Alibaba will approach a trillion dollars in gross merchandise sales moving across its platform within the next two or so years. Contrast that with China's $11.x trillion GDP, and then throw in all of Alibaba's various divisions. Their rapidly growing influence over China's economy is already vast. Just go back to 2012, a mere five years ago, Alibaba's sales were only $3 billion (seven years ago they barely existed on the radar). Then extrapolate their expansion forward another five years and what that position of theoretical economic power might look like to the CPC.
I think it's due to your point, and I wish I had a candidate on the slate who was serious about having constituents vote securely on single issues rather than forcing us to choose a single party docket.
Perhaps changes to law like 1) a voter calibration test to demonstrate sufficient understanding of issues (thereby scaling the value of your vote up/down) combined with 2) restrictions on corporate/lobby media ads to manipulate voters could produce better results than the HoRs? Also worth discussion, IMO.
You could also have a weight system, e.g. engineers get double votes on technical issues in their field. This will lower the power of redneckish factions.
This is just my observation. I do not offer any review on it's being positive or negative.
You're confusing mercantilism and globalism. China's firms operate as an extended arm of China's domestic policies (or they don't operate at all).
The US allows Toyota (Honda, Hyundai, BMW, Mercedes, whomever) to set up its self-owned operations in the US and compete largely at will with Ford and GM. That's globalism. The US is still the king of it by far, among major economies. Compare the US rules in that regard to Germany, Japan and China (the next three largest economies); and maybe take a look at Brazil, India and Russia while you're at it (see: all the barriers put in Amazon's way in India).
Alibaba et al. are not busy in China aggressively arguing for the state to drop its one-sided economic policies. Those policies have gifted Alibaba the keys to a trillion dollar protected kingdom.
In the US, as a foreign entity you can establish a business and own 100% of it. Your rules of competition and operation are almost entirely the same as a native US firm. You can acquire the radical majority of all types of businesses at will (with a few exceptions). The US will allow a company like Bayer to buy a very important strategic company such as Monsanto, for example (or Sanofi with Genzyme, or Roche with Genentech). Such a thing would never be allowed in a million years in China.
Try to do that with an airline for example. Good luck getting more than 25%.
Sadly Japan seems to be having their own problems albeit different but still regressive culture-driven. State-incentivized stagnation, focusing on the needs of a few small group of elite older companies from a past generation who are friends with the government, while neglecting the small young upstarts, disincentivizing risk and change. And trying to make patchwork fixes large under the guise of western economic theory.
Internet companies appear to lose freedom not because Chinese government tightens control, but they are allowed to grow to certain sizes so that state control that has always been there now is applicable to them.
Like everything, complexity adds up. Control comes with a cost, and needs careful planing and execution.
Yes, the companies may not innovate as much and may lose their edge, but the Party can (and will have incentives to) just deliver a 1B+ user market by fiat.
I wouldn't be optimistic about this model, but the companies may not feel as much of a disadvantage as business wisdom would dictate.
It will be very interesting to see how they goes, but I don't believe it will yield many good results (If any).
Censorship already preventing China's tech companies from reaching global market, now this.
Of course, if I were a dissident I’d rather be in the US.
E.g. you can see China's growth skyrocketing after the end of their semi-regular ideological purges, but Deng's large-scale reforms seems to not have affected the rate of growth much.
Presumably when a regime remains stable, people learn to work around even quite severe constraints given enough time.
That of course does not mean that reforms may not be helpful in making life better for people (or worse), but that they may mean less in terms of overall economic growth than avoiding rapid change.
That's not a great sign for the long term as over the next 30 years a new set of Party members are going to want to enrich their family and will use whatever means nessisarily to do so.
China: Widow of Nobel Laureate Feared ‘Disappeared’
Tens of thousands protest in Hong Kong over jailing of democracy activists
China Pushes ‘Human Rights With Chinese Characteristics’ at the UN
The hard part about any quote, of course, is that the context in which the statement is originally made could be very different than the context here and the change of context can change the meaning entirely. And this can, over time, ascribe new positions to the person being quoted that they really don't hold. Not saying that is necessarily the case here, I don't know... just something to keep in mind.
(stepping down from soapbox)
The context I replied to was gaining from the injustice (and suffering) inflicted on others, and being smug about it. What could change about the "context" - what one considers injustice? That's factored in already, and gloating is, as I see it, being passive and worse.
It doesn't matter who said it anyway, I bet you I could find you a lot of wise people who said it in different and expanded forms. He put it succinctly.
It takes guts to stand up for yourself when push comes to shove. When you water down the wine of what even you yourself consider just, subjective and restricted as we all may be, it will fail you.
Perhaps someone will respond and explain how this view is faulty?
- Adds the voice of a civic minded, non-profit entity to the board. Maybe less brutal than pure capitalism?
- Less risk of Frankenstein's monster (e.g. dual use adware)
- Govt is now married to them, and the tech graveyards are littered with the corpses of behemoths who lost their edge.
Wat. We are talking about the PRC here. A totalitarian communist regime. "Less brutal"?
The fact that China has managed to prosper where places like Russia that underwent a similar type of regime have been stuck in the mud is a testament to the enduring Chinese culture.
The PRC has black prison sites for political dissidents and the famine from the great leap forward. Capitalism has child slaves working cocoa farms or pharmaceutical companies giving aids tainted medicine to third world countries because it would net them a profit.
The other thing the government has done (at least in the last couple of decades) is a big push in to transportation infrastructure - bridges, highways, high-speed rail. All of these things help in opening up the economy of previously isolated regions.
Ironically enough, much of China's transportation infrastructure is supposed to turn a profit, leading to still fairly high logistic costs.
It's not, however unlike other countries, by being authoritarian they can get things done. Compare for example a proposed high-speed rail line between Melbourne and Sydney, which has been under investigation since the 80's and it still hasn't gone beyond the basic planning stage.
And it's not like there isn't demand, Melbourne->Sydney is currently the 5th busiest air route in the world.
Same thing happens in northern China also :-)
I get if you have a problem with the bad things they did but it's disingenuous for people to say all the positive consequences of the side they support was because of specific actions on their sides part, while the side they dislike had good things happen by coincidence or in spite of themselves
Deng Xiaoping was a smart chap. He knew China needed capitalism, but also knew that after decades of railing against capitalism there was no way the people would support it and no way to implement it without undermining the government, and so 'Socialism with Chinese Characteristics' was born.
State intervention in a capitalist economy does not the abolition of the value-form make, it makes a state capitalist economy.
China? Civic? What? Is today opposite day?