4 ms·

> This is why China is so scary - their companies have started being very competitive When it comes to tech regulation the Chinese authorities have at least a

> This is why China is so scary - their companies have started being very competitive When it comes to tech regulation the Chinese authorities have at least a 2-3 year advantage against the US/UK, notice how the likes of Alibaba and Tencent have been brought (relatively) down compared to what was expected of them 5 years ago.

panick21_ 4y ago
Lets all celebrate dictatorships not wanting other powerful entities in their country.
- paganel 4y ago
  You make a good point, that is which institution has more legitimacy inside a de facto authoritarian state? The state itself and its authoritarian leaders? Or a private corporation that got so big as to "submerge" the state? (for the latter case think Samsung and South Korea, if South Korea had kept its 1970s-1980s state-policies).
- eunos 4y ago
  Unironically
- izacus 4y ago
  No, let's all celebrate market competition, the most critical part of a functioning economy. Chinese companies aren't competitive due to CCP or authoritarian regime, but they're competitive because they're the underdogs on western markets and can't just curbstomp the competition with lawyers and DRM like US corporations can in their markets. So they're forced to compete on price, quality and features (to some extent - it's not like they're not getting daddy Xis helping hand). Just like companies in other healthy capitalist markets which haven't completely broke due to consolidation.
  - mschuster91 4y ago
    > Chinese companies aren't competitive due to CCP or authoritarian regime, but they're competitive because they're the underdogs on western markets China has been accused multiple times of assisting their companies with absurd amounts of government subsidies (leading to at least Europe and the US enacting counter tariffs), as well as using government and private industrial espionage and hacking campaigns to clone Western products.
    - izacus 4y ago
      Absolutely, and that's toxic to the market the same way as US corporate consolidation is.
    - bigbillheck 4y ago
      What major power doesn't do this?
      - mullingitover 4y ago
        Taking off my US citizen hat for a moment, this is a valid critique. Free trade, unencumbered by government subsidies, is mostly an illusion. The global system of government is anarchy, and the powerful nations hold the weaker nations to strict rules while they quietly seize any and all advantages.
  - wesapien 4y ago
    PRC "progress" was a form of control. CCP basically handed everyone "rings of power" to rule over them. All their wealth is meant to be kept inside because that's control of the nation. Imagine if they didn't have currency controls, every rich person there would dump the Yuan for other currencies and overseas real estate. Meanwhile, all the inflated properties in the PRC will drop significantly. Unrest or instability is not good for CCP.
    - izacus 4y ago
      Which is all besides the point - the point is: you need market competition for capitalism to work. As soon as competition is broken, your economy starts stagnating and other incumbents start eating away at it.
- capableweb 4y ago
  Countries (or their leadership) can be good and bad at the same time, for different reasons. China - Awful way of treating people, illusion of democracy, but at least they reign in huge companies. US - Democracy but companies wield huge power. Doesn't seem to care about people's health much. Many European countries - Huge focus on caring about public healthcare, companies under control but innovation stifled a lot of times Same goes for basically every country, and it's important to be able to see the good and bad at the same time, to have a bit perspective. No country is 100% good, nor is any country 100% bad.
pipes 4y ago
Kidnapping CEOs who dare speak out against your regime, you see this as an advantage?
- paganel 4y ago
  In general I don't have much sympathy for the CEOs of multi-multi-billion-dollar companies, if at all. And considering the current dire political and economic climate, including in many Western countries, I think that that view of mine is shared by many.
  - barry-cotter 4y ago
    People like paganel are why you should keep an eye on politics even if you hate everyone or are basically satisfied with the status quo. There’re always those who has no problem with political violence as long as the violent are on their side. Be watchful.
    - paganel 4y ago
      I’m going to quote Chateaubriand, talking about the French of his time: “the French instinctively go where the power is; they don’t love freedom at all; equality alone is their only idol. And equality and despotism have secret connections between them. Seen under that light, Napoleon’s rule drew its power from the very hearts of the French people” (badly translated by me on a small iPhone while reading Compagnon’s The Antimoderns) As such, it isn’t me or people thinking like me that you should fear (i.e. people who quote Chateaubriand to a total techie stranger on the web), you should fear the “quintessential” French (or Westerner, in today’s age) that goes “where the power is” by instinct (on this La Boetie was right centuries ago). That is if you people really care about your freedom.
  - pipes 4y ago
    So which CEOs would you blame for the dire economic climate?
  - cscurmudgeon 4y ago
    Politicians have much more power than CEOs.

panick21_ 4y ago

Lets all celebrate dictatorships not wanting other powerful entities in their country.

paganel 4y ago
You make a good point, that is which institution has more legitimacy inside a de facto authoritarian state? The state itself and its authoritarian leaders? Or a private corporation that got so big as to "submerge" the state? (for the latter case think Samsung and South Korea, if South Korea had kept its 1970s-1980s state-policies).
eunos 4y ago
Unironically
izacus 4y ago
No, let's all celebrate market competition, the most critical part of a functioning economy. Chinese companies aren't competitive due to CCP or authoritarian regime, but they're competitive because they're the underdogs on western markets and can't just curbstomp the competition with lawyers and DRM like US corporations can in their markets. So they're forced to compete on price, quality and features (to some extent - it's not like they're not getting daddy Xis helping hand). Just like companies in other healthy capitalist markets which haven't completely broke due to consolidation.
- mschuster91 4y ago
  > Chinese companies aren't competitive due to CCP or authoritarian regime, but they're competitive because they're the underdogs on western markets China has been accused multiple times of assisting their companies with absurd amounts of government subsidies (leading to at least Europe and the US enacting counter tariffs), as well as using government and private industrial espionage and hacking campaigns to clone Western products.
  - izacus 4y ago
    Absolutely, and that's toxic to the market the same way as US corporate consolidation is.
  - bigbillheck 4y ago
    What major power doesn't do this?
    - mullingitover 4y ago
      Taking off my US citizen hat for a moment, this is a valid critique. Free trade, unencumbered by government subsidies, is mostly an illusion. The global system of government is anarchy, and the powerful nations hold the weaker nations to strict rules while they quietly seize any and all advantages.
- wesapien 4y ago
  PRC "progress" was a form of control. CCP basically handed everyone "rings of power" to rule over them. All their wealth is meant to be kept inside because that's control of the nation. Imagine if they didn't have currency controls, every rich person there would dump the Yuan for other currencies and overseas real estate. Meanwhile, all the inflated properties in the PRC will drop significantly. Unrest or instability is not good for CCP.
  - izacus 4y ago
    Which is all besides the point - the point is: you need market competition for capitalism to work. As soon as competition is broken, your economy starts stagnating and other incumbents start eating away at it.
capableweb 4y ago
Countries (or their leadership) can be good and bad at the same time, for different reasons. China - Awful way of treating people, illusion of democracy, but at least they reign in huge companies. US - Democracy but companies wield huge power. Doesn't seem to care about people's health much. Many European countries - Huge focus on caring about public healthcare, companies under control but innovation stifled a lot of times Same goes for basically every country, and it's important to be able to see the good and bad at the same time, to have a bit perspective. No country is 100% good, nor is any country 100% bad.

pipes 4y ago

Kidnapping CEOs who dare speak out against your regime, you see this as an advantage?

paganel 4y ago
In general I don't have much sympathy for the CEOs of multi-multi-billion-dollar companies, if at all. And considering the current dire political and economic climate, including in many Western countries, I think that that view of mine is shared by many.
- barry-cotter 4y ago
  People like paganel are why you should keep an eye on politics even if you hate everyone or are basically satisfied with the status quo. There’re always those who has no problem with political violence as long as the violent are on their side. Be watchful.
  - paganel 4y ago
    I’m going to quote Chateaubriand, talking about the French of his time: “the French instinctively go where the power is; they don’t love freedom at all; equality alone is their only idol. And equality and despotism have secret connections between them. Seen under that light, Napoleon’s rule drew its power from the very hearts of the French people” (badly translated by me on a small iPhone while reading Compagnon’s The Antimoderns) As such, it isn’t me or people thinking like me that you should fear (i.e. people who quote Chateaubriand to a total techie stranger on the web), you should fear the “quintessential” French (or Westerner, in today’s age) that goes “where the power is” by instinct (on this La Boetie was right centuries ago). That is if you people really care about your freedom.
- pipes 4y ago
  So which CEOs would you blame for the dire economic climate?
- cscurmudgeon 4y ago
  Politicians have much more power than CEOs.