounds to many Chinese people less ignorant of Chinese history than most westerners.
  • p49k 6y ago
    That’s an interesting piece of history, but how is that relevant in any way to this situation? Not just the fact that modern Western civilization doesn’t resemble 19th century England, but everything about the reasons/motivation behind/specifics of this trade conflict are different.
    • DubiousPusher 6y ago
      > Not just the fact that modern Western civilization doesn’t resemble 19th century England A lot more than you think.
  • arcturus17 6y ago
    Not sure what The Economist or Colonialist Britain has to do in all this, but how are we to interpret that neither Google nor Facebook - nor pretty much any enterprise issuing from a liberal democracy - can operate freely in China? What do the people educated in Chinese history make of that?
  • bitcurious 6y ago
• cmurf 6y ago
  There is no political or economic will to embargo Chinese made goods. It didn't get this way overnight, it wouldn't be possible to end it overnight. It would translate into wholesale asset destruction of many businesses who depend on supply chains that would take years to recreate. It would make hundreds of millions of poor even more poor: here and in China. It would take away cheaper versions that make people feel just a little bit more in touch with people who can afford every day things. It would be an economic nuclear bomb just to prove a point. And for ~40 years the U.S. at least has considered attacks on its economy as a national security threat - it is extremely likely an embargo leads to an actual war. Making everyone worse off in the short term is a fast track to violence. Besides, the vast majority of consumers have voted with their wallet.
• bigpumpkin 6y ago
  Meanwhile, American brands find their refuge in China: https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-becomes-a-refuge-for-u-s-companies-after-overcoming-covid-19-11596792603 https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-becomes-a-refuge-for-u-s-...
• markus_zhang 6y ago
  Lots of western companies are operating in China. If they feel it's too difficult they will pull it out, but please don't act like a representative to all of them as if you know everything. BTW please stop purchasing anything that originates from China immediately if you want to follow your own words.
• baron_harkonnen 6y ago
  > the future will be one of only Chinese international corporations A world ruled by corporations headquartered in a single country, with other countries having their politics and economy determined by the interests a single nation has been the rest of the worlds situation for 50+ years. It's somewhat ironic to see Americans suddenly getting concerned about this. > Would WeChat or TikTok even exist if the Chinese market were open to existing western chat and social media software?? Unlikely. The argument that if the Chinese market was fully open then their local companies would have been more quickly devoured by single, US based corporations doesn't do much to convince me that what the Chinese government is doing is wrong. And don't fool yourself, this had nothing to do with what's 'fair' for America or Americans, all of this is so strong arm Chinese companies into surrendering to corporations that happen to be based in the US on favorable terms. This is the US government working as the goons to enforce Facebook, Google and in this case specifically Microsofts global dominance.
  • cwhiz 6y ago
    >The argument that if the Chinese market was fully open then their local companies would have been more quickly devoured by single, US based corporations doesn't do much to convince me that what the Chinese government is doing is wrong. If these companies were competing, and winning, on features and innovation, there would be no concern that the company originated from China. The point of that anecdote is that these companies have crap products that are only competitive because there is no competition. >And don't fool yourself, this had nothing to do with what's 'fair' for America or Americans I hope this is the beginning of a broader policy on moving US business, interests, and manufacturing out of China. Play fair or don't play at all. It is perfectly fine for China to protect their own market. But it is not fine for China to protect their own market and also expect open access to other markets.
    • bigpumpkin 6y ago
      "If these companies were competing, and winning, on features and innovation, there would be no concern that the company originated from China. The point of that anecdote is that these companies have crap products that are only competitive because there is no competition." Try Instagram Reels and Tiktok and see which is the crap product.
• Al-Khwarizmi 6y ago
  Why "the entire western world"? As an European, why should we align with the US in this? The EU doesn't have any tech giant because, contrary to China, we have received US tech giants with open arms. So our economies bleed money and lose jobs to the likes of Amazon, because hey, "the free market". What do we stand to gain by siding with US companies in this US companies vs. China companies wars? Perhaps it would be better for us to just imitate China, start being protectionistic and banning foreign tech companies so we can grow our own and prosper. It works. In the US you're pretty much telling us that it works - so well that you are doing the same. Now that the US has shown it can ban foreign tech companies if it's in their own interest, and all the moralizing talk about the free market has been exposed as the self-serving propaganda it has always been, what reason do be exactly have to keep playing this game where we are the biggest losers?
  • youeseh 6y ago
    - Does the US prevent European tech companies from doing business in America? - Does the US prevent European people from finding work, moving to, and purchasing property in America?
    • bluelu 6y ago
      China does not prevent american businesses to do business in China as long as they follow the law. European and foreign businesses get much higher fines compares to local businesses (e.g. Volkswagen, Deutsche Bank, Bayer (e.g. just after buying Massato), Toyota, etc...) On the other hand Europe allows american businesses to access the european market without following the local laws. No user data can be transfered to the USA where protection clearly is not adequate, still they do. EDIT: You can downvote me, but it's all true: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/29/business/dealbook/volkswagen-faces-harsher-penalties-than-a-us-company-might.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/29/business/dealbook/volkswa... "Criminal fines in the United States from 2001-12 were on average more than seven times the size for overseas entities than for American companies"
      • learc83 6y ago
• as300 6y ago
  Well, if there was truly a quid-pro-quo, then the United Kingdom should pay China reparations for its atrocious actions during the opium wars, similar to what Germany had to do to survivors of the holocaust. If there were truly a quid-pro-quo, the West would be clamoring for statehood for Puerto Rico like they do for Taiwan. If there were truly a quid-pro-quo, calls for the 'entire western world' to band against China would make as much sense as calls for 'the entire western world' to band against the United States, who did quite a bit to rig the global economy in its favor after WW2 and Bretton-Woods. If China treated the Western world the way the Western world treated China, there would be hell to pay. And yet people like you just can't stand that they would act in their own self interest, and become a superpower without asking the permission of the West. Countries will take whatever advantages are available to them to develop and benefit their people. China never tried to hide what they were doing. All of the world's economists were aware of their economic protectionist policies for the past 50 or so years. Let's call a spade a spade. This 'outrage' about China's policies in the year 2020 is nothing more than a frustration with the West's ruling classes for failing to respond to China's rise at all in the last 50 years. And there is clearly a sense of entitlement as well, as though those of use living in the West deserve to live in the hegemonic country despite not working as hard or valuing progress as much as those in other societies. The Western world never cared about Chinese people or what was happening in China until it started to threaten their own global dominance. Now all of a sudden you have elite clamoring for civil rights and justice in China, while those same elites profited for decades off of cheap Chinese labor after the Great Leap Forward and Tiananmen Square. Sure, you should advocate for your country to change its policies if its getting a bad deal from China. But turning this all into a "West v. China" thing is how we got here in the first place.
• Bhilai 6y ago
  We are not China and we dont want our countries to behave or become like China.
• dheera 6y ago
  The real loser of this battle will be Apple, not China; they may just lose all their Chinese users in the US to Android in a couple months. The US is and will always be a free speech country, and they cannot go to the extent of imposing a firewall like China does. The extent to which they can take action is to require WeChat and TikTok off the app stores of the US. Which would leave Android users the option to install the app directly from an APK file, bypassing the Google store (no rooting required) while Apple users basically have no recourse without jailbreaking.
  • thekyle 6y ago
    In practice, I think iOS users will just move on to the next social networking app and forget that TikTok ever existed.
    • dheera 6y ago
      For TikTok, maybe, but WeChat is different -- people use it to keep in touch with families and friends at home.
• kjjw 6y ago
  No thanks, while the US protects its digital economy from Chinese companies, it is also slapping tariffs (or is threatening) on European goods. The US doesn’t have any friends any more because it acting like a shit to them all. Meanwhile every day it looks more like a dictatorship with no regard for its populace. Honestly it’s time the rest of the western world moved on. Relationship over.
• yibg 6y ago
  Regardless if it’s justified or not I think this is a bad move by the US on the global stage. The US just banned apps that didn’t break any law, for vague “national security” reasons. And due to the global reach of American tech companies it becomes effectively a global ban. Now every country that’s not the US will need to 1) think twice about doing business in the US and 2) re-examine American control over the products and services their citizens can and cannot receive. Specifically Apple and google in this case. Most countries and companies are already cautious when doing business in China because of the unpredictable and arbitrary nature of doing business in China. Now the US is headed towards the same direction. So congratulations, the US is becoming more and more like China. Doesn’t sound like a win to me.
• turingbook 6y ago
  >Western companies have a difficult time operating in China, but Chinese companies have zero problems operating in western countries. Ask Elon Musk about the first part, and ask Huawei guy about the latter.