This is a good example of why China will never actually be "investment friendly".
220
rubywpnmasterApr 16, 2026
+101
First and foremost the foreign investor in China needs to be aware that EVERY allowed action in China only exists to A: Empower the CCP and B: Nothing that takes away jobs or threatens the CCPs iron grip on the country will be permitted.
China views creating secondary supply chains outside of China as a hostile act because those could be Chinese jobs distracting Chinese citizens and keeping them from going on walks together.
101
bahhumbudApr 16, 2026
+37
I very much love part 1 of B.
Imagine if my country the US gave a shit about jobs, we wouldn’t have sent so many of them away to other countries.
37
TonySuApr 16, 2026
+30
We must never forget the monstrous goals of the CCP to *checks notes* keep their citizen employed!
30
xanas263Apr 16, 2026
+18
>Nothing that takes away jobs
Because they saw what happened when other countries allowed them to take their supply chains. Virtually every supply chain on the planet runs through China and it lifted 500+ million people out of abject poverty. Of course they are now going to try and make sure they don't lose that advantage.
18
redredgreengreen1Apr 16, 2026
+17
His comment wasn't about china having their own supply chain, it was the idea that any supply chain NOT controlled by china was a problem.
17
xanas263Apr 16, 2026
+5
I know. Right now virtually every supply chain runs through China and is the reason why they are so powerful. So of course they are going to want to stop that from changing. Any country in their position would do the same thing.
5
MakePhreciaCoreApr 17, 2026
-2
So as long as you genuinely are *investing* in China rather than playing/scamming/skimming, or otherwise attempting to take advantage of China it’s literally all upside.
It’s kind of weird to read such a banal ruleset as a “warning”. It’s basically common sense to anyone who uses the word invest to mean invest. Rather than the current western definition that results in squeezing successful businesses for profit, skeleton crewing them towards failure and then dissolving a business that had a future before venture capitalism for every last penny.
And after watching America’s cycle of offshore-onshore that screws basically only the working rule B reads as a godsend for the people.
-2
Virtual_Seaweed7130Apr 16, 2026
+7
Sorry but what are they supposed to do in response to U.S. protectionism? Just sit there and take it? Do none of their own protectionism?
7
themathmajicianApr 16, 2026
+16
protectionism would be kicking out foreign companies. remember that every medium to large multinational that does business in China needs to have a separate subsidiary with an internal CCP branch.
16
IVD1Apr 16, 2026
-2
No, that would just be stupidity only aimed at sheltering rich people from competition. Something the orange man would think of.
That would drive way foreign technology from the economy and capital investments.
Maybe China decides to do that when it gets above and beyond everyone else, not the case now.
-2
themathmajicianApr 16, 2026
+1
So this isn't protectionism because it doesn't reduce domestic competition. This exit ban on capital and institutional knowledge is meant to protect exports and will discourage expansion to China. On top of all the other rules.
1
IVD1Apr 16, 2026
+3
Protectionism isn't just about reducing domestic competition, where did you took such definition from? Any measure taken to favor your own economy, including exports is protectionism. Keepping supply chains tied to China is an act of economic protection as it keeps the country at the center of global trade - which reduces the likelyhood of competitors on the global market.
3
themathmajicianApr 16, 2026
+1
You're the one that connected kicking out companies to sheltering rich people.
And what you missed is something I already mentioned. This will discourage companies from expanding to China which doesn't accomplish economic protection.
1
IVD1Apr 16, 2026
+1
That will not discourage anyone moving into China because China's internal market is growing and wages are improving over time. China's leverage on the market is no longer based on c**** labor alone.
They also have an almost monopoly on rare earth refining to add to that.
And yes, kicking out competitors from inside your country is a move to shelter your own companies, and is often a result of strong lobby from those powerful and rich enough to do it. Look at the amount of protection Tesla has received with chinese electric cars having over 80% tarifs.
1
themathmajicianApr 16, 2026
+1
So you don't actually have an issue with definitions.
If you talk about the internal market it's still not protectionism. The major factor here is the transition to a consumption economy not export. Your main argument doesn't make sense because multinationals would not have a reason to decouple if there aren't any competitive alternatives. Foreign investment is down drastically already so the negative economic consequences aren't a conjecture.
Finally there's a good reason for China to ban capital exit even though it's bad economically: the government still wishes to enforce more rules on all companies for security and political reasons.
1
IVD1Apr 16, 2026
+1
There is incleasing incentives to decouple given the trade war and the risk of sanctions and conflict disrupting the supply chain, that is the main question at stake.
Just as China has limited rare earth exports to US, the US is trying to cut energy supply on China. So businesses have an incetive to leave even at a loss of losing chinese market.
Given this scenario, calling the ban on capital exit an economical loss is not reasonable. Security and politics is the economic game at hand.
1
Xylus1985Apr 16, 2026
-1
Internal CCP branch is only there for the CCP members you employ. You don’t need one if you don’t employ CCP members
-1
themathmajicianApr 16, 2026
+4
Which is why I said medium to large. It's basically guaranteed to have 3 members, and companies are discouraged from verifying status anyways.
4
Virtual_Seaweed7130Apr 16, 2026
-2
So i guess the answer is yes, they’re supposed to sit there and take it in your eyes?
I’m not sure how you could call policy making it more difficult for preventing your industrial customers from seeking other industrial manufacturers as anything other than protectionism for your industry.
-2
themathmajicianApr 16, 2026
+2
If you want to call any type of market distortion protectionism then sure. The law is pretty explicitly bad for the Chinese economy, bad for foreign companies, bad for foreign investment, and good for maintaining and growing state control over the market. Reciprocal protectionism is just as bad for people, and so is China becoming a sanctions regime.
2
Virtual_Seaweed7130Apr 16, 2026
-3
Okay so now you’re admitting it is reciprocal protectionism. And your expectation is that, china is not allowed to do protectionism in response to the US? Sorry I can’t see an issue with protectionism when the US does the same exact shit. Maybe if the US didn’t participate I could see it as something uniquely Chinese and bad.
-3
themathmajicianApr 17, 2026
Because that's what you think it is, and I explained why it's bad even if you interpret it incorrectly.
Again, the primary issue isn't economic, I don't see your point when China is just joining the US in hurting itself.
0
SportfreundeApr 16, 2026
-10
They seem to be doing fine without that. Not in a sovereign debt crisis like everywhere else.
-10
RaptoerApr 16, 2026
+22
They just have a non-Sovereign debt crisis.
If you count not just federal debt, but provincial debt and state controlled companies that only exist to take on provincial debt they exceed the US debt to GDP ratio.
22
Potential_Aioli_4611Apr 16, 2026
-2
yes but unlike US debt it's actually poured into infrastructure projects. Trains, ports, airports, housing, highways.
-2
themathmajicianApr 16, 2026
+2
Their rail debt is 1 trillion and it's now physically impossible for the system to make enough money to pay it off. Urban rail costs twice as much to run as they make.
There is increasing ghost housing (over 20%, 70 million apartments) and transport infrastructure (3 billion sqm unsold commerical floor space, a few dozen HSR stations idle or closed a couple years after completion.
Now the debt is used to stop local governments from defaulting and fixed asset investment declined for the first time last year.
2
Potential_Aioli_4611Apr 16, 2026
better than what the US did with it's debt. 70m apartments sitting empty means their housing prices aren't going to skyrocket like the US has. The urban rail will cost money but it will actually transport people. Thats the whole point of government spending: to work on large scale problems for the people. Infrastructure spending is good for the citizens because it provides lots of construction jobs and serves a need. They probably overspent sure but contrast that with US debt... where'd that all go? how did that benefit the people? State sponsored terrorism, alienation of all of our former allies, and warcrimes.
Much rather the former way of wasting money than the latter.
0
themathmajicianApr 17, 2026
+2
You can't apply this logic to China. Property is the primary investment vehicle being the major difference, since normal people don't trust/aren't allowed to get normal investments.
There's a big difference between running at a deficit (ie not counting the economic output generated) and accumulating so much debt that it's a net negative for the economy over any time window you choose. As I said, new debt is going to service old debt (60% of local/provincial debt was rolled over in 2025 compared to 30% in the US), directly impacting the ability to work on large scale problems.
You'd think that the US is the model for growth at all costs with no results, but the world leader is China again. The direct cause of the current debt trap originates in repeated stimulus packages with no returns, starting with 4 trillion in 2008. The local governments are addicted to bank funded construction that will never be used.
2
themathmajicianApr 16, 2026
+10
The provinces take all the debt and the central government gets to borrow even more because of the "credit" created.
10
Xylus1985Apr 16, 2026
-3
Sure, every foreign company that invested in China has lost money and failed to enrich their shareholders. Which is why no foreign company has ever invested in China in the past decades
-3
NC16inthehouseApr 16, 2026
+13
Does Nexperia have something to so with this?
13
pepehandreeeApr 16, 2026
+14
Probably not. Nexperia thing is more to do with no significant Chinese investment would be made in Netherlands ever again.
This just seems to be CCP wanting to have the cake and eat it too lol. U can’t really expect foreign capital to have genuine long term investment while inflicting bizarre and vaguely worded regulation that specifically targets foreign capital.
14
HikariloApr 16, 2026
+1
No, I believe this more to do with how a Hong Kong company was pressured to sell it's Panama ports to a US firm.
1
tecdazApr 16, 2026
+44
Chinese IP should be legislated to be free for anyone to adopt. Fair's fair.
44
jaa101Apr 16, 2026
+10
Hollywood's definitely going to say no to that idea.
10
KamyplitforApr 16, 2026
-46
So western IP should be free for anyone to adopt. Fair's fair.
-46
tecdazApr 16, 2026
+48
You're explaining the joke. The CCP has already stolen all the Western IP its minions can get their hands on
48
imminaturalApr 16, 2026
+53
It is a small mistake to build production in China, but a terrible idea to stay. The cost of exit bans on capital and talented people will only get worse.
Best to leave and get as much out while you still can.
53
Icy_Acanthisitta7741Apr 16, 2026
+26
Alot of the western companies left already, some like starbucks are blatantly copied and promoted as "china's new and improved" version.
Others are being requested to provide their secret / formula and build factories in China.
Apple were "ask" as in do it or get out, for their iphones to not to provide satellite call functionality nor e-sim capabilities in China.
And there are many others.
26
vava2603Apr 16, 2026
-23
it is the case for any country . Same if you want to do business in India for example or any other country . Japan and South Korea were heavily copying western products during the 70s and 80s too . Foreign cie need to pay to access any foreign mkt
-23
Icy_Acanthisitta7741Apr 16, 2026
+9
no, it's definitely not the case for any country. To the point that all compnaies data are quired to be accessed by China at any given time when they ask for it.
(without even needing a reason, they can just say they feel like it)
9
Mysterious_Past6277Apr 16, 2026
+11
Well china has never done anything on the world stage but steal whatever they can or use slaves like the uyghurs and in africa. Kinda think the world shouldnt be dealing with a country like that, life seemed a lot better and affordable before everyone did.
11
Icy_Acanthisitta7741Apr 18, 2026
+2
and I'm totally fine for stuff to be back to70/80 where any joe schmuck can afford a house and a car and raising a family at the same time.
2
Otherwise-Sun2486Apr 16, 2026
+11
Smh, now they will definitely leave
11
nishitdApr 16, 2026
+7
And yet companies, and now even countries, continue to kowtow to CCP and China. Why? The level of efficiency afforded by China is not possible anywhere else.
7
CrusaderAliveApr 16, 2026
-11
Because Listnookors hate Trump. They will cheers to anyone against Trump. Hatred make people blinds. After Trump in the office Listnookors paint china is the new world friendly. I will get downvote to say the truth
-11
mrdrekaApr 16, 2026
+2
I mean trump have threatened to attack our country, China hasn’t. So even though China is bad, MAGA US is worse.
2
SayNoToFirefightersApr 16, 2026
+2
These Companies need to move their manufacturing outside of China to truly take away their power.
Once UE rises to critical level mass, the government itself will implode.
2
JesDoit-todayApr 16, 2026
+1
China is today because in the 60’s the us didn’t want strong unions. Nixon opened trade relations with china. They were smart and learned advanced manufacturing. Europe joined in to boost profit, and everyone was happy until all they started demanding intellectual property agreement to support their home markets. It’s funny when people try and limit what a person potential is, make a game and the rules and change them when your plans didn’t go the way you want.
This is the way…
50 Comments