Currently China wants all the perks of the open global market, while closing it's own. I don't understand how this is allowed.
To those who still think this is about national security and most definitely not protectionist actions: why aren't these companies blanket banned immediately rather than given arbitrary timelines? India has demonstrated it is possible to do so and continues to be a self sustaining democracy.
Unilateral disarmament, where one party allows free access to markets while the other party does not, is actually a valid tactic. It's not always the wrong thing to do.
But choosing a tit-for-tat strategy instead isn't some sort of mark against free market capitalism. It just means that America has gotten tired of China defecting.
Which I approve of. Your mileage may vary.
But clearly there is a notion of free market capitalism one side seems to go to great lengths in protecting - which explains why they have been enforcing it under a separate pretense.
And even if this is a tit-for-tat retaliation against China, it isn't indicative of free market capitalism, because the 'tat' would be China closing off its own market and heavy handed government interference in any firm which wants to operate in China.
And neither the US's nor China's national security claims are unjustified. Election interference, propaganda, and espionage are very real and legitimate concerns that all major world powers have regarding their communication infrastructure.
Trump might talk a big game to his constituents about the outsourcing of jobs -- but his economic agenda has absolutely nothing to do with the national security concerns voiced by US public servants.
"national security" is mentioned literally right at the beginning of the document that mandates the GFW.
> Article 3: The computer management and supervision organization of the Ministry of Public Security is responsible for the security, protection and management of computer information networks and the Internet. The Computer Management and Supervision organization of the Ministry of Public Security should protect the public security of computer information networks and the Internet as well as protect the legal rights of Internet service providing units and individuals as well as the public interest.
> Article 4: No unit or individual may use the Internet to harm national security, disclose state secrets, harm the interests of the State, of society or of a group, the legal rights of citizens, or to take part in criminal activities. [...]
There is a whole lexicon of alternative doublespeak if you pay attention.
That's the same for the US. When it suits them there's sanctions, embargoes, tariffs, and questioning/forbiding foreign companies, investments, etc.
Both Google and Facebook once operated in China, but after the multiple terrorist attacks, they were unwilling (or unable) to comply with Chinese laws.
That’s why Skype and iMessage are available in China, they comply with Chinese laws.
'Terrorist attacks' from who exactly? When French or Polish resistance members assassinated Germans, I bet the Nazis thought that was 'terrorism.' The Chinese government likes to cry and moans about 'terrorism' from Tibetans and Uyghurs, but the CCP are the real terrorists in these situations. Any American company that cooperates with them are abetting genocide.
The main difference is that the Chinese only have one party -- which means they don't have to pretend their votes matter which might even be seen as an improvement (at least honesty wise).
Let’s be real, the Chinese government only wants to allow internet companies that will allow them to monitor all communication and traffic between Chinese citizens so that they can stamp out any dissent. But dissent and disagreement is not terrorism. It’s both creepy and Orwellian.
https://lite.cnn.com/en/article/h_7362899f13ec8816e5dee88b26... According to Lee Kai-Fu who launched Google in China: "Chinese laws are clear about what foreign companies can do to operate in China. In TikTok's case, though, the company was left no choice but to consider a forced sale."
China doesn't routinely ban American internet companies for no apparent reason. The same laws laid in the clear are what the American competitors in China follow. Google proactively made the choice to exit China (it also somewhat didn't. Google ads has a sizable market share in China as does Facebook). This is not to say that I'm suggesting that they should have elected to follow Chinese laws. But it's not arbitrary.
This would be akin to saying the French are savages and routinely ban gun toting Americans from visiting so we should feel justified to ban any French from visiting. Sovereign governments have their own laws.
The reason is the China from the start saw US as a competitor to China's companies (and internal sovereignity, as the US likes to push its political agendas to other nations).
China wasn't seen as a competitor by the US, but as it's outsourced cheap factory - so as they were just that, they were ok. Now that China's companies get increasingly competitive and aim for the global market themselves, the US tries to stop them in various ways from doing business in the US.
("National interests" is a good catch all reason for that, "humans rights" is another good excuse - though when you do business just fine with all kinds of other human rights violator states - not to mention violate human rights left and right yourself -, it's evidently just an excuse).
Same thing when Japan got on the rise and started buying US companies and investing there. There was all kind of nationalistic objections, and in the end they were pressured to sign the Plaza accord, that hurt them to this day.
name a western brand of physical good that's not available in China. Granted that our lives are more software oriented in this forum, majority of the trade in this planet is decidedly not.
https://www.registrationchina.com/articles/china-negative-li...
I don't understand what exactly it is that is being 'allowed' that should be forbidden.. if China exports to foreign customers is it against moral sense to not allow in foreign business?
Also, I know of a certain country that relies heavily on its ability to sanction countries from effective participation in the entire global market..
It is of course possible to invest in China, most large Western companies have, and it is profitable.
We've also all benefited from the huge pool of Chinese cheap labour.
China has also obviously benefited through an incredible economic development, which actually also benefits Western economies.
Because that's the equilibrium between the countries. Each side tries to negotiate whatever is most to their advantage and that's that. China wants more control over companies, the US wants access to what is going to be the world's largest market and source of qualified labour.
Each side can say no and walk away. For many US companies however that'd represent a significant loss, so they accept the conditions. Same reason people give Apple a 30% cut on their store.
In fact in consumer goods, foreign companies have more market share in China (40%) than the US (26%).
https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/featured%20insight...
While I'd say it should no longer be allowed, especially given China's relative place in the world compared to (say) 20 years ago, can you blame them for the initial desire?
American brands are everywhere in China, from Teslas, to iPhones, to McDonalds, to Starbucks, to the NBA, to the list goes on and on and on. Google, Facebook, Apple each make billions of dollars from China, every year.
Calling that a closed market is... Not at all accurate. It's by no means a fully[1] open market, but it's not a closed one.
[1] The definition of fully also varies from country to country. Is Canada a fully open market? No. For example, there's a lot of government protectionism surrounding media, and media infrastructure. Is the US a fully open market? No - again, not in the case of media infrastructure. Neither is an open market when it comes to food, or medical drugs. (For good reason, in my opinion - but that's just that - a political opinion. Other people have different opinions on this subject.)
How does _Facebook_ make "billions" in China in particular? It's completely banned there.
Also, as others might point out that "Way into China is to abide by their rules and regulations" - which is not true when the restrictions imposed are to gut out the business and establish a CCP-controlled branch that serves only Chinese people. For example, Wikpedia is blocked, how is Wikipedia supposed to even enter the "market" (I know its a non-profit org).
The truth is that China doesn't want western information, knowledge and values. This stance hides behind "rules and regulations".
Facebook: you're not the customer, you're the product.
The US has (well, sometimes, to some extent) an ideological commitment to open markets. China does not.
The US exploited the advantages of open markets to great success.
Why would China not use the asymmetry now that they can?
Two lessons:
- Expecting your competitors to play by your rules is foolish.
- Concepts like morality and fairness get people going, but are not very useful to apply to nation states.
One example: NetEase doesn't operate Blizzard's games in China just because Blizzard thought it'd be a nice idea to share a piece of the pie.[0]
Western rules around media infrastructure ownership or food production, where almost all of the regulatory business is conducted out in the open, have no comparison here.
[0] https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2019-10-11-publishers...
When I made that comment I was referring to SME, which is also the bulk of let's say, Chinese sellers on Amazon US.
Try to do what Chinese people do on Amazon, but on a Chinese platform as a SME, to sell products in China.
The reason Chinese SMEs are punching above their weight in foreign markets is because of their low cost of labour.
Try buying something like a coil winder, an induction heater, a spot welder, or a heat sealer. Even in the US, you're much more likely to find Chinese equipment more competitive and more readily available. Especially for an SME.
Well I guess that's depends on your definition of "successful", no?
Nothing stops a Croatian SME to enter the US market.
>That is to say, you'd need a pretty exceptional product, that is significantly better then local alternatives to get anywhere, because you're not going to be able to compete on price, or on brand recognition.
Even this is arguable because one of the biggest problems of Amazon US is the flood of low quality products, yet that doesn't stop them from being successful.
Then why aren't there any Croatian SMEs in the US market?
Is it because Croatians are bad at business? Bad at building things? Or do you think there may be other reasons for why they aren't successful?
> Even this is arguable because one of the biggest problems of Amazon US is the flood of low quality products, yet that doesn't stop them from being successful.
When you can't compete on quality, you have to compete on price.