7 ms·

It’s one thing for India to censor something for a stupid reason. It makes me uncomfortable to have China be able to influence all these other global countries

It’s one thing for India to censor something for a stupid reason. It makes me uncomfortable to have China be able to influence all these other global countries into global (or in this case localized) censorship. Hollywood, News Companies, anything else that China invests heavily has no choice but to fall in line with the censorship.

jackjeff 7y ago
I’m surprised Trump’s trade war has not “escalated” to banning the Chinese emoji yet...
xpe 7y ago
Yes, this reminds me of a similar, but more general argument: Free economics tends to promote liberal democracy. This is debatable of course. Historical patterns are complex: https://www.economist.com/buttonwoods-notebook/2017/11/06/where-economic-power-goes-political-power-will-follow https://www.economist.com/buttonwoods-notebook/2017/11/06/wh...
- lonelappde 7y ago
  Free economics promote colonialism too.
  - kortilla 7y ago
    That makes no sense. Colonialism effectively stopped before free economics was a thing.
    - opportune 7y ago
      Colonialism (imperialism, more accurately) didn’t slow down much until WWII. Even in the 70s Portugal still controlled its African colonies and fought them in wars of independence. What the gp is referencing is the argument that the concept of free trade has only obfuscated colonialism. Rather than colonialism by France or UK it’s colonialism by Nestle or De Beers. To someone harvesting cacao for $2/day nothing is materially different from living under colonialism, except their landowner might be some well-connected member of the regime rather than a European.
      - rayiner 7y ago
        > What the gp is referencing is the argument that the concept of free trade has only obfuscated colonialism. Rather than colonialism by France or UK it’s colonialism by Nestle or De Beers. To someone harvesting cacao for $2/day nothing is materially different from living under colonialism, except their landowner might be some well-connected member of the regime rather than a European. Ironically, China shows you exactly why that comparison is absurd. Colonial powers carefully controlled production to keep colonies from moving up the value chain. Indian raw materials were gathered by Indian labor, shipped to Britain, finished, and shipped back to India. Foreign direct investment, by contrast, allowed countries like China and South Korea to rapidly move up the value chain. Foreign investors get a return when the foreign company moves up the value chain, even if that takes business away from a company in the investor’s own country.
thelittleone 7y ago
Agree completely. PRC comes across a lot like a spoiled, entitled brat. Such behavior should never go unchecked otherwise we are enabling it. On another note, it was refreshing to see South Park creators giving some love to Chinese censorship. https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/tv/story/2019-10-07/south-park-china-apology https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/tv/story/2019-10-...

jackjeff 7y ago

I’m surprised Trump’s trade war has not “escalated” to banning the Chinese emoji yet...

xpe 7y ago

Yes, this reminds me of a similar, but more general argument: Free economics tends to promote liberal democracy. This is debatable of course. Historical patterns are complex: https://www.economist.com/buttonwoods-notebook/2017/11/06/where-economic-power-goes-political-power-will-follow https://www.economist.com/buttonwoods-notebook/2017/11/06/wh...

lonelappde 7y ago
Free economics promote colonialism too.
- kortilla 7y ago
  That makes no sense. Colonialism effectively stopped before free economics was a thing.
  - opportune 7y ago
    Colonialism (imperialism, more accurately) didn’t slow down much until WWII. Even in the 70s Portugal still controlled its African colonies and fought them in wars of independence. What the gp is referencing is the argument that the concept of free trade has only obfuscated colonialism. Rather than colonialism by France or UK it’s colonialism by Nestle or De Beers. To someone harvesting cacao for $2/day nothing is materially different from living under colonialism, except their landowner might be some well-connected member of the regime rather than a European.
    - rayiner 7y ago
      > What the gp is referencing is the argument that the concept of free trade has only obfuscated colonialism. Rather than colonialism by France or UK it’s colonialism by Nestle or De Beers. To someone harvesting cacao for $2/day nothing is materially different from living under colonialism, except their landowner might be some well-connected member of the regime rather than a European. Ironically, China shows you exactly why that comparison is absurd. Colonial powers carefully controlled production to keep colonies from moving up the value chain. Indian raw materials were gathered by Indian labor, shipped to Britain, finished, and shipped back to India. Foreign direct investment, by contrast, allowed countries like China and South Korea to rapidly move up the value chain. Foreign investors get a return when the foreign company moves up the value chain, even if that takes business away from a company in the investor’s own country.

thelittleone 7y ago

Agree completely. PRC comes across a lot like a spoiled, entitled brat. Such behavior should never go unchecked otherwise we are enabling it. On another note, it was refreshing to see South Park creators giving some love to Chinese censorship. https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/tv/story/2019-10-07/south-park-china-apology https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/tv/story/2019-10-...