4 ms·

> It was never about money or trade it was all about keeping asians down and dependent. Thats way too much simplification. For starters there isn't a level pla

> It was never about money or trade it was all about keeping asians down and dependent. Thats way too much simplification. For starters there isn't a level playing field. Any Chinese company can start a company in the west but if a western company wants to start a company in China you can either start a "second class" entity (a WFOE) or if you want a level playing field with the locals you can use a joint venture but then a Chinese national must have 50+% stake in your business. Just ask ARM what can happen if you go for a joint venture.

justinclift 3y ago
> ... then a Chinese national must have 50+% stake in your business. Didn't they drop that requirement last year?
oreally 3y ago
> For starters there isn't a level playing field. Think about it, who determines what is a 'level playing field'? That's right, the US in this context. Every country has the right to determine it's own policies, and the US shouldn't have any say, and yet is applying pressure for it's own benefits. The same goes when China insists on one-on-one bilateral country negotiations on the issue of the south china sea instead of multilateral negotiations. Historically the number one country will always be putting pressure on potential the upstart countries, and Big countries will be big countries. The US especially is adapt at spinning up narratives, so calm down and take a look at the different perspectives.
- krona 3y ago
  The US is still nominally governed by and accountable to the rule of law. Companies cannot use the court system in China to hold the government to account, the government is accountable only to itself. This difference is irreconcilable.
  - oreally 3y ago
    > The US is still nominally governed by and accountable to the rule of law. You mean the rule of law that it imposes upon others that they didn't agree on? And they'll bring it up only when it's convenient. I'll say it again: Big countries will be big countries.
    - krona 3y ago
      Name a law passed by a foreign government against its own will at the behest of the US.
      - oreally 3y ago
        Plenty of laws touched by government takeovers that involve the USA, trade deals with Japan against Japan's own interests, and even more. Go look it up. Now that I've answered your question, do you believe the US hasn't had abuses of it's power in the decades it's been at the top? And if not, can you name an instance of it?
      - inemesitaffia 3y ago
        Switzerland, Bahamas and back secrecy laws. Not just a law but a constitution
    - mensetmanusman 3y ago
      Law is imposed on others that don’t agree with it, that’s kind of the definition.
      - oreally 3y ago
        And what is a law selectively enforced and conveniently brought up in times of contention?
wenyuanyu 3y ago
The previous mandate of a 50% joint venture in the automotive sector is outdated. Take for example Tesla in China, which operates without a joint venture. Similarly, BMW's Chinese operations are only 30% owned by a local entity, deviating from the earlier 50% norm. Despite certain industry-specific regulations, it's essential to recognize that China aligns well with its WTO obligations—a framework that the U.S. and other Western nations have both agreed upon and ratified.
- CryptoBanker 3y ago
  The BMW joint venture was 50% owned by a Chinese auto company and the government when it was initially created
- jsiepkes 3y ago
  > it's essential to recognize that China aligns well with its WTO obligations There is no way in hell I (as a foreigner in China) will win an intellectual property dispute from a Chinese company in China.

justinclift 3y ago

> ... then a Chinese national must have 50+% stake in your business. Didn't they drop that requirement last year?

oreally 3y ago

> For starters there isn't a level playing field. Think about it, who determines what is a 'level playing field'? That's right, the US in this context. Every country has the right to determine it's own policies, and the US shouldn't have any say, and yet is applying pressure for it's own benefits. The same goes when China insists on one-on-one bilateral country negotiations on the issue of the south china sea instead of multilateral negotiations. Historically the number one country will always be putting pressure on potential the upstart countries, and Big countries will be big countries. The US especially is adapt at spinning up narratives, so calm down and take a look at the different perspectives.

krona 3y ago
The US is still nominally governed by and accountable to the rule of law. Companies cannot use the court system in China to hold the government to account, the government is accountable only to itself. This difference is irreconcilable.
- oreally 3y ago
  > The US is still nominally governed by and accountable to the rule of law. You mean the rule of law that it imposes upon others that they didn't agree on? And they'll bring it up only when it's convenient. I'll say it again: Big countries will be big countries.
  - krona 3y ago
    Name a law passed by a foreign government against its own will at the behest of the US.
    - oreally 3y ago
      Plenty of laws touched by government takeovers that involve the USA, trade deals with Japan against Japan's own interests, and even more. Go look it up. Now that I've answered your question, do you believe the US hasn't had abuses of it's power in the decades it's been at the top? And if not, can you name an instance of it?
    - inemesitaffia 3y ago
      Switzerland, Bahamas and back secrecy laws. Not just a law but a constitution
  - mensetmanusman 3y ago
    Law is imposed on others that don’t agree with it, that’s kind of the definition.
    - oreally 3y ago
      And what is a law selectively enforced and conveniently brought up in times of contention?

wenyuanyu 3y ago

The previous mandate of a 50% joint venture in the automotive sector is outdated. Take for example Tesla in China, which operates without a joint venture. Similarly, BMW's Chinese operations are only 30% owned by a local entity, deviating from the earlier 50% norm. Despite certain industry-specific regulations, it's essential to recognize that China aligns well with its WTO obligations—a framework that the U.S. and other Western nations have both agreed upon and ratified.

CryptoBanker 3y ago
The BMW joint venture was 50% owned by a Chinese auto company and the government when it was initially created
jsiepkes 3y ago
> it's essential to recognize that China aligns well with its WTO obligations There is no way in hell I (as a foreigner in China) will win an intellectual property dispute from a Chinese company in China.