Well it worked for China, they now have large corporations of similar (enough) caliber to their Western counterparts creating a lot more jobs than if Amazon or Google were allowed to run free.
It's hard enough to compete against these established Tech Giants if they just come in and buy all the domestic companies. Not to mention the companies are starting with a massive head start.
What worked for China was acting a fool for a few decades. No rules, no regulations, nothing.
Like a boa constrictor, staying motionless, allowing its prey to feel completely relaxed, then slowly but surely, tighten its grip until it's too late for the prey to escape.
With its proximity to China, India could have had China's business.
Goodness, you can count on the weirdiest analogies on social media when it comes to china. But I guess it's par for the course in any trade war.
What china did was nothing special. It wasn't revolutionary. It was what every industrial power today did - from the US in the 1800s to germany and japan and the asian tigers like south korea and taiwan did. Protectionism + foreign investment + manufacturing.
The united states created the blueprint for success in the 1800s. All the smart nations have copied it and gotten successful.
One of the first things the US did was to place tariffs to protect local industry. And for 100 years, protectionism was how the US rose from a relatively insignificant nation to the largest economy in the world.
Without the tariffs and protectionism, the US industries would have been owned by britain, france, etc. Or maybe it was like a boa constrictor. I don't know.
US tarrifs were originally intended to hurt Britain, as the US had recently rebelled against them.
The tarrifs then increased during every war the US had with Britain.
It’s no surprise that the US talks of trade wars, due to the way its history of tarrif is entangled with warfare, and dislike of the nations a tarrif is aimed against,
It was quite literally a rallying point for Lincon and a reason for the civil war.
Southerners wanted free trade to export tobacco and cotton. Northerners wanted tariffs and protection for their industries (both to make their factories more competitive against European manufactures as to get cheaper raw materials from American farmers).
I feel this isn't going to work well the second time. Automation right around the corner and India isn't willing to do the things china was allowed to do.
> I feel this isn't going to work well the second time
It worked a second time and half a dozen times more just the past 100 years. Japan, Germany, France, South Korea, Taiwan, etc all used protectionism to develop their local industries and companies, just like the US did in the 1800s and like China did most recently. Protectionism is required to protect young local underdeveloped industries and companies from wealthier foreign companies. Every major industrialize power used protectionism to get to where they are at today.
It isn't a secret. It's a well established fact by now.
> Automation right around the corner and India isn't willing to do the things china was allowed to do.
Rather than automation, it's india's politics and the mindset of a large portion of their elites. If you want to understand why india won't be successful, just look at the members of the british commonwealth. You'll see that india is still in it. If the political elite of india, for whatever reasons, still think being part of the british commonwealth is a good idea, it is obvious they are not going to do anything to truly improve india - especially things that might hurt their former colonial masters and the west's interests. You'll never see the US in the british commonwealth with the english queen as our head of state. I'm sure you'll never see china in it either. The elites in the US and china has some national pride needed to improve their nations.
Also, india doesn't have the "political center/authority" with which to enact painful reforms internally to industrialize and to ward off external pressure from the west. The problem with India is that they lack the nationalistic aspects of Japan, Germany, France, South Korea, Taiwan, etc which allowed these nations to protect their local industries and develop. And any attempts towards a nationialism in india would led to some internal friction, but more importantly, the west will stoke divisions within the population and amongst the elites to destabilize india and get it back under control.
India has a lot of potential but without a strong political center/authority, it can never fulfill its potential. And you only really need that strong political center/authority to provide internal stability and protect from destabilizing foreign interference for a decade or two to help your local industries and companies to develop and industrialize. Otherwise, your country will be bought up by capital rich companies and countries. Who knows if Modi is the man for the job. Given india's history, I won't be holding my breath.
Also, in case you think protectionism doesn't exist in the US, China, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, etc. look at what is happening with huwaei and the trade war. Look into the protectionist policies of every major industrial nation. It's strange how the wealthy nations love protectionism for themselves but want open markets for poor nations.
> If you want to understand why india won't be successful, just look at the members of the british commonwealth. You'll see that india is still in it. You'll never see the US in the british commonwealth with the english queen as our head of state.
That's the first time I've ever heard someone say the Commonwealth is an indicator of anything. First off, Queen Elizabeth isn't the head of state of India. The head of state of India is the President of India, selected by a vote of the national and state legislatures[1]. Second, having the head of the House of Windsor as their constitutional monarch hasn't impeded Canada or Australia's development in any way whatsoever.
India's membership in Commonwealth amounts to basically a cultural and educational exchange program. They participate in the Commonwealth Games every 4 years (or however often they occur). There are no trade or military agreements, or anything else of consequence.[2]
> That's the first time I've ever heard someone say the Commonwealth is an indicator of anything.
Probably because you are from Britain, Canada, Australia or New Zealand.
> First off, Queen Elizabeth isn't the head of state of India, like she is in Canada or Australia.
But queen elizabeth is the head of the commonwealth. The commonwealth is headquartered in london. The official language is english. The commonwealth is the british empire rebranded - and poorly at that in my opinion.
> Second, that hasn't impeded those nations' development in any way whatsoever.
Because canada and australia are descendent nations of britain. India was a conquered nation of britain. Surely even you can see that india and african colonies were treated differently than canada, australia and new zealand.
> India's membership in Commonwealth amounts to basically a cultural and educational exchange program.
A cultural and educational reminder of their humiliating past?
> They participate in the Commonwealth Games every 4 years (or however often they occur). There are no trade or military agreements, or anything else of consequence.
I don't think you understand what I am saying. A truly great nation. A nation that aspires to be important. Cannot think like a colonial nation.
Do you think south korea or taiwan would join a japanese empire rebranded as commonwealth of nations? Of course not, their elites will never allow it. But india is. If the indian elites do not have the requisite national pride needed for india "to be great", how will the nation become great?
All major industrial nations have become great via the top-down model. The people at the top need to have that vision first. India simply does not have them amongst their elites.
Look at China. They've lifted nearly a billion people out of poverty. India is just now working on trying to get toilets for their people.
Both india and china liberated themselves from western colonialism around the same time. China has improved drastically while india lags behind. Why is that? The list of members of the british commonwealth tells you all you need to know.
A great book that goes over the history of protectionism is Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism by Ha-Joon Chang.
> Probably because you are from Britain, Canada, Australia or New Zealand.
Nope.
> The commonwealth is the british empire rebranded
I wasn't aware the Commonwealth suppresses industry in nations outside Britain with tariffs, uses them as a source of cheap raw materials for British manufacturing, and as captive markets for those manufactures. Or that Britain sends gunboats to enforce treaties and blockade ports of members that don't comply. Or that India, Nigeria, Pakistan and all the other Commonwealth members still have their laws made for them by the British Parliament and have no representation.
> But queen elizabeth is the head of the commonwealth. The commonwealth is headquartered in london. The official language is english.
Yeah, because these are the only things that all the members have in common.
> Because canada and australia are descendent nations of britain.
So you yourself are admitting that a lady with a crown and a golden stick makes no difference to whether a former British colony progresses or not. It depends purely on the treatment they received from Britain.
> A cultural and educational reminder of their humiliating past? If the indian elites do not have the requisite national pride needed for india "to be great", how will the nation become great?
The past is the past - there's little point in holding grudges. India parted from Britain on relatively friendly terms. Pride is toxic, destructive, unproductive. Grownups do not stew over historical insults. They try to build a better future.
> I don't think you understand what I am saying. A truly great nation. A nation that aspires to be important. Cannot think like a colonial nation.
I don't think you understand that for member nations such as India, Pakistan, Nigeria, the Commonwealth is a glorified tea club. There are no political, trade, or military implications whatsoever. They swap stories, make friends, have a good time. I don't even know what "think like a colonial nation" means.
"Commonwealth citizen" is only a meaningful term for nations in the Caribbean and British Isles.[1]
It's crazy to say you shouldn't ever establish cordial relations with your former colonizer. The US was scrambling to do exactly that immediately after winning the Revolutionary War, when they lost their only friends in the French Revolution.
> Do you think south korea or taiwan would join a japanese empire rebranded as commonwealth of nations?
And yet South Korea has managed in the recent past to cooperate with Japan to co-host important international events. They also had a rather more bitter parting than India and Britain.
> China has improved drastically while india lags behind. Why is that?
There are many reasons for this. None have anything to do with membership in a social club of nations.
So an indian immigrant in the US? I'm running out of guesses.
> I wasn't aware the Commonwealth suppresses industry in nations outside Britain with tariffs,
I didn't say it did. I said it represented a mindset. That india, pakistan, nigeria, etc are still in the commonwealth says a lot about the mindset of the elites. Funnily enough, india, pakistan, nigeria aren't the epitome of progress and development.
> The past is the past - there's little point in holding grudges. India parted from Britain on relatively friendly terms.
India didn't part on good terms. But I agree the past is the past. Why is india still part of the british empire/commonwealth?
> Pride is toxic, destructive, unproductive.
The US, China, Japan, Korea, France, Russia, Britain, etc are all very prideful nations. Reality says you are wrong about pride.
> And yet South Korea has managed in the recent past to cooperate with Japan to co-host important international events.
Yes. But not as part of the japanese empire. Koreans would view that as a humiliation for korea to be part of the japanese commonwealth after a few decades of colonialism. You seem to be under the bizarre illusion that India can't have good relations with britain or anyone else after they leave the commowealth. The US isn't part of the commonwealth and yet US-british relations are far more important that british-indian relations.
> There are many reasons for this. None have anything to do with membership in a social club of nations.
It has everything to do with india's membership in their former colonial master's club.
Do you think russia or china would join a reborn mongol empire/commonwealth? The british empire was one of the most evil and cruel institutions in human history. And india suffered under british colonialism for nearly 150 years. Think about what it says about the indian leadership that they still cling to the british empire?
A slavish minded leadership cannot help their nation. It's an impossibility. It's what separates US, Britain, Japan, China, Russia, etc from the likes of india.
India should be a major world power on par with the US, China, Russia, etc. But they are not. What they are is a pathetic member of their former colonial master's club. Unless that changes, india will never change.
If you can't understand the symbolic nature of being in the commonwealth and the fact that the commonwealth is just a rebranding of the british empire, then there really isn't much left to discuss.
Balfour Declaration
19 November 1926
Statute of Westminster
11 December 1931[2]
London Declaration
28 April 1949
Why isn't the US, china, russia, japan, etc part of the commonwealth? After all it is just a social gathering right?
As I said, the british empire was easily one of the most evil and cruel empires in human history. India being part of the commonwealth is like a black man joining the confederate party or poland joining a soviet commonwealth. It just says a lot of your mindset.
If india wanted to create a social gathering, why not create one without britain, their former master? Anyways, I think you understand what I am talking about but for whatever bias or hangup you just refuse to acknowledge it. But it was an interesting discussion. Thanks.
Nothing a billion dollars in bribes couldn't alleviate. Which is why India is "changing the rules" in the first place. Look at how much their civil servants make, and then look at their lifestyles, and it'll all be clear as day.
Coming from a high-corruption country myself (Russia) the pattern is easily recognizable. It's also recognizable in the US, but people here seem to still believe, at least to some extent, that the politicians have something other than their own self interest in mind. A perilous belief, guaranteed to be proven wrong.
Obama was the "Poorest" president in 50 years at only something like 4 Million to his name when he took office. It's also interesting to note he is from the most corrupt district in America. He is still a good example.
Do you remember all the freely available information that showed Banks, Oil companies and massive corporations all spent considerably more on Clinton's 2016 campaign, yet somehow the media tells us Trump is "Big businesses" guy those companies worked hard to get into office? Easily verifiable to you right now. Are you going to go check my work? Opensecrets.org
Cognitive dissonance is never so strong as when we are telling ourselves it's not cognitive dissonance.
People with $150-170K in yearly income living in DC (which has a very high cost of living) easily become multi-millionaires in a few short years, and so do their spouses and children. A crackhead son of a vice president gets paid more than an Exxon Mobil board member in spite of having no experience. He then also lands a gig running an investment firm in China with $1.5B under management. A very talented young man. Joe's brother, James Biden is also very "talented", and he somehow got a $1.5B construction contract in Iraq in spite of having no experience in construction. The fact that you didn't know anything about this until earlier this year tells you everything you need to know about the "free" press in this country. Moving _up_ the list: Obama gave Pearson $350M contract for Common Core textbooks, and Pearson paid him $65M for a book deal. This is the presidency which had "no scandals" at all. That's just _one_ example of many.
Dig just a little bit, and you'll find examples on nearly everyone who has been in DC for a while except perhaps Bernie Sanders who's "only" worth $3.5M.
"You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook" said Harry Truman. This holds to this day.
Yeah but how do you not get preferential treatment when you have one of "the names"? If it doesn't end up influencing policy decisions and such, it may not be right but it is tough to stop. Should these brothers and kids of famous people not have jobs?
Obama, probably one of if not the most well-known person IN THE WORLD, wants to write a book. How could the deal not be worth a ton? Makes complete sense.
Also the book is just a book. If people buy it, then he should make money.
Sounds to me you're OK with pervasive corruption then. How many book deals do you know of that include a $65M payday? Especially a ghostwritten book which few people will ever read. Most book authors barely scrape by. Pearson will almost certainly lose money on this, if you exclude the Common Core contract.
Best thing would be if the president's family already had successful businesses and did not expand them thanks to "the name", which is what we have now. Mike Pence's family also didn't suddenly become "very talented" either it looks like, or we'd know about it already.
At a minimum, I want the "free press" and the various oversight bodies to scrutinize this shit with a magnifying glass and drag it into the open _irrespective_ of the political affiliation of whoever is in the White House.
One of the thoughts in India is that all these regulations can be read to favor just one gigantic entity - the Reliance Jio group..who is going to reap the benefits of this protectionism. But no other startup probably is (because all startup fundraises originate in the US)
Care to elaborate? I keep hearing that along with similar things like "once Ambami/reliance adopts $xyz-tech everything will shift there". Due to its size Reliance is obviously in a position of power but do you see them lobbying for control in sectors outside telecom? Didn't read article due to paywall
I expect we're going to see more of this over the next 5-10 years, especially in the digital economy.
In the 70s, where a country was protectionist about cars, that probably meant fewer, worse and more expensive cars. Same for steel, dishwashing soap, telephones and shoes. Trabants instead of Toyotas, and less of them. Protectionism came with a high efficiency cost, and that meant poverty.
Today's digital economy can be very different. The relationship between incoming revenue and outgoing expenses is often arbitrary and that means efficiency is squishy. If Toyota had to operate on half it's current budget, Toyota would produce half as many cars. If Facebook had to operate on half (or less) of it's current budget, they "produce" the same social media (or advertising) "product."
The cost of protectionism in this environment is totally different to steel, cars and ikea furniture. If Facebook and twitter cease to exist, the "supply" of social media experienced by the public isn't a problem... at least not for long.
An ecommerce business is not a social media business, but it is further along that spectrum. So is a smartphone business, financial services business, online ad platform and many of these "digital monopoly" sectors.
The protectionist proposition is just more attractive, with the big, immediate, obvious costs removed.
Protectionism has always been popular, politically. It's nationalistic, and that's popular with the public. It puts a lot of policy making power in politicians hands and that's popular with politicians. Business tends to like it, domestically. Opening trade was, imo, and contrary to popular opinion, a forced hand. It was never ideological. Ideologically, it's unpopular. The "stable state" is protectionism.
Protectionism was just very costly in the 70s, 80s & 90s... so it died down some.
Asian economies such as Korea grew precisely due to government enforced industrialization programs. Protectionism is excellent for an economy's 'bootstrap' phase where you wish to create some sort of viable industry where none existed before. To make this long term tenable, you have to then slowly pull back and return to a more market based approach.
Reflect for a moment on the system we currently use for big corporations which has a lineage roughly dating back to the East India Company in 1600. The reason we still use them is because they proved so devastatingly effective at draining wealth from exotic foreign lands that nobody could do without them.
The free market is best for maintaining general prosperity; it gives individual people the freedom to make what they think is the best choice. But there are probably military implications to letting key infrastructure for social and economic organisation enter the control of US corporate giants.
38 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 87.6 ms ] threadIt's hard enough to compete against these established Tech Giants if they just come in and buy all the domestic companies. Not to mention the companies are starting with a massive head start.
What worked for China was acting a fool for a few decades. No rules, no regulations, nothing.
Like a boa constrictor, staying motionless, allowing its prey to feel completely relaxed, then slowly but surely, tighten its grip until it's too late for the prey to escape.
With its proximity to China, India could have had China's business.
What china did was nothing special. It wasn't revolutionary. It was what every industrial power today did - from the US in the 1800s to germany and japan and the asian tigers like south korea and taiwan did. Protectionism + foreign investment + manufacturing.
The united states created the blueprint for success in the 1800s. All the smart nations have copied it and gotten successful.
One of the first things the US did was to place tariffs to protect local industry. And for 100 years, protectionism was how the US rose from a relatively insignificant nation to the largest economy in the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_St...
Without the tariffs and protectionism, the US industries would have been owned by britain, france, etc. Or maybe it was like a boa constrictor. I don't know.
The tarrifs then increased during every war the US had with Britain.
It’s no surprise that the US talks of trade wars, due to the way its history of tarrif is entangled with warfare, and dislike of the nations a tarrif is aimed against,
Care to a elaborate a bit please?
* Mandatory censorship of information (Google before leaving, Bing)
* Foreign ownership limits (aka forced intellectual property transfers)
* Capital outflow restrictions
* Heavy subsidies allowing local firms to sell products at below cost (e.g. steel, bicycles)
It worked a second time and half a dozen times more just the past 100 years. Japan, Germany, France, South Korea, Taiwan, etc all used protectionism to develop their local industries and companies, just like the US did in the 1800s and like China did most recently. Protectionism is required to protect young local underdeveloped industries and companies from wealthier foreign companies. Every major industrialize power used protectionism to get to where they are at today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_St...
It isn't a secret. It's a well established fact by now.
> Automation right around the corner and India isn't willing to do the things china was allowed to do.
Rather than automation, it's india's politics and the mindset of a large portion of their elites. If you want to understand why india won't be successful, just look at the members of the british commonwealth. You'll see that india is still in it. If the political elite of india, for whatever reasons, still think being part of the british commonwealth is a good idea, it is obvious they are not going to do anything to truly improve india - especially things that might hurt their former colonial masters and the west's interests. You'll never see the US in the british commonwealth with the english queen as our head of state. I'm sure you'll never see china in it either. The elites in the US and china has some national pride needed to improve their nations.
Also, india doesn't have the "political center/authority" with which to enact painful reforms internally to industrialize and to ward off external pressure from the west. The problem with India is that they lack the nationalistic aspects of Japan, Germany, France, South Korea, Taiwan, etc which allowed these nations to protect their local industries and develop. And any attempts towards a nationialism in india would led to some internal friction, but more importantly, the west will stoke divisions within the population and amongst the elites to destabilize india and get it back under control.
India has a lot of potential but without a strong political center/authority, it can never fulfill its potential. And you only really need that strong political center/authority to provide internal stability and protect from destabilizing foreign interference for a decade or two to help your local industries and companies to develop and industrialize. Otherwise, your country will be bought up by capital rich companies and countries. Who knows if Modi is the man for the job. Given india's history, I won't be holding my breath.
Also, in case you think protectionism doesn't exist in the US, China, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, etc. look at what is happening with huwaei and the trade war. Look into the protectionist policies of every major industrial nation. It's strange how the wealthy nations love protectionism for themselves but want open markets for poor nations.
That's the first time I've ever heard someone say the Commonwealth is an indicator of anything. First off, Queen Elizabeth isn't the head of state of India. The head of state of India is the President of India, selected by a vote of the national and state legislatures[1]. Second, having the head of the House of Windsor as their constitutional monarch hasn't impeded Canada or Australia's development in any way whatsoever.
India's membership in Commonwealth amounts to basically a cultural and educational exchange program. They participate in the Commonwealth Games every 4 years (or however often they occur). There are no trade or military agreements, or anything else of consequence.[2]
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_India
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations#Trade
Probably because you are from Britain, Canada, Australia or New Zealand.
> First off, Queen Elizabeth isn't the head of state of India, like she is in Canada or Australia.
But queen elizabeth is the head of the commonwealth. The commonwealth is headquartered in london. The official language is english. The commonwealth is the british empire rebranded - and poorly at that in my opinion.
> Second, that hasn't impeded those nations' development in any way whatsoever.
Because canada and australia are descendent nations of britain. India was a conquered nation of britain. Surely even you can see that india and african colonies were treated differently than canada, australia and new zealand.
> India's membership in Commonwealth amounts to basically a cultural and educational exchange program.
A cultural and educational reminder of their humiliating past?
> They participate in the Commonwealth Games every 4 years (or however often they occur). There are no trade or military agreements, or anything else of consequence.
I don't think you understand what I am saying. A truly great nation. A nation that aspires to be important. Cannot think like a colonial nation.
Do you think south korea or taiwan would join a japanese empire rebranded as commonwealth of nations? Of course not, their elites will never allow it. But india is. If the indian elites do not have the requisite national pride needed for india "to be great", how will the nation become great?
All major industrial nations have become great via the top-down model. The people at the top need to have that vision first. India simply does not have them amongst their elites.
Look at China. They've lifted nearly a billion people out of poverty. India is just now working on trying to get toilets for their people.
https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-05-12/india-access-toilets-...
400 million indians do not have access to reliable electricity. That's more than the population of the US ( 320 million ).
https://phys.org/news/2013-11-rural-india-electricity.html
Both india and china liberated themselves from western colonialism around the same time. China has improved drastically while india lags behind. Why is that? The list of members of the british commonwealth tells you all you need to know.
Nope.
> The commonwealth is the british empire rebranded
I wasn't aware the Commonwealth suppresses industry in nations outside Britain with tariffs, uses them as a source of cheap raw materials for British manufacturing, and as captive markets for those manufactures. Or that Britain sends gunboats to enforce treaties and blockade ports of members that don't comply. Or that India, Nigeria, Pakistan and all the other Commonwealth members still have their laws made for them by the British Parliament and have no representation.
> But queen elizabeth is the head of the commonwealth. The commonwealth is headquartered in london. The official language is english.
Yeah, because these are the only things that all the members have in common.
> Because canada and australia are descendent nations of britain.
So you yourself are admitting that a lady with a crown and a golden stick makes no difference to whether a former British colony progresses or not. It depends purely on the treatment they received from Britain.
> A cultural and educational reminder of their humiliating past? If the indian elites do not have the requisite national pride needed for india "to be great", how will the nation become great?
The past is the past - there's little point in holding grudges. India parted from Britain on relatively friendly terms. Pride is toxic, destructive, unproductive. Grownups do not stew over historical insults. They try to build a better future.
> I don't think you understand what I am saying. A truly great nation. A nation that aspires to be important. Cannot think like a colonial nation.
I don't think you understand that for member nations such as India, Pakistan, Nigeria, the Commonwealth is a glorified tea club. There are no political, trade, or military implications whatsoever. They swap stories, make friends, have a good time. I don't even know what "think like a colonial nation" means.
"Commonwealth citizen" is only a meaningful term for nations in the Caribbean and British Isles.[1]
It's crazy to say you shouldn't ever establish cordial relations with your former colonizer. The US was scrambling to do exactly that immediately after winning the Revolutionary War, when they lost their only friends in the French Revolution.
> Do you think south korea or taiwan would join a japanese empire rebranded as commonwealth of nations?
And yet South Korea has managed in the recent past to cooperate with Japan to co-host important international events. They also had a rather more bitter parting than India and Britain.
> China has improved drastically while india lags behind. Why is that?
There are many reasons for this. None have anything to do with membership in a social club of nations.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_citizen
So an indian immigrant in the US? I'm running out of guesses.
> I wasn't aware the Commonwealth suppresses industry in nations outside Britain with tariffs,
I didn't say it did. I said it represented a mindset. That india, pakistan, nigeria, etc are still in the commonwealth says a lot about the mindset of the elites. Funnily enough, india, pakistan, nigeria aren't the epitome of progress and development.
> The past is the past - there's little point in holding grudges. India parted from Britain on relatively friendly terms.
India didn't part on good terms. But I agree the past is the past. Why is india still part of the british empire/commonwealth?
> Pride is toxic, destructive, unproductive.
The US, China, Japan, Korea, France, Russia, Britain, etc are all very prideful nations. Reality says you are wrong about pride.
> And yet South Korea has managed in the recent past to cooperate with Japan to co-host important international events.
Yes. But not as part of the japanese empire. Koreans would view that as a humiliation for korea to be part of the japanese commonwealth after a few decades of colonialism. You seem to be under the bizarre illusion that India can't have good relations with britain or anyone else after they leave the commowealth. The US isn't part of the commonwealth and yet US-british relations are far more important that british-indian relations.
> There are many reasons for this. None have anything to do with membership in a social club of nations.
It has everything to do with india's membership in their former colonial master's club.
Do you think russia or china would join a reborn mongol empire/commonwealth? The british empire was one of the most evil and cruel institutions in human history. And india suffered under british colonialism for nearly 150 years. Think about what it says about the indian leadership that they still cling to the british empire?
A slavish minded leadership cannot help their nation. It's an impossibility. It's what separates US, Britain, Japan, China, Russia, etc from the likes of india.
India should be a major world power on par with the US, China, Russia, etc. But they are not. What they are is a pathetic member of their former colonial master's club. Unless that changes, india will never change.
Balfour Declaration 19 November 1926 Statute of Westminster 11 December 1931[2] London Declaration 28 April 1949
Why isn't the US, china, russia, japan, etc part of the commonwealth? After all it is just a social gathering right?
As I said, the british empire was easily one of the most evil and cruel empires in human history. India being part of the commonwealth is like a black man joining the confederate party or poland joining a soviet commonwealth. It just says a lot of your mindset.
If india wanted to create a social gathering, why not create one without britain, their former master? Anyways, I think you understand what I am talking about but for whatever bias or hangup you just refuse to acknowledge it. But it was an interesting discussion. Thanks.
At least in the US we can easily find out this information and vote on it.
Do you remember all the freely available information that showed Banks, Oil companies and massive corporations all spent considerably more on Clinton's 2016 campaign, yet somehow the media tells us Trump is "Big businesses" guy those companies worked hard to get into office? Easily verifiable to you right now. Are you going to go check my work? Opensecrets.org
Cognitive dissonance is never so strong as when we are telling ourselves it's not cognitive dissonance.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/08/02/joe-biden...
Dig just a little bit, and you'll find examples on nearly everyone who has been in DC for a while except perhaps Bernie Sanders who's "only" worth $3.5M.
"You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook" said Harry Truman. This holds to this day.
Obama, probably one of if not the most well-known person IN THE WORLD, wants to write a book. How could the deal not be worth a ton? Makes complete sense.
Also the book is just a book. If people buy it, then he should make money.
Best thing would be if the president's family already had successful businesses and did not expand them thanks to "the name", which is what we have now. Mike Pence's family also didn't suddenly become "very talented" either it looks like, or we'd know about it already.
At a minimum, I want the "free press" and the various oversight bodies to scrutinize this shit with a magnifying glass and drag it into the open _irrespective_ of the political affiliation of whoever is in the White House.
can see plenty of domestic and govt investment in local startups.
Modern colonialism.
In the 70s, where a country was protectionist about cars, that probably meant fewer, worse and more expensive cars. Same for steel, dishwashing soap, telephones and shoes. Trabants instead of Toyotas, and less of them. Protectionism came with a high efficiency cost, and that meant poverty.
Today's digital economy can be very different. The relationship between incoming revenue and outgoing expenses is often arbitrary and that means efficiency is squishy. If Toyota had to operate on half it's current budget, Toyota would produce half as many cars. If Facebook had to operate on half (or less) of it's current budget, they "produce" the same social media (or advertising) "product."
The cost of protectionism in this environment is totally different to steel, cars and ikea furniture. If Facebook and twitter cease to exist, the "supply" of social media experienced by the public isn't a problem... at least not for long.
An ecommerce business is not a social media business, but it is further along that spectrum. So is a smartphone business, financial services business, online ad platform and many of these "digital monopoly" sectors.
The protectionist proposition is just more attractive, with the big, immediate, obvious costs removed.
Protectionism has always been popular, politically. It's nationalistic, and that's popular with the public. It puts a lot of policy making power in politicians hands and that's popular with politicians. Business tends to like it, domestically. Opening trade was, imo, and contrary to popular opinion, a forced hand. It was never ideological. Ideologically, it's unpopular. The "stable state" is protectionism.
Protectionism was just very costly in the 70s, 80s & 90s... so it died down some.
It doesn't mean that at all.
The free market is best for maintaining general prosperity; it gives individual people the freedom to make what they think is the best choice. But there are probably military implications to letting key infrastructure for social and economic organisation enter the control of US corporate giants.