Bitmain Rival’s Founder Arrested as War of Crypto Miners Heats up
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_States
... But it also doesn't equal null.
"Competition is bad, arrest him immediately!"
I'd bet money China's economy could be growing 10x faster if it had independent courts and foreign companies who become successful weren't treated like criminals.
Just imagine how many of us would be moving to China to start companies and how much more VC money would be flowing in. And all of the global HQs and products and innovation that would be happening there.
China's growth has been massive but it's a shadow of what it could be. Their growth rate should have been closer to SK, Singapore, and Taiwan by now. But they decided to go backwards:
https://croakingcassandra.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/ip-1.p...
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/scr...
If the choice is between, say letting AWS in and building their own. Building their own would put 5000 of their own people to work, the broad technical demographic it will take, and build up all the surrounding industries like servers, networking etc. All the profits stay within China, and they now have more skilled people who can start other companies etc. IMO its clearly a better long-term strategy, even though it will cost more in the short term.
US authorities seem to have only stepped up the criticism recently as China has become more of a viable adversary on the global stage though. The US government doesn't particularly care about the ethics of most countries, and will mostly criticise it when it's in their own interest. There's also stuff that's only come to light in the last few years. Chinese authorities flexing their power in ways that directly affect US interests is one of these.
As an uniformed reader of mainstream media and social networking sites, China was just not on the radar a few years ago. Politicians didn’t talk about it, people didn’t talk about it, news didn’t talk about it.
Maybe what you’re describing is true for the United States. I wouldn’t know.
But also the large buddhist community in America will never forget China invading Tibet and murdering the successor to the Dalai Lama. That still gets talked about a lot.
My consulting company does business in China, and when we do, we (out of self-interest, since we don't speak Chinese and it's hard to do logistics without that) partner with Chinese companies. My company has some of the leading experts in a very niche thing. In the current state, the companies we partner with get to learn from us and gain expertise. The alternative if protectionist policies stop us from doing business in China isn't for those people to become experts on their own -- that's not possible. The alternative is for them either not to gain expertise at all or to have to get it in a more difficult and expensive way.
Protectionism can benefit a fledgling industry (not a whole country) in the short term in a limited set of cases (at the expense of dragging down the rest of the economy), but in most cases the protected industry is going to fall behind even more without the information transfer that comes from business leaders doing business there.
I don't think the economic growth benefits outweigh their priorities.
This is despite both countries starting from the same, largely rural, highly impoverished starting point 60 years ago.[1]
So, yes, they'd rather be the absolute leaders of a faster growing economy, than the non-leaders of a slower-growing one.
[1] China was even worse off, actually, since it spent the first half of the twentieth century torn apart by civil war, European colonialism, civil war again, a brutal Japanese invasion and occupation, and then some more civil war, followed by two decades of self-inflicted political purges and repression. India only had to contend with two of these problems!
China on the other hand is mostly free and liberal up until you start being successful.
Acting like India isn't engage in authoritarian mass intervention, even though its in a more decentralize fashion is totally wrong. The only benefit is they have more independent courts and you can succeed with influence buying without the top-down threat that the CCP does to cripple foreign competitors in domestic firms favours.
India has a different sort of economic interference - but also one that's far easier to fix. Something Modi repeatedly promised and keeps failing to do.
This video is a good overview of how the Indian gov cripples business: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVwIZzGHxwc
If you think I'm kidding: https://blog.samaltman.com/e-pur-si-muove
It's true, by the way. I was in SF for a week a few months ago and the constant need to watch what I say was exhausting. I couldn't even joke around with my gay friend because people were getting offended on his behalf, much to his dismay.
He is saying groupthink is bad.
Without fair representation in the courts and judicial independence this problem will never be resolved and China will always be taking 1 step back for every 2 steps forward.
Hong Kong is a better example, they consistently rank #1 in the world in economic freedom and their economy skyrocketed as a result.
It's an article about how he feels stifled by SF culture.
Are we on the same page, here?
Name two.
Edit: No. I wasn't referring to the Epstein case.
Also, Chinese police has a habit of using force to rob the corpse of the victim from the family who want to send the corpse to the 3rd party for examination. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shishou_incident
https://www.wsj.com/articles/alibabas-jack-ma-denies-beijing...
Of course, conspiracy theorists would say 'of course he would say that'.
That comes with the territory when you're a totalitarian state with no rule of law.
The other thing that's important to realise is that the Chinese government is incredibly complex internally. There isn't some Bond-like villain stroking his white cat all day and issuing decrees. It's a massive beaurocracy. Politics are crazy. The totalitarian state does not act as a single will -- it's a massive system of infighting and people trying to get the upper hand. Within that system, each of the players will be using their legal system against one another. It really isn't the case that there is any one entity that's just making up the rules as they go along and that can do whatever they want with impunity (as your posting implies to me).
So, I'm inclined to lean towards believing a more complex reality than "they forced him to say that".
And there are TONS of examples of official lies, especially on the subject of the ownership and control of large enterprises.
Worse still, there is this file called 'crimes committed by the royal family' that is classified until 100 years after their death.
This is why to this day we don't know the exact details of Bernhard van Oranje's many escapades and crimes, some of which were quite significant and yet ended up covered up.
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernhard_van_Lippe-Biesterfeld...
The combination of politicians and structural lying is unfortunately not limited to China either.
Not that I disagree with a large chunk of what you said either, but it's just not hyperbole that China has no rule of law per a common definition of the word because of party and worker judicial supremacy.
Rule of law definition: the restriction of the arbitrary exercise of power by subordinating it to well-defined and established laws.
Three Supremes: http://chinamediaproject.org/2010/11/12/three-supremes-%e4%b...
This term is commonly translated as "the rule of law", but strongly implies the distinction that you're saying the English term does not.
Central parts of "rettsstatsprinsippene": Everyone is equal in the eyes of the law, laws cannot be reteroactive, the accused is innocent until proved guilty, the arrested must be presented to a court within 24 hours, the accused have a right to a state-appointed defender.
I'm starting to think despotic regimes are bad.