Chinese Economics Thread

hashtagpls

Senior Member
Registered Member
My point is that foreign =/= US and openness to portfolio investment improves competition and productivity
Fallacious point; in the modern world, the capitalist class is nationless but overwhelmingly based in the US/europe; samsung being owned by foreign entities pretty much means its owned by US based anglocentric oligarchs which explains why Samsung was allowed to sell phones and prosper in the US and act as competition to Apple, whilst Huawei got the...Huawei treatment.
 

asta

Banned Idiot
Registered Member
Fallacious point; in the modern world, the capitalist class is nationless but overwhelmingly based in the US/europe; samsung being owned by foreign entities pretty much means its owned by US based anglocentric oligarchs which explains why Samsung was allowed to sell phones and prosper in the US and act as competition to Apple, whilst Huawei got the...Huawei treatment.
This would be remotely believable if the US actually ran a capital account surplus. Huawei got the Huawei treatment because it was too leading and from China. All non-US companies get (rightfully) Huawei-ed to preserve US technological leadership, no matter the capital structure: Alstom, Toshiba, Airbus, Nokia, Eurofighter, and Nikon all got Huawei-ed as well. It even applies to Australian beef & coal exports, Canada's nuke/shipbuilding/aircraft industry, it's quite broad
 

Bob Smith

Junior Member
Registered Member
This would be remotely believable if the US actually ran a capital account surplus. Huawei got the Huawei treatment because it was too leading and from China. All non-US companies get (rightfully) Huawei-ed to preserve US technological leadership, no matter the capital structure: Alstom, Toshiba, Airbus, Nokia, Eurofighter, and Nikon all got Huawei-ed as well. It even applies to Australian beef & coal exports, Canada's nuke/shipbuilding/aircraft industry, it's quite broad
Another SleepyStudent account?
 
Top