Algernon wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 6:24 pm
dbl96 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 6:16 pm
This is precisely the kind of attitude that has cost us this investment and may well cost us further investment in the future.
Bull.
Shit.
Money doesn't have feelings to be hurt. The investor was never going to come good and found whatever face saving option to get out of the deal.
Possibly.
But you can't deny that feelings and emotion are a big part of business. Yes, people normally claim to be economically rational when making business decisions, but in reality they are not. When people become emotional, they react irrationally, even against their own interests.
This is the whole reason why people put effort into developing and maintaining business relationships. It is particularly the case for business in China, where the line between personal and professional lives is much more blurred than it is here.
The situation is compounded for many Chinese businesses because of the complex relationship between business and the state. A business might privately agree with what Councillor Martin said, but they may still act outraged and withdraw from the deal, because if they don't do so, they fear they may face repercussions from the Chinese government. Businesses operating in China have to develop close relationships with the government there, because the government has the power to either put them on the gravy train or give them the cold shoulder. In that sense, it makes rational economic sense for businesses like this to toe the party line, even if they aren't offended themselves.
We have to be aware that there are certain things that really piss off the Chinese government, Chinese businesses and probably the majority of Chinese individuals. We shouldn't tiptoe around discussing the real problems that exist in China, but we also shouldn't deliberately say things that we know (or should know) will piss the Chinese off, when there is no rational reason for doing so.
In the present matter, there is no rational reason to hassle the developer over its Chinese government links. As I said previously, this is a commercial development with no implications for our national security or our values of freedom and democracy.
rev wrote: ↑Sat Nov 07, 2020 1:39 pm
We don't need foreign dictatorships that obviously don't share our values for freedom and democratic principles, investing in our country.
All ccp linked investments should be nullified and forfeited.
Rev's comments here are a perfect example of, as I discussed previously, how the emotional can trump the rational in economic decision making. The lack of democracy in China may infuriate Australians, but it is of no logical relevance to a decision about whether to exclude commercial investment from China. The fact that money used to buy some steel and cement comes from undemocratic China does not mean that it will magically destroy Australian democracy. It is just money used to buy steel and cement.
On the other hand, it would completely economically irrational to do as Rev suggests and nullify and forfeit all CCP linked investments. A huge amount of investment in Australia, and specifically in Adelaide, comes from Chinese-backed sources. What would we gain by excluding this investment? Absolutely nothing. Excluding Chinese investment would simply result in more sluggish economic growth rates and increased unemployment for South Australia. How is that desirable in any way?
If we want to prevent our democracy being eroded, we need to focus on strengthening our institutions to prevent corruption generally, not by introducing an irrational ban on all things Chinese.