3 ms·

> 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 protecti

by 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?
      - sholain 1y ago
        The West is relatively clean at least in this; they had fair and open terms for China which were not reciprocated. Even those 'local partnerships' in China were not above board - they existed to steal the intellectual property from the partnered Western company. It seems the only thing that can be nailed down are 'consumer brands' which are difficult to duplicate. [1] https://www.planetizen.com/node/47241 https://www.planetizen.com/node/47241 At least in the context of trade over the last 35 years, there has been an imbalance. As for 'Arbitrary Rules' - it's a fair claim and the US, EU etc. need to establish clear and fair terms. So should China, India, Brazil, everywhere else.
- croes 1y ago
  It’s ironic. China just did it first. I can’t call something wrong and then to the same. If, for instance, we call out China for surveillance of their citizens and then start doing the same, isn‘t that ironic?
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - lillecarl 1y ago
    I can, if someone assaults me I'm either running away or swinging back. We gave them access to our markets, they didn't give us access to theirs. What this is is just "playing even". This is not the same as surveillance, that's internal affairs. This is external affairs.
motorest 1y ago
> And the west always said that China is bad for doing it. "The west" criticizes China because the ruling regime imposes a series of arbitrary restrictions to foreign companies, including outright banning them, while demanding that Chinese companies should have unrestricted access to foreign markets. You are now faced with an exceptionally rare event where a member of "the west" enforces restrictions that are similar to the ones China broadly imposes on foreign companies, but does so on an isolated incident. And you call that irony.
- croes 1y ago
  We‘ll see how rare and isolated this is will be. Beware of the beginnings.
  - motorest 1y ago
    > We‘ll see how rare and isolated this is will be. Why do you presume this is bad?
    - croes 1y ago
      If it’s not bad why calling out China first doing it? If it’s bad why doing it?
      - sparkie 1y ago
        When you realize the game is completely rigged, you have to stop playing it. We would like for western companies to be able to operate in China the way we let Chinese companies operate in our nations, but since China don't want to reciprocate and want to play an unfair game, the only real option is to level the playing field - if China wants to make the rules, lets take those rules and apply them domestically to. We should: * Require Chinese companies to have a domestic partner. * Selectively enforce (or rather ignore) IP when infringing on Chinese IP. * Force IP transfer as a condition to access our markets. * Require Chinese visitors to tell the police where they're living. * Many more policies which are unfavourable to the Chinese. China, chief hypocrite, will of course complain about anything which discriminates against China abroad, while doing exactly that thing at home.

by croes 1y ago

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?
    - sholain 1y ago
      The West is relatively clean at least in this; they had fair and open terms for China which were not reciprocated. Even those 'local partnerships' in China were not above board - they existed to steal the intellectual property from the partnered Western company. It seems the only thing that can be nailed down are 'consumer brands' which are difficult to duplicate. [1] https://www.planetizen.com/node/47241 https://www.planetizen.com/node/47241 At least in the context of trade over the last 35 years, there has been an imbalance. As for 'Arbitrary Rules' - it's a fair claim and the US, EU etc. need to establish clear and fair terms. So should China, India, Brazil, everywhere else.
croes 1y ago
It’s ironic. China just did it first. I can’t call something wrong and then to the same. If, for instance, we call out China for surveillance of their citizens and then start doing the same, isn‘t that ironic?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- lillecarl 1y ago
  I can, if someone assaults me I'm either running away or swinging back. We gave them access to our markets, they didn't give us access to theirs. What this is is just "playing even". This is not the same as surveillance, that's internal affairs. This is external affairs.

motorest 1y ago

> And the west always said that China is bad for doing it. "The west" criticizes China because the ruling regime imposes a series of arbitrary restrictions to foreign companies, including outright banning them, while demanding that Chinese companies should have unrestricted access to foreign markets. You are now faced with an exceptionally rare event where a member of "the west" enforces restrictions that are similar to the ones China broadly imposes on foreign companies, but does so on an isolated incident. And you call that irony.

croes 1y ago
We‘ll see how rare and isolated this is will be. Beware of the beginnings.
- motorest 1y ago
  > We‘ll see how rare and isolated this is will be. Why do you presume this is bad?
  - croes 1y ago
    If it’s not bad why calling out China first doing it? If it’s bad why doing it?
    - sparkie 1y ago
      When you realize the game is completely rigged, you have to stop playing it. We would like for western companies to be able to operate in China the way we let Chinese companies operate in our nations, but since China don't want to reciprocate and want to play an unfair game, the only real option is to level the playing field - if China wants to make the rules, lets take those rules and apply them domestically to. We should: * Require Chinese companies to have a domestic partner. * Selectively enforce (or rather ignore) IP when infringing on Chinese IP. * Force IP transfer as a condition to access our markets. * Require Chinese visitors to tell the police where they're living. * Many more policies which are unfavourable to the Chinese. China, chief hypocrite, will of course complain about anything which discriminates against China abroad, while doing exactly that thing at home.