Basically, your point is that the US (and every other country out there) should realize that it has badness, even if it isn't as bad as China. It seems obvious to me, I don't see how it is relevant.
It seems to me that in many such discussions, some participants regard the US as something like a workable approximation of perfect. The sentences are often written this way: it suffices to say that China does this or that. That's like talking about an outbreak of E.Coli and not understanding that just about any creature with a colon contains a bunch of E.Coli. The significant idea is that the bacteria gets to places it shouldn't. In this analogy, it's not conveying the complete picture just to say there are bacteria. Since I pressed people in these threads, people specified exactly in what contexts with regards to business and IP that China's approach to law made a difference. Just to say that China selectively enforces laws 1) conveys the false picture that the US doesn't do this and 2) doesn't specify the exact problems and can be reduced to, "China primitive and bad."
I probably wouldn't disagree with anything you had to say on this matter, but I want substantive discussion and think it often stops short.
The fact that I could point such facts out, and people would react so strongly to them because of the possibility they represent "the other side" is another interesting data point.
No, I/we have plenty of beefs with the US. There is plenty to gripe about there. But doing business is not one of them.
I was talking about my own observations working in China, how we couldn't do the same things that the local companies could. It is not just "China primitive bad", it is "things work differently in China, don't you know?" as any Chinese would tell you on your first day of work!
Its like we were having a conversation about a bad pollution day in Beijing, say 600 2.5 PPM, and you pointed out that LA was currently at 90, so the Americans living in Beijing had no right to complain about this.
It seems to me that in many such discussions, some participants regard the US as something like a workable approximation of perfect. The sentences are often written this way: it suffices to say that China does this or that. That's like talking about an outbreak of E.Coli and not understanding that just about any creature with a colon contains a bunch of E.Coli. The significant idea is that the bacteria gets to places it shouldn't. In this analogy, it's not conveying the complete picture just to say there are bacteria. Since I pressed people in these threads, people specified exactly in what contexts with regards to business and IP that China's approach to law made a difference. Just to say that China selectively enforces laws 1) conveys the false picture that the US doesn't do this and 2) doesn't specify the exact problems and can be reduced to, "China primitive and bad."
I probably wouldn't disagree with anything you had to say on this matter, but I want substantive discussion and think it often stops short.
The fact that I could point such facts out, and people would react so strongly to them because of the possibility they represent "the other side" is another interesting data point.