How to cope with decreasing of export/demand for chinese goods.

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
And once again, there is no relationship between the Yuan and the Kilo. Don't get the false impression due to the shape of the bow and the torpedo tubes. Even the Han had a rounded nose and that predated the Kilos in Chinese service. The Yuan is the same Song but with a different outer hull---its double hulled meaning I can change the outer hull and still retain the inner hull design. The Yuan and the Song have the exact same length and proportions, and both quite longer than the Kilo.

China didn't buy Su-27s to know how to produce them. Sorry to say that, but China licensed them in order to know how to make them.

China didn't get the Phalcon to produce something similar, neither the Patriot nor the AEGIS to produce their Chinese analogs. Neither did it get a live sample of a Mk 41 VLS to produce the VLS on the 054A.

At the same time, many of the stuff like HQ-7s, Z-9s, PL-8s, the 120mm and 125mm tank guns, they were all truly licensed, not reverse engineered.
 

antimatter

Banned Idiot
Your notion that China needs to buy consumer goods first in order to reverse engineer them is . Are you telling me the Chinese can't produce toothbrushes without having to first buy them from Colgate?

I consider reverse engineering as an art and science.
for example, the taste of coca cola is very hard to duplicate. Some offered cola but doesn't quite taste the same.

I have a vision and its going this.
By doing chemical analysis, the coke's molecular structure is identified.
but the difficult part is to know the process step to convert material is its common state and combined into the coke molecules.

By leveraging its supercomputer power. China can make cheap supercomputer /w Godsons at only $100K. the task is assembled the industrial models for simulation. Through simulation, the supercomputer can predict /w high accuracy the process steps of producing coca cola.

Kind of like DNA sequencing, knowing the DNA content of the living material, scientists can clone that.. Similarly, common chemicals can be duplicated too.

Not saying CHina will do that, but having that capibility is important.
 

FugitiveVisions

Junior Member
i Consider Reverse Engineering As An Art And Science.
For Example, The Taste Of Coca Cola Is Very Hard To Duplicate. Some Offered Cola But Doesn't Quite Taste The Same.

I Have A Vision And Its Going This.
By Doing Chemical Analysis, The Coke's Molecular Structure Is Identified.
But The Difficult Part Is To Know The Process Step To Convert Material Is Its Common State And Combined Into The Coke Molecules.

By Leveraging Its Supercomputer Power. China Can Make Cheap Supercomputer /w Godsons At Only $100k. The Task Is Assembled The Industrial Models For Simulation. Through Simulation, The Supercomputer Can Predict /w High Accuracy The Process Steps Of Producing Coca Cola.

Kind Of Like Dna Sequencing, Knowing The Dna Content Of The Living Material, Scientists Can Clone That.. Similarly, Common Chemicals Can Be Duplicated Too.

Not Saying China Will Do That, But Having That Capibility Is Important.

brilliant!!!!!!
 

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
Look, antimatter, US companies with a lot more technological resources and access to laboratories have tried chemical analysis and all sorts of means to determine the secret recipes of Coke to Kentucky Fried Chicken. In the end, nothing came out of it.

Its pretty stupid to ask me, since all you need is invent your own formula and recipe, then run taste tests on focused groups, then keep altering your formula until it tastes better than Coke or KFC.
 

Roger604

Senior Member
It's totally correct that government has a vital role to play in stimulating an economy to go up the value added ladder.

The PLA is a great example of what can be achieved either by public sector or by private sector in closely cooperation with the government.

It doesn't fit neatly into economic theories, but the facts are indisputable:

When foreign products are superior, they can set up barriers to entry and prevent the rise of local competitors. Look at how foreign countries have been able to cripple China's engine industry for decades by offering their engines in exchange for China shutting down its research programs. They play the game of offering you short-term gains so you give up your long-term independence.

But if the government steps in and makes the domestic products a reality, eventually they are able to compete with the foreign products -- first as a cheaper / inferior product, then as an equal.
 

FugitiveVisions

Junior Member
It's totally correct that government has a vital role to play in stimulating an economy to go up the value added ladder.

The PLA is a great example of what can be achieved either by public sector or by private sector in closely cooperation with the government.

It doesn't fit neatly into economic theories, but the facts are indisputable:

When foreign products are superior, they can set up barriers to entry and prevent the rise of local competitors. Look at how foreign countries have been able to cripple China's engine industry for decades by offering their engines in exchange for China shutting down its research programs. They play the game of offering you short-term gains so you give up your long-term independence.

But if the government steps in and makes the domestic products a reality, eventually they are able to compete with the foreign products -- first as a cheaper / inferior product, then as an equal.

Foreign engines? What engines, soviet engines? The soviets pulled out all their people in the 50s. American engines? Rolls Royce? I'm not sure what you are talking about.

The notion that the rise of Chinese industries is due to barriers to entry of foreign goods is a much misguided one. As a matter of fact, China has encouraged the entry of foreign companies into the Chinese market to promote its industries since the late 70s. They enticed these foreign companies with the potential of the Chinese market, but placed business regulations in place so that the Chinese industries would benefit from this engagement. These regulations promoted fixed investments in China rather than purely financial investments, which in hindsight after the Asian financial crisis, was the right thing to do. They also encouraged joint ventures with domestic state enterprises to infuse the latest technology and management know-hows. These simply facts are so obvious that I don't know how anyone could possibly misconstrue them for protectionism.
 

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
It's totally correct that government has a vital role to play in stimulating an economy to go up the value added ladder.

The PLA is a great example of what can be achieved either by public sector or by private sector in closely cooperation with the government.

It doesn't fit neatly into economic theories, but the facts are indisputable:

When foreign products are superior, they can set up barriers to entry and prevent the rise of local competitors. Look at how foreign countries have been able to cripple China's engine industry for decades by offering their engines in exchange for China shutting down its research programs. They play the game of offering you short-term gains so you give up your long-term independence.

But if the government steps in and makes the domestic products a reality, eventually they are able to compete with the foreign products -- first as a cheaper / inferior product, then as an equal.


Wrong. There are in fact, many examples to the contrary that dispute your fourth paragraph. And some of these examples are in fact in China.

Look at Volkswagen, who was the first foreign maker to set up automotive plants in China and gathered a dominant share in the late eighties and nineties. Now look at where Volkwagen is now. There was no government intervention in the behalf of China's auto makers either. In the contrary, the Chinese government tends to throw a lot of roadblocks that does not make it easy to own a car. The funny thing is that Chinese government has been more in cahoots with Volkswagen than any other car company, right to the point that every PRC official seems to be driving or chauffered on an Audi.
 

Roger604

Senior Member
Foreign engines? What engines, soviet engines? The soviets pulled out all their people in the 50s. American engines? Rolls Royce? I'm not sure what you are talking about.

Chinese turbofan engine programs were repeatedly extinguished by US suppliers and then Russian suppliers.

They enticed these foreign companies with the potential of the Chinese market, but placed business regulations in place so that the Chinese industries would benefit from this engagement.

In fact, this is protectionism in the broadest sense. And your argument simply proves that protectionism can lead to better results than opening markets to foreign players without much restraint.

It's just a question of how much protectionism. For example, a company like Toyota needs to find a Chinese automaker to make their cars. But in the end, the brand and design of the car is all Toyota. Is this enough protectionism? Or should the government do other things to help purely Chinese designed and branded car makers get a foot hold in the market?

Look at Volkswagen, who was the first foreign maker to set up automotive plants in China and gathered a dominant share in the late eighties and nineties. Now look at where Volkwagen is now. There was no government intervention in the behalf of China's auto makers either.

But VW wasn't edged out by domestics, they were edged out by other foreign companies with international branding and financial strength. The domestic car market is still quite weak.
 

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
Chinese turbofan engine programs were repeatedly extinguished by US suppliers and then Russian suppliers.

Who told you so? Its not as if the Chinese had a turbofan project to begin with on their own. It was in fact Rolls Royce that gave them the boost. Later the Chinese were studying the CFM 56.

In fact, this is protectionism in the broadest sense. And your argument simply proves that protectionism can lead to better results than opening markets to foreign players without much restraint.

It's just a question of how much protectionism. For example, a company like Toyota needs to find a Chinese automaker to make their cars. But in the end, the brand and design of the car is all Toyota. Is this enough protectionism? Or should the government do other things to help purely Chinese designed and branded car makers get a foot hold in the market?

How is that protectionism?


But VW wasn't edged out by domestics, they were edged out by other foreign companies with international branding and financial strength. The domestic car market is still quite weak.

Edged out by who? The fact is that it disputes protectionism, because Volkswagen should have been able to hold off the likes of GM, Toyota, Honda, etc,. They didn't, despite being in China so early and enjoyed all sorts of government backing.

It simply destroys your theory that being first to have a dominant market share creates a form of protectionism.



Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Chinese Automakers Gear up for Overseas Push
by ELAINE KURTENBACH, Associated Press
Passengers line up for taxis in front of a billboard advertisement for the Roewe 750, made by Chinese automaker SAIC Motor Corp., at the airport in Beijing.
SHANGHAI, China — With models like the Hover and Roewe, Chinese-brand cars aren't household names in the U.S. and other big markets — not yet, at least.

But Chinese upstart automakers with equally obscure names such as Chery, Geely and SAIC are challenging industry leaders like General Motors, Volkswagen and Toyota in the fast-growing China market. And they're making inroads throughout the developing world with an eye toward eventually breaking into big Western markets.

China's homegrown automakers vie for attention with global giants like GM at the April 22-28 Shanghai Auto Show, a biennial event that will showcase China's phenomenal rise to become the world's No. 2 vehicle market.

The tenfold jump in China passenger car sales in the past decade has proved a big boost to General Motors Corp., which has become the market leader in China even as it loses market share at home. GM's sales in China last year rose 32 percent to 876,747 vehicles, while Ford Motor Co.'s jumped 87 percent to 166,722 units.

''Detroit is so cold, but here it's so, so hot,'' says Yale Zhang, a Shanghai-based auto analyst with CSM Worldwide.

Demand from newly affluent drivers in China lifted passenger car sales by 37 percent last year to 3.8 million units. All told, China's vehicle market — including trucks and buses — grew to 7.2 million last year, putting it second behind the U.S., with 16.5 million autos sold, but ahead of Japan, with 5.7 million.

Last year's top-selling model was the Jetta, made by FAW-Volkswagen, one of Volkswagen AG's joint ventures. Even Toyota, a relative latecomer to China, is gaining ground, with a 66 percent jump in first-quarter sales.

China has required foreign automakers to partner with local companies, and the boom has fattened profits for nearly all, says Zhang: ''They have money and they have room to maneuver. It's easier now.''

Domestic manufacturers are also getting a lift. Sales of small cars have surged after the government phased out urban restrictions last year on sales and use of minicars like Chery's popular QQ and rival Changan Automobile Group's CV6, a similarly egg-shaped minicar with a 1.3-liter engine.
Visitors look at a Chinese-made Dongfeng car at the 2006 Beijing Auto Show.

Chery, Changan and others are also ramping up exports, especially to developing countries where low prices count most.

China's automakers exported about 325,000 vehicles last year, about 80 percent of them low-priced trucks and buses bound for markets in Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America.

Chery, based in Wuhu, a city in eastern China's Anhui province, has led the export push for passenger cars, selling 50,000 units overseas last year.

The company assembles vehicles in facilities run with local partners in Iran, Malaysia, Russia, Ukraine, Brazil and Egypt and recently announced it has teamed up with Bognor SA to make bulletproof sedans in the Uruguayan capital of Montevideo.

But like many other Chinese automakers, Chery has its sights set on bigger targets.

At the Shanghai show, it will show an updated version of the QQ, dubbed the ''Chery A1,'' made in a new partnership with DaimlerChrysler AG. The Chinese side says it expects the alliance to eventually build compact cars for export to North America and Europe.

Little-known overseas, SUV maker Hunan Changfeng Motors Co. put on a display at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit in January, saying it hopes to begin exports to the U.S. within two years.

Rival Great Wall has gained a quirky reputation for its Hover model after shipping 500 of the SUVs to Italy last summer.

Executives at GM, Toyota Motor Corp. and most other big foreign car companies say China may eventually serve as an export base, but for now their big challenge is meeting local demand.

So far, despite limited exports to Australia and Europe, most of the Chinese automakers' grand plans for selling to Western markets have not materialized.

Chery's earlier plans to sell vehicles in the U.S. with American entrepreneur Malcolm Bricklin fell through.

Nanjing Automobile Co. recently launched production of MG model sports car after buying bankrupt British automaker MG Rover in 2005, seeking a foothold in Europe. But its plans to build an auto plant in Ardmore, Okla., appear to have foundered amid a cash crunch.

''We won't necessarily be building it,'' company president Yu Jianwei said in a recent interview with National Public Radio.

And even in developing markets, it hasn't been all smooth sailing. Geely Group Ltd., China's largest privately owned automaker, saw its plans for auto assembly plants in Malaysia rebuffed last year.

China's domestic automakers are just not ready to meet safety and environmental standards in the U.S. and Europe, let alone to finance the service and sales networks they'd need to break into those already overcrowded markets, analysts say.

''It's still too early to seriously consider China as a competitive rival to Japan and the U.S. in the auto sector,'' says Zhang Xin, an industry analyst at Guotai Jun'an Securities' Beijing office. ''They lack the capability to reach those ambitions,'' he said.

Chinese domestic automakers still lack the scale and efficiency needed to gain a real competitive edge, says John Bonnell, an analyst with automotive research firm J.D. Power and Associates. He does believe that some have the government backing and resources to eventually succeed, such as GM- and VW-partner Shanghai Automotive Industry Corp., or SAIC, maker of the Rover-inspired Roewe.

''There are lots of ambitions across the board,'' he says. ''But one-by-one you have to look and say, 'Where's the competitive advantage?'''

One example of their relative readiness was evident at the Detroit show, where the electronics in many of the made-in-China cars on display consisted of pictures of DVD players, navigation systems and stereos — taped to the dashboards.
 

FugitiveVisions

Junior Member
Chinese turbofan engine programs were repeatedly extinguished by US suppliers and then Russian suppliers.



In fact, this is protectionism in the broadest sense. And your argument simply proves that protectionism can lead to better results than opening markets to foreign players without much restraint.

It's just a question of how much protectionism. For example, a company like Toyota needs to find a Chinese automaker to make their cars. But in the end, the brand and design of the car is all Toyota. Is this enough protectionism? Or should the government do other things to help purely Chinese designed and branded car makers get a foot hold in the market?

Now you just messing with semantics and misrepresenting facts. Like Crobato and I asked repeatedly, what Chinese turbofan program?

Your broad interpretation of protectionism is a non sequitor to this discussion, because the debate is over the viability of a much narrower interpretation, that restrictions on the introduction of foreign companies and goods into the domestic economy promotes domestic industries. So in fact, you have admitted to the fallacy of this argument by acknowledging that foreign participation in the domestic economy with certain restrictions is better than no participation at all. Debate over.
 
Top