Jump to content
BANGKOK 24 July 2019 01:27
webfact

In jab at U.S., China vice president says world cannot shut China out

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Globalization started decades ago, and no degree of isolationism, based on politics and ignorance can stop it. It is the wave of the future and either you accept it, and deal with it, or you become an island unto yourself, much as America is becoming, with it's "go at it alone" agenda and sloganeering. It is fine to use as a tool to win an election, but it is not practical in the real world. We all need each other, allies are a good thing, and the practical side of things is always going to win out.

 

Sure, there is alot China can do, to improve it's trade policies. And some pressure is needed to insure that. But, there is a difference between a soft touch, and a sledgehammer. Trump is a horrible negotiator, and not much has been accomplished to date with his rabid bull in a china closet approach. No pun intended.

The U.S. has tried the soft touch for years, hence the sledgehammer. The Chinese have brought this on themselves when they demanded forced technology transfers from foreign businesses to enter the Chinese market. Foreign companies, not only American, were forced to partner with Chinese companies. Once they got their hands on the intellectual property, they opened their own companies and were given governmental preferences, the foreign companies couldn't compete and left. 

Edited by Uptooyoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/8/2019 at 12:46 PM, Mavideol said:

glad to hear but actions speak loud than words, start respecting international law, stop bullying neighbors it will lead to peace and stability

OIC, you mean trump and the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Uptooyoo said:

The U.S. has tried the soft touch for years, hence the sledgehammer. The Chinese have brought this on themselves when they demanded forced technology transfers from foreign businesses to enter the Chinese market. Foreign companies, not only American, were forced to partner with Chinese companies. Once they got their hands on the intellectual property, they opened their own companies and were given governmental preferences, the foreign companies couldn't compete and left. 

How can US or other Western companies be 'forced' to hand over IP. The companies must make a business decision for the pros and cons of entering the PRC market. Seems to me the pros won out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Mavideol said:

it's no longer $50,000, starting salary is $100,000 to have a Westerner academic listed on the Chinese university board, my friend his a well known law academic, hired early 2019 for that amount, he has been to China 3 times since he was hired (contracted) 2 times for a lecture conference (paid extra money) he said invited guests paid $10,000 to attend....

 I read an article on the New York Times about Chinese courts has a conviction rate of 90%. 

The US courts has a conviction rate of  about 50% 

China has a need for law academics ?    555 

The guy Xi is a one man lawyer for the whole country.   555   

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Uptooyoo said:

The U.S. has tried the soft touch for years, hence the sledgehammer. The Chinese have brought this on themselves when they demanded forced technology transfers from foreign businesses to enter the Chinese market. Foreign companies, not only American, were forced to partner with Chinese companies. Once they got their hands on the intellectual property, they opened their own companies and were given governmental preferences, the foreign companies couldn't compete and left. 

Those companies should have invested in India or Indonesia; 

those two countries also have a large population.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, simple1 said:

How can US or other Western companies be 'forced' to hand over IP. The companies must make a business decision for the pros and cons of entering the PRC market. Seems to me the pros won out.

 

And yet, pretty much the same comment is rejected when aired with regard to countries complying with USA sanctions on Iran. USA is a bully, China is giving a choice. Go figure.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Johnnyngai said:

 I read an article on the New York Times about Chinese courts has a conviction rate of 90%. 

The US courts has a conviction rate of  about 50% 

China has a need for law academics ?    555 

The guy Xi is a one man lawyer for the whole country.   555   

 

"In the United States federal court system, the conviction rate rose from approximately 75 percent to approximately 85% between 1972 and 1992.[13] For 2012, the US Department of Justice reported a 93% conviction rate.[14]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_rate#United_States

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, simple1 said:

IMO not a reasonable comparison. Some Western companies had gone ahead and heavily invested in Iran after the nuclear treaty was signed and are now forced to close down their operations as the US is saying it will stop all trade with companies from Allied nations who wish to carry on trading with Iran. Doubt the company Boards had factored in the US unilaterally withdrawing from the Treaty and the threatened bans when making their investment decisions.

 

Speculations about the USA pulling out from the agreement were up as soon as it was signed (and even before that). It featured in various political campaigns, not least on Trump's. Regardless, your comment boils down to the same thing - accepting China's bullying ways as how things are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Regardless, your comment boils down to the same thing - accepting China's bullying ways as how things are.

No. Companies accepting known risk of theft of IP by Chinese partners as a cost of doing business in China. The claimed cost to the US economy is US$600 billion a year, so why have the Boards of these companies gone ahead with investing in China, doesn't make sense to me unless there is a large quotient of BS.

 

 https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/28/1-in-5-companies-say-china-stole-their-ip-within-the-last-year-cnbc.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, simple1 said:

No. Companies accepting known risk of theft of IP by Chinese partners as a cost of doing business in China. The claimed cost to the US economy is US$600 billion a year, so why have the Boards of these companies gone ahead with investing in China, doesn't make sense to me unless there is a large quotient of BS.

 

 https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/28/1-in-5-companies-say-china-stole-their-ip-within-the-last-year-cnbc.html

 

Yes, I got your point the first time, thanks. My comment was about the same line of reasoning often rejected when applied elsewhere (specifically, doing business with Iran vs. USA sanctions).

 

And again, coming to the point that such "accepted risks" are deemed part and parcel of dealing with China, is one of the things that are wrong with the country and its ways.

 

Companies not doing business with China risk either losing a huge market share, or run higher production costs. Basically, China bullies companies. Now there's a whole lot of talk on these forum about the USA bullying companies from not doing business with Iran. Not that much tolerance to usage of terms such as "choices" and "accepted risks" there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some inflammatory and insulting posts and replies have been removed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...