| Author |
Message |
fox007
Ranter
Joined: Apr 06, 2005
Posts: 596
Location: Minhang, Shanghai
Status: Offline
|
  Posted:
June 26, 2007 - 06:28 PM |
 
|
| Post subject: Danone / Wahaha boss, who will win ? |
I wonder what is the opinion of most expats on this story?
I do not know much about it except what everyone can read in the newspapers but I really wonder how things will go at the end ?
The problem of Danone is not new as many MNC had "problems" with their JV  and many of them are currrently buying back 100% of their shares but it rarely turn so ugly.
From what I understood, Danone would easily win the case in any western country but we are in China.
Do you think :
Danone  is crazy and will lose everything (in China)
Danone is right to do what he does as things are changing in China as everywhere and Wahaha's boss will lose everything
No personal interest, I am just curious. |
|
|
|
|
Andreas
Board Royalty
Joined: Feb 27, 2004
Posts: 6332
Location: 31 N 121 E
|
| Posted:
June 26, 2007 - 06:56 PM |
|
|
Could you elaborate on the story. I am not familiar with it. Link? |
_________________
If it has tits, tires, or a transom, there's gonna be issues! |
|
|
|
hc
Post Roaster
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
Posts: 4545
|
| Posted:
June 26, 2007 - 07:53 PM |
|
|
Regardless of the story, it will be China's fault 99.9% of the time, either because it will be, or either because it will be made to be.
Case closed.
NEXT. |
|
|
 |
|
fox007
Ranter
Joined: Apr 06, 2005
Posts: 596
Location: Minhang, Shanghai
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
June 26, 2007 - 08:00 PM |
|
|
here is a link which can give you so idea :
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/08/business/danone.php
I bet many top managers of MNC are watching the case which is extremely interesting, basically what can/should you do when you have a strong "disagrement" with your Chinese partner (who has his own way of doing business) in your JV ? |
|
|
|
|
|
Andreas
Board Royalty
Joined: Feb 27, 2004
Posts: 6332
Location: 31 N 121 E
|
| Posted:
June 26, 2007 - 08:10 PM |
|
|
Well thanks for the link. Yes, now I remember heaving read about it in the South China Morning Posts. It looks like the classical pattern how the Chinese JV partner tries to fuck over the 'foreign' investor. As you mentioned, things are changing in China, but unfortunately not for the better. Ok, back then a JV was most probably the only way to come and do business here. Nowadays, it's best to be avoided. Unlike two of my companies I worked for, a lot of MNC's do not realize that any investment in China should have been regarded as written off from the start. The Economist did not call the PRC the Peoples Republic of Cheats for no reason. I think a lot of companies here have their expectation levels set far too high. |
_________________
If it has tits, tires, or a transom, there's gonna be issues! |
|
|
|
|
leidelaohu
Wonder Wit
Joined: June 11, 2007
Posts: 3725
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
June 26, 2007 - 10:17 PM |
|
|
| Andreas wrote: |
| Ok, back then a JV was most probably the only way to come and do business here. Nowadays, it's best to be avoided. |
It's exactly the same now, just more sophisticated. You watch, a few years from now there's gonna be some nasty sh1t happening to all the foreign-owned enterprises. The structure is all in place. China hasn't changed, just the tactics of the people involved. Why would anyone be so naive as to think that several thousand years of training had disappeared in five years' time ? |
|
|
|
|
|
Andreas
Board Royalty
Joined: Feb 27, 2004
Posts: 6332
Location: 31 N 121 E
|
| Posted:
June 26, 2007 - 10:28 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
hc
Post Roaster
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
Posts: 4545
|
| Posted:
June 26, 2007 - 10:35 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
hc
Post Roaster
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
Posts: 4545
|
| Posted:
June 26, 2007 - 10:43 PM |
|
|
That's a very simplistic article in my opinion.
He is not taking into account several factors that determine price points and specifically labor costs. He is not taking into account economies of scale, size of the population, percentage of the population engaged in the secondary sector, etc, etc.
If you see the sourcing pattern of most of the big retailers (light manufacturing absorb the most manpower) and the infrastructure projects that have the highest priority (inland destinations with untaped labor markets), it will take a bit until the labor demand curve rises cost. Not to mention the savings rate that can and will be diverted for internal consumption, compensating the downturn in US imports.
To make use of this flat labor curve China will need to develop inland capability as fast as possible, which is good for everyone involved.
Andy Xie former Morgan Stanley wrote a bunch of very interesting articles about that. |
_________________
Click here to read the latest retarded PM Natalie sent me. Let's make her lose face and FINALLY leave this site. |
|
|
|
|
leidelaohu
Wonder Wit
Joined: June 11, 2007
Posts: 3725
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
June 26, 2007 - 10:45 PM |
|
|
Disagree with that article - Taiwan is not China. Japan is not China. No one else has ever had 900 million people living in poverty that they can tap for an endless source of cheap labour. I believe that there are structural weaknesses that will eventually kill the Chinese advance into foreign markets, but I don't think they really care. I've got fifty cents that says they just want to glom onto enough goodies to fulfill their own marketplace then to hell with the rest of the world. If outsiders still buy stuff, fine. If not, they won't care. They already have just about full control of any manufacturing enterprise in China anyway. Next step, convince the stewpid foreign companies that they "need local managers !" Go look at Wang and Li's website. Foreign companies need local managers like they need a hole in the head but hey, they're going for this propaganda. Anyone who has ever dealt with the Chinese people running HR departments in 'foreign-owned' companies know that they are nutcases - AND they are in control. Slide in middle managers and the stage is set for takeover.
There's precious few foreigner companies here which are really in charge of themselves. A couple more years, knock off the tax-free provisions, jack up the tax rates, make a few more difficulties, foreigners give up and go home, the way they almost all did in the JV years. Poof. China inherits all this infrastructure. It fits the pattern.
Betcha a buck. Maybe a buck fifty. |
|
|
|
|
|
hc
Post Roaster
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
Posts: 4545
|
| Posted:
June 26, 2007 - 11:20 PM |
|
|
Indeed a crappy article but hey, it sings the song so let's drink the China's demise Kool Aid just because we cant stand yellow people with black shoes and white socks making a buck out of our hard earned money.
"There's precious few foreigner companies here which are really in charge of themselves. A couple more years, knock off the tax-free provisions, jack up the tax rates, make a few more difficulties, foreigners give up and go home, the way they almost all did in the JV years. Poof. China inherits all this infrastructure. It fits the pattern. "
I think that varies A LOT depending on the industry. Most well run foreign companies are manufacturing the 80% of products that generate just 20% of the profits here, and keep the good stuff being made where IP protection and everything else exists. It will all come down to innovation in certain industries. Other mature industries it might all happen like you mentioned.
At the same time the Chinese companies that want to make it big abroad face a pretty big challenge and might face a lot of challenges that foreign companies are facing here.
Let's remember that for the drive for manufacturing inland to continue China still need foreign investment, perhaps in an even more massive scale considering the infra is even less developed. They cant just get rid of foreigners like this (on an unrelated note I still think on a different level a new Jesse Owens will be needed to put things in perspective on a personal basis but that's for a different post). |
_________________
Click here to read the latest retarded PM Natalie sent me. Let's make her lose face and FINALLY leave this site. |
|
|
|
|
sammythepaki
Squeeker
Joined: June 26, 2007
Posts: 16
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
June 26, 2007 - 11:38 PM |
|
|
"The Australian" has a simlar article that is out for blood!
Who is Jessie Owens? |
|
|
|
|
Witch_Pauline
Reacher
Joined: Sep 23, 2005
Posts: 305
Location: Shanghai
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
June 26, 2007 - 11:48 PM |
|
|
Jesse Owens? Isnt that the real name of Captain America's sidekick? The Falcon? |
_________________
By Christ and the Cross! |
|
|
|
|
leidelaohu
Wonder Wit
Joined: June 11, 2007
Posts: 3725
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
June 27, 2007 - 12:22 AM |
|
|
| hc wrote: |
| Indeed a crappy article but hey, it sings the song so let's drink the China's demise Kool Aid just because we cant stand yellow people with black shoes and white socks making a buck out of our hard earned money. |
I disagree with that. Believe it or not, some Americans are sophisticated enough to understand that it's not a with-us-or-agin-us world. China is looking out for herself, as she should. To have any kind of relationship with another person or another country one should not be a simpleton. One should recognize strong points and weak points. We should be able to discuss those things without being accused of politically correct fawning or bigotted other-bashing.
China is perfectly justified in building herself up. The fact that we can identify a great deal of dishonesty in the way she has chosen to do this is not bashing. It is fact. We should deal with it in a practical manner rather than a self-righteous one.
| Quote: |
There's precious few foreigner companies here which are really in charge of themselves.
| Quote: |
| I think that varies A LOT depending on the industry. Most well run foreign companies are manufacturing the 80% of products that generate just 20% of the profits here, and keep the good stuff being made where IP protection and everything else exists. |
|
Well, I'm in manufacturing - machining, castings, molds, gears, etc. to be exact. That's not what I see at all. Not in electronics, either. Automotive, nope. Where do you see that situation ?
| Quote: |
| It will all come down to innovation in certain industries. Other mature industries it might all happen like you mentioned. |
There is a big problem with that and it's been borne out historically time and time again. If you don't make the product yourself, you lose the entire industry. Look at televisions. Look at what Schwinn thought they could do. It sounds really good to say "we'll do the technical part but offshore the dirty part" but in real life it has never once worked out that way. The people doing the dirty part eventually get the technical part too. Then poof, bye-bye industry. For example, look at the story that started this thread 
For another possible scenario, how about Apple products ? they are all made in China but not by Apple-owned companies. I don't believe they are so stupid as to kick companies out at gunpoint ... but. Taxes go up, so sorry, have to even out the playing field, you guys got a big break for years. So convenient that we have totally different regulations for foreign-owned and local businesses, my how did that happen ? Foreign companies not making so much in profits, don't know why but business seems to be a lot harder to do than five years ago, oh looky ! here's a nice local firm who'd like to partner with us, maybe do a leveraged buyout ... and there ya go. Foreigner out, work stays, Apple iPods proceeding smartly forth from Suzhou, business as usual. Except the foreigners are entirely gone now.
| Quote: |
| At the same time the Chinese companies that want to make it big abroad face a pretty big challenge and might face a lot of challenges that foreign companies are facing here. |
Definitely. Without better after-sales support they are gonna get exactly nowhere in the world ... but as I mentioned, I am not so sure they want the world for a market. Right now they are trying to collect as much cash as possible but the US survived for 150 years with mostly an internal market. China is five times bigger than the United States. There is plenty of room here for growth as soon as they bootstrap themselves. Plus, look at history. China has always been introcentric. What would make them change ?
| Quote: |
| Let's remember that for the drive for manufacturing inland to continue China still need foreign investment, perhaps in an even more massive scale considering the infra is even less developed. |
Cash in all those bonds  Why cannot they finance that themselves, soon enough ? What they are building now is infrastructure. Remember, fifteen years ago the only two forklifts in all of China were in Shanghai and Beijing. After a certain point, why do they need foreigners ? The US didn't need foreigners to build its economy and the US was pretty isolated for decades. In fact, the US economy was built behind protectionism. It's only after the US got a builtup economy that they turned around and went "free market globalism."
| Quote: |
| They cant just get rid of foreigners like this |
Just you watch I think it will be a disaster also but hey, doubt that that will stop them. Daily they get closer to being able to supply all their own goodies. Goodies of awesomely terrible quality but goodies nonetheless. When they get there, why keep the lousy rotten nasty foreigners around ? |
|
|
|
|
|
hc
Post Roaster
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
Posts: 4545
|
| Posted:
June 27, 2007 - 01:18 AM |
|
|
"I disagree with that. Believe it or not, some Americans are sophisticated enough to understand that it's not a with-us-or-agin-us world. China is looking out for herself, as she should. To have any kind of relationship with another person or another country one should not be a simpleton. One should recognize strong points and weak points. We should be able to discuss those things without being accused of politically correct fawning or bigotted other-bashing.
China is perfectly justified in building herself up. The fact that we can identify a great deal of dishonesty in the way she has chosen to do this is not bashing. It is fact. We should deal with it in a practical manner rather than a self-righteous one."
Of course you will always have a certain minority that is sophisticated enough.
Having a press bashing hard on China is useful for this minority (do we need to discuss why economically it's ridiculous to push for the rmb revaluation for example and how the media is raping economic concepts by hammering this again and again?) China is this and next decade's enemy. Everything bad that happens here will be magnified tenfold, everything positive will be downplayed. Nobody is talking about more than 100 million people that emerged from complete poverty thanks to light manufacturing. There are at least 500 million more ready to join them.
And there is no possible way China can "cash the bonds" like if it was buying a bag of potatos in the corner store. You have liquidity, interest rates, a number of factors that could financially be disastrous for China itself if it chose to "cash the bonds". That's very, very simplistic.
"Well, I'm in manufacturing - machining, castings, molds, gears, etc. to be exact. That's not what I see at all. "
Of course you dont see that in this industry: completely commoditized products, labor cost will tend to be the most elastic cost component of the product.
These components themselves are 80% volume 20% profit.
In industries with faster obsolescence ratio (electronics is a good example) it doesn't make sense to manufacture the most advanced products here (all top of the line notebooks from Sony and Toshiba get done in Japan, the top of the line HPs get done in Taiwan, Dells however are made in Xiamen). Why? Because the higher margin of the latest products are sufficient to keep manufacturing of these items abroad and closer to consumption.
Cars: they are being made mostly for the domestic market, there is no reason to not localize production. Further, what is being exported out of China (with a few exceptions from Japanese manufacturers) are not whole units but just the simplest autoparts: again the 80% volume.
"Definitely. Without better after-sales support they are gonna get exactly nowhere in the world ... but as I mentioned, I am not so sure they want the world for a market. Right now they are trying to collect as much cash as possible but the US survived for 150 years with mostly an internal market. China is five times bigger than the United States. There is plenty of room here for growth as soon as they bootstrap themselves. Plus, look at history. China has always been introcentric. What would make them change ?"
They do want external markets. Look at Haier and their recent push for acquisitions in the US. Their objective is primarily to acquire distribution channels. That's the bottleneck. Haier's customer service by the way is pretty good. They have a range of products (mostly for the soho market and singles) that is pretty solid (have a McKinsey Quarterly article about this somewhere).
"The US didn't need foreigners to build its economy"
Immigration? World War I, when the US changed from debtor to financier? The US needed two World Wars to consolidate its dominating position in the world. And they did it beautifully and thoroughly, opening markets at gun barrel point if needed.
"Just you watch I think it will be a disaster also but hey, doubt that that will stop them. Daily they get closer to being able to supply all their own goodies. Goodies of awesomely terrible quality but goodies nonetheless. When they get there, why keep the lousy rotten nasty foreigners around ?"
In certain industries that's true. In other industries that is very, very far away from the truth. Take electronics again: China has a shortage of basic PCB engineering, amazingly as it sounds. In semi-conductors the industry is dominated by the Japanese (to the point even the Koreans need Japanese equipment to develop their own semiconductors).
Intel's plant and R&D in Chengdu, if I am not mistaken, manufactures not top of the line processors.
About Apple: all, or maybe 95% of the OEM industry is dominated by the Taiwanese with factories in China. Why wouldnt they want China exporting this? The market here pays much less than anything abroad.
Cutting ties and living by itself is completely THE OPPOSITE of what China wants. True: all middle management will be local and all english teachers will be deported in the first visa run when time comes. But cutting ties and selling bonds and living isolated like in the CRev is a complete utopia. |
_________________
Click here to read the latest retarded PM Natalie sent me. Let's make her lose face and FINALLY leave this site. |
|
|
|
|
leidelaohu
Wonder Wit
Joined: June 11, 2007
Posts: 3725
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
June 27, 2007 - 02:00 AM |
|
|
| hc wrote: |
| Cars: they are being made mostly for the domestic market, there is no reason to not localize production. Further, what is being exported out of China (with a few exceptions from Japanese manufacturers) are not whole units but just the simplest autoparts: again the 80% volume. |
No, Delphi is in China and they aren't exporting "the simplest autoparts" either. That 80 - 20 thing simply doesn't hold water.
| Quote: |
| there is no possible way China can "cash the bonds" |
here, let's replace the smiley with <humour> </humour> tags. Better ?
| Quote: |
| Cutting ties and living by itself is completely THE OPPOSITE of what China wants. True: all middle management will be local and all english teachers will be deported in the first visa run when time comes. But cutting ties and selling bonds and living isolated like in the CRev is a complete utopia. |
That is a gross exaggeration of what I meant And one thing you learn after a while working in factories in China is that appearances are not reality. When HR is chinese and middle management is chinese, you can forget about the company actually being foreign. Perhaps the very very largest - the GM's and the Coca-Colas - will be able to maintain their control but otherwise ? Grave doubts. I'd still put a buck fifty up that says the smaller-slash-medium firms are going to be squeezed out.
I think they deserve it because they are idiots, but that's another topic. And maybe most of them just plan to make hay while the sun shines, anyway ... but their "investment" is gone bye-bye.
My guess is that China learned from the JV experiences to make it appear a lot less obvious, tho. Go into a factory and work some time. They don't want to change their ways. They don't want to learn anything new or more efficient or better. They want the money and they want the equipment and they want us to get the hell out as soon as they have that. This hasn't changed in fifteen years and it's not going to change in the future, either. |
|
|
|
|
|
keayts
Ranter
Joined: Oct 27, 2005
Posts: 548
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
June 27, 2007 - 08:55 AM |
|
|
| leidelaohu wrote: |
| Right now they are trying to collect as much cash as possible but the US survived for 150 years with mostly an internal market. |
I'm not sure that statement is very accurate. From what I've read, from the moment America was founded, it was heavily reliant on international markets to find buyers for its raw material exports. Since most manufacturing was done in England at the time, most trade ships would unload American furs, tobacco, cotton and the like in London and purchase finished manufactured products for sale back in the States.
In fact, these trading voyages heavily influenced the initial immigration patterns to the United States. Most of the early immigrants came from areas near international ports that traded in goods demanded by the United States. Since most of these ports were in Northern and Western Europe, most of the early immigrants came from these regions, and from within these regions, the areas closest to the ports.
Also, America had a large trade deficit with England up until the early 20th century, so not only goods but also financing was exchanged on international markets. |
|
|
|
|
|
hc
Post Roaster
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
Posts: 4545
|
| Posted:
June 27, 2007 - 09:54 AM |
|
|
"No, Delphi is in China and they aren't exporting "the simplest autoparts" either. That 80 - 20 thing simply doesn't hold water."
Can you explain then why the majority of leading of companies in non-commoditized industries are not producing top of the line products here?
No? Please tell us why.
Take aerospace: Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, no one manufactures top of the line products here. Take computers (manufacturers that dont rely on OEMs): same thing. Toyota? Mercedes?
If I worked manufacturing gears and sand casted parts I would think the game is over too: it's an industry that reached a peak and now depends on cost cutting and post sales to differentiate. This the classical industry where the west has a gloomy view on China, where the innovation doesnt require any sophistication, and where replicating a model is the easiest.
"Go into a factory and work some time. They don't want to change their ways. "
Do you know any factory that want to change ways?
Do you know any human being that want to change ways?
No? I thought so too.
"When HR is chinese and middle management is chinese, you can forget about the company actually being foreign. Perhaps the very very largest - the GM's and the Coca-Colas - will be able to maintain their control but otherwise"
Depends on what you define as "control". Oh wait. It's the humour thing again right?
The ideal for foreign company is to have as many positions filled up with well trained locals and leave the key positions to people from back home plus sprinkling here and there the casual expat to cycle the knowledge around the company.
Looks like what you apparently fear is exactly THE OBJECTIVE of most companies here.
Also, it is obviously non-viable to have a company solely run by expats and having the locals just mopping the floor so that nobody run risks.
"They don't want to learn anything new or more efficient or better. "
Funny, that's exactly the opposite of what the director of one of the Big 5 that used to hang out in this website said about his company and some of his clients.
I wonder if the views from top management of a big consultancy company and from the shop floor of a gear factory are different?
Looks like it is.
Not saying that your views are less valuable, just saying that people at the top see the game in a different light. |
|
|
|
|
|
leidelaohu
Wonder Wit
Joined: June 11, 2007
Posts: 3725
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
June 27, 2007 - 11:36 AM |
|
|
| keayts wrote: |
| leidelaohu wrote: |
| Right now they are trying to collect as much cash as possible but the US survived for 150 years with mostly an internal market. |
| Quote: |
| I'm not sure that statement is very accurate. From what I've read, from the moment America was founded, it was heavily reliant on international markets to find buyers for its raw material exports. |
|
Selling raw materials for cheap then paying big for finished goods is the position of what's now called a Third World country. Yes, the US was initially in that position. Then the North pushed protectionist barriers through Congress which had two major effects : it enriched the North which got heavily into manufacturing while it enfeebled the South which depended on exports of raw cotton. This was one of the reasons for the Civil War and another reason that England supported the South. So from the early 1800's until the 1950's, you could accurately say that the US lived behind high tariff barriers and built the economy mostly internally. Then from a position of strength in manufacturing (and weakness in a war-torn world) the US decided to push the "free market" dogma. China firmly believes in mercantilism and I doubt the lessons of that are lost on her. |
|
|
|
|
|
hc
Post Roaster
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
Posts: 4545
|
| Posted:
June 27, 2007 - 11:48 AM |
|
|
"So from the early 1800's until the 1950's, you could accurately say that the US lived behind high tariff barriers and built the economy mostly internally."
The US was one of the worlds biggest debtors before WWI and become one of the biggest creditors after it. It might not fit right with the image of President Wilson but I suspect one of the reasons he was
so against Versailles (perhaps similarly to Keynes) was that the US economy woud thrive even further with a rebounding Germany. True enough the US was much better off after WW2 than it would be if Versailles was not so harsh.
Globalisation was already in full force by then and the US after the war conquered a lot of markets three decades before the 50s, so, I don't think you could "accurately" say that the US built the economy mostly internally. |
_________________
Click here to read the latest retarded PM Natalie sent me. Let's make her lose face and FINALLY leave this site. |
|
|
|
|
leidelaohu
Wonder Wit
Joined: June 11, 2007
Posts: 3725
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
June 27, 2007 - 12:23 PM |
|
|
| hc wrote: |
| Globalisation was already in full force by then and the US after the war conquered a lot of markets three decades before the 50s, so, I don't think you could "accurately" say that the US built the economy mostly internally. |
Nor can you say that the US "conquered a lot of markets" by selling them raw cotton or timber. The US built its manufacturing prowess during a period of strong protectionism which kept other nations' goods out while encouraging local infrastructure building on the in side. You're right, some industries were selling overseas before the fifties but again, they built their prowess during the period of protectionism. Accepted, my dates are kinda flaky and arbitrary and probably inexact but the principle remains. The US built its industrial economy during the 1800's on internal demands, not external ones. Then when it was good and ready, we decided to make the world our cookie.
btw, could you list some of the "lot of markets" the US dominated worldwide in the 1920's and 30's ? Right off hand I can't think of any ....
As for the rest, got too much to do right now but <ahnald> I'll be back !</ahnald> |
|
|
|
|
|
keayts
Ranter
Joined: Oct 27, 2005
Posts: 548
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
June 27, 2007 - 12:39 PM |
|
|
| leidelaohu wrote: |
| hc wrote: |
| Globalisation was already in full force by then and the US after the war conquered a lot of markets three decades before the 50s, so, I don't think you could "accurately" say that the US built the economy mostly internally. |
Nor can you say that the US "conquered a lot of markets" by selling them raw cotton or timber. The US built its manufacturing prowess during a period of strong protectionism which kept other nations' goods out while encouraging local infrastructure building on the in side. |
Well, if my memory serves, most of the world's manufactured goods were coming from England until the United States began its post-Civil War expansion of manufacturing. Other than Britain and the United States, few countries were technologically advanced enough, or had the transportation infrastructure, to trade in manufactured goods until Bismark unified Germany and the British began to develop the Rhineland's railways, and that came near the end of the 19th century.
Protectionism probably wasn't as much of a factor as a general lack of competitive suppliers of manufacturing services in other countries. |
_________________
"A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people's business." - Eric Hoffer, "The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements" |
|
|
|
|
hc
Post Roaster
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
Posts: 4545
|
| Posted:
June 27, 2007 - 01:06 PM |
|
|
| leidelaohu wrote: |
| hc wrote: |
| Globalisation was already in full force by then and the US after the war conquered a lot of markets three decades before the 50s, so, I don't think you could "accurately" say that the US built the economy mostly internally. |
Nor can you say that the US "conquered a lot of markets" by selling them raw cotton or timber. The US built its manufacturing prowess during a period of strong protectionism which kept other nations' goods out while encouraging local infrastructure building on the in side. You're right, some industries were selling overseas before the fifties but again, they built their prowess during the period of protectionism. Accepted, my dates are kinda flaky and arbitrary and probably inexact but the principle remains. The US built its industrial economy during the 1800's on internal demands, not external ones. Then when it was good and ready, we decided to make the world our cookie.
btw, could you list some of the "lot of markets" the US dominated worldwide in the 1920's and 30's ? Right off hand I can't think of any ....
As for the rest, got too much to do right now but <ahnald> I'll be back !</ahnald> |
Maybe "lots of markets" is too much, you have a point.
I need to find my files for these lectures here. Not sure any one of you guys know The Teaching Company but they have amazing stuff:
http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/coursedesclong2.aspx?cid=529&id=529&pc=Bus iness%20and%20Economics
I'll get back to this once I have more time too.
Good discussion fellas. |
|
|
|
|
|
foreverinchina
PopStar
Joined: Nov 21, 2005
Posts: 1250
Location: 徐家汇
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
June 27, 2007 - 06:35 PM |
|
|
| Andreas wrote: |
| The Economist did not call the PRC the Peoples Republic of Cheats for no reason. |
Sure it was in The Economist ?
I think the Far Eastern Economic Review published it.
(in Hong Kong, June 2001)
Whatever, i fully agree with it.
Yesterday, i once more faced such a mindblowing "invitation" for "arranging" issues. I still can't get it, maybe i will never understand their 5000 years of cultural development. |
_________________
To govern a big country is like cooking a small fish.
Stir as little as possible.
- Lao Zi, Daode Jing 256 BC |
|
|
|
|
leidelaohu
Wonder Wit
Joined: June 11, 2007
Posts: 3725
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
June 27, 2007 - 06:58 PM |
|
|
| foreverinchina wrote: |
| ... maybe i will never understand their 5000 years of cultural development. |
The cultural development stopped a thousand years ago. Confucianism took over China too completely and the structural inadequacy of that philosophy has crippled the country ever since. The Cultural Revolution didn't spring from nothing.
One of the bad aspects of Confucianism is that the family is ALL. No matter what, if it advances the family's agenda it is correct. Lying, cheating, stealing, murder, robbery, rape, doesn't matter : if it is in the interest of the family's fortunes, that's what you should do.
Rather than sneering at Mao, the West should have been applauding his efforts to dismantle that kind of thinking.
This should be a lesson for us in regards to the so-called Christian right, too. Same-o same-o  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Forum FAQ
Search
Preferences
Watched Topics
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
