Singapore Urges U.S. to Accept China's Rise, Spare Other Nations(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
Singapore Urges U.S. to Accept China's Rise, Spare Other Nations
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-16/singapore-urges-u-s-to-accept-china-s-rise-spare-other-nations
105 comments
Isn't the ball in China's court here? I am not sure what is the expectation of US in this. China has a completely closed market while at the same time they are reaping the benefits of selling in markets of other countries with no penalties. How is that fair? Also, they force companies to share their technologies/IP if they are interested in coming into Chinese markets - and then they just steal it to undercut the foreign companies. This honestly needs to change. When China was smaller, these tactics were ok - but to expect the world will close their eyes on their practices at the current scale is fooling oneself.
I agree on the market access point, to an extent. There an assymetry that can't stand forever, given the size of China's economy today. But, free trade has never really been free. There are tons and tons of caveats, exceptions, special rules and bad faith. So, I think it's misleading to represent china as "closed" and other countries as "open."
On the second point, I disagree.
IP is not some basic, natural law. It's a relatively recent invention, ostensibly invented to promote certain economic incentives. Why is china morally obligated to respect it?
At any given point in time, the biggest effect of an IP system is how it affects the current portfolio of patents & copyrights. That's what tends to dictate the rules. When copyright law is updated, it's the impact on Disney's IP asset portfolio that's considered... not future works that will be created. It's a similar dynamic for patents.
Why should china (or any country) have to subscribe to an IP system under which they don't own as many patents.
Meanwhile, the benefits of a patent system are contraversial, even dubious (imho). Lots of intelligent peoe think they do more harm than good. The billions spent by tech companies on patent lawyers are a case-in-poiny.
I do not think we (globally) are best served by a global IP monolith. This is one area where we can benefit from a diversity of rules.
On the second point, I disagree.
IP is not some basic, natural law. It's a relatively recent invention, ostensibly invented to promote certain economic incentives. Why is china morally obligated to respect it?
At any given point in time, the biggest effect of an IP system is how it affects the current portfolio of patents & copyrights. That's what tends to dictate the rules. When copyright law is updated, it's the impact on Disney's IP asset portfolio that's considered... not future works that will be created. It's a similar dynamic for patents.
Why should china (or any country) have to subscribe to an IP system under which they don't own as many patents.
Meanwhile, the benefits of a patent system are contraversial, even dubious (imho). Lots of intelligent peoe think they do more harm than good. The billions spent by tech companies on patent lawyers are a case-in-poiny.
I do not think we (globally) are best served by a global IP monolith. This is one area where we can benefit from a diversity of rules.
> IP is not some basic, natural law. It's a relatively recent invention, ostensibly invented to promote certain economic incentives. Why is china morally obligated to respect it?
> At any given point in time, the biggest effect of an IP system is how it affects the current portfolio of patents & copyrights. That's what tends to dictate the rules. When copyright law is updated, it's the impact on Disney's IP asset portfolio that's considered... not future works that will be created. It's a similar dynamic for patents.
> Why should china (or any country) have to subscribe to an IP system under which they don't own as many patents.
To an extent I agree with you. There are a great many problems with the current state of "Intellectual Property" law and I there's some merit to the argument that it would benefit humanity as a whole if it were scaled back drastically or even eliminated entirely.
However, China not only does not enforce US patents and copyrights but also engages in extensive industrial espionage to steal trade secrets. Even if we did not have copyright and patent law, such actions would and should still be illegal. Qualitatively, I think there's a big difference between reverse-engineering and making your own version of some company's product, and hacking into their servers and stealing the data to make it or paying an employee of theirs to exfiltrate the source artifacts for you.
Chinese companies do both. The former is sometimes permissible, at other times may violate patent or copyright law, which may or may not be seen as a bad thing depending on your views of the matter. But the latter should be rightfully condemned.
There's also the argument that even if patents are granted too freely and abused, and copyright extended far too long, that if China wants to engage in the world economy then they need to play by the same rules as everyone else, and that if they do not play by those rules then other countries are entirely justified in retaliating.
> At any given point in time, the biggest effect of an IP system is how it affects the current portfolio of patents & copyrights. That's what tends to dictate the rules. When copyright law is updated, it's the impact on Disney's IP asset portfolio that's considered... not future works that will be created. It's a similar dynamic for patents.
> Why should china (or any country) have to subscribe to an IP system under which they don't own as many patents.
To an extent I agree with you. There are a great many problems with the current state of "Intellectual Property" law and I there's some merit to the argument that it would benefit humanity as a whole if it were scaled back drastically or even eliminated entirely.
However, China not only does not enforce US patents and copyrights but also engages in extensive industrial espionage to steal trade secrets. Even if we did not have copyright and patent law, such actions would and should still be illegal. Qualitatively, I think there's a big difference between reverse-engineering and making your own version of some company's product, and hacking into their servers and stealing the data to make it or paying an employee of theirs to exfiltrate the source artifacts for you.
Chinese companies do both. The former is sometimes permissible, at other times may violate patent or copyright law, which may or may not be seen as a bad thing depending on your views of the matter. But the latter should be rightfully condemned.
There's also the argument that even if patents are granted too freely and abused, and copyright extended far too long, that if China wants to engage in the world economy then they need to play by the same rules as everyone else, and that if they do not play by those rules then other countries are entirely justified in retaliating.
Wasn't it the case that Facebook, one of the biggest American companies, bought Onavo precisely to spy on other tech companies and steal their business?
There is a HUGE difference between doing analytics/business intelligence (albeit a bit of a sketchy app, though users consented) and directly hacking into competitors with the express intent on stealing IP, which is more of the issue at hand.
According to whom?
I find them different ways of accomplishing the same thing: securing a business edge
Onavo, a VPN that secretly did device-wide spying, doesn't count as a "hack" because...?
I find them different ways of accomplishing the same thing: securing a business edge
Onavo, a VPN that secretly did device-wide spying, doesn't count as a "hack" because...?
That last one is a dangerous argument, imho. There're versions of that argument applied to labour laws, environmental laws, corporate law... It's often made by the radical EU-left. Yanis Varoufakis, most notably.
Unless you play by the same rules, free trade is unfair.
That argument is extremist, imo. It creates a dichotomy between trade or sovereignty. Want your own environmental laws, liability laws, pension schemes, oh&s rules? No trade for you.
It leads to both conflict, and the extension of the massive and very problematic trade agreements into every every facet of legislation.
IP laws can stay local. I agree on the middle point. Whatever the case for china making its own IP laws, they need to follow their own rule of law. Hacking/stealing is not justifiable. Deciding that pharma patents are not valid in China is.
Unless you play by the same rules, free trade is unfair.
That argument is extremist, imo. It creates a dichotomy between trade or sovereignty. Want your own environmental laws, liability laws, pension schemes, oh&s rules? No trade for you.
It leads to both conflict, and the extension of the massive and very problematic trade agreements into every every facet of legislation.
IP laws can stay local. I agree on the middle point. Whatever the case for china making its own IP laws, they need to follow their own rule of law. Hacking/stealing is not justifiable. Deciding that pharma patents are not valid in China is.
You've got to be trolling with your statement:
>>Why should china (or any country) have to subscribe to an IP system under which they don't own as many patents.
Is is fine if I steal from you because I don't have as much money as you do?
Or, would you prefer that I don't "subscribe to" your notion of money in your pocket as wealth because I don't have as much and therefore it is perfectly moral to take yours?
Come on - let's have a rational discussion here.
>>Why should china (or any country) have to subscribe to an IP system under which they don't own as many patents.
Is is fine if I steal from you because I don't have as much money as you do?
Or, would you prefer that I don't "subscribe to" your notion of money in your pocket as wealth because I don't have as much and therefore it is perfectly moral to take yours?
Come on - let's have a rational discussion here.
They aren't stopping other countries doing the same.
The world might be a better place if everyone stole and remixed IP
The world might be a better place if everyone stole and remixed IP
They aren't stopping other countries from doing the same yet. And the reason for that is that they are still the underdog so it makes sense to turn a blind eye to their domestic industries violating American IP laws.
Just like it makes sense for the US to enact and attempt to enforce restrictive IP laws on a global scale.
Make no mistake once China ascends they will enforce their will on the world just like the US has done and it will be ugly.
Say goodbye to democracy. Say goodbye to due process. Say hello to coercive IP law. Say hello to unimaginably restrictive DRM and surveillance.
Just like it makes sense for the US to enact and attempt to enforce restrictive IP laws on a global scale.
Make no mistake once China ascends they will enforce their will on the world just like the US has done and it will be ugly.
Say goodbye to democracy. Say goodbye to due process. Say hello to coercive IP law. Say hello to unimaginably restrictive DRM and surveillance.
America is the first mover on DRM, and there is no American company that will let me pay for a movie and download an MP4 -- I have to be logged in and stream it (some services let you download it but then disable playing after 48 hours)
Is there a similar situation in China? My sense was that the culture was much less restrictive -- all is fair, it's not worth the time and money to sue someone else into oblivion.
Is there a similar situation in China? My sense was that the culture was much less restrictive -- all is fair, it's not worth the time and money to sue someone else into oblivion.
This is the type of comment that really indicates an immensely ignorant oversimplified misunderstanding of the complexity of the Chinese political situation.
China has overthrown harsh rulers many more times than the US has, even taking into account the latter's short and young history. The last time was in 1912, and very plausibly arguably 1949 too. (The Nationalists were pretty bad, objectively speaking.)
China has overthrown harsh rulers many more times than the US has, even taking into account the latter's short and young history. The last time was in 1912, and very plausibly arguably 1949 too. (The Nationalists were pretty bad, objectively speaking.)
I wanted to reply, it said comment deleted, I reload the page, there it is again, 0 minutes ago. Nice one deleting your comment because it garnered downvotes, just to post the exact same comment again.
"the complexity of the Chinese political situation" = "China has overthrown harsh rulers many more times than the US has" is itself a simplification.
https://vimeo.com/44078865
So is this video, it's also a simplification, but more importantly, it's one of several lines in the sand: China aside, I don't want that where I live. Period. Western companies have already started to censor themselves to not offend China, and this must stop.
"the complexity of the Chinese political situation" = "China has overthrown harsh rulers many more times than the US has" is itself a simplification.
https://vimeo.com/44078865
So is this video, it's also a simplification, but more importantly, it's one of several lines in the sand: China aside, I don't want that where I live. Period. Western companies have already started to censor themselves to not offend China, and this must stop.
Yup, I'm not about to be censored by people downvoting my comments without explanation. I think the downvoting mechanic on HN is stupid.
Of course what I said is an oversimplification. It's meant to directly make you question your deep underlying assumptions, and your own oversimplifications. The government has a lot of power on paper both now and historically. Yet despite this, rebellions have still occurred regularly, and this core central power did not historically cause China to go and colonise other countries committing atrocities there. Perhaps something is missing from your own US-centric legalist analysis?
Of course what I said is an oversimplification. It's meant to directly make you question your deep underlying assumptions, and your own oversimplifications. The government has a lot of power on paper both now and historically. Yet despite this, rebellions have still occurred regularly, and this core central power did not historically cause China to go and colonise other countries committing atrocities there. Perhaps something is missing from your own US-centric legalist analysis?
Fair enough, FWIW I didn't even downvote you, I also prefer discussion.
> It's meant to directly make you question your deep underlying assumptions
"Deep underlying" being code for being made up by you on the spot?
> The government has a lot of power on paper both now and historically. Yet despite this, rebellions have still occurred regularly
The last time 1949? So, not since modern, industrialized totalitarianism took hold. That's like talking about cancer by describing the life of a person before contracting cancer.
> this core central power did not historically cause China to go and colonise other countries committing atrocities there
They already are causing Western media to censor themselves even on sites blocked in China. Mercedes Benz apologized three times for even quoting the Dalai Lama, just an inspirational quote. For me, that's three times too many. And just like I'm not over the Iraq war being a war of aggression, I will not forget or forgive this, either. You do you.
> your own US-centric legalist analysis?
Again you assumptions about my assumptions. If anything, being German, my "analysis" (of which you quote nothing, don't engage with at all) is Nazi-based.
> It's meant to directly make you question your deep underlying assumptions
"Deep underlying" being code for being made up by you on the spot?
> The government has a lot of power on paper both now and historically. Yet despite this, rebellions have still occurred regularly
The last time 1949? So, not since modern, industrialized totalitarianism took hold. That's like talking about cancer by describing the life of a person before contracting cancer.
> this core central power did not historically cause China to go and colonise other countries committing atrocities there
They already are causing Western media to censor themselves even on sites blocked in China. Mercedes Benz apologized three times for even quoting the Dalai Lama, just an inspirational quote. For me, that's three times too many. And just like I'm not over the Iraq war being a war of aggression, I will not forget or forgive this, either. You do you.
> your own US-centric legalist analysis?
Again you assumptions about my assumptions. If anything, being German, my "analysis" (of which you quote nothing, don't engage with at all) is Nazi-based.
> They already are causing Western media to censor themselves even on sites blocked in China.
This isn't on the same scale as "enforce their will on the world", and nowhere near US-levels of "enforce their will". (Not justifying this sort of action however.)
My point is you and the earlier poster are happy to extrapolate small events into big ones in a way that doesn't match the historical record. The officials of the Chinese government are not stupid and can't go too far from public opinion, which is generally more principled that you (and other US-centric "analysers") give them credit for, being too focused on the laws and ignoring many "facts on the ground". (Not implying rule-of-law is a bad thing.)
> being German,
Germany has been under US influence since 1945, so my saying your analysis is US-centric is not too far off the mark. There are differences and also similarities.
This isn't on the same scale as "enforce their will on the world", and nowhere near US-levels of "enforce their will". (Not justifying this sort of action however.)
My point is you and the earlier poster are happy to extrapolate small events into big ones in a way that doesn't match the historical record. The officials of the Chinese government are not stupid and can't go too far from public opinion, which is generally more principled that you (and other US-centric "analysers") give them credit for, being too focused on the laws and ignoring many "facts on the ground". (Not implying rule-of-law is a bad thing.)
> being German,
Germany has been under US influence since 1945, so my saying your analysis is US-centric is not too far off the mark. There are differences and also similarities.
> The officials of the Chinese government are not stupid and can't go too far from public opinion
Mercedes Benz apologized profusely. If the CCP will have their way, their murders will never have happened. The same is not true for the US, not even remotely. If that was the case, Noam Chomsky and others would have been murdered in the 70s or something. But here he is, one of the most prolific intellectuals. He gets smeared a lot, but there is still a giant difference.
That vimeo video you don't seem to be able to comment on directly is evidence of a very principled public opinion indeed, principled by fear, as a result of torture and murder.
> Germany has been under US influence since 1945, so my saying your analysis is US-centric is not too far off the mark.
More importantly, "saying your analysis is US-centric" means nothing. It's not a concrete criticism of anything I said. Your whole argument seems to be the US is worse, so how am I the US-centric one? All I'm hearing is, you're using one set of tyrants and murderers, US aggression and world influence, to justify another sets of tyrants and murderers, while saying "not justifying it however".
Mercedes Benz apologized profusely. If the CCP will have their way, their murders will never have happened. The same is not true for the US, not even remotely. If that was the case, Noam Chomsky and others would have been murdered in the 70s or something. But here he is, one of the most prolific intellectuals. He gets smeared a lot, but there is still a giant difference.
That vimeo video you don't seem to be able to comment on directly is evidence of a very principled public opinion indeed, principled by fear, as a result of torture and murder.
> Germany has been under US influence since 1945, so my saying your analysis is US-centric is not too far off the mark.
More importantly, "saying your analysis is US-centric" means nothing. It's not a concrete criticism of anything I said. Your whole argument seems to be the US is worse, so how am I the US-centric one? All I'm hearing is, you're using one set of tyrants and murderers, US aggression and world influence, to justify another sets of tyrants and murderers, while saying "not justifying it however".
[deleted]
> The world might be a better place if everyone stole and remixed IP
Until it becomes unprofitable to invest in innovation
Until it becomes unprofitable to invest in innovation
You may be mistaken about the source of a lot of "deep innovation". I know I was, when I was younger. Here is a nice example that helped shatter some of the myths I myself believed, in this case it was that Silicon Valley was the product of free enterprise:
https://youtu.be/ZTC_RxWN_xo (Secret History of Silicon Valley - Computer History Museum, Mountain View)
In reality capitalism only took over after massive (debt based!) spending by (US) government during WWII. The risky stuff doesn't happen in companies. Even things like e-cars and rockets, see Elon Musk and his companies as the most prominent examples, didn't invent any of the basics. They just take well-established concepts.
It's not either or, it's specialization: The low-probability-of-success stuff for larger society (government mostly, at this point), and when there is something to build on the more focused business people and entrepreneurs who want to see an ROI are better at executing from there on.
But, back to the comment you replied to, basic research, the risky stuff, is better off being open and available.
https://youtu.be/ZTC_RxWN_xo (Secret History of Silicon Valley - Computer History Museum, Mountain View)
In reality capitalism only took over after massive (debt based!) spending by (US) government during WWII. The risky stuff doesn't happen in companies. Even things like e-cars and rockets, see Elon Musk and his companies as the most prominent examples, didn't invent any of the basics. They just take well-established concepts.
It's not either or, it's specialization: The low-probability-of-success stuff for larger society (government mostly, at this point), and when there is something to build on the more focused business people and entrepreneurs who want to see an ROI are better at executing from there on.
But, back to the comment you replied to, basic research, the risky stuff, is better off being open and available.
Define "deep innovation". Are you saying that private enterprise is only capable of "shallow innovation"?
If so, do you think that the world will do just fine if we removed large financial rewards for "shallow innovation" like the smartphone, new drugs, medical devices, software, etc?
If so, do you think that the world will do just fine if we removed large financial rewards for "shallow innovation" like the smartphone, new drugs, medical devices, software, etc?
innovation comes from graduate students
everyone building out a new technology borrowed ideas freely without compensating the real innovators (of course, implementation can be the more difficult piece)
As long as governments subsidize public universities and research departments, there will exist a font of innovation
everyone building out a new technology borrowed ideas freely without compensating the real innovators (of course, implementation can be the more difficult piece)
As long as governments subsidize public universities and research departments, there will exist a font of innovation
> innovation comes from graduate students
This is such a sweeping statement it's just false
> everyone building out a new technology borrowed ideas freely without compensating the real innovators (of course, implementation can be the more difficult piece)
Implementation is innovation too
> As long as governments subsidize public universities and research departments, there will exist a font of innovation
We need both
This is such a sweeping statement it's just false
> everyone building out a new technology borrowed ideas freely without compensating the real innovators (of course, implementation can be the more difficult piece)
Implementation is innovation too
> As long as governments subsidize public universities and research departments, there will exist a font of innovation
We need both
China has done what every developing country should do (Edit: and what the likes of Japan and Korea did before them)
If you open your economy when you are relatively undeveloped and weak then foreign companies will immediately occupy your economy and you can forget about creating national 'champions'.
China is not a closed market but they are careful not to fall into that trap.
If you open your economy when you are relatively undeveloped and weak then foreign companies will immediately occupy your economy and you can forget about creating national 'champions'.
China is not a closed market but they are careful not to fall into that trap.
Yup, they've set it up so money can flow within their own system and their own economy can prosper, rather than money feeding out to Google or Facebook. Quality of life in China has exploded massively, and things like restaurant prices are reaching American prices, which is insane going back ten years.
And they remix the ideas of western tech and often improve upon it. WeChat is orders of magnitude more convenient than what the US has to offer. Everything is centralized and integrated, what Google tries to do, but adopted everywhere. Book anything, pay for anything, tap phone to pay for anything. I don't expect many places to take phone payments. In China, most everywhere can take phone payments.
Their social networks also seem to do great at getting things naturally viral. I posted a random video without any boosting and it got like 1.5K views in a day.
And they remix the ideas of western tech and often improve upon it. WeChat is orders of magnitude more convenient than what the US has to offer. Everything is centralized and integrated, what Google tries to do, but adopted everywhere. Book anything, pay for anything, tap phone to pay for anything. I don't expect many places to take phone payments. In China, most everywhere can take phone payments.
Their social networks also seem to do great at getting things naturally viral. I posted a random video without any boosting and it got like 1.5K views in a day.
WeChat is orders of magnitude more convenient than what the US has to offer. Everything is centralized and integrated, what Google tries to do, but adopted everywhere
Fascism has it's good points!
Seriously though, WePay isn't innovation - we could have that right now in the West. Citibank could make an app that would allow peer-to-peer money transfers with QR codes the way WePay works. It would be smooth and easy. You'd just have to have a Citibank account. After a while, everyone could get an account with Citibank and it would be great! The other banks wouldn't like it, but whatevs.
Then Citibank would realize they were the gatekeepers of the digital peer-to-peer economy and they would seek rent. Transaction fees would increase. Monthly account fees would sky-rocket. Eventually, the govt would realize this was a drain on commerce and would seek to regulate and maybe even break up Citibank, but in a rule-OF-law nation, the govt would actually have to go to court and Citibank would get to argue their case against govt intervention. It could take YEARS! Look at how long it took the govt to prosecute IBM back in the day!
Meanwhile, if Tencent gets too greedy with WePay, the govt just makes their CEO disappear. In fact, in a fascist state, having monopolies is an ADVANTAGE! It's one throat to throttle - if there's a problem, there's just one CEO you need to kill.
WePay isn't innovative - it's just something that works particularly well in a fascist state. Getting the whole banking industry to agree to communicate and cooperate on a common mobile payment system is a bit more difficult...
Update - s/rule-by-law/rule-OF-law/
Fascism has it's good points!
Seriously though, WePay isn't innovation - we could have that right now in the West. Citibank could make an app that would allow peer-to-peer money transfers with QR codes the way WePay works. It would be smooth and easy. You'd just have to have a Citibank account. After a while, everyone could get an account with Citibank and it would be great! The other banks wouldn't like it, but whatevs.
Then Citibank would realize they were the gatekeepers of the digital peer-to-peer economy and they would seek rent. Transaction fees would increase. Monthly account fees would sky-rocket. Eventually, the govt would realize this was a drain on commerce and would seek to regulate and maybe even break up Citibank, but in a rule-OF-law nation, the govt would actually have to go to court and Citibank would get to argue their case against govt intervention. It could take YEARS! Look at how long it took the govt to prosecute IBM back in the day!
Meanwhile, if Tencent gets too greedy with WePay, the govt just makes their CEO disappear. In fact, in a fascist state, having monopolies is an ADVANTAGE! It's one throat to throttle - if there's a problem, there's just one CEO you need to kill.
WePay isn't innovative - it's just something that works particularly well in a fascist state. Getting the whole banking industry to agree to communicate and cooperate on a common mobile payment system is a bit more difficult...
Update - s/rule-by-law/rule-OF-law/
The US is is a rule-OF-law country, China is rule-BY-law. The difference is that in rule-OF-law, the government is subject to the law. In rule-BY-law, the law is the tool the government uses to rule (dominate), that is, rule by means of law. It may sound nitpicky, but it’s a rather big difference.
It's not nit-picking - that's very interesting. Thanks for the correction.
I would just like to say that contactless chip cards are ubiquitous, do not require a battery, are more secure (no reliance on QR codes) and have been around for years in the West.
It isn't the same thing by any means, and doesn't really offer much over cards other than a slight improvement in convenience. Mobile payments in China are essentially peer-to-peer and universal. The closest equivalent is probably something like MobilePay or Swish, but that isn't as good or as widespread.
Peer-to-peer in the same way that PayPal is peer-to-peer. There's still a central entity somewhere holding all the money and data.
Sure, but cards are even more centralized.
The "feature" of WeChat is that it can be used for almost anything. It is a cash successor more so that a card alternative. Anyone can print, display or scan a QR code. Doesn't matter if it is a store, a friend or a random person. Doesn't matter if it is in the physical world, on a website or in a chat. And it is easy to do. And almost everyone uses it.
Contactless cards only matches WeChat in the same way something like Apple Pay does.
The "feature" of WeChat is that it can be used for almost anything. It is a cash successor more so that a card alternative. Anyone can print, display or scan a QR code. Doesn't matter if it is a store, a friend or a random person. Doesn't matter if it is in the physical world, on a website or in a chat. And it is easy to do. And almost everyone uses it.
Contactless cards only matches WeChat in the same way something like Apple Pay does.
I am not seeing the value in being able to print QR codes unless your business is selling fruit on the street (to be fair, a lot of businesses in China are just this).
The more secure analogy comparable in price would be solutions like Square and PayPal Here. Smartphones are ubiquitous.
The more secure analogy comparable in price would be solutions like Square and PayPal Here. Smartphones are ubiquitous.
My contactless card works nowhere outside my small home country. Meanwhile Chinese tourists are there seamlessly buying food from 7/11 with alipay whole I go through the full pin and card thing.
As the other reply says too, any shop can set this up easily. I challenge you to take contactless payments in your home country, it's nothing like simply getting a qr payment and involves merchant banking.
I've seen tiny remote rural village stores that would never even imagine having a visa PoS terminal with big wechat payment signs out front.
As the other reply says too, any shop can set this up easily. I challenge you to take contactless payments in your home country, it's nothing like simply getting a qr payment and involves merchant banking.
I've seen tiny remote rural village stores that would never even imagine having a visa PoS terminal with big wechat payment signs out front.
I've used contactless Visa to buy things in Japan, Singapore and several other places. It's a UK card though so maybe there's something different going on there
I find it scary that you get downvoted for saying something you can find in an economics textbook.
I think despite their best efforts, most people are still more or less influenced by nationalism. Not just Americans, but anyone in the world can be afflicted with nationalism that impacts true neutrality of viewpoints.
Since y combinator new is most frequented by people from the US and other western nations that are having this conflict with China right now, my belief is that their emotions guide their logic. So everything that China does is bad and western countries are the victims. Which is the narrative that is also being strongly pushed in the American media and to a smaller extent other western media.
But as a Singaporean living in Asia, I don't see anything wrong with China's development path. It is developing the same way as almost every other industrialised nation in the world did. First by blatant disregard for IP and then slowly as it progresses up the economic ladder, it provides more and more protection for IP. China today and China ten years ago is vastly different in terms of the amount of the strength of its IP protection enforcement. And with its current trajectory, it will be vastly stronger in ten years still. With regards to barriers to imports, China has less barriers than most of the other developing nations and reducing sharply each year.
Instead of recognising this fact and working to hasten IP protections, America seems to me to be going on a mutually destructive path that is bad for everyone in the region if not the world. That makes me suspect this is not really about IP and prosperity but power which unlike the former, is zero-sum.
Its one thing for the average person on the street, but I don't understand why intelligent people in the West find it so difficult to separate facts from fiction and emotions from logic.
Lastly, I would like to add. There is nothing inherently moral or immoral about IP. It's just a way for the incumbents to protect their position. Making this a moral problem (Chinese bad because they steal IP) is not the right approach.
Since y combinator new is most frequented by people from the US and other western nations that are having this conflict with China right now, my belief is that their emotions guide their logic. So everything that China does is bad and western countries are the victims. Which is the narrative that is also being strongly pushed in the American media and to a smaller extent other western media.
But as a Singaporean living in Asia, I don't see anything wrong with China's development path. It is developing the same way as almost every other industrialised nation in the world did. First by blatant disregard for IP and then slowly as it progresses up the economic ladder, it provides more and more protection for IP. China today and China ten years ago is vastly different in terms of the amount of the strength of its IP protection enforcement. And with its current trajectory, it will be vastly stronger in ten years still. With regards to barriers to imports, China has less barriers than most of the other developing nations and reducing sharply each year.
Instead of recognising this fact and working to hasten IP protections, America seems to me to be going on a mutually destructive path that is bad for everyone in the region if not the world. That makes me suspect this is not really about IP and prosperity but power which unlike the former, is zero-sum.
Its one thing for the average person on the street, but I don't understand why intelligent people in the West find it so difficult to separate facts from fiction and emotions from logic.
Lastly, I would like to add. There is nothing inherently moral or immoral about IP. It's just a way for the incumbents to protect their position. Making this a moral problem (Chinese bad because they steal IP) is not the right approach.
Agreed. A good book on this subject is "How Asia Works" by Joe Studwell.
This is accurate.
For example, India doesn't have Alibaba or Tencent or whatever because they allowed in foreign companies with stronger currencies too soon.
USA set the rules after WW2. China played the game according to those rules. Countries that didn't were either smashed economically or by warfare.
For example, India doesn't have Alibaba or Tencent or whatever because they allowed in foreign companies with stronger currencies too soon.
USA set the rules after WW2. China played the game according to those rules. Countries that didn't were either smashed economically or by warfare.
>Also, they force companies to share their technologies/IP if they are interested in coming into Chinese markets - and then they just steal it to undercut the foreign companies.
That's a great way to copyright reform right there!
That's a great way to copyright reform right there!
>Also, they force companies to share their technologies/IP if they are interested in coming into Chinese markets - and then they just steal it to undercut the foreign companies.
If the companies are willingly going to the Chinese markets on their own accord under an IP sharing agreement, you can no longer use the term "force". They have a choice to not share it by not entering the market. You can critique this as an inherent weakness of capitalism, but China is not forcing anybody in this situation.
And why would they have to steal it if its already shared? This doesn't even make any sense.
If the companies are willingly going to the Chinese markets on their own accord under an IP sharing agreement, you can no longer use the term "force". They have a choice to not share it by not entering the market. You can critique this as an inherent weakness of capitalism, but China is not forcing anybody in this situation.
And why would they have to steal it if its already shared? This doesn't even make any sense.
> I am not sure what is the expectation of US in this. China has a completely closed market
That's a big big stretch. It's more open than a big part of Western countries.
That's a big big stretch. It's more open than a big part of Western countries.
1. There is a blanket ban on anything media related
2. Select heavy industries
3. Defence
4. Agriculture *production*how is china a closed market? germany sells plenty of cars there...
They force foreign manufacturers to create local businesses with 50% chinese share.
A necessary strategy for any developing nation. If you allow imports with no local manufacturing requirement, other nations have incentives to dump products onto your markets to increase production. Open trade only really works if both sides can see eye to eye. Otherwise the developing nation will be stuck producing cheap products with little to no added value.
Hong Kong had unilateral free trade throughout decades of almost uninterrupted economic growth. If you produce cheap products you develop expertise that you can leverage to eventually produce more expensive ones. This process of learning by doing does not depend on tariff barriers and tariff barriers will not make it work either. Argentina produced cars domestically for decades that were more expensive and higher price than the world market and as soon as tariff protection was withdrawn the industry disappeared, after having wasted millions of dollars over decades.
this is a good way to avoid getting colonized by american companies
didn't know that.how would they measure chinese share. these days with trust funds i imagine it's pretty difficult to know exactly who owns something
That's just common sense for a developing economy.
until Tesla came :)
As others has observed the economies of USA and China are tied at the hip.
China sells goods cheaply to USA and takes the dollars it makes and invest in US treasuries. This keeps inflation low and keeps interest rates low. And allows the US to maintain an unnatural high living standard with low savings and asset price inflation.
The central bank may be able to compensate from the lack of Chinese buying but it is an unsustainable situation as the inflationary pressure from the lack of imports would be in full force.
Also notice that Singapore seems to be saying: Please don't ask us to pick sides ...
The US may have fewer friends in Asia than it assumes.
China sells goods cheaply to USA and takes the dollars it makes and invest in US treasuries. This keeps inflation low and keeps interest rates low. And allows the US to maintain an unnatural high living standard with low savings and asset price inflation.
The central bank may be able to compensate from the lack of Chinese buying but it is an unsustainable situation as the inflationary pressure from the lack of imports would be in full force.
Also notice that Singapore seems to be saying: Please don't ask us to pick sides ...
The US may have fewer friends in Asia than it assumes.
> Also notice that Singapore seems to be saying: Please don't ask us to pick sides ...
> The US may have fewer friends in Asia than it assumes.
Isn't Singapore political system famously authoritarian capitalist and its people ethnically Chinese? It might be a mistake as viewing it too much of a representative of the rest of Asia. It sounds very similar to contemporary China, in many respects, so it may have an unusually strong affinity to it.
https://www.hrw.org/asia/singapore:
> Singapore’s political environment is stifling. Citizens face severe restrictions on their basic rights to freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly through overly broad criminal laws and regulations. In 2017, the country tightened the already strict limits on public assemblies contained in the Public Order Act, which requires police permits for any “cause-related” assembly outside the closely monitored “Speakers’ Corner.”
> The US may have fewer friends in Asia than it assumes.
Isn't Singapore political system famously authoritarian capitalist and its people ethnically Chinese? It might be a mistake as viewing it too much of a representative of the rest of Asia. It sounds very similar to contemporary China, in many respects, so it may have an unusually strong affinity to it.
https://www.hrw.org/asia/singapore:
> Singapore’s political environment is stifling. Citizens face severe restrictions on their basic rights to freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly through overly broad criminal laws and regulations. In 2017, the country tightened the already strict limits on public assemblies contained in the Public Order Act, which requires police permits for any “cause-related” assembly outside the closely monitored “Speakers’ Corner.”
> The central bank may be able to compensate from the lack of Chinese buying but it is an unsustainable situation as the inflationary pressure from the lack of imports would be in full force.
I doubt if low inflation enviroment is high on current administration list. On the contrary. Some inflation could stimulate economy.
I doubt if low inflation enviroment is high on current administration list. On the contrary. Some inflation could stimulate economy.
Yes. China is far closer with more military and no nominal compunctions about human rights that the US sort of has. They'll pick their poison to be China as the greater threat to appease.
Singapore is smart. Nobody can rely on a government on the other side of the planet with a history of war-mongering. For Singapore, their geographic proximity is more important than a fiat hegemony.
> we also want China to be able to assume its rightful place as it develops and becomes a superpower in its own right,
Singapore economy is depending on trade and prolonged trade war will ruin Singapore with its unsustainable debt.
But how does China 'assuming its rightful place' should look in practical terms? Withdrawing US fleets from Pacific? Allowing East Asia to become China's vasal teritory? Tolerating growing economic and military threat?
Singapore economy is depending on trade and prolonged trade war will ruin Singapore with its unsustainable debt.
But how does China 'assuming its rightful place' should look in practical terms? Withdrawing US fleets from Pacific? Allowing East Asia to become China's vasal teritory? Tolerating growing economic and military threat?
FYI, the Singapore public debt is objectively not unsustainable. On the surface, Singapore's public debt-to-GDP ratio is at around 110%, which is slightly higher than the US. Over the course of Singapore's history, each term of the government operated on a balanced budget (i.e., revenue >= expenditure). The government bonds are issue to "develop the domestic debt market". In fact, the government is legally not allowed to spend the proceed of the public debt.
For more information, see https://www.gov.sg/factually/content/is-it-fiscally-sustaina....
For more information, see https://www.gov.sg/factually/content/is-it-fiscally-sustaina....
Running short and long term debt balances to create financial market liquidity isn't uncommon. When Australia reached zero long-term debt in the early 2000s, the government continued raising and retiring hundreds of billions of dollars of debt on a regular cadence to provide AUD liquidity in the debt markets.
Any nation of the Singapore's size would be ruined without trade. That's independent of debt levels, Singapore has to specialize and just cannot run a self-sustaining economy.
> But how does China 'assuming its rightful place' should look in practical terms?
> Allowing East Asia to become China's vassal territory?
Sure, in much the same way that it was in the past, and in much the same way that all of North and South America are vassals to the United States.
It is not realistic for East and even Southeast Asian countries to care more about what the US thinks than what China thinks; I don't understand how people can advocate for this goal with a straight face.
> Allowing East Asia to become China's vassal territory?
Sure, in much the same way that it was in the past, and in much the same way that all of North and South America are vassals to the United States.
It is not realistic for East and even Southeast Asian countries to care more about what the US thinks than what China thinks; I don't understand how people can advocate for this goal with a straight face.
East Asia is vassal to the US at the moment...
I think countries like Singapore, Korea, etc do not want the US, Korea, to leave. They are between a rock and a hard place and want to balance the US and China in order not to become too dependent on one and to benefit from both.
Singapore, which is quite "China-friendly" is saying exactly that.
What I find interesting is that the West in general, and obviously the US in particular, indeed cannot seem to imagine or accept that their complete dominance of the world is coming to an end. This is a rude awakening.
Singapore, which has an history of promoting "Asian values" and is a former British colony with 70%+ ethnic Chinese is very well place to tell us things as they are.
I think countries like Singapore, Korea, etc do not want the US, Korea, to leave. They are between a rock and a hard place and want to balance the US and China in order not to become too dependent on one and to benefit from both.
Singapore, which is quite "China-friendly" is saying exactly that.
What I find interesting is that the West in general, and obviously the US in particular, indeed cannot seem to imagine or accept that their complete dominance of the world is coming to an end. This is a rude awakening.
Singapore, which has an history of promoting "Asian values" and is a former British colony with 70%+ ethnic Chinese is very well place to tell us things as they are.
> Singapore, which is quite "China-friendly" is saying exactly that.
No, that is a fundamental misjudge. Singapore can be safely regarded as one of major anti China forces in the region. If you just look back several years, Singapore actually managed to got itself in the anti China side on almost every single recent major events.
No, that is a fundamental misjudge. Singapore can be safely regarded as one of major anti China forces in the region. If you just look back several years, Singapore actually managed to got itself in the anti China side on almost every single recent major events.
Singapore is certainly not anti-China, and this speech shows it.
South America is not a US vassals. Some of the tiny countries that were invaded have strong dependency on the US. But Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Peru, Mexico, Venezuela
I struggle to believe they are. Where ever did you get that idea from
I struggle to believe they are. Where ever did you get that idea from
Look at places holding US debt to identify vasal States.
The debt is what defends the state. A coup or military takeover and that debt won't get repaid, so there is financial incentives for the US to intervene.
The debt is what defends the state. A coup or military takeover and that debt won't get repaid, so there is financial incentives for the US to intervene.
That is so not why treasury bonds are bought and the opposite of how they work. They are bought to be stable and value stores and some exchange rate hedging. It acknowledges supremacy sure in that they think it would be extraordinarily less likely to collapse.
They pay the money upfront for them and if the regieme change was illegitimate enough to freeze the bond it would be "free money" until a legitimate claimant comes forward. Like a neighboring city's bank refusing to turn over money from the account of Gotham after joker took over the city. That is the only securing function of it - meaning others lose it if they steal it.
They pay the money upfront for them and if the regieme change was illegitimate enough to freeze the bond it would be "free money" until a legitimate claimant comes forward. Like a neighboring city's bank refusing to turn over money from the account of Gotham after joker took over the city. That is the only securing function of it - meaning others lose it if they steal it.
So, China is a U.S. vassal state?
Civilization games taught me that vassals, when powerful enough can break their vassalage and become free again.
Perhaps that's what is happening with China. It's no longer dependent on the US in the way it was and in time, will eclipse the US as the largest superpower.
Perhaps that's what is happening with China. It's no longer dependent on the US in the way it was and in time, will eclipse the US as the largest superpower.
China isn't a U.S. vassal. An economic partner of convenience, maybe, the U.S. influence on China's political structure is pretty limited.
It's easy to understand if you agree that US hypocrisy is crucially protected by manufactured consent and propaganda. Most people fall in two categories, either a) not heard of Chomsky, or b) think he's wrong.
> Most people fall in two categories, either a) not heard of Chomsky, or b) think he's wrong.
On HN of all places I suspect that most people fall in a third category:
c) related to designing & parsing grammars
On HN of all places I suspect that most people fall in a third category:
c) related to designing & parsing grammars
It would be so much easier to accept China's rise if they weren’t pulling a North Korea and imprisoning a million minorities with dystopian technology solutions.
I don’t think China realized how that policy is going to backfire in terms of their relationship with the West.
We want to see countries with individual rights rise, not authoritarians.
I don’t think China realized how that policy is going to backfire in terms of their relationship with the West.
We want to see countries with individual rights rise, not authoritarians.
Aren’t the people they are imprisoning criminals that broke the law? For perspective, the US has 2.2 million minorities in prison.
There are 11 million Uighurs, and about a million in the camps. There are over 30 million blacks in the US, and under a million blacks in jail. (2.2 million is the total number of prisoners.)
The situation in Xinjiang is therefore much worse.
Most of the people concerned should not be locked up anyway—think of people who can’t afford to pay fines in the US, or people who pray in Xinjiang. It is extremely rare that a population is so poorly socialised that it is necessary to imprison over a tenth of the population. Perhaps they are in some strict sense “criminals”, but China can choose who to criminalise (as can the US), and it is clearly making unhelpful decisions.
The situation in Xinjiang is therefore much worse.
Most of the people concerned should not be locked up anyway—think of people who can’t afford to pay fines in the US, or people who pray in Xinjiang. It is extremely rare that a population is so poorly socialised that it is necessary to imprison over a tenth of the population. Perhaps they are in some strict sense “criminals”, but China can choose who to criminalise (as can the US), and it is clearly making unhelpful decisions.
So, I'm not making a value judgement of what's going on but I always cringe when I see complicated geopolitical actions being reduced to one line talking points on HN. Of course it is actually much more nuanced in reality.
These observations about imprisoning minorities always fail to include information about past terrorist attacks and militant activity in the region. Most of the people in the reeducation centers were sent there for things such as spreading Islamic propaganda glorifying suicide bombings.The reality of the situation is more nuanced than the depiction by western media. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_China
In December 2016 in Xinjiang, Islamic militants drove a vehicle into a yard at the county Communist party offices and set off a bomb but were all shot dead. Three people were wounded and one other died.
In July 2011, At least 18 people died in a series of alleged terrorist attacks in the city of Kashgar. According to state-run media accounts, the violence began when two Uyghur men hijacked a truck, ran it into a crowded street, and started stabbing people, killing six. The attack ended when the assailants were overpowered by the crowd, which killed one attacker. On the second day, state media reported that a "group of armed terrorists" stormed a restaurant, killed the owner and a waiter, and set it ablaze. They then proceeded to indiscriminately kill four more civilians. Armed clashes then reportedly ensured, ending with police capturing or killing the attackers. The Turkistan Islamic Party later claimed responsibility for the attack. One of the suspects appeared in a TIP video training in Pakistan.
In March 2015 in Guangzhou, three ethnic Uyghur assailants with long knives attacked civilians at Guangzhou train station, 13 injured.
In November 2014 in Xinjian, militants with knives and explosives attacked civilians, 15 dead and 14 injured. 14 of the 15 deaths were attackers
In May 2014 in Ürümqi, Xinjiang, Two sport utility vehicles (SUVs) carrying five assailants were driven into a busy street market in Ürümqi. Up to a dozen explosives were thrown at shoppers from the windows of the SUVs. The SUVs crashed into shoppers then collided with each other and exploded. 43 people were killed, including 4 of the assailants, and more than 90 wounded.
There are many more. Again, I'm not making of value judgement here but I think everyone should think critically and really understand what's going on from multiple points of view.
These observations about imprisoning minorities always fail to include information about past terrorist attacks and militant activity in the region. Most of the people in the reeducation centers were sent there for things such as spreading Islamic propaganda glorifying suicide bombings.The reality of the situation is more nuanced than the depiction by western media. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_China
In December 2016 in Xinjiang, Islamic militants drove a vehicle into a yard at the county Communist party offices and set off a bomb but were all shot dead. Three people were wounded and one other died.
In July 2011, At least 18 people died in a series of alleged terrorist attacks in the city of Kashgar. According to state-run media accounts, the violence began when two Uyghur men hijacked a truck, ran it into a crowded street, and started stabbing people, killing six. The attack ended when the assailants were overpowered by the crowd, which killed one attacker. On the second day, state media reported that a "group of armed terrorists" stormed a restaurant, killed the owner and a waiter, and set it ablaze. They then proceeded to indiscriminately kill four more civilians. Armed clashes then reportedly ensured, ending with police capturing or killing the attackers. The Turkistan Islamic Party later claimed responsibility for the attack. One of the suspects appeared in a TIP video training in Pakistan.
In March 2015 in Guangzhou, three ethnic Uyghur assailants with long knives attacked civilians at Guangzhou train station, 13 injured.
In November 2014 in Xinjian, militants with knives and explosives attacked civilians, 15 dead and 14 injured. 14 of the 15 deaths were attackers
In May 2014 in Ürümqi, Xinjiang, Two sport utility vehicles (SUVs) carrying five assailants were driven into a busy street market in Ürümqi. Up to a dozen explosives were thrown at shoppers from the windows of the SUVs. The SUVs crashed into shoppers then collided with each other and exploded. 43 people were killed, including 4 of the assailants, and more than 90 wounded.
There are many more. Again, I'm not making of value judgement here but I think everyone should think critically and really understand what's going on from multiple points of view.
It’s not clear that the situation is “geopolitical”, but, more importantly, simply pointing to terrorism is not helpful either.
(1) The area is not inherently Chinese. China does not need to occupy Xinjiang. It has belonged to other people at other points. (See texts on the Islamic conquest.)
(2) China has encouraged mass Han immigration to Xinjiang. The Han who moved were not moving because of hunger or thirst. They moved because the state provided incentives to do so.
(3) Radicalisation is largely driven by ideologies that the CCP helped to support in the first place, when sowing chaos in Afghanistan without deciding what to do next. Of course it did not do so alone—the Americans and Pakistanis were also involved. But it at least props up Pakistan who continue to empower the Taliban.
(4) The Chinese state is very violent—and more violent than most other states.
Ergo it is misleading to suggest that the Uighurs are being particularly violent, and to imply that they are simply being violent for the sake of it. China could try a number of things, including getting out, reducing violence against Uighurs, and ceasing to incentivise Han migration.
(1) The area is not inherently Chinese. China does not need to occupy Xinjiang. It has belonged to other people at other points. (See texts on the Islamic conquest.)
(2) China has encouraged mass Han immigration to Xinjiang. The Han who moved were not moving because of hunger or thirst. They moved because the state provided incentives to do so.
(3) Radicalisation is largely driven by ideologies that the CCP helped to support in the first place, when sowing chaos in Afghanistan without deciding what to do next. Of course it did not do so alone—the Americans and Pakistanis were also involved. But it at least props up Pakistan who continue to empower the Taliban.
(4) The Chinese state is very violent—and more violent than most other states.
Ergo it is misleading to suggest that the Uighurs are being particularly violent, and to imply that they are simply being violent for the sake of it. China could try a number of things, including getting out, reducing violence against Uighurs, and ceasing to incentivise Han migration.
Please read about the colonialist-style policies openly being carried out by China in co-opting land and territory of poorer nations:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/world/asia/china-sri-lank...
Speaking personally as a citizen of a neighbouring nation - I would rather have a democratic and open nation like the United States as the sole-superpower of the world. China as an established super-power would be a tyrannical nightmare.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/world/asia/china-sri-lank...
Speaking personally as a citizen of a neighbouring nation - I would rather have a democratic and open nation like the United States as the sole-superpower of the world. China as an established super-power would be a tyrannical nightmare.
As someone who watches the very unusual moderation of China-critical comments on HN (+3 one moment, -3 a few hours later) I'm wary of a political piece praising China hitting #1 on HN.
I also don't see the value of Singapore - which is openly anti democratic (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/singapore-challenges-democrac...) providing advice here - as the same concerns about authoritarian corruption that apply to China also apply to Singapore.
I also don't see the value of Singapore - which is openly anti democratic (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/singapore-challenges-democrac...) providing advice here - as the same concerns about authoritarian corruption that apply to China also apply to Singapore.
I think it is very polarised topic.
I noticed a pattern few month ago: you have a lot of bashing during East coast morning hours, followed by much more conciliatory toned wave of comments few hours after, when East coast wakes up.
I noticed a pattern few month ago: you have a lot of bashing during East coast morning hours, followed by much more conciliatory toned wave of comments few hours after, when East coast wakes up.
I worked in Singapore in 2016 and in my exploration of various neighborhoods I did not see abject squalor, as seen in East LA, West Chicago, etc. people seemed employed and happy.
BTW, your comment on moderation is interesting.
BTW, your comment on moderation is interesting.
Usually any claim of "poverty doesn't exist here" is not going to be very close to being accurate.
https://borgenproject.org/top-10-facts-about-poverty-in-sing...
https://borgenproject.org/top-10-facts-about-poverty-in-sing...
it is up to each nation to choose it's form of government. it is not one size fits all
A friend who grew up in Singapore describes it as the capitalist version of North Korea
Saying the people of China have 'chosen not to choose' is bizarre and disingenuous - you are twisting the notion of freedom to imply Chinese people have chosen not to be free. The Chinese people have never in recent memory chosen the Chinese communist party to represent them exclusively.
as opposed to the illusion of choice provided in de facto two party "democracies"?
Yes, there's a world of difference between being able to choose from one option or 2.
As to the choice being an illusion because two parties often rule: tell that to the Whigs (one of the two parties that no longer exists in the UK), or to anyone that's held a balance of power in a coalition government.
As to the choice being an illusion because two parties often rule: tell that to the Whigs (one of the two parties that no longer exists in the UK), or to anyone that's held a balance of power in a coalition government.
ptah(1)
Singapore: Don't make us choose because we will choose China.
Lee Kuan Yew had some interesting and prescient insights about China in 1967: https://youtu.be/VexrmTacOAA
You should read his book: One Man's View of the World
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18297494-one-man-s-view-...
It's very concise, written in fairly casual tone and in my opinion, spot on for the most part. One point he kept making throughout the book is Singapore will not stop working with a superpower because another superpower don't like it.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18297494-one-man-s-view-...
It's very concise, written in fairly casual tone and in my opinion, spot on for the most part. One point he kept making throughout the book is Singapore will not stop working with a superpower because another superpower don't like it.
Thanks for the suggestion, I will check it out
Many people are talking about Vietnam now, but without realising that they are dealing with the same Chinese factory companies who just expanded their business there.
US should make policies that are good for its citizens, its factories and its companies, not Singapore.
Singapore can survive as a country with mostly trade, IP, high tech, low taxes, services. Singapore doesn’t even have power plants, all from Malaysia.
But despite the dreams of some people, a big country like US cannot just be a service economy like Singapore.... so while I disagree with Trump on many other issues, I cam’t really fault him here, and I hope next American democratic president will not soften its stance.
Singapore can survive as a country with mostly trade, IP, high tech, low taxes, services. Singapore doesn’t even have power plants, all from Malaysia.
But despite the dreams of some people, a big country like US cannot just be a service economy like Singapore.... so while I disagree with Trump on many other issues, I cam’t really fault him here, and I hope next American democratic president will not soften its stance.
I wonder why Singapore didn't say such things decades ago when the confrontation between US and the Soviet Union hit up? Because today confrontation still looks very much similar: between the free democratic bloc and a communist aggressive country (or bloc, maybe). Admittedly, the current conflict involves a lot of money and trade but most of all it's about geopolitical power, not soybeans or chips.
Because they didn't have nearly the developed economy that they do now? They probably also didn't have as much influence and maybe weren't really seen as a regional player?