1. Placate the US by putting out a public statement saying "We support freedom of speech for our people."
2. Placate China by using a backchannel to ensure that no one in the NBA actually uses this nominal freedom to say something that hurts China's feelings.
Actually standing up would require supporting a statement that had been said instead of offerring vague support for future statements which may or may not ever occur.
1. a) "Steve Kerr's silence shows NBA-China relationship is league's third rail" - [https://www.nbcsports.com/bayarea/warriors/steve-kerrs-silen...]
3. "Opinion: It's time for LeBron James to speak out on China, regardless of Nike ties" - [https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/columnist/josh-peter/2...]
> However, a statement posted in Chinese by the NBA on Weibo, China’s Twitter-like microblogging site, appeared different, according to translators.
> “We feel greatly disappointed at Houston Rockets’ GM Daryl Morey’s inappropriate speech, which is regrettable," the statement read. "Without a doubt, he has deeply offended many Chinese basketball fans. Morey has clarified that his stance on this issue does not represent either Houston Rockets or the NBA. From NBA’s perspective, people can be interested in different subjects and freely share their opinions. We take respecting Chinese history and culture as a serious matter. We also hope that sports and the NBA, as a unified source of positive energy, can continue to build bridges between countries and bring people together. "
Regardless of whether the NBA has control over what is said on that account, it's pretty shitty to have it one way in one country and another way elsewhere while hiding behind a language barrier. If this kind of double-speak continues, they're playing us all for fools.
That should get some attention.
One second you are in the market.
Poof, you are not anymore.
Investing in China as a western company to earn money is the worst business decision you can have.
Knowledge transfer for manufacturing is the second.
That was nothing but PR doubletalk.
I read an article very recently (NY Times, maybe?) that laid out the numbers, and the amount of money the NBA earns in China dwarfs its U.S. revenue.
not like China is going to come up with their own basketball league
It already has basketball leagues. And considering that China has exported star players to the NBA, it's certainly a possibility.
Those numbers are outdated and incomplete, but basically describe the relative market size.
Maybe you are thinking of rate of growth.
EDIT: As tanilama pointed out my numbers are wrong. The USA (ESPN & TNT) TV deal is about ~$2.6B per year. The Tencent streaming deal is ~$1.5B over 5 years. I don't know about CCTV.
Annually it says the revenue is 2.6B. Not sure how much revenue they are making from China on a yearly basis (Tencent's contract is 5 years).
pretty sure that basically describes the relative market valuation - given income differences/relative cache of the two different leagues, market size vs valuation would be vastly different.
>It already has basketball leagues.
I guess it's a good thing I didn't say they don't. Partial quoting to try to make a point where there isn't one isn't very cool.
>And considering that China has exported star players to the NBA, it's certainly a possibility.
It's exported exactly one star: yao Ming, and one slightly above average player in Jeremy Lin. And those two were so far apart they never played in the NBA at the same time. If you think one star every 30 years is going to be good enough to replace an NBA that produces multiple stars every other year.... I guess pass whatever you're smoking my way.
Jeremy Lin is of Chinese descent. I didn't say he was born there.
Note that this is different from just having heritage in a country. There's immigration only a couple generations back in my family, but it's already mixed to the point that I wouldn't call myself any specific country-American.
I don’t understand this. They could lost all their market in China which is not a small number and in return, long-term financially, nothing. It is not like Chinese people can’t live without it. There are more than enough entertainments for Chinese people to enjoy.
That said, the reason additional profits matter is that 51% of the revenue (not profits) go to the players, and the salary cap is tied directly to total revenue. This was collectively bargained and cannot be changed without a renegotiation. A lot of decisions have been made making assumptions about revenue that include revenue from China. On the player side, the total amount of money available to them is directly impacted by how much money is generated in China.
All that said, the NBA and the players should absolutely speak out and dare the CCP to delete the NBA. It's the most popular sport in the country and they've spent years cultivating the relationship. People will notice if it disappears.
1 - highlighting that total revenue generated directly impacts the amount of money available to players (as in there is a legal document outlining this)
2 - Ownership groups and the league as a whole have made many decisions based on an assumption of 49% of future revenues generated, so reductions in that future revenue stream are a lot riskier than "we just won't make as much profit." It's possible that for some teams, the reduction in revenue could actually force them to operate substantially in the red.
Once again, just want to be clear that I'm just pointing out the actual financial situation and that I still think the NBA should and could call China's bluff. It would likely sting in the short term, but China has invested so much in building up the NBA domestically that it will be really difficult to just delete it without any kind of backlash.
Long-term, I imagine the NBA is going to put more resources into the Indian market to reduce their reliance on a single overseas market.
On the other hand, if the NBA doesn't stand up to China, a large part of their core audience will find something else to do.
That question should be addressed to the Chinese government, they are the one wanting to block the league.
What if Daryl Morey had tweeted that he believed marriage was between a man and a woman?
There's no doubt he would have been fired and deplatformed faster than greased lightning...
Social media is making it hard for individuals to keep their personal thoughts separate from their work.
Not sure what the answer is. Everybody chill?
You wouldn't see countries threatening to ban the entire NBA.
> There's no doubt he would have been fired and deplatformed faster than greased lightning...
Sign me up for a lot of doubt!
Why not? Is it inconceivable that in the future the CBA will be able to compete with the NBA for top talent? I guarantee that down the road a future Zion Williamson will choose to play in China over New Orleans. This won't be in the near future mind you, but as the Chinese economy grows, and as basketball gets more popular, I don't see why this couldn't be the future.
Also, there are a great many cultural and economic reasons that foreign players generally avoid playing in China's existing professional sports league. Political oppression is just one of those reasons.
"We support free speech" is a cop-out, because China is happy for you to support free speech, as long as you don't say anything they don't like. It would be a stronger stance to say, "Actually, we think Morey was right", especially if it's going to cost them money to do so.
Really I don't know what more you're expecting. This is a strong stance.
Even if they did, so what? There's certainly room in the world for quite a few basketball leagues.
I mean, after all, Hong Kong was occupied by the British for over 100 years. And it played a huge role in the opium trade. So I can imagine how it could be a substantial third-rail issue.
That all said it'd be awesome if they chose to push back even though it's entirely destructive to themselves.
Lastly, there are no American corporations, nothing should be given to them because they're assumed to be American and nothing should be expected of them - anything required of them should be encoded into law so that one corporation can't exploit the morally correct decision of another corporation as a weakness.
We had the Blizzard/War of Omens thing , and the Houston Rockets remark being rescinded , and the South Park cancellation , and now this, all in the span of about a week.
That one wasn't even anything apparently political, just absurd snowflake-scale sensitivity on the part of a whole country:
Donovan made the “Chinese pig” comment on Wednesday as he attempted to explain why the country’s swine flu outbreak shouldn’t concern investors eyeing the international inflation outlook.
“Does this matter? It matters if you are a Chinese pig,” Donovan said. “It matters if you like eating pork in China. It does not really matter to the rest of the world. China does not export a lot of food. The only global relevance would be if Chinese inflation influenced politics and other policies.”
Somehow the second sentence got interpreted as an insult - or was it just part of a trend of throwing weight around, as you suggest?
One of China’s biggest state-owned infrastructure companies excluded UBS Group AG from a bond deal after the bank’s global chief economist sparked a furor with his use of the phrase “Chinese pig.”
The comment was condemned by two Communist Party publications and by trade groups representing Chinese brokerages. Haitong International Securities Group, which competes against UBS for China-related business, said on Friday that it had suspended its activities with the bank.
Honestly, having watched this sort of stuff for years my own business interest in China is dead. Yes, it's a big market. But you can live very comfortably serving the rest of the world. Facebook and Google are banned there, they still mint more money than they can spend. Ignoring that market completely seems like a recipe for a much simpler life.
There's just no sensible explanation for why anyone would get upset by that statement.
what about sourcing manufacturing?
this is the crux.
Instead, we've played ourselves for absolute suckers, and as China's economy and military muscle continues to rapidly expand and the rest of the world is increasingly dependent on its products and markets, they're beginning to throw their weight around. All the pearl-clutching over Trump's tariffs and attempt at a renewed industrial policy (however poorly executed) elided the question of what exactly anyone else was proposing to do, with the default being the continuation of business-as-usual.
People need to wake up and realize China is a far greater geopolitical threat than the USSR ever was. They have a massive population and they've melded together free-ish market strategic industrial capitalism with a totalitarian panopticon state unlike anything the world has ever seen. Their military is rapidly catching up with if not in some areas surpassing our own, and we're sitting on our asses arguing over idiotic domestic squabbles assuming the unipolar post-cold war world will continue on forever. Because Muricuh!
Frankly, thank god this is finally bleeding out into popular culture, because maybe average citizens will start to realize what a straight-line projection of our current situation is going to look like in a decade or two.
orr.. gotten over the sino-soviet split and bolshevized europe and latin america, leaving the US without a leg to stand on geopolitically.
What is happening to the NBA, Blizzard, and seemingly every company that has a presence in China is the tip of the iceberg.
If we as a liberal free society cannot stand against the rise of oppressive totalitarianism then we are doomed to fail.
Incremental profits and potential market share in a closed economy is not worth the values we are sacrificing in the process.
If you are a C-level executive at a company doing business in China these issues need to addressed at the board level. What is the level of influence that the Chinese government is exerting on you and your morals.
Your stance should be clear: You either support the people of HK and their fight for representation in government, or you support the totalitarian regime that is oppressing them and hundreds of millions of other Chinese citizens.
Your presidential candidate need to fix human rights issues in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. Democracy installed by the US government gotta have a warranty and customer service.
If the outcome of US installed human rights means tens of thousands of refugees and jihad fighters how can your model of human rights even work in a 1.4B population China?
How many revolutions and dictatorships did the French have to go through until they settled on a system that works for them?
The USA insisted on representative government within those countries’ existing borders. So much of the strife in those countries is ethnic-based. If regions were given options for secession, then some of the new territorial formations that resulted may well have become more politically stable. Just look at how much better off Iraqi Kurdistan is, which is as close as it can get to independence, than the rest of Iraq.
Well the soda maker didn't agree, so they pulled the inventory out.
Weeks later the retailer came back to invite them in at the same rates. Apparently the customers weren't happy that their favorite soda wasn't available, and made sure to let the staff know.
If China starts to pull the plug on unique products and services, I believe there's going to be a ripple effect. I'm pretty sure there are millions of people in China that still enjoy the NBA, despite NBA's stance on what ever the subject is.
This will add up. Maybe the fear of instability through Western propaganda should be matched by the instability that the actualization of censorship is alive and well, via the ban of content people like.
However, if the government chooses to grease the wheels of fury or even light the flame via astroturfing while simultaneously censoring dissenting opinions, they look mighty unified.
Remember, this tweet was on _Twitter_. Twitter is banned in China, which raises the question of how this became such a mainstream issue there organically. Sure, I suppose it’s possible that an expat reshared it on Weibo and the entire country went bananas but that seems a like a bit of a stretch to me.
Also hello to the MSS sockpuppet accounts joining the debate.
This guy is a regular every day Canadian with a Chinese wife who's lived there on and off for 13 or so years, and he has a very unbiased opinion.
This episode is about Chinese Patriotism, very thought provoking.
The reality is though, no singular opinion is "correct", best to consume a wide variety of opinions with an open mind, and resist forming any strong conclusions about particulars. Usually, the correct answer is "well, it depends".
Both companiese "seem" to be doing fine AFAICT. Most people I've asked seem not to care. I'd love it if they did care since the store branded products are not as good IMO.
You either engage with China and turn a blind eye to their internal repression or totally decouple yourself from them ... can't have your cake and eat it.
Except with China it's 1000x worse. It's not an app, it's not just an extra feature, it's the wholesale export of their authoritarian society to the rest of the world. When the statements of a user of your system (as with Hearthstone) risks your company being banned in China, self-censorship inevitably ensues. How long will it be until China insists that anyone, anywhere be deplatformed for this sort of thing?
The message is that the US have a lot to lose if China starts to also effectively blacklist American companies like the US try to do to Chinese companies...
Edit: Someone should explain why now on HN a comment like this one that simply tries to look beyond the obvious and to discuss current issues with a bit more depth is received so negatively as soon as posted.
Now we have China which is basketball-mad but the problem is we can't use the carrot of the NBA to entice them towards us as long as the NBA is willing to trade their product under China's terms for a big enough paycheque. The NBA's attempt to paint themselves as a non-participant is totally unacceptable. You either stand for something or you stand for nothing; you don't get to quietly profit from the situation while declaring you have no position. That's the "good people on both sides" argument we rightly called out as total BS.
The concept of "enticing China towards the US" is also naive at best. China is not a small country that the US can turn into a satellite. It is a superpower with its own views and interests and however its political regime will evolve it will not be either aligned with or under the leadership of the US. The US government knows that and that is the problem they have with China.
Culturally, China is not an exporter. It imports culture massively, but it isn't IP it can easily copy.
Authoritarian regimes are usually pretty bad at creating cultural products, except the ones like gruesome museums. Though I'm looking forward to HK producing its own Ai Weiwei or Guo Jian.
Glasnost, Perestroika, Afghanistan, economic stagnation, and the growing squeamishness of the country's leadership to use mass violence for political repression did.
If the economy of the USSR were growing 7% year over year, the Berlin wall would be six hundred feet tall by now, and communists would still be in charge of half of Europe.
Change in superpowers comes from within, not from foreign grandstanding.
I am purposefully, and quite absurdly, conflating Khrushchev's rather embarrassing shoe debacle with the rather embarrassing overstatement of Reagan's oratorical prowess and influence, in the affair of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Many people hold to the mistaken belief that he can take any credit for it. 
 Occasionally, they trot out 'Star Wars bankrupts the Soviet Union' as his greatest triumph. No, it wasn't eight years of Star Wars that starved the Soviet Economy, it was eight decades of military spending taking up >40% of GDP.
Just take the article when China was first to ban the Boeing 737. Everyone here yell at bad china like in a tabloid forum...
How many Chinese will pay attention to "whatever those people are doing in Hong Kong" for the first time because of this ?
Which is to say, what if lots of young Chinese stand up and take notice that they can't watch world class professional basketball anymore ?
I am well aware that there is homegrown professional basketball in China, but the $4B number suggests they want to watch the NBA, which isn't surprising.
It's not obvious to me that, from the position of youth in China, the state holds the winning hand here ...
Don’t count on young people to take the west’s side on anything. They enjoy our media and the products our mega corporations make, but they don’t need them and they’ll switch to Chinese alternatives instantly.
Many Westerners have trouble coming to terms with things like "Not all the Chinese hate the CCP", or "Russians are just regular people like you and me."
Most of them are already aware, and due to state ran media and an ultra-nationalistic view, are in full support of CCP and are very much against HK and their protests.
Here is a video from a guy who lived in China for over a decade, is married to a mainland Chinese woman, has family both in Hong Kong as well as Mainland, and how it's destroying his family due to the Mainlander's views of Hong Kong: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4wbx9hIN4E
Which is blatantly false. I know it's a tired meme, but there's an Orwellian panopticon powered by computers which literally rates each and every person by their level of socially desirable metrics and materially affects their daily life. That is oppression of freedom, and it's only the beginning. We've been down this road before with other autocracies in the past, but they weren't powered by machine learning...
That being said the video did give an important perspective of the overwhelming level of patriotism the Chinese people have for their country.
If they've been living under a rock where they didn't notice the defacement of the national emblem at the Liaison Office when it was widely condemned in the state media, they're not going to notice the NBA getting cancelled.
You can't expect them to miraculously find a source that doesn't condemn this as an attack on the national sovereignty of China by American imperialists.
It is arguably the Young that start this online campaign to call NBA out. The government/brands follow the suits.
The tension is high. I think watching NBA is soon to be deemed as unpatriotic by social media, and that will be one of the long-lasting legacy of this event.
"It is inevitable that people around the world -- including America and China -- will have different viewpoints over different issues. It is not the role of the NBA to adjudicate those differences.”
Bullshit, see North Carolina.
“However, the NBA will not put itself in a position of regulating what players, employees and team owners say or will not say on these issues. We simply could not operate that way."
Bullshit, see Donald Sterling.
Yeah, blatant racism, including against some of the biggest stars in the NBA's history, is definitely the same thing here. That's not regulating political discourse - that's not allowing a racist to be in a position of power over the very people he is prejudiced against.
And just so you know, the prevailing Chinese opinion on that is quite a bit different that what we believe in the West.
See e.g. https://www.espn.com/nba/news/story?id=4619819
Donald Sterling bought the Clippers in 1981. At the time, he was a former trial lawyer that had made millions purchasing and selling high-end ultra-luxury apartment/condo buildings in West LA. (He used to run multiple ads in every issue of the LA Times.)
His forays into the low-income housing developments to which the racial discrimination lawsuits relate did not begin until some years after he had purchased the Clippers. His racism was not well known because the Internet didn't exist back then and he spent millions annually on self-promotion, including sizable annual donations to the NAACP.
No - I'm being realistic. Silver's point is quite obviously they do not want to step in on political disputes and things of that nature.
If anyone was taking him as saying that they wouldn't do anything if they found out an owner was spewing racist rhetoric, they're being obtuse. To take it to the point of absurdity - would you expect an owner sharing Sterling's views to be able to go around on TV repeatedly saying the N word and then use that quote from Silver as a defense and reason as to why they shouldn't be banned from the league?
The issue with that sort of behavior, and Sterling's, is that it shows he is unfit to work in a sport where roughly 75% of the players are black. How can you fairly run a team full of black players if you are plainly prejudiced against them? How can you participate in the owner's meetings where so much policy is set? It wasn't just about what he said - it was also about how it effected the professional players on his team and in the league, as well as what it could mean in the future.
Comparing Sterling's actions with someone speaking about the Hong Kong protests is horribly obtuse.
Daryl Morey is not an employee of the NBA, so I don't think there's anything they could do, practically speaking.
And now, everyone with a whit of sense knows that China will not bow to pressure, and the NBA has more to lose from taking a stance.
For some reason, they aren't keen on tilting at windmills.
> Whether the topic is Colin Kaepernick, mass shootings or President Donald Trump, the Golden State Warriors coach is rarely shy about speaking out on difficult, controversial subjects. Except on Monday. Kerr was asked about the controversy engulfing the NBA ... He didn’t have much to say.
> But what’s not complicated is analyzing the NBA’s response to Morey’s comments, which places a clear priority on the league’s financial interests over human rights concerns on the other side of the world.
Suppose the NBA gave the middle finger to Saudi Arabia but cozied up to China, would that be worse than if they cozied up to both? Your stance is wildly illogical.
If they said “we cozied up to China, but didn’t cozy up to SA because it made business sense in the former scenario but not in the latter one”, that would be one thing. But if they said “we cozied up to China because we want to stay out of politics and be neutral” while still not cozying it up to SA and flaunting how morally righteous they were for giving SA the finger, that’s a very different scenario.
At best, it is just dishonest and hypocritical.
That doesn't mean it is better to also not be hard on North Carolina, which is OP's error. There is no moral framework in which appearance of hypocrisy is worse than not helping others.
In this case, how?
In other words, it's not a one-off. There is the same positive effect in the short term, but the long term differs.
All of that logic could easily apply to this scenario.
For a simpler scenario, if a company does a good deed to apologize for a bad deed, and the good deed is smaller but gets them off the hook, then that's a very clear net negative.
One topic to bring up is how the NBA is targeting India as it's next country to try to bring basketball to . What should happen to comments people might have about the India-Pakistan boarder conflict? Would the people here commenting about how rich people shouldn't be targeting China for money and growth complain about the NBA looking to grow in other markets? They've grown incredibly large in Europe over the past couple decades. Yes for money, but also popularity is fun to have, and amazing stories of players from those places.
I suppose my current stance on this, and a stance after only a few days and reading comments and posts from so many people which might change later or after responses to my comment here, is that the NBA should wave its hands and say the other countries can do what they want in terms of not even admitting the Rockets exist, or hide games completely, but reiterate that the players, GMs, and even owners, can say what they want, and that the NBA can and should continue to push the NBA to other markets.
How about the US government? I know in another post I made the point that we could not just call out Blizzard or other game companies but instead have to call out ALL companies that do business in China and worse crack down on their own and related who dare say something China does not approve of.
However the real party that has to be taken to task is our own governments. In the US that means both Congress and the Administration. That means all candidates for President need to state their stance NOW.
How it plays out in the EU I have no idea, news of any of their businesses or governments bending to China's will are pretty much absent from US news
edit:recently we have had major issues with privacy concerns, losing freedom of speech is a form of that as well.
EU governments and companies bend over for China way easier than in the US as there's a huge lack on unity in the EU where it's every country for itself like when China protested on Norway's leaders not meeting the Dalai Lama and Norway complied.
* Vilnius takes down ads after China promotes unsanctioned commemoration – 'it's a geopolitical provocation' 
* Lithuania hands note to China over incident during Hong Kong support rally in Vilnius 
Edit: Included titles
Sadly, I think there's not enough public will to punish entities like the NBA or Blizzard for their servile behavior.
Clearly our chief executive is happy to silence efforts. All for support re-electing him.
Why China would agree I don't know (the Falun Gong who hates the current Chinese government was, a few months ago the top-dollar supporter of the Trump campaign, not to mention the trade war).
Ok, so maybe Trump is remaining silent on the Hong Kong protests, but let's not pretend that he hasn't put the screws to China or talked often about their corrupt mercantile practices. Trump has been an anti-China force.
You know something is allowed in China if it traces all its authority back to exist back to the party. That's how communism has always operated. The success of the party was the highest goal of highest goals that lead to all the purges and terrors throughout history.
I would love for the NBA to stand up to China on this issue, but it IS NOT AN EASY OR OBVIOUS DECISION.
Remember when Google, promised it wouldn't kowtow to China? Then kowtowed anyway.
A better example would be how Apple quietly shared iCloud user data with the Chinese government.
You either stand against tyranny, or support it.
There is no middle ground, and this needs to be made clear to every company that is faced with this decision.
Episode "Dead Kids" for example (about school shootings) is amazing, and its ending is absolutely brutal. I know it will stay with me for years.
In fact, the more I think about this, is this even a problem?
I've been on Weibo a bit looking at reactions to all this, and here's the thing, if your average mainlander is upset and no longer wants to have anything to do with you, which, judging from the volume of comments seems to be true, why is that necessarily a problem?
People can say whatever they want. And other people can associate with whoever they want. Again, the more I thought about it, the more it struck me as simple Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association in action.
Fine. Just don't watch NBA anymore. You have the CBA anyway. No worries and no hard feelings. You do your thing in China and we'll do ours in the US.
You cannot flout the laws in China and continue to do business in China. This should also be reciprocal: Chinese companies should not be able to do business in the United States while flouting the laws of the United States.
US companies should stop targeting China for growth. If they don't steal your IP completely, they'll eventually freeze you out like they just did the NBA. It's happened to many companies and will eventually happen to you too. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Henry Ford's personal newspaper wrote at length about the Jewish problem, was the only American mentioned in Mein Kampf (and impressed Hitler so much that the idea of the Volkswagen came from the Model T), and was awarded Nazi Germany's highest civilian award.
Prescott Bush (George H W Bush's father, and George W Bush's grandfather) among others attempted a fascist military overthrow of the US government known as The Business Plot.
And Walt Disney attended Bund meetings in the US through the 1930s, and was widely known as a Nazi sympathizer.
I don't understand how American businesses didn't learn their lesson in Cuba in the 60's?
US and American businesses did fine business with the Cuban dictatorship of Batista:
"Fulgencio Batista y Zaldívar (/bəˈtiːstə/; Spanish: [fulˈxensjo βaˈtista i salˈdiβaɾ]; born Rubén Zaldívar; January 16, 1901 – August 6, 1973) was a Cuban military officer and politician who served as the elected President of Cuba from 1940 to 1944, and as its U.S.-backed military dictator from 1952 to 1959, before being overthrown during the Cuban Revolution."
I guess the takeaway is: "Do business with friendly dictatorships we helped install, as opposed to independent ones".
Most NBA team owners are already billionaires. I believe most of them are self-made and have signed the giving pledge, meaning they will donate much of their wealth to charities at or before their death. If anyone can afford to take a stand, it would seem to be them.
The jersey sponsor of the LA Lakers is Wish.com, a company doing drop shipping from China.
LeBron James is sponsored by Nike (as are all of the jerseys) and Nike has significant interest in keeping the Chinese market open. LeBron is leading production of Space Jam 2. He won’t jeopardize international acclaim and box office revenue for this.
This is the same for every other player. Sponsorship deals with apparel companies are a huge source of income. Few stars are untouchable and the ones who are wont risk other business interests.
I'm suspecting there are quite a number of other business dealings between China and those who sit on boards of American companies. That would create an enormous tangle of conflict of interest. China doesn't need a military to conquer, as these business relationships seem to be doing the job well enough.
Quick google search for NBA stars' pay: https://www.shmoop.com/careers/basketball-player/salary.html
At the top you have folks with $30m in salary and $30m in endorsements. Even if they lose all endorsements (and they won't), there's still $30m in salary left. Average stars make $5m/year for 5 years. That's certainly enough money for a lifetime of pretty good living. These are the folks who can afford to take a stand, is what OP means. In contrast, if the average office worker takes a stand and loses their $60k/year job, life would be really difficult for them.
1. Invade Iraq. 4000+ Americans dead, over 1 million Iraqi died.
2. Bombed Libya, it is now a $democratic_wonderland.
I'm not putting Afghanistan here because I think it's justified, but then why are we still there after Bin Laden's dead?
How about just minding our own business. If China don't want to watch NBA, then so be it. If you don't want to buy shit made in China, then don't buy it.
A foreign country telling Americans what they can and cannot say very much is my business.
#2 Sell regular folks the idea that they _may_ one day become billionaires too, convince them that they should vote down any tax increase on the 1%; Continue brainwashing them that there's plenty of room at the top, maybe, just maybe room opens up for them as well.
#3 Monetize on the image of billionaires and sell luxury goods and billionaire lifestyle to poor cretins
If you create something (a company, a video game, other IP), and people value that thing at a billion dollars, then you’re a billionaire. Notch became a billionaire after selling Minecraft because almost 100 million people play it.
What do you expect should happen if someone creates a thing of value worth a billion dollars? Do you not want these things to be created? Do you not want them to be sold? (Ownership has to change hands eventually; people don’t live forever). How are you expecting society would work?
Reaping what you sow provides the incentive to work hard in our society. Related: http://www.paulgraham.com/ineq.html
Let them have 50 or 100 million, then put the rest in the hands of the other people that worked to make it happen. If all of those people are now rich, then use the excess money to help the impoverished.
> Reaping what you sow provides the incentive to work hard in our society.
It's not binary. People don't get all the money or none of it. You can still have ridiculously large amounts of monetary incentive without it being possible to hit a billion dollars.
Debatable depending which business, and also highly subjective. Amazon is valuable to Wall Street, yes most certainly. It also generates massive amounts of garbage, pollution, and human suffering. Are we including those in the value statement or are we going by the capitalist axiom that as long as the number went upward, the non-financial cost doesn't matter?
> If you create something (a company, a video game, other IP), and people value that thing at a billion dollars, then you’re a billionaire. Notch became a billionaire after selling Minecraft because almost 100 million people play it.
So the system works because the system is working? This is circular logic at it's finest. I don't care what Microsoft decided Minecraft was worth, they're an equally diseased part of a diseased system. It's like saying "this cancerous tumor isn't a problem, because the other cancerous tumor vouched for it." So what? I don't place value on the opinions of capitalists on the value of the capitalist system. Can you justify it without citing a capitalist?
> What do you expect should happen if someone creates a thing of value worth a billion dollars? Do you not want these things to be created? Do you not want them to be sold? (Ownership has to change hands eventually; people don’t live forever). How are you expecting society would work?
You're working all of this from the viewpoint that markets, capitalism, and competition are the only ways to generate stuff. Not only is that not the case, and I would cite the entire open source community as evidence to that fact, but I reject outright the assertions that:
1) The only things that have value are the ones where the value is expressed in currency
2) That the only arbiters of value are those who place values in the form of currency
There are tons of examples of things created with no monetization plan that are great. There are tons more things created with a monetization plan out of necessity, because without one they could not exist.
Again and again criticism of capitalism is met with this assertion that "well things have value and therefore we need to respect the market" and I flatly reject that. We're all locked in the same prison, every idea, every concept rung through this machine that decides whether or not something deserves to exist by it's ability to contribute to a market. A market built by people, allegedly for people, that is for some reason simply beyond reproach. Capitalism has ballooned to practically another religion, and you are a follower of it, so dedicated to it's holy texts you've entirely forgotten that human civilization existed for THOUSANDS of years before we had a bloody market.
Sod your market.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email email@example.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
Your rhetoric is naive at best and racist at worst. It’s racist because you are disenfranchising the potential voice and sovereignty of a whole ethnicity and country because private interests in your own country can’t get their way over there.
The hong kong protestors have started getting their way. They don’t need poorly informed observers to fan the flames (on either side).
In general, one has to be careful about conflating the interests of the Chinese government and the Chinese people. They're not the same thing, although the Chinese government tries to portray it as such. Speaking out against the Chinese government is not the same as speaking out against Chinese people.
We know who the dictator is, it isn't billions of people, it is one man.
Yes there are other Chinese in countries like Malaysia, Singapore, and Taiwan, but that's not the point here. Just because the racism doesn't target those Chinese doesn't mean there is a sense of cultural and moral superiority being levied on a different culture here.
Keep in mind that Singapore is also very authoritarian, but does not get as much flak for whatever reason (probably because they are not rivaling the US).
In the end it's all just criticism of a specific government. Doesn't need to go further than that.
For example, the Chinese government has not "lifted millions out of poverty", that's pure propaganda. Human society lifts itself out of poverty when not prevented from doing so by totalitarian governments. Japan was destroyed by war and became a rich first world nation within decades. South Korea became fully developed in also just a few decades. Plenty of other examples of that.
China is behind the rest of the world because of its government. If it weren't for the Great Leap Forward and then decades of economically devastating communism, China would be as developed as the USA or South Korea is by now. The fact that its people are still so poor can be laid squarely at the feet of its government.
But how many Chinese will think that? Probably not many. They are stuck in a system designed to mould them into loyal subjects from birth.
Got any other zingers you want to tell me with a straight face?
You gauge by whoever takes political action, whether or not you think they are properly informed.
Is 'Hong Kong separatist' any different to 'Ulster unionist' in acceptability to each side? It sounds like a neutral description to me.
The fact that someone as prominent as Joe Tsai made such a factually incorrect public statement is a bit bothersome; and seems to suggest that there's truth in that Chinese media really wants to portray the protests as separatists movements (which is not true) to its people. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_2019_Hong_Kon...)
The thing is, Joe is right in the rest of his post -- everything about China's sensitivity to territories and separatists movements. It's that his categorization of Hong Kong's movement is wrong, which makes the whole argument invalid.
Devil's advocate here...Are they not separatist? If not, shouldn't they be?
It's hard to imagine your "country" working on a death clock. In 2047 it all ends. So, what is the point of fighting the good fight at this point? Why not face the inevitable and leave while you can? Or fight for a final independence now, while you can?
Most separatists are probably protestors, but that does not imply most protestors are separatists.
It's to stop calling it a riot and release anybody who is arrested because of it.
Just because you're rioting for democracy, doesn't mean it's not a riot, and it doesn't grant those who used it as an opportunity to vandalize shops and destroy subways a free pass. That directly conflicts with the rule of law.
These are their demands (more or less):
Full-on separatism would give the PLA a more plausible reason to declare an insurrection and go full Tiananmen Square. Also, a lot of HKers who support the existing demands would not be on board with it.
Because there's still 28 years to go, and a lot can happen in 28 years.
A lot can happen in that time. Given the direction of things, do you think it will be better? I guess I don't.
When HK is supposed to hand itself over to China's rule in 2047, do you think there will be ANY international support for their independence? I don't. That would be directly against the deal that was struck.
Wouldn't it be better to use China's interference as a pretext for independence, claiming it was China who has broken the bargain?
American independence wasn't about a tea tax or a few soldiers defending themselves in Boston. It was about inevitability and using those events to propel it.
In 1982, pretty much everyone assumed the Soviet Union was still going to be around in 1992, but it wasn't.
Who knows what China will look like in 2047. A lot can happen in 28 years.
hell, the rockets ownership allegedly discussed removing "one of the best GMs in the league": https://www.theringer.com/nba/2019/10/6/20901828/daryl-morey...
and give me a break about the giving pledge. when people are dead, access to their money doesn't matter. if they want to earn some sort of altruistic "cred", they can donate 90% of their net worth, today, and still be in the 100 millionaire club.
go ahead and let me know when any one of these people does that.
I suppose China has no small part of the greatness. Maybe removing that part actually make him removable and far from "one of the greatest"?
This is the same guy who has two former employees, one is a newer Supreme Court Justice that he allegedly spent $10 million in dark money helping and the other is a US Senator whose running for President. He also happens to own Coachella despite fighting legal weed and donating to anti-gay groups in the past.
Why do you believe this? As far as I can tell Dan Gilbert is the only one I see on that list.
Not saying that NBA and basket generally speaking is not important anymore for Europeans, because it is, but there was a slight moment during the timeframe I mentioned when the likes of Jordan, Scottie Pippen, Larry Bird, Sabonis or Toni Kukoc were more famous than many footballers of that time. But in the second part of the '90s something happened and apart from a few exceptions (like LeBron or Kobe) no big NBA names from across the Atlantic have been widely known in here. Which is to say that it's totally possible for the NBA to lose the Chinese market.
This ignores human nature and basic incentives. Of course it's not much of a dilemma for you and me. We aren't the ones who stand to gain or lose hundreds millions of dollars. It shouldn't be shocking that many people with skin in the game feel differently.
And I don't think it has much to do with being rich. I suspect plenty of thousandairs would happily kowtow to fascists for a few weeks in return for a six-figure payday.
I liked Silver's response. Respectfully but firmly refusing to get into regulating the politics of however many players and employees.
fascist != authoritarian, it also about long term business opportunities. Selling NBA product for decades to come is hardly quick buck.
You are mostly right on the rest though - for the spherical cow in vacuum type of corporation that can ignore 1/6 of the world's population.
China is big player. Ascending superpowers tend to like flexing muscles and rocking the boat.
Tim Cook was Apple's strongman who basically blackmailed Apple's entire Chinese supply chain to meet insane shipping and quality standards. Amazon has done it with their local delivery contracts with third party vendors. Forcing them to meet unrealistic delivery goals all the while detaching themselves from any responsibility for what happens when their vendors push themselves too much and people start dying.
I do agree wholeheartedly about how any company, in the US or abroad should stop targeting China for their growth.
Foreign organizations wishing to do business in US encounter restrictions and conformity that they too would find foreign. Dont criticize Jewish people or Israeli policy if you want to do business in the US. Easy! But a foreign concept to many. In the US its people and private sector will cause most of the headache, and you might find some discretionary import privileges stonewalled by ITC or other gov agencies.
Its really not that different just because China has top down control which it arbitrarily flexes on a topic that coincidentally is much more important to you. We believe that publicly made speech in an unofficial capacity should have no consequences from state level actors, surprise. We believe that the speech on this particular issue is the right thing to do, surprise there are consequences and China doesnt want you opining on “sovereignty issues”.
If you want to do business there you have to understand that.
Now you know why Jackie Chan says pro beijing things. If you’re perceptive and want favor from that very large market thats how you do it.
Exiting any market is always an option.
I don't recall Apple demanding that their Chinese suppliers stay silent about Apple concentration camps or otherwise risk losing the business.
Under Deng Xiaoping, China gradually undid the economic structures that define communism and moved to a market-driven economy. Today it is essentially a free market economy with maybe a little more government intervention than most other free market economies. China is communist in name only.
"Fascists" is probably not a good description of the Chinese Communist Party, since Fascism is widely regarded as always and everywhere the diametric opposite/enemy of Communism and Communists. Examples of this include  and  and  and , which are the results of me googling "is fascism the enemy of communism?" for 5 seconds.
Probably you mean "Totalitarians" or "Statists" or "Authoritarian Governments" or something like that.
This is pedantic but lots of the discussion downthread seems to hinge on this point of equating "Chinese Communists" with "Fascists," and that's imho a totally false premise.
Oftentimes people say things like "Well the Chinese are commies in name only" and similar, and this might be semi-or-mostly true, but it's a bit of a leap from there to calling them fascists.
 "Mussolini, with his anti-Communist doctrines..." from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini
 "In Hitler's mind, communism was a major enemy of Germany ... Hitler claimed that his singular goal was to assist the German government in "fighting Marxism". Marxism, Bolshevism, and communism were interchangeable terms for Hitler..." from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Adolf_Hitle...
 "Fascism is often considered to be a reaction to communist and socialist uprisings..." from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-communism
 "...in the early 1920s the Nazis were only one of many nationalist and fascist political parties contending for the leadership of Germany's anti-communist movement" also from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-communism
By who? Is there a reason for this?
Fascism's self-description is basically just the motto "united we stand, divided we fall". It's right there in the name. As a philosophy, I know it best for strict intolerance of public dissent. That sort of thing undermines unity.
And that's pretty much it. I would have said that "fascism" in modern American usage had lost all meaning other than as a generic term of abuse; I would never have guessed that it was supposed to mean "the opposite of communism, whatever that might mean". "The opposite of communism" is usually considered to be capitalism.
But there seem to be many good correspondences between Chinese practice today and original, Mussolini-style fascism.
First and foremost, by the inventors of fascism themselves, as I tried to show in some stealth edits in my comment above.
It's a bit like saying Tom Cruise isn't a real scientologist because Xenu doesn't exist.
The two seem to always be found near each other.
Sun Tzu said that the supreme excellence consists of defeating your enemy without fighting.
Guess what, we are ruled from Beijing now.
Anyway, I am not crying over the top 1% losing money over that, I am talking about the paycheck to paycheck workers whose means of subsistence depends on their employers doing okay.
I am not saying Chinese products shouldn't be boycotted or that China shouldn't be pressured into aligning better with western values but who is going to pay in the end ?
That's why we have unemployment benefits, and why most countries do things like have health care that's separate from employment.
I am not talking about Chinese workers losing jobs, I am talking about US citizens being collateral damage next month when Random Mother Corpo ® decides to lay off an arbitrary number of workers way down the corporate ladder in order to compensate for the bad previsions for next quarter due to $4B of revenues disappearing from the market.
edit: I believe you are intentionally derailing the conversation by moving the goal post (by moving from US citizens concerns to other countries with healthcare and social net and then reframing the problem as an environmental problem).
I think there should be policies in place to help people who lose their jobs for whatever reason.
But the company doing the layoff isn't the same as the company doing the "wrong" thing. Think of the guy selling burgers in front of the stadium not meeting the quota because ticket prices surged and less people buy burgers or the bar owner selling less drinks because suddenly the rights to show NBA games rose up in order to compensate for the $4B of revenues disappearing and he has in turn to pass the buckets to his regular who either buy less drinks or shell out more money than before.
edit: I specifically wrote Random Mother Corpo® as in NOT THE NBA . To illustrate the fact that companies and the economy is inter-connected. That boycotting some company or country has some side-effects which bring collateral damage.
Yes, a company has a fiduciary duty to shareholders, but there are lots of ways to fulfill that duty. There's no requirement that they expand into China. Many companies don't and it's fine
This isn’t the case so much for the NBA or Apple. The NBA has no equivalent and Apple has all of their manufacturing in China. Both stand to lose far more money by exiting the Chinese market than Google ever did.
Then be laughed out of court right after filing for having no legal basis.