Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reminds me of Goolgle and Facebook comes to my country takes all the ad revenue and the country gets nothing.
They get Google and Facebook.
... and ads, don't forget the ads!
How China Systematically Pries Technology from U.S. Companies
161–170 of 208 posts
Re: How China Systematically Pries Technology from U.S. Companies
#162Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ...unfavorable trade agreement wich allowed for assymetrical tariffs, etc. Assymmetrical tariffs are more favorable than symmetrical tariffs, something practically every economist agrees on. Also, why insist on exporting more valuable goods to China, when China remains perfectly content with green pieces of paper instead?
Would it be more accurate to say: "Assymmetrical tariffs are more favorable than symmetrical tariffs, something practically every economist agrees on, for certain situations "? Does there ever come a point where they should be normalized? From most of what I've read in mainstream news coverage, this topic seems to be considered not valid for discussion, as if the answer is self-evident (despite very few of the report…
> Does there ever come a point where they should be normalized?
The ideal situation is no tariffs on either side, which is normalized.
> for certain situations?
For any given economic scenario there's a practical intervention that would result in a better result than what the theory suggests is the best expected result. There's also an infinite number interventions that result in a worse outcome. The problem is, how do you know what the right intervention is? You don't.
> From most of what I've read in mainstream news coverage, this topic seems to be considered not valid for discussion, as if the answer is self-evident
It's not self-evident, the question just has remained settled for over a century. Economists disagree over all kinds of things, this isn't one of them.
Re: How China Systematically Pries Technology from U.S. Companies
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US pried the textile and locomotives industries from the UK This is the sort of argument that an eight-year-old makes to his mother, and the mother responds, "If Jimmy jumped off a bridge, would you?" I don't know if you're an American or not, but there's an very common expression: Two wrongs don't make a right.
Isn't this "whataboutism"? You shut down a conversation by trying to deflect about how others have also done something? Like you said, two wrongs don't make a right. Just by pointing out this has happened elsewhere doesn't make the conversation about China doing it any less important or relevant. Why shut down this conversation?
In what way does this fact "shutdown the conversation"?
Re: How China Systematically Pries Technology from U.S. Companies
#164Whataboutism. edit: If someone is using whataboutism (as the person I'm responding to is) there is no real argument to respond to. Any modern day atrocity can be justified by saying that it was done in the past by a different nation. Saying that the US had done something in the past to justify a different countries' present day actions is intellectually lazy and dishonest and is meant to shut down discussion. I was j…
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18076906 and marked it off-topic.
Re: How China Systematically Pries Technology from U.S. Companies
#165The western markets has already peaked and is therefore "forced" to go to China. While from a western point of view it feels alarming to loose their edge. From a Chinese point of view, why would they let anyone share a piece of their growth with nothing in return.
A source of cheap labour, raw materials and a huge market, is something that people from ex-colonies are all too familiar with. One should also acknowledge the high tech cartels that exists.
In a way it is a free market, because people can not claim to not know what they were getting themselves into.
Re: How China Systematically Pries Technology from U.S. Companies
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
So now that US companies have entered China, can you name some examples of first entrants who have “seized the market”? I think your entire premise is dubious. The first mover advantage cannot be great because the Chinese government will never allow a foreign company to have a dominant position in an important domestic Chinese market. Without significant change since in government those first entrant companies are si…
KFC, McDonald’s, Starbucks, Nike, Adidas, Polo, Estée Lauder, Coach, Michael Kors, Armani, Chanel, Gucci, are all extremely popular. Go to any department store in China and the first two floors (i.e. the prime spots) all feature foreign brands.
[deleted]
Re: How China Systematically Pries Technology from U.S. Companies
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
So now that US companies have entered China, can you name some examples of first entrants who have “seized the market”? I think your entire premise is dubious. The first mover advantage cannot be great because the Chinese government will never allow a foreign company to have a dominant position in an important domestic Chinese market. Without significant change since in government those first entrant companies are si…
Apple? They clocked almost $10B in revenue from China in Q3 2018, close to 20% of total revenue.
[deleted]
Re: How China Systematically Pries Technology from U.S. Companies
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks. I think a recent EU complaint to the WTO about IP transfer rules in China does a better job of explaining the issue than I have. Bloomberg wrote about it in June: In its complaint, the EU is targeting rules in China on the import and export of technologies and on Chinese-foreign equity joint ventures. Certain provisions “discriminate against non-Chinese companies and treat them worse than domestic ones,” viol…
EU's complaints depend on the TRIPS agreement https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/agrm7_e.... , which appears to be silent on investment as well. If EU obtains a favorable ruling it would likely require China to treat patents owned by foreign entities equally as those owned by the Chinese. However it is unlikely to say how China should regulate foreign investments. Indeed under WTO countries have no o…
Ok. So, it's about equal IP protection and not investment. Thank you for the clarification.
Based on what you're saying, it sounds like the EU and other countries could impose a wide range of conditions or restrictions onto Chinese investments or purchases without running afoul of WTO rules. Interesting stuff.
Looks like I stand both corrected and downvoted. Gotta luv HN!
Re: How China Systematically Pries Technology from U.S. Companies
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
EU's complaints depend on the TRIPS agreement https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/agrm7_e.... , which appears to be silent on investment as well. If EU obtains a favorable ruling it would likely require China to treat patents owned by foreign entities equally as those owned by the Chinese. However it is unlikely to say how China should regulate foreign investments. Indeed under WTO countries have no o…
Ok. So, it's about equal IP protection and not investment. Thank you for the clarification. Based on what you're saying, it sounds like the EU and other countries could impose a wide range of conditions or restrictions onto Chinese investments or purchases without running afoul of WTO rules. Interesting stuff. Looks like I stand both corrected and downvoted. Gotta luv HN!
The theory has always been that countries would compete with each other for FDI, but the reality is a little more complicated. When Amazon put the location of its new headquarter out for bid many cities are willing to throw any concession at Amazon. However that does not mean cities like SF or NYC would do the same. Not every location has the same attractiveness for business. Similarly not all countries are the same in their attractiveness to business. You can't expect countries to not take advantage of the differentials and offer identical terms unless doing so is in their own interests.
On the other hand, as a thought experiment, what would have happened if China had been more open or fair to foreign investments? Then even more businesses would have invested in China and thus subject themselves to the influence of the Chinese government. For an example (not to imply any moral equivalence) see the tremendous power the US government wields over transactions conducted entirely between foreign entities.
Re: How China Systematically Pries Technology from U.S. Companies
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps we should consider revoking patent and other IP protections for companies that knowingly or negligently allow IP to be transferred to jurisdictions that do not respect IP rights in pursuit of profit. Otherwise it's a double whammy, your foreign competitors compete unbound while your domestic market competition is restricted. It would also align the game theory to prevent companies from "selling out" to such j…
Patents are public knowledge. How do you revoke public knowledge?
You revoke the monopoly patents grant in the local jurisdiction, not the knowledge.