3 ms·

Reciprocity would be US mandating a joint venture JV structure like in PRC aka the TikTok Oracle proposal that fell through. Issue is US is uniquly delusional i

Reciprocity would be US mandating a joint venture JV structure like in PRC aka the TikTok Oracle proposal that fell through. Issue is US is uniquly delusional in thinking they can force a foreign company to divest. PRC isn't going around ordering local Boeing/Microsoft branch to divest from US. Or not delusional since they know PRC wouldn't let TIkTok to divest would open up forced divestitures as viable strategy. Hence these TikTok bills efforts are defacto bans. It's just like coming PRC EV ban, this isn't about reciprocity. It's about US finding out too late that of their inability to compete. PRC EV companies would love JV setup in states, where local US JV partners provide billions in various subsidies like land, tax credits, political muscling etc because they know they can still make cars cheaper. Local JV's aren't just there to rent seek they have to do serious facilitation work. Eitherway, US will do what she does, TikTok mostly foreign owned anyways, it won't hurt PRC that much. We'll just have to see which US MNC PRC will force to divest to "leave" in response. The other consideration is does TikTok get to migrate all their US data after they leave? If not, would WFOE Tesla Shanhai get to keep their capital equipment when they get kicked out.

kelnos 3y ago
I don't think it's delusional, I think it's intentional. The people writing and backing this bill are fully aware that the sale is not going to happen. The sale provision is merely there so Congress can say they're being reasonable, that they're not trying to take TikTok away from the millions of people in the US that use it. That if it ends up having to be banned, that's on China for not accepting the "reasonable" alternative that was presented to them. Whether or not most TikTok users in the US will buy this bit of malarkey is another questions.
2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Systems_Inc.#Corporate_governance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Systems_Inc.#Corporate_gov... > As per its Special Security Arrangement, BAE Systems Inc. operates as a semi-autonomous business unit within BAE Systems controlled at a local level by American management. In May 2006 the CEO of BAE Systems described the "firewalled" status of BAE Systems Inc: "The British members of the corporate leadership, me included, get to see the financial results; but many areas of technology, product and programme are not visible to us.... The SSA effectively allows us to operate in the US as an American company, providing the highest levels of assurance and integrity in some of the most sensitive fields of national security provision."
IncreasePosts 3y ago
> US is uniquely delusional in thinking they can force a foreign company to divest They can't force the company to divest, but they can prevent them from operating in America if they don't.

kelnos 3y ago

I don't think it's delusional, I think it's intentional. The people writing and backing this bill are fully aware that the sale is not going to happen. The sale provision is merely there so Congress can say they're being reasonable, that they're not trying to take TikTok away from the millions of people in the US that use it. That if it ends up having to be banned, that's on China for not accepting the "reasonable" alternative that was presented to them. Whether or not most TikTok users in the US will buy this bit of malarkey is another questions.

2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Systems_Inc.#Corporate_governance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Systems_Inc.#Corporate_gov... > As per its Special Security Arrangement, BAE Systems Inc. operates as a semi-autonomous business unit within BAE Systems controlled at a local level by American management. In May 2006 the CEO of BAE Systems described the "firewalled" status of BAE Systems Inc: "The British members of the corporate leadership, me included, get to see the financial results; but many areas of technology, product and programme are not visible to us.... The SSA effectively allows us to operate in the US as an American company, providing the highest levels of assurance and integrity in some of the most sensitive fields of national security provision."

IncreasePosts 3y ago

> US is uniquely delusional in thinking they can force a foreign company to divest They can't force the company to divest, but they can prevent them from operating in America if they don't.