13 ms·

People need to wake up to the fact that China being a potential market of >1B people is an illusion. This is particularly relevant for any tech company. Let me

by cletus 5y ago

People need to wake up to the fact that China being a potential market of >1B people is an illusion. This is particularly relevant for any tech company. Let me spell it out: Chinese companies are extensions of the state. They are tools of Chinese foreign and trade policy. What cooperation you think US companies provide the US government, it is nothing in comparison. The Chinese government will ensure that no Western competitor will "win" in China. Period. I understand why to a point. My main issue is with the West being completely oblivious to it. If China wants to impose such restrictions on Western companies, they shouldn't get access to Western markets. And that's it. Here's where I think this will first come to a head: I believe the US government will at some point soon decide that any person born in mainland China is a security risk as far as working on anything national security related. This will probably extend to key industries of national importance too (eg SpaceX).

bserge 5y ago
Guess it's the American Dream of the rich, "anyone can make it (on the Chinese 1.3 billion people market)".
- baq 5y ago
  The anarcho-capitalist’s nightmare: realization that you need a strong government to enforce fair, intervention-free market.
  - kazen44 5y ago
    one of the best arguments against anarcho-capitalism is that without a goverment, there would be no market to speak of. why exchange in trade if no one can guarantee it will be beneficial for you? Why would the other party trade instead of just stealing your stuff? You could ofcourse defend against by carrying a bigger stick then the next guy or cooperating with others. Which starts to look an awful lot like the organised structure of a state..
    - tablespoon 5y ago
      > one of the best arguments against anarcho-capitalism is that without a goverment, there would be no market to speak of. > why exchange in trade if no one can guarantee it will be beneficial for you? Why would the other party trade instead of just stealing your stuff? You could ofcourse defend against by carrying a bigger stick then the next guy or cooperating with others. > Which starts to look an awful lot like the organised structure of a state.. Anarcho-capitalism is like one of those high atomic number elements with a half-life of microsecond. The society it describes is so unbelievably unstable, due to its own internal contradictions, that it practically cannot exist. A stable version of it is a literal fantasy.
      - midnight_toker 5y ago
        Yeah, same thing with communism and the assumption everyone will work for the best interest of the state. It just takes one bad actor and the corruption cascades and ruins the system. At least capitalism uses human greed as a motivator. I do think humans can be selfless, if they are mindful and educated, unfortunately with current poverty levels and disinformation, people arent smart enough to realise whats good for you is good for me
908B64B197 5y ago
> Here's where I think this will first come to a head: I believe the US government will at some point soon decide that any person born in mainland China is a security risk as far as working on anything national security related. This will probably extend to key industries of national importance too (eg SpaceX). Even naturalization or birth in America can't erase ties to Chinese entities, through family links for instance. Beware of double allegiances. [0] [0] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-raytheon-engineer-sentenced-exporting-sensitive-military-related-technology-china https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-raytheon-engineer-sent...
- colordrops 5y ago
  Things will get really ugly once you codify special classes citizens and other US persons. It won't happen even though conservative congresspeople have been pushing for it for decades.
  - sjs7007 5y ago
    Well you have security clearances already no?
    - colordrops 5y ago
      Yes, the cohort with security clearances is very white and eurocentric, which perpetuates a racial/ethnic divide between the in and outgroups for power in the US. Yes, you can't be legally discriminated against when seeking to be a wage slave, but if you want to get into the real echelons of secrecy and power, it's status quo, and without transparency.
  - ipspam 5y ago
    It will. Yet, any country has the right to discriminate in any way against someone wishing to enter the country. It's once those people are let in, and given citizenship or PR that they enjoy protections against discrimination. This would have to be a "moving forward policy". Anyone in the US already enjoys protection against discrimination based on place of their birth or race. In the future, it could be a condition of entry that people acknowledge they are not allowed to work in certain industries, for the government, or universities etc.
at_compile_time 5y ago
>any person born in mainland China is a security risk We've staffed our campuses and laboratories with these people because there's nothing university administrators like more than cheap labour. The Chinese Communist Party has agents inside western countries who can get to these people, to say nothing of what they can do to these people's families back in mainland China.
- 908B64B197 5y ago
  It's pretty well known [0] [1] but there's a reason your local administrator/politician won't talk about it [2] [0] https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2020/06/11/alleged-chinese-spy-arrested-at-lax-arrested-for-stealing-research-from-uc-san-francisco/ https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2020/06/11/alleged-chinese... [1] https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/08/19/universities-confucius-institutes-china/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/08/19/universities-confucius-... [2] https://www.axios.com/china-spy-california-politicians-9d2dfb99-f839-4e00-8bd8-59dec0daf589.html https://www.axios.com/china-spy-california-politicians-9d2df...
- thetwotimer 5y ago
  University administrators? More like any medium to large employer these days. The carrot on the stick is gone for a lot of westerners and so they would rather bring in modern slaves from China, India, and Iran and blame the whole thing on "lazy" youth and "worker shortages". Gee, I wonder what the cause of that shortage is. Could it be because workers are miserable and have no foreseeable future? Nah, must be because the government is giving them a few thousand bucks.
fnord77 5y ago
I've heard a couple stories in SV of a certain chinese network hardware maker hiring phd researchers away from places like Cisco. Then finding ways to coerce or blackmail (threatening to ruin them) them into coughing up secrets from their previous employer.
Animats 5y ago
Chinese companies are extensions of the state. Some are, some aren't. The current China "antitrust" flap is over ones that got really big without being extensions of the state, such as Tencent and Ant Financial. The classic big ones, such as Baowu (steel), Cosco (shipping), and China Railway Group (obvious), are directly state-owned. There are also large companies owned by provinces, regions, and cities. Most small and medium sized companies, though, are not state-owned. State ownership of almost everything was tried during the Mao era, and it didn't work. The CCP insists on being the only major center of power in China. They're willing to tolerate capitalism until it generates companies big enough to push back. Those get taken over or converted to state ownership.
- ravel-bar-foo 5y ago
  At a minimum, the CCP has full visibility into every company operating in China. They require taxes to be filed via government-provided software, and this software was found to contain backdoors. It gets even more insidious when every company above a certain size (10? 15?) is required to hire a Party Officer for oversight.
SavantIdiot 5y ago
China hasn't made any power plays beyond currency manipulation. Greedy US/European CEOs handed the PRC the keys to the castle for short-term gains.
- l332mn 5y ago
  Who's the main currency manipulator? The US, and its many, many trillions of dollars in debt which other countries are forced to purchase in order to participate in the global market. As long as the dollar remains the world reserve currency, i.e. as long as the US monetary hegemony lasts, the US will remain the leading currency manipulator. They've shamefully printed about 10 trillion dollars the past couple of years.
- scythe 5y ago
  PRC has made irredentist claims to parts of Tajikistan (Pamir), India (Ladakh), Vietnam (Paracels) and of course Taiwan. They invaded Vietnam in 1979 when the latter overthrew the genocidal Khmer Rouge in Cambodia (PRC supported KR) and have provided support to both the Burmese and North Korean dictatorships. Granted, they haven't done nearly as much meddling as the United States, but they nonetheless demonstrate a willingness to turn a blind eye to the worst sorts of atrocities when it suits them, and a generally expansionist ethos.
yodsanklai 5y ago
Naive question here: why China is able to close its market to foreign companies? Same thing for trade sanctions on Iran which impacted European companies but not China (if I'm not wrong). Seems they don't play by the same rules as anybody else.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > why China is able to close its market to foreign companies? Because we assumed that prosperity would lead to liberal democracy. That underwrote complacency while profit motivations took root.
  - SkyMarshal 5y ago
    Or that capitalism was an inextricable part of democracy, and bringing the former would inevitably lead to the latter. A quite foolish assumption given the 20th century counterexamples of capitalism + authoritarianism - Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Imperial Japan. In the 90s, Wall St. and corporate America bankrolled the largest ever lobbying campaign to open US markets and the WTO to China, and got it by 2000. Just two decades later and the result is massive inequality, a decimated middle class, vulnerable supply supply chains, and rising authoritarianism again. The US has stupidly snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in the Cold War.
    - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
      > that capitalism was an inextricable part of democracy, and bringing the former would inevitably lead to the latter This was never argued by anyone of prominence in the debates on China's WTO accession. Raising living standards through trade was the pitch. The faulty assumption was wealthier Chinese would demand more freedom. That didn't happen.
      - SkyMarshal 5y ago
        The implication at the time - the "End of History" era - was that free trade capitalism had prevailed and was the way to raise living standards, and that political liberalization would follow. However you slice it, it was a poor assumption.
ilaksh 5y ago
It will come to a head with WWIII, millions dying from nuclear or biological warfare (which by the way Wuhan was the Hiroshima of biological warfare [whether it was intentional or not]). Or if we are lucky, they will just give in rather than face the next bioweapon. Anyway, as you see I am not optimistic.
nsonha 5y ago
> no Western competitor will "win" in China. Period define "win"? To corporate America, making profit is a win. Even being the market leader is not a requirement.
- angelzen 5y ago
  How much profit does the Guatemalan subsidiary of Dole make?
  - nsonha 5y ago
    point? We're talking about China, which is a very similar country to Guatemala I guess
    - angelzen 5y ago
      I'm talking about US 20 years from now. Those in corporate America who think they are 'winning' today by selling out Western knowhow to China and failing to cultivate an indigenous STEM workforce are in for a big surprise when the high value add industries fade away into China, just like basic industry did. They may still run the local subsidiary of Huawei under Chinese upper management pushing overpriced Chinese surveillances to the US market, but the profits will belong to the victors and head straight to China.
platz 5y ago
SoftBank sold ARM to China, not Western companies.
- dialogbox 5y ago
  Taiwan is not China.
  - platz 5y ago
    Are you sure
  - salawat 5y ago
    Taiwan is China. West Taiwan just needs to get with the program.
    - scythe 5y ago
      https://www.reddit.com/r/TwoBestFriendsPlay/comments/j2c8ra/hey_folks_lets_have_a_chat_about_taiwan_china_and/ https://www.reddit.com/r/TwoBestFriendsPlay/comments/j2c8ra/...
    - oxfeed65261 5y ago
      Taiwan is indeed the Republic of China, but generally when people refer to “China” without qualification they are referring to the People’s Republic of China.
  - scythe 5y ago
    SoftBank is Japanese, 安谋科技 is Chinese. Taiwan isn't at issue here.
    - dialogbox 5y ago
      SoftBank sold ARM to Nvidia. And I thought Nvidia is Taiwanese since the parent comment mentioned China but maybe I was wrong. It seems like Nvidia is American. Why he mentioned China?
ridiculous_leke 5y ago
> The Chinese government will ensure that no Western competitor will "win" in China. Period. I understand why to a point. My main issue is with the West being completely oblivious to it. > If China wants to impose such restrictions on Western companies, they shouldn't get access to Western markets. And that's it. And there are people around who give this a pass. And usually the defense is "China is just following Chinese law".
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  And if China is in China, they can follow Chinese law. Once they come out of China, to do business with the West, then that excuse doesn't cut it. (Just like the way that Western companies have to follow Chinese law to do business in China.)
  - factorialboy 5y ago
    I slap when when you come over to my home, because it's rule of my home. When you invite me, I take advantage of your hospitality and enjoy some tea.
    - ap0110 5y ago
      There is reason I'm willing to be slapped by you. May be is your daughter or w Just like some company do tech transfer in exchange for access to the market. You are welcome to take advantage of my hospitality and tea. But do you know what is in the tea? You might get addicted to the tea that you willing to obey me. Just like sanction ( weaponizing dollar )
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - factorialboy 5y ago
        So you concede that China imposes unfair and unilateral constraints on foreign businesses, and you are asserting that it's alright because foreign businesses _still_ have something to gain. But you don't mention what that something is. Stockholm syndrome? Or a propaganda bot user? The question stands: Why should anyone put up with a one-sided, unfair trade regime.
kbenson 5y ago
> Let me spell it out: Chinese companies are extensions of the state. Where this comes to a head, and where western capitalistic governments seem ill equipped to handle it sufficiently, is in how China itself can and does act like one giant super conglomerate company and uses that to bully smaller companies because they are bigger than anything around. Western governments are loathe to intervene in business dealing when they don't have to, because their systems are based on a fairly hands off approach with the free market. The one place they sometimes do step in is when there's a monopoly or some other anti-competitive practice. The problem here is that the anti-competitive practice is being enabled by a foreign state that's working under the illusion of separate corporate entities. What's a country like the US or UK to do? Tell it's local companies that want to and are totally willing to shift IP to China to access the market "No, sorry, you aren't allowed to, even though you own that information and it's not a state secret"? That may be what's needed, but it's a large difference in thought in how they've treated their markets to this point.
- LamaOfRuin 5y ago
  >What's a country like the US or UK to do? Tell it's local companies that want to and are totally willing to shift IP to China to access the market "No, sorry, you aren't allowed to, even though you own that information and it's not a state secret"? Yes, that is literally what the US has always done. The government can ban you from exporting anything it wants, which explicitly includes tech transfer.
  - kbenson 5y ago
    China isn't just taking tech IP. They're taking everything. They localized and took a bunch of train IP from German company they partnered with in the past. They've been doing it for decades. You can say we do that all the time, but have we really been prohibiting experienc and technology for diesel engines? Like you say, maybe we should, but it will be an interesting argument to have with companies that really want access to the market, and view this specific aspect of the contract as none of the governments business.
    - 5y ago
linuxhansl 5y ago
Putting over 1bn people under general suspicion? I fail to see how this will solve anything. I agree with most of the rest you said... This is about markets and it is about the protection of IP. Edit: Spelling
wonnage 5y ago
The McCarthyism will continue until capitalism improves
- ggm 5y ago
  An underrated comment I intend stealing and reusing without attribution. Flogging/morale riff, well done.
colechristensen 5y ago
We buy peace with China by maintaining strong economic codependence. There is a huge cost, but not necessarily one not worth paying. Economic isolation would mean war.
- torstenvl 5y ago
  We have war already. It just isn't a very hot one.
  - Dotnaught 5y ago
    There are better words for a conflict that's not currently active warfare. The US and China can disagree and take action that isn't mutually beneficial without it being a war. How we talk about things reflects how we think about them and limits the solutions we consider.
    - torstenvl 5y ago
      None of which changes the fact that there is a war. Not only are the two nations still involved on opposite sides of the Korean War, which has never concluded, but China routinely scrambled fighters and bombers to harass U.S. ships in international waters. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-militarys-close-calls-china-russia-air-sea/story?id=58239230 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-militarys-close-calls-chi... https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/7/12/china-military-drove-away-us-warship-in-south-china-sea https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/7/12/china-military-drov... https://www.businessinsider.com/chinese-planes-conducted-simulated-attack-on-us-navy-aircraft-carrier-2021-1 https://www.businessinsider.com/chinese-planes-conducted-sim... https://www.amazon.com/New-Rules-War-Victory-Disorder/dp/0062843583/ref=nodl_ https://www.amazon.com/New-Rules-War-Victory-Disorder/dp/006... There are armed confrontations between the militaries of these two countries on a constant basis. There just hasn't been any shooting yet.
- MangoCoffee 5y ago
  There is no economic tie between US/Soviet and nothing happens. 40 years of trade with China had propelled China to the number 2 economy in the world while sacked American manufacturing some projected China will surpass US in the near future. middle class American suffered and they voted Trump. is gig economy all that's left for middle class? while rich get even more rich from US/China trade. American reap what they sow i guess.
exporectomy 5y ago
I suspect China doesn't really need western markets in the long term so denying access isn't all that powerful. Their population is the same as the entire OECD combined. They could become an entire "western developed economy" isolated within themselves plus a bunch of 3rd world allies.
- simonblack 5y ago
  I suspect China doesn't really need western markets in the long term Being from the West, we see things with West-Centric eyes. When, if we look more closely, we see that China alone has more customers than the whole of the West (Five-Eyes, Europe, Japan) combined. The West is pretty much unimportant, relatively speaking, in the over-all scheme of things. A mere 20% of the world's customers. As a whole, the world is reverting to the status-quo that existed prior to the 1400s: The world's big economies being in India and China, with Europe/Europeans being a quiet backwater.
  - jollybean 5y ago
    The West + Japan + S. Korea, is where almost all the money, power and GDP is. China has roughly the same as the US, but with many more people. The 'Rest of Asia Minus Japan+Korea' is big, but still poor.
  - midnight_toker 5y ago
    Yeahh except for the fact historically the west have been developing technologies and social ideologies which are ultimately adopted by other 'civilizations' for millenia. For what counts, they have always been on top, and will be for the forseeable future. other civilizations are still playing catch-up and have social structures which inhibit development, as for china, its delusion of being the centre of the world is what is making them set such arrogant, unreasonable trade terms.
- angelzen 5y ago
  Sorry to say, but this is typical Western 'markets above all' blinders. Very true, long term China doesn't need Western markets. But China needs World's resources, and Western markets will crash when starved for resources. The future is one Eastern developed economy, and various backwater client states in constant state of quarrel with each other while being striped bare for resources. There is a lot of corn grown in Iowa, I hear there is a big market for it overseas.
maccolgan 5y ago
This isn't very dissimilar to how the US populace at large won't let Chinese companies win in the US either, so all is fair in the world.
googlerthrowway 5y ago
>Here's where I think this will first come to a head: I believe the US government will at some point soon decide that any person born in mainland China is a security risk as far as working on anything national security related. I was at Google during the Project Dragonfly revelations. My name is on this petition [0]. Internally, I expressed discomfort at cooperation with a state that (among other things) sets up covert Communist Party cells at American universities and requires Party members to write reports on other Chinese students' political speech and activities. After sharing this concern, a fellow Googler reached out and told me earnestly, "don't worry, none of us writing those reports took it seriously." This was cold reassurance. [0] https://medium.com/@googlersagainstdragonfly/we-are-google-employees-google-must-drop-dragonfly-4c8a30c5e5eb https://medium.com/@googlersagainstdragonfly/we-are-google-e...
- cletus 5y ago
  I worked at Google years ago when in response to what most believe was a Chinese state-sanctioned hack, Google decided to pull out of China. Many believed (myself included) that this pull out was largely driven by Sergey Brin. This all happened in the 1-2 years before I joined but I like many greatly respected that stance. It was sad to see (from the outside this time) this principle get thrown aside with Dragonfly. What's worse is that Google will never be allowed to succeed in China so there was literally no point.
coldtea 5y ago
>Let me spell it out: Chinese companies are extensions of the state. They are tools of Chinese foreign and trade policy. What cooperation you think US companies provide the US government, it is nothing in comparison. I'm not so sure. It just goes through a few more mediators and more roundabout ways. In the end, the fruit companies that turned Latin American countries into banana repubics, for one example, had big support from the state and vice versa. Ditto for oil, telecommunications, social, and so on.
- angelzen 5y ago
  Glad that you mentioned banana republics. The writing is on the wall...
mdavis6890 5y ago
"If China wants to impose such restrictions on Western companies, they shouldn't get access to Western markets. And that's it." Why? Why should we prohibit US citizens from purchasing things they want from wherever/whoever they want? Why would we do that to ourselves (I'm a US citizen), and to each other?
- causality0 5y ago
  The same reason we don't let people do business with North Korea or purchase stolen goods. The same reason we shouldn't let people buy conflict diamonds or clothes made with slave labor.
  - orhmeh09 5y ago
    How about Russell Stover chocolate? https://thecounter.org/russell-stover-uses-prison-labor-candy-kansas/ https://thecounter.org/russell-stover-uses-prison-labor-cand...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
justicezyx 5y ago
Not sure how did you get the idea that the market was not there. Arm China had stellar financial results. Arm holding, with 49% share of the company, has significant upside to gain from the market. And this fiasco is partly a misconduct of Mr. Wu, showing no signs of being directed by Chinese investors. And partly because of Trump's tech ban, which obviously affect arm China's prospect. And then this statement: > I believe the US government will at some point soon decide that any person born in mainland China is a security risk as far as working on anything national security related. Even if Mr. Wu was directed by CCP, how can you extend that to all of Chinese immigrants? There are plenty of Chinese Americans who had misconduct inside China, and flee the country back to US to escape Chinese law (numerous corrupted officials of course are such examples) recently https://m.sohu.com/a/412302008_220095/?pvid=000115_3w_a https://m.sohu.com/a/412302008_220095/?pvid=000115_3w_a are these people US spys to sabotage Chinese economy then? How ridiculous was that logic.
- AtomicMutex 5y ago
  "Arm China had stellar financial results. Arm holding, with 49% share of the company, has significant upside to gain from the market." This is because clients and accounts that previously belonged to Arm had to be handed over to Arm China if Arm wanted to continue doing any business with Chinese firms, regardless of whether they'd actually courted their business. This is like picking your left pocket and arguing that you stand to gain because I'm putting some of the money back into your right pocket. I'm still robbing you, even if I'm giving you some of your own money back.
  - justicezyx 5y ago
    Did you read the post? This is so that they can listed on the public market. There were no evidence that this joint venture was mandated. And this joint venture happened after Softbank took over arm. And of course, Softbank thinks they can manage the listing process.
angelzen 5y ago
> US government will at some point soon decide that any person born in mainland China is a security risk Chinese people earn 15-20% of graduate STEM degrees in US, double the percentage of 10 years ago, and not counting second generation Chinese. At this rate, 'US' STEM will be Chinese dominated long before anyone wakes up to the security risk. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11347 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11347 https://cset.georgetown.edu/publication/estimating-the-number-of-chinese-stem-students-in-the-united-states/ https://cset.georgetown.edu/publication/estimating-the-numbe...
- justicezyx 5y ago
  What security risk? This Mr. Wu did something bad inside China, without any evidence that he was colluding with the national and local government of China. How is that translate to security risk at US domestic? And all these Chinese stem students already contributed critical work to the boom of high tech industry. You are not appreciting their hard work, and link a speculation to national security risk?! How heartless one can be, not only thankless, but vile and judgemental... Edit: I am a Chinese American born and raised in China.
  - edderly 5y ago
    I have no strong opinions on this, but for background, there are a bunch of Silicon Valley types like Eric Weinstein (Thiel Capital) who maintain that there are sinister undertones to the growing influence of Chinese immigrants in Tech and Higher Education. https://djonesvi.medium.com/eric-weinstein-on-the-secretly-contrived-study-behind-the-h-1b-program-dccc093986c8 https://djonesvi.medium.com/eric-weinstein-on-the-secretly-c... Obviously that can veer into uncomfortable conclusions i.e. is it true, or is this kind of racist?
    - ethbr0 5y ago
      I mean, if the US wanted to "solve" the issue, it's pretty easy. Offer anyone who graduates with a STEM degree from a reputable institution US citizenship... and require they if they renounce their Chinese citizenship (which happens automatically per Chinese law, but just to be sure).
onethought 5y ago
Remember that time when Amazon shut off wiki leaks hosting. And The banks froze Wikileaks bank/charging capabilities? You think that American companies aren’t tools of the state?
gumby 5y ago
> Let me spell it out: Chinese companies are extensions of the state. I generally don’t like such jingoistic statements but I think this is basically true, at least in the 2020s. I will also note that this has come as a surprise to many Chinese entrepreneurs, most famously (but far from exclusively) Jack Ma.
- jollybean 5y ago
  It deserves some nuance yes: Chinese firms are not directly controlled by the state. This 'Arm Heist' is probably not driven by state apparatus. But, some artifacts of state power and intervention are egregious enough to make them essentially an extension of state power. 1) The 'China Venture' ownership policy, is the first foundation of this 'Arm Heist', without this Nationalist policy, it'd be a different situation. 2) China has required IP transfer for many things, this is state intervention. 3) The lack of commercial legal recourse for ARM in this case, is a 'de fact' pro-China issue. It's probably not designed to be this way, but it puts every foreign company at a major disadvantage, there may be behind the scenes shenanigangs by the state, we don't know. 4) The CCP has minders in every company to ensure CCP loyalty and compliance. They were in 85% of companies, soon 100%. Imagine having a group of guys from the CIA/NSA who you have to hire inside your company, who work directly for the President, who is unelected. This is a major tool of control few people talk about. 5) Large deals and orgs are often politicized, either by powerful politicians as individuals or state apparatus. Nobody knows who owns Huawei, other then there seems to be a strategic state component. 6) The state can make powerful reforms that fundamentally reshape the industry at their leisure - they pulled Didi and And listings at the last minute and disallowed them from raising money outside China which really brought their valuation down. Not only is the government flexing it's power, but it's doing it in a sketchy, hypernationalist way. Forcing Chinese companies to remain all Chinese to raise Chinese cash etc. To me - this is the 'last straw' and it's a raising of a form of wall of capital that's frankly probably going to hurt China more than anything. Alibaba is tanking [1] 7) CCP ultimately access to any and all the data from Ant, Didi, TikTok that it needs to enforce total 360 absolutism and thought control policies. Jack Ma style Entrepreneurs probably don't care that much about the Chinese state, but the mechanisms in place by the CCP ensure that ultimately, they are tools to it. If a Western company can sell something in China that can't be stolen, well, they can try while it lasts. But joint ventures etc. will probably fail. The notion of doing an IP deal with China is absurd at face value. 'Brand' is probably the best thing to have, like Pizza Hut because it's ownership of 'hearts and minds' - that said, any company that does do this is going to have to 'toe the line'. As we've seen LeBron James become a vocal SJW in his own country, but line up like a perfect stooge anti-SJW for the CCP for Chinese related issues, actively calling on people to not call out China etc. - this does have relevance as well. In the end, the problem is that nobody seems to be able to have enough power or intelligence to do anything about any of it. Only the US alone has enough power but even then it's fragmented. Germany depends on exports to China and their voice is the influencer in EU. Moreover, even if they were at the same table, I'm not sure if they would have a solution. Probably what is needed is a 'China Alliance' which is to say US, EU, UK, Canada, Aussie, Japan, Korea, India etc. form some kind of common agreement with respect to dealing with China and then try to work on big issues without China trying to fragment the group. Trans Pacific Partnership was sort of that, but Trump's personal business instincts, which make sense on some level, were completely wrong on that one. [1] Alibaba: The Mass Exodus. https://seekingalpha.com/article/4451692-alibaba-the-mass-exodus?mailingid=24864820&messageid=must_reads&serial=24864820.1126610&utm_campaign=Must%2BReads%2BAugust%2B26%2C%2B2021&utm_content=seeking_alpha&utm_medium=email&utm_source=seeking_alpha&utm_term=must_reads https://seekingalpha.com/article/4451692-alibaba-the-mass-ex...
makeitdouble 5y ago
> The Chinese government will ensure that no Western competitor will "win" in China. Period. Isn’t it the MO of any country that wants to go ahead ? Wasn’t born during the period, but I know of the US’ Japanese bashing in the 80s and pulling all the levers to stop foreign companies from getting dominant in the car market. As far as I know Toyota & co had to bring manufacturing to the US to get a foothold, and I get the feeling China has just made that a policy from the start instead of going throught all the cycle.
lumost 5y ago
The US is waking up from a post-cold war reality. In the 1980s a consensus formed that. 1. US military and economic power meant that countries could be relied on to follow US influenced IP laws or be excluded from the global market. 2. US military and economic power was large enough and benign enough that no major trading partner would pose an existential military or political threat - validated by the economic rise of Germany and Japan. These two ideas powered US and to a lesser extent European outsourcing for the next 40 years. Very few executives believed that there was a serious risk of their outsourced manufacturing or outsourced engineering firm becoming independent - and they certainly didn't think through the reality that in such an event the holding firm would not have the capital or knowledge to compete against the newly formed firm. The reality is that the US and Chinese economic spheres are likely to fracture in whole or in part. China owns the factories and the IP, the Chinese military is increasingly capable of achieving any military goal they are likely to have against the US military using indigenous military hardware. There is no reason the Chinese authorities would not support subsidiaries and joint ventures becoming independent by eliminating legally ambiguous joint ventures and Variable Interest Entities, forcing sales of Chinese assets to Chinese investors, or simply creating new legislation to free such entities from foreign corporations. I fear that the US has been so focused on outsourcing for the last 40 years that it's forgotten how unusual of a relationship outsourcing was in the first place, and why it wasn't done for most of the industrial era.
gerdesj 5y ago
"My main issue is with the West being completely oblivious to it." We are not oblivious.
makeitdouble 5y ago
A point on addressing China as market: for a non US company, I think there just isn’t any market that will be much easier to compete in either way. If we imagine a Swedish chip maker that wants to become a global powerhouse, the US will dip a finger or two in it to make sure it mostly goes along their interests, otherwise the maker will just get banned from US use (Huawey…). China will do the same if the chips ever touch the chinese soil. Japan will tax it through the roof anyway. India is another kind of wild ride. We’re left with the Russia, middle east, and Africa. Basically any company with big ambitions will need to choose to open up to China or US control up to a point, and understand that if they really become critical any legal ground they stand on can be swooped away with a sleight of hand.
- jollybean 5y ago
  The US is not going to interfere in 'Swede Corp' unless it's a serious issue of state security. Spottily could be worth $500B and they would not care. Recently Erickson took the spotlight as one of the few alternatives to 5G Huawei there was talk of US sate intervention but that might have been a good thing for them, otherwise, if they came to totally dominate 5G gear sales, again, the US wouldn't really have cared. Nokia used to completely own mobile, Apple and Google game to dominate that but not out of a national strategy of some kind, although there are systematic artifacts of it behind the scenes.
  - markus_zhang 5y ago
    State security is simply a facade that can be easily pulled up. For example speak to the French about this (Alston).
  - makeitdouble 5y ago
    Interestingly Spotify is playing relatively nice with the US in general, e.g: https://themusicnetwork.com/spotify-expands-us-operations-adds-1000-jobs/ https://themusicnetwork.com/spotify-expands-us-operations-ad... They also rely on GCP, and have a strong dependance on Apple and Google’s gardens, so their growing success is also tied to US firms. Nokia is also in very good terms with the US gov: https://www.nokia.com/networks/us-federal-defense/ https://www.nokia.com/networks/us-federal-defense/
AzzieElbab 5y ago
Waking up is not a problem. Incentives are fkd up all over

by cletus 5y ago

bserge 5y ago

Guess it's the American Dream of the rich, "anyone can make it (on the Chinese 1.3 billion people market)".

baq 5y ago
The anarcho-capitalist’s nightmare: realization that you need a strong government to enforce fair, intervention-free market.
- kazen44 5y ago
  one of the best arguments against anarcho-capitalism is that without a goverment, there would be no market to speak of. why exchange in trade if no one can guarantee it will be beneficial for you? Why would the other party trade instead of just stealing your stuff? You could ofcourse defend against by carrying a bigger stick then the next guy or cooperating with others. Which starts to look an awful lot like the organised structure of a state..
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > one of the best arguments against anarcho-capitalism is that without a goverment, there would be no market to speak of. > why exchange in trade if no one can guarantee it will be beneficial for you? Why would the other party trade instead of just stealing your stuff? You could ofcourse defend against by carrying a bigger stick then the next guy or cooperating with others. > Which starts to look an awful lot like the organised structure of a state.. Anarcho-capitalism is like one of those high atomic number elements with a half-life of microsecond. The society it describes is so unbelievably unstable, due to its own internal contradictions, that it practically cannot exist. A stable version of it is a literal fantasy.
    - midnight_toker 5y ago
      Yeah, same thing with communism and the assumption everyone will work for the best interest of the state. It just takes one bad actor and the corruption cascades and ruins the system. At least capitalism uses human greed as a motivator. I do think humans can be selfless, if they are mindful and educated, unfortunately with current poverty levels and disinformation, people arent smart enough to realise whats good for you is good for me

908B64B197 5y ago

> Here's where I think this will first come to a head: I believe the US government will at some point soon decide that any person born in mainland China is a security risk as far as working on anything national security related. This will probably extend to key industries of national importance too (eg SpaceX). Even naturalization or birth in America can't erase ties to Chinese entities, through family links for instance. Beware of double allegiances. [0] [0] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-raytheon-engineer-sentenced-exporting-sensitive-military-related-technology-china https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-raytheon-engineer-sent...

colordrops 5y ago
Things will get really ugly once you codify special classes citizens and other US persons. It won't happen even though conservative congresspeople have been pushing for it for decades.
- sjs7007 5y ago
  Well you have security clearances already no?
  - colordrops 5y ago
    Yes, the cohort with security clearances is very white and eurocentric, which perpetuates a racial/ethnic divide between the in and outgroups for power in the US. Yes, you can't be legally discriminated against when seeking to be a wage slave, but if you want to get into the real echelons of secrecy and power, it's status quo, and without transparency.
- ipspam 5y ago
  It will. Yet, any country has the right to discriminate in any way against someone wishing to enter the country. It's once those people are let in, and given citizenship or PR that they enjoy protections against discrimination. This would have to be a "moving forward policy". Anyone in the US already enjoys protection against discrimination based on place of their birth or race. In the future, it could be a condition of entry that people acknowledge they are not allowed to work in certain industries, for the government, or universities etc.

at_compile_time 5y ago

>any person born in mainland China is a security risk We've staffed our campuses and laboratories with these people because there's nothing university administrators like more than cheap labour. The Chinese Communist Party has agents inside western countries who can get to these people, to say nothing of what they can do to these people's families back in mainland China.

908B64B197 5y ago
It's pretty well known [0] [1] but there's a reason your local administrator/politician won't talk about it [2] [0] https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2020/06/11/alleged-chinese-spy-arrested-at-lax-arrested-for-stealing-research-from-uc-san-francisco/ https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2020/06/11/alleged-chinese... [1] https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/08/19/universities-confucius-institutes-china/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/08/19/universities-confucius-... [2] https://www.axios.com/china-spy-california-politicians-9d2dfb99-f839-4e00-8bd8-59dec0daf589.html https://www.axios.com/china-spy-california-politicians-9d2df...
thetwotimer 5y ago
University administrators? More like any medium to large employer these days. The carrot on the stick is gone for a lot of westerners and so they would rather bring in modern slaves from China, India, and Iran and blame the whole thing on "lazy" youth and "worker shortages". Gee, I wonder what the cause of that shortage is. Could it be because workers are miserable and have no foreseeable future? Nah, must be because the government is giving them a few thousand bucks.

fnord77 5y ago

I've heard a couple stories in SV of a certain chinese network hardware maker hiring phd researchers away from places like Cisco. Then finding ways to coerce or blackmail (threatening to ruin them) them into coughing up secrets from their previous employer.

Animats 5y ago

Chinese companies are extensions of the state. Some are, some aren't. The current China "antitrust" flap is over ones that got really big without being extensions of the state, such as Tencent and Ant Financial. The classic big ones, such as Baowu (steel), Cosco (shipping), and China Railway Group (obvious), are directly state-owned. There are also large companies owned by provinces, regions, and cities. Most small and medium sized companies, though, are not state-owned. State ownership of almost everything was tried during the Mao era, and it didn't work. The CCP insists on being the only major center of power in China. They're willing to tolerate capitalism until it generates companies big enough to push back. Those get taken over or converted to state ownership.

ravel-bar-foo 5y ago
At a minimum, the CCP has full visibility into every company operating in China. They require taxes to be filed via government-provided software, and this software was found to contain backdoors. It gets even more insidious when every company above a certain size (10? 15?) is required to hire a Party Officer for oversight.

SavantIdiot 5y ago

China hasn't made any power plays beyond currency manipulation. Greedy US/European CEOs handed the PRC the keys to the castle for short-term gains.

l332mn 5y ago
Who's the main currency manipulator? The US, and its many, many trillions of dollars in debt which other countries are forced to purchase in order to participate in the global market. As long as the dollar remains the world reserve currency, i.e. as long as the US monetary hegemony lasts, the US will remain the leading currency manipulator. They've shamefully printed about 10 trillion dollars the past couple of years.
scythe 5y ago
PRC has made irredentist claims to parts of Tajikistan (Pamir), India (Ladakh), Vietnam (Paracels) and of course Taiwan. They invaded Vietnam in 1979 when the latter overthrew the genocidal Khmer Rouge in Cambodia (PRC supported KR) and have provided support to both the Burmese and North Korean dictatorships. Granted, they haven't done nearly as much meddling as the United States, but they nonetheless demonstrate a willingness to turn a blind eye to the worst sorts of atrocities when it suits them, and a generally expansionist ethos.

yodsanklai 5y ago

Naive question here: why China is able to close its market to foreign companies? Same thing for trade sanctions on Iran which impacted European companies but not China (if I'm not wrong). Seems they don't play by the same rules as anybody else.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> why China is able to close its market to foreign companies? Because we assumed that prosperity would lead to liberal democracy. That underwrote complacency while profit motivations took root.
- SkyMarshal 5y ago
  Or that capitalism was an inextricable part of democracy, and bringing the former would inevitably lead to the latter. A quite foolish assumption given the 20th century counterexamples of capitalism + authoritarianism - Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Imperial Japan. In the 90s, Wall St. and corporate America bankrolled the largest ever lobbying campaign to open US markets and the WTO to China, and got it by 2000. Just two decades later and the result is massive inequality, a decimated middle class, vulnerable supply supply chains, and rising authoritarianism again. The US has stupidly snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in the Cold War.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > that capitalism was an inextricable part of democracy, and bringing the former would inevitably lead to the latter This was never argued by anyone of prominence in the debates on China's WTO accession. Raising living standards through trade was the pitch. The faulty assumption was wealthier Chinese would demand more freedom. That didn't happen.
    - SkyMarshal 5y ago
      The implication at the time - the "End of History" era - was that free trade capitalism had prevailed and was the way to raise living standards, and that political liberalization would follow. However you slice it, it was a poor assumption.

ilaksh 5y ago

It will come to a head with WWIII, millions dying from nuclear or biological warfare (which by the way Wuhan was the Hiroshima of biological warfare [whether it was intentional or not]). Or if we are lucky, they will just give in rather than face the next bioweapon. Anyway, as you see I am not optimistic.

nsonha 5y ago

> no Western competitor will "win" in China. Period define "win"? To corporate America, making profit is a win. Even being the market leader is not a requirement.

angelzen 5y ago
How much profit does the Guatemalan subsidiary of Dole make?
- nsonha 5y ago
  point? We're talking about China, which is a very similar country to Guatemala I guess
  - angelzen 5y ago
    I'm talking about US 20 years from now. Those in corporate America who think they are 'winning' today by selling out Western knowhow to China and failing to cultivate an indigenous STEM workforce are in for a big surprise when the high value add industries fade away into China, just like basic industry did. They may still run the local subsidiary of Huawei under Chinese upper management pushing overpriced Chinese surveillances to the US market, but the profits will belong to the victors and head straight to China.

platz 5y ago

SoftBank sold ARM to China, not Western companies.

dialogbox 5y ago
Taiwan is not China.
- platz 5y ago
  Are you sure
- salawat 5y ago
  Taiwan is China. West Taiwan just needs to get with the program.
  - scythe 5y ago
    https://www.reddit.com/r/TwoBestFriendsPlay/comments/j2c8ra/hey_folks_lets_have_a_chat_about_taiwan_china_and/ https://www.reddit.com/r/TwoBestFriendsPlay/comments/j2c8ra/...
  - oxfeed65261 5y ago
    Taiwan is indeed the Republic of China, but generally when people refer to “China” without qualification they are referring to the People’s Republic of China.
- scythe 5y ago
  SoftBank is Japanese, 安谋科技 is Chinese. Taiwan isn't at issue here.
  - dialogbox 5y ago
    SoftBank sold ARM to Nvidia. And I thought Nvidia is Taiwanese since the parent comment mentioned China but maybe I was wrong. It seems like Nvidia is American. Why he mentioned China?

ridiculous_leke 5y ago

> The Chinese government will ensure that no Western competitor will "win" in China. Period. I understand why to a point. My main issue is with the West being completely oblivious to it. > If China wants to impose such restrictions on Western companies, they shouldn't get access to Western markets. And that's it. And there are people around who give this a pass. And usually the defense is "China is just following Chinese law".

AnimalMuppet 5y ago
And if China is in China, they can follow Chinese law. Once they come out of China, to do business with the West, then that excuse doesn't cut it. (Just like the way that Western companies have to follow Chinese law to do business in China.)
- factorialboy 5y ago
  I slap when when you come over to my home, because it's rule of my home. When you invite me, I take advantage of your hospitality and enjoy some tea.
  - ap0110 5y ago
    There is reason I'm willing to be slapped by you. May be is your daughter or w Just like some company do tech transfer in exchange for access to the market. You are welcome to take advantage of my hospitality and tea. But do you know what is in the tea? You might get addicted to the tea that you willing to obey me. Just like sanction ( weaponizing dollar )
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - factorialboy 5y ago
      So you concede that China imposes unfair and unilateral constraints on foreign businesses, and you are asserting that it's alright because foreign businesses _still_ have something to gain. But you don't mention what that something is. Stockholm syndrome? Or a propaganda bot user? The question stands: Why should anyone put up with a one-sided, unfair trade regime.

kbenson 5y ago

> Let me spell it out: Chinese companies are extensions of the state. Where this comes to a head, and where western capitalistic governments seem ill equipped to handle it sufficiently, is in how China itself can and does act like one giant super conglomerate company and uses that to bully smaller companies because they are bigger than anything around. Western governments are loathe to intervene in business dealing when they don't have to, because their systems are based on a fairly hands off approach with the free market. The one place they sometimes do step in is when there's a monopoly or some other anti-competitive practice. The problem here is that the anti-competitive practice is being enabled by a foreign state that's working under the illusion of separate corporate entities. What's a country like the US or UK to do? Tell it's local companies that want to and are totally willing to shift IP to China to access the market "No, sorry, you aren't allowed to, even though you own that information and it's not a state secret"? That may be what's needed, but it's a large difference in thought in how they've treated their markets to this point.

LamaOfRuin 5y ago
>What's a country like the US or UK to do? Tell it's local companies that want to and are totally willing to shift IP to China to access the market "No, sorry, you aren't allowed to, even though you own that information and it's not a state secret"? Yes, that is literally what the US has always done. The government can ban you from exporting anything it wants, which explicitly includes tech transfer.
- kbenson 5y ago
  China isn't just taking tech IP. They're taking everything. They localized and took a bunch of train IP from German company they partnered with in the past. They've been doing it for decades. You can say we do that all the time, but have we really been prohibiting experienc and technology for diesel engines? Like you say, maybe we should, but it will be an interesting argument to have with companies that really want access to the market, and view this specific aspect of the contract as none of the governments business.
  - 5y ago

linuxhansl 5y ago

Putting over 1bn people under general suspicion? I fail to see how this will solve anything. I agree with most of the rest you said... This is about markets and it is about the protection of IP. Edit: Spelling

wonnage 5y ago

The McCarthyism will continue until capitalism improves

ggm 5y ago
An underrated comment I intend stealing and reusing without attribution. Flogging/morale riff, well done.

colechristensen 5y ago

We buy peace with China by maintaining strong economic codependence. There is a huge cost, but not necessarily one not worth paying. Economic isolation would mean war.

torstenvl 5y ago
We have war already. It just isn't a very hot one.
- Dotnaught 5y ago
  There are better words for a conflict that's not currently active warfare. The US and China can disagree and take action that isn't mutually beneficial without it being a war. How we talk about things reflects how we think about them and limits the solutions we consider.
  - torstenvl 5y ago
    None of which changes the fact that there is a war. Not only are the two nations still involved on opposite sides of the Korean War, which has never concluded, but China routinely scrambled fighters and bombers to harass U.S. ships in international waters. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-militarys-close-calls-china-russia-air-sea/story?id=58239230 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-militarys-close-calls-chi... https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/7/12/china-military-drove-away-us-warship-in-south-china-sea https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/7/12/china-military-drov... https://www.businessinsider.com/chinese-planes-conducted-simulated-attack-on-us-navy-aircraft-carrier-2021-1 https://www.businessinsider.com/chinese-planes-conducted-sim... https://www.amazon.com/New-Rules-War-Victory-Disorder/dp/0062843583/ref=nodl_ https://www.amazon.com/New-Rules-War-Victory-Disorder/dp/006... There are armed confrontations between the militaries of these two countries on a constant basis. There just hasn't been any shooting yet.
MangoCoffee 5y ago
There is no economic tie between US/Soviet and nothing happens. 40 years of trade with China had propelled China to the number 2 economy in the world while sacked American manufacturing some projected China will surpass US in the near future. middle class American suffered and they voted Trump. is gig economy all that's left for middle class? while rich get even more rich from US/China trade. American reap what they sow i guess.

exporectomy 5y ago

I suspect China doesn't really need western markets in the long term so denying access isn't all that powerful. Their population is the same as the entire OECD combined. They could become an entire "western developed economy" isolated within themselves plus a bunch of 3rd world allies.

simonblack 5y ago
I suspect China doesn't really need western markets in the long term Being from the West, we see things with West-Centric eyes. When, if we look more closely, we see that China alone has more customers than the whole of the West (Five-Eyes, Europe, Japan) combined. The West is pretty much unimportant, relatively speaking, in the over-all scheme of things. A mere 20% of the world's customers. As a whole, the world is reverting to the status-quo that existed prior to the 1400s: The world's big economies being in India and China, with Europe/Europeans being a quiet backwater.
- jollybean 5y ago
  The West + Japan + S. Korea, is where almost all the money, power and GDP is. China has roughly the same as the US, but with many more people. The 'Rest of Asia Minus Japan+Korea' is big, but still poor.
- midnight_toker 5y ago
  Yeahh except for the fact historically the west have been developing technologies and social ideologies which are ultimately adopted by other 'civilizations' for millenia. For what counts, they have always been on top, and will be for the forseeable future. other civilizations are still playing catch-up and have social structures which inhibit development, as for china, its delusion of being the centre of the world is what is making them set such arrogant, unreasonable trade terms.
angelzen 5y ago
Sorry to say, but this is typical Western 'markets above all' blinders. Very true, long term China doesn't need Western markets. But China needs World's resources, and Western markets will crash when starved for resources. The future is one Eastern developed economy, and various backwater client states in constant state of quarrel with each other while being striped bare for resources. There is a lot of corn grown in Iowa, I hear there is a big market for it overseas.

maccolgan 5y ago

This isn't very dissimilar to how the US populace at large won't let Chinese companies win in the US either, so all is fair in the world.

googlerthrowway 5y ago

>Here's where I think this will first come to a head: I believe the US government will at some point soon decide that any person born in mainland China is a security risk as far as working on anything national security related. I was at Google during the Project Dragonfly revelations. My name is on this petition [0]. Internally, I expressed discomfort at cooperation with a state that (among other things) sets up covert Communist Party cells at American universities and requires Party members to write reports on other Chinese students' political speech and activities. After sharing this concern, a fellow Googler reached out and told me earnestly, "don't worry, none of us writing those reports took it seriously." This was cold reassurance. [0] https://medium.com/@googlersagainstdragonfly/we-are-google-employees-google-must-drop-dragonfly-4c8a30c5e5eb https://medium.com/@googlersagainstdragonfly/we-are-google-e...

cletus 5y ago
I worked at Google years ago when in response to what most believe was a Chinese state-sanctioned hack, Google decided to pull out of China. Many believed (myself included) that this pull out was largely driven by Sergey Brin. This all happened in the 1-2 years before I joined but I like many greatly respected that stance. It was sad to see (from the outside this time) this principle get thrown aside with Dragonfly. What's worse is that Google will never be allowed to succeed in China so there was literally no point.

coldtea 5y ago

>Let me spell it out: Chinese companies are extensions of the state. They are tools of Chinese foreign and trade policy. What cooperation you think US companies provide the US government, it is nothing in comparison. I'm not so sure. It just goes through a few more mediators and more roundabout ways. In the end, the fruit companies that turned Latin American countries into banana repubics, for one example, had big support from the state and vice versa. Ditto for oil, telecommunications, social, and so on.

angelzen 5y ago
Glad that you mentioned banana republics. The writing is on the wall...

mdavis6890 5y ago

"If China wants to impose such restrictions on Western companies, they shouldn't get access to Western markets. And that's it." Why? Why should we prohibit US citizens from purchasing things they want from wherever/whoever they want? Why would we do that to ourselves (I'm a US citizen), and to each other?

causality0 5y ago
The same reason we don't let people do business with North Korea or purchase stolen goods. The same reason we shouldn't let people buy conflict diamonds or clothes made with slave labor.
- orhmeh09 5y ago
  How about Russell Stover chocolate? https://thecounter.org/russell-stover-uses-prison-labor-candy-kansas/ https://thecounter.org/russell-stover-uses-prison-labor-cand...

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

justicezyx 5y ago

Not sure how did you get the idea that the market was not there. Arm China had stellar financial results. Arm holding, with 49% share of the company, has significant upside to gain from the market. And this fiasco is partly a misconduct of Mr. Wu, showing no signs of being directed by Chinese investors. And partly because of Trump's tech ban, which obviously affect arm China's prospect. And then this statement: > I believe the US government will at some point soon decide that any person born in mainland China is a security risk as far as working on anything national security related. Even if Mr. Wu was directed by CCP, how can you extend that to all of Chinese immigrants? There are plenty of Chinese Americans who had misconduct inside China, and flee the country back to US to escape Chinese law (numerous corrupted officials of course are such examples) recently https://m.sohu.com/a/412302008_220095/?pvid=000115_3w_a https://m.sohu.com/a/412302008_220095/?pvid=000115_3w_a are these people US spys to sabotage Chinese economy then? How ridiculous was that logic.

AtomicMutex 5y ago
"Arm China had stellar financial results. Arm holding, with 49% share of the company, has significant upside to gain from the market." This is because clients and accounts that previously belonged to Arm had to be handed over to Arm China if Arm wanted to continue doing any business with Chinese firms, regardless of whether they'd actually courted their business. This is like picking your left pocket and arguing that you stand to gain because I'm putting some of the money back into your right pocket. I'm still robbing you, even if I'm giving you some of your own money back.
- justicezyx 5y ago
  Did you read the post? This is so that they can listed on the public market. There were no evidence that this joint venture was mandated. And this joint venture happened after Softbank took over arm. And of course, Softbank thinks they can manage the listing process.

angelzen 5y ago

> US government will at some point soon decide that any person born in mainland China is a security risk Chinese people earn 15-20% of graduate STEM degrees in US, double the percentage of 10 years ago, and not counting second generation Chinese. At this rate, 'US' STEM will be Chinese dominated long before anyone wakes up to the security risk. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11347 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11347 https://cset.georgetown.edu/publication/estimating-the-number-of-chinese-stem-students-in-the-united-states/ https://cset.georgetown.edu/publication/estimating-the-numbe...

justicezyx 5y ago
What security risk? This Mr. Wu did something bad inside China, without any evidence that he was colluding with the national and local government of China. How is that translate to security risk at US domestic? And all these Chinese stem students already contributed critical work to the boom of high tech industry. You are not appreciting their hard work, and link a speculation to national security risk?! How heartless one can be, not only thankless, but vile and judgemental... Edit: I am a Chinese American born and raised in China.
- edderly 5y ago
  I have no strong opinions on this, but for background, there are a bunch of Silicon Valley types like Eric Weinstein (Thiel Capital) who maintain that there are sinister undertones to the growing influence of Chinese immigrants in Tech and Higher Education. https://djonesvi.medium.com/eric-weinstein-on-the-secretly-contrived-study-behind-the-h-1b-program-dccc093986c8 https://djonesvi.medium.com/eric-weinstein-on-the-secretly-c... Obviously that can veer into uncomfortable conclusions i.e. is it true, or is this kind of racist?
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    I mean, if the US wanted to "solve" the issue, it's pretty easy. Offer anyone who graduates with a STEM degree from a reputable institution US citizenship... and require they if they renounce their Chinese citizenship (which happens automatically per Chinese law, but just to be sure).

onethought 5y ago

Remember that time when Amazon shut off wiki leaks hosting. And The banks froze Wikileaks bank/charging capabilities? You think that American companies aren’t tools of the state?

gumby 5y ago

> Let me spell it out: Chinese companies are extensions of the state. I generally don’t like such jingoistic statements but I think this is basically true, at least in the 2020s. I will also note that this has come as a surprise to many Chinese entrepreneurs, most famously (but far from exclusively) Jack Ma.

jollybean 5y ago
It deserves some nuance yes: Chinese firms are not directly controlled by the state. This 'Arm Heist' is probably not driven by state apparatus. But, some artifacts of state power and intervention are egregious enough to make them essentially an extension of state power. 1) The 'China Venture' ownership policy, is the first foundation of this 'Arm Heist', without this Nationalist policy, it'd be a different situation. 2) China has required IP transfer for many things, this is state intervention. 3) The lack of commercial legal recourse for ARM in this case, is a 'de fact' pro-China issue. It's probably not designed to be this way, but it puts every foreign company at a major disadvantage, there may be behind the scenes shenanigangs by the state, we don't know. 4) The CCP has minders in every company to ensure CCP loyalty and compliance. They were in 85% of companies, soon 100%. Imagine having a group of guys from the CIA/NSA who you have to hire inside your company, who work directly for the President, who is unelected. This is a major tool of control few people talk about. 5) Large deals and orgs are often politicized, either by powerful politicians as individuals or state apparatus. Nobody knows who owns Huawei, other then there seems to be a strategic state component. 6) The state can make powerful reforms that fundamentally reshape the industry at their leisure - they pulled Didi and And listings at the last minute and disallowed them from raising money outside China which really brought their valuation down. Not only is the government flexing it's power, but it's doing it in a sketchy, hypernationalist way. Forcing Chinese companies to remain all Chinese to raise Chinese cash etc. To me - this is the 'last straw' and it's a raising of a form of wall of capital that's frankly probably going to hurt China more than anything. Alibaba is tanking [1] 7) CCP ultimately access to any and all the data from Ant, Didi, TikTok that it needs to enforce total 360 absolutism and thought control policies. Jack Ma style Entrepreneurs probably don't care that much about the Chinese state, but the mechanisms in place by the CCP ensure that ultimately, they are tools to it. If a Western company can sell something in China that can't be stolen, well, they can try while it lasts. But joint ventures etc. will probably fail. The notion of doing an IP deal with China is absurd at face value. 'Brand' is probably the best thing to have, like Pizza Hut because it's ownership of 'hearts and minds' - that said, any company that does do this is going to have to 'toe the line'. As we've seen LeBron James become a vocal SJW in his own country, but line up like a perfect stooge anti-SJW for the CCP for Chinese related issues, actively calling on people to not call out China etc. - this does have relevance as well. In the end, the problem is that nobody seems to be able to have enough power or intelligence to do anything about any of it. Only the US alone has enough power but even then it's fragmented. Germany depends on exports to China and their voice is the influencer in EU. Moreover, even if they were at the same table, I'm not sure if they would have a solution. Probably what is needed is a 'China Alliance' which is to say US, EU, UK, Canada, Aussie, Japan, Korea, India etc. form some kind of common agreement with respect to dealing with China and then try to work on big issues without China trying to fragment the group. Trans Pacific Partnership was sort of that, but Trump's personal business instincts, which make sense on some level, were completely wrong on that one. [1] Alibaba: The Mass Exodus. https://seekingalpha.com/article/4451692-alibaba-the-mass-exodus?mailingid=24864820&messageid=must_reads&serial=24864820.1126610&utm_campaign=Must%2BReads%2BAugust%2B26%2C%2B2021&utm_content=seeking_alpha&utm_medium=email&utm_source=seeking_alpha&utm_term=must_reads https://seekingalpha.com/article/4451692-alibaba-the-mass-ex...

makeitdouble 5y ago

> The Chinese government will ensure that no Western competitor will "win" in China. Period. Isn’t it the MO of any country that wants to go ahead ? Wasn’t born during the period, but I know of the US’ Japanese bashing in the 80s and pulling all the levers to stop foreign companies from getting dominant in the car market. As far as I know Toyota & co had to bring manufacturing to the US to get a foothold, and I get the feeling China has just made that a policy from the start instead of going throught all the cycle.

lumost 5y ago

The US is waking up from a post-cold war reality. In the 1980s a consensus formed that. 1. US military and economic power meant that countries could be relied on to follow US influenced IP laws or be excluded from the global market. 2. US military and economic power was large enough and benign enough that no major trading partner would pose an existential military or political threat - validated by the economic rise of Germany and Japan. These two ideas powered US and to a lesser extent European outsourcing for the next 40 years. Very few executives believed that there was a serious risk of their outsourced manufacturing or outsourced engineering firm becoming independent - and they certainly didn't think through the reality that in such an event the holding firm would not have the capital or knowledge to compete against the newly formed firm. The reality is that the US and Chinese economic spheres are likely to fracture in whole or in part. China owns the factories and the IP, the Chinese military is increasingly capable of achieving any military goal they are likely to have against the US military using indigenous military hardware. There is no reason the Chinese authorities would not support subsidiaries and joint ventures becoming independent by eliminating legally ambiguous joint ventures and Variable Interest Entities, forcing sales of Chinese assets to Chinese investors, or simply creating new legislation to free such entities from foreign corporations. I fear that the US has been so focused on outsourcing for the last 40 years that it's forgotten how unusual of a relationship outsourcing was in the first place, and why it wasn't done for most of the industrial era.

gerdesj 5y ago

"My main issue is with the West being completely oblivious to it." We are not oblivious.

makeitdouble 5y ago

A point on addressing China as market: for a non US company, I think there just isn’t any market that will be much easier to compete in either way. If we imagine a Swedish chip maker that wants to become a global powerhouse, the US will dip a finger or two in it to make sure it mostly goes along their interests, otherwise the maker will just get banned from US use (Huawey…). China will do the same if the chips ever touch the chinese soil. Japan will tax it through the roof anyway. India is another kind of wild ride. We’re left with the Russia, middle east, and Africa. Basically any company with big ambitions will need to choose to open up to China or US control up to a point, and understand that if they really become critical any legal ground they stand on can be swooped away with a sleight of hand.

jollybean 5y ago
The US is not going to interfere in 'Swede Corp' unless it's a serious issue of state security. Spottily could be worth $500B and they would not care. Recently Erickson took the spotlight as one of the few alternatives to 5G Huawei there was talk of US sate intervention but that might have been a good thing for them, otherwise, if they came to totally dominate 5G gear sales, again, the US wouldn't really have cared. Nokia used to completely own mobile, Apple and Google game to dominate that but not out of a national strategy of some kind, although there are systematic artifacts of it behind the scenes.
- markus_zhang 5y ago
  State security is simply a facade that can be easily pulled up. For example speak to the French about this (Alston).
- makeitdouble 5y ago
  Interestingly Spotify is playing relatively nice with the US in general, e.g: https://themusicnetwork.com/spotify-expands-us-operations-adds-1000-jobs/ https://themusicnetwork.com/spotify-expands-us-operations-ad... They also rely on GCP, and have a strong dependance on Apple and Google’s gardens, so their growing success is also tied to US firms. Nokia is also in very good terms with the US gov: https://www.nokia.com/networks/us-federal-defense/ https://www.nokia.com/networks/us-federal-defense/

AzzieElbab 5y ago

Waking up is not a problem. Incentives are fkd up all over