Isn't that the point of forbidding it? You can't enter the market, but neither can your competitor, so there's no FOMO.
It is the new turn to geopolitical hegemony and debt entrapment that we should be careful of, not the incredible influx of wealth that has (wonderfully!) gone to the Chinese lower classes.
Free trade, and the US leading the world charge to open up to China, is the best thing that happened to Chinese citizens.
Things are different now that the state has such an iron grip, and its own intentions, however.
And not just for doing business either, things like home ownership too. If I cannot buy a house in China (not that I'd want to pay for a Chinese house that'll last 5 years max) because I'm not Chinese then they should not be allowed buy in my country either. Vancouver, Toronto, Sydney... all have property markets destroyed by Chinese funny money.
It has to stop, but it won't due to greed. Trump is right about China
(I'm not American, don't live or work in America, and have never, or could ever, vote in an American election. Take your faux outrage elsewhere)
Then deal with the woke cries of xenophobia.
The big question is how those funds were obtained. How can locals compete with buyers who can essentially print money? Funny money. Chinese banks are unauditable.
As for printing US dollars, North Korea is suspected of doing so: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdollar
If I came out I strong support the Uyghurs re-education camps, would those outraged by that be faking it simply because I have zero influence in the CCP?
I'm genuinely curious for how many companies did this short term bump in profits outweigh the long term loss by irretrievably handing over technology, business strategies, etc.
Edit for the comment below.
> legally obliged to maximise shareholder value
Fiduciary duties are not so explicitly described. A CEO must use care and be diligent when making decisions on behalf of the company and shareholders. Make choices in good faith with true belief that each choice is made with the best interests of the corporation in mind.
Hence the best interests of the corporation must be weighed between short term and long term. A CEO could argue either way that they took the decision in good faith. This is where my curiosity came from, how many of these decisions turned out to be financially successful in hindsight?
“Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not.”: https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co...
Every CEO must realise by now that they will never get to tap that market, they will hand over their IP, they will carry the cost of establishing the product or service in the country, and then be booted out with nothing. Then a few years later a heavily capitalised Chinese company will show up and start competing with them with their own IP in their home country. It's heads China wins, tails the West loses. While our political class buries their heads in the sand, or worse, colludes in return for scoring points against domestic opponents.