Discussion on the future of China (including discussions on Taiwan)

E_S

You really don't know any other way of debating other than to be patronising do you?

Ok, now explain to me how I've missed your point.

 

T65 there's two things I don't like on these boards; repeating myself because people don't pay attention, and people who intentionally misrepresent my posts.

You've made me do the latter. I return to you with:


"And unless, as those big money economists in HK said, China can overcome a cultural gap in innovation they will remain perpetually "emerging"."

Follow?

E_S

 

Doesn't this debate ever get old? I've been keeping up with it and there's E_S repeating himself ad nauseum and then there's much ignoring of points that are made. I would think debating with a wall would be more fun, at least then you can bash it down if you get annoyed by it.

 

Another scotch, Bartender FIDo... this could go all night.

E_S

 

Aye aye. Although I'd say all century. Fortunately none of us will live that long.

 

I'd honestly like to know what you think I've been saying, T65?

Yes and no.

By sending such a huge quantity - in effect, supply outstripping demand - the only way for retailers to ensure a satisfactory turnover in stock is to clear the items out which means they will end up reducing the prices. In effect, this will render it susceptible to charges of dumping as it will undercut the ability of other manufacturers to compete since hey, people want cheaper products in the end. So it's "sorta dumping", but like most things it's more complicated than we're giving it credit for.

E_S

 

E_S

You have done nothing but avoid the point I bring up time and time again.

You say the Chinese have a cultural blind spot to innovation. I say they're just catching up with technology.

I offer as proof, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea. You offer as proof your drinking buddies. Would they have said the same thing about those countries several decades ago?

You keep saying I'm missing your point. I don't think I did. Those three were developing economies. They're all first world economies now. They've invented nothing. They've built on, copied, altered, stole, existing technology.

How is that different to China?

How about you enlighten us with your wisdom on why the situations are different instead of simply saying I've missed the point.

 

But T65 I have answered it. Numerous times. And didn't I mention these people were all fund managers and investment bankers for people like JP Morgan, HSBC, Standard Chartered, Citibank etc (whom I was introduced to to hopefully set me up next year)?

What I've said, and you've ignored (whilst accusing me of ignoring your points, lol etc) is that IF China doesn't make the shift they won't emerge. That's all.

I, and the others I mentioned above, plus Django, all have noted a cultural blind spot to creativity (which is different from innovation) - that is, many simply aren't taught from youth to indulge a creative side. For example, as Django and I both noted, in classroom situation (him in Shanghai, me in Taipei) maybe 25-40% can engage in creative writing or art without assisstance for ideas and the rest need help. It's not that Chinese people are teh dumb, it's that there's no seemingly no room for it in their already-packed days as children. So it's no surprise it doesn't translate well into adulthood.

So it's not a case of me having a go at China to make you cry. It's a legitimate and fair observation, supported by foreigners working in HK, Taipei and Shanghai. And clearly, I can't fault the Chinese too much if I want to move to Hongkong, Shanghai or (if needs be) Singapore, now can I?

Simply put, T65 you are going to have to accept that I'm not at all incorrect in my assumption which you triumphantly ignore, which is that China's "dominance" (or use other hyperbolic media adjective if you want) is not assured or guaranteed in the manner to which you, and the media, pretends it is. That's all. Can we agree on that, or will you make up my position again?

Now, because apparently you think this is important for me to do your research for you:

I offer as proof, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea. You offer as proof your drinking buddies. Would they have said the same thing about those countries several decades ago?

You keep saying I'm missing your point. I don't think I did. Those three were developing economies. They're all first world economies now. They've invented nothing. They've built on, copied, altered, stole, existing technology.

Well, Japan had truckloads of US investment and you forget what the economic climate in Japan was like before WWII. Yet, we forget how badly Japan has been fairing for years as a result of the economic crisis and it simply ended up pricing itself out of the market. It's only now beginning to claw back. But I think you'll agree that China and Japan are not the same people, no?

Taiwan, as I pointed out, has had to adjust to the loss of the majority of it's manufacturing base and thus is not as prosperous as it once was. One of the things Taiwan has tried to do is become, like Hong Kong, a trade centre. However, with an unbalanced budget, around 5% unemployment and a rising property market Taiwan is hardly a model of stability.

South Korea, it seems, has been having a few good years but what's going to hurt them is that since 2000, IIRC, labour prices have risen and legislation on employment has been thwarted by the unions. So it's likely growth will have slowed this year, but of course the Korea's prosperity was the result of widespread reform following the crippling 1997-8 crisis. See below for the significance.

In all these examples, they have two things going for them.

1) They started when China was busy with CCP consolidation and cutting itself off from the outside world. So they lived in the age of Keynes.
2) They've seen what happens to them when they're undercut in areas and adapted accordingly. They've basically had a boom/bust and dealt with it. China has not; it's had decades of economic mismanagement at the hands of the Communists and really, a lot of luck since the handover of Hong Kong in terms of implementing the Special Economic Zones and using their revenue for growth.


So being late to the game has given China a kind of youthful energy but also, it's put China at a severe disadvantage if the bus

 

Japan's voters back Koizumi

Well, it looks like ol' Junichiro may get his wish on Japan Post after all. Take that, anti-privatisation types!

E_S

 

I know, that was quite the political coup. Well, maybe not "coup," but Koizumi and the LibDems broke all expectations. Not only did his privitization measures pass, but his party actually gained 86 seats.

Koizumi, who is a staunch ally of the US, has proposed even more cooperation with the West.

Also, going back to a previous point I made, there is an excellent article in the Chicago Tribune today that illustrates the linking of social conscience with business practices:

Global pursuits leave Web firms in quandary

The case highlights growing legal and ethical questions facing global Internet companies as they gain ground in the world's most enticing Web market. In a new spin on old debates over environmental and labor issues abroad, U.S. tech companies face accusations that they are helping China's one-party regime curb free expression.

Yahoo Inc. co-founder Jerry Yang acknowledged over the weekend that his company gave Chinese authorities identifying e-mail information about reporter Shi Tao, who was sentenced to 10 years in prison for messaging a U.S. Web site about a Communist Party directive

But Yahoo's handling of the case, first detailed last week by media-rights advocate Reporters Without Borders, has emerged as a showcase of the debate among Internet executives, China analysts and human-rights advocates over tech firms' obligations in the world's largest communist country.

The fact is that public perception does play a large role in determining how a company conducts business. The more foreign investment comes into China, the more transparent China's policy's are going to become.

If China doesn't amend its more draconian practices, it may start seeing that same foreign investment look elsewhere in order to avoid a sensitive and public rights debate.

 

Well, as the Economist piece I quoted earlier amply illustrated, it's not just the draconian practises that will hurt China, it's Chinese policy. Unless a company moves it's HQ to either (and I believe, preferably) the SAR (HK) or a SEZ (Special Economic Zone), it's likely to be saddled with an under-performing SOE (state-owned enterprise), as the example of the fridge manufacturer Kelon showed us.

I also made reference to the heads of the four main Chinese telcos - for those who don't know, the CCP forced the heads of China Netcom, China Telecom, China Unicom and China Mobile swap companies for whatever reason.

Oh, how wrong I am to suggest China needs massive overhaul. Capital is flowing there, ergo all is well and good and things like boom-bust and using the dotcom example to point out the flaw in suggesting capital is attracted to anything less than capital is a red herring and would I stop ignoring the points I'm wrong China is teh win.

E_S

 

John Howard seems to think they're a bit of alright. Going to be the third largest economy in the next few years, according to old weasel face.

 

If the current growth rate is sustained. However, I've outlined several threats to this growth rate for which I believe China is thoroughly unprepared.

E_S

 

Maybe you should tell that to Head Ratty, he's in the US sprouting off about how to deal with China.

 

I assume that hilarious monicker is intended to belittle Australia's best and most successful Prime Minister? A veritble Hemingway, you are Loopster, and I love it.

Australia has tremendous respect and political capital in China, built up through trade and of course, Mr Hawke's work investing there and selling Australia. It's been said (and referenced a bit in The Diplomat magazine) that if Beijing wants to talk to Washington it goes through Canberra.

Having said this, you've failed to actually address my points. China will remain forever emerging without a massive overhaul of some very basic practises at the cultural and procedural level.

E_S

 

And I will address your points once I look up the word prodecural.

 

D'oh.

E_S

 

Taiwan's 13th straight bid for UN membership thwarted by PRC

Hu Jintao reassures Bush on trade surplus

Bush changes topic after Hu asks for support on Taiwan

Some interesting pieces. I think the issue of Taiwanese statehood is on one level exceptionally petty. Seriously; Taiwan functions as a state. It has borders, security, the provision of goverance, a currency, a culture. It just doesn't have international recognition due to the mainland and it's importance for trade (now, but earlier as an anti-Soviet bulwark). What should be Taiwan and Taiwan alone's decision is; to make it formal or seek some sort of SAR-style admittence into the mainland or to be totally reintegrated into the PRC. China's the equivalent of a playground bully who beats kids into saying a square is a circle which means they're denying a self-evident truth whilst chocking up an impressive number of notches on their belt of phyrric victories.

I have to say, it was poor form to try and make Mr Bush lose face on the Taiwan issue when Hu knew damned well what Mr Bush would say publicly about Taiwan.

However, I am glad the surplus issue is at least nominally resolved. Seeking a greater demand for American imports is all well and good, but I'm sure issues of foreign currency reserves, a pegged currency (floating within limits) and the issue of China's flagrant disregard for the Berne and Geneva conventions and subsequent relevant treaties on the matter will go nowhere in the next six months.

E_S

 

What would happen if one day NSW said, we're sick of the rest of Australia. And the vast majority of the people voted to be an independent country?

BTW, I disagree with the distinct culture thing. L.A. and N.Y have different cultures, Melborne and Brisbane have distinct cultures. BeiJing and Shanghai have distinct cultures. Doesn't mean they're not part of the same country. Taiwan and the Mainland have far more in common than they do in differences.

 

That's not really accurate though.

Taiwan was part for Japan for 54 years. It was only until after WWII that it reverted back to the mainland, and that was before the communist revolution.

The PRC never had a legitimate claim on Taiwan, and in fact, Taiwan's constitution pre-dates the takeover by 3 years.

Instead of NSW, I think a closer analogy would be if a vote was held to make New Zealand an offical part of Australia. Despite the connection and dominion and all, it's not like Austrlia can claim what was never theirs.

 

There's a difference of course between your NSW thing, and the Taiwan/China question.

When the Nationalists came here in 1949, they established a government in exile which was recognised as China until 1972. Why was China then recognised as China proper? A sense of rightness? No. As a bulwark against the Soviet Union. But during that time the Taiwanese had established governance, a strong economic presence and other aspects of a unique country. It wasn't that one day Taiwan decided to annoy the mainland; it was that a coup d'etat forced Chiang kai-Shek to flee Shanghai for Taipei.

If the mainland had tried to reclaim the Republic of China or the KMT had tried to topple the Maoists, and succeeded, it would have mattered more. But the PRC has done nothing about the issue for how long? 56 years. So literally with each year their claim gets pettier and pettier. You simply can't suggest that the Taiwanese are totally wrong in this, nor that it really isn't their call what they do, since they stand to lose or gain much more than BeiJing. The PRC loses face, the Taiwanese lose their ability to chose their destiny. I think Beijing can live with that little slight, don't you?

ES

 

I don't think either side is wrong. People have fought over land since the beginning of time. I'm not going to say Taiwan can't fight for their land. And if they can get the U.S. to commit, good for them.

What I don't agree with is your claim that saving face and pettiness is the reason for the mainland refusing to let Taiwan go.

China has five other areas to worry about besides Taiwan. SingKiang, Tibet, Inner Mongolia, Hong Kong and Macau. If you let Taiwan go, you risk opening the flood gates. I think it is a legitimate concern.

Also, I don't think China wants the U.S. to have an unsinkable aircraft carrier so close to them. And let's be honest, in terms of military strategy, Taiwan will be little more than that.

So there are political and strategic considerations here, not just saving face.

 

China has five other areas to worry about besides Taiwan. SingKiang, Tibet, Inner Mongolia, Hong Kong and Macau. If you let Taiwan go, you risk opening the flood gates. I think it is a legitimate concern.

Sure, and these might be practical concerns for China, but don't you think the same issues could be addressed by the PRC itself by examining its own internal policies?

It's like blaming the messenger while failing to acknowledge who sent the message.

 

Well, if there was some commonality between Hong Kong & Macao/Taiwan, maybe.

BUT - Hong Kong was ceded to the British on a 150 year lease in 1847. Macao, colonised by Portugal. Taiwan, not so much.

As Mr44 pointed out, and I think I've mentioned it before, Taiwan was a Japanese coloney as a concession of the Sino-Japanese war and remained as such from 1895 to 1945 after World War II - IIRC, Taichung was the most bombed city (Asian, definately, but maybe in the world?) during WWII. In effect, it was given by the allies to Chiang Kai-Shek's nationalist government, and by fleeing here without any sort of mainland presence being here too, and setting up in exile from a government nobody recognised makes the case a bit harder to swallow (which may be why China is blocking Taiwanese entrance into the UN and thus, ICJ).

So in a sense, I understand where you're coming from but I'm not sure I think it's correct. I don't see that Taiwan having the choice of becoming an SAR (which works fantasically with Hongkong) or an SEZ (which would probably not be the preferred option compared to being an SAR), or a seperate, recognised state being Beijing's decision since at the time, nobody saw Taiwan's status as an opposition to an unrecognised authority as being in the wrong.

E_S