4 ms·

Most countries have significant rules and regulations around foreign-owned corporations. Countries generally think it's important to their national security to

Most countries have significant rules and regulations around foreign-owned corporations. Countries generally think it's important to their national security to prevent widespread foreign ownership of internal resources. But there is a trade-off where you make reciprocal deals with trusted foreign trade partners to facilitate trade and growth. Everything works smoothly when everyone plays by the same rules. China has some of the most draconian restrictions on foreign ownership anywhere yet still gets access to foreign markets. Major US corporations are often forced to set up Chinese-majority-owned subsidiaries to operate in China and must cede huge amounts of control to the Chinese government. Time after time, this results in locals ripping off the technology of the foreign company and then the foreign company being replaced by a local company. Look at the long history of US tech startups failing in China. The point is that whether you think this specific action is right or wrong, it's totally normal tit-for-tat geopolitics. Countries impose tons of restrictions on foreign-owned corporations. You can't even do something as simple as set up an S Corp in the US if you are foreign.

unishark 6y ago
> You can't even do something as simple as set up an S Corp in the US if you are foreign. This is your idea of doing something simple? You can set up other kinds of corporation like LLC at least. Are other countries less restrictive? Seems like kind of a messy legal situation either way. In Mexico it's really hard to buy property as a foreigner. It used to be you could not own coastal property at all, not sure if still true.
koonsolo 6y ago
I think you missed my point. I don't really care whether this is the right move or not, and to be honest I don't really know. But I care that some president can simply say "Hey specific corporation, you have 45 days to comply with the rules that are in my head." > You can't even do something as simple as set up an S Corp in the US if you are foreign. Sure, that is a rule in the law, no problem with that. But what if I'm friends with Trump and he makes an exception just for me? Here in Europe, we have separation of law, government and religion. I know it's a bit more blurry in the states (see the "In god we trust"). In this case (and in some other cases such as pardoning prisoners), your government seems to interfere with your law. In my opinion, that becomes very tricky business if you start eroding those rules. Because when you're friends with the government, the law doesn't apply to you. And if you're enemy with the government, forget about your rights.
- readarticle 6y ago
  The president’s actions, granted on behalf of congress, are already being challenged in court. Religion has nothing to do with it, besides indicating a familiarity with US politics being mistaken as understanding.
  - koonsolo 6y ago
    > Religion has nothing to do with it, besides indicating a familiarity with US politics being mistaken as understanding. It was just another example how US blurs things that should be separated. In most European countries this would be a big NO for government to express a certain religion. You have it literally printed on your money.
    - readarticle 6y ago
      Reddit block quotes don’t work on HN, try asterisks. This once again has very little to do with the situation at hand though I’m afraid, if you’d like more information as to why a president can seemingly tell a specific corporation what to do on a whim, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Foreign_Investment_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Foreign_Investmen...
  - bdjsjsbdb 6y ago
    I think it's reasonable to say that the modern trend of expansive executive power going unchecked is comparable to the mixing of religion in American politics. In both instances they're the result of the Constitution being so old and sacrosanct that you can no longer amend it in a meaningful way. You simply change the norms, stack the courts, and you've knocked out the leg of the stool that was supposed to uphold these ideals. A modern president moving around money allocated by Congress flies in the face of the Constitution. Same with an immigration ban based on religion. But the game has changed to "us v them", and if you get enough of your team in the judiciary they'll sign off whatever you want.
    - readarticle 6y ago

unishark 6y ago

> You can't even do something as simple as set up an S Corp in the US if you are foreign. This is your idea of doing something simple? You can set up other kinds of corporation like LLC at least. Are other countries less restrictive? Seems like kind of a messy legal situation either way. In Mexico it's really hard to buy property as a foreigner. It used to be you could not own coastal property at all, not sure if still true.

koonsolo 6y ago

I think you missed my point. I don't really care whether this is the right move or not, and to be honest I don't really know. But I care that some president can simply say "Hey specific corporation, you have 45 days to comply with the rules that are in my head." > You can't even do something as simple as set up an S Corp in the US if you are foreign. Sure, that is a rule in the law, no problem with that. But what if I'm friends with Trump and he makes an exception just for me? Here in Europe, we have separation of law, government and religion. I know it's a bit more blurry in the states (see the "In god we trust"). In this case (and in some other cases such as pardoning prisoners), your government seems to interfere with your law. In my opinion, that becomes very tricky business if you start eroding those rules. Because when you're friends with the government, the law doesn't apply to you. And if you're enemy with the government, forget about your rights.

readarticle 6y ago
The president’s actions, granted on behalf of congress, are already being challenged in court. Religion has nothing to do with it, besides indicating a familiarity with US politics being mistaken as understanding.
- koonsolo 6y ago
  > Religion has nothing to do with it, besides indicating a familiarity with US politics being mistaken as understanding. It was just another example how US blurs things that should be separated. In most European countries this would be a big NO for government to express a certain religion. You have it literally printed on your money.
  - readarticle 6y ago
    Reddit block quotes don’t work on HN, try asterisks. This once again has very little to do with the situation at hand though I’m afraid, if you’d like more information as to why a president can seemingly tell a specific corporation what to do on a whim, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Foreign_Investment_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Foreign_Investmen...
- bdjsjsbdb 6y ago
  I think it's reasonable to say that the modern trend of expansive executive power going unchecked is comparable to the mixing of religion in American politics. In both instances they're the result of the Constitution being so old and sacrosanct that you can no longer amend it in a meaningful way. You simply change the norms, stack the courts, and you've knocked out the leg of the stool that was supposed to uphold these ideals. A modern president moving around money allocated by Congress flies in the face of the Constitution. Same with an immigration ban based on religion. But the game has changed to "us v them", and if you get enough of your team in the judiciary they'll sign off whatever you want.
  - readarticle 6y ago