In Germany, chancellor Scholz is actively trying to enable the sale of a third of Hamburg’s port (one of the largest in Europe) to Chinese investors by blocking a chamber vote about it. All security services and ministries sound alarm, yet if no vote is completed or investigation into the matter started by the end of the month, the contract passes by default.
Germany has not even encountered the worst effects of the energy crisis brought on by the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine. Yet the highest ranked executive politician tries to ensure that whenever China decides to follow Russias example, Germany’s economy will be destroyed in an instant.
It’s lunacy. It doesn’t even make headlines. What is going on regarding China? Is everyone with economic interests still simply blinded by the volume of the potential Chinese market? Does the Chinese government have career-ending dirt on all of them? I don’t get it. This is not regular, rational behavior for a head of state within Europe.
Trade is normal, selling out your countries’ critical infrastructure to a country holding very different values is plain unconscionable.
It appears that we can be encouraged to desire almost anything, or at least an incredible amount of things…
I'd like to note that corporations do want the same thing. I believe all power structures converge to this, no matter their origins - an abusive partner, a out of control corporation, a totalitarian government, a fanatic cult, law enforcement when given too much power.
So what remains? Forces that keep the system in balance, "checks and balances" as they say. I don't know the recipe and I don't believe anyone does. What I'd just like to point out is that corporations, as they are, are not exempt from abuses of power.
The result speaks for itself. The desire to dominate is identical, there's just more or less legal or culturally acceptable ways to going about getting there.
But yeah, it's way better.
Obviously, I'd guess the demographics of Americans is more than a quarter here, but I (think) there are enough non-Americans that you can't really be certain that the individual you're speaking to is actually American.
One datapoint: Looking at the "Human rights protection" index, US stands at -0.17, and China at -1.2.
Both individualism and collectivism have positive and negative sides. With individualism, the positive is e.g. self-expression, creativity, innovation, while the negative is e.g. selfishness and disconnection. With collectivism, the positives are e.g. connection and supporting others, while the negative is e.g. imitation and lack of diversity. Ironically, when pushed to extremes the negatives of individualism and collectivism seem to kind of equate with each other (though it may not look that way at first glance from the outside).
All this to say that yes I mostly agree with you, though it’s complicated since the pros and cons are often quite different. And I think this is often misunderstood (since people may, for example, for their own more individualist country focus on the positives of individualism while for another more collectivist country focus on the negatives of collectivism—-or vice versa).