This amuses me greatly. I had no idea China is explicitly pro-market capitalism.
It blinds people to the obvious fact that the US is heavily using anti free market tactics to end globalism while China is not acting as the aggressor here.
Trying to appeal to some higher ideal of "free market" between countries is just silly. Did China and EU sign a comprehensive free trade agreement when I was asleep? (as Netherlands is an EU country and all cross border trade lawmaking is offloaded to the EU). If not, they really should just shut up.
There of course exists a World Trade Organisation which is like a treaty that essentially says "we're not going to engage in targeted regulation", but it has caveats "unless it has to do with national security" and few other things. So it's really a framework to facilitate trade rather than a global free market.
Tell that to the US and Americans that don't shut up about it any time a country other than theirs does something even vaguely protectionist. It will never not be funny that Boeing pushed Bombardier over the edge with protectionist tariffs over state subsidies while simultaneously suing Airbus for getting state subsidies while simultaneously getting billions of state subsidies themselves.
For example the recent real estate bubble pop was intentional. They've recognized for a decade that the real estate market is dysfunctional and that people shouldn't invest all their money into a rent-seeking unproductive dead-end. Instead, they want the market to redirect their money to advanced technology like advanced manufacturing, semiconductors, AI, etc. And that's happening now.
China generally speaking is very free from a business/trade perspective, the exceptions to that are mostly related to finance or national security sensitive industries.
I would say the Chinese aspire to be more on the EU-esq end of the regulation spectrum than the US though. So over time they are trending towards more regulation even as they open up areas that were traditionally SOE only to private enterprise.
Yes, those things are off limits. Now, how do you define what's finance or national security? Whatever they need to control (the US does this too).
All of these "China is a free market" comments are funny; their capital markets are closed, you can't freely move money in and out without government permission.
Who are "the Russians"? The party elites who invaded another country on a whim? Their relatives and cozy oligarch friends with yachts and London flats? The residents of Russia who pay taxes and finance the war?
As a Russian not in those categories I did and do business with US companies/freelancing platforms (except for a few specific ones like Github) and my meagre assets are OK. Even if I was back in Russia I would be able to get my funds out until I get suspended
US can even invade any other country tomorrow. There are risks everywhere, every country has to evaluate "Do I need to insure myself against US invasion / asset freeze in the next 5 years? How much will such insurance cost?". Unless you plan to invade your neighbor, the chances of such events are pretty low and the cost of insurance usually does not outweigh the benefits.
Japan attacked because they were running out of fuel and had to act quickly (either strike, or back down in China which they didn't want to). Without an embargo, they would have just continued their war in China.
RMB is simply only limited convertible, it is not freely convertible like CHF, EUD, AUD, USD, JPY, etc...it isn't very useful for trade, and even the Chinese will convert to dollars and use the American financial system because the Chinese system is so limited.
That the state reserves the right to interfere as it sees fit doesn’t make it not capitalist. Unless the current chip war is evidence of America being not capitalist.
This is what differentiates capitalism (US, Europe etc) from authoritarianism (China) or mafia run states(Russia).