While the evidence in this case seems to be against this statement (Amazon indeed offered worse service than competitors) I think it is otherwise valid. Chinese are really driven to become the world's superpower number 1 and give no quarter to Western companies trying to establish themselves in China.

So the big dilemma is, do we let them? Or more precisely, do we as the outside world let Chinese stifle all the foreign companies in their own market while their own companies operate freely in those foreign countries? It smells really a lot of mercantilism, and the Chinese culture of copy-catting freely doesn't help. It seems like the Western countries in particular have become too soft for Chinese tactics, and are too afraid to act against China. This at least has been my perception.

Hasn't this been obvious for years? Like, centuries? No major power allows other nations, especially nations which are not close military allies, to dominate its economy. China acts in its own self-interest, as does...every other nation in the history of the planet which is able to. The U.K., the U.S., or any other major economic power, will not allow its economy to be dominated by companies from countries that it does not trust as a close military ally. Both the U.K. and the U.S. only became in favor of free trade once they were the dominant economic power of the world, and prior to that was protectionist. Japan and South Korea protected their economies as they grew, to the extent (given their size) that made sense to. If you're the size of Singapore or the Netherlands, of course, things are different, as you simply cannot do everything, however developed your economy. Also, the U.S. allows someone like the U.K. to have a much bigger presence, because of many cultural and military ties.

But the idea that China ever intended to continue to allow western companies to dominate their economy, once they were developed enough to do something about it, is naive. No nation, that can avoid that, allows it.

Schneider Electric has a fairly large presence in the US...to what I can imagine is a huge benefit to both Europe and the US. Bosch, VW (let’s forget the scandal for a minute)...

This goes beyond so much more than this particular article. The ‘western’ world is building a global civilization, and it seems like anyone is invited if you play by the rules. All of the China doves over the last 3 decades probably thought China would open up in that way and join the ‘developed’ world.

I mean, fuck, Samsung is a huge compnent of the US economy, isn’t it?

No, fuck China, and protectionism in general. They had (still have?) an invitation into the global civilization. It’s based on rules, that you have to follow. Of course there are criminals (hsbc, Libor, etc...) but overall it’s based on rules.

This ‘realpolitik’ that has taken over, where ‘yeah of course nations act in their own best interest’ is not the complete picture, because at some point, a nation’s self interest is in cooperation.

Well, there are certainly German companies operating in the US market, but: 1) Germany is a NATO ally, and the US has military bases in Germany, which is very different than the relations between China and the US 2) Germany does not have any possibility of dominating the US economy in the way that US companies could (if allowed) dominate the Chinese economy

South Korea, like Germany, has a military alliance with the US, and the US has military bases in South Korea. Again, there is also no real danger of South Korea dominating the US economy on the scale that the US could (if allowed) dominate the Chinese one.

Lastly, there are rules in the "global" economy, but those rules have mostly worked to the benefit of the countries that made them (see results in Latin America and Africa for what happens if you follow IMF and World Bank advice on opening up your economy). South Korea, Japan, and other "Asian tigers" mostly did NOT follow IMF/World Bank advice, and that's why it worked for them. China is basically doing the same thing Japan, South Korea, etc. did a couple decades ago.

This doesn't mean we shouldn't care, or even respond, but we shouldn't be surprised, or expect something different in the future.

Yeah, you play by rules, as long as it benefits you. Why does US so strongly advocate banning of Huawei devices, in the whole world? You say Huawei may have backdoors, but who don't? And Huawei may be the cleanest as it just "may", while the other competitors have a history of "do".

The slogan "America First" doesn't sound so globalistic. And playing by rules is definitely not before America, which is first.

>> Huawei may have backdoors, but who don't?

Apple doesn't. The American company.

They sell terminal, personal devices, which is not the same thing as building the 5G network. I think the Snowden revelations have made it perfectly clear that the western governments have been extensively monitoring network traffic/infrastructure since forever.

If the chinese government demands it, they will.

You still fail to see it, do you? Or maybe you're just too blinded by western mainstream propaganda, or even deliberately trumpeting the propaganda. I'm not sure.

The whole precondition and reason of all those other countries being allowed to join this so-called "global civilization" and play by the so-called "rules" is because America remains the undisputed No.1 in this set of rules. America pretty much controls every aspect of the social fabric of its allies and they can't live without their big brother and protector.

If you actually talk to some Japanese and Germans, or even French, you'd find out how much apathy and even antipathy towards this American hegemony they harbor. Particularly those who don't stand to benefit a lot from this situation. I recall particularly vividly a survey where the perceptions of Germans towards America are substantially worse than the perceptions the other way round.

For CCP, the national independence and sovereignty is always the top priority, not least due to the humiliations and pain suffered in the hands of the former colonial power.

Naturally, the consequence of the rise of of an independent China is that the American hegemony is under threat. And this is the reason why America has been so keen to act against China. This is understandable, as power transitions/struggles between two great powers have rarely occurred peacefully throughout the history.

But at least you should recognize this reality instead of trumpeting the "global civilization", "democracy" propaganda nonsense. If the US actually cared the least bit about civilization and democracy, would it have sent agents to topple so many democratically elected regimes around the world, just to install their own dictator puppets and let the people suffer in eternal poverty? Would it have fought so many senseless wars and killed so many civilians?

The aim of the US is to keep its hegemony and try to keep all the other nations in their "allocated" positions. It doesn't give a damn about whether the actual population of those nations improve their living conditions or anything like that.

Similarly, the so-called "doves" are not really concerned about China's growth, but rather have expected China to occupy a preallocated place, where it would perform the roles that benefit the West, but not threaten their dominance in key industries and sectors at all. "How nice it would have been for China to remain a cheap manufacturing hub instead of trying to become a technological superpower." Too bad. China is not willing to play the ball and harbors greater ambitions than that, which it has every right to do.

This is just how politics works. But at least see it and acknowledge it. If you can't even do that, you're not seeing through even the most simplistic mainstream propaganda, and that's tragic.

Well said. The mainstream propaganda is just way too prevalent. If people actually read a bit of history of their own countries they'd immediately find out how brutal the struggles between the western countries have been and how incredibly "protectionist" and hostile their own governments have been.

> Chinese culture of copy-catting freely doesn't help.

The problem with that, is that it's a vicious circle. Innovation is the foundation for future innovations. It builds on itself. It lays the groundwork and foundation for what comes next. By leapfrogging and cheating its way to the top (or near the top) they are sacrificing that crucial infrastructure for future discoveries and innovations.

China has to copy & steal IPs because it simply doesn't have the culture to compete. They're one of the least innovative countries on Earth, year after year. And the only way to change that is by allowing its citizens to think creatively, outside the box -- to be able to challenge authority. But China doesn't want that; they want conforming little worker bees who follow the party line.

> China has to copy & steal IPs because it simply doesn't have the culture to compete. They're one of the least innovative countries on Earth, year after year.

Funny thing, that's exactly what people used to say about Japan, and then about South Korea. (And the typical work environments in both countries do not exactly encourage creativity or challenging the status quo, either. So I'm not sure what difference that might make.)

I wonder if this comment is racist. China never was and is not the least innovative countries on Earth. The Chinese internet companies are micro-innovating at a speed no country in the world can compete.

Let's say this, the counterparts of Facebook and Twitter has already fallen or on its way to fall out of favor in China because people found more interesting ways to waste their time and find useless information. Soon, you will find Facebook and Twitter doing the same, and in that order.

Sites and apps surviving the Chinese market are the real winners, and those who cannot will fail in other countries too. That is the power of a large enough testbed.

This is just wrong. By many measures, China is one of the most innovative countries on earth. Take scientific citations for example: https://www.natureindex.com/news-blog/chinas-citations-catch...

How much of those are legitimate though? There have been cases of fraud and falsifying information.

"Since 2012, the country has retracted more scientific papers because of faked peer reviews than all other countries and territories put together,..."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/13/world/asia/china-science-...

Given that the Nature Index only measures top quality publications, China's contribution to science is second only to the US's.

https://www.natureindex.com/annual-tables/2018/country/all

Scientific citations seem like a very poor metric for a country that is plagued by scientific fraud.

Do you have any other benchmark apart from citations?

Bloomberg Innovation index: https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/3hi4O/2/?abcnewsembedheight=55... China is 16, ahead of the UK and Canada

Global Innovation Index: https://www.globalinnovationindex.org/gii-2018-report China is 17

That's just such a simplistic and naive view of the matters. You've probably just read too much stereotyping propaganda, unfortunately.

A simple example is how Facebook and co. have recently expressed they're looking at WeChat as an example to learn from. There are many more.

Act how? What precisely could be done outside of protectionist policies that seem to be regarded as outmoded, inefficient, and taboo.

Are we going to war? Isolationism? React in kind? Simply wait?

It seems the parent is suggesting that we block Chinese companies from operating in the USA, basically tit-for-tat retribution. Based on "...while their own companies operate freely in those foreign countries"

This might be applicable for hardware sales, but for service companies (including ecommerce, search, ride hailing, all the big USA tech company niches) it's kind of a moot point. None of the big Chinese companies put any effort into working outside of China. In fact my biggest complaint is they don't do any internationalization at all, so if you don't read Chinese you basically can't use anything. To the extend that services even work outside of China they are mainly only used by Chinese people, see for example WeChat or Taobao or Baidu. So I'm not sure this line of action would have any effect.

If the parent instead meant blocking Americans from doing any business with China (as a manufacturer of smartphones, for example), that's likely to have much more downside to American companies and consumers than to China, so we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot.

But all these points are debatable, see all the back-and-forth about the tariffs/trade war. Some great economic write-ups on all sides.

Well it's a difficult problem, and tit-for-tat retribution could be the optimal action based on my little knowledge on game theory (https://ncase.me/trust/). Yet if things would go badly and the global economy go into turmoil, I think it would be notably worse for both.

Another problem I've noted is also the Chinese companies buying up Western companies and seemingly operating as Western, but actually being fully owned by the Chinese companies which might be even indirectly owned by the Chinese government. Volvo, Supercell, Nokia phones (HMD Global) comes to my mind. From what I learned Western companies can not similarly buy Chinese companies at least fully, and part-Chinese ownership is almost required for a company to become highly successful in China.

So my conclusion is that if foreign companies can't operate freely in China, why should Chinese companies be able to operate with much less restriction in those same countries. Especially if it yields a monetary benefit for the Chinese doing so. Doesn't seem smart. Would love to see some actual research on this.

That corporate ownership aspect is actually a good point. I'm not well-versed on the legal complexities of international ownership or the pros and cons of corporate governance in that situation, but it's definitely something worth looking into further.

On a related note, I find it frustrating how so much residential property in San Francisco is owned by Chinese investors/real estate moguls. I have no idea what the fallout would be to limiting the ability of international entities to own so much property here, but I imagine it would help with the sky-high rents. It's not a line of reasoning I've ever seen a good write-up on, so I would be curious to understand it better.

Individual actions to enforce norms often costs more than the individual infringements. Arresting, prosecuting and rehabilitating someone who commits property crime could cost many tens of thousands of dollars. It's worth it in the long-run, though, despite game-theoretic oversimplifications, because it reduces crime in the long run.

(Almost) everyone agrees that protectionist policies are directly harmful to America's economy. I wonder if people might be more willing to accept them as tools to encourage change in other countries behaviour if they were sold better, though, or sold by someone else.

Rethink fashions and taboos and check whether these policies have merit?

A market works well when it's not distorted.

Well that's exactly what Trump is doing with his trade war [1].

The goals are: 1) removing trade/current-account imbalance (which has improved on its own due to the massive spike in Chinese tourism [2]), 2) allowing more Western companies enter China without forced technology transfer or other "unfair" practices, 3) reducing the rampant intellectual property violations in China.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93United_States_tr...

[2] https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2019/03/14/c...

Amazon has severe product development issues for their goods marketplace, up here in Canada the wind is saying that Amazon's quality is always somewhat questionable with white-labeled resellers that are offering goods available through AliExpress or Wish but at a steep markup. Amazon has shifted from a company that sells highish quality goods of a wide variety to selling goods of random quality of that wide variety which simply can't compete with the markup they're placing on their products. Again, I only know Canada's market over the last few years, but Amazon doesn't really bring a lot to the table - concurrently their cloud services are pretty good... but becoming indistinguishable from their competitors and their price transparency and customer support is crap.

Amazon is the premier marketplace for counterfeits and relabelled crap from alibaba. I don’t know why anyone buys anything from there. I’m at the point where I’d rather buy most things from Walmart.

> China will not let a non-Chinese company ever gain top position in any sector.

I don't know about this. Starbucks, McDonalds, KFC, Boeing, Apple and many others are ahead of their Chinese peers in China. It sounds like you're just using a blanket statement from reading various online articles without even how it's out there.

I've been there, worked with people there, have friends there building businesses for decades. Have you been out there?

Companies are allowed to operate and grow, but they are tightly controlled. Apple has strong competition and has already trimmed prices and revenue targets. China just purchased 300 planes from Airbus instead of Boeing. McDonalds sold off 80% of its China operations to a Chinese stated-owned company years ago because it had trouble adapting its menu. KFC in China is owned by Yum China and headquartered in Shanghai.

The world is not some free-market paradise. Territorial rules are everywhere. You'll encounter them just to do business in local counties within a state like New York. China's government has incredible power and control and has far more impact than you might think.

>Apple has strong competition and has already trimmed prices and revenue targets.

How is that the government's fault?

>China just purchased 300 planes from Airbus instead of Boeing.

Airbus is European

>McDonalds sold off 80% of its China operations to a Chinese stated-owned company years ago because it had trouble adapting its menu.

Again why is McDs inability to serve the Chinese palate the fault of the government? Consumer tastes in food are far more determined by culture than government.

The rest of your statement is a non sequitur and strawman.

Apple's Chinese competitors are helped by the government. China does not have an aviation manufacturer to compete directly (yet) but it ensures that neither Boeing or Airbus get a significant lead over each other in their controlling market.

The parent poster claimed McDonalds was a successful example, however it only successful because it is now led by Chinese-state-owned agency so the real-estate (which is 99% of the value) is not foreign owned. Same with KFC.

What is non-sequitur? That governments exist and have different rules for their businesses and citizens?

1. Apple's competitor is cheaper...literally 40%-50% of its price, if you are talking about Xiaomi/Vivo/Oppo. Those are decent phones, not as premium but offer great experience.

2. > Boeing or Airbus get a significant lead over each other in their controlling market

Isn't that the smart thing to do? Government ALWAYS chooses multiple vendors, DARPA wants to use AWS as its sole cloud computing provider and it gets SUED.

What you seem to want to point out is, China has a very unique business environment and domestic market, where Western companies, if not going through intensive localization and adaptation, can't directly deploy its otherwise global operations in China easily. Yes, China needs to open more of its market, and under the current trade war, it needs to do that fast. However, that still won't mean that American companies should assumed be the winner, unless they have a competing edge, the locals just can't offer.

I really don't see this is a much problem here. China/Japan/Korea, those Asian countries have dynamic domestic economy, and those companies are competitive in their homeland.

The conversation has drifted. It's not about whether you see a problem. It's just how things are done in China where the government has total control over the market unlike many other countries and the US.

Amazon couldn't compete because it was not allowed to compete.

So buying from Airbus instead of Boeing is an act now to allow Boeing to compete? So do you or do I have a wrong understanding of the word "compete"?

You're focusing on a word instead of the discussion.

China allows foreign companies to compete and grow as long as they follow their rules and are in non-critical markets. Amazon was in a critical market and had domestic competition so it was pressured until it left.

Aviation is a critical market so Boeing and Airbus are being carefully controlled to stay soft in favor of the upcoming (state-run) Comac C919 jetliners getting US certified. China is already selling these jets in Asia and they will be the used by all 3 major (state-run) Chinese airlines once ready, eventually pushing out Boeing and Airbus completely.

The original statement was "China will not let a non-Chinese company ever gain top position in any sector." The fact is that no chinese company has a better position than Boeing. There are no chinese company with better position than Louis Vuitton, Chanel etc. There are no chinese companies with more profits than Apple. Those are just a few examples but they prove that that it is possible for a non-Chinese company to get top position in a sector. You should restrict your statement to "Non chinese company can get a top position in China but there will be tight control"

Sure, given a lack of a domestic competitor, China will allow a foreign company to serve the market with tight control.

They don't really care about some luxury goods brands but they are investing heavily in critical sectors like aviation. They have a long road ahead but Comac (state-owned manufacturer) is already selling commercial aircraft to other countries.

So then what other US company such as KFC, Starbucks, Coach, Tiffany & Co., Estée Lauder and Michael Kors do differently so they allowed to compete and enjoy success in china ?

As I've said, anyone can compete and enjoy success in China. However you must follow their rules and there will be subtle to overt controls placed on your operations and growth if you ever come near risking their political positions or existing monopolies.

Of course, like in anywhere else then.

I have to point out that putting luxury brands in the same space as amazon is not an apples to apples comparison.

The context here is American company. They all are American company.

Restaurants are not strategically important, and believe me, China would be very happy to have more home-grown airplane manufacturing expertise, but right now it makes sense for that talent to be directed towards the war industry.

Starbucks, McDonalds, KFC = unimportant. The world's best food is Chinese food anyway. China won this "war" hundreds of year ago

Boeing = no chinese competitor available

Apple = is feeling the pressure now

"This has nothing to do with communications or product development. "

And yet the users in this thread have repeatedly said that there are major product differences between Amazon and its Chinese competitors, where the alternatives offer much better value propositions to their customers.

In addition, Amazon is having trouble in many countries other than China.

> there are major product differences between Amazon and its Chinese competitors,

Because the Chinese counterparts are government propped.

Honestly, what? The US props up US corporations all the time... didn't Amazon just pay -$129M (as in, received free money) in taxes to the US government?

Comparing U.S government to the Chinese government here is ridiculous. The Chinese government has absolute and total control of everything within its borders. It could dissolve a company tomorrow if it didn't like it -- or do the reverse and allow it to operate at a loss in order to hurt foreign competitors. The U.S has laws against such practices while China actively engages in those behaviors.

The downvotes agree, but the parent comment didn't try to argue against an equal propping - they argued against any propping. The US has quite clearly propped up specific private business in the past - banks that failed to responsibly offer loans were bailed out, the auto industry has been bailed out, defense contractors only exist due to the immense amount of the total tax revenue that gets funneled to them.

Amazon has past the point where vertical integration questions should be raised and a break up should be considered for the public interest - not pursuing it for them (or Walmart, or Google, or many other too-large-to-fail corporations) is another form of assistance the government offers them.

The US is not a free market and participates in private industry subsidization both with and against the public interest but, I agree, it's no where near China's levels - to keep it from getting to those levels we need to acknowledge how bad it has already gotten.

Any corporation here can take advantage of tax rules. You can be a Chinese national starting a US company as a subsidiary of a Chinese company and do exactly the same thing.

In the best case that's a misunderstanding of the political situation in the US. As a reference, recall HQ2 where Amazon was negotiating to skirt property taxes for the next infinity years with the local government. All corporations technically have access to these, but regulatory capture is strong in the US and market incumbents tend to have a lot of weight to throw around to make sure they get favorable tax loopholes and exemptions. Access to these sorts of loopholes is also probably influenced by social network strength which a lot of chinese nationals (especially ones openly representing nationalized companies or the subsidiaries thereof) would find difficult to establish.

Those are opposite things. True, US corporations are independent and can gain influence over parts of the government. In China, the government controls the corporations.

Chinese nationals are the largest foreign group of investors in US commercial and residential real estate. They have plenty of access. The success and scale of the Belt and Road Initiative directly shows just how vast the control extends.

Is this separate from US investment abroad - historically, when the US was at it's peak, there were governments in central and south america that were overthrown to make sure fruit corporations received favorable government treatment. In the modern world we're seeing the influence of the US waning, but lots of countries have "voluntarily signed on" to buying the boondoggle that is the F-35 even after all of the negative press and the US (or US organizations) still have significant political sway in eastern africa, though their losing it.

In China the government appears to clearly control the corporations (while there are some highly influential corporations that, through their economic power, have essentially become moves and shakers in the government) in America corporations control the government (while there are a lot of former politicians who end up sneaking off into highly paid do-nothing positions for their help during their tenure in elected office). These things are different, and America is absolutely a more free place, but it isn't an absolutely free place.

We're not disagreeing on whether America is a free market. No country is. Your post on taxes was perhaps a bad example but regardless the topic here is about Amazon leaving China. The reason as I see it is not because they were a poor competitor but rather because they were not allowed to compete.

Assuming an average 8.00% sales tax on Amazon revenue 232.9 billion USD, Amazon still paid $18-19B in taxes. That's significant. And EU VATs are usually higher than 8.00%.

Amazon didn't pay those taxes, purchasers did.

In theory. Also, purchasers can be seen as paying profit taxes as well.

The theoretical response of Supply & Demand curves to taxes that we learned in macro don't hold as instantaneous or ever fully realized in the real world. Humans simply aren't rational actors.

"That's how the government works". Calm down. Huawei has been shut out of America (and many other allies) because of allegations of ties to the Chinese government. Amazon is on the cusp of winning a $10B contract for the Pentagon. So, same thing. America and China are now explicitly strategic competitors, both governments have been saying that for the past 2 years. It's about competition, not about totalitarian repression.

I'm perfectly calm. The US government is nowhere near as protectionist and controlling as China's. This is indisputable. The current administration is starting to change policies to at least counter some of the control China extends beyond its borders.

Totalitarian control has an effect on competition. Those cannot be independent.

No, not the same thing when there's evidence of lawbreaking and eavesdropping.

>This has nothing to do with communications or product development. China will not let a non-Chinese company ever gain top position in any sector.

Do you have any evidence that this is what happened in this situation??

> And yes the article is bullshit because this same government won't allow any negative press about their actions either.

Again. Could be true, but how am I supposed to know that your interpretation is correct?

Amazon isn't near top ever in China, it is like 1-2 percent of the market share.

Not that different than Microsoft sunset their gaming business in Japan

Amazon will never get greater market share because China's govt won't let them.

Microsoft did not leave Japan, they are in fact expanding Xbox Asia and have added an Asian team to the Global Gaming Partnership and Development (GDDP) division: https://www.google.com/search?q=xbox+asia+expanding

It seems to me that in these kinds of topics, someone always tries to pin the majority of the blame on Chinese protectionism. While that's certainly a factor, it seems Amazon has not been able to capture anywhere near the market share foreign companies operating in China are regularly allowed to capture, (before feeling the pressure).

So sometimes, (like in this case, it looks like), it may just really be the case of a business not being able to adopt to the different expectations of Chinese consumers.

I was just reading the other day about why U.S. car makers struggle in Japan and that for example domestic car makers there offer the ability to customize the car to an extent U.S. companies can't compete with.

It's likely that Amazon faced enough competition naturally, given its low market share.

I think part of the problem a lot of the time, is Asia gets bundled together... I mean Indian culture by itself is varied, let alone Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, China and other Asian countries. Much more so than even intra-US variances between D and R. You need businesses that understand this, or need to stay in more localized regions and expand as one's understanding expands.

Culture is varied and in many ways everything. Competition is also biased and fierce. At least that's my understanding of things (as a white guy born and remaining in the SW USA).

I do find it funny that Amazon is pivoting to "high quality cross-border sales" considering that into the U.S. seems to be low quality, high markup sales (including high levels of counterfeits) with no end in sight.

I don't think the Chinese government had any role in destroying Amazon's business. In fact we can find counter-examples to your theory as there are foreign companies very successful in China: https://www.1421.consulting/2018/06/successful-foreign-compa...

The Chinese govt didn't destroy anything, they just won't let them compete. This is not a secret conspiracy, it's public knowledge.

Those counterexamples are just companies operating in China, of which there are many. There's no problem unless they try to become major players which will never happen. Ikea is the biggest and has recently come under pressure for simply suggesting that Taiwan is a separate country through packaging. This is tightly controlled market, you don't just wander in and do whatever you want.

Though the end result is more or less something similar you are over simplifying the situation. IMO usually there are two major reasons that makes foreign companies hard to compete with locals: * Excessive regulations and sometimes special rules for foreign companies. But e-commerce is usually not the worst sector for this. * "Expertise" on how to deal with local laws. It is no secret local laws are usually selectively applied. Local companies have a lot more flexibility than foreign companies and they can do a lot of things that could create prohibitive legal liabilities for foreign companies if they even want to follow. For example, low wages and unhealthy work environments, unlawful marketing tactics, bribery and corruption etc.

I would argue the latter is the usual competitive advantages local companies have.

What Chinese companies have top position in any sector in the US? And do you think the US government would allow any to get there?

I think we can see the recent actions against Huawei partly in this light.

I cannot believe this is the top comment. What you say is totally anecdotal. Do you have any evidence that Chinese government went out stopping Amazon from succeeding in China?