TikTok wants to keep tracking iPhone users with state-backed workaround

And besides, relaxing zoning is far from enough - you need to build vast and performant public transit systems, and in the case of Tokyo you need to make housing a depreciating asset.

South Korea was not a democratic state during most of its crucial growth period either - it was only after a revolution in the 80s, and even then democracy is a very gracious word for a country that was literally ruled by a cult for half a decade.

Taiwan also was in quasi-dictatorial KMT rule for most of its rise, and Japan to this day on the national level is basically ruled by the LDP in perpetuity.

But crucially, Japan, SK and Taiwan aren't where the kind of production China does happens. They are just as economically beholden to China as we are, sometimes moreso.

The world does exist outside of Silicon Valley. I can get exactly what you're describing in over half of this country, pick your state including the entirety of the midwest.

>Again, more defective wetware. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan - these are democratic states with a high standard of living that have been able to control costs in ways that the West hasn’t. More people are homeless in the US per capita than any of those countries and it has everything to do with defective programming and talk of “liveable wages”. Of course everyone needs to be able to afford to live. But your own mistaken assumptions are emblematic of the political and social dysfunction of the West. Until we address that, no - those supply chains won’t be returning.

The median income in South Korea is $3,000 less than the US. And they have universal healthcare.

Someone's wetware is defective, it isn't mine. You might want to do some research before showing up with that kind of condescending attitude.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/median-in...

The people who outsourced things weren't simply trying to reduce gains made by unions, they were looking at price differences that could not exist in the US due to cost and standard of living. They certainly weren't looking at both sides of this in terms of long term effect either!

If you retool all of that to suddenly do something else, than you will be missing something else.

Because it's not like these 50+ nations with over $40 trillion in GDP are just sitting there and wondering what to do with all of that productivity, they are already plenty busy doing those things that got them all that GDP, the things they are good at.

That's why it's not really a "straw man", as the original argument implies globalized supply chains that emerged out of a given supply&demand could be artificially transplanted and rebuild in "the West", however that's even defined, to somehow reverse the reality of globalization.

Products high up on the value chain - the kind you don't dress up in your best slacks to go and buy at Walmart are a different story, however.

I can count several software projects that were outsourced off the top of my head that were ostensibly done for cost savings purposes and were utter disasters. These disasters are routinely covered up and bullshitted, too.

This has at the same time not dampened the appetite for outsourcing software much. Coordination (i.e. management) costs are higher. Consulting companies can bill millions for these projects.

This is the point the article was making - pretty cogently.

It's less of a smoke-filled room conspiracy and more of a mundane "conspiracy" to shape the supply/demand curve.

Even without your movement of goalposts, a movie can still be successful without being in China.

The most successful movies in history were released, and massively profitable, before China's market opened to the rest of the world.

To maximize that success (or even to be considered a success), you must publish in China.

This is simply false. There are plenty of successful businesses, movies, video games, and other enterprises that never touch China. I hate to break it to you, but China is a non-factor for the vast majority of businesses on the planet.

From the point of view of any particular company the choice you're talking about may well exist, especially where the company is founder-led. But that doesn't mean the outcome you're hoping for can be achieved on a purely voluntary basis.

It may work in exceptional cases though, Apple being one of them.

That said, I think there is a decent amount of determinism at play here. It's like the "why are all politicians such politicians?" problem. The companies with an interest in entering the Chinese market will, mostly, do it. It's predictable. Predictable isn't determinism, but it's en route.

For a more poetic take, I'll paraphrase leonard cohen on "do you believe in free will?":

I think free will exists, but I think it's over-rated. Mostly, we act because we are compelled to.

If the economy is good, then yes.

If the circumstances are daring enough, then yes.

Otherwise no

Certain extreme expressions of subjective human freedom can harm people more broadly. Someone building an atomic bomb in their basement is a threat to my human rights, as is a company blowing unfiltered coal smoke all over my town. Enough people emitting enough fossil CO2 globally might threaten the rights (and damage the property) of a vast number of people. Enough people refusing to vaccinate might even be a threat (though this has to be evaluated carefully), since they're increasing my odds of contracting a disease.

Balancing absolute freedom with human rights and the broader experience of liberty and prosperity is as we would say an "AI hard problem." There exists no simple set of rules that when followed will always yield a positive result. It requires a continuous input of fully engaged intelligence and a continuous deliberative political process.

What we can say is that certain things do not do this. One-party totalitarian surveillance states, grievance-based populism, fascism, or Russia-style mafia-theocracy do not do this.

The question is whether they will fall soon enough

IMO China doesn't need immigration to survive the demographic crisis, it needs excess labour to manage the transition, declining / smaller total population is the goal - simply too many people right now. Tons of labour can be arbitraged between poor and rich provinces or imported from poorer neighbors on remittance basis without the massive welfare commitments of immigration. Western countries with comprehensive social welfare systems sustained by massive immigration have greater risk of collapse - note all the protests happening in first world countries due to system already fraying. Versus China where the bottom 50% will incrementally improve because they're barely above poverty in the first place. The income gap is so massive that it takes relative less resource redistribution to maintain stability. When 600M / 40% of the population accounts for 7% national GDP, a few years of "slow" national growth @5% generates enough wealth to increase their welfare by 40%. Compared to west where all signs indicate each generation will struggle more than the previous, combined with massive immigration and you have recipe for political instability. Unsustainable social safety net and demographic change due to immigration is as much of a ticking time bomb as declining demographics.

Keep in mind there's a legal mandate for public traded companies to increase share holders value. It's grey-ish legal requirement but I don't think the executive management wants to risk the legal consequences of doing the right thing.

Edit: it's shareholders and not stakeholders that matter.

Ah, but if you don't care about setting a public example, you can punish them in more subtle ways.

The traditional trick in corrupt countries is to have a bunch rules that aren't enforced and everyone breaks all the time - then if the leaders decide they don't like you they just start enforcing the rules on you.

A corrupt regime would simply announce they were shocked - shocked! - to find parts of Apple's Chinese supply chain had low environmental standards.