Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Germany’s Chinese investment problem

politico.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 120 posts

Re: Germany’s Chinese investment problem

#51

Post by varjag »

Roritharr wrote: post #37
stupidcar wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems to ignore the main objection. It's not that Chinese companies are investing in European economies, it's that these companies are run by the Chinese state, and that China is not providing reciprocal access to its own market to Western companies. This is not natural free-market activity, it is a state-sponsored effort to take technology and expertise from European companies and feed it into state-owned Chine…

> The Chinese state will never be satisfied being one powerful economic actor amongst others, all playing by the rules of a global market. They will never accept being checked by laws of trade or other country's interests, any more than they will tolerate being checked by democratic accountability or rule of law. The same could be said about the US i guess. It's the EU that looks like a naive child on the World Stage…

There are very few practical problems for foreign companies to establish, operate, and sometimes dominate in the U.S. market.

Re: Germany’s Chinese investment problem

#52

Post by eternalban »

stupidcar wrote: post #30
simonh wrote: post #3

"Oh woe is us. Who will save us from downing in all this Chinese money." There were exactly the same concerns about Japanese investment back in the 80s. Now doing business with Japanese firms and companies like Sony owning major American firms is just natural. They're not weird alien creatures from space anymore, they're our business partners and investors. It's normal. The same will happen with China.

This seems to ignore the main objection. It's not that Chinese companies are investing in European economies, it's that these companies are run by the Chinese state, and that China is not providing reciprocal access to its own market to Western companies. This is not natural free-market activity, it is a state-sponsored effort to take technology and expertise from European companies and feed it into state-owned Chine…

> a state-sponsored effort to take technology and expertise from European companies and feed it into state-owned Chinese ones.

These were the terms of the deal between Western and Chinese governing "elite". The West's gamble was that the Chinese would not (could not) maintain their ideological stance when exposed to Western societal norms. The Chinese gamble was that they would catch up and reach technological parity while maintaining their hold on the Chinese nation. No use complaining about it now.

Re: Germany’s Chinese investment problem

#53

Post by witty_username »

makomk wrote: post #31

"help them secure access to the growing Chinese market" is a very euphemistic way of referring to China's refusal to let non-Chinese-owned businesses operate there. China, you see, does not actually believe in free trade and is really rather keen on protectionism when they're the ones doing it..

Same could be said to a lesser extent about the US.

Re: Germany’s Chinese investment problem

#55

Post by daemin »

QuantumRoar wrote: post #23
yousry wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Related News from last week: The government had cleared the deal on Sept. 8 but Aixtron said that the Economy Ministry had now canceled the clearance certificate for Fujian Grand Chip Investment Fund LP (FGC), a Chinese investment fund controlled by businessman Zhendong Liu, and planned to reopen a review of the takeover. The decision to rescind the approval was based on “previously unknown security-related informati…

Aixtron hasn't been doing too well lately. So there is definitely a positive side to an acquisition. From Aixtron's website on November 17 [1]: >CFIUS [Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States] informed the parties that it plans to recommend to the U.S. President that the transaction be prohibited based on CFIUS’ conclusion that there would be no reasonable way to mitigate the U.S. national security risks…

I recall there being an article here a month or so ago about this actual takeover. Basically Aixtron had this large customer in China, but at the last moment, un-expectantly, they cancelled the order. Therefore Aixtron shares plummeted and then this investment fund comes in to buy them out. The article also found that there was a hidden connection between the customer and the investment fund and that both used state money.

So there is definitely something fishy going on, and China as a state is wielding its money to gain all of the technology for itself.

Re: Germany’s Chinese investment problem

#56

Post by varjag »

noir-york wrote: post #26
jakozaur wrote: post #22

After the second world war, Soviet Union was growing so fast that many smart people in western world that communism is superior to capitalism. However, Soviet Union economic growth peaked in 1959. It was primarily based on catch up growth: recovery from WW 2 and moving ppl from agriculture to industry. Is China similar story? http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2015/12/09/like-soviet-russ... A good read on that: https:/…

Russia had a ceiling: Russian population was less than that of Europe or the US. Chinese population is larger than both combined. Russia was wedded to an ideology; the Chinese are pragmatist and practicing corporate capitalism. China will not only avoid the same fate, they will almost certainly come to dominate by sheer force of numbers. China is practicing the economics equivalance of embrace (buy Western technology…

Soviet Union had larger population than the USA in 1959. Russians comprised slightly over a half of the overall Soviet population.

That's before you add any Warsaw Pact countries..

Re: Germany’s Chinese investment problem

#57

Post by chenlianmt »

curun1r wrote: post #44
bjshepard wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a plenty democratic place, I recommend coming and observing it with your eyes, asking people here questions, and assessing the history of the revolution yourself.

With all due respect... I have been there. I went on a business trip to visit our offshore development office in Beijing. A few of the devs went sightseeing with me one weekend and we ended up going to see the forbidden city. The cab dropped us off at Tienamen Square and I asked if we could spend some time there before going across the street. There was general consternation as to why I was interested in such a borin…

I doubt if they really understood which event you were referring to or if they ever told the truth. My dad was an undergraduate in 1989 in China, and he constantly tells me what he had suffered during those days. So I'm pretty clear about what happened back then. I used to discuss this event with my friends and most of them had heard about it.

Even if it's not in the history textbook and it's not allowed to be discussed in the public, most of the Chinese citizens who were alive in 1989 have heard of this event. I can't say children in next generations would remember it, but at least in 2016, Chinese people do remember it.

Re: Germany’s Chinese investment problem

#58

Post by LunaSea »

tajen wrote: post #36
noir-york wrote: post #28

China is practicing the economic equivalent of embrace (buy Western technology), extend (their own 3G standards for instance), and eventually extinguish (locking the West out of their market). As private individuals, we don't mind being bought out by Chinese. As members of societies, I believe it is important to know that there is a concerted plan by China that is at best neutral, and at worst, hostile to Western eco…

Let's not forget the China has acquired this position by providing the world with goods for 30 years, for a price that meant misery for their workers. It's not entierly undeserved that they are now able to execute whatever grand evil plan they imagined. We're free to prevent them from accessing our markets, as long as we reimport manufacturing into free-market countries, which would mean paying a bit more than $7 for…

I think you also forgot to add industrial espionage to this list as a compensation for low innovation levels.

Re: Germany’s Chinese investment problem

#59

Post by rahrahrah »

Roritharr wrote: post #37
stupidcar wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems to ignore the main objection. It's not that Chinese companies are investing in European economies, it's that these companies are run by the Chinese state, and that China is not providing reciprocal access to its own market to Western companies. This is not natural free-market activity, it is a state-sponsored effort to take technology and expertise from European companies and feed it into state-owned Chine…

> The Chinese state will never be satisfied being one powerful economic actor amongst others, all playing by the rules of a global market. They will never accept being checked by laws of trade or other country's interests, any more than they will tolerate being checked by democratic accountability or rule of law. The same could be said about the US i guess. It's the EU that looks like a naive child on the World Stage…

> The same could be said about the US i guess. It's the EU that looks like a naive child on the World Stage...

Sad but true. As a European I feel embarassed seeing that American, Russian, and Chinese leaders are all carefully protecting their practical interests whereas European leaders seem more concerned with pushing their idealogical dream.

Re: Germany’s Chinese investment problem

#60

Post by shanwang »

I doubt the EU has any plan of anything. With rise of nationalism and protectionism, the EU is fighting for its own existence.

China was never a equal trade partner to the west. In fact, I don't think any of the developing countries can be equal trade partners to the developed countries. When you are weak, open your market completely to western multinational companies with huge capital and technology advantage is economical suicide, and it will benefit no one but the rich and powerful at the very top on both sides.

Post reply on HN