Foreign firms ganged up to fight procurement rule

gee i dont know inframan, maybe i should write a book of truth, China research is what i do for a living...having studied that place for 8 years and counting, i am pretty sure i know what i am talkin about. not gonna derail the discussion though, i'll cut off this senseless argument here.

yup technically governments are consumers, and they can buy whatever they want. however i would advice against too much "protectionism" still. because in practice you are still sending a very bad message to other participants of the market.

i am also not particularly concerned about innovation, the Japanese also took a similar path when their economy took-off in the 60s and 70s. as for breaking the rules, if I have to speak from a Chinese perspective, its gotta be done. when you are growing at a faster rate than any other country in the world, there has gotta be things you are doing that is out of the ordinary. its like you dont really think the richest person in the world made all that money and didnt even attempt to circumvent the law...cant be done. of course there will come a time when China writes the rules and other new comers would try to get around em.

I see fear of losing market shares cropped up when foreign companies tried to block China's indigenous Innovatopn Product programme.

Chinese companies were in their infant stage in 1990s, learning and copying from foreign companies, they were hungry for any western tehnology, they even bought out-dated factories from Europe, dismantled them and sent back to China.

And now in 2000s it is natural that they have learned enough of the basics, and progressed to more advance stage of R & D innovation. Now there is fear that if Chinese will to be as innovative as their western counterparts, western comapnies will be losing their businesses in China.

It also because most foreign companies in China keep their R & D in their home country, partly to keep jobs back home, partly to prevent the Chinese from learning new techniques, that China has to urge domestic companies to be more innovative otherwise China will be in unfavorable position like example their inability to produce advance aircraft engine.

But trying to block the Chinese becoming innovative will back fire, the result will be that Chinese will poured more resources in R & D.

Also, please do not use the excuse of political differences like capitalism and communism. Whether China is communist or not, they will eventually be more innovative because that is the way they will expand their technology, economy, control their own destiny and to have upper hand in most dealings, whichever they may be.

pla101prc said:

gee i dont know inframan, maybe i should write a book of truth, China research is what i do for a living...having studied that place for 8 years and counting, i am pretty sure i know what i am talkin about. not gonna derail the discussion though, i'll cut off this senseless argument here.

yup technically governments are consumers, and they can buy whatever they want. however i would advice against too much "protectionism" still. because in practice you are still sending a very bad message to other participants of the market.

i am also not particularly concerned about innovation, the Japanese also took a similar path when their economy took-off in the 60s and 70s. as for breaking the rules, if I have to speak from a Chinese perspective, its gotta be done. when you are growing at a faster rate than any other country in the world, there has gotta be things you are doing that is out of the ordinary. its like you dont really think the richest person in the world made all that money and didnt even attempt to circumvent the law...cant be done. of course there will come a time when China writes the rules and other new comers would try to get around em.

Click to expand...

Hahaha, you studied China for 8 years. Big whoops. That's the best credential you have? That's not convincing at all.

Guys like Ambivalent, Tphuang, Crobato, Popeye, and so forth have studied, learned, and trained in their respective fields for many years, yet, this doesn't make them know their respective fields inside-out. They still have a lot to learn when it comes to military science, military technology, military organization, military history, military culture, military strategy, military tactics, and other aspects of the military. Ambivalent probably has the most real-world military experience in this message board, and he probably obtained the highest military rank in this message board, but he still isn't the alpha and the omega of military knowledge (despite whatever his ego tells him). There are lots of people in military who know more than Ambivalent in a very specific field and in a wide spectrum of fields. There are people who know more than Ambivalent in certain ways, and less in other ways. I am just talking about the military here.

Now compare a military to an entire nation. Notice how an entire nation is vastly more complex than a nation's military. The Bush Administration used a variety of "experts" on Iraq, and look how horrible Iraq's reconstruction has been turning out. The Obama Administration supposedly uses lots of "experts" on Iraq, and things are still crap over there. If they swallowed their pride, then they wouldn't have underestimated how complex a nation is.

Waving your 8 years of studying, degrees, or certifications on China may impress the naive, but it sure doesn't impress me. Why don't you impress me with your actual knowledge?

Moral of the story: You don't know China inside-out despite whatever your ego believes.


On China's creativity, I would like to talk about China's raw resources. I think China still has a long ways to go in terms of getting enough raw resources for its R&D goals. For the sake of brevity, I'm going to say resources instead of raw resources.

American, Europe, and Japan have a longer history of grabbing lots of resources from the world than China. China needs to continue to boost its foreign trade for resources, but I think China should continue to use its alternative trading pathways despite foreign criticisms. America and Europe convinces lots of nations to hand over their resources by offering expensive, finished products and by letting other nations send lots of immigrants to America and Europe. This causes a variety of social problems for both the host nation and the immigrants. The cost of these social problems are a lot higher than America and Europe are willing to admit. America and Europe also gets too closely involved in other nations' internal affairs, which draws them into unnecessary conflicts.

I think South Korea and Singapore do a superb good job of avoiding trades involving resources and immigrants. I am amazed at how Singapore does an excellent job of building a modern city while holding a majority Chinese people mixed with minorities (Indians, Muslims, and Caucasians) in a crowded area without having major social problems. I credit their no-nonsense, hardworking, and high-values culture in general, but I especially credit their strict immigration policies. I know it's not fair to compare tiny Singapore/South Korea to big China, but I really think China can still learn A LOT about social standards from Singapore and South Korea.

After China acquires the resources, China should allocate a large portion for R&D only. America (and to a lesser degree, Europe) wastes too much of their resources on extravagant consumption. America uses vehicles larger and more massive than their actual needs, builds too many nice homes in harsh climates, consumes too much junk food, wants grass in dry areas (horrible idea), buys too many clothing, buys too many furniture, builds too many extravagant resorts in the wrong places (i.e., huge golf courses in deserts or heated, large swimming pools and Jacuzzis in cold areas), luxurious gyms and entertainment stadiums, etc. A few of them is nice, but building a host in them in probably every state is wasteful.

Luxury items make nations look nice, but, in the long run, they are gradually losing their technological edge to more efficient nations like China, India (in some ways), South Korea, Japan, Singapore, and a few other nations which are doing more with less. Luxury items have questionable productivity. China has been living within its means, and I think China should continue doing this. I dislike seeing a larger number of Chinese people buying luxury items. Each year it gets worse. If your job requires you to fly around a lot, then go ahead. But do you really need the luxury treatment from your airplane to your hotel to the fancy dinner/movie theater/stadium to your day spa/gym and then back home? For the future, it's a total waste of resources. China's future is much better off using these resources on R&D.

Mods note >>Infra_Man99 a warning shall be issued to you for insulting other members.

bd popeye super moderator

lcloo said:

I see fear of losing market shares cropped up when foreign companies tried to block China's indigenous Innovatopn Product programme.

Chinese companies were in their infant stage in 1990s, learning and copying from foreign companies, they were hungry for any western tehnology, they even bought out-dated factories from Europe, dismantled them and sent back to China.

And now in 2000s it is natural that they have learned enough of the basics, and progressed to more advance stage of R & D innovation. Now there is fear that if Chinese will to be as innovative as their western counterparts, western comapnies will be losing their businesses in China.

It also because most foreign companies in China keep their R & D in their home country, partly to keep jobs back home, partly to prevent the Chinese from learning new techniques, that China has to urge domestic companies to be more innovative otherwise China will be in unfavorable position like example their inability to produce advance aircraft engine.

But trying to block the Chinese becoming innovative will back fire, the result will be that Chinese will poured more resources in R & D.

Also, please do not use the excuse of political differences like capitalism and communism. Whether China is communist or not, they will eventually be more innovative because that is the way they will expand their technology, economy, control their own destiny and to have upper hand in most dealings, whichever they may be.

Click to expand...

well there are several preconditions you need to actually enable your firms to start innovating. first of all you need the basics, to acquire the basics you have to start by copying the models that already exist, like what Japan did to Germans. of course this is stuff is not really allowed, but like i said, its like how imperialism gets you the market, when you just got started you have to break the rules to progress faster than others, its called cheating, and in this world its prolly necessary. so all the intellectual property thing we have to complain about here, dont expect the Chinese to really crackdown on that for a lil while (but eventually it will happen). the second thing you need there is market, dont think i have much to say about this one as it is already pretty obvious to all. i think government's support could be a fairly good place to start. like how the military can use the godson microchip. i'd rather have the innovators aim for a bigger market though that is the state owned firms. China is still a bit behind in terms of building a well-regulated market, but eventually it'll get better. the last one is people, China has more than enough people that are capable of innovating if you put them in the right environment, so its all about building the right environment. China still has a long way to go in this aspect and i think its the most important aspect.

money isnt a problem anymore though