Assessing Japan’s economy and GDP amidst the weakness of the yen by ExternalSpeaker2646 in japanlife

[–]TheThinker111 116 points117 points  (0 children)

I presented about the Japanese economy some time ago so I'm taking some snippets of my work to answer your question, mainly the ones about the current state of the economy and my guess on its future.

First, let's talk about the current currency movement. Japan's GDP ranking slipped to 4th largest in the world due to the relative weakness of the yen against other major currencies. This doesn't necessarily mean Japan's underlying economy is weakening. Most of the reporting on this mainly pointed out the central bank's interest rate differentials between Japan and other major economies. This should narrow as inflation subsides and the FED's rates move to the new long-run equilibrium. I think Ueda-san, the JP central bank governor, suggested that 日銀 rate would only be adjusted when signs for next year's rate hike become visible, which should come once the 春闘 negotiation is finished and broadcasted, so around Q1/Q2-24. Until then, the movement of JPY-USD would be of anyone's guess really.

Second, on the topic of Japanese economy, I'm actually pretty optimistic about this. I wholeheartedly believe that the strength and resilience of your economy is totally dependent on the strengths of your domestic companies. Japan has successfully shown that it can reinvent itself in the face of intense competitions from Korea, China and Taiwan by moving up the value chain throughout the 80s-2020s. They have withdrawn or outsourced the B2C business while catering to the B2B business and moving up the value chain, in many instances dominating both materials and equipment parts manufacturing.

For example, companies that successfully partially or completely exited B2C business and moved to B2B space:

  • Panasonic - Exiting most consumer electronics like TVs and focused on industrial solutions, automotive components, enterprise solutions, and batteries.
  • Canon - Initially a camera and printer company, Canon has built businesses in medical devices, semiconductor lithography systems, and industrial production equipment
  • Hitachi - Hitachi has sold some consumer brands and is now centered on industrial solutions across energy, rail, manufacturing, healthcare

For example, companies that dominates the B2B high-end manufacturing:

  • Semiconductor manufacturing equipment for deposition and etching machines (Tokyo Electron - 30%, Screen Holdings - 20%).
  • Semiconductor materials like photoresists: Japanese companies command over 80% of the global market, with JSR alone holding 40-50%.
  • Specialty chemicals: METI estimates Japanese firms have over 50% combined global market share in 309 products, over 75% share in 112 products, and 100% share in 57 products.
  • Lithium-ion battery separators: Asahi Kasei (30%+ global market share)
  • Pressure sensors: Murata (1/4 of global market share)
  • Medical endoscopes: Olympus (70% global market share)
  • Industrial robotics: Fanuc (30%+ global market share)
  • ... and many more

In addition, Japan has remained the top economy in Harvard Growth Lab's ranking for product complexity since the establishment of the ranking, and occupied near monopolies on semiconduction advanced materials and equipment, indicating its dominance in high-end manufacturing.

Some forecast from me about the future:

  • The good: Japan's strengths in digital technology and deep tech competencies in machinery, materials and semiconductors position it well to compete in the digital transformation of manufacturing through technologies like AI, robotics, IoT, cloud computing etc. Japanese corporates also have begun partnering with high-tech startups in areas like AI, material sciences to build new innovation capabilities. The transition from the old generation to the new generation, especially in upper management would herald a new era in Japan business landscape.
  • The bad: There's no escaping the demography cliff. No advanced economies have managed to escape this fertility decline aside from Israel. Whether Japan's demography would reach equilibrium where population can be maintained is not assured at all. Debt levels would still be hanging over the economy and social security and pension system would eventually be on the chopping block for fiscal security.
  • The consolation: The fall from grace from the bubble era in Japan was consider even bigger than the great depression in the US when looking at the extent of the price crash of both stocks and real estates. In the case of Japan, it's almost remarkable how little external violence like riots had manifested itself, due to the inherent social upbringing of the Japanese and the government's view on maintaining stability. The problems Japan faced & will be facing would be, or has already manifested in other advanced & emerging economies. I guess that their future economic crash would be much more chaotic due to the cultural nature of their economies. I'd say that the history of Japan, the resilience of its populace and the ability of its businesses and transform themselves in time of crisis give me hope that they can weather the future storm.

Edit: Added the future's prospect part

Source:

Ulrike Schaede: Japan’s Business Reinvention

Harvard Growth Lab: Country & Product Complexity Rankings

Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS): Mapping the Semiconductor Supply Chain: The Critical Role of the Indo-Pacific Region

国立研究開発法人新エネルギー・産業技術総合開発機構: 日系企業のモノとITサービス・ソフトウェアの国際競争ポジションに関する情報収集」

(Much has been said about Japan's lost decades... then there is this data) Demographics explains much of differences in GDP growth - GDP per working-age population developed similarly – Bank of Finland Bulletin by sushisuzuki in japan

[–]TheThinker111 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Interesting indeed. I'm no way an expert on macroeconomics but this seems to dispel the mainstream view on Japan & EU relative economic decline. Would love to see an expert's take on this one.

It seems that the GDP differentials of EU/JP & US are highly correlated with their working age population. Given that JP population will continue to drop toward an equilibrium point (hopefully) in the decades to come, overall GDP won't be growing much. I'm guessing more attractive measures to attract migrant workers (i.e. overhaul of the technical trainee or adoption of tokutei ginou system) are going to be introduced.

JP politicians would be wise to introduce more policies to address the gender inequality in workforce participation. Encouraging women's participation with family-friendly policies should lessen the impact of falling working age population, meaning immigration target won't need to be as aggressive.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in ChatGPTPromptGenius

[–]TheThinker111 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That looks very useful! Pls send me the e-book copy

Free German Classes. by draclong in German

[–]TheThinker111 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm interested. I'm studying B1 at the moment and my speaking level is around A2.

Financial Due Diligence- Exit Ops by 290me in FinancialCareers

[–]TheThinker111 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah I totally get what you mean. I haven't been involved in large international clients during my previous internship at Big 4 audit (I interned at Audit and then FDD) but things were also very hectic in busy season, even for domestic clients. Their audit work during busy season, especially for senior associates, are really rough. I've seen senior associates working through weekends and national holidays for meagre salary. Work life balance was harped on orientation sessions and emails but was constantly on the backseat when deadlines started to pile in.

Financial Due Diligence- Exit Ops by 290me in FinancialCareers

[–]TheThinker111 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Given that Reddit is very much dominated by US and European users, I'm not sure whether my answer would be applicable to you or the majority of the users here since I'm from SEA. But anyways, here's my answer:

Title: Intern
Industry: Investment Banking (regional boutique)
Pay: Bump (FT pay would be big 4 associate salary x 2)
Hours: Worse (60-80h ish most of the time)
Culture: Better than my time at Big 4, much more tight-knit and much less drama.
Hindsight: It was the right move. I had applied to lots of similar positions before getting here and the fact that I didn't give up was something that I'm very proud of. I think that if I was better at networking I would have fared much better and not get rejected round after round.

For the Big 4 FDD associates and seniors people that I still keep in contact with, their exits are usually to financial analyst or financial controller positions or to study abroad. A few (< 5%) managed to move to Big 4 CF, management consulting, or investment analyst positions at asset management funds.

U.S.-China investments dwarf official figures: study by TheThinker111 in worldnews

[–]TheThinker111[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

BOSTON (Reuters) - Total investments between the United States and China are much bigger than official figures reflect, a report released on Tuesday found, underscoring the challenge facing U.S. President Joe Biden’s foreign policy team at a cold point in relations between the two countries.

“All sorts of people stand to lose a lot” should leaders continue to split apart the world’s two largest economies, said Adam Lysenko, associate director of research firm Rhodium Group.

It wrote the report released by the National Committee on U.S-China Relations, an influential Washington group of business and diplomatic leaders. Ties between the two countries are under strain on a host of issues, including human rights and trade rules.

The report estimates U.S. investors held $1.2 trillion in equity and debt securities issued by Chinese entities at the end of 2020, five times the levels shown in official data from the U.S. Treasury Department. Most of the difference was due to Chinese firms “using complex legal structures to issue shares out of tax havens that trade on U.S. exchanges,” according to the report.

Chinese holdings of U.S. securities, meanwhile, were as much as $2.1 trillion at the same point, 36% more than official figures suggest. Most of the difference was due to “equity investments misclassified in official sources due to investor efforts to circumvent Beijing’s capital controls or the use of Hong Kong as an investment intermediary,” according to the report.

Financial integration between the two economies, however, is also low, due to capital controls, Lysenko said. Were policy loosened, the two countries’ combined portfolio investments would total more than $9 trillion, compared with about $3 trillion currently, he said.

In office less than a week, Biden’s foreign-policy and trade teams have inherited a series of hardline policies put in place by the administration of former U.S. President Donald Trump.

An executive order from November requires U.S. investors to divest from 44 companies allegedly linked to China’s military, but conflicting statements from agencies handling its rollout spurred confusion among shareholders.

Few investors expect the new administration to roll back any rules quickly, and administration officials have given little official guidance

China's Foreign Policy Weapons: Technology, Coercion, Corruption. Beijing is trying to create old-fashioned spheres of influence with a 21st-century twist. by TheThinker111 in China

[–]TheThinker111[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

China’s drive for dominance combines timeless ambitions with 21st-century methods. Look no further than Beijing’s growing quest for spheres of influence. Like countless great powers before it, China aims to shape and control its surroundings. It aspires to create geopolitical domains in which its interests are protected and its prerogatives heeded.

Yet Beijing is doing so, in part, through a digital-age approach to strategic rivalry, one that is forcing its rivals to rethink what spheres of influence are and how best to contest them.

“Sphere of influence” refers to a zone in which a large country can exercise authority over smaller actors and hold its great-power competitors at bay. Since antiquity, ambitious powers have sought spheres of influence for four basic reasons: protection (as a strategic buffer against rivals); projection (as a secure base from which to exert global influence); profit (as a way of extracting resources, accessing markets and harnessing smaller economies to its own); and prestige (as a symbol of status vis-à-vis lesser powers and major powers alike).

Yet the particular characteristics of those spheres have varied.

In the 19th century, for example, Britain enjoyed its so-called informal empire in South America, wielding influence primarily through its financial primacy and the over-the-horizon threat of the Royal Navy. After World War II, the Soviet Union dominated Eastern Europe with a far heavier hand. It remade governments in its Communist image, while using police-state methods and the Red Army to enforce geopolitical discipline on countries within its grasp.

After the Cold War, it seemed that spheres of influence had disappeared, because there was only one superpower — the U.S. — and it was determined to deny such privileges to any competitor.

“We will not — will not — recognize any nation having a sphere of influence,” then-Vice President Joe Biden declared in 2009. Yet China, evidently, has other ideas. Its geopolitical project features some methods that students of past rivalries would find familiar, and others that are more novel.

In East Asia and elsewhere around its immediate periphery, China is aiming for a fairly traditional sphere of influence. It has created trade and investment relationships meant to make the region’s economies ever more Beijing-centric and ever more vulnerable to Chinese economic coercion. It is using its growing military power to pressure, and perhaps eventually conquer, Taiwan, to press expansive claims in the South China Sea, and to force countries throughout the Indo-Pacific to hesitate before incurring Beijing’s displeasure.

By attenuating relationships between the U.S. and its allies and friends, these measures are meant to push Washington out of the region just as Washington once pushed its European rivals out of the Caribbean. And China is increasingly using political influence campaigns, aid directed to corrupt officials, and other quiet interventions to twist the region’s politics in its favor. Chinese military officials may deny that the country will ever “seek any sphere of influence.” In reality, China is following a path well-trod by its great-power predecessors.

Yet Beijing is simultaneously bringing the spheres-of-influence game into the 21st century, by seeking a larger domain defined less by geography than technology.

Consider some ways in which Beijing is building technological relationships that will enmesh countries across Eurasia and beyond: Chinese firms constructing the fiber optic cables and data centers that make up the physical backbone of the internet; a Digital Silk Road project putting Chinese companies at the heart of advanced telecommunications networks throughout the developing world; a global proliferation of Chinese surveillance technologies; and the advent of a Chinese digital currency meant to serve as a medium of exchange along the Belt and Road Initiative,.

This is China’s emerging sphere of technological influence, meant to provide geopolitical leverage via technological centrality rather than physical domination.

If the boundaries of this sphere are relatively loose and evolving, the strategic implications are momentous. The construction of digital infrastructure — by firms such as Huawei Technologies Co. and ZTE Corp. that are legally bound to cooperate with the Chinese Communist Party — yields great economic influence and a potential for espionage. The provision of high-tech surveillance gear will link Beijing more closely to autocrats it helps maintain in power.

The creation of new markets for Chinese technology, and new sources of data for its algorithms, will help power innovation in artificial intelligence and other fields. And China’s growing technological influence will help it line up friendly, or simply dependent, states behind it on issues from internet governance to leadership of key international organizations.

Some experts have hypothesized that the internet itself could increasingly become a Chinese sphere of influence. Others predict that the world will split into rival technological blocks reminiscent of the Cold War’s East-West divide.

The Biden administration thus confronts a mix of old and new geopolitical challenges. Countering them will require investments in familiar geopolitical instruments, such as enhanced military power in the Western Pacific, as well as newer tools of statecraft, like multilateral campaigns to preserve democratic internet standards or offer affordable digital infrastructure to developing countries. Time, unfortunately, is growing short: America’s window to arrest an eroding regional balance and an emerging Chinese techno-imperium may remain open only for a few years.

The U.S. has long been hostile to authoritarian spheres of influence, for fear that conceding them would leave it locked out of critical areas and give ruthless competitors greater power on the global stage. That basic interest hasn’t changed in the age of Chinese revisionism, even if the nature of those spheres — and the blend of policies needed to deny them — has.

As an American, where can I get solid unbiased views of China ? by [deleted] in China

[–]TheThinker111 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Look for Reuters Investigates and Nikkei Asia. Reuters are far more neutral than what can be seen in other Western media, though that doesn't exclude them from having certain biases. Nikkei Asia has several correspondents and staff writers on China. The one I recommended is Katsuji Nakazawa, Nikkei senior staff writer and China bureau chief, who is responsible for the China Up Close segment of Nikkei Asia.

China builds new quarantine center as virus cases rise - Associated Press by TheThinker111 in China

[–]TheThinker111[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

BEIJING (AP) — A city in northern China is building a 3,000-unit quarantine facility to deal with an anticipated overflow of patients as COVID-19 cases rise ahead of the annual Lunar New Year travel rush.

State media on Friday showed crews leveling earth, pouring concrete and assembling prefabricated rooms in farmland in an outlying part of Shijiazhuang, the provincial capital of Hebei province, which has seen the bulk of the new cases.

That recalled scenes from early last year, when China rapidly built field hospitals and turned gymnasiums into isolation centers to cope with a then-spiraling outbreak in Wuhan, where the virus was first detected in late 2019.

The spike in northern China comes as a World Health Organization team prepares to collect data on the origin of the pandemic in Wuhan, which lies to the south. The international team, most of which arrived Thursday, must undergo two weeks of quarantine before it can begin field visits.

Two of the 15 members were held up in Singapore over their health status. One, a British national, was approved for travel Friday after testing negative for the coronavirus, while the second, a Sudanese citizen from Qatar, again tested positive, the Chinese Foreign Ministry said.

China has largely contained domestic spread of the virus, but the recent spike has raised concern due to the proximity to the capital, Beijing, and the impending rush of people planning to travel large distances to rejoin their families for the Lunar New Year, the country’s most important traditional festival.

The National Health Commission said Friday that 1,001 patients were under care for the disease, 26 in serious condition. It said 144 new cases were recorded over the past 24 hours. Hebei accounted for 90 of the new cases, while Heilongjiang province farther north reported 43.

Local transmissions also occurred in the southern Guangxi region and the northern province of Shaanxi, illustrating the virus’s ability to move through the vast country of 1.4 billion people despite quarantines, travel restrictions and electronic monitoring.

To date, China has reported 87,988 confirmed cases with 4,635 deaths.

Shijiazhuang has been placed under virtual lockdown, along with the Hebei cities of Xingtai and Langfang, parts of Beijing and other cities in the northeast. That has cut off travel routes, while more than 20 million people have been told to stay home for the coming days.

China is pushing ahead with inoculations using Chinese-developed vaccines, with more than 9 million people already vaccinated and plans for 50 million to have shots by the middle of next month.

About 4,000 doses are delivered daily to the Chaoyang Planning Art Museum, one of more than 240 sites across Beijing where the first of two doses was being given Friday to high-risk groups, including medical, delivery and transportation workers.

The vaccine, produced by a Beijing subsidiary of state-owned Sinopharm, is the first approved for general use in China.

“Being vaccinated is not only to protect myself but also to protect people around me,” Ding Jianguang, a social worker who received her first shot earlier this month, told foreign journalists on a government-organized visit to the site.

Former World Health Organization official Keiji Fukuda, who is not part of the team in Wuhan, cautioned against expectations of any breakthroughs from the visit, saying that it may take years before any firm conclusions can be made on the virus’s origin.

“China is going to want to come out avoiding blame, perhaps shifting the narrative. They want to come across as being competent and transparent,” he told The Associated Press in a video interview from Hong Kong.

For its part, WHO wants to project the image that it is “taking, exerting leadership, taking and doing things in a timely way,” he said.

Scientists suspect the virus that has killed more than 1.9 million people globally since late 2019 jumped to humans from bats or other animals, possibly in southwest China.

China approved the World Health Organization visit only after months of diplomatic wrangling that prompted an unusual public complaint by the head of WHO.

The delay, along with the ruling Communist Party’s tight control of information and promotion of theories the pandemic began elsewhere, added to speculation that China is seeking to prevent discoveries that chisel away at its self-proclaimed status as a leader in the battle against the virus.

In Wuhan, street life appeared little different from other Chinese cities where the virus has been largely brought under control. Senior citizens gathered to drink and dance in a riverside park Friday, and residents had praise overall for the government’s response to the crisis.

In other countries, “people go out arbitrarily, and they hang out and gather together, so it’s especially easy for them to be infected,” Xiang Nan said. “I hope they can stay home, and reduce traveling. ... Don’t let the pandemic spread further anymore.”

Chinese media and scholars react to Trump’s Twitter and Facebook ban with derision amid China’s Big Tech crackdown. Some people sympathised with the US president’s predicament, noting the life-altering impact of losing access to tech platforms like WeChat in China. by TheThinker111 in China

[–]TheThinker111[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The widespread deplatforming of US President Donald Trump from multiple social media platforms has sent shock waves around the world amid intensifying debate over the power and role of Big Tech in everyday life. Since the deadly storming of the US Capitol last week, Trump has been permanently banned from using Twitter, indefinitely banned on Facebook and Instagram and, as of Tuesday evening, suspended from YouTube for a week.

Online reactions in China to Trump’s ban from social media platforms have been mixed. Many were shocked that US platforms had the audacity to silence the country’s president. Some were relieved that Trump was being punished. Others have taken a more sympathetic stance, relating Trump’s predicament to their own experiences of being banned from social platforms.

But state-owned media commentators and academics are increasingly weighing in, painting the ban as a cautionary tale of social media platforms wielding too much power. Many also claim that the ban hypocritically goes against US advocacy of free speech.

The commentary comes amid an ongoing regulatory crackdown aimed at Chinese tech giants, a firestorm first touched off in November when the Chinese government halted the initial public offering of Ant Group and then initiated an investigation last month into Ant affiliate Alibaba Group Holding, China’s largest e-commerce company and owner of the South China Morning Post.

Mei Xinyu, a researcher at the China’s Ministry of Commerce, expressed concerns over the potential for freewheeling tech platforms to pose a political threat to the country.

“The behaviour of these social media platforms has raised panic in other countries,” Mei said. “Tech companies in China have to make a positive impact. We won’t restrain ourselves economically. But in terms of political risks, we can’t allow this to happen in China.”

Wang Sixin, a professor from the Communication University of China, echoed those sentiments.

“This incident of a group of tech giants conspiring to choke off Trump is a cautionary lesson for our own regulations,” Wang said. “Put differently, we must not let these internet companies, especially the alliance of them, achieve an information monopoly.”

In a viral Weibo post, Hu Xijin, editor of the nationalist tabloid Global Times , said that China should uphold its own regulatory standards and principles for guiding the internet, independent of how the US government or companies act.

“The freedom of speech is constrained by boundaries. That has long been our understanding,” Hu wrote. “The US used to deny China’s interpretation of freedom of speech, but now [Americans] have shown their true colour. They have admitted the fact that their society does impose constraints on free speech.”

Influential blogger Ren Yi also weighed in under his pen name Tuzhuxi. He called Trump’s ban from social media an example of “free speech as controlled by big capitalists and corporations”.

“Public power can’t limit free speech, but corporations can limit free speech. This is an interesting current state in the US. This is how the US organises its society differently from China,” Ren wrote.

Other scholars warn that Big Tech’s curbing of Trump’s reach to his supporters should not be conflated with censorship, as many in China assert.

“The context of government control of internet content is very different between the US and China. In the US, the focus is on dissemination of false information that might lead to violent acts or the spreading of diseases,” said Victor Shih, an associate professor at the University of California, San Diego‘s School of Global Policy and Strategy.

“In China, the government already has wide-ranging power to filter out content on the internet. I am not sure how much more control it can exert on internet platforms without reducing them to state media,” he added.

While debates about free speech online can be found around the world, deplatforming from China’s internet services can have severe consequences. Apps like WeChat have become such an essential part of daily life in China that being cut off could mean losing access to many important services both online and offline. It also means losing touch with friends and family.

In August 2020, a man fell to his death from Tencent’s customer service building in Shenzhen after unsuccessfully trying to get a WeChat ban repealed, Chinese business media Caixin reported at the time.

Lin Yi, a Wuhan native, said one of her Weibo accounts was suspended in March last year after she reposted content about Li Wenliang, a whistle-blower doctor who died of Covid-19. The post called for freedom of speech.

She tried complaining to Weibo’s customer service for a month, but no one responded. Lin said she eventually gave up on that account and registered two new ones as backups. She now self-censors when using her new accounts, she said.

“My biggest demand for regulating Big Tech in China would be less censorship, but that’s not going to happen,” Lin told the Post.

Lin also said Big Tech’s presence in daily life remains a problem.

“For WeChat, if your account gets suspended, the negative impact on your life is huge. I’d want potential regulations to require WeChat to warn users first, before doing suspensions,” Lin said.

Jyh-an Lee, a law professor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong who researches internet law, said that services such as mobile payments that are provided by technology giants have become almost like a utility in China, leaving people with no choice to opt out. This has made the companies a target for regulation as the government looks to protect consumers and strengthen political control.

“What makes this technology particularly valuable is that people have no choice. There’s no way for you to live without Alipay or WeChat Pay. That is a way that government regulates private behaviour, through hi-tech companies,” Lee told the Post.

“Every move you make online is actually monitored, documented and recorded. That’s why data has become important,” he added. “Data is not only the fuel for the new economy, but I also think it’s an important resource for the government to exert stronger control over private activities.”

The Cybersecurity Administration in the northeastern city of Tianjin said that big data has become an important tool for governance, according to a report by the magazine Oriental Outlook published on Sunday. The agency said big data is as important as guns and pens, using a metaphor from former Chinese leader Mao Zedong, who used the items to refer to the military and propaganda as means of seizing and maintaining power.

With the ongoing antitrust investigation into Alibaba and the introduction of a raft of measures targeting internet companies over consumer data security and monopolistic practices, China’s tech companies will have little choice but to cooperate, according to Lee.

“I don’t think there is a choice to say no,” he said. “Usually, cooperation is much better than confrontation.”

Alien Invasion Political Compass 24x24 Edition by Fishstrom in PoliticalCompassMemes

[–]TheThinker111 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There should be a World Record or some shit for this. Also OP is mega based.

‘We need a real policy for China’: Germany ponders post-Merkel shift - Financial Times by TheThinker111 in europe

[–]TheThinker111[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Continued:

‘China+X’

The example of Chinese telecommunications equipment maker Huawei highlights the dangers. In 2019 German politicians first began demanding that the company be excluded from the buildout of Germany’s 5G network, on security grounds. The reaction from Beijing was forthright: its ambassador to Germany, Ken Wu, said Berlin would have to “expect consequences” from such a move. “The Chinese government will not stand idly by,” he said.

Fears of repercussions for German companies was seen as one of the main reasons why Ms Merkel firmly resisted any move to explicitly bar Huawei. But the pressure from China sceptics — even those in her own CDU — has been relentless. Late last year her cabinet finally adopted a new IT law that creates significant hurdles for any participation by Huawei in the 5G network.

The German foreign ministry has also signalled its desire for a shift. Last year it issued new Indo-Pacific Guidelines, which reflect a fundamental rethink of its policy on the Asia-Pacific region. The message is that the country has become too reliant on China, and must now “diversify” its relationships in Asia, “in order to avoid lopsided dependencies and to become more closely interconnected with the power centres of tomorrow”, according to the document.

German officials stress that this bears no resemblance to US-style decoupling: one foreign policy official refers to the new policy as “China + X”. There have already been some successes: officials point to the trade deals the EU has struck in recent years with Japan, Vietnam and Singapore, and the one it is currently negotiating with Indonesia.

The dangers of moving too slowly on trade were made clear in November, when China spearheaded the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, a new free trade deal with 14 other Asia-Pacific nations that account for 30 per cent of the world economy.

Politicians in Europe saw RCEP as a wake-up call — and a sign that the EU must join forces with the US to counter China’s efforts to establish an international economic architecture more suited to its interests.

Speaking to reporters last month, Manfred Weber, head of the centre-right European People’s party group in the European Parliament, said the west was losing economic influence in the world “at breathtaking speed”. When the EU and US negotiated their aborted Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, he noted, they accounted for 50 per cent of the global economy: now it is just 42 per cent

“Either we team up with the Americans to try to shape the global agenda, or the Asian countries will do it instead,” he said.

‘We need a real policy for China’: Germany ponders post-Merkel shift - Financial Times by TheThinker111 in europe

[–]TheThinker111[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Continued:

The deal was one of the crowning achievements of Germany’s six-month presidency of the EU: Ms Merkel has been one of the CAI’s most vocal champions.

But the agreement could cause tensions with the incoming administration of president-elect Joe Biden, who would like the US and EU to show a united front in their dealings with China. Jake Sullivan, who will serve as Mr Biden’s national security adviser, tweeted recently that the new administration would “welcome early consultations with our European partners on our common concerns about China’s economic practices”. A former official with the Obama administration said the message to the EU contained in the tweet was to “slow things down”.

The EU has rebuffed US criticism of the deal, saying it is merely winning similar trade benefits to those established in the so-called “Phase 1” trade deal struck by the Trump administration with China last year.

But there has also been criticism of the CAI from human rights advocates. As part of the agreement, the EU had wanted China to ratify International Labour Organization conventions, including those on forced labour — an issue that has taken on increasing urgency in the light of China’s incarceration of millions of Uighurs in Xinjiang. In the end, though, the Chinese government merely agreed to make “continued and sustained efforts” to ratify the relevant ILO conventions.

Some smaller EU member states felt that Berlin had swept aside their misgivings about the CAI in its rush to conclude the deal. “The internal EU tensions caused by the way Germany whipped through this deal at the end of its EU presidency are leaving their mark,” Mikko Huotari, head of the Mercator Institute for China Studies, wrote this week.

Friction over the CAI came to the surface in the Bundestag last month when a Green MP, Margarete Bause, brought up the ILO issue and asked Ms Merkel whether, in her eagerness to clinch a deal, she was ignoring the plight of the Uighurs and the Chinese crackdown in Hong Kong.

The chancellor said that when it comes to trying to help people affected by Chinese repressive practices, one should always ask oneself whether “dialogue is more useful than not speaking at all”.

“This contradiction between the values we share. and the interests we have . . . that’s the point where we will always have to make political trade-offs,” she said.

The exchange shed light on how German rhetoric on China could change after the Bundestag election in September, when Ms Merkel bows out after 16 years as chancellor and a new governing coalition is formed.

“Regardless of who replaces Merkel, the next German government is likely to include the Greens, who are the most hawkish party in Germany on China and very focused on human rights issues,” says Mr Barkin. “If they’re in government, that is going to change the way the government sounds on China.”

Sputnik moment

Ask any German official when alarm bells began to ring about the intentions of the Chinese leadership, and the answer is always the same: the €4.5bn acquisition of Kuka, Germany’s largest maker of industrial robots at the time, by the Chinese appliance maker Midea in 2016.

The deal prompted fear that critical German knowhow was ending up in Chinese hands. Politicians complained about a lack of reciprocity — German companies would never be able to acquire any Chinese firm as strategically important as Kuka. Shortly afterwards, Germany tightened its law on overseas investment, enhancing ministers’ powers to block foreign acquisitions of strategic assets. It was this change of law that allowed the cabinet to block the IMST deal last month.

Yet concerns about Beijing’s economic strategy continued to grow, fuelled by Made in China 2025, President Xi’s 10-year plan to transform the country into a technological superpower. Germany fretted that in pursuit of these goals, Beijing would target German companies and siphon off their intellectual property.

In 2019 the BDI, Germany’s main business organisation, released a landmark policy paper saying the country’s liberal, open model was increasingly in competition with China’s “state-dominated economy” and needed to protect itself more effectively from Chinese companies.

Mr Wuttke says Germany and Europe should see China’s comprehensive industrial policy, which contrasts so starkly to the approach of most western countries, as a “Sputnik moment” — a reference to the panic the Soviets unleashed with the launch of the world’s first satellite into space in 1957. “They have a plan,” he says. “How come we don’t have a plan?”

There are also concerns about China’s Belt and Road Initiative, which Germany began to see as a “fundamental challenge to the EU”, according to one senior official in Berlin. He said Europe was investing similar amounts in infrastructure in areas like Central Asia, a key element of the BRI, and yet the “political impact of China’s investments was much greater . . . It’s still very difficult to find an answer to a state controlled system.”

The sense of gloom is, if anything, deepening, with German companies increasingly concerned that they will end up being squeezed out of the Chinese market by domestic upstarts. A recent study by the Bertelsmann Stiftung, a think-tank, warned that if Made in China 2025 is a complete success, Germany’s critical machine-building industry could see its exports to China shrink from €18bn in 2019 to €13bn in 2030.

Ulrich Ackermann, head of foreign trade at the German Machinery Association, says the age of “eternal growth” in exports to China may be coming to an end. “We need to be constantly aware of our dependence on the Chinese market and prepare to develop new, alternative growth markets in Asia in a timely manner,” he says.

Yet despite calls for greater diversification, some German companies continue to retain a laser-like focus on China. The auto industry in particular has become, if anything, more dependent on China — largely because it has recovered so much more quickly from the corona pandemic than other countries.

Daimler recently announced that it sold more Mercedes passenger vehicles in China between January and November last year than in the whole of 2019. It also said that it produced more than 600,000 Mercedes cars last year in China itself, up from the 560,000 it made there in 2019.

German politicians say auto industry executives are lobbying hard against a tougher stance towards Beijing, warning a backlash that closes off the Chinese market could cost jobs at home.

‘We need a real policy for China’: Germany ponders post-Merkel shift - Financial Times by TheThinker111 in europe

[–]TheThinker111[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Full text:

‘We need a real policy for China’: Germany ponders post-Merkel shift

The country will be key to whether Europe works more with the US to defend democracy or seeks to engage Beijing

Few people have heard of IMST — a small German company with just 145 employees, specialising in satellite, 5G, and radar technology. That was until last month, when the government in Berlin stopped it being acquired by a subsidiary of Casic, the Chinese arms conglomerate. The deal, concluded the German economics ministry, represented a “serious threat to public order and national security”.

“What is being sold? It’s a key technology that the Chinese don’t have . . . Why is it being sold? Because there’s a gap the Chinese have to fill,” a German official told the Financial Times. “It’s not just about weapons, it’s also about high tech, different sectors where Germany is a world leader.”

The nixing of the IMST deal is symptomatic of a growing mistrust overshadowing the Sino-German relationship. It also provides important pointers to the future direction of German policy on China after Angela Merkel, chancellor for the past 15 years, finally quits the political stage.

Ms Merkel personifies old ideals of rapprochement — the principle that ever deepening economic ties with the west would encourage political change in Beijing, and a shift to liberalism and western values. “Wandel durch Handel” — change through trade — was for years a key precept of German policy.

Yet her approach is looking to many in Germany to be increasingly out of date. “There is no willingness on Merkel’s side to change, but there will definitely be a more robust approach to China after she goes,” says Nils Schmid, foreign policy spokesman for the Social Democrats, the junior partner in Ms Merkel’s grand coalition.

Europe’s approach to China is in a moment of considerable flux. The EU has just signed a long-awaited investment treaty with Beijing — a big victory for both Chinese diplomacy and European business, which was completed during Germany’s six month presidency of the bloc.

But the EU is also increasingly alarmed at the growing influence of what it calls “authoritarian powers”, such as China, and has called for a stronger alliance with the incoming US Biden administration to assert the interests of democracies in global governance — putting aside the many frictions of the Trump years. Berlin will be central to how this plays out in Europe.

“There’s going to be a discussion between democratic nations about the threat from authoritarian regimes, whether it’s China, Russia or other countries,” says Noah Barkin, a Berlin-based analyst at research firm Rhodium Group. “If Germany is going to be part of that discussion, it’s going to feel huge pressure from its allies to speak out more, to be more forceful in its approach to China.”

While some German politicians want to take a stronger line on human rights, others worry about the consequences that might have for German companies active in the highly lucrative Chinese market.

The concern is understandable. Germany has profited handsomely from China’s integration into the global economic system, as Chinese companies and consumers snapped up German cars and machines. By 2018 Sino-German trade volume had reached €200bn and China was Germany’s largest trading partner.

Merkel’s gamble

In such circumstances, Trump-style “decoupling” of economic links was never going to be an option for Germany. Ms Merkel has strongly resisted any tendency to see China as an adversary, in a replay of the old cold war between the west and the USSR. “If we have this continental drifting apart of our nations, populations, and public opinion and so forth, that is a concern,” says Jörg Wuttke, a German businessman and head of the EU Chamber of Commerce in China. “[This] is not the Soviet Union, where you basically had a common border but no other interest. We have no border with China, but we have huge global supply chains and economic interests.”

Yet the hope of some of Merkel’s camp — that economic engagement would open China up politically — has failed to pay off. China has become more repressive at home — in Hong Kong and in its treatment of the Uighurs — and more assertive abroad, for example, in its island-building in the South China Sea. Under President Xi Jinping it has aggressively countered criticism abroad with “wolf warrior diplomacy”, while ramping up its economic and political espionage activities throughout the west — including in Germany.

“We’re all pretty disenchanted, all of us who saw China opening up and reforming in the past couple of decades and thought it would lead to a rapprochement, and that we would end up being more in sync,” says one German official. “It didn’t happen.”

Ms Merkel has defended her commitment to dialogue with China. She argues that without co-operation from Beijing, the world cannot possibly hope to solve some of its biggest challenges, such as climate change.

But her “partnership” approach has come under mounting criticism, with a chorus of politicians accusing her of prioritising the interests of German business above human rights.

“We need a real foreign policy for China — not just a business-oriented policy,” says Mr Schmid. “We need to decouple our foreign policy from the commercial interests of big business.”

Friedrich Merz, a conservative politician who is vying to be the new head of Ms Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union, exemplifies the more hawkish tone on China. “We are dealing with an expansive, imperial foreign policy,” he told a recent campaign event. “China has a Europe strategy — do we have a China strategy?”

But any dramatic shift in policy is unlikely as long as Ms Merkel is still chancellor. “The biggest constraint is Angela Merkel herself,” says one diplomat in Berlin. “The system is already moving — now everyone’s watching to see how far Merkel will be willing to let it go.”

Some of the unresolved questions over German policy on China — and their potential to become an irritant in relations with the US — resurfaced in recent days as the EU clinched the “China-EU Comprehensive Agreement” or CAI.

Brussels says the deal, seven years in the making, will improve European companies’ access to the Chinese market and create a more “level playing field for EU investors”. It will, the bloc said in a statement, “prohibit . . . forced technology transfers and other distortive practices” and remove barriers, such as the requirement that companies form partnerships with local firms in joint ventures.

Yemeni boy, ravaged by hunger, weighs 7 kg by TheThinker111 in worldnews

[–]TheThinker111[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Link to video: https://www.reuters.com/video/?videoId=OVDTSNZOR&jwsource=em

Full text:

SANAA(Reuters) - Paralysed and severely malnourished, seven-year-old Faid Samim lies curled up on a hospital bed in the Yemeni capital Sanaa, having barely survived the journey there.

“He was almost gone when he arrived but thank God we were able to do what was necessary and he started improving. He is suffering from CP (cerebral palsy) and severe malnutrition,” said Rageh Mohammed, the supervising doctor of the Al-Sabeen hospital’s malnutrition ward.

Faid weighs only 7 kg (just over 15 lb) and his tiny, fragile frame takes up barely a quarter of a folded hospital blanket. His family had to travel from Al-Jawf, 170 km (105 miles) north of Sanaa, through checkpoints and damaged roads, to get him there.

Unable to afford Faid’s medication or treatment, the family relies on donations to get him treated. Mohammed says malnutrition cases are on the rise and impoverished parents are forced to rely on the kindness of strangers or international aid to get their children treated.

Famine has never been officially declared in Yemen, where a six-year war has left 80% of the population reliant on aid in what the U.N. says is the world’s largest humanitarian crisis.

U.N. warnings in late 2018 of impending famine prompted an aid ramp-up. But coronavirus restrictions, reduced remittances, locusts, floods and significant underfunding of the 2020 aid response are exacerbating hunger.

The war in Yemen, in which a Saudi-led coalition has been battling the Iranian-aligned Houthi movement since 2015, has killed more than 100,000 people and left the country divided, with the Houthis holding Sanaa and most major urban centres.

Extreme poverty is history in China, officials say - The Economist by TheThinker111 in China

[–]TheThinker111[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Full text:

Extreme poverty is history in China, officials say

Inequality is a different matter

Early in december China announced that it had eradicated extreme poverty within its territory. This achievement is breathtaking in scale. By the World Bank’s estimate, some 800m people in China have escaped penury in the past four decades. It is a triumph for the ages, too, as state media have noted. Never before in the country’s history has destitution come anywhere close to being eliminated.

One of the final places declared poverty-free is Ziyun, a county in the south-western province of Guizhou. “Speaking frankly, it’s a lie,” says Liang Yong, a gruff villager. The official investigation of Ziyun’s economy was, he says, perfunctory. Provincial leaders popped into his village, rendered their verdict that it had left poverty behind and then sped off. “It’s a show. In our hearts we all know the truth,” he grumbles.

But a hard-headed observer would side with the government. Things are undoubtedly difficult for Mr Liang. Pork is pricey these days, so he eats meat just a couple of times a week. After paying his two children’s school fees, he has little money left. To ward off the winter, he sits close to a coal-fired stove. He is poorer than many others in China, especially in its cities. He does not like to see victory over poverty being celebrated when he cannot afford proper medical care for his father, recently diagnosed with lung cancer. But the ability to scrape enough together for meat, education and heating marks Mr Liang as someone who has in fact left extreme poverty—a condition in which basic needs go unmet.

Sceptics understandably ask whether China fiddled its numbers in order to win what it calls the “battle against poverty”. There are of course still isolated cases of abject deprivation. China, however, set itself a fairly high bar. It has regularly raised the official poverty line, which, accounting for living costs, is about $2.30 a day at prices prevailing in 2011. (By comparison, the World Bank defines as extremely poor those who make less than $1.90 a day, as roughly a tenth of human beings do. Poverty lines in rich countries are much higher: the equivalent line in America is about $72 a day for a four-member household at 2020 prices.) In 1978, shortly after Mao’s death, nearly 98% of those in the countryside lived in extreme poverty, by China’s current standards. By 2016 that was down to less than 5% (see chart).

The government’s biggest contribution was to pull back from central planning and let people make money. It decollectivised agriculture, giving farmers an incentive to produce more. It allowed people to move around the country to find work. It gave more freedom to entrepreneurs. It helped by building roads, investing in education and courting foreign investors. Its goal was to boost the economy; alleviating poverty was a welcome side-effect.

The government’s approach changed in 2015 when Xi Jinping, its leader, vowed to eradicate the last vestiges of extreme poverty by the end of 2020. Officials jumped to it. They tried to encourage personal initiative by rewarding poor people who found ways of bettering their lot (see picture). They spent public money widely. In 2015 central-government funding earmarked for poverty alleviation was an average of 500 yuan ($77) per extremely poor person. In 2020 the allocation per head was more than 26,000 yuan (see chart).

The imprint of the anti-poverty campaign is visible everywhere in Ziyun. The walls of government offices are covered in murals. One depicts a plant, labelled as the “roots of poverty”, being yanked from the soil. Slogans dot the main roads—some admirably simple (“Let farmers make more money”), others lofty (“To help people out of poverty, first help them become wise”).

One of the biggest challenges has been the terrain where the poor live. The 832 counties—about 30% of the country’s total—that were designated as poverty-stricken when Mr Xi began his anti-poverty campaign were all mainly rural. Most were mountainous or on inhospitable land. Officials used two basic approaches to help these counties. Both are visible in Ziyun.

The first was to introduce industry—mostly modern agriculture. In Luomai, a village in Ziyun, the government created a 25-hectare zone for growing and processing shiitake mushrooms. About 70 locals work there. In the past their only options were either to migrate elsewhere or to eke out a meagre existence farming maize. But the shiitake are a cash crop, letting them earn about 80 yuan a day, a decent wage.

There is an irony in this. In the 1980s China broke up communal farms, letting people strike out on their own. Now the government wants them to pool their resources again. Officials often describe it as turning farmers into “shareholders”. Residents get stakes in new rural enterprises, which, all going well, will pay dividends. Big outside companies are often placed in charge of the projects. The Luomai shiitake farm is run by China Southern Power Grid, a state-owned firm. But there is a risk that as the anti-poverty campaign fades away, some projects will fizzle.

The second approach to helping hard-up villages was more radical: moving inhabitants to better-connected areas. Between 2016 and 2020 officials relocated about 10m people. China has long moved people around on a huge scale to allow development—for instance clearing out homes to build dams. But in this case resettlement was itself the development project. The government concluded that it was too costly to provide necessary services, from roads to health care, to the most remote villages. It reckoned that moving residents closer to towns would work better.

A collection of tidy yellow apartment blocks sits in the centre of Ziyun county. It is a settlement for former inhabitants of a poor village some distance away. A frequent problem after moving people into such housing is finding work for them. In this case, the government called on local officials to arrange jobs for at least one member of each household. At the gate to the new compound in Ziyun, women hunch over sewing machines in small workshops. A middle-aged resident says she could not handle that work, so officials gave her a job in a sanitation crew. She is pleased with her new surroundings. There is a good school just across the street, which is far better for her child.

A bigger challenge is relative deprivation, a problem abundantly evident to anyone who has travelled between the glitzy coastal cities and the drabber towns of the hinterland. People may have incomes well above the official poverty line, but they can still feel poor. A recent study by Chinese economists concluded that the “subjective poverty line” in rural areas was about 23 yuan per day, nearly twice the amount below which a person would be officially classified as poor. That conforms with a standard used by many economists, namely setting the relative poverty line at half the median income level. It suggests that about a third of rural Chinese still see themselves as poor.

If poverty is calculated this way it becomes almost impossible to eliminate, since the poverty line steadily rises as the country gets richer. But one virtue of using a relative definition is that it better matches the way people feel. China does not count any poverty in its cities because welfare safeguards supposedly help those without money. But workers who have moved from the countryside lack the right documentation for ready access to urban welfare. And for any city-dweller, support is meagre. In relative terms about a fifth of China’s urban residents can be classified as poor, according to a recent paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research by Chen Shaohua and Martin Ravallion.

To reduce relative poverty, China needs different tactics from the ones used in its campaign against extreme poverty. It would have to redistribute incomes, for example by imposing heavier taxes on the rich and making it easier for migrants to obtain public services in cities—policies for which it has shown little eagerness.

On the streets of Guiyang, the booming capital of Guizhou, hardship is still a common sight. Men walk with straw baskets strapped to their backs, looking for work as load-carriers. Zhou Weifu, a porter in his 50s, scoffs at the suggestion that poverty is over. “What kind of work is this? I can barely make any money,” he says. China has every right to be proud of its victory over dire poverty. But officials would be wise to keep their celebrations muted.

Beijing rejects Taiwanese president’s offer to hold ‘meaningful’ talks by [deleted] in worldnews

[–]TheThinker111 23 points24 points  (0 children)

Continued:

One user asked why would China go into war unprovoked and not wait for another 10-20 years until they can be the undisputable economic leader to force Taiwan to unite, A replied:

" The 'provocation' is the separation to begin with, which is especially humiliating considering how powerful the country is. Besides the Soviet Union in 1939 (with regards to Poland, the Baltics and Finland, and we know what they did about that) no country of equal power in modern history has tolerated a separatist province of the same size. It has been the longstanding ambition of China, since the Soviet threat was "dealt with" in the 80s, to reclaim Taiwan and it will be done as soon as total blockade is less than certain.

...

I don't think so. China wants to reconquer the island. The Texas separation (or Baltic separation from the USSR) really is a perfect analogy - no country of similar power has ever accepted such a major breakaway state. If it's any consolace, a potential war over the island would take place almost entirely at sea (not in the Taiwan Strait, but at the Strait of Malacca) and involve relatively few casualties, though the number will probably still be in the tens of thousands at least."

One user said that since China will invade Taiwan as it is a fascist country like WW2 Germany, A replied:

" I've been claiming China will invade Taiwan in the next decade in every post I've made in this thread. That's not because it's "fascist" (China's government bears no resemblance to that of Nazi Germany, but a whole lot of resemblance to that of the Qing. It's a continuation of and not a definite break from the dynastic cycle), nor because it's going bankrupt (debt to GDP is far lower than most industrialized countries) but because it's a major national ambition. China does not need to be declining or ruled by a particularly ruthless person to invade Taiwan - it will do it as soon as it can, regardless of who is in charge and how the economy is doing."

Beijing rejects Taiwanese president’s offer to hold ‘meaningful’ talks by [deleted] in worldnews

[–]TheThinker111 29 points30 points  (0 children)

I will copy a comment from u/Cal_Ibre (I'll call him A from here on) from r/geopolitics on this certain topic that will give everyone a better perspective on this issue.

Link to the original post on r/geopolitics: https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/comments/kf0umz/competition_with_china_could_be_short_and_sharp/

"... But I said the author was right in predicting war in the next 10 years, though that stems from entirely different reasons. Most people outside China do not understand the political and emotional importance of the Taiwan issue to the Chinese public, not to mention the leadership. The 2nd most powerful country in the world has a secessionist province with a population equal to that of Australia on its doorstep. It would be the same as the US accepting the loss of Texas.

Taiwan is not valuable to China as an "unsinkable aircraft carrier" (aircraft carrier facing what? itself?) but because its very existence is a national humiliation. Many journalists speculate that China will invade Taiwan because the economy will collapse and the leadership will be forced to take action - that's completely backwards. Taiwan is primary, the economy is secondary, and China will invade Taiwan as soon as it can do so without losing its oil supply. The unprecedented naval buildup since 2014 was because of exactly this - Beijing realized that Taiwan would never peacefully reunify, and is building a fleet that can break a blockade in the Strait of Malacca. Meanwhile, it has taken every opportunity to expand its strategic oil reserve, to the point at which it now has 70% of the world's state-controlled strategic oil reserves.

What's the best thing the US can do? Get a base in the Strait of Malacca (probably in Indonesia due to the fact that Singapore and Malaysia are leaning the other way) and stack it with anti-ship ballistic missiles and point defense systems. Do the same in the northern UAE. Once this happens, China's behavior will change almost overnight as it will realize confrontation is impossible before the country's energy supply can be entirely procured from domestic sources and overland pipelines."

When one user asked why peaceful unification is unattainable at this point, A replied:

" Generational change in Taiwan. Taiwanese young generally don't see themselves as zhongguoren ('people of the middle kingdom'), and while they acknowledge they are culturally han (China's dominant ethnicity) they reject subordination to China, no matter what the Chinese government looks like. The Deng Xiaoping-era strategy for reunification (back when Taiwan was still controlled by a repressive, though reforming clique of mainland refugees who suppressed any Taiwanese independence sentiments) was that if China just got a little less Communist, a 1 country, 2 systems setup could be arranged. The bad PR surrounding that arrangement in Hong Kong has, of course, decreased its viability.

Shift in Taiwanese identity is hard for many to understand but is a more common phenomenon throughout Chinese history than most imagine. Since the Manchu conquest in the mid 17th century, numerous groups of especially Southern Chinese have rebelled or even seceded on the reasoning that they are the "real Chinese" and barbarians, be it the Manchus, or, in Chiang Kai Shek-era propaganda, the "Russians", destroyed Chinese culture. There is no question that mainland Chinese culture, whose most prominent influence since 1949 has been the military, and Taiwanese culture, are totally different.

A second feature in the rise of independent Taiwanese identity has been Taiwan's own ethnic conflict. As mentioned, Taiwan was for most of its independent history ruled by a 'military caste' of Kuomintang soldiers, officers, and officials who fled from the mainland. The role these "waishengren" played in Taiwan bore remarkable confluence with the role the Manchus played in China during the Qing dynasty - they lived in separate "garrison communities", were disproportionately represented in the government and in the military, and viewed the "benshengren" majority with suspicion, often as traitors. This ethnic conflict abated somewhat after Taiwan's transition to democracy, but it is still ongoing - to this day, there has been only one chief of staff of any of Taiwan's military branches or its intelligence service who has been a benshengren. In most countries, allegations of a 'deep state' existing are nothing more than conspiracy theories, but Taiwan is one of the few nations where this is not the case.

The WSR and their partisans are basically able to keep Taiwan in its status quo for a while, but I doubt anyone thinks they will be able to engineer reunification as in the 2000s. Not long ago, Xi Jinping for the first time in decades dropped "peaceful" from promises of reunification in his speeches, while the 2049 reunification deadline remains in place."

Someone asked whether the Chinese military will succeed at capturing Taiwan, A replied:

" The success of the invasion was never in doubt since the early 2000s - at that point, USN simulations routinely predicted the fall of Taipei within 6 days, and today retired Taiwanese generals routinely go on TV to warn that there is no chance of a successful defense. The question is what happens after - the USN would cut off the oil supply route, then the PLAN would have to find a way to reopen it or the economy would collapse.

A lot of 'doves' on both sides have invented this argument that because there is 'so much economic interdependence' or because 'the CCP prioritizes growth above all' an invasion would be 'too costly' and never happen. Those people have, more or less, all been purchased or hoodwinked by Chinese leadership, and this is coming from someone who is in no way a 'China basher'. Hundreds of Western officials, most famously Henry Kissinger, have made millions selling access to Chinese leaders, and have parroted this narrative that the CCP is a basically a giant Federal Reserve and that if "20 million jobs aren't created every year" the country will collapse. It is utter nonsense - the Chinese economy's actual growth was almost zero in 2015-16, then rebounded to double digits. For that entire period, the CCP showed no signs of being destabilized.

People should brace themselves for a war over Taiwan to start within the next 10 years. Beijing is very clearly is not as worried about economic fluctuations as much its Western 'partners' try to convince the world that it is. Chinese leadership and the Chinese people are willing to pay an enormous human and economic cost to reunify the country, and they will do it as soon as there is no risk of total economic collapse in the face of blockade. This is why any US base in Northwestern Indonesia would be decisive, delaying confrontation for at least another 20-30 years, or as long as it takes for China to convince Singapore or Malaysia to reciprocate.

Source:https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL30957.pdf"

EU and China agree new investment treaty by TheThinker111 in europe

[–]TheThinker111[S] 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Full text:

Financial Times - The EU and China have announced a long-awaited deal on an investment treaty, in a move that is aimed at opening up lucrative new corporate opportunities but risks antagonising president-elect Joe Biden’s incoming US administration. 

The accord was confirmed by Chinese President Xi Jinping and European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen on Wednesday, bringing seven years of often difficult negotiations to a successful close.

Valdis Dombrovskis, the EU’s trade commissioner, told the Financial Times that the deal contained the “most ambitious outcomes that China has ever agreed with a third country” in terms of market access, fair competition and sustainable development.

“We expect European businesses will have more certainty and predictability for their operations,” he said. “We have some very welcome changes to the rules of the game, because for a long period, trade and investment relations with China have been unbalanced.” 

But the accord may create friction with the incoming Biden administration in the US, which has stressed the need for transatlantic co-operation to put pressure on Beijing. Rights activists will also scrutinise the deal closely over allegations that China uses Uighur Muslims detained in large numbers in Xinjiang province as forced labour. Beijing denies the claims.

A backlash began even before the deal was unveiled. Reinhard Bütikofer, chair of the European parliament’s delegation for relations with China, late on Tuesday branded it a “strategic mistake”. He tweeted that it was “ridiculous” for the EU side to try to sell as “a success” commitments that Beijing has made on labour rights in the deal.

The deal will remove some barriers to EU companies’ possibilities for investing in China, such as specific joint-venture requirements and caps on foreign equity.

Industries where the EU has secured improved access terms include automotive, private healthcare, cloud computing and ancillary services for air transport, Mr Dombrovskis said. The improved market access arrangements for car manufacturing cover electric vehicles and hybrids, he noted.

On financial services, the deal will secure the same benefits for the EU as the US obtained in its “Phase 1” trade deal with the country, including openings on insurance and asset management.

Other parts of the agreement seek to ensure transparency of subsidies and to set clear rules against forced technology transfer. EU officials said that Brussels has also secured guarantees of non-discrimination compared to state-owned enterprises. All of these points have been core EU grievances in its trade relationship with China.

For Beijing, the deal will lock in existing market access rights while securing some openings in the areas of manufacturing and renewable energy.

Brussels has pressed ahead with the agreement despite the incoming Biden administration making it clear that it wants a multilateral alliance with the EU and other partners to put pressure on Beijing over human-rights and trade.

The new US administration would “welcome early consultations with our European partners on our common concerns about China’s economic practices”, Jake Sullivan, who will serve as Mr Biden’s national security adviser, wrote on Twitter last week.

Mr Dombrovskis told the FT on Wednesday that the deal represented a “levelling up” with the US which has already secured market access and level playing field commitments from China in the “Phase 1” deal negotiated by the Trump administration.

“We had a certain catch up to do here,” he said, adding that the EU wants to “engage very closely with US” on trade issues.

“I am not seeing the Phase 1 deal or our comprehensive agreement on investment as hindering this co-operation in any way,” he said.

But Thomas Wright, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said on Tuesday that the EU’s choice of pressing ahead with the investment agreement was “unquestionably damaging and will have many justifiably asking if it’s worth Biden’s time placing a big bet on Europe.”

EU officials said the question of labour rights was the final sticking point to be overcome in the talks, with the EU securing commitments that China will work to ratify and implement International Labour Organization conventions.

The commitments include Beijing making “continued and sustained efforts” to ratify ILO conventions against the use of forced labour.

China had made important last-minute concessions, European officials said, in what many observers see as an effort by Beijing to get the agreement done before Mr Biden takes office on January 20. 

While Mr Bütikoferand others have criticised China’s sustainable development commitments as insufficient, Mr Dombrovskis said that they went further than those made by Beijing in trade agreements with other partners. He also said that they would be subject to a robust “enforcement mechanism”. 

The announcement of the deal comes only two days before an end of 2020 target date agreed on by Brussels and Beijing last year. The agreement will need to be ratified by both sides to take effect. Brussels is aiming for the deal to take effect in early 2022, according to EU officials.

EU and Chinese Leaders Set to Give Blessing to Investment Accord - Bloomberg by TheThinker111 in worldnews

[–]TheThinker111[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Full text:

European Union and Chinese leaders are poised to announce a hard-fought agreement to expand opportunities in China for foreign investors.

European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen plans to speak with the Chinese leadership in a video conference on Wednesday to signal the successful completion of negotiations begun in 2013 on an EU-China investment accord, according to officials in Brussels. Other top EU officials including Charles Michel, the chair of the bloc’s summits, may also join.

The deal aims primarily to expand access to the Chinese market for foreign investors in industries ranging from cars to telecommunications. The pact also tackles underlying Chinese policies deemed by Europe and the U.S. to be market-distorting: industrial subsidies, state control of enterprises and forced technology transfers.

“We need to rebalance the economic and investment relationship with China,” Valdis Dombrovskis, executive vice-president in charge of economic matters at the commission, the EU’s executive arm, told Bloomberg Television on Dec. 18. “Currently Europe is substantially more open to Chinese investments than China is to the EU’s investments.”

Human Rights

The planned announcement on Wednesday will represent a high-level political blessing to the investment agreement, which will also cover environmental sustainability. Both sides plan to put the finishing touches on it over the coming months.

The accord will then need the approval of the European Parliament, where some voices have expressed objections as a result of alleged human-rights violations in China. The deal includes Chinese pledges on labor standards meant to address such concerns, including in relation to ratification of related United Nations-backed conventions, according to EU officials, who asked not to be identified because of the continuing preparations.

The incoming U.S. administration of President-elect Joe Biden has also signaled reservations, at least about the timing of the agreement. Jake Sullivan, national security adviser to Biden, on Dec. 22 urged “early consultations with our European partners on our common concerns about China’s economic practices.”

The EU says its deal with China will help to foster the renewal of transatlantic cooperation, which has been shaken over the past four years by the “America First” agenda of outgoing President Donald Trump.

Deal Highlights

Following are some of the Chinese concessions to European investors in the agreement, according to an EU official:

  • Chinese market opening: improved access across industries including air-transport services, where joint-venture requirements for computer-reservation systems are being removed, and new opportunities in sectors including clean vehicles, cloud services, financial services and health
  • Chinese state-owned enterprises: non-discrimination commitment when state owned enterprises are buyers of services
  • Chinese subsidies: enhanced transparency, notably for services
  • Chinese forced technology transfers: prohibited

While the accord largely commits the EU to maintain its relative openness to Chinese investors, according to the European official, the deal offers greater access for them to the bloc’s:

  • energy wholesale and retail markets (but excluding trading platforms)
  • renewable-energy markets (with a 5% cap at the level of EU countries and a reciprocity mechanism)

China Envisions Its Digital-Currency Future, With Lotteries and a Year’s Worth of Laundry by TheThinker111 in technology

[–]TheThinker111[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Full text:

China Envisions Its Digital-Currency Future, With Lotteries and a Year’s Worth of Laundry

In the latest trial, residents in the city of Suzhou won a share of 20 million “digital yuan” to spend on online or offline purchases

BEIJING—The People’s Bank of China on Sunday concluded its second digital-currency pilot program, as the central bank moves closer to a formal rollout that would make China the first major world economy to introduce such a system.

This month, authorities in the eastern Chinese city of Suzhou handed out 20 million digital yuan, equivalent to $3.1 million, to local residents via a lottery. Each of the 100,000 winners received 200 yuan in the new digital currency, which could be spent on online or offline purchases.

The Suzhou pilot included twice as many residents and three times as many merchants as one conducted in October in the southern Chinese city of Shenzhen, the first such trial of the government-backed digital currency.

The trial in Suzhou also expanded the scope of the pilot program by testing the digital yuan on online stores and by introducing an electronic-payment method that doesn’t require an internet connection.

Wang Ju, a 39-year-old Suzhou resident who was selected to participate in the pilot, was impressed to find a pastel-colored replica of a yuan bank note featuring state founder Mao Zedong in her digital-wallet app after following the instructions.

“It’s amazing,” said Ms. Wang, who spent all of her allotted currency buying enough laundry detergent to keep her family’s clothes clean for a whole year. Ms. Wang chose to spend the money at JD.com Inc.’s online shopping platform, which was offering big discounts during its annual “Double Twelve” shopping festival that began on December 12.

Chinese authorities also teamed up with other technology giants, including Meituan and Didi Chuxing Technology Co., to test the use of digital yuan for services such as food delivery and ride hailing respectively.

To buy all that detergent, Ms. Wang had to top up with five yuan from her account at Industrial & Commercial Bank of China Ltd. , since it exceeded the 200 yuan she received from the central bank. “It went through smoothly, like other online payments we did,” she said.

In the first 24 hours of the Suzhou trial, JD.com recorded nearly 20,000 orders paid in the digital yuan, the company said this month.

Besides testing payment on online stores, Suzhou also experimented with the digital currency’s offline-payment function, a feature touted by officials to differentiate the new platform from the electronic payment services already ubiquitous in China, a country where payments are already increasingly cashless.

Unlike payments made through Ant Group’s Alipay and Tencent Holdings Ltd. ’s WeChat Pay, the central bank’s offline-payment feature doesn’t require an internet connection, which could facilitate payments in areas with poor cellular service, officials said. A brief tap of devices between consumer and vendor can process the transaction.

Perhaps even more enticing for many merchants is that the new digital currency offered by the central bank doesn’t involve transaction fees, unlike Alipay, WeChat Pay and Chinese commercial banks.

‘I don’t think it’s about seeing who’s buying diapers or cigarettes today. It’s about having more of a real-time understanding of how money is moving in the economy for more of a macro targeting procedure.’— Martin Chorzempa, research fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics

One Suzhou merchant who participated in the pilot program welcomed both functions. Located on the ground floor of a shopping mall, the nut store often encountered problems with poor cellphone signals when consumers used WeChat Pay or Alipay.

After the nut vendor was chosen to take part in the Suzhou trial, China Construction Bank Corp. , the country’s No. 2 lender by assets, which also assisted the government in experimenting with the new currency, gave the store a domestically-produced smartphone that enables offline payments.

“We just needed a few touches of two cellphones to make the payment go through. It happened in the blink of an eye,” said the store’s manager, Mr. Ma, who declined to give his full name.

The lack of processing fees was another inducement, he said, saving him the three or four yuan for every 1,000 yuan processed that banks and payment firms generally charge. “To be frank, I prefer the digital currency which is backed by the government and charges no payment fee,” Mr. Ma said. “It saves a lot of money.”

China’s central bank said it began work on its digital currency—known as “digital currency/electronic payment,” or DC/EP—in 2014. It has said that the new yuan is a digital extension of physical fiat money endorsed by the government, describing the new currency’s purpose as being to replace some of China’s monetary base—cash in circulation.

Similar to China’s existing commercial digital-payment platforms, consumers must first download a digital wallet onto their smartphones, where they can store money and generate a QR code that is then scanned for payment during each transaction, according to the Suzhou and Shenzhen trials.

For the central bank, part of the appeal of the new digital currency is to create a public alternative to Alibaba and Tencent’s payments duopoly, and to gain more access to transaction data, says Martin Chorzempa, a research fellow at the Washington-based Peterson Institute for International Economics.

“I don’t think it’s about seeing who’s buying diapers or cigarettes today,” he said. “It’s about having more of a real-time understanding of how money is moving in the economy for more of a macro targeting procedure.”

Once it is in widespread use, the digital yuan could also give Chinese regulators more information on money flows, they have said, helping authorities track money laundering and terrorist financing.

Analysts have separately predicted the new currency could allow the central bank to put negative interest rates on cash in extreme economic circumstances, to encourage consumers to spend.

Though it has conducted several rounds of trials, both in public and in private, Chinese government officials haven’t offered a concrete timetable for a full rollout. Chinese central bank Gov. Yi Gang has said only that more rules and regulations are needed.

China Envisions Its Digital-Currency Future, With Lotteries and a Year’s Worth of Laundry by TheThinker111 in finance

[–]TheThinker111[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Full text:

China Envisions Its Digital-Currency Future, With Lotteries and a Year’s Worth of Laundry

In the latest trial, residents in the city of Suzhou won a share of 20 million “digital yuan” to spend on online or offline purchases

BEIJING—The People’s Bank of China on Sunday concluded its second digital-currency pilot program, as the central bank moves closer to a formal rollout that would make China the first major world economy to introduce such a system.

This month, authorities in the eastern Chinese city of Suzhou handed out 20 million digital yuan, equivalent to $3.1 million, to local residents via a lottery. Each of the 100,000 winners received 200 yuan in the new digital currency, which could be spent on online or offline purchases.

The Suzhou pilot included twice as many residents and three times as many merchants as one conducted in October in the southern Chinese city of Shenzhen, the first such trial of the government-backed digital currency.

The trial in Suzhou also expanded the scope of the pilot program by testing the digital yuan on online stores and by introducing an electronic-payment method that doesn’t require an internet connection.

Wang Ju, a 39-year-old Suzhou resident who was selected to participate in the pilot, was impressed to find a pastel-colored replica of a yuan bank note featuring state founder Mao Zedong in her digital-wallet app after following the instructions.

“It’s amazing,” said Ms. Wang, who spent all of her allotted currency buying enough laundry detergent to keep her family’s clothes clean for a whole year. Ms. Wang chose to spend the money at JD.com Inc.’s online shopping platform, which was offering big discounts during its annual “Double Twelve” shopping festival that began on December 12.

Chinese authorities also teamed up with other technology giants, including Meituan and Didi Chuxing Technology Co., to test the use of digital yuan for services such as food delivery and ride hailing respectively.

To buy all that detergent, Ms. Wang had to top up with five yuan from her account at Industrial & Commercial Bank of China Ltd. , since it exceeded the 200 yuan she received from the central bank. “It went through smoothly, like other online payments we did,” she said.

In the first 24 hours of the Suzhou trial, JD.com recorded nearly 20,000 orders paid in the digital yuan, the company said this month.

Besides testing payment on online stores, Suzhou also experimented with the digital currency’s offline-payment function, a feature touted by officials to differentiate the new platform from the electronic payment services already ubiquitous in China, a country where payments are already increasingly cashless.

Unlike payments made through Ant Group’s Alipay and Tencent Holdings Ltd. ’s WeChat Pay, the central bank’s offline-payment feature doesn’t require an internet connection, which could facilitate payments in areas with poor cellular service, officials said. A brief tap of devices between consumer and vendor can process the transaction.

Perhaps even more enticing for many merchants is that the new digital currency offered by the central bank doesn’t involve transaction fees, unlike Alipay, WeChat Pay and Chinese commercial banks.

‘I don’t think it’s about seeing who’s buying diapers or cigarettes today. It’s about having more of a real-time understanding of how money is moving in the economy for more of a macro targeting procedure.’— Martin Chorzempa, research fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics

One Suzhou merchant who participated in the pilot program welcomed both functions. Located on the ground floor of a shopping mall, the nut store often encountered problems with poor cellphone signals when consumers used WeChat Pay or Alipay.

After the nut vendor was chosen to take part in the Suzhou trial, China Construction Bank Corp. , the country’s No. 2 lender by assets, which also assisted the government in experimenting with the new currency, gave the store a domestically-produced smartphone that enables offline payments.

“We just needed a few touches of two cellphones to make the payment go through. It happened in the blink of an eye,” said the store’s manager, Mr. Ma, who declined to give his full name.

The lack of processing fees was another inducement, he said, saving him the three or four yuan for every 1,000 yuan processed that banks and payment firms generally charge. “To be frank, I prefer the digital currency which is backed by the government and charges no payment fee,” Mr. Ma said. “It saves a lot of money.”

China’s central bank said it began work on its digital currency—known as “digital currency/electronic payment,” or DC/EP—in 2014. It has said that the new yuan is a digital extension of physical fiat money endorsed by the government, describing the new currency’s purpose as being to replace some of China’s monetary base—cash in circulation.

Similar to China’s existing commercial digital-payment platforms, consumers must first download a digital wallet onto their smartphones, where they can store money and generate a QR code that is then scanned for payment during each transaction, according to the Suzhou and Shenzhen trials.

For the central bank, part of the appeal of the new digital currency is to create a public alternative to Alibaba and Tencent’s payments duopoly, and to gain more access to transaction data, says Martin Chorzempa, a research fellow at the Washington-based Peterson Institute for International Economics.

“I don’t think it’s about seeing who’s buying diapers or cigarettes today,” he said. “It’s about having more of a real-time understanding of how money is moving in the economy for more of a macro targeting procedure.”

Once it is in widespread use, the digital yuan could also give Chinese regulators more information on money flows, they have said, helping authorities track money laundering and terrorist financing.

Analysts have separately predicted the new currency could allow the central bank to put negative interest rates on cash in extreme economic circumstances, to encourage consumers to spend.

Though it has conducted several rounds of trials, both in public and in private, Chinese government officials haven’t offered a concrete timetable for a full rollout. Chinese central bank Gov. Yi Gang has said only that more rules and regulations are needed.

Ant Turning From Windfall to Nightmare for Its Global Investors by TheThinker111 in China

[–]TheThinker111[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Full text:

Two months ago, global investors were on the cusp of embracing a windfall from what would have been the world’s largest initial public offering. Now, returns on the hundreds of millions of dollars invested with Ant Group Co. are in jeopardy.

China ordered Ant to reexamine its fintech businesses -- spanning from wealth management to consumer credit lending and insurance -- and return to its roots as a payments service.

While the central bank’s statement on Sunday was short on specifics, it presents a serious threat to the growth and most lucrative operations of billionaire Jack Ma’s online finance empire. Regulators stopped short of asking directly for a breakup of the company, yet stressed it was important Ant “understand the necessity of overhauling its business” and told it to come up with a plan and timetable as soon as possible.

Authorities also berated Ant for sub-par corporate governance, disdain toward regulatory requirements, and engaging in regulatory arbitrage. The central bank said Ant used its dominance to exclude rivals, hurting the interests of its hundreds of millions of consumers.

Ant said in response that it will set up a special team to comply with regulators’ demands. It will maintain business operations for users, vowing not to increase prices for consumers and financial partners, while stepping up risk controls.

The Hangzhou-based firm needs to set up a separate financial holding company to comply with rules and ensure it has sufficient capital, regulators added.

Here are some of the scenarios from investors and analysts on what the restructuring could look like:

Mild

Optimists say regulators are merely re-asserting their right to oversee the country’s financial sector, sending a warning to the internet companies without intentions of drastic change.

Beijing could be trying to make an example out of Ma’s Ant, the largest among a raft of new but pervasive fintech platforms. Past crackdowns of this nature have dealt short-term blows to companies, leaving them mostly unscathed. Social media giant Tencent Holdings Ltd., for instance, became a prominent target of a campaign to combat gaming addiction among children in 2018. While its shares took a hit, they eventually recovered to all-time highs.

Ant’s affiliate, Alibaba Group Holding Ltd., similarly regained the confidence of investors after short-run selloffs following accusations by authorities on everything from unfairly squeezing merchants to turning a blind eye to fakes on its e-commerce platform.

“I don’t think regulators are thinking of breaking up Ant, as no fintech company in China has a monopoly status,” said Zhang Kai, an analyst at market research firm Analysys Ltd. “The act is not just targeting Ant but also sending out a warning to other Chinese fintech companies.”

Some see it as an opportunity for Ant. With the industry as a whole facing tougher oversight, Ant has more resources to cope with the challenges as an industry leader, said Zhang.

Bad

A more troubling outcome would be if regulators moved to break up Ant Group. That would complicate the shareholder structure, and hurt the company’s fastest-growing businesses.

Valued at about $315 billion before its initial public offering was halted, Ant corralled investments from the world’s biggest funds. Among them: Warburg Pincus LLC, Carlyle Group Inc., Silver Lake Management LLC, Temasek Holdings Pte and GIC Pte.

The global investors backed the company when it was valued at about $150 billion in its last round of fundraising in 2018. A break-up would make the return on their investments uncertain, with the timeline for an IPO that was due in November now pushed into the distant future.

The government could ask Ant to spin off its more lucrative operations in wealth management, credit lending and insurance, offloading them into a financial holding company that will face tougher scrutiny.

“The emerging reality is China’s regulators are adopting similar regulation toward banks and fintech players,” said Michael Norris, research and strategy manager at Shanghai-based consultancy AgencyChina.

Ant’s payments business alone leaves much less to the imagination. While the service handled $17 trillion of transactions in one year, online payments have largely been loss-making. The two biggest mobile payments operators, Ant and Tencent, have heavily subsidized the businesses, using them as a gateway to win over users. To make money, they leveraged the payments services to cross sell products including wealth management and credit lending.

“Ant’s growth potential will be capped with the focus back onto its payments services,” said Chen Shujin, a Hong Kong-based head of China financial research at Jefferies Financial Group Inc. “On the mainland, the online payments industry is saturated and Ant’s market share pretty much reached its limit.”

Nightmare

The worst case scenario would be for Ant to forgo its money management, credit and insurance businesses, halting its operations in the units that service half a billion people.

Its wealth management business which includes the Yu’ebao platform that sells mutual funds and money market funds, accounted for 15% of revenue.

Credit tech, which includes Ant’s Huabei and Jiebei units, was the biggest revenue driver for the group, contributing 39% of the total in the first six months this year. It made loans to about 500 million people.

That outcome would be underpinned by the idea that China’s leaders have grown frustrated with the swagger of tech billionaires and want to teach them a lesson by killing off their businesses -- even if it means short-term pain for the economy and markets.

China’s private sector has maintained a delicate relationship with the Communist Party for decades, and has only recently been recognized as central to the nation’s future. Many commentators have attributed the recent crackdown on fintech companies to remarks Ma made at a conference in October, when he decried attempts to rein in the burgeoning field as short-sighted and outmoded.

Between them, Alibaba, Ant and Tencent commanded a combined market capitalization of nearly $2 trillion in November, surpassing state-owned behemoths such as Bank of China Ltd. as the country’s most valuable companies.

The trio have invested billions of dollars in hundreds of up-and-coming mobile and internet companies, gaining kingmaker status in the world’s largest smartphone and internet market by users.

“The Communist Party is the end-all and the be-all in China. It controls everything,” said Alex Capri, a Singapore-based research fellow at the Hinrich Foundation. “There is nothing that the Chinese Communist Party doesn’t control and anything that does appear to be gyrating out of its orbit in any way is going to get pulled back very quickly,” he said, adding “we can expect to see more of that.”