You kidding? This is par for the course.. this is the macro playbook that we've seen time and time again over the last 20 years
> this is the macro playbook that we've seen time and time again over the last 20 years What? American CEO in China are doing this kind of shit? Oh god, I have been in US for 12 years, so the American corporations have been plaguing the Chinese economy all the time? No wonder indigenous Chinese companies eventually win. These American CEO are trash ...
I have reread your comment a few times and I'm not quite following
It was wrong headed because it gave a lifeline to an immoral authoritarian government. Without being allowed to participate in the WTO and the west's world order CCP would have collapsed by the end of the 90s. Once a democratic rule of law government took over then they could have become just as prosperous but without the evil power structure that keeps is here to stay. It would be more like Taiwan or South Korea or…
Their way is _working_. No, Taiwan and South Korea and Hong Kong are not proof that democratic methods work. Calling Hong Kong under Britain democratic is wildly disingenuous. Taiwan and South Korea are only _very_ recently democratic. Arguably the bulk of their ascendance occurred under authoritarian rule. You also don't get to point only at successes. They looked at Singapore and sought to emulate that model, who a…
Their way isnt their way through. They just regiment society and produce technology and goods designed elsewhere. Without technology transfers 'their way' would be living in poverty pretending everything was fine because their society is so terrified of criticism..
Honesltly, more developed nations paid for cheap labour in China and hoped they would adopt more libertarian views (as the technology which pulled them out of poverty was created in freer nations), instead they are amassing power and think they can suddenly supercede the current world order. They are so xenophobic that it will never happen, not until their values change and they accept foreigners like the US, at which point there is little difference anyway
Naive question here: why China is able to close its market to foreign companies? Same thing for trade sanctions on Iran which impacted European companies but not China (if I'm not wrong). Seems they don't play by the same rules as anybody else.
> why China is able to close its market to foreign companies? Why shouldn't they? It's their market. Do you propose we do like the British, which bomb them and opened it by force to have them buy opium? For perspecive, and to answer the "seems they don't play by the same rules as anybody else", part, the US has historically had tons of tarrifs on its own, it's how it got big - they only switched to "free trade" when…
I suspect China doesn't really need western markets in the long term so denying access isn't all that powerful. Their population is the same as the entire OECD combined. They could become an entire "western developed economy" isolated within themselves plus a bunch of 3rd world allies.
I suspect China doesn't really need western markets in the long term Being from the West, we see things with West-Centric eyes. When, if we look more closely, we see that China alone has more customers than the whole of the West (Five-Eyes, Europe, Japan) combined . The West is pretty much unimportant, relatively speaking, in the over-all scheme of things. A mere 20% of the world's customers. As a whole, the world is…
Yeahh except for the fact historically the west have been developing technologies and social ideologies which are ultimately adopted by other 'civilizations' for millenia. For what counts, they have always been on top, and will be for the forseeable future. other civilizations are still playing catch-up and have social structures which inhibit development, as for china, its delusion of being the centre of the world is what is making them set such arrogant, unreasonable trade terms.
one of the best arguments against anarcho-capitalism is that without a goverment, there would be no market to speak of. why exchange in trade if no one can guarantee it will be beneficial for you? Why would the other party trade instead of just stealing your stuff? You could ofcourse defend against by carrying a bigger stick then the next guy or cooperating with others. Which starts to look an awful lot like the orga…
> one of the best arguments against anarcho-capitalism is that without a goverment, there would be no market to speak of. > why exchange in trade if no one can guarantee it will be beneficial for you? Why would the other party trade instead of just stealing your stuff? You could ofcourse defend against by carrying a bigger stick then the next guy or cooperating with others. > Which starts to look an awful lot like th…
Yeah, same thing with communism and the assumption everyone will work for the best interest of the state. It just takes one bad actor and the corruption cascades and ruins the system. At least capitalism uses human greed as a motivator. I do think humans can be selfless, if they are mindful and educated, unfortunately with current poverty levels and disinformation, people arent smart enough to realise whats good for you is good for me