6 ms·

There's a huge amount of false "conventional wisdom" here. > Sure these companies are notionally private but the people who own them exist because the CCP allo

There's a huge amount of false "conventional wisdom" here. > Sure these companies are notionally private but the people who own them exist because the CCP allows them to and the price for that is loyalty. The government does not by any means micromanage or control even a tiny fraction of companies in China in the way you're implying. The government could theoretically exert pressure on companies for various reasons, but that's not at all unique to China. How tightly connected is Silicon Valley to the US government? > the wholesale theft of intellectual property through "partnerships" First of all, these partnerships were not theft. Be careful about making these sorts of accusations. China made a pretty simple deal with foreign companies: you get to access our massive pool of cheap labor, and in return, you transfer some amount of technology to a local partner. I don't actually see anything immoral with this. It's a fair trade. Second of all, these requirements for local partnerships have been phased out over time, and are limited now to certain sectors. For example, Tesla wholly owns its operations in China. > Western companies won't "win" in China because the CCP won't allow it to happen. Western companies have been "winning" in China for decades. Not only have they been able to exploit cheap labor, but they have conquered many sectors of China's internal market. VWs are ubiquitous in China, and as of last year, Tesla was the top-selling EV car manufacturer in China. China is one of the largest markets for Boeing and Airbus. Qualcomm gets 2/3 of its revenue from China. I could go on, but you get the point. > That is, if Western companies aren't given fair access to the Chinese market American and European brands are far more dominant in China than the other way around. If anything, the story of Huawei shows that once Chinese companies try to move beyond selling low-value-added products in the West, they are viewed as strategic rivals and face discrimination on poorly explained national security grounds.

cletus 5y ago
> The government does not by any means micromanage or control even a tiny fraction of companies in China This is a straw man argument. No one accused China of micro-managing companies. It's never that overt. For example of how this works in the real world, look at Vladimir Putin in Russia and the case of Mikhail Khodorkovsky [1]. He was, at the time, one of the most richest and powerful oligarchs in Russia. By imprisoning him, Putin sent the message that no other oligarch was safe and if they wanted to continue to exist they had to fall in line, which they did. > How tightly connected is Silicon Valley to the US government? I'll assume good intent here and that this isn't simply "butwhataboutism". US companies need to obey US laws of course. This includes, for example, the FISA court nonsense. You can argue that Chinese companies are simply following Chinese law. While that's technically true, it's a question of degree. US companies are more independent from the US government than Chinese companies are from the Chinese government. > First of all, these partnerships were not theft. I beg to differ. For example, look at the case of ASMC and Sinovel [2]. > ... and as of last year, Tesla was the top-selling EV car manufacturer in China Now to much this year [3]. > China is one of the largest markets for Boeing and Airbus. Yes, because China currently cannot make commercial aircraft at scale to compete with Boeing and Airbus. I guarantee you that's a problem they're working on and they're going to be aided by the boards of both companies giving away the keys to the kingdom for access to that market. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Khodorkovsky https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Khodorkovsky [2]: https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/25/technology/china-us-sinovel-theft-conviction/index.html https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/25/technology/china-us-sinovel... [3]: https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/10/investing/tesla-china-sales/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/10/investing/tesla-china-sales/i...
- fortuna86 5y ago
  > US companies are more independent from the US government than Chinese companies are from the Chinese government. It's not just a small difference. Facebook doesn't give data over to the US gov, sometimes not even law enforcement requests They do sometimes, but rarely. Contrast that with data laws in China, there is no need for the state to ask for data, it's already being handed over to them.
  - trasz 5y ago
    Erm, what? We know Facebook and Google cooperate with NSA since Snowden.
    - fortuna86 5y ago
      They reject the vast majority of gov requests, even some from law enforcement. China doesn't even ask before taking said data. That's the difference.
      - trasz 5y ago
        Requests from law enforcement are the only ones they can reject. NSA doesn’t ask. And you won’t know, thanks to gag orders and secret courts. So again, where’s the difference?
        fortuna86 5y ago
        Wow that's a lot of misrepresentation. There is a secret court called FISA, which we all know about and therefore isn't secret. NSA collects on everyone but by breaking in, which while not ideal (and might not be legal) is not the same as an information sharing agreement, which is what we are discussing. And of course America still has laws about such things, even if they aren't always followed. Domestic state intel (FBI, DHS, etc.) have 0 privileged access to American companies and their data. In China, the law is literally "the state doesn't even need to ask, it's just given". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybersecurity_Law_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybersecurity_Law_of_the_Peopl... Do you honestly not see the difference?
tyrfing 5y ago
> China made a pretty simple deal with foreign companies: you get to access our massive pool of cheap labor, and in return, you transfer some amount of technology to a local partner. China vigorously denies that there was ever such a deal. If you recognize this as the status quo, it speaks against your first point: this is not an official policy, and it never was. Any such requirement was always entirely unofficial, and an example of what you call theoretical pressure.
SoylentYellow 5y ago
> American and European brands are far more dominant in China than the other way around. If anything, the story of Huawei shows that once Chinese companies try to move beyond selling low-value-added products in the West, they are viewed as strategic rivals and face discrimination on poorly explained national security grounds. When it comes to Huawei, the national security implications are obvious. Just read China's national security laws. Chinese intelligence agencies can walk into Huawei at any time and force their cooperation. Of course, the CIA/NSA can do that domestically too (perhaps with more oversight), and that is why I wouldn't blame China for not using US sourced devices in their critical infrastructure.

cletus 5y ago

> The government does not by any means micromanage or control even a tiny fraction of companies in China This is a straw man argument. No one accused China of micro-managing companies. It's never that overt. For example of how this works in the real world, look at Vladimir Putin in Russia and the case of Mikhail Khodorkovsky [1]. He was, at the time, one of the most richest and powerful oligarchs in Russia. By imprisoning him, Putin sent the message that no other oligarch was safe and if they wanted to continue to exist they had to fall in line, which they did. > How tightly connected is Silicon Valley to the US government? I'll assume good intent here and that this isn't simply "butwhataboutism". US companies need to obey US laws of course. This includes, for example, the FISA court nonsense. You can argue that Chinese companies are simply following Chinese law. While that's technically true, it's a question of degree. US companies are more independent from the US government than Chinese companies are from the Chinese government. > First of all, these partnerships were not theft. I beg to differ. For example, look at the case of ASMC and Sinovel [2]. > ... and as of last year, Tesla was the top-selling EV car manufacturer in China Now to much this year [3]. > China is one of the largest markets for Boeing and Airbus. Yes, because China currently cannot make commercial aircraft at scale to compete with Boeing and Airbus. I guarantee you that's a problem they're working on and they're going to be aided by the boards of both companies giving away the keys to the kingdom for access to that market. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Khodorkovsky https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Khodorkovsky [2]: https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/25/technology/china-us-sinovel-theft-conviction/index.html https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/25/technology/china-us-sinovel... [3]: https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/10/investing/tesla-china-sales/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/10/investing/tesla-china-sales/i...

fortuna86 5y ago
> US companies are more independent from the US government than Chinese companies are from the Chinese government. It's not just a small difference. Facebook doesn't give data over to the US gov, sometimes not even law enforcement requests They do sometimes, but rarely. Contrast that with data laws in China, there is no need for the state to ask for data, it's already being handed over to them.
- trasz 5y ago
  Erm, what? We know Facebook and Google cooperate with NSA since Snowden.
  - fortuna86 5y ago
    They reject the vast majority of gov requests, even some from law enforcement. China doesn't even ask before taking said data. That's the difference.
    - trasz 5y ago
      Requests from law enforcement are the only ones they can reject. NSA doesn’t ask. And you won’t know, thanks to gag orders and secret courts. So again, where’s the difference?
      - fortuna86 5y ago
        Wow that's a lot of misrepresentation. There is a secret court called FISA, which we all know about and therefore isn't secret. NSA collects on everyone but by breaking in, which while not ideal (and might not be legal) is not the same as an information sharing agreement, which is what we are discussing. And of course America still has laws about such things, even if they aren't always followed. Domestic state intel (FBI, DHS, etc.) have 0 privileged access to American companies and their data. In China, the law is literally "the state doesn't even need to ask, it's just given". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybersecurity_Law_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybersecurity_Law_of_the_Peopl... Do you honestly not see the difference?

tyrfing 5y ago

> China made a pretty simple deal with foreign companies: you get to access our massive pool of cheap labor, and in return, you transfer some amount of technology to a local partner. China vigorously denies that there was ever such a deal. If you recognize this as the status quo, it speaks against your first point: this is not an official policy, and it never was. Any such requirement was always entirely unofficial, and an example of what you call theoretical pressure.

SoylentYellow 5y ago

> American and European brands are far more dominant in China than the other way around. If anything, the story of Huawei shows that once Chinese companies try to move beyond selling low-value-added products in the West, they are viewed as strategic rivals and face discrimination on poorly explained national security grounds. When it comes to Huawei, the national security implications are obvious. Just read China's national security laws. Chinese intelligence agencies can walk into Huawei at any time and force their cooperation. Of course, the CIA/NSA can do that domestically too (perhaps with more oversight), and that is why I wouldn't blame China for not using US sourced devices in their critical infrastructure.