U.S. Seeks to Heighten Scrutiny of Foreign Investment in Tech, Infra, Data
wsj.com
wsj.com
I can see a few reasons for taking this approach, the most mundane of which is the federal government actually has clear authority to regulate investment and existing regulatory frameworks to draw from.
Trying to regulate technology with ITAR or arms export laws is I think more likely to receive backlash to the point of facing constitutional challenge. The finance laws also probably risk this, but a lot less.
Document 9 is an paper for domestic policy about curtailing "western" influence within China, prescient after the shitshow happening in HK. China doesn't waste effort spreading the Chinese system outside it's claims, because technocrats knows it doesn't work without scale of 1billion people and they see how counterproductive this strategy is in terms of cost and domestic sentiment. The takeaway of Unrestricted Warfare isn't that China views US as an adversary in a totalwar scenario, but a competitor that has to be challenged using existing world systems. China doesn't seek to dismantle global systems, which it has benefited from, but modify it in manner commiserate with her influence. As the worlds largest exporter and driver of global growth, that's a completely reasonable expectation.
There's a reason China preaches cooperation while US is withdrawing from the world stage. Geopolitically, US is the only developed country in the world that can afford to isolate itself. The economic and demographic future of western countries are not good. Demographically neither is China, and cooperation is the only way forward. Western countries aligned with US postwar because Bretton Woods system + US security guarantee was a formula for economic prosperity. That era appears to be ending and the ensuing misery will make for strange bedfellows.
Again, if you're an American, you should take China more seriously out of self interest. But you should also vote for candidates that takes allies and the world more seriously as well. US foreign, not domestic policy is what can curtail China's rise.
I believe a stronger Europe and stronger western bloc is key to curbing China. The USA is close to peak economic and military might, but we only have 310 million people. China has 1.4 billion. Extrapolating current trends, it is inevitable that China becomes the world super power. Most likely bankrupting the USA in the process. Similar patterns to USA overtaking the UK, or USSR.
To make a stronger Europe, Europe should federalize its military. Then to make a stronger western bloc, there should be tighter economic integration between Europe and US. This would involve freer movement of people and some kind North Atlantic economic zone. Then the western bloc has close to a billion people powering its might. That is a good counter weight to China. But if everyone deals with China individually, we all loose.
We know how powerful the US intelligence agencies are. The fact that the CIA has been able to install leaders in previously hostile governments shows their competence. Aside from Iran, most of their operations were successful. Even in their missteps, they were able to limit its influence in the region.
So how did it come to this? Why does it feel like the CIA dropped the ball on China?
Because the CIA, literally, dropped the ball on China. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/20/world/asia/china-cia-spie...
> Last year, an F.B.I. employee pleaded guilty to acting as a Chinese agent for years, passing sensitive technology information to Beijing in exchange for cash, lavish hotel rooms during foreign travel and prostitutes.
That's how.
Yeah, it controls pretty much every communication device.
>> Even in their missteps, they were able to limit its influence in the region.
Compared to whom? No other country is any close in terms of controlling the world.
Some Americans love to watch America suffer, because it makes them feel better about themselves; a similar thing to the British intellectuals who celebrated every British loss and defeat of the second world war, though they would not enjoy a total defeat.
1) I don't think the CIA has ever has been that powerful and 2) the US political establishment got arrogant and lazy after the fall of the Soviet Union.
If there is a civil war and the CIA backs one side with weapons, and that side wins, it doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t have won without CIA support.
Perhaps it's because Big Tech is full of people who favor Chinese ideals over Western Enlightenment/American ideals, such as:
-Group identity over individuality
-Mass tracking/surveillance over privacy
-Cenorship over free speech
-State control/power over self defense
tl;dr: your category error invalidates your entire point.
Do you actually have something concrete in mind here, or have you instead considered that this is merely an example of calling the enemy tribe every bad name you can think of?
Ideals codified in law. For example, the 1rst and 2nd Amendments.
When generalizing with national boundaries, I of course do not mean to imply that literally everyone born within those imaginary lines thinks the same.
Are there more specific categories I could use for these ideological classifications?
Is there another region outside of Europe that independently came up with a similar set of ideals as to what emerged from the Enlightenment[1]?
The Enlightenment certainly originated in the West (Western Europe), and while there are certain cultural aspects that are more compatible with Enlightenment ideals -- primus inter pares and such -- there is no reason why those ideals couldn't find a new home in some other region (Asia, Africa, etc.)
Ideas are bound, not by borders, but by brains.
https://www.usconstitution.net/china.html#Article2
>Article 35. Freedom of speech, press, assembly Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.
The reasons why people in both societies enjoy those rights differently is much more complicated than just whether they are codified.
I’ll go to London, Berlin, and Paris and do the same thing. Maybe I’ll need a permit in the US/Europe and do it for a week.
It's easy to tell all kinds of crazy stories about would happen in China, but do you have direct evidence? I don't, but I know for a fact that expat communities usually bitterly hate the government, and blast those opinions publicly all over the internet.
All information about the Tiananmen Square massacre is blocked in China by the great firewall. What more evidence do you need?
> to certain very contentious political topics in the US, which people are aware of, but you certainly cannot bring up.
Like what? Please elaborate specifically?
I'm so confused on what your stance is here. You realize there is a big difference between being persecuted by others for saying something or "knowing something" and being persecuted by the government for saying something or "knowing something"?
I'm afraid you've lost me...?
> ...what does it mean to say one set is "Eastern" and one is "Western"?
I suspect that's more of a historical convention than anything else. Probably would have used the term "Enlightenment" rather than "Western", myself.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss–Howe_generational_th...
I think you're onto something, but some of your examples are off.
I'd say Big Tech has a disproportionate share of people who:
1) believe they are part of the elite (by being able to command a high salary due to their skills) or aspire to join the elite (by winning the startup lottery), and therefore tend to take the perspective of elites against that of commoners, and
2) tend to focus far too much on economics, business, and technology.
Those attitudes can interplay to result in attitudes that can be pretty favorable to the CCP (e.g. trade/business profits can't be sacrificed for moral or democratic considerations). However, I wouldn't go so far as saying those tech people "favor Chinese ideals over Western Enlightenment/American ideals."
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Year-Rat-Clinton-Compromised-Security... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-14-aUXlEac [3] https://time.com/5414055/american-nazi-sympathy-book/ [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Tigers
Capitalism ate itself. All China had to do was play the game.
When I see PE groups in China outbidding their Western counterparts by absurd multiples, it just reeks of ulterior motives.
EDIT: Spelling police got me.
you mean "reeks" (i.e. "smells", usually bad). It might wreak havoc on the U.S. economy, but it can only "reek" of ulterior motives.
And return less money to their fund than they would if they were acquiring companies domestically? Scratches head...
One reason that Ivy League endowments get consistently above-market returns is that everyone is comfortable taking their money.
EDIT: I sort of conflated foreign and kleptocrat money there, saying they both have to outbid preferred sources. Most foreign money is not from kleptocrats, of course.
There is no evidence for this being the cause of the price premium. There is substantial evidence that capital flight predicts which countries overpay for foreign assets. Russia and China are better explained by the capital flight hypothesis.
It could be both. We only have evidence for the supply hypothesis (i.e. capital flight). American companies requiring a higher price for foreign investors sounds plausible. But it's a guess for which we have zero evidence, particularly at a systemic level.
(Fixed demand and higher supply still lower prices.)
One test might be found in comparing pricing and flows for foreign investors around investment vectors companies have discretion around (e.g. private investment or M&A) to vectors with which they don't (e.g. public markets). You'd have to control with prices and flows from American investors in those markets, too, which makes it difficult.
It's all about 'rising tides lifting all boats' until there's a chance of someone else's boat being almost as high as ours. Then all of a sudden it's about the foreign threat, ulterior motives..
i) the US wants to forbid other countries to have a chance to win in pure capitalistic games. Thus, it will block strong investors from certain countries but let itself to invest in the same countries.
ii) the US (e.g., agencies and private firms) currently controls the entire world via political and electronic backdoors installed everywhere. So it sounds like a bad joke when people claim that China is inventing some surveillance mechanisms like if it is a new one.
I believe that we first hand observe how propaganda (here, against China) works. While China does some shitty things, the most precise short description I can come up with is that "the West" wants China to be its slave. I have no doubt this will happen to some extent in the same way it happened to Japan in the 80ies (no slavery, but drastic decay). In 2040 we will be told to hate India. In 2060 it will be replaced by some growing African country.
i) China wants to forbid other countries to have a chance to win in pure capitalistic games. Thus it will block strong investors from outside but let itself invest in the same countries
ii) China (e.g., CPP) currently controls the entire world via electronics equipment sold globally at an undercut price. So it sounds like a bad joke when people claim that U.S.A is inventing some surveillance mechanisms like if it is a new one.
Don’t you mean China instead of the US? They invest in America what they won’t let America invest in China, especially in tech. China is hardly an open market itself.
Talking about slavery in this context is also ridiculous.
A lot of times if you need to get through a paywall try copying the URL into archive.is
I don't think most people care, honestly. Plus, as the parent poster said, this has been going on for 10 years. Not much can be done about it now.
But, if a journalist does happen to reads this and is interested, post your contact info. I'll reach out.
HN users can, and do, make thoughtful points on such topics from many different viewpoints. "China has their fingers in everything" is not that.
Note: I’m “western” but far from US.