Beating the West seems to have quite a negative connotation. Why not just be happy that the rest of the world is catching up and that wealth differences are hopefully shrinking?

> wealth differences are hopefully shrinking

Doesn't that just mean multiple superpowers? Do you think co-operation on topics such as global warming will increase, or decrease, with such competition?

Inequality and power imbalances are not great in any kind of relationship. Same goes for international relationships.

Shit, the reason we didn't end up in global thermonuclear war is because the USSR and USA were roughly equal in their ability to render sterile large parts of the world. MAD was the ultimate equality in the darkest Strangelovian way.

Look at how Russia has acted since it stopped being a superpower. It's far more unpredictable, but at a regional level not global. They can't really do global anymore.

And is MAD improved by having more participants? Maybe throw in one or two religious death cult states?

Pretending there is a general rules that applies equally to all roles of "relationship" is naive, an idealistic oversimplification of international politics.

> Look at how Russia has acted since it stopped being a superpower.

so let's give them more nukes and money to calm them down? or alternatively, don't let any new Russias emerge.

Does it matter? Unless you are suggesting that we should actively try to maintain a wealth differential across the globe, it will just be what it will be. And I do not think that a single factor will be deciding, there will be most likely various ways to shape all kinds of policies.

If humanity it to survive, then yes it matters. And it's better global conditions improve via cooperative trade, then opportunistic trade e.g. weapons sales.

I fail to see the relation, what has less wealthy nations catching up reducing wealth inequality to do with the survival of humanity and arms trades?

do you fail to see how global warming relates the survival of humanity?

I detect a veiled authoritarian tendency in your posts, or I may be reading it wrongly.

What I read between the lines is that cooperation and coordination on topics such as global warming are only possible with a dominant west?

As a person with western origin I would not want the west to falter or disappear - don’t get me wrong.

But the west does not own the key to bringing good into the world.

Is the assertion of western global dominance the only way to solve world problems? My question is not rhetorical. Just grappling with this question should be productive.

I detect a veiled personal attack, stay on topic and keep it civil please. I didn't offer any labels for myself, nor subscribe to them.

I don't provide any blueprint for successful cooperation, I'm just saying increasing the wealth of any random nation for the sake of it (or something about equality) ignoring context or impact doesn't make sense. It didn't need to be "the west", and many would consider Russia to be western, it just needs to be a political unit capable of progress on issues of the commons.

I have heard that angle of argument recently (that distribution/diversity for the sake of it is not inherently better) and must concede it is worth considering.

But in this case, it is about actual companies that have been successful and proven it. That in itself is rather a celebration of the western concept that ideas and the private pursuit of them can yield successful outcomes that are an improvement to the world vs. them not being there.

Increasing the wealth of a random nation for the sake of it? Or something about equality? Seriously? Would you say the same thing if you were on the less wealthy side? No worries, it is fine to be poor, I understand that this is necessary to keep the world turning.

is "less wealthy" and "poor" the same thing? Is the wealth of a nation the same as equality of wealth within that nation?

These are actual questions i'd specifically want you to answer, since you seems not to be engaging in good faith.

[delayed]

Zalo beats TikTok? Last I heard TikTok was Chinese, not west.

It's a weird article.

Doesn't mention that Vietnam requires registration to use the app including linking it to a cell number that is registered with a passport or Vietnam ID.

Not true. American living in Vietnam, not necessary to link with Vietnamese ID or phone number.

Local companies have a home advantage over foreign companies, wow what a surprise

We should all applaud entrepreneurs building productive businesses and contributing to the world's economy. Not sure how or why it is beneficial to frame everything through identity politics, national origin or even regional rivalry. This domain frequently has an axe to grind.

It’s cool to see more innovation in this space, but I’m not sure how these companies are “beating the west.”

In many situations it’s not really even competition as it’s not like PayPal is trying to make inroads to MPesa’s market in Kenya.

Binance is indeed crushing it in the crypto market, by shrewdly positioning fraud not as a mere consequence of crypto, but as a direct goal of the business model!

As an American living in Vietnam I use a number of these apps, particularly Shopee, Grab, Zalo. Also used Naver a lot when I lived in Seoul. Except for Grab, which is a legit super app, I'd rather use American tech because it's just better. Tech talent in these markets is lacking and they're all chasing the examples already set by big US tech rather than innovating their own stuff.

Many names non-existing 10y ago, and a good chance 10y from now they've folded or bought by competitors.

It's almost like gaming, where everyone is playing ToTK until the next AAA title comes along, and the previous one quickly becomes history.

Ah yes: platforms, apps & games. Many similarities. :-)