2 ms·

The money people still think they can change China. Maybe it’ll turn out they were right, maybe not. I think it fits rather perfectly into a narrative with 30

by moksly 5y ago

The money people still think they can change China. Maybe it’ll turn out they were right, maybe not. I think it fits rather perfectly into a narrative with 30 years of western investments into China with the expectancy of it opening up more. The money men are just rustling their swords because it’s not happening fast enough, maybe some are even beginning to worry a little about the past year of not being capable of exploiting their insanely long supply lines, but it’s probably mostly just impatience still. Either way it’s not like they won’t do anything to keep making what money they can at the same time.

FooBarWidget 5y ago
How does that make sense? How do you surge foreign direct investments to record highs when markets are not open? Your statement is also based on a false premise. Companies don't invest in China to change China. They invest in China to make a profit. And making a profit, they did and they do. Wanting to change China is, ironically, something which mostly non-businesspeople want. Which makes the narrative that "we're being hostile to China because they don't open up markets" all the more insane. China has opened up. Walk down the street in China for 10 minutes and you see a ton of foreign companies. There are so much more foreign companies in China now than 30 years ago that the entire statement "China hasn't opened up" makes absolutely no sense. Not everything is open, sure, but that's still a far cry from "China hasn't opened up". China is also continuing to open up more parts of the markets. This comment here is on point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27333819 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27333819 The fact is, even if China isn't opening up as quickly or as much as you like, the trade agreement with China was never based on symmetry in the first place. It wasn't the goal, and more importantly, symmetry isn't needed for both parties to get what they want. Both parties did get what they want. What the US now wants has changed. It's entirely possible to renegotiate and get what you want, without devolving into useless, illogical and dishonest aggression rherotic. This whole cold war is entirely unnecessary, but I guess people care more about making up an enemy and being able to moral grandstand, than to address actual issues.

by moksly 5y ago

FooBarWidget 5y ago

How does that make sense? How do you surge foreign direct investments to record highs when markets are not open? Your statement is also based on a false premise. Companies don't invest in China to change China. They invest in China to make a profit. And making a profit, they did and they do. Wanting to change China is, ironically, something which mostly non-businesspeople want. Which makes the narrative that "we're being hostile to China because they don't open up markets" all the more insane. China has opened up. Walk down the street in China for 10 minutes and you see a ton of foreign companies. There are so much more foreign companies in China now than 30 years ago that the entire statement "China hasn't opened up" makes absolutely no sense. Not everything is open, sure, but that's still a far cry from "China hasn't opened up". China is also continuing to open up more parts of the markets. This comment here is on point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27333819 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27333819 The fact is, even if China isn't opening up as quickly or as much as you like, the trade agreement with China was never based on symmetry in the first place. It wasn't the goal, and more importantly, symmetry isn't needed for both parties to get what they want. Both parties did get what they want. What the US now wants has changed. It's entirely possible to renegotiate and get what you want, without devolving into useless, illogical and dishonest aggression rherotic. This whole cold war is entirely unnecessary, but I guess people care more about making up an enemy and being able to moral grandstand, than to address actual issues.