7 ms·

> But the irony is that when a non-European entity were to do something like this, e.g. nationalize their oil or mining etc. industry or a firm, the whole hell

> But the irony is that when a non-European entity were to do something like this, e.g. nationalize their oil or mining etc. industry or a firm, the whole hell would brake loose. As far as I understand, Samsung, TSMC, and SMIC are all closely guarded by their respective governments. And China doesn't (didn't?) allow foreign companies to operate in China without a local partner at all. So I don't see the irony - everyone practices protectionism, some are just more subtle about it than others. Some China-specific examples: tmnvix points out the perfectly analogous Chinese restriction of rare earth exports: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45572420 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45572420 China imposes more trade and investment barriers, discriminatory taxes, and information security restrictions than any other country by a vast margin. - https://ecipe.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/DTE_China_TWP_REVIEWED.pdf https://ecipe.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/DTE_China_TWP_R... As with most countries, China has adopted some policies aimed at protecting or promoting its domestic industries, including targeted quotas, subsidies to certain key industries and rejection of patents in critical industries. - https://www.rfa.org/english/news/afcl/fact-check-china-protectionism-11072023101145.html https://www.rfa.org/english/news/afcl/fact-check-china-prote... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Made_in_China_2025 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Made_in_China_2025 - government plan with securing first local, and the global key markets, for indigenous firms, the acquisition of foreign technology companies, and independence from foreign suppliers, as explicit goals.

wagwang 1y ago
What about the suez canal or iranian oil fields
- like_any_other 1y ago
  What about them? The claim, or rather implication, was that Western powers would never allow equivalent protectionist policies, such as preventing the export of key industries and skills, to be enacted by other countries. Yet such protectionism is routine in China (and many other Asian countries), and "whole hell" did not break loose. A few more than half century old examples don't change what we can all see is the case in the present day.
  - shtzvhdx 1y ago
    The British, French and Israelis literally went to war against Egypt over the Suez. They only backed up when the US told the Brits and France they would tank their economies still on US life support. And, pray, why did the Machado win the hypocrisy prize on Friday? Why are American ships outside the waters of Venezuela?
    - fsckboy 1y ago
      >The British, French, and Israelis literally went to war against Egypt over the Suez. The British and the French were concerned about the Suez, but Israel was not dependent on the Suez and went to war over their navigation being blockaded by Egypt in the Gulf of Aqaba and the Straits of Tiran, which was a violation by Egypt of maritime law. Aqaba is in the Sinai peninsula which is also bounded by the Suez. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_passage_through_the_Suez_Canal_and_Straits_of_Tiran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_passage_through_the_Su...
      - shtzvhdx 1y ago
        I don't see how Egypt's claim against Israel was wrong. The waters have been internal waters literally for three millennia (or more) until foreigners came in and built a canal connecting what is actually a very narrow gulf to the Mediterranean. Foreigners come in, unilaterally build a canal and now the locals lose national sovereignty over their waters? Also, why does Egypt have to agree to the freedom of navigation of a state it did not (at the time) recognize? Furthermore, why must Egypt agree to the laws of freedom navigation it did not sign? The answer, of course, is that there is no such thing as international law, or a "rules based order". There's only power makes might.
        fsckboy 1y ago
        you are talking about the Suez and Israel, and it seems that you didn't read what I wrote
    - lmm 1y ago
- drnick1 1y ago
  They are controlled by their respective governments, but realistically that power is limited, because they know that "Western" powers would wage war if necessary. So in reality there is a tacit understanding between corrupt local governments and foreign powers to keep access more or less free.
  - motorest 1y ago
    > because they know that "Western" powers would wage war if necessary. Why do you feel the need go single out "the west"? I mean, where do you think the container ships crossing the Suez go to and come from? Do you think that the likes of China would be totally ok with their main trade routes being severed and instead having to go all the way around Africa? You're framing things as if there's still a British empire syphoning the economies of their colonies all the way from Great Britain, with no one else involved or committed to any trade whatsoever.
    - gpvos 1y ago
      Maybe not so much the Brits, but the French still have exploitative relations with their African ex-colonies; look up the CFA franc.
      - motorest 1y ago
        > (...) the CFA franc Why do you think this is relevant in discussions over who would respond to shutting down the Suez canal? I mean, do you have a map?
        gpvos 1y ago
        That's only one of the topics in this thread, it's about western (colonial) involvement elsewhere in general. Just have a look at the line of parents of this comment; you were the only one who reduced it to the Brits. I was directly replying to "as if there's still a British empire syphoning the economies of their colonies all the way from Great Britain", and the French are another, similar, Western power that's still doing that; they are also being talked about in sibling threads. Finally, questions like yours derail the discourse much more than comments like mine.
skinnymuch 1y ago
[flagged]
itopaloglu83 1y ago
I said it that way because I don’t like the hypocrisies in general, and I said European because the comment I responded to combined Dutch and European markets into one. It would be foolish to sell off a great value like ASML or others that adds incredible value. But one should also not get mad when other countries do it, because they see their industries as valuable things as well. Our markets are just getting more closed and different groups are being formed. Let’s hope other high value companies gather their IP rights as well.
- motorest 1y ago
  > It would be foolish to sell off a great value like ASML or others that adds incredible value. But one should also not get mad when other countries do it, because they see their industries as valuable things as well. This reads like a straw man argument. No one gets mad when other countries do it. At most, you see complains of protectionism being unilaterally imposed while benefitting from your competitor's openness. See for example the criticism directed at the likes of China for preventing foreign companies from even investing in their domestic market without a government-minder-as-a-partner scheme, while China throws a tantrum when there is even a hint of suggestion that Chinese companies should be subjected to the same type of treatment when operating abroad. See the case of TikTok, for example.
  - cies 1y ago
    China never claimed it's markets were free to enter by foreigners. US/EU did. If tit-for-tat is our policy, then we should at least be upfront about it and enshrine it in law, instead of using some ancient law to slap China with: that's arbitrariness.
    - meekaaku 1y ago
      Reducing/eliminating those mandatory joint ventures were a requirement for China to join WTO. But in practice it delayed these reforms.
      - 1y ago
satvikpendem 1y ago
> And China doesn't (didn't?) allow foreign companies to operate in China without a local partner at all Tesla was the first to buck this trend.
- seanmcdirmid 1y ago
  Just for cars. Microsoft has been independent in China since the late 90s, although they had to find a partner to do Azure.
  - motorest 1y ago
    > although they had to find a partner to do Azure. By "finding a partner" you actually mean have Azure-branded services provided by Chinese companies through isolated data centers. Which kind of proves OPs point.
    - pmontra 1y ago
      Do they use the same Microsoft software and the Azure APIs that are available in the rest of the world?
      - ammo1662 1y ago
        Yes. As for AWS, some of the services are not available in CN. But the APIs are the same for the services that are available. For some MS software, you need to sign an additional agreement consenting to cross-border transfer of personal data before use. But the features are the same.
    - rswail 1y ago
      Same as AWS ("cn" regions) which often has different rules, especially with cross-region comms. Same applies to the US gov cloud regions and Apple's iCloud.
    - seanmcdirmid 1y ago
      Microsoft operated in China for more than a decade before azure was a thing. A lot of companies did, Microsoft is just the one I’m familiar with.
croes 1y ago
> And China doesn't (didn't?) allow foreign companies to operate in China without a local partner at all. So I don't see the irony - everyone practices protectionism, some are just more subtle about it than others. And the west always said that China is bad for doing it. That’s the irony part.
- Gud 1y ago
  It’s not ironic. The Chinese are engaging in this behaviour, while they have had full access to western markets, arguably detrimental to the west. So now Europe are doing the same thing.
  - flybarrel 1y ago
    and that action is perfectly fine. But it is then hypocritic to claim one is more justified than the other
    - motorest 1y ago
      > and that action is perfectly fine. But it is then hypocritic to claim one is more justified than the other Not really. Everyone was extending courtesies to China, but China opted to unilaterally reject the notion thay others could receive the same benefits they were enjoying. Now you're seeing this sort of courtesies being pulled for the first time. And you opt to frame this as hipocricy?
      - ExoticPearTree 1y ago
        No one is clean in this. Now, the thing is that China did not allowed all companies in and after 10-20 years said: yeah, now you need a local partner. It was like this from the beginning (and it is not the only country in the world that required this, to have a local partner with 49 or 51 percent stake in the company). So all the companies that rushed into China were aware from day one that they need to share technology and know-how with the Chinese. I think the question is: did China ever took over a foreign company because "national security" or whatever perceived risk?
cma 1y ago
Yeah Asian tigers mostly didn't follow the narrow comparative advantage guidance and instead did state protection of industry to develop it: https://www.amazon.com/Kicking-Away-Ladder-Development-Perspective/dp/1843310279 https://www.amazon.com/Kicking-Away-Ladder-Development-Persp... The US did the same when it was young, along with large instances of exfiltrating tech (Samuel Slater, kicked off the American industrial revolution).
DiogenesKynikos 1y ago
> And China doesn't (didn't?) allow foreign companies to operate in China without a local partner at all. This is one of the most persistent misunderstandings about China. China had a closed, planned economy. It began opening up to foreign investment in the 1980s, but not all at once in every sector. China's general approach has been gradual, instead of the "shock therapy" that the ex-Soviet Union went through (which destroyed its economy). China initially allowed foreign investment in certain sectors, with conditions like involvement of a local joint-venture partner. An example of this was Volkswagen building a factory in Shanghai in 1984, with the Chinese company SAIC as a local partner with 50% ownership. Over time, the number of sectors that are open to foreign investment has increased (most sectors are now open), and the rules on investment have been loosened. For example, joint-venture requirements in the automotive sector were phased out and completely eliminated by 2022. Tesla completely owns its operations in China. Toyota has announced that it is buying out its JV partner. Other Western automotive manufacturers have taken majority stakes in their operations. China has been moving towards more openness to foreign investment over time, not less. It does have policies like "Made in China 2025" that are intended to move up the value chain, and avoid getting stuck making low-value plastic toys forever. China wants to be like the US and EU, after all - a developed economy that manufactures lots of high-tech goods.
- benjiro 1y ago
  > China has been moving towards more openness to foreign investment over time After they lost most of those same foreign investors that got tired of handing over their IP, the "local partnering" (what often resulted in state/court backed judgements against the foreign investors), ... The disasters "wolf warrior" politics, combined with the above mentioned issues. And the stringent monetary policies limitation on moving money out of China did not help (translation: We want you to put money in, not being able to pull it out). This has resulted in a reduction of foreign investment by almost 70% (given the 15 year average). What used to be easily be 200 a 250B investments per year, has now dropped to barely 100B, and is still declining.
  - DiogenesKynikos 1y ago
    The IP sharing issue has been massively overblown. IP sharing was relatively limited. The European and American car manufacturers, for example, never lost their considerable competitive edge over their Chinese rivals. In the end, it was an entirely different technology - electric cars - that allowed the Chinese to leap-frog the legacy car manufacturers, and not because of IP sharing, but because of Chinese R&D in battery technology. > This has resulted in a reduction of foreign investment by almost 70% (given the 15 year average). What used to be easily be 200 a 250B investments per year, has now dropped to barely 100B, and is still declining. Foreign investment in China peaked in 2022. The reasons for the decline are cyclical (not just because of China's internal economic situation, but because of international factors like the hike in US Federal Funds Target Rate since 2022), not because China suddenly started demanding IP sharing or suddenly changed its currency rules in 2022 (none of which happened).

wagwang 1y ago

What about the suez canal or iranian oil fields

like_any_other 1y ago
What about them? The claim, or rather implication, was that Western powers would never allow equivalent protectionist policies, such as preventing the export of key industries and skills, to be enacted by other countries. Yet such protectionism is routine in China (and many other Asian countries), and "whole hell" did not break loose. A few more than half century old examples don't change what we can all see is the case in the present day.
- shtzvhdx 1y ago
  The British, French and Israelis literally went to war against Egypt over the Suez. They only backed up when the US told the Brits and France they would tank their economies still on US life support. And, pray, why did the Machado win the hypocrisy prize on Friday? Why are American ships outside the waters of Venezuela?
  - fsckboy 1y ago
    >The British, French, and Israelis literally went to war against Egypt over the Suez. The British and the French were concerned about the Suez, but Israel was not dependent on the Suez and went to war over their navigation being blockaded by Egypt in the Gulf of Aqaba and the Straits of Tiran, which was a violation by Egypt of maritime law. Aqaba is in the Sinai peninsula which is also bounded by the Suez. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_passage_through_the_Suez_Canal_and_Straits_of_Tiran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_passage_through_the_Su...
    - shtzvhdx 1y ago
      I don't see how Egypt's claim against Israel was wrong. The waters have been internal waters literally for three millennia (or more) until foreigners came in and built a canal connecting what is actually a very narrow gulf to the Mediterranean. Foreigners come in, unilaterally build a canal and now the locals lose national sovereignty over their waters? Also, why does Egypt have to agree to the freedom of navigation of a state it did not (at the time) recognize? Furthermore, why must Egypt agree to the laws of freedom navigation it did not sign? The answer, of course, is that there is no such thing as international law, or a "rules based order". There's only power makes might.
      - fsckboy 1y ago
        you are talking about the Suez and Israel, and it seems that you didn't read what I wrote
  - lmm 1y ago
drnick1 1y ago
They are controlled by their respective governments, but realistically that power is limited, because they know that "Western" powers would wage war if necessary. So in reality there is a tacit understanding between corrupt local governments and foreign powers to keep access more or less free.
- motorest 1y ago
  > because they know that "Western" powers would wage war if necessary. Why do you feel the need go single out "the west"? I mean, where do you think the container ships crossing the Suez go to and come from? Do you think that the likes of China would be totally ok with their main trade routes being severed and instead having to go all the way around Africa? You're framing things as if there's still a British empire syphoning the economies of their colonies all the way from Great Britain, with no one else involved or committed to any trade whatsoever.
  - gpvos 1y ago
    Maybe not so much the Brits, but the French still have exploitative relations with their African ex-colonies; look up the CFA franc.
    - motorest 1y ago
      > (...) the CFA franc Why do you think this is relevant in discussions over who would respond to shutting down the Suez canal? I mean, do you have a map?
      - gpvos 1y ago
        That's only one of the topics in this thread, it's about western (colonial) involvement elsewhere in general. Just have a look at the line of parents of this comment; you were the only one who reduced it to the Brits. I was directly replying to "as if there's still a British empire syphoning the economies of their colonies all the way from Great Britain", and the French are another, similar, Western power that's still doing that; they are also being talked about in sibling threads. Finally, questions like yours derail the discourse much more than comments like mine.

skinnymuch 1y ago

[flagged]

itopaloglu83 1y ago

I said it that way because I don’t like the hypocrisies in general, and I said European because the comment I responded to combined Dutch and European markets into one. It would be foolish to sell off a great value like ASML or others that adds incredible value. But one should also not get mad when other countries do it, because they see their industries as valuable things as well. Our markets are just getting more closed and different groups are being formed. Let’s hope other high value companies gather their IP rights as well.

motorest 1y ago
> It would be foolish to sell off a great value like ASML or others that adds incredible value. But one should also not get mad when other countries do it, because they see their industries as valuable things as well. This reads like a straw man argument. No one gets mad when other countries do it. At most, you see complains of protectionism being unilaterally imposed while benefitting from your competitor's openness. See for example the criticism directed at the likes of China for preventing foreign companies from even investing in their domestic market without a government-minder-as-a-partner scheme, while China throws a tantrum when there is even a hint of suggestion that Chinese companies should be subjected to the same type of treatment when operating abroad. See the case of TikTok, for example.
- cies 1y ago
  China never claimed it's markets were free to enter by foreigners. US/EU did. If tit-for-tat is our policy, then we should at least be upfront about it and enshrine it in law, instead of using some ancient law to slap China with: that's arbitrariness.
  - meekaaku 1y ago
    Reducing/eliminating those mandatory joint ventures were a requirement for China to join WTO. But in practice it delayed these reforms.
    - 1y ago

satvikpendem 1y ago

> And China doesn't (didn't?) allow foreign companies to operate in China without a local partner at all Tesla was the first to buck this trend.

seanmcdirmid 1y ago
Just for cars. Microsoft has been independent in China since the late 90s, although they had to find a partner to do Azure.
- motorest 1y ago
  > although they had to find a partner to do Azure. By "finding a partner" you actually mean have Azure-branded services provided by Chinese companies through isolated data centers. Which kind of proves OPs point.
  - pmontra 1y ago
    Do they use the same Microsoft software and the Azure APIs that are available in the rest of the world?
    - ammo1662 1y ago
      Yes. As for AWS, some of the services are not available in CN. But the APIs are the same for the services that are available. For some MS software, you need to sign an additional agreement consenting to cross-border transfer of personal data before use. But the features are the same.
  - rswail 1y ago
    Same as AWS ("cn" regions) which often has different rules, especially with cross-region comms. Same applies to the US gov cloud regions and Apple's iCloud.
  - seanmcdirmid 1y ago
    Microsoft operated in China for more than a decade before azure was a thing. A lot of companies did, Microsoft is just the one I’m familiar with.

croes 1y ago

> And China doesn't (didn't?) allow foreign companies to operate in China without a local partner at all. So I don't see the irony - everyone practices protectionism, some are just more subtle about it than others. And the west always said that China is bad for doing it. That’s the irony part.

Gud 1y ago
It’s not ironic. The Chinese are engaging in this behaviour, while they have had full access to western markets, arguably detrimental to the west. So now Europe are doing the same thing.
- flybarrel 1y ago
  and that action is perfectly fine. But it is then hypocritic to claim one is more justified than the other
  - motorest 1y ago
    > and that action is perfectly fine. But it is then hypocritic to claim one is more justified than the other Not really. Everyone was extending courtesies to China, but China opted to unilaterally reject the notion thay others could receive the same benefits they were enjoying. Now you're seeing this sort of courtesies being pulled for the first time. And you opt to frame this as hipocricy?
    - ExoticPearTree 1y ago
      No one is clean in this. Now, the thing is that China did not allowed all companies in and after 10-20 years said: yeah, now you need a local partner. It was like this from the beginning (and it is not the only country in the world that required this, to have a local partner with 49 or 51 percent stake in the company). So all the companies that rushed into China were aware from day one that they need to share technology and know-how with the Chinese. I think the question is: did China ever took over a foreign company because "national security" or whatever perceived risk?

cma 1y ago

Yeah Asian tigers mostly didn't follow the narrow comparative advantage guidance and instead did state protection of industry to develop it: https://www.amazon.com/Kicking-Away-Ladder-Development-Perspective/dp/1843310279 https://www.amazon.com/Kicking-Away-Ladder-Development-Persp... The US did the same when it was young, along with large instances of exfiltrating tech (Samuel Slater, kicked off the American industrial revolution).

DiogenesKynikos 1y ago

> And China doesn't (didn't?) allow foreign companies to operate in China without a local partner at all. This is one of the most persistent misunderstandings about China. China had a closed, planned economy. It began opening up to foreign investment in the 1980s, but not all at once in every sector. China's general approach has been gradual, instead of the "shock therapy" that the ex-Soviet Union went through (which destroyed its economy). China initially allowed foreign investment in certain sectors, with conditions like involvement of a local joint-venture partner. An example of this was Volkswagen building a factory in Shanghai in 1984, with the Chinese company SAIC as a local partner with 50% ownership. Over time, the number of sectors that are open to foreign investment has increased (most sectors are now open), and the rules on investment have been loosened. For example, joint-venture requirements in the automotive sector were phased out and completely eliminated by 2022. Tesla completely owns its operations in China. Toyota has announced that it is buying out its JV partner. Other Western automotive manufacturers have taken majority stakes in their operations. China has been moving towards more openness to foreign investment over time, not less. It does have policies like "Made in China 2025" that are intended to move up the value chain, and avoid getting stuck making low-value plastic toys forever. China wants to be like the US and EU, after all - a developed economy that manufactures lots of high-tech goods.

benjiro 1y ago
> China has been moving towards more openness to foreign investment over time After they lost most of those same foreign investors that got tired of handing over their IP, the "local partnering" (what often resulted in state/court backed judgements against the foreign investors), ... The disasters "wolf warrior" politics, combined with the above mentioned issues. And the stringent monetary policies limitation on moving money out of China did not help (translation: We want you to put money in, not being able to pull it out). This has resulted in a reduction of foreign investment by almost 70% (given the 15 year average). What used to be easily be 200 a 250B investments per year, has now dropped to barely 100B, and is still declining.
- DiogenesKynikos 1y ago
  The IP sharing issue has been massively overblown. IP sharing was relatively limited. The European and American car manufacturers, for example, never lost their considerable competitive edge over their Chinese rivals. In the end, it was an entirely different technology - electric cars - that allowed the Chinese to leap-frog the legacy car manufacturers, and not because of IP sharing, but because of Chinese R&D in battery technology. > This has resulted in a reduction of foreign investment by almost 70% (given the 15 year average). What used to be easily be 200 a 250B investments per year, has now dropped to barely 100B, and is still declining. Foreign investment in China peaked in 2022. The reasons for the decline are cyclical (not just because of China's internal economic situation, but because of international factors like the hike in US Federal Funds Target Rate since 2022), not because China suddenly started demanding IP sharing or suddenly changed its currency rules in 2022 (none of which happened).