Nah, in the end I bought Geely stock first then NIO sometime later, as Chinese auto stocks seemed like a safer bet and good potential for market share growth, although NIO ended up outperforming Geely which was a bit of a unexpected but pleasant surprise. Regarding oil stocks, Petro China would be a safe purchase for dividend generation, but I'd also recommend looking for energy companies with a good diversity of energy tech developments (such as fuel cells) and production of value-added goods such as lubricants, as these will be in consistent demand, shows foresightedness in dealing with technological and environmental change and is a good indicator of long term value. If I had more cash right now I'd get some BYD stocks as I missed the initial jump so now is a good point to get in relatively speaking.
Chinese Economics Thread
- Thread starter Norfolk
- Start date
Which corruption index do you mean? Transparency International's a poll of Westerners (mostly), and therefore reflects Western attitudes. These same Westerners were confident that the US would have the best response to a pandemic.
Billionaires are not the only employers. ", "small businesses with fewer than 50 employees make up approximately 95 percent of American business establishments and employ 40 percent of private sector workers." China's private sector is quite likely similar.
China also has enormous State Owned Enterprises (SOEs).
So the billionaires are not necessary. As their potential corruption is a serious threat to China, that potential must be curbed before the billionaires become too powerful.
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
From an economic standpoint, it may be fine but from a technological standpoint, it could not be more wrong. All major technological companies in the US are worth many billions of dollars. These are the critical companies that buttress American power worldwide. If they all disappeared, America would be naked and vulnerable.
And they could use a lot of help from private tech companies worth many billions like Huawei, Tencent, etc... An SOE like ZTE got knocked on its ass at the opening bell against the US. Huawei fights on and perseveres.
For economic survival but in a high tech international competition where every contribution matters, they are critical.
Curbed, tacked, leashed, whatever word you want to use, it means nothing if you cannot define it in your context.
Why are you fixated on taxes? That by the way is a very American attitude. I did not suggest any new taxes. My proposal was to make the wealthiest people's actions more open to public scrutiny.
Americans also foolishly thought their legal system would catch the criminals. It doesn't even catch the biggest crooks. How many trillions of dollars have been robbed from the American people in the last few years?
What you say is largely true of the US. However, is the Chinese Academy of Sciences owned by a billionaire?
Even if we ignore China's state-owned universities, we have the example of Huawei, one of the most technologically innovative companies in the world: it's owned by its employees.
Billionaires are not necessary for technological development.
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
How open? More open than someone with a regular amount of wealth? How is it enforced? Are you suggesting that once someone reaches above a certain level of wealth that s/he be stripped of his/her human right to privacy? That's ok with you? That's not persecuting success?
First of all, I don't agree with the term, "robbed." If you're talking about corrupt and crooked billionaires, then fine, nobody wants to defend them, but don't make it sound like anybody who's rich robbed their poor workers. These people saw a job opening, drafted up a resume, put on a suit, went to an interview basically begging for a job, and likely did a little dance too when they got the offer. So they have absolutely nothing to stand on when they try to say their employers "robbed" them just because they can't be as rich as their bosses working under them. Leave and go somewhere else if you don't like where you are.
Now then, to the actual point, yeah, these billionaires took trillions out of the US economy for themselves. And what did they give back? They created technology that gave America global supremacy. It's a good deal if you can afford it, otherwise, you can sit back and be a mediocre (or just low tech) irrelevant country forever. That's not what China wants.
Now that's something you admit under pressure LOL
Did you not read my post? Never said that it's either big government or billionaires and I didn't say that they compete with each other or that the private sector is the only one able to innovate. The Chinese government has worked miracles but China could badly use another boost from the private sector if it is to compete with the US, one that it's getting more and more as it is.
It's just another way to pay them. Make no mistake, Ren is not some OG commie who keeps $100K per year himself and splits everything with his employees. Ren Zhengfei's net worth is $1.4 billion USD, reinvests the lion's share of the profits back to research and tech development, then pays his employees (in shares) according to market value supply and demand for their skillset. Huawei is owned by its employees but it's still a billionaire on top.
Find me a technologically advanced country with no billionaires.
And it's technically true because the Chinese government can push technological development without billionaires, but it's not a yes no question rather a question of how fast technological development is moving. Moving too slow is moving backwards in the world of tech and there is no doubt that billionaires in the tech industry are an extra boost in speed of development that is sorely needed in the Sino-US competition.
Last edited:
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, "robbed. adj. taken unjustly". That was certainly true of the 2008 global financial crisis: the crooks who caused the crisis not only weren't punished, they were actually rewarded with bailouts and then even more "quantitative easing". A lot of robbery was definitely happening.
I didn't say that. I said that billionaires are potentially the biggest source of corruption. Corruption is far more -- and possibly far worse -- than direct robbery of the people.
Anyone who has gotten rich in China has relied extensively on state-supplied resources (infrastructure, education of workers, and on and on). I merely suggest that they give something back, for example, by being more open with their activities.
Find me a technologically advanced country with no TVs in the population. Merely because billionaires happen to exist (just as TVs happen to exist) does not mean they are necessary for technological progress.
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
We're not talking about 2008; we're talking about 2021 rise of the billionaires, many of them tech bosses in China. Some billionaires "rob" with illegal activity, but others earn their money and uphold their contracts with their employees.
Well, if we're just going to talk about potential, then billionaires are also the greatest potential for technological advancement. They gave America its supremacy but also wield massive power in American politics, a price that America finds worth paying. They can also put China on that throne, except China's government structure so far seems much better at handling them since it is more direct and less dependent on legal technicalities. It seems the best of both worlds for China.
Your suggestion don't make sense, you cannot define them, and they constantly change. Now you say you just want billionaires to give something back! Well of course, buddy, so do we all. They pay taxes and they create technology; that's giving back, ain't it? And tax evasion is a crime; I don't support any entity that cheats the Chinese government out of tax revenue so don't conflate the two. If that's not enough, then what do you want them to give back?
Typically, that's not considered giving anything just to show what you've got. See quote from previous response to you which you cannot answer (so it magically became "yapping" just like everything else you could not answer):
"How open? More open than someone with a regular amount of wealth? How is it enforced? Are you suggesting that once someone reaches above a certain level of wealth that s/he be stripped of his/her human right to privacy? That's ok with you? That's not persecuting success?"
You are totally crushed, aren't you? What the hell are you trying to do by asking this? LOL I can't and won't find one because TVs are an important invention and they are used to spread information to the public, which is a critical function of every advanced society.