
It’s China’s World - known
https://fortune.com/longform/fortune-global-500-china-companies/
======
chvid
“American companies account for 121 of the world’s largest corporations by
revenue. Chinese companies account for 129 (including 10 Taiwanese
companies).”

Bit of a stretch to include Taiwan here ... sure it is ethnically Chinese but
more of an ally of the us than mainland China at this point.

~~~
kenneth
It's not just a stretch, it's ridiculous. It's a fact made up to make their
narrative fit because it wouldn't work if it was 119 vs. 121

Taiwan is an entirely different entity politically no matter if you subscribe
to the one China doctrine. China has little to no control over it and
therefore derives no power from its companies.

~~~
yoz-y
> China has no control over it

This is quite a stretch too. The relationship and interdependence of the two
is very complicated. China is one of the largest market to which Taiwan
exports their goods (and in large part, the culture) and China has used this
to pressure Taiwan in the past.

~~~
goblin89
The argument that ROC may be considered part of PRC because PRC is an
important business partner to me doesn’t seem to hold water.

How is it different as opposed to, say, Russia and Ukraine? Mutual trade is
big and one player may have more leverage (as is almost always the case with
two countries in proximity to each other), should we count Ukraine’s stats in
favor of Russia’s?

In both cases there are similarities in language and ethnicity, and in case of
Taiwan there additionally are US military troops stationed.

~~~
maehwasu
Ethnic, linguistic, and cultural ties tend to have great staying power (see
US-Britain, the unification of Germany and Italy, Balkan conflicts, and on and
on). This is all even more true when the countries are close geographically.

Counting the power of Taiwan for China and Ukraine for Russia is likely more
predictive of the future than not counting them. Lines on a map and
citizenship papers are easier to redo than centuries (millenia for
China/Taiwan) of culture/language.

This is NOT an endorsement of China taking over Taiwan, which I do NOT want
and think would be a bad thing.

~~~
goblin89
> Counting the power of Taiwan for China and Ukraine for Russia is likely more
> predictive of the future than not counting them.

More predictive in what regard? The only way I can see it being usefully
predictive is if you count on the larger entity annexing the smaller one. An I
missing something?

~~~
empath75
You can exert power through hegemony without annexing.

~~~
goblin89
In the part that I quoted “power”, I believe, stands for economical strength.
How can it be useful or at all correct to count economical strength of, say,
Kazakhstan (as another example) as part of Russia’s stats, if the former is
developing and trading independently?

That’s why I object to article’s angle: it uses “China” to refer to an
aggregate in one case (lumping ROC and PRC together), and to PRC in another
case (quoting their president and intentions to dominate global economy).

Counting ROC in PRC’s favor serves to tip the numbers and make article’s
premise seem more compelling, but since PRC and ROC are separate economies the
premise is false. It almost makes it look like a major business publication is
playing a political game.

~~~
maehwasu
Russia already exerts a lot of economic influence over Kazakhstan, so this
example actually goes the other way.

There are MANY ways to derive benefit from a relationship between countries:
it’s not binary annex/not-annexed.

------
croh
I really love the progress China made in very small duration. But does this
article sound like promotion/propaganda ?

~~~
prebrov
Fortune Magazine is owned by the same family that owns CP Group, Thailand’s
largest conglomerate. Their economic interests in China are clear.

Hear them boast on Wikipedia:

“When China opened up its economy in 1978, the CP Group was the very first
foreign investor in the country and became the first foreign company
registered in the special economic zone of Shenzhen, Guangdong. The company is
the single largest investor in Mainland China today commanding over fifth of
China's entire feed meal market.[5] The corporate registration number was
"0001."

\-
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charoen_Pokphand](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charoen_Pokphand)

------
williamchangnpu
It's interesting that a lot of these Chinese companies aren't really keeping
up the pace, for example, tssgroup ,
[https://www.tssgroup.com.cn/](https://www.tssgroup.com.cn/), I can't even
open up their website.

~~~
simosx
You need to switch to `[http://`](http://`) (from `[https://`](https://`)).

------
bretpiatt
From a global production perspective each time I look at the G500 vs. the F500
I'm reminded about the delta between the global economy and the United States.

Global 500 top 10 [1] - 1 Retail/Grocer, 6 Energy (mostly Oil related), 2 Auto
Manufacturers

Fortune 500 top 10 [2] - 1 Retail/Grocer, 1 Energy (Oil related), 3
Tech/Telcom (Apple, Amazon, AT&T), 4 Healthcare, 1 Financial Service

[1]
[https://fortune.com/global500/2019/search/](https://fortune.com/global500/2019/search/)
[2]
[https://fortune.com/fortune500/2019/search/](https://fortune.com/fortune500/2019/search/)

------
sadness2
This is a narrow view. The fortune 500 provides no insight into the level of
interest each economy holds in the major companies of other nations. Spoiler:
the US owns a fucktonne of the world's capital gains

------
jajag
With climate change stalking in the background, I really think it's too early
to say whose century - whether China's or anyone else's - this will be.

------
dmurtagh
The map in the article hurts my brain!

------
sct202
It's not China's World considering how they oriented the map so that only the
Americas are oriented in the normal way, while all of Eurasia is upside down.

------
5trokerac3
CCP China is the most successful ethno-nationalist/fascist state in modern
history.

* With the introduction of a market economy in the 70s and 80s, but retaining full party control of that economy, they fulfilled the economic definition of fascism.

* With their oppression of the Uighur and Tibetan people they have met the ethno-nationalist definition.

We continue to economically support them at our own peril. If you're watching
what's happening in Hong Kong and continue to buy Chinese products, when
alternatives are available, you're knowingly funding evil.

~~~
hos234
"Economically support them" implies some misleading parent child relationship,
where the parent can kick the kid out of the house for misbehaving.

This is more a dysfunctional couple relationship, where both sides are Co-
Dependent. Its not just that they have a ton to loose, it's that they can't do
any better without each other.

Google, to their credit, tried existing but look at where that story went.
Some couples therapy is overdue but given the fear driven info flows on News
and Social Media, it wouldn't be surprising for a Brexit like fiasco, which
will hit the people at the bottom of the food chain more than anyone else.

Nothing is going to get fixed in the world until Social and News Media get
regulated. All they do is produce Red Queen dynamics - keeping everyone
running on fear treadmills without going anywhere.

~~~
5trokerac3
The world most certainly supports China, out of the desire for greater
profits. When we know much of their labor force is forced labor, we are
literally outsourcing slavery to them.

If you can knowingly continue to buy products from a regime that is so evil it
preserves and dissects political dissidents, then sends them around the world
as "human body exhibits" then that's on you. I've decided to do everything
within my power to not support that evil, only buying a Chinese made product
if there is absolutely no other option, and if I absolutely need the product.

