China accuses US of starting global 'internet war'

[amoy]

The investment in China BTW has nothing to do with favoring the Chinese or exploiting their peoples for cheap labor, if you happen to think that way then you lack a considerable amount of knowledge in economics; particularly the free market. You should give thanks to people like Milton Friedman for making it possible for the Chinese to increase their standard of living and attain wealth:

Thank u for your economics and thank free market, and Friedman. So why not go to the question: why more the US capital flowed to China than India which's a 'democracy' and friendly to the US despite lots of similarities with China (population alike)?

 

[maomao]

Thank u for your economics and thank free market, and Friedman. So why not go to the question: why more the US capital flowed to China than India which's a 'democracy' and friendly to the US despite lots of similarities with China (population alike)?

The answer lies with the way or with whom US investors like to work e.g Theocratic dictatorships e.g Saudi Arabia, Ruthless dictators e.g Iraq, Military Regimes which beg for money and kill their own e.g Pakistan et al.....Therefore, when CCP assured american investors that they will employ full force on its slave population so as to churn out the best Cost-Benefit Ratio, the US investors knowing how ruthless CCP is - chose China to be their best investment destination, and at all quarters CCP has proved itself to be satisfactory to its Western investors by providing slave labor of its fellow poor countrymen.

 

[asianobserve]

"xxx why more the US capital flowed to China than India which's a 'democracy' and friendly to the US despite lots of similarities with China (population alike)?"

Totalitarian government (which is simplier to deal with as far as investors are concerned), infrastructure, business-friendly rules (unbelievably labor rights restricting laws) and uncomplaining labor force (which really doesn't have much freedom/choice). India cannot match any of these 4 very important investmentconsiderations.

Having said that, the Chinese strictly 1 party and totalitarian political system cannot be sustained. Sooner or later Chinese rulers have to strike a balance between control and rights for their people (which as average Chinese becomes more affluent they will also demand more freedom and participation in political decisions). On the more serious downside, the repressed minorities in China which have not really assimilated with the majority Chinese like the Tibetans and the Mongolains will start agitating for more autonomy if not freedom as soon as they see a loosening in the grip on them by the CCP. Taiwan will also take advantage on any Chinese democratization... China is in a bind really.

 

[amoy]

The answer lies with the way or with whom US investors like to work e.g Theocratic dictatorships e.g Saudi Arabia, Ruthless dictators e.g Iraq, Military Regimes which beg for money and kill their own e.g Pakistan et al.....Therefore, when CCP assured american investors that they will employ full force on its slave population

I wish our Japanese / S. Korean friends love your theory as they were top recepients of US investment before China... ( (*o*))

 

[AOE]

Thank u for your economics and thank free market, and Friedman. So why not go to the question: why more the US capital flowed to China than India which's a 'democracy' and friendly to the US despite lots of similarities with China (population alike)?

Apart from the other responses which are debatable and bordering on conspiracy theories, I'll address what you've said here more broadly, but before I do I want you (if you are Chinese) to note something; Friedman believed that Capitalism is a necessary condition for freedom, but not a sufficient one. When the Chinese realize this, they will know that China will stop being seen as a tyrannical regime when it ditches communism in favor of democracy.

Having said that; the reason China has enjoyed a more substantial amount of FDI partially has to do with the Sino-Soviet split (which depends on your perspective), and also the fact that Jawaharlal Nehru, who was a Socialist and politician who supported oversized, corrupt, centralized government for India, and who chose the Soviet Union over the US in the 1950s for dubious reasons has created a complex situation in which western aid and investment has been given to just about everyone in the region. The main reason for a lack of major support to India has to do with Nehrus NAM policies, and alignment with the USSR.

Indeed one could point out that had it not been for Nehru and his successors who have advocated some disastrous economic and foreign policy initiatives for India; then India and the US would have been long term allies, India would have benefitted far more from aid, FDI, technology; Pakistan would probably not exist (or at the least be put in its place), and China would have collapsed just like the Soviet Union.

 

[nimo_cn]

Very interesting, Indian are telling us that Americans like dealing with one-party countries like China, then please explain to us why US is also increasingly investing in a "democratic" India?

 

[maomao]

I wish our Japanese / S. Korean friends love your theory as they were top recepients of US investment before China... ( (*o*))

Not True.....To open up a manufacturing hub with BIG labor force (that too cheap labor).....Only China and India had the potential not Japan or S.Korea, which were themselves industrialized with strict labor laws. India being Democratic with vibrant Unionism was never a best place to park investments for US investors who wanted obedient (Slave) labor force....here China came into being....US got what they wanted by not even getting any criticism and CCP played the role of the suppressor!! Cheers!!

 

[maomao]

Very interesting, Indian are telling us that Americans like dealing with one-party countries like China, then please explain to us why US is also increasingly investing in a "democratic" India?

Times are changing, alliances are tilting......moreover US is investing not in cheap labor intensive industries such as manufacturing but knowledge and capital intensive industries such as IT, Consulting, Power, Infra that too with JVs!!

 

[nimo_cn]

Times are changing, alliances are tilting......moreover US is investing not in cheap labor intensive industries such as manufacturing but knowledge and capital intensive industries such as IT, Consulting, Power, Infra that too with JVs!!

So Americans are not investing in these sectors because it is cheap?

Do you really believe the so-called India IT industry is not cheap labor intensive?

 

[utubekhiladi]

Do you really believe the so-called India IT industry is not cheap labor intensive?

 

[tarunraju]

I think Russia Today did an investigative report into how there are numerous fake/bot accounts in social-media sites like Facebook and Twitter, that are sponsored by their companies, which are behind inciting agitations in the Middle East. I can't seem to find that video.

 

[AOE]

Very interesting, Indian are telling us that Americans like dealing with one-party countries like China, then please explain to us why US is also increasingly investing in a "democratic" India?

lol, well the dealing with one-party regimes is a grey area in itself, and India is certainly not exempt in this department either; so I take much of the Marxist and Chomskyite armchair historians here with a grain of sand. No countries history is perfect, whether it be Indias, Chinas, or Americas; but the story doesn't end there, I'm afraid. If you wish to talk about specific examples of US sponsorship of dictatorships, then I'll be happy to oblige you in another thread or via PM.

As for US moving to support India; this is for many reasons. One of which is a push to decentralize India and allow for more free market trade (similar to what happened with China), as well as the Cold War being over, and a sharing of security interests between both countries, i.e; War on Terror. India has not been isolated in terms of foreign aid or development from the west, such money has just been on and off in the region, and given to many different recipients. Then again Pakistan has also received on and off support as well.

There is also the point to consider that democratic countries tend to be less in conflict with one another, and prefer to band together economically and militarily against aggressive dictatorships; such research is available if you're familiar with Rudolph Rummel, but there are exceptions to the contrary, because as I said before; history is not perfect.

 

[asianobserve]

"Very interesting, Indian are telling us that Americans like dealing with one-party countries like China, then please explain to us why US is also increasingly investing in a "democratic" India?"

The immense trade imbalance in favor of China, which the US is beginning to view as China's unfair advantage against it, and utter lack of respect for intellectual property rights by China and its businesses, is making the US rethink its almost singular emphasis on China during the 90s and early 2000s. India is beginning to be seen as a real alternative if not a safer investment destination for its businesses.

 

[badguy2000]

"xxx why more the US capital flowed to China than India which's a 'democracy' and friendly to the US despite lots of similarities with China (population alike)?"

Totalitarian government (which is simplier to deal with as far as investors are concerned), infrastructure, business-friendly rules (unbelievably labor rights restricting laws) and uncomplaining labor force (which really doesn't have much freedom/choice). India cannot match any of these 4 very important investmentconsiderations.

Having said that, the Chinese strictly 1 party and totalitarian political system cannot be sustained. Sooner or later Chinese rulers have to strike a balance between control and rights for their people (which as average Chinese becomes more affluent they will also demand more freedom and participation in political decisions). On the more serious downside, the repressed minorities in China which have not really assimilated with the majority Chinese like the Tibetans and the Mongolains will start agitating for more autonomy if not freedom as soon as they see a loosening in the grip on them by the CCP. Taiwan will also take advantage on any Chinese democratization... China is in a bind really.

well,guy, Africa ,MD and Latin America are/were full of many Totalitarian government,such as Egypt,Yemen...etc....why coun't those "Totalitarian government" work out economy mirical like CHina????

Your theory is full of paradoxs......basiclly it is a bull$hit.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

USA controls China's internet since it is mostly Cisco equipment , if things get too hot Chinese internet will go down and USA will win easily.

 

[badguy2000]

Not True.....To open up a manufacturing hub with BIG labor force (that too cheap labor).....Only China and India had the potential not Japan or S.Korea, which were themselves industrialized with strict labor laws. India being Democratic with vibrant Unionism was never a best place to park investments for US investors who wanted obedient (Slave) labor force....here China came into being....US got what they wanted by not even getting any criticism and CCP played the role of the suppressor!! Cheers!!

guy, case is just that

1. Indians just want want gain without any pains......
2.Indians belittle on bluecollar jobs ,due to caste system. it makes indians belittle on labour-intensive industry.


when Indians and CHinese faced the chance to industrialze their country by beginning with "sweat workshop" 3 decades ago, Indians said no to "sweat workshop" but CHinese say yes.

3 decades now has passed away, CHinese has become global biggest industry capacity while millions of Indians are still struggling for a job like "chai-boy" ,because indian's poor manufacturing can not provide enough job for the labour shift from agriculture to industry at all.

 

[badguy2000]

USA controls China's internet since it is mostly Cisco equipment , if things get too hot Chinese internet will go down and USA will win easily.

as I know, Cisco is struggling to prevent Huawei entering into North America market,by labbying congressmen.....hehehe

 

[LETHALFORCE]

as I know, Cisco is struggling to prevent Huawei entering into North America market,by labbying congressmen.....hehehe

Huawei is not even 1% of north american market.

 

[badguy2000]

Huawei is not even 1% of north american market.

so is it ,mainly because your congress forbids Huawai into North America

 

[LETHALFORCE]

so is it ,mainly because your congress forbids Huawai into North America

we have enough cyber attacks don't need anymore.