[reaperducer]

China has money to spend and US companies need to tap into that market.

"Choose to" tap into that market. No company "needs" to be in China.

Just like there are thousands of companies in Europe that do not do business in the United States, and thousands of companies in Brazil that do not do business in Russia.

[dalbasal]

You're getting kind of semantic. Theoretically, No company "needs" to be in business at all.

If Chinese consumer market growth continues as it has been, it may the biggest market for Apple. Hard to be the largest luxury goods company in the world without the largest luxury goods market...

OP is right. This gives China influence. Supply chain influence is a minor thing, relative to "I'm your biggest customer" influence.

[jimkleiber]

Why I don't like the "needs to" framing, especially as it comes to business decisions, is that I think it takes the agency out of the process. Too many of my friends and family seem to assume that just because there are customers willing to pay or cheaper labor, a company must automatically do a certain thing unless the government makes a law to prevent them from doing it.

I guess that's why I like the "chooses to" framing because it highlights that leaders of companies can choose to not pursue markets or go with higher priced suppliers if they can make the argument as to how it might help them in the long term.

Edit: typo

[fauigerzigerk]

How do you avoid a situation where companies making ethical choices are bought or outspent by companies (or in fact by shareholders) that got rich by exploiting every profitable opportunity that is legally available to them, including unethical ones?

From the point of view of any particular company the choice you're talking about may well exist, especially where the company is founder-led. But that doesn't mean the outcome you're hoping for can be achieved on a purely voluntary basis.

It may work in exceptional cases though, Apple being one of them.

[dalbasal]

IDK if the philosophy of it matters all that much. Apple is, likely, going to grow in China. We don't have to solve the "agency question" to know this.

That said, I think there is a decent amount of determinism at play here. It's like the "why are all politicians such politicians?" problem. The companies with an interest in entering the Chinese market will, mostly, do it. It's predictable. Predictable isn't determinism, but it's en route.

For a more poetic take, I'll paraphrase leonard cohen on "do you believe in free will?":

I think free will exists, but I think it's over-rated. Mostly, we act because we are compelled to.

[kukx]

Well, let's merge both narrations: they need to, if they choose to pursue the leadership in the global market ;)

[bjelkeman-again]

at the detriment of human rights and the environment.

A lot of investors and pension funds are starting to add more criteria to their investments than just a profit.

[faeyanpiraat]

I would consider businesses providing for our basic human needs (eg food) to be needed to be in business.

[WillPostForFood]

It is a pretty powerful combo: controlling supply and demand.

[lotsofpulp]

It is conceivable in a winner take all business, or a top 2 take all business, you either tap into the world’s largest market or you don’t survive.

For example, Apple being able to lock up all the supply of higher end chips and smaller companies not being able to compete.

[Clubber]

>It is conceivable in a winner take all business, or a top 2 take all business, you either tap into the world’s largest market or you don’t survive.

The US is the world's largest market, by a lot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_consumer_marke...

[lotsofpulp]

Yes, I meant the world’s top markets. Especially one that’s up and coming.

[adrr]

China consumer market is bigger than than the US. It will be for public companies to justify they they won’t sell in China to their stockholders outside of IP theft and PR issues.

[birdsbirdsbirds]

They can choose for a year or two, but they will lose on scale. Apple can pull off their own processor because they are big enough. If companies don't sell in China, only Chinese companies are big enough to have fancy new components and production processes.

[coliveira]

And how big are these European or Brazilian companies? That's all fine if the US wants to become a 3rd tier economy. But if the country wants to expand, it has to trade with China.