PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

KLP Dubey · Post by **KLP Dubey** » 13 May 2013 02:34

heech wrote:I really don't understand this, so why don't you explain it to me? What really is the distinction between being first with a viable technology, and adopting it + refining it for a better commercial product? Other than being a point of pride used on internet debates, what is the relevance of being "first" to long term economic value + domination?

The difference is in the intellectual property. Creating economic value usually comes directly from optimization, but economic "domination" results from innovation and pioneering. You need to decouple the two.

So again, where does this so-called "innovation" come in in defining China or the United States' future trajectory?

It comes in terms of what you can do that the other guy can't do quickly even if he had enough money and manpower. Here's an example:

Can Japan or China tomorrow make the next generation of electronic chips, or develop the next big pharmaceuticals like US big pharma, or create a significantly better Silicon Valley ? Even if there is a will and plenty of money and support, there is no way. The intellectual property and infrastructure does not exist and can't be created in a few years or even decades.

In contrast, the US can tomorrow do anything and everything that East Asia can do today, because anyone with enough money and manpower can do optimization. The "way" is straightforward, if there is a will and the support.

Innovation comes from something more intangible and cultural. It can't be measured in dollars or man-hours.

KL

KrishnaK · Post by **KrishnaK** » 13 May 2013 03:01

Exactly how much innovation, the anglo-saxon kind, that's being talked about here is done in say the EU ? Of the industries that I can think of that require massive investment in R&D and constant innovation: computers & software, pharma, aerospace, which one is it that EU dominates the way the US dominates computers and software ? I think innovation simply has to do with the way an economy is run. The US is most willing to support and encourage private enterprise and hence it dominates. One could argue that states, given their past history will have the affinity for a certain kind of society and economy. But again, nothing that's beyond their personal choice. That it has anything to do with genetics is bullshit.

I'd relish the prospect of competing with a China that is open and free both in their polity and economy. Such a China is better for India and the world.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 13 May 2013 04:19

I have to go with the opinion that innovation is not genetic. It couldn't be. In school at early age, they taught us that "Necessity is the mother of invention". That, I believe in. I think a combination of geography, frontier expansion (at the expense of the native population), and certain cultural influences all affected American capitalism and innovation.

I know that some on this forum think that America does not have a culture. I certainly disagree with that thought. For instance in Germany, it is sometimes done in times of economic slow down, workers work reduced hours and share jobs so that no one loses their job. Their employment benefits are provided at the national level *not* by the employer, such as health, pension and even mandate vacations! This could never work in the US. Our culture worships the individual and many have a philosophy that paying taxes is legalized theft and unfair restriction of the individual. National benefits are perceived as a *problem* not a benefit and it is a moral hazard. And many of the American elite and rich are sure that things like social security and medicare will bring the American nation to its knees. Greed is good. Out of this morass comes hyper capitalism and pursuit of the Next Big Idea.

Quite frankly. I'm not sure why anybody would want to compete with that. I am a pastoralist by nature and thus probably easy prey for those who frantically compete for power and money. But I learned long ago that reasonable people can reasonably get along. Thus, I am proud of things like DARPA, NASA, NSF, NIH and even the US Department of Agriculture (which does a lot of research and food enforcement). I really dislike things like foreign committments that make no sense what so ever. just my thoughts.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 13 May 2013 06:36

^^^I think the differentiation is not who innovates more, but Europe and by extension the North America, in the last 500 years moved to put a high value on rational thought, science and technology. The societies of Asia were ravaged by invasion, colonization, and long wars where nations essentially went in to a dark age. India and the other Asian countries are coming out of that phase now, an in my opinion, going by the longer term historical record, will prosper and become leaders once again in science and technology after another 100-200 years. The key here is not to get in to conflict with the western countries who are leaders in science and technology, and have built up a huge military industrial base that is unparalleled in history. There is no reason for conflicts, wars and human suffering. The sanatam dharam will bring enlightenment to humanity. Until then, it is important to keep our powder dry and not get coerced in to a conflict with PRC. And more importantly, not let internal or personal faults become so big that entire nations fall into another dark age.

Gandhiji stated a list of sins which are the essence of integral humanism:

* Politics without Principles.
* Wealth without work.
* Commerce without Morality.
* Knowledge without Character.
* Pleasure without Conscience.
* Science without humanity.
* Worship without sacrifice.

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 13 May 2013 13:08

Surely, mimicking European or US societies and industrial models can't be the only way to progress or increase beneficial innovation. Japan did some good work by inventing DSLRs, video games, calculator, VCR, blu-ray and many advances in robotics.

Innovators are always present in all societies. All they need is an eco-system which recognizes and awards their work. Japan developed that kind of system rapidly, China is on it's way too. I don't like some aspects of their culture like cruelty to animals, attitude about intellectual property, devious foreign policy etc. , but saying that no innovation will happen in China or it'll implode by itself is something I don't agree with.

wong · Post by **wong** » 13 May 2013 15:41

chola wrote:
Gus wrote: sure, there is no 'innovation gene' and chinese are quite capable of innovation, as any other society. but it is the system which allows such people to think up something and make it into a something that can be sold.
We tend to take it for a fact that that there is no "innovation gene." That we assume without question that this is so is mainly because of widespread acceptance of western political correctness.

There might really be a lack of the "innovation gene" in East Asians. For as wealthy as Japan, Korea and Taiwan are, they are no great innovators. The US and other mainly Caucasian nations still dominate the invention front. The East Asians do well with expanding upon basic discoveries by goris such as improving the solidstate electronics, the micro-chip and the combustion engine but in the end those are all Western inventions.

China will be no different. But even so, it will make them fabulously wealthy (as Japan, Korea and Taiwan) and a prime market.

Of course, you need the correct system to make the most of what you have. The chinis will be wealthier if they were freer.

By the same token, India can be far more innovative if we employed a better system than the semi-socialism we had in place since the Nehru clan. Politically correct or not, we might be more innovative by genetics and no, it has nothing to do with the "invasion from the north" theory.

The "innovation gene" highly correlates with IQ. So if you believe there are innovation gene differences among different ethnic groups, then you must believe there are IQ differences too.

It's well accepted that the East Asian IQ is north of 100. That IQ allows the Taiwanese with only 0.07% to 0.29% of the US population to be the most highly educated ethnic group in America (yes, higher than you guys and from American schools too) and found companies like Yahoo, YouTube, Cisco's Linksys, Garmin, Nvidia, Newegg, Actavis/Watson Pharma, Zappos, Kingston, et cetera. Remember, the Taiwanese are 100% genetically the same as the mainland Chinese (and I say this as a Taiwanese-American). Can you match that list if you are "more innovative by genetics" (your words, not mine, now back it up!!, talk is cheap).

And we invented the pound-lock, paper money, et cetera. With 100+ IQ, I think China is in good shape in the innovation dept. Enough said.

heech · Post by **heech** » 13 May 2013 18:25

No one who actually works in high tech would question the product + technology R&D coming out of east Asia. Those who don't... well, it's a pointless debate in that case.

I think we're actually just now getting to the tipping point, in terms of when China is going to explode in economic importance.

- 5 years ago, much of the discussion about China was focused on its potential, and at most how it was displacing low-level manufacturing in the West (which many in the West responded by saying "well, we don't want sweat shops anyways").

- now, China's economy is roughly 50% larger than what it was during the Beijing Olympics. For many industries, the Chinese market is becoming as large as the American equivalent. Hollywood films often gross more in China than they do in the US - with $100 million box office receipts becoming a regular thing. GM sells slightly more cars in China than it does in the US.

- over the next 5 years, China's economy will be roughly 40% larger than it is today. And what does that mean? GM will sell MANY more cars in China than it does in the US. There will be MANY more smartphones sold in China than in the US. Hollywood films will gross MUCH more in China than it does in the US. And I think that's going to dramatically change the global conversation about China.

heech · Post by **heech** » 13 May 2013 18:36

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/13/busin ... ml?hp&_r=0

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 13 May 2013 19:47

heech wrote:
SriKumar wrote: Well, Apple first happened in the US, and specifically Sili Valley. Same for Cisco, Boeing, Intel, AMD etc. There is a difference in being the first with a viable technology vs. developing a variation of it post-facto, after release in the market (am sure you understand this).
I really don't understand this, so why don't you explain it to me? What really is the distinction between being first with a viable technology, and adopting it + refining it for a better commercial product? Other than being a point of pride used on internet debates, what is the relevance of being "first" to long term economic value + domination?

There is a lot more than just being a point of pride. Being the first has the following advantages
1) It means that there is a "eco-system" or infrastructure in place which rewards and brings to the fore front the idea. This implies that if tomorrow another great idea might be bought to the fore front.

2) Problems can be handled better with an "innovative" approach rather than looking at problems from an engineering one. So if person X is just taking others ideas and refining it then chances are that future problems cannot be resolved by the individual X. The individual X has to wait for somebody else to come up with the idea. This is a semi-dependence.

In economic terms being the first mover advantage can be very dubious. Nobody recalls that before iPod there was a company by the name of iRiver who used to make one of the best MP3 players around. The problem was iRiver could not think big and bring out about two revolutions. One selling of songs without DRM and Secondly having an online store from where these songs could be purchased. That is why iPod literally demolished the entire existing MP3 players market. That is innovation.

heech wrote: Apple's revolutionary iPhone was an amazing product, but... so what? Does it keep Korea's Samsung from pressing on Apple's margins and/or controlling future growth?

So again, where does this so-called "innovation" come in in defining China or the United States' future trajectory?

Apples margins are way way ahead of any product that Samsung makes. And yes Apple is seen as an innovative product while Samsung is not, despite the fact that its products are more practical. That is why Apple is seen as an aspiration product while Samsung is not.

Innovation comes in because the innovation can change the game. This is different than changing the rules of the game. Here is a fine distinction that is lost to many. China might go ahead and become the best manufacture of internal combustion engine. But if america shifted to hydrogen based transportation infrastructure, then China would have to play catch up. And that is the problem. PRC would be doomed to play catch up. And just as it is about to catch up and surpass the west, due to innovation the game changes again.

This happened in the case of Japan, which was on the verge of dominating the electronics and consequently the nascent computer industry in late 1980s. US did something smart, it invested in companies like Intel, Silicon Graphics, DEC, etc. Till then the rage was all about ASIC (i.e. Application Specific IC). But what these american companies were after was general purpose ICs, which could be used in many places and not in specific places only. Most of these american companies exist now in history books, but it resulted in a company called Intel dominating the computer industry till recently. It was innovation coupled with changing of the game which resulted in Japanese and also Korean companies becoming giants in commodityized ICs, while the Americans walked away with the juiciest of fruits.

subhamoy.das · Post by **subhamoy.das** » 13 May 2013 20:40

Where are the tech product companies from China ? Any body, ...? All this debate about having a innovation eco-system inside China can be laid to rest just based on that list.....

wong · Post by **wong** » 13 May 2013 21:01

@Sidor

Read Malcolm Gladwell. He argues for being third mover, not first mover.

As for Chinese innovations. I'll just give you one example. You guys owe your entire call center/back office business to the innovations of one Chinese man, Nobelist Charles Kuen Kao. His fiber optic cable lowered the cost of data and voice transmission enough to make your outsourcing business model financially viable. You're welcome.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 13 May 2013 21:28

wong wrote:@Sidor

Read Malcolm Gladwell. He argues for being third mover, not first mover.

As for Chinese innovations. I'll just give you one example. You guys owe your entire call center/back office business to the innovations of one Chinese man, Nobelist Charles Kuen Kao. His fiber optic cable lowered the cost of data and voice transmission enough to make your outsourcing business model financially viable. You're welcome.

Fiber optic research goes back a long ways and is in fact international, including Germans, British and Indians. Kao's research helped make it commercially feasible. NASA used the stuff on the Moon landings but I am pretty sure it was not the commercial variety and was classified technology. Thus, no soup for NASA.

I remember back during the '60's going to a NASA traveling exhibit and looking through a flexible metal clad fiber optic cable and seeing through an eye of a camera. The placard said fiber optics was the wave of the future and as a kid I thought, "Big Deal", boring.

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 13 May 2013 21:35

Really wong, is that the best you can do ?
Dropping name of a person of Chinese descent who spent all except 1st 15 years of his life outside China ?

Going by the same logic, you don't have a single thing that you can be justifiably proud of except paper currency and gunpowder.
oh wait, you are from Taiwan

wong · Post by **wong** » 13 May 2013 21:47

^^^^

LOL, >>only<< the 1st 15 years. Does that stop Indians from claiming that Ramanujan guy. As for is that the best I can do, it's pretty darn good for a people without the innovation gene, unlike you innovative Indians. No??

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 13 May 2013 22:25

Ramanujan spent all but last 4-5 years of his short life inside India. He was invited to that UK university by a fellow mathematician Hardy who realised the genius of Ramanujan, after the latter had contacted him with his own work, done in India without any external help of any kind. Your Kao on the other hand gave up supel dupel Cheeni citizenship for American and British.

Now I know why Cheeni trolls like you keep getting banned so regularly.

wong · Post by **wong** » 13 May 2013 22:37

^^^^^

LOL, Are your really that dense?? Ramanujan was a citizen of >>>>> BRITISH <<<<< India. He didn't need to convert his citizenship. He already had it. Next you're gonna tell me they just give Nobel Prizes to every Tom, Dick and Sanjay. Try again!!

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 13 May 2013 22:53

As Heech said earlier

I personally am not that concerned about that. Although I'm a citizen of the People's Republic of China, I'm Chinese first and foremost... and if/when the PRC falls or evolves, it will just be part of a long series of Chinese governments that have come and gone. China as a nation will still remain.

I hope you have the capability to understand this logic

SriKumar · Post by **SriKumar** » 14 May 2013 05:08

heech wrote:
SriKumar wrote: Well, Apple first happened in the US, and specifically Sili Valley. Same for Cisco, Boeing, Intel, AMD etc. There is a difference in being the first with a viable technology vs. developing a variation of it post-facto, after release in the market (am sure you understand this).
I really don't understand this, so why don't you explain it to me? What really is the distinction between being first with a viable technology, and adopting it + refining it for a better commercial product? Other than being a point of pride used on internet debates, what is the relevance of being "first" to long term economic value + domination?

Who invented the first graphical operating system, and who ultimately dominated / defined it commercially? Who invented the original web browser, and who ultimately dominated? Who invented the original personal computer, but ultimately bowed out of the space entirely? Apple's revolutionary iPhone was an amazing product, but... so what? Does it keep Korea's Samsung from pressing on Apple's margins and/or controlling future growth?

So again, where does this so-called "innovation" come in in defining China or the United States' future trajectory?

Being first to the game is more than just 'internet pride' (by the way, internet pride, as far as I am concerned, it a total waste of time. I have no interest in impressing anyone on an anonymous forum). A company (I would say, country, or rather the ecosystem within the country) that has a nurturing approach to technologies is the one most likely to get a 'game-changing' technology. The 'me-too' companies that take a publicly-released product, make a small delta improvement over it and drop the price will always stay behind the lead dog. I thought this would be pretty clear right of the bat. I dont expect these 'me-too' companies to come up with the next big thing. Sorry, there are no two ways about it. Also, you mention market dominance in the same sentence as innovation, as if the two are the same. They are not and should not be conflated.

Graphical operating system: Apple started it but Bill Gates grabbed it. Apple filed suit in US courts but Microsoft won and was able to peddle its Windows OS. Do you expect a similar outcome if the company were Chinese? If Chinese companies want to sell in US markets (a huge market), they'll have to tangle with US justice system. So, this is more than an academic point. Similarly, for web browsers Netscape(I assume you are not talking old stuff like CERN), yes IE took over. How? They had a market presence with their OS and used that market muscle to bundle in IE. US govt. filed suit citing monopolistic practices. Initially it went against MS but on appeal (and after the govt. changed to Bush) the decision went in favor of MS. This was very critical to sustaining market dominance. If a chinese company went to court here (would that be ironic or what), I am not sure what the outcome would be, but one can guess. So, I dont think these examples would support your argument. Also, note that in both cases, the company that grabbed the technology has an ecosystem of innovation to begin with.

I did say earlier that having imitation product companies is a big advantage in that they have a ready brand name recognition and a knowledge of the market, but if I had to bet on a company to come up with a major development, it will, clearly, not be one where they take public domain stuff, add a few bells and whistles and sell it for a cheaper price. But that is not the same as saying that the company will be financially unsuccessful. It could very well be a follower-the-leader company and still make money.

wong · Post by **wong** » 14 May 2013 05:53

^^^^

Take your example, but replace it with Chinese courts. Which company do you think will win there?? I want to win the court case in my biggest market and for smart phones to cars to jumbo jets, it's the Chinese market and Chinese courts that matter. General Motors knows this. Samsung knows this. Airbus knows this when the EU back peddled on the carbon tax for Chinese airlines. Only Indians don't know this.

SriKumar · Post by **SriKumar** » 14 May 2013 05:55

Well, if China's long-term plan is to to confine it's products to local markets and stay out of US and EU.......feel free. But you also missed the larger point.

wong · Post by **wong** » 14 May 2013 06:30

^^^^^

Well then, you missed my point entirely. The Chinese have leverage because they can and do retaliate with Chinese courts. They have leverage the Japanese never did since the Japanese are a US protectorate and do what they are told (think Plaza Accord). The home field advantage you speak of is essentially moot and it becomes a negotiation if US companies want access to the Chinese market (and they obviously do). Think Harder!

SriKumar · Post by **SriKumar** » 14 May 2013 06:36

Things are not black and white, but to explain that to you would be a waste of time (especially after seeing your comment about Ramanujan being a British subject and therefore not an Indian).

wong · Post by **wong** » 14 May 2013 06:55

^^^^

Ramanujan was a British subject. He lived and died in British India. The queen was his empress. Is that even in dispute?? The part your reading comprehension needs work is where did I say he's not Indian?? He's as Indian as Charles Kao is Chinese, which was my point all along. Think Harder!!

heech · Post by **heech** » 14 May 2013 08:45

SriKumar wrote:If a chinese company went to court here (would that be ironic or what), I am not sure what the outcome would be, but one can guess.

I think I know what the outcome would be: the Chinese company would get the same treatment that an American company would. Why? Because the sheer definition of a "Chinese company" or "American company" fades. Is Lenovo a Chinese or American company, considering how it has evolved over the past 5 years? Is GM a Chinese or American company, considering that its largest (and growing) customer segment is Chinese, as are its suppliers + financiers?

You throw lots of hand-wavy arguments about "nurturing of technologies", whatever that may mean. We began this conversation with the assertion (by some) that China (either due to genetics or culture or politics or whatever pet theory one wants to throw out there) is unable to innovate the same as the United States. Should we now modify this theory to fit your definition... that China is *unable* to "nurture technology" the same that the United States, or South Korea, or Japan can? I think this argument grows more and more fantastic.

But that is not the same as saying that the company will be financially unsuccessful. It could very well be a follower-the-leader company and still make money.

Then, the same comment I made to chola earlier. Who cares which company comes first, if the second company can "still make money"? The next big thing, as in all the examples previously cited (be it web browser or graphical OS or mp3 player or whatever), clearly gives its founder an advantage... but only a minuscule advantage, which quickly melts away as market competitors race into the space. Intellectual property laws in the United States has never been enough to stifle competition in technology; just look at Samsung's surging performance in the smart-phone space vs Apple for convincing proof of that.

I don't really want to turn this into a debate about who's Indian and who's Chinese, or who's more successful between Apple and Samsung... the real point of discussion should be, is China *really* permanently crippled, unable to compete in high tech (or any other) industry? Not just unable to compete today, but indefinitely? I mean... really? The burden isn't on me to prove that Chinese have a higher IQ than the West... I'll settle for similar, and argue that China can achieve what the West have achieved. I don't have to prove that Japan / Korea / Taiwan are better innovators than the United States... I'll settle for financially successful, and argue that China can match what they've achieved.

Really, the burden of proof should be on those who claim the Chinese lack an "innovation gene" to prove their point. Which chromosome is that on, again?

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 14 May 2013 08:54

Heech makes a very good case. This innovation business is what people come up with to calm themselves, like a pacifier of sorts, when they realise that in a fundamental way they are losing in that circumstance.

"You are going to buy my property?... Well there is no way you will be able to grow the crops I did" ...

Uh uh, ok.

SriKumar · Post by **SriKumar** » 14 May 2013 09:24

heech,

I never said anything about China being genetically this or that. I stay away from that kind of nonsense.

I think you are unable to separate my posts from other posts that talk about Chinese this, Romulans that, Klingons something else. If I have said anything about innovation being genetic or specific to a kind of society, point it out. If not, please direct those comments to the respective poster. I do not represent their views.

What I do maintain is that China at present does not have companies like Apple, google, Boeing, Intel etc. Your point is that it does not matter because they are making money, I say fine, I can agree, if that is the only yardstick you want to use. But there are limits to what those firms (ali baba, tencent whatever else) can deliver relative to the other companies that lead innovation (that are household names in the area).

For starters though, please do not direct any response on genetic/race/IQ stuff at my posts. It is not a part of my argument.

Added later: You mention 'permanently crippled'. I have clearly stated in my posts that these 'me-too' companies provide a platform (or a springboard) for future advantage in the area. IMO,having these companies is an advantage and I dont believe there is any permanent reason for things to continue in one single predictable way- whatever that might be.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 14 May 2013 10:12

What are the numbers for non-Chinese using Chinese sites like alibaba etc ? I suspect not so hot. Not yet. China has yet to come out with something that has global appeal. Or to work out how to make something so. But that's not to say it never will. Also, you can just buy it. Interesting times.

India, of course, compromised, weak, traitorous leadership, macaulayized, socially engineered, self-unaware, sh1tpot. Not according to Chinese. According to our own self-proclaimed defenders of India. Mostly living outside it, just in case. Interesting times.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 14 May 2013 10:38

heech,

You are getting it all wrong.

The tone of chinese so far......

We have arrived, We have arrived, We have arrived, We have arrived, We have arrived.....

From the rest of the world puzzled silence.
From BRF
um! no you have not. Still quite a ways to go.

From the chinese....
India dirty.
We have arrived, We have arrived, We have arrived, We have arrived, We have arrived.....

rinse repeat.

shyam · Post by **shyam** » 14 May 2013 11:04

There is an issue when heech used Lenovo, as Chinese/American company and also a source of innovation. The most important Lenovo laptop serious people (not looking for cheap laptop) buy is ThinkPad due to its superior quality. Even so many years after acquisition of IBM PC, Lenovo is not able to come up with a new model that could outperform ThinkPad. Even in ThinkPad, they were not able to make any significant changes to its exterior design that original IBM engineers made, even though processors, display etc had generational changes. You can buy innovative technology from some one, may make it cheap, produce it in large quantities, but to take it to next level one needs totally different skill, and that is not mere IQ number.

subhamoy.das · Post by **subhamoy.das** » 14 May 2013 13:52

Endless debate but no data points about CHINESE tech products means there is no engineering inovation happening in China forget innovation in basic sciences. I was looking through the 75 of Chinese fortune 500 and could not find a single one, besides Huwai, that is visible in India and mostly in utility and commodity and metal space. Contrats this with Japan, and the scene is totally different and i recognize a large number, mostly of the names. The same is true of America. Same is true for France. Same is true for Germany. Same is true for UK. Same is true for Soko. But seems like our Chinese companies are simply growing big by services their large population and buy doing outsourced manufacturing of products. None drives innovation but does need solid efficiency to scale.

heech · Post by **heech** » 14 May 2013 17:27

SriKumar wrote:Added later: You mention 'permanently crippled'. I have clearly stated in my posts that these 'me-too' companies provide a platform (or a springboard) for future advantage in the area. IMO,having these companies is an advantage and I dont believe there is any permanent reason for things to continue in one single predictable way- whatever that might be.

First off, I didn't mean to put any words in your mouth as far as the "innovation gene", or genetic flaws, or whatever. To me this is a discussion of ideas, not individuals. There was certainly a vein of discussion in recent pages where that argument was being made, but clearly not by you. I don't strongly disagree with anything you've said. Clearly, in 2013 China doesn't have companies that can match Google or Apple in achievement. But the real interesting question to me is the longer term one, of where China will be in 10, 20, 50 years.

What I do maintain is that China at present does not have companies like Apple, google, Boeing, Intel etc. Your point is that it does not matter because they are making money, I say fine, I can agree, if that is the only yardstick you want to use. But there are limits to what those firms (ali baba, tencent whatever else) can deliver relative to the other companies that lead innovation (that are household names in the area)

Ah, but note that Tencent's current market cap is larger than that of Facebook. Alibaba is looking at an IPO, and people believe will have a market cap of $100 billion... which makes it about half the size of Google. So, I'd argue these companies are already competing / achieving at the highest level. And they can spend their $$$ investing in startups in both the US version of Silicon Valley or the Chinese version of Silicon Valley, just as Google can.

And this is only in the year 2013, when GDP per capita in China is still roughly 1/5th that of the United States. What will the size of these companies be, what will they be able to "deliver", when Chinese wealth levels double again in 10 years?

heech · Post by **heech** » 14 May 2013 17:34

JE Menon wrote:What are the numbers for non-Chinese using Chinese sites like alibaba etc ? I suspect not so hot. Not yet. China has yet to come out with something that has global appeal. Or to work out how to make something so. But that's not to say it never will. Also, you can just buy it. Interesting times.

I suspect China won't figure out foreign consumers for *decades* yet... that's always the hardest part. Even many American companies find it difficult selling into China (or India), despite their many advantages. Very few non-Chinese using Tencent's WeChat, despite the fact that it's a dominant mobile application with hundreds of millions of users in China. The few Chinese companies that are selling well overseas are doing it mostly anonymously... like ZTE, which has surging smart-phone sales in the US, but is largely unknown as a brand.

For the large part, Chinese companies starting to sell overseas will still be mostly dealing with business / industrial customers. Guys like Huawei.

kish · Post by **kish** » 14 May 2013 17:42

An esteemed chinese member giving new meaning to 'warped logic'

Old television shows are all black and white. Penguins are black and white. Therefore penguins are old television shows

I could not resist the temptation to make fun of it. The funny part is, he is so serious about his logic and continues to defend it.

How kao dumped mao:

Fearing tyrant Mao's Red army Kao's family escaped to hong kong and later to briton.

The cessation of war with Japan did not bring peace. Soon the Red Army, who had been fighting the Nationalist Government, was at the city gates. My father made the decision to leave. The topic had been discussed often over the family games of bridge and the various options mulled over. To move to Chungking5, or to join relatives in Taiwan, or perhaps there were relatives who lived in Hong Kong too?

Charles Kuen Kao's Autobiography

Thank god, he left china. Otherwise stinky mao would have killed kao's family, as he did to other liberal minded people. The world would have lost an engineer.

heech · Post by **heech** » 14 May 2013 17:51

Theo_Fidel wrote:The tone of chinese so far......

We have arrived, We have arrived, We have arrived, We have arrived, We have arrived.....

Well, I'm not going to speak for any other Chinese. But I think if you spoke to more Chinese, you'd soon see this is not at all a common view. China is just in the process of *arriving*, and it will still take multiple decades before many Chinese can approach the living standard of the West.

I find it funny when someone non-Chinese flaunts a Xinhua editorial that declares China to be a poor / developing nation... as if some how China's propaganda broke down. The truth is, the Communist Party makes that statement probably once a day. It's constantly repeating the message that China is a poor, developing nation. Over, and over, and over again. The vast majority of Chinese you speak to on the street would immediately agree with that message.

Here's how the debate on these forums usually go:

- Chinese posters: look at these beautiful buildings + bridges, we didn't have 10 years ago, it's pretty amazing for a poor developing nation! And we think the future is great.
- Indian posters: stop showing these beautiful buildings which show only a tiny segment of China. Show us the "real" China! Here are all the reasons why China has no future.

I'm pretty tired of those discussions. Which is why I will state, again... for anyone questioning China's current level of economic achievement, just buy a plane ticket and go see for yourself. You'll see those beautiful buildings + bridges are absolutely a dominant part of real China... but there is also real poverty and challenges ahead.

heech · Post by **heech** » 14 May 2013 18:06

I started these most recent discussions by talking about my decision to R2C, and some of my personal experiences there from the most recent trip. Let me talk a little about something else I observed that worries me, when it comes to the real estate bubble.

First off, the "ghost cities" meme is silly. Yes, China builds out entire new city districts before anyone has even moved in. But by and large, people *do* move in.. as soon as jobs + industry move in. This has been the formula for 10+ years in China, and it has by and large worked.

But, there is absolutely a speculative building bubble that worries me. In the city I'm moving to, there's a large commercial mall that was developed across the street from the high speed rail station. Obviously, many believed this would be prime real estate... and the developer took advantage of the situation to sell out 75% of the retail space as individual condo units (very small - 30-60 sq meters). Average Chinese families bought these condo units as speculation before the property was even constructed. Deep down at heart, they weren't planning on using the space... they hoped they could just dump their property in 3-5 years, when prices have doubled or tripled or whatever. They didn't study potential tenants, they didn't have proper guarantees from the developer, etc...

In reality, 1+ year after the mall was officially delivered... it's largely vacant. There are a couple anchor tenants, but the 75% of retail space is completely unused. Why? Partly it's just bad design. People coming off trains are jumping on a subway + bus + taxi and going to their final destination, not walking a couple hundred meters to go shopping. Also, transportation connections to the mall are very poorly done. The developers really took the money and ran, didn't invest in proper lighting, landscaping, etc, etc. Who do you complain to if the escalator isn't working properly? The developer already has their money. The few Chinese owners who tried to open a small shop quickly closed down... and now, obviously, no one's going to open a small shop in an abandoned mall.

Note: the people on the hook here aren't the banking system, or some large institutional investor... it's hundreds of small retail investors, fooled by speculative real estate fever. They've already tried to have a few protests in front of city hall (standard operating procedure in China - threaten to protest, hopefully pressure the government into forcing a settlement on the developer). But really, it's a lost cause. IN the mean time, their capital is stuck in this property which is slowly depreciating before their eyes. It's a very frustrating situation.

China *needs* normalcy back in its real estate markets. People need to expect 2-3% annualized gains, not 20% annualized gains. People need to expect 5-10% failure / vacancy rates.

vic · Post by **vic** » 14 May 2013 19:13

Indian legal system is very pro MNC

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 14 May 2013 19:40

I would remind everyone that Capitalism has its own mind that it sometimes deposits in a panic. There are business cycles. Things go up and things go down. It's rarely in a straight line. The US goes through through these things every 20 to 50 years. Before 1900 there were banking panics every *10* years or so until the US finally had enough and created the Federal Reserve. About 20 years after the creation of the Fed even that wasn't enough when we had the great depression with the resulting creation of the FDIC and the Glass Steagall Act(now defunct). So what is my point about US economic cycles on a Chinese thread?

My point is, things can go to hell in a hand basket despite all your plans otherwise. I admit, the Chinese have a done a wonderful job so far but pobody is nerfect. The thing is, is the Chinese economy resilient? Can it take a hit and come back? In my view and I am certainly no expert, the export driven economy is too dependent on sh*t happening somewhere else. So, *if* China still contemplates depending upon the kindness of strangers for its export economy to thrive in order to continue the Chinese miracle, then then it may subject to the whims of outrageous fortune.

wong · Post by **wong** » 14 May 2013 21:30

kish wrote:
Fearing tyrant Mao's Red army Kao's family escaped to hong kong and later to briton.

The cessation of war with Japan did not bring peace. Soon the Red Army, who had been fighting the Nationalist Government, was at the city gates. My father made the decision to leave. The topic had been discussed often over the family games of bridge and the various options mulled over. To move to Chungking5, or to join relatives in Taiwan, or perhaps there were relatives who lived in Hong Kong too?
Charles Kuen Kao's Autobiography

Thank god, he left china. Otherwise stinky mao would have killed kao's family, as he did to other liberal minded people. The world would have lost an engineer.

My grandparents also fled Mao. So what?? Mao's been dead for almost 40 years. Does that take anything away from his accomplishments or his "Chineseness". He's on the faculty of the "Chinese University of Hong Kong" for Christ sake and Indians go through this BS logic that he's not Chinese. Look at his picture. Does he look Chinese ??

The BR Indian modus operandi is always the same in these cases. First discredit the Chinese accomplishment. In this case a Nobel Prize is pretty hard to discredit (although someone here called it "Boring"). Next, pretend the guy is not Chinese. Whatever! Just sad that as a country, Indians will instead of trying to elevate themselves up, spend day and night hoping/praying that another country (China) will fail. Pathetic, really.

wong · Post by **wong** » 14 May 2013 21:32

Theo_Fidel wrote:
From the chinese....
India dirty.
We have arrived, We have arrived, We have arrived, We have arrived, We have arrived.....

rinse repeat.

Not dirty. Just hopeless.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 14 May 2013 21:41

wong wrote:
Theo_Fidel wrote:
From the chinese....
India dirty.
We have arrived, We have arrived, We have arrived, We have arrived, We have arrived.....

rinse repeat.
Not dirty. Just hopeless.

Hope you find other forums just as stimulating, Mr. Wong.