| 作者 |
 [转帖]The Bush Administration and China: Five Reasons Why The |
 |
| 所跟贴 |
[转帖]The Bush Administration and China: Five Reasons Why The -- healthaegis - (4067 Byte) 2006-4-03 周一, 12:02 (1097 reads) |
healthaegis
[博客]
头衔: 海归准将
声望: 学员
性别: 
加入时间: 2006/03/21
文章: 250
海归分: 125207
|
|
|
作者：healthaegis 在 海归商务 发贴, 来自【海归网】 http://www.haiguinet.com
Response From: Mel Croner, Directeur Générale, The Croner Company (France)
Bravo on your excellent article on the Bush administration vis-à-vis China. Just another example of "W" talking a lot and doing nothing to change U.S. policies except to increase the U.S. debt and to continue a war that deteriorates by the day. This is a lot like the French government creating a government bureaucracy to pay black market labor in the domestic service area in the name of "creating" jobs.
I’ve sent you an article from «Le Figaro» on the "new" « le chèque emploi-service universel ». Even if you don’t read French well, you will get the gist.
Mel Croner, Directeur Générale, The Croner Company (France)
Response From: Lois Langley
All I can say is Hallelujah! It's about time someone take this administration to task for its naivete about China and Japan.
My father, who's a retired coal mine mechanic, saw this coming a mile away!!
Lois Langley
Response:
your article ignores the military consequences of the US trade with china. china is forthright in their dislike for the US and their intentions to build a military which will threaten Japan and the US. for us to continue enriching china to our own ultimate destruction is the height of folly. further we are not even saving anything by having goods manufactured in china as on a net basis the increase in oil prices is costing our economy as much as any savings from Chinese manufactured goods. a trade policy which ignores political intentions is not only dangerous it is foolish in the extreme. at the very least we need to limit our trading to countries which recognize human rights and give their people a voice in the government.
Response From: James Bologeorges, STI Group
As someone who spends the majority of my time focusing on the China/Southeast Asia corridor (since everything our company makes is made in China, Thailand and Vietnam), I couldn't agree more with your article and the "lip service" that we are paying to the China trade deficit. However, given the alternatives, this is about the most that we can expect. Our wages for unskilled labor in this country are not even close to alternatives on the Asian continent and our lack of a coherent energy policy, spiraling budget deficits, run-away real estate taxes and add to that the hidden "true" inflation rate simply make the US a manufacturing has-been.
In fact, if it were not for the huge trade deficit that is financing the apparently low inflation rate, this country would be in a bigger state of fiscal direness. It is apparent that all the legacy firms in the US are mired in unfunded pension and health care costs that mirror the way the federal and local governments operate. All progressive companies have done away with defined benefit pensions, retiree health, and no-cost medical. It is only the few remaining legacy companies (read GM, Ford, American Airlines, etc)and all levels of our government that are woefully living in another generation.
Imagine the outcry if we eliminated government pensions and opted everyone into a 401k (likely what you and I both have) and made everyone pay their co-pay for health care coverage. Imagine if Capitol Hill had to all go on Social Security instead of their "select" health plan and "outlandish" pensions. I sure would like to see someone try and pass a bill that puts all of the politicos on the same page as the rest of us.
Just a little ranting for Valentine's, have a great day.
Warmest regards,
James Bologeorges, STI Group
Response From: Nissan Joseph, Hickory Brands, Hickory, NC
Enjoyed your perspective on China. I think the current administrations reactions are symbolic of what caused us as a nation to be in this predicament:
- We as a nation seek and expect instant solutions to problems regardless of the size, inertia or momentum of the issue, whether it's Wall Street or our Middle East strategy. The China challenge is not one administrations doing and will not be fixed by one administration
- We are developing a nation of coddled students. We reward participation as opposed to winning. As a father of teenage children I am concerned that they have no idea about the fierce competitiveness of their Asian peers in almost every walk of life. It's great to talk about innovation being here in the US but major US CEO's have been known to be amazed by the innovation coming out of the likes of India and China
I believe it requires a strategy that is more forward thinking than the term of a President. Here again lies our folly as a nation, we expect this administration to fix this problem before their time finishes.
Nissan Joseph, Hickory Brands, Hickory, NC
Response From: Vincent Amanor-Boadu, PhD
In your article, The Bush Administration and China: Five Reasons Why The Emperor Has No Clothes, you are dead on the five reasons. I think we need to emphasize that unlike Japan in the early 1970s, the Chinese expansion and competitiveness is being financed almost entirely by Foreign Direct Investments, which makes good sense for investors. In every open trade system, there are winners and losers. The important thing is to make sure the accounting is being done right and the winners are winning enough to "technically" compensate the losers, if they choose to. Political solutions, economists call them second best solutions, are ineffective and may exacerbate the problem they intend to fix. For example, would domestic stock markets suffer because the assets of US companies invested in China suffer from irresponsible political intervention? How would that work for the baby-boomers who are getting ready to retire?
Bill, it is important to stress the importance of a system dynamics perspective on these problems and respond in a way that supports the long-term ability of our companies to sustain and grow their competitiveness.
Vincent Amanor-Boadu, PhD
Response From: Roy Serpa
What are your solutions to this issue?
Roy Serpa
Response From: Bill Holstein, Editor in Chief, Chief Executive Magazine
What a delightfully simple and important question! But what a complex answer:
First, we need to clear out some of the cobwebs of our minds. The missionary-inspired view that we have some values to teach to China and Japan still exists today, and of course it’s wrong. These are ancient, sophisticated societies that are driven by a desire to catch up with, and surpass, the West. Japan has largely achieved that; China is at least 15 years behind.
One subset of the missionary mindset is that China and Japan will accept “the market,” which is one of the bedrocks of Western economic thought. That is, again, wrong. They believe in wealth-creation and industrialization as elements of nation-building. Both governments manipulate their currencies and exercise much stronger centralized control over their economies and societies than we Americans do.
In short, they are asserting national economic power. We don’t understand it because it is happening on the basis of different values. And it’s not a temporary, passing phenomenon; it’s going to continue for many more years. If current trend lines continue, we will be, in effect, a vassal state.
Once we accept that we have a deep challenge, it requires action on a whole host of fronts; how we manage our national and personal finances; how we educate our youth; how we treat the issues of competitiveness and innovation; how government funding shapes our R&D and manufacturing base; how we promote exports from small and medium-sized manufacturers; and how we make ourselves vulnerable by depending so heavily on imported energy. It’s foolish, and wrong, to think that any president can simply “get tough” with Beijing or Tokyo and force them to relent. The days when an American president had such leverage probably ended when President Clinton backed down on imposing tariffs on Japanese luxury cars in 1995.
One tangible step the U.S. government should take would be to create a China/Japan Task Force consisting of a handful of key area experts (there are no China or Japan experts serving at senior levels in the Bush Administration) plus senior representatives from the White House, Commerce, Treasury, the U.S. Trade Representative’s Office and other economic policy players. A few key business executives should be included. Together they should forge a competitiveness strategy, something we as a nation simply don’t have. It goes back to the ideological notion that “the market” will somehow redress the imbalances with China and Japan. It won’t, and it can’t, because we are dealing with nations that won’t let “the market” work. They don’t believe in this quaint Western concept. They have sustained, systematic planning; we don’t because we don’t believe in it.
The ultimate goal would be to ride on the back of China’s dragon, not to stand in its way. This is what Japan and most nations of Asia have figured out; they export high value-added components to China, where they are assembled and exported to the United States, primarily. Most of these nations have trade surpluses with China. We should be doing a much better job of selling into China—the Americans have products and technologies that would help China start repairing its badly damaged environment and offering higher levels of health care. What are the barriers to that? One is that we don’t have enough people who speak Chinese. Another is that the U.S. government imposes a whole system of disincentives to discourage American exports, particularly export controls on technologies.
Is it too late? I don’t think so. We Americans still have an advantage in how we innovate. If we marshaled our brightest minds and were willing to adopt a national strategy for redressing the economic imbalances with China and Japan, we could do that over time. We would not necessarily have to eliminate our trade and fiscal deficits. Just getting them moving in the right direction would send an enormous signal that the Americans are serious long-term players, not just distant barbarians.
Bill Holstein
Response From: Richard Meyers, Webster University
Some interesting points, but any attempt to link China and Japan as having the same motives, policies, ways to look at things is just wrong. Japan is more different from the U. S. than China. To understand China is to look into the mirror and define U. S. individualism, entrepreneurialism, methods of communication and values. The Chinese are harsh, like us, impatient, willing to bully others and will not give in easily. Why else would the U. S. back off confronting them. The Japanese, on the other hand, give in more easily, are more concerned about how other think of them and will be bullied. Look at history, if you need examples. And if Japanese goods are more desired than our own in the U. S. let's look at how the Japanese through their cooperative group society decided to best the quality of our goods and then did so. Shame on us!! China is now in control of the bilateral relations between our country and theirs. Unless, we learn how to cooperate, it's over, they won. They have the staying power and the numbers to prevail. Looking at everything as a competition with the U. S. that we have to win is to ask for defeat. The world now calls for collaboration and partnerships. Let's get with it. As for Washington, they just don't get it.
Richard Meyers, Webster University
作者：healthaegis 在 海归商务 发贴, 来自【海归网】 http://www.haiguinet.com
|
|
|
| 返回顶端 |
|
 |
|
| |
|
|
|
您不能在本论坛发表新主题, 不能回复主题, 不能编辑自己的文章, 不能删除自己的文章, 不能发表投票, 您 不可以 发表活动帖子在本论坛, 不能添加附件不能下载文件, |
|
|
