While the US demand guarantees of final customer (of their chips) not to be in their sanction list, China may now have to demand the Israelis of no-American techs or licenses in their chips to China. Reminds me of the AWAC.
Trade War with China
- Thread starter Ultra
- Start date
- Status
Well, there is always the "China approach," which was showing great promises at the time. The China approach would be the more gradual approach, retaining the vast majority of the state-owned enterprises initially while allowing private enterprises to form and prosper. The key here is that you need to cultivate and grow the market and the market players - private business owners and business managers in all enterprises - first. It takes time because neither of which existed in Mao's China or former Soviet Union.
In contrast, the architects of the "shock therapy" believe that market can be created overnight, in a big bang, and former foot-soldiers and citizens of a command economy will learn instantly how to swim in the ocean of the capitalist market by instinct without being drowned. We all know what had happened afterwards, by now.
The Russians and their American advisors were both naive and ignorant bunch. The Russians, never a people with commercial acumen, had been operating under a centrally-planned command economy for over seventy years and had no clue of how markets work; the Americans, having lived in a very successfully capitalist society for centuries, had no idea what it is like for people or nation never exposed to modern market economy. When they joined hands, chaos and disaster occurred, not surprisingly, even though they may all have good intentions.
By the way, the US and the West also don't understand much about development economies, their corresponding development stages having long preceded them and the circumstances were quite different from today's world in any case. That's why China is most experienced in transition economy and development economy.
kwaigonegin
Colonel
I think to put it simply, the powers to be did not think the China approach would work in post USSR for the simple reason that the USSR is not China.
It's more like they did not understand the China approach entirely.
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
It does not say anything don't expect China to cave in on "made in china 2025 intitiative" They might lower tariff on selected item like car which is good. Since Chinese auto industry need to stand on its own and wean off from dependency on their partner. Beside most American and European car already has plant in china. It is sunset industry anyway in 20 years those conventional car will be gone.
Opening financial sector is alos good as it provide competition to the state bank who dominate everything to the detrimental of saver (low interest)
They have been talking about those 2 deregulation for years but never implemented due to opposition of the vested interest. so it is not concession as this Orlik guy said
Last edited:
hehe, we have to give Trump a ladder to climb down from his high horse, don't we?
A ladder is just some nice-sounding words which means nothing substantial. If people in Washington want it, so let them have it.I agree with the Car industry as China has reached a point similar like SK cars, that is having a strong position to survive but no way to surpass the fame and prestige of the German brands before the inevitable downfall of the conventional cars.
But I am still skeptical of the financial sector after seeing the damage in the EU and US during the crisis. However, I do see some of the faulty practice among the Chinese banks (too much linked to local government to support some inefficient projects) , so I agree that some professional foreign experiences are good to get in. My concern is that these foreign banks are not going to carry out social responsibilities directed by the state which the Chinese banks carries out (regardless their other short-comings). The opening should be tightly controlled and limited.
Jura The idiot
General
The damage in the financial crisis was a result of lax rules and oversight by regulators, China should ensure it's rules and monitoring mechanisms are ready before granting banking and trading licences. There's plenty of good practice nearer to home, the HKMA for instance.
There is a belief that China's banking system under serves it's SMEs, hence the large pools of "dark" unregulated lending, so money to be made! Whilst the US likes to think its got "expertise" and a liberalised FS environment will favour them, there are lots of "foreign" banks and institutions with deeper ties and understanding of China liberalising a sector may not necessarily do as much for the US as they like to believe.
Companies are commercial entities, the orthodox way of "carrying out social responsibilities" is for government to tax those entities and redistribute the proceeds, tinkering with domestic banks' balance sheets is an expedient short cut but just makes life difficult for the management of those institutions.
- Status