Trade War with China

Status
Not open for further replies.

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
The "R&D" that you talk about is only small part of a country success.

An economy level success depends on the capability of each business to improve, including the corner takeway shop.

Many R&D activity in Europe / USA happens in firms without R&D budget, or without considering it as R&D .

In China the SOEs over-representation means many cost, that is the normal " capitalist alley knife fight of companies" considered as research and development.

R&D spending is an INDICATOR of how much is spent on R&D. You can extrapolate the results for the rest of the economy.

You want to categorise spending as R&D as it has tax advantages in China and most other countries.

Yes, SOEs are less efficient in turning R&D spending into output when compared with private companies. So I think they should be gradually run down or gradually privatised.
But that doesn't mean they can't develop a good product.

Plus I suspect that in terms of overall R&D spending, private companies spend much more on than SOEs. However, I haven't been able to find any statistics on this, nor do I have the inclination to start looking through every company annual report to add up all the figures.
 

Anlsvrthng

Captain
Registered Member
R&D spending is an INDICATOR of how much is spent on R&D. You can extrapolate the results for the rest of the economy.

You want to categorise spending as R&D as it has tax advantages in China and most other countries.

Yes, SOEs are less efficient in turning R&D spending into output when compared with private companies. So I think they should be gradually run down or gradually privatised.
But that doesn't mean they can't develop a good product.

Plus I suspect that in terms of overall R&D spending, private companies spend much more on than SOEs. However, I haven't been able to find any statistics on this, nor do I have the inclination to start looking through every company annual report to add up all the figures.
R&D is a tax category ,not an indicator of the competitiveness of an economy / political/ legal system as a whole.
The European model is not built onto companies spending for research and development, but it built on political, legal and economical foundations to improve and advance the economy .
 

Equation

Lieutenant General
Trade war is making China great again at a much faster pace.:D

Maersk CEO Reveals ‘Ironic’ Twist in U.S. Trade War With China
By


Maersk CEO on Rising Freight Rates, Profit Forecast, Divestments


5-star Hotel Hygiene Horrors
Ross Says U.S. Is Still Planning to Raise Tariffs on Chinese Goods in January

Maersk CEO Soren Skou says profitability and freigh rates are rising.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The man running the world’s largest container-shipping company says he has access to data that shows Donald Trump has so far failed to wean the U.S. off Chinese imports.



Soren Skou, the chief executive of A.P. Moller-Maersk A/S, says Chinese exports to the U.S. actually grew 5-10 percent last quarter. Meanwhile, U.S. exports to China fell by 25-30 percent.



“It’s an ironic development,” Skou told reporters in Copenhagen on Wednesday. “But after Trump has turned up the volume, the U.S. has only increased their imports from China even more.”




There are two reasons behind the development, Skou said.



Firstly, the U.S. economy is doing well so consumers there have more money to spend on imports, he said. Secondly, a lot of the really big U.S. companies are hoarding Chinese imports to buy as much as possible before tariffs kick in, he said.

“When we talk to our customers, we hear from many of them that they want to bring in a lot of goods before the end of the year,” Skou said.

Maersk transports about a fifth of the world’s seaborne manufactured goods, so the company is in a unique position to gauge changes in global trade flows. Given Maersk’s reliance on free trade, Skou hasn’t shied away from criticizing Trump’s tariffs in the past.



Part of the problem is that Trump is fighting an “asymmetric” battle, because China has a lot more clout than the U.S. when it comes to telling corporations how to act, Skou said.

“Donald Trump can’t tell Nike, Walmart and The Home Depot that they can’t import from China,” he said. “So they will continue to import and will work on solutions and they may be hit a bit on their margins.”

“Meanwhile, the Chinese state-controlled companies don’t need many signals from Beijing to lower their imports from the U.S.,” Skou said.


The Maersk CEO also warned that China is having an easier time finding substitutes for U.S. products than the U.S. is in replacing Chinese imports.

“The large U.S. importers aren’t considering building new factories in the U.S.,” he said. “What they are considering is whether they can buy in Vietnam, Bangladesh or India.”

According to Skou, that should leave Trump with little choice but to strike a deal with China, which he says may come “within the next quarters.”

But even if there’s a trade deal between China and the U.S., Skou says Maersk will prepare for lower trans-pacific trade next year.

“There will be a price to pay for container lines in 2019,” he said. “What we plan for now, is that we have to take out a lot of capacity on trans-Pacific trade next year. There will be a high level of inventory build-up which needs to be brought down again and that will affect volumes.”

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
R&D is a tax category ,not an indicator of the competitiveness of an economy / political/ legal system as a whole.
The European model is not built onto companies spending for research and development, but it built on political, legal and economical foundations to improve and advance the economy .

That is not correct.

R&D spending is more than just a tax category. High R&D spending indicates that overall, there is a favourable business/political/legal environment for long-term research activities and short term development of new products.

Otherwise you end up with places like Brazil or Russia, which have low levels of R&D spending (approx 1% of GDP) and which face economic stagnation.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Plus untold billions of dollars of goods exported from China to other countries by these US companies.

And your point is?

China being the favoured location to supply much of the world's products indicates that China can compete on product quality.
 

Quickie

Colonel
And your point is?

China being the favoured location to supply much of the world's products indicates that China can compete on product quality.

Huh? That's so obvious. Point is the U.S. companies makes tons of profits not only from their operations in China, but by manufacturing and exporting their products from China itself.
 

Anlsvrthng

Captain
Registered Member
That is not correct.

R&D spending is more than just a tax category. High R&D spending indicates that overall, there is a favourable business/political/legal environment for long-term research activities and short term development of new products.

Otherwise you end up with places like Brazil or Russia, which have low levels of R&D spending (approx 1% of GDP) and which face economic stagnation.
You try to found cause and effect connection without having robust data set and plausible theory .

The CCCP had very high R&D expenditure, so what can it prove?
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
You try to found cause and effect connection without having robust data set and plausible theory .

The CCCP had very high R&D expenditure, so what can it prove?

There are robust datasets and studies/analyses. Examples that come to mind are from McKinsey, Battelle, Nature articles and the US national science foundation. There are lots of issues, but the conclusion is that China has a competitive environment for R&D.

Just look at a comparison of R&D spending versus GDP or GDP per capita.

China is still only a middle income country. Yet R&D spending is 2.1% of GDP, which is exceptionally high. It is twice as high as any other developing or middle income country.

In fact, 2.1% places China firmly within wealthy developed world territory.

The USSR didn't have a market economy to allocate resources efficiently or provide the commercial drive for new products. In comparison, China is the world's largest market for most categories of goods, and which also has the most competition.
 
Last edited:

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Huh? That's so obvious. Point is the U.S. companies makes tons of profits not only from their operations in China, but by manufacturing and exporting their products from China itself.

I just pointed out that US companies account for less than 10% of sales in China.

And what is wrong with having US companies produce in China for export abroad? They have to produce somewhere, and it's better if China can benefit from those jobs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top