3 ms·

The US could probably use a few engineers, but on the other hand I think the CCP could use a few finance people.

roenxi 2y ago
Based on what, China is too successful as it stands? Maybe they need to handicap themselves to appear less threatening? The contribution that the finance people in the US made was to - accurately - identify that if they moved all the investment overseas then the US wouldn't need to work as hard. They were correct. The result has been massive leaps and bounds in Asian prosperity and living standards. Which is good for the world, but probably not the sort of strategy that the US wanted to adopt. Typically countries are supposed to promote the interests of the people living inside the borders instead of build up competitors. I dunno, maybe it was intentional but it'd have been cleverer to invest more in the US. There is a pretty good chance that China implodes because of the authoritarian and bureaucratic streak their government has. But the US's financiers are, if anything, one of the key ingredients helping it revert to the mean from an economically dominant position.
- missedthecue 2y ago
  Based on China constantly handicapping their capital markets with boneheaded decisions. Their stock market is a wreck sending a lot of their best companies abroad in search of capital.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    That seems more like a case of "authoritarianism is bad" than "finance people are good".
    - missedthecue 2y ago
      It can happen in democracies too. I can think of a few specific ones off the top of my head.
      - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
        Democracy isn't incompatible with authoritarianism. Absent strong checks and balances, they tend to be entirely too compatible.
  - chii 2y ago
    > sending a lot of their best companies abroad in search of capital. which is fine, because china's method is one where they (the CCP) retains ultimate control despite foreign financing - https://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/variable-interest-entity.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/variable-interest-entit... basically, this legal entity has not been 100% "legal" and undisputed in the chinese legal system - it's vague, and deliberately left so. It allows the CCP any reason to crackdown on any company's foreign ownership (by simply declaring this VIE structure illegal and void). The CCP has two goals with this method (queue conspiracy music here). The first is to ensure state control all the time, even if the CCP isn't financially invested in said company. The second, and imho, a bit more insidious, is to prevent the local capital markets from developing too maturely. The reason the CCP don't want the citizenry to have easy and low cost access to capital markets, is to prevent wealth from being built up by ordinary citizens in large numbers (like how it is in the west). Wealth is power, and the CCP don't want power to spread out to ordinary citizens, except as rising economic prosperity (ala, good jobs, cheap access to goods/services etc). It's the reason why they crushed the real estate property sector when they did. It is why stock markets are very difficult to invest in for ordinary citizens.
    - maxglute 2y ago
      >CCP don't want the citizenry to have easy and low cost access to capital markets It's more like like PRC is still a developing country with substantial amount of poor people and little social safety/welfare net. CCP doesn't want people, especially the poor, who mostly skew old, had/has absolutely retarded financial literacy except savings, to investment (gamble) their nest egg. Trading in the 2000s when stock market was bananas. Mass speculation / herd mentality / scams. Government had to intervene so folks didn't lose their shit with no fall back. Stockmarket is easy to invest in for ordinary citizens, IMO that's why it's being controlled / profitability (and losses) mitigaged. Reality is if you have mostly retail (individual) investors vs institutional, and individuals = a billion superstious traders is recipe for market volatility, which is net bad. People think professional financiers are the answer, but IMO that's just goign to self select for financiers who knows how to play to the masses.
      - 2y ago
- chii 2y ago
  > but probably not the sort of strategy that the US wanted to adopt only after having enjoyed the lowered cost goods and such. But there's a price to everything, always. And if you're not paying that price up front, it's gonna come to roost at some point. > There is a pretty good chance that China implodes because of the authoritarian and bureaucratic streak their government has. i dont think so. China's gov't has been stable enough for long enough, that the people it is governing over don't feel the need to overthrow them. And i don't see any trigger for this either - the average wealth and wellbeing of the chinese citizen has only grown better over the decades. Even now, where there's an economic slowdown, you don't have people starving in the streets. It is merely wishful thinking that the west's media want to push, that there's a governance problem in china.
- mullingitover 2y ago
  > Typically countries are supposed to promote the interests of the people living inside the borders instead of build up competitors Maybe the optimal solution isn’t always doing a Prisoner’s Dilemma betrayal of the competitor.
  - lazide 2y ago
    Typically the leadership of countries does whatever benefits them personally, rather than (actually) care about the interests of the people living inside its borders. The rare cases where that doesn’t happen, it’s usually because the people living inside the borders actually hold them accountable/align interests. Or people get really lucky.

Based on what, China is too successful as it stands? Maybe they need to handicap themselves to appear less threatening? The contribution that the finance people in the US made was to - accurately - identify that if they moved all the investment overseas then the US wouldn't need to work as hard. They were correct. The result has been massive leaps and bounds in Asian prosperity and living standards. Which is good for the world, but probably not the sort of strategy that the US wanted to adopt. Typically countries are supposed to promote the interests of the people living inside the borders instead of build up competitors. I dunno, maybe it was intentional but it'd have been cleverer to invest more in the US. There is a pretty good chance that China implodes because of the authoritarian and bureaucratic streak their government has. But the US's financiers are, if anything, one of the key ingredients helping it revert to the mean from an economically dominant position.

missedthecue 2y ago
Based on China constantly handicapping their capital markets with boneheaded decisions. Their stock market is a wreck sending a lot of their best companies abroad in search of capital.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  That seems more like a case of "authoritarianism is bad" than "finance people are good".
  - missedthecue 2y ago
    It can happen in democracies too. I can think of a few specific ones off the top of my head.
    - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
      Democracy isn't incompatible with authoritarianism. Absent strong checks and balances, they tend to be entirely too compatible.
- chii 2y ago
  > sending a lot of their best companies abroad in search of capital. which is fine, because china's method is one where they (the CCP) retains ultimate control despite foreign financing - https://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/variable-interest-entity.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/variable-interest-entit... basically, this legal entity has not been 100% "legal" and undisputed in the chinese legal system - it's vague, and deliberately left so. It allows the CCP any reason to crackdown on any company's foreign ownership (by simply declaring this VIE structure illegal and void). The CCP has two goals with this method (queue conspiracy music here). The first is to ensure state control all the time, even if the CCP isn't financially invested in said company. The second, and imho, a bit more insidious, is to prevent the local capital markets from developing too maturely. The reason the CCP don't want the citizenry to have easy and low cost access to capital markets, is to prevent wealth from being built up by ordinary citizens in large numbers (like how it is in the west). Wealth is power, and the CCP don't want power to spread out to ordinary citizens, except as rising economic prosperity (ala, good jobs, cheap access to goods/services etc). It's the reason why they crushed the real estate property sector when they did. It is why stock markets are very difficult to invest in for ordinary citizens.
  - maxglute 2y ago
    >CCP don't want the citizenry to have easy and low cost access to capital markets It's more like like PRC is still a developing country with substantial amount of poor people and little social safety/welfare net. CCP doesn't want people, especially the poor, who mostly skew old, had/has absolutely retarded financial literacy except savings, to investment (gamble) their nest egg. Trading in the 2000s when stock market was bananas. Mass speculation / herd mentality / scams. Government had to intervene so folks didn't lose their shit with no fall back. Stockmarket is easy to invest in for ordinary citizens, IMO that's why it's being controlled / profitability (and losses) mitigaged. Reality is if you have mostly retail (individual) investors vs institutional, and individuals = a billion superstious traders is recipe for market volatility, which is net bad. People think professional financiers are the answer, but IMO that's just goign to self select for financiers who knows how to play to the masses.
    - 2y ago
chii 2y ago
> but probably not the sort of strategy that the US wanted to adopt only after having enjoyed the lowered cost goods and such. But there's a price to everything, always. And if you're not paying that price up front, it's gonna come to roost at some point. > There is a pretty good chance that China implodes because of the authoritarian and bureaucratic streak their government has. i dont think so. China's gov't has been stable enough for long enough, that the people it is governing over don't feel the need to overthrow them. And i don't see any trigger for this either - the average wealth and wellbeing of the chinese citizen has only grown better over the decades. Even now, where there's an economic slowdown, you don't have people starving in the streets. It is merely wishful thinking that the west's media want to push, that there's a governance problem in china.
mullingitover 2y ago
> Typically countries are supposed to promote the interests of the people living inside the borders instead of build up competitors Maybe the optimal solution isn’t always doing a Prisoner’s Dilemma betrayal of the competitor.
- lazide 2y ago
  Typically the leadership of countries does whatever benefits them personally, rather than (actually) care about the interests of the people living inside its borders. The rare cases where that doesn’t happen, it’s usually because the people living inside the borders actually hold them accountable/align interests. Or people get really lucky.