The growing confrontation between the West and China seems to me to boil down to a philosophical problem:<p>- <i>Should free markets/societies/cultural entities allow participation by all actors, even those which (in their own spaces) obviously don't play by the rules of the entered market/society/culture?</i><p>- <i>Or, should entry into the entity be restricted to those that themselves (in their own space) follow the rules of the entered culture?</i><p>It seems to me that there are definite advantages and disadvantages to both approaches and it's probably something that game theorists have addressed. To use a convoluted, over-simplified metaphor of a playground:<p>- <i>If we allow kids (that have different rules in their own playground) into our playground, we run the risk of their rules overcoming or having a negative effect on ours. We also enable them to play with us while having "bad" rules on their own playground - some of which might give them an (unfair) advantage over us on our own playground. However, we get the benefits of having more kids and toys to play with. And, maybe the kids will choose our rules (which we perceive as better) over their own.</i><p>- <i>If we don't allow them into our playground, we have less kids and toys to play with. We also have no real direct influence on them - they can't see that our rules are better in person, and we can't threaten to kick them out of our playground if they aren't in it to begin with. However, we avoid the risk of having their rules overwhelm ours and we worry less about them having unfair advantages over us on our own playground.</i>
Ok, now WH is exploring all creative (and unprecedented) ways to fight against China. I have to say this seems to have crossed a lot of boundaries, either clear or vague ones.<p>And we've also seen WH is doing similar things (though at a different degree) to close partners like Mexico.<p>So let's extrapolate, if there're some conflicts in interests between US and major NATO countries, will WH do the same thing? Make America great again even no one wants to talk to US?
I'm guessing that Chinese companies are somewhat similar to statutory companies. I've heard that large Chinese companies have strong CCP oversight, with a party member involved that the CEO/founder has to defer to.<p>So the question is - does it make sense for not-actually-public-companies from other countries to be listed on the U.S. stock exchange? It could be potentially misleading otherwise.
Would that just mean the securities will just trade on pink sheets? Or would it be more likely that trading would migrate to a stock exchange in another country?
How would this affect foreign pension funds that invest in NYSE?<p>Would they just sell their Chineses stocks or move some investment to another country??
Oh boy, this thread needs to be locked down. All the conversation has turned into political short outbursts and I only see one comment actually remotely talking about the topic.<p>Even the thread title is not what the article headline is. Maybe the title is at fault for off-topic conversations.
Normally the US government has extraordinary power over China in financial sector.<p>But Trump has alienated all traditional allies. Threat to exclude China turns into opportunity for others to exploit the situation. Euronext, London, Toronto, Tokyo and Hong Kong are in the position to gain relative to NASDAQ and NYSE.<p>ps. I think the change of delisting happening is less than 5%.
On the one hand - I feel it is totally legitimate that the US take the view that they want a symmetrical arrangement in so far as 'if Chinese firms can access US investors then US firms should be able to access Chinese ones'.<p>On the other hand, this has the feel of trying to bully China into a trade deal that is good for Trump but not for the Chinese. It could also hurt investor confidence in the US.<p>Ultimately, its a tough one and while I think its a horrible path for the US to be pursuing, I understand why they are thinking about it.
This seems reasonable, though the administration is likely doing it for the wrong reasons. Genuine question: Is sentiment more important than correctness, or is the opposite true?
The China problem is of our own doing, of course. Up until Trump nobody had any interest in addressing it. I'll just say nobody before him took this on because of the potential for political suicide. Love or hate him (I'm +/- around neutral, hate how he presents the presidency, like most of what he is actually doing when he is not busy saying stupid things) forcing a realignment of China is a good idea.<p>This had to be done 25 years ago, when it would have been far easier to accomplish. Attempting this today is equivalent to not detecting cancer early enough for a simple operation to extract it fully with minimal consequences. Instead, we wait until it has metastasized and nearly have to kill the patient in an attempt to cure him. Notice my use of the word "attempt"...because there are no guarantees.<p>The China problem, I think, can be boiled down to a few important line items:<p><pre><code> - Intellectual property theft
- Currency manipulation
- Terrible disregard of the environment
- Objectionable labor practices
- Predatory practices with foreign entities operating in China
- Fraud in regulatory testing and standards
(UL/CE/TUV mark from China testing means nothing)
- Lackluster of participation in foreign aid
(for the second largest economy it is embarrassing)
- Asymmetric property ownership laws
- Abuse of the global postal system
(free shipping from China because the US taxpayers subsidize
their packages within the us to the tune of US $500 million per year)
</code></pre>
There's probably more, though I think these are some of the main points. If any other economy behaved this way they would be universally scolded in around the world. If the US, Germany, France or the UK behaved this way we would have massive marches all over the world. China does this and more and people, for the most part, are either oblivious to it or don't care. The problem with this is that they are sacrificing their own jobs and their kid's futures for their inaction.<p>I think the value of playing with reasonably similar rules is that one entity can't destroy other players by using out of the norm methods to destroy them and then gain supremacy. This is why we have such things as antitrust and monopoly laws. This is why such methods as price fixing and bribery are illegal in the US and Europe. This is why we respect intellectual property, fight for humane labor practices, respect safety testing of the products we use and help less fortunate nations to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars and generally speaking.<p>China is almost the diametric opposite of this. And for that they likely deserve a bit of a reality check today.<p>Non an easy problem to fix. Others have allowed this cancer to metastasize for decades. To fix it today you have to be a complete a--hole and go for broke. It looks like the job fits the guy in the White House. Not sure if he will succeed. The other problem is that, in western democracies, leaders and some policies tend to only survive term limits and election cycles, while in China they know they can stay the course for decades.
This is typical tactics from Trump. Whenever there is a meeting he inflicts maximum leverage and stress to the opponent. I wouldn't read much into this honestly. It's a game.
Good.<p>The CCP pretty much owns every Chinese big company. And, they don't let people examine their books. Who's to say that all that American investment money isn't going into grossly or even fraudulently overvalued stock?