71–80 of 95 posts
This article is missing the key part where China blocked and limited products by major foreign tech giants such as Google, Facebook, Microsoft et al so homegrown Chinese variants could flourish.
Only third and fourth tier players (like what the European countries have become now) let others control such key infrastructure.
This article is missing the key part where China blocked and limited products by major foreign tech giants such as Google, Facebook, Microsoft et al so homegrown Chinese variants could flourish.
Don't you think that by limiting foreign companies' products the local companies would operate less efficiently since there is no competition? I think I was taught about this in my econ 101 class. Why does it work differently this time?
(1) Econ 101 classes mostly sell students an idealized version of economy.
(2) Top-tier countries have used all kinds of techniques (protectionism, tariffs, etc) to get successful, but now that they don't need those anymore, they pay lip service to the Econ 101 "laws" that are against those same techniques.
(3) While clothed in scientific parlance, a lot of what is Econ 101 is just BS to promote the interests of those in power, not what's best for the people in general (that's how an ecomomics professor gets grants, becomes policy advisor, etc).
The scientific part is just using some math while still basing their ideas on idealized unworkable models and unprovable assumptions.
That said, even if all the above was not true, the internal market in China is 1.6 billion people. 4-5 times the US is more than enough to have lots of internal competition.
Heck, there are US-only brands the rest of the world doesn't care at all about -- and that's on a 350 million people market, and they still do just fine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't you think that by limiting foreign companies' products the local companies would operate less efficiently since there is no competition? I think I was taught about this in my econ 101 class. Why does it work differently this time?
No, it’s still true. Chinese companies in protected industries are as inefficient as expected.
I am not American, but I think it's fair to say that America brought the world into "modernity". Telephone, computers, software, the internet, smart devices, these had a huge impact on the world. To me, the real test of China's innovation will be to see if they can have a true and significant impact on the world. We often talk about innovation in terms of technological advancements, but we need to also talk about inn…
In that context, I think you need to consider the US' impact on political norms. It was the first modern democratic republic. Its basic political norms and rights form the most important example of what we know as liberal democracy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it’s still true. Chinese companies in protected industries are as inefficient as expected.
Really, Weibo, TaiBao, Alibaba and co are "inefficient"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In that context, I think you need to consider the US' impact on political norms. It was the first modern democratic republic. Its basic political norms and rights form the most important example of what we know as liberal democracy.
Wouldn't that be France, between the French Revolution and Napoleon's regime?
But, the US' political ideologies were more easy to understand. France's was always more layered and abstract. Also, fewer peopele were looking at revolutionary France with envy, because of all the violence.
.. that's my take anyway.
I am not American, but I think it's fair to say that America brought the world into "modernity". Telephone, computers, software, the internet, smart devices, these had a huge impact on the world. To me, the real test of China's innovation will be to see if they can have a true and significant impact on the world. We often talk about innovation in terms of technological advancements, but we need to also talk about inn…
Telephone
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't you think that by limiting foreign companies' products the local companies would operate less efficiently since there is no competition? I think I was taught about this in my econ 101 class. Why does it work differently this time?
Several factors. (1) Econ 101 classes mostly sell students an idealized version of economy. (2) Top-tier countries have used all kinds of techniques (protectionism, tariffs, etc) to get successful, but now that they don't need those anymore, they pay lip service to the Econ 101 "laws" that are against those same techniques. (3) While clothed in scientific parlance, a lot of what is Econ 101 is just BS to promote the…
The scientific part is just using some math while still basing their ideas on idealized unworkable models and unprovable assumptions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Several factors. (1) Econ 101 classes mostly sell students an idealized version of economy. (2) Top-tier countries have used all kinds of techniques (protectionism, tariffs, etc) to get successful, but now that they don't need those anymore, they pay lip service to the Econ 101 "laws" that are against those same techniques. (3) While clothed in scientific parlance, a lot of what is Econ 101 is just BS to promote the…
The scientific part is just using some math while still basing their ideas on idealized unworkable models and unprovable assumptions. You don't need maths to show that less competition changes the incentive to the point that it could bring down quality of service.
Or even that you can have a fine quality product at a good price even without competition at all -- e.g. produced by a single vendor, as long as the vendor is so inclined.