It's Not the Job of the Government to Dictate Where Businesses Should Go

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

2 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

again - how ? 

As mentioned above Western companies sell out tech; they agree to tech transfer, nobody is forcing them. China plays the long game well. 

I am not saying that China must not be dealt with, but we also need to look at why they are able to do it. When you point 1 finger at others you point 3 at yourself.

They do not WILLINGLY agree to the technology/intellectual property transfer. As I understand it the terms are attractive to set up factories and businesses in China initially. Once the factories/businesses are in place and the factories are built, the Chinese insist that you transfer the technology, etc... or you lose your business, and investment, in China.

[Jakridge + 122]

On 8/24/2019 at 8:53 AM, Zhong Lu said:

If there is some "dear leader" at the top of the government ordering private companies what they can do or not do with their money, that's either fascism or socialism.  

If Obama had told US companies they cannot move their businesses to a country because "I hereby order them to", how do you think Republicans  would have reacted? 

Trumps 'ordered businesses to find alternatives to China'  tweet was meant for Chinese consumption as that is how their mindset is.  A dear leader and a strict and stern government backing him is the order of the day in China.  I believe Trump knows that his authoritarian sounding dictate would reverberate more with Chinese businesses and the population in general which would hopefully prompt the chinese government to negotiate more than the standard 'I'll run it by leadership' response we would normally get from an establishment President.

[Jakridge + 122]

On 8/24/2019 at 10:23 AM, Zhong Lu said:

Because Xi is a dictator and Trump is supposed to be the president of a democratic country.  Trump's declaration is something you would expect a dictator like Xi or Putin to do.  

What I'm castigating is the hypocrisy of Trump supporters.  They declare Obama to be this or that, and yet when Trump does the very same thing or worse, such as unilateral declarations of executive privilege of what private businesses should or should not do, they find some excuse for him.  

I hope my previous post clears up President Trump's declaration for you. Once again that was meant for Chinese consumption. The president is quite aware he is not able to make sweeping declarations like that in a free market Society like America.

We are not being hypocritical by supporting this, we simply believe and are relieved that he is looking out for the interest of the United States of America and not continuing The Establishment goal of globalism. I also believe that is why so many people have their hair on fire about this President. I believe many of them do not even know why they are so angry with Trump but the crux of the matter is that he is not beholden, as most politicians are, to the establishment. He genuinely is looking out for American interest and that just sticks in the craw of the people that are trying to steer this country into globalism.

Edited August 30, 2019 by Jakridge

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Western apologists for the Communist China government, time to wake up and smell the coffee.

Stephen Bannon on Huawei and the Communist China Threat

 

 

 

Pic related.

[Jakridge + 122]

On 8/28/2019 at 6:57 AM, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

I appreciate this, but my fundamental question is : why do western companies agree to technology transfer when they are digging their own graves in doing so? i.e. why do business with China when they steal your tech? in the long term that should be bad for corporations, rigth?

Many of the companies that are doing this have the same agenda has the Chinese. Or more accurately I should say they have an anti-American agenda. Google being the primary culprit, has a globalist agenda and the United States of America is in its way.

I tend to think that they believe, like many of the Nazi sympathizers during World War II, that when the fall of America comes they will be welcomed in to the Glorious New World Order with a prominent seat at the table.

Edited August 30, 2019 by Jakridge

[Guest]

14 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Once the factories/businesses are in place and the factories are built, the Chinese insist that you transfer the technology, etc... or you lose your business, and investment, in China.

Or you both sign, then China ignores. Seeing a pattern here. 

1 hour ago, Tom Kirkman said:

time to wake up and smell the coffee.

DING  ⬆️⬇️ 

1 hour ago, Jakridge said:

He genuinely is looking out for American interest and that just sticks in the craw of the people that are trying to steer this country into globalism.

9 minutes ago, John Foote said:

The lunacy was thinking they'd ever play fair. 

14 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

They do not WILLINGLY agree to the technology/intellectual property transfer.

This is why it's called theft. 

Edited August 30, 2019 by Guest
addition

[John Foote + 1,135]

On 8/27/2019 at 6:31 AM, Douglas Buckland said:

I guarantee you if labor was less expensive in the West, Chinese companies would have moved there.

On most of your take, I agree, on this one I don't. China is quite China centric and they wouldn't export the low wage jobs unless they had jobs for the masses in general. The lunacy was thinking they'd ever play fair. 

China's history, going back thousands of years, is to gradually expand, and then in times of stress go completely inward. Back in the late 15th century they build ships the size of aircraft carriers, and then a change occurred, expansionist things like those boats, were destroyed, and they turned inward. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 8/24/2019 at 2:22 AM, James Regan said:

In reality and the world we live in at this point, name me one true Socialist country? -By Definition Socialism is an economic and political system where the ways of making a living (factories, offices, etc.) are owned by the workers who run them and the people who depend on them, meaning the value made belongs to the people who make it, instead of a group of private owners.

We are all capitalists, some masquerade as being utopian and fly a red flag, but the reality is far from the truth.

You make a valid point. North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela are all socialist and all failures. China, Russia, Iran, Turkey, are all totalitarian fascists whatever they call themselves. Europe and America are fascist to a lesser extent.Third world countries are fascist also. It is all just varying degrees of what Ayn Rand would call statism. It is a preferable word. Fascism has undue connotations of racism. That is due to Hitler's racist ideology. 

One needs to read Ayn Rand to understand why every country in the world is statist. It is the corporatocracy and the elites which normally run the country. President Trump has broken up their statist efforts and you see how he was and is attacked by every statist part of American society. Admittedly, President Trump is also a statist to a lesser extent than the Demoncrats. He is reducing many regulations that have been in place for quite awhile. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism

Edited August 30, 2019 by ronwagn

[Zhong Lu + 845]

5 hours ago, Jakridge said:

I hope my previous post clears up President Trump's declaration for you. Once again that was meant for Chinese consumption. The president is quite aware he is not able to make sweeping declarations like that in a free market Society like America.

We are not being hypocritical by supporting this, we simply believe and are relieved that he is looking out for the interest of the United States of America and not continuing The Establishment goal of globalism. I also believe that is why so many people have their hair on fire about this President. I believe many of them do not even know why they are so angry with Trump but the crux of the matter is that he is not beholden, as most politicians are, to the establishment. He genuinely is looking out for American interest and that just sticks in the craw of the people that are trying to steer this country into globalism.

"Looking out for the interests of a country" means nothing if the results are poor.  George W. Bush was also looking out for the interests of America when he launched the war in Iraq and look how that turned out.

Again, Trump's declaration of national emergency at the border and his recent remarks on US businesses is clear and conclusive evidence of Trump's totalitarian tendencies, no matter how you spin it.  It doesn't matter whose consumption "it's supposed to be for."  If a president unilaterally attempts to change policy without the approval of Congress through emergency acts or authoritarian declarations, then that president is acting like a dictator wannabe. 

By the same logic you used above one can easily argue that Obama's actions through executive orders were acceptable because they were "made in the interests of America."  Similarly, if Elizabeth Warren becomes president and declares an executive order banning assault weapons because of a "national emergency of gun violence" then again by your logic, Jakridge, one can argue that her claims are "acceptable because she does it in the interests of Americans as a whole, and that her declaration is not evidence of her totalitarian tendencies because they are directed at terrorists, and not legitimate gun owners."   

Do you get my point? I don't give a f- about the reasoning behind some authoritarian action because any dictator wannabe can come up with some shitty excuse ("I'm doing it for national interests, blah blah blah blah blah") that sounds plausible to their supporters.  If a president attempts to change national policy without the approval of Congress through the use of emergency declarations or executive orders, then that president is an authoritarian shit case and a dictator wannabe.  

Edited August 30, 2019 by Zhong Lu

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

1 hour ago, Zhong Lu said:

"Looking out for the interests of a country" means nothing if the results are poor.  George W. Bush was also looking out for the interests of America when he launched the war in Iraq and look how that turned out.

Again, Trump's declaration of national emergency at the border and his recent remarks on US businesses is clear and conclusive evidence of Trump's totalitarian tendencies, no matter how you spin it.  It doesn't matter whose consumption "it's supposed to be for."  If a president unilaterally attempts to change policy without the approval of Congress through emergency acts or authoritarian declarations, then that president is acting like a dictator wannabe. 

By the same logic one can easily argue that Obama's actions through executive orders were acceptable because they were "made in the interests of America."  Similarly, if Elizabeth Warren becomes president and declares an executive order banning assault weapons because of a "national emergency of gun violence" then by your logic, Jakridge, one can argue that her claims are "acceptable because she does it in the interests of Americans as a whole, and that her declaration is not evidence of her totalitarian tendencies because they are directed at terrorists, and not legitimate gun owners."   

Do you get my point? I don't give a f- about the reasoning behind some authoritarian action because any dictator wannabe can come up with some shitty excuse ("I'm doing it for national interests, blah blah blah blah blah") that sounds plausible to their supporters.  If a president attempts to change national policy without the approval of Congress through the use of emergency declarations or executive orders, then that president is an authoritarian shit case and a dictator wannabe.  

Ni hau Zhong. 

Trump sent a TWEET. He said he COULD create an executive order. By our laws he has every right to do so, and ALSO by our laws he will IMMEDIATELY be sued so he can't implement said order. Over time and having wended its way through several courts and appeals maybe it will be allowed and maybe it won't. 

But every single sentence of every one of your arguments falls apart tovarisch, because you clearly don't know the difference between the fascist totalitarian regime known as China, and the United States of America. We have actual checks and balances in this country, and China has a dictator for life. Enough with the histrionics you're not fooling anyone. 

[Zhong Lu + 845]

First, I don't know what the heck is a tovarisch.  And second, I speak Chinese at a second grade level.  So if you could,  please stick to English, because both of us understand it better.

Checks and balances work only if the participants choose to obey the checks and balances.  What's increasingly become clear to me and many others is that neither Democrat nor Republican presidents are willing to obey these checks and balances.  

Executive orders and declarations of national emergency are supposed to be RARE instances. They are NOT supposed to be used anytime the president wants to do something Congress does not approve of.  It doesn't matter which party controls the presidency.  With each new presidential cycle, the US is sliding more and more into a dictatorship.  

Your counterargument is that the US is not a dictatorship because it's not "as dictator-like as China."  As I see it that's a shitty argument because that's like arguing "Bob the Serial Killer is a good person because he's killed less people than Mao Ze Dong."  

Edited August 30, 2019 by Zhong Lu

[Okie + 83]

3 hours ago, Zhong Lu said:

First, I don't know what the heck is a tovarisch. 

Russian for "comrade."

[Zhong Lu + 845]

1. He's not a comrade.  

2.  Why not just use the word "comrade?" He knows he's not Russian.  He knows I'm not Russian.  So why is he using Russian words? 

Edited August 30, 2019 by Zhong Lu

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

3 hours ago, Zhong Lu said:

1. He's not a comrade.  

2.  Why not just use the word "comrade?" He knows he's not Russian.  He knows I'm not Russian.  So why is he using Russian words? 

It was how communist addressed people of authority but in manner to show that everyone was (supposed to be) equal.

Just offering an explanation. 

Edited August 30, 2019 by Rasmus Jorgensen

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

On 8/29/2019 at 1:01 PM, Douglas Buckland said:

They do not WILLINGLY agree to the technology/intellectual property transfer. As I understand it the terms are attractive to set up factories and businesses in China initially. Once the factories/businesses are in place and the factories are built, the Chinese insist that you transfer the technology, etc... or you lose your business, and investment, in China.

Come on. Seriously. 

This has been going on for more than a decade. And it is a public secret. Are seriously going to claim that western companies dont know what they are going when they dp busy with / in China. 

I know you are not naive.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

14 hours ago, Zhong Lu said:

If a president attempts to change national policy without the approval of Congress through the use of emergency declarations or executive orders, then that president is an authoritarian shit case and a dictator wannabe.  

Well now, that would include every single President since and including Woodrow Wilson.  Seriously? 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

6 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

I know you are not naive.

Douglas is likely not, but those corporate managers that have shown up in China sure were! Lots of them got taken to the cleaners. 

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

2 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Douglas is likely not, but those corporate managers that have shown up in China sure were! Lots of them got taken to the cleaners. 

Maybe first time...

2nd time they should have known better. Fool me once.

Edited August 30, 2019 by Rasmus Jorgensen

[Jakridge + 122]

15 hours ago, Zhong Lu said:

"Looking out for the interests of a country" means nothing if the results are poor.  George W. Bush was also looking out for the interests of America when he launched the war in Iraq and look how that turned out.

Again, Trump's declaration of national emergency at the border and his recent remarks on US businesses is clear and conclusive evidence of Trump's totalitarian tendencies, no matter how you spin it.  It doesn't matter whose consumption "it's supposed to be for."  If a president unilaterally attempts to change policy without the approval of Congress through emergency acts or authoritarian declarations, then that president is acting like a dictator wannabe. 

By the same logic you used above one can easily argue that Obama's actions through executive orders were acceptable because they were "made in the interests of America."  Similarly, if Elizabeth Warren becomes president and declares an executive order banning assault weapons because of a "national emergency of gun violence" then again by your logic, Jakridge, one can argue that her claims are "acceptable because she does it in the interests of Americans as a whole, and that her declaration is not evidence of her totalitarian tendencies because they are directed at terrorists, and not legitimate gun owners."   

Do you get my point? I don't give a f- about the reasoning behind some authoritarian action because any dictator wannabe can come up with some shitty excuse ("I'm doing it for national interests, blah blah blah blah blah") that sounds plausible to their supporters.  If a president attempts to change national policy without the approval of Congress through the use of emergency declarations or executive orders, then that president is an authoritarian shit case and a dictator wannabe.  

You have obviously missed the point. President Trump has not attempted to do anything, including an executive order commanding businesses to do anything. I clearly stated he simply made a statement in a tweet that was meant for Chinese consumption. If you haven't figured out how Trump operates by now you probably never will. Don't let anger and contempt Cloud your judgement of what is really happening. There has been no executive order.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

On 8/29/2019 at 5:01 AM, Douglas Buckland said:

They do not WILLINGLY agree to the technology/intellectual property transfer. As I understand it the terms are attractive to set up factories and businesses in China initially. Once the factories/businesses are in place and the factories are built, the Chinese insist that you transfer the technology, etc... or you lose your business, and investment, in China.

Is agreeing to a condition theft?  Are they getting "consideration" for sharing their tech in the form of cheap factories, incentives, etc?

Edited August 30, 2019 by Enthalpic

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

On 8/24/2019 at 12:45 AM, Douglas Buckland said:

Furthermore, if your adversary does not 'play by the rules' (the Politburo could easily decree that Chinese companies are banned from doing business in the US) or skirts the intent of WTO rules, why should you handcuff yourself to 'fair play'?

This is the crux of the problem. China expects everyone else to play by the rules while they simply ignore them...giving them an unfair advantage.

Has the actual WTO accused China of violating the rules?  All I hear is trump/US accusations.  For example, the WTO said that China did not engage currency manipulation even though trump says they did.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

3 hours ago, Zhong Lu said:

1. He's not a comrade.  

2.  Why not just use the word "comrade?" He knows he's not Russian.  He knows I'm not Russian.  So why is he using Russian words? 

I invite readers here to review how all this got started.  

Initially, Mr. Zhong Lu started off this thread with a one-liner as his heading.  "It is not the job of government to dictate where businesses should go."    He then follows up with another one-liner post:  "If anything that's socialism. "

From that inauspicious start, two full pages of reader posts have erupted.  And now we are into Russian words of address in the old USSR. Now, what to make of that?  I would suggest that this is classic agent provocateur!

Let's try to have a little context, please, when starting out threads here.  Oilprice is not the place for blatant rabble-rousing. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

4 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

Are they getting "consideration" for sharing their tech in the form of cheap factories, incentives, etc?

No.

[SKEP + 229]

On 8/28/2019 at 7:57 AM, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

I appreciate this, but my fundamental question is : why do western companies agree to technology transfer when they are digging their own graves in doing so? i.e. why do business with China when they steal your tech? in the long term that should be bad for corporations, rigth?

Yes long term it is bad. But they are only focused on the next quarter.

They rationalize . . .  of I don't do it my competitor will.

They can't pass up 1 billion new consumers.

 

[Zhong Lu + 845]

52 minutes ago, Jakridge said:

You have obviously missed the point. President Trump has not attempted to do anything, including an executive order commanding businesses to do anything. I clearly stated he simply made a statement in a tweet that was meant for Chinese consumption. If you haven't figured out how Trump operates by now you probably never will. Don't let anger and contempt Cloud your judgement of what is really happening. There has been no executive order.

As a matter of fact, Trump has on multiple occasions used executive orders and declarations of national emergency to get around Congress.  The border wall comes to mind.  And you're missing this point: if Obama had said American companies should not invest in X country with some tweet, Trump supporters would have jumped on him like a tick on a passing deer.  

Where is the outrage when Trump says these things? Where is the outrage when Trump uses emergency actions and executive orders to do an end-around on Congress? 

Answer: from you there is none, which means you're a hypocrite.  You have no ideals.  All you have is cynicism and party identification and membership.  If we're going to use fancy Russian words here, I could just as well say you're an apparatchik.  

Here's a rule: the people most likely to condemn others of an activity are themselves the most likely to partake of it when given the opportunity.  

Edited August 30, 2019 by Zhong Lu