Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses Government Transportation Technology

Chinese Intellectual Property Acquisition Tactics Exposed 398

Posted by Soulskill
from the farm-enough-gold-and-anything-is-yours dept.
hackingbear writes "In an interview published in Sina.com.cn, Chinese rail engineers gave a detailed account of the history, motivation, and technologies behind the Chinese high-speed rail system. More interestingly, they blatantly revealed the strategies and tactics used in acquiring high-speed rail tech from foreign companies (Google translation of Chinese original). At the beginning, China developed its own high-speed rail system known as the Chinese Star, which achieved a test speed of 320km/h; but the system was not considered reliable or stable enough for operation. So China decided to import the technologies. The leaders instructed, 'The goal of the project is to boost our economy, not theirs.' A key strategy employed is divide-and-conquer: by dividing up the technologies of the system and importing multiple different technologies across different companies, it ensures no single country or company has total control. 'What we do is to exchange market for technologies. The negotiation was led by the Ministry of Railway [against industry alliances of the exporting countries]. This uniform executive power gave China huge advantage in negotiations,' said Wu Junrong, 'If we don't give in, they have no choice. They all want a piece of our huge high speed rail project.' For example, [Chinese locomotive train] CRH2 is based on Japanese tech, CRH3 on German tech, and CRH5 on French tech, all retrofit for Chinese rail standards. Another strategy is buy-to-build. The first three trains were imported as a whole; the second three were assembled with imported parts; subsequent trains contain more and more Chinese made parts."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Chinese Intellectual Property Acquisition Tactics Exposed

Comments Filter:
  • by misophist (465263) on Saturday January 01, 2011 @08:05PM (#34733658)

    This sounds to me more like savvy business wheeling and dealing. It's no different than what the Indians, Japanese or Koreans would do.

    • But what about the old fashioned way of exploiting the spoils of war? Between that and open immigration, we built atomic weapons and landed on the moon.

      Its a bit unseemly to just purchase stuff and figure out how it works....

      • Re:I suppose (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 01, 2011 @08:28PM (#34733810)

        Think of it like european scholars rediscovering ancient works from the muslims and eventually doing their own major works again.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      And for anyone this is 'news' to, they are retards. The rest of us knew years ago.
    • by hey! (33014) on Saturday January 01, 2011 @08:51PM (#34733948) Homepage Journal

      Step back for a second and look at what's happening.

      On one hand, the companies giving up their seed corn aren't being forced to literally at gun point. They're deciding that at this moment, they're better living another day and starving tomorrow. So in a sense it's a win-win scenario.

      On the other hand, the enterprise benefiting from this exploits government backing to take a longer term view of the transaction than the companies developing the technology can afford. So in a different it's not a win/win scenario; it's a win/minimize-your-losses proposition.

      So China wins here not by being more ingenious or creating new knowledge or technology, but by exploiting its ability to control the rules of the game. If you twist your vision enough, I suppose that what it is doing in this case might look like innovation.

      China is a nation with tremendous human resources and ingenuity, but it *also* exploits the fact that it is the only major economic power on earth still pursuing a kind of mercantilist trade policy.

      • by bmo (77928)

        "but by exploiting its ability to control the rules of the game"

        Nah, they're not controlling the rules. They're playing by the same old rules. Capitalists *will* sell Communists (this time in name only) the rope to hang themselves with.

        What important is this quarter. Fuck the future.

        --
        BMO

    • Click here to bribe our politicians, write our laws, and download our jobs.

    • by icebike (68054) on Saturday January 01, 2011 @09:17PM (#34734116)

      The key part not explained is whether the tech sellers asked for and obtained a licensing fee.

      Just because China wanted to build in-country, doesn't mean anyone was ripped off.

      • by Hadlock (143607) on Saturday January 01, 2011 @11:17PM (#34734706) Homepage Journal

        Google "china wind turbine", then come back and see if you want to revise your statement

      • by AGMW (594303)

        Just because China wanted to build in-country, doesn't mean anyone was ripped off.

        Assuming the deals cut were signed by both parties I fail to see how anyone was ripped off. If the sellers didn't like the T&C's then they were perfectly at liberty to let some other company sell them the wares.

        This is surely just China flexing it's muscle as not just a huge market but, certainly at the moment, the huge market! All companies want a slice of the action because China is where the action is! A friend works for a large multinational company who ended up with a Chinese subsidiary due to a

      • Typically how it goes is:

        1.) China promises a foreign company lots of freedom of business, hundreds of billions in future contracts down the road

        2.) China strong-arms the foreign company into a joint-venture 51% owned by a Chinese company (note, this is different from a Chinese subsidiary of the foreign company. The Chinese company is an independent rival to the foreign company). The foreign company must surrender all IP rights to the Chinese company that are developed as part of the 51% 49% relationship.

        3.

    • Industrial Policy (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Doc Ruby (173196) on Saturday January 01, 2011 @09:35PM (#34734194) Homepage Journal

      It is more than just savvy business wheeling and dealing, since it's the Chinese government wheeling and dealing. Which means it's a monopoly: only the government agency can negotiate for that business inside China. And only the specific Chinese corps the government picks can get the business. Those picked corps are picked not necessarily for the best interests of China, but rather for whatever is in the best interest of the government officials with the power to pick them. Which might or might not be the best interests of China. That's Communism.

      But it's also industrial policy, which is indeed savvy business wheeling and dealing. The US doesn't have anything like that, except for the corruption part where some industries have orgs that lobby our government to do business with foreign governments that require their government to mediate such international trade, or where the US government does occasionally require our government to play that role in foreign trade, where the orgs use some method other than competitive bids/RFPs to pick which members get the business. The US could have an industrial policy as effective in strategy as China's extreme one, but without requiring the government to actually conduct the negotiations. Just review the completed deals to ensure they comply with the policy, perhaps just random samples plus any over a large value threshold (which would pay in taxes enough to fund the review).

      Instead, the US abandons industrial policy, and therefore industrial strategy. And watches China ascend at our expense. Though the top US capitalists have already invested in China's industries, so China's gain is their gain, while they've divested from US liabilities, so our expense is not theirs.

    • by mochan_s (536939) on Saturday January 01, 2011 @09:40PM (#34734226)

      This sounds to me more like savvy business wheeling and dealing. It's no different than what the Indians, Japanese or Koreans would do.

      Yeah, this is surprising because everyone expects the Chinese to be the sick man of Asia and a third world run by a regime. They actually did good business. They didn't let one supplier control their train systems while at the same time they built up an indigenous train industry realizing it is vital to their country.

      What is surprising that those companies were not able to bribe the select chiefs and get an unfair position, or that some dictator didn't just buy the whole train system and charge it to some world bank loan but though of the future - far far into the future of developing a domestic industry.

      And, I wish we had trains for long distance travel in the US. Traveling by car at 70mph for hours and hours is tiring and there is always the prospect of a problem with a car and being stuck somewhere. Airplane travel is marred by the security checks and delays and long wait times.

      I guess this would be a stern counter-example to the service industry philosophy. China isn't content on being the factory workhorse while the US controls the technology. China would like to catch up on technical know-how as well and build their own industry.

    • by grcumb (781340)

      This sounds to me more like savvy business wheeling and dealing. It's no different than what the Indians, Japanese or Koreans would do.

      It sounds like savvy business practice, and to some degree it is, but it is not at all the same as what the Indians, Japanese or Koreans do.

      The Chinese Government has a great deal more control over their economy than other countries. Well, more to the point, they're willing to exert far greater control over their economy than most other nations are.

      This is nothing new. Some of us have been trying to sound the warning about the myth of the China Market [imagicity.com] for years.

  • This is news? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by amightywind (691887) on Saturday January 01, 2011 @08:07PM (#34733668) Journal
    The story is not that the Chinese are devious, acquisitive SOB's. It's that the west continues to be stupid enough to enable them. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704679204575646472655698844.html [wsj.com] Frist post!
  • Fail (Score:3, Insightful)

    by benjamindees (441808) on Saturday January 01, 2011 @08:08PM (#34733678) Homepage

    This is Econ 101 shit and it's embarrassing that Western countries are selling out their high tech companies for a bunch of government debt, poisoned food and defective consumer crap.

    • Re:Fail (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gilbert644 (1515625) on Saturday January 01, 2011 @08:13PM (#34733722)
      Well this is the difference between a state that has long term goals of improving it countries vs. corporations that can't see beyond the next quarterly report. Maybe it is true what they say, a capitalist will sell you the rope that you will use to hang him.
      • Re:Fail (Score:5, Informative)

        by Mana Mana (16072) on Sunday January 02, 2011 @12:16AM (#34734878) Homepage

        > this is the difference between a state that has long term goals of improving it countr[y] vs.
        > corporations that can't see beyond the next quarterly report.

        ***China is an elephant that can fly!***

        This planet has never seen such an _economic_ rise, not post WWII Europe, not even 20th century USA with its post-war advantage of a devastated first world manufacturing base whilst its own plant was ascendant.

        The USA's economic orthodoxy is that attenuated (save Tea Party, Rep. Ron Paul, right wing Republicans) laissez faire, minimal market regulation, minimal market interference, no industrial policy will lead to maximum national economic gains. Since Deng Xiaoping's 1972 market/China opening China has amalgamated Japan's MITI approach (industrial policy) with the West's form of capitalism. In essence they are _demonstrating_ that there is more than one form of capitalism. And their form kicks ass, to the chagrin of western economists and politicos. These Chinese market tactics are if not identical wholly descendant from 1980's Japan Golden Age[1].

        BTW, contrary to your quote above, Japan is an economy legendary for putting the long term above ALL ELSE. Yet since 1990 Japan has been in an economic depression that shattered the once indomitable, invulnerable, invincible myth that once was a nation of "Samurai businessmen." I frankly am very surprised at how low Japan's business savvy has sunk. Once upon a time called the 1980s, Japan would do the same sort of thing as in the OP, it would diversify its supply of commodities (1.) to eliminate supplier supremacy and (2.) to achieve lower prices and (3.) gain influence. So, if it needed iron ore, copper ore, petroleum, aluminium, whatever it would set rival nation suppliers against one another---say, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Chile, the USA! whomever---for fractional supply quantities. Thusly, low economies of scale would lead to higher cost for Japan, initially, but no one supplier had a stranglehold on Japan. Two, Eventually suppliers would plead for bigger market shares with lower prices for the booming Japanese economy. Three, nations would enact laws beneficial to Japan, nations' indigenous corporations would lobby their governments for infrastructure projects in an effort to ingratiate themselves for future Japanese business or to supply the commodities needed for said infrastructure projects, etc. But now I see that Japan, like the rest of teh globe is a decade away from weaning themselves away from and is presently on bended knee kowtowing to China for rare earth exports. THAT! gentlemen would never have happened to the 1980s Japan. The master is getting tutored!

        So I remind you that ***China is an elephant that can fly!***

        The planet has never seen a nation rise from so low ECONOMICALLY to so high. Mind you the Middle Kingdom (China) is a nation of deep cultural depth. Reaching back millenia! They are not they were not ignorant not last century, not two three centuries ago either. Think of the Communist Party as the last in a succession of Emperors. China has had them all along its history, some have lasted centuries, some have lasted fifty to ninety years, some have not even been Chinese but barbarian. The communist nation is only sixty-two years old. Their modern ascendancy is thirty-nine years old. Will it last? Will it keep flying? Will the Chinese subsume their liberty to the Party for another sixty-two or thirty-nine years? Even Japan looked unstoppable. Once. It makes an omelet out of our American, western, libertarian, Tea Party, Austrian Economic school orthodoxy.

        [1] "Dogs and Demons: tales for the dark side of Japan", Alex Kerr, 2001. A never seen analysis (by a long time nipponophile) in the western press on the cultural, economic, spiritual, ecological malaise of Japan.

  • 10,000m curve radius (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Animats (122034) on Saturday January 01, 2011 @08:11PM (#34733698) Homepage

    One of the points mentioned is the desire to design for a 10,000 meter curve radius! Now that takes aggressive land acquisition.

  • by kervin (64171) on Saturday January 01, 2011 @08:16PM (#34733738) Homepage

    Seriously guys?

    The only source of the article is a Mandarin to English machine translation?

    I'm sure nothing will get lost in that translation...

    • by Cylix (55374) *

      There are other articles elsewhere regarding this methodology.

      The goal is fairly straightforward, trade IP for allowing the foreign company to dip into the local market. As they noted, the initial purchase is a flat purchase with some rights and eventually it progresses into full blown production. I was under the impression they were now deploying modified variants as their own brand and attempting to sale abroad. However, companies such as Kawasaki only agreed to such practices as long as their traded IP w

  • the greatest enemy capitalism has ever known throughout the history of economics is not communism or socialism, but corporatism. a corporation is a top down autocratic organization that seeks nothing but more profit, be damned any other concerns, like fairness or egaltarianism. when they get large enough, corporations dominate their marketplace by dirty tricks like undercutting competitors prices to destroy them, and rent seeking agreements once they own the whole marketplace by colluding with other large p

    • by JonBuck (112195)

      Okay. Can you clarify something for me? How do you distinguish corporatism from capitalism? You imply that there is one, but you don't expand on that. Please do.

      • by circletimessquare (444983) <circletimessquare&gmail,com> on Saturday January 01, 2011 @09:18PM (#34734120) Homepage Journal

        capitalism is the competition between equals in the marketplace. corporatism is the abuse of and domination of the marketplace by its largest players

        to maintain a truly capitalistic marketplace, you need government regulation to level the playing field between the large and the small (despite what some deluded naive fools will tell you otherwise). the unfortunate reality is that currently in the west corporations simply corrupt the government's regulatory laws and enforcement apparatus to entrench their position, rather than oppose their position, as the government naturally should

        i'm not saying getting corporate corruption out of our government is easy, but i am saying that it is the only way we can move forward. because unfortunately, the chinese government will simply use our own corporate corruption against us, in the form of multinational corporations interfering with our internal politics with their money. if we don't fight corporate influence of our democracy, we are facing the ultimate victory of autocracy and corporatism over capitalism and democracy in the form of the rise of china, which will use our own unfortunate collusion with corporations against us eventually, as beijing becomes the eventual master of multinationals

        • by Doc Ruby (173196) on Saturday January 01, 2011 @10:32PM (#34734540) Homepage Journal

          You're distinguishing between "capitalism we want" and "capitalism we don't want" (corporatism). Corporatism is capitalism, it's just a kind of capitalism: an extreme one. Just as Chinese Communism is a kind of socialism, that has some extremes of capitalism along with some extremes of capitalism. But capitalism is simply the assignment of the highest value to capital (property), typically at the expense of devaluing either or both of labor and whatever's left that's not property (eg. the environment, ethics, capital in the public domain). Corporatism is indeed an extreme development of capitalism, though it's not very different from protocapitalist systems like feudalism.

      • by iserlohn (49556)

        It's the same distinction between fascism and capitalism.

        In capitalism, the market players are small and numerous, and have little to no effect on the political or regulatory environment as a single polity.

        In fascism, there are few large players that control the markets, and controls in-effect the political and regulatory environment.

        That's how it works, from a economic point of view.

      • by Steauengeglase (512315) on Saturday January 01, 2011 @10:45PM (#34734602)

        I've been debating this with myself for a long time and I've come to the following (admittedly infantile) conclusion:

        Capitalism - Getting capital by providing a good or service.
        Corporatism - Getting capital without ever providing anything.

        • Just to give an example, I can remember a large corporation, I won't say the name because that will drag in a whole lot of baggage, who complained about a tax on a service they provided. The tax passed and the company complained that big government had wronged them and the consumer. A couple months later I saw the tax on my monthly invoice along with 5 other charges for "processing" this tax.

          After a little digging into who had lobbied for it, lo-and-behold, it was the company who had spent the most money tr

        • by drsquare (530038)

          In capitalism by definition you don't need to provide anything, you just own the means of production and make money from other people providing the goods and services.

    • by hackingbear (988354) on Saturday January 01, 2011 @09:21PM (#34734142)
      It is incorrect to call China an "autocracy" as it is no longer ruled by one person. No politician there nowaday has the clout of Mao or Deng. It may be a totalitarian instead. Also if you actually go see in China, the workers do not have as much "rights" because there are so many people competing for works, especially blue collar labors. They have millions of new graduates every year entering workforce, for example. It is actually more of a market phenomena than government slavery. Generally the business market there are a lot more competitive than the US in many areas, while lacking in others.

      Also one reason that large corporations dominate more and more is because the barrier in many fields are very high. For example, nobody can start a petro or pharmaceutical companies easily without billion dollars of investments to meet all the safety and quality requirements. There are actually large number of small businesses in China now, resulting in intense competition and quality problem. People, with consumerist minds, don't understand that high safety, environmental and quality standard tend to cause consolidation of suppliers and resulting corporations will have more control over the market. They will complain one way or the other.

      • surely you can agree that the oligarchy (you are correct, better terminology needed) of the grumpy old men in beijing is a natural fit for corporations. and that the natural trajectory of our economic future is the eventual consolidation of multinationals under their control. the chinese are rapidly coming to own them. that is the threat i am worried about. does it bother you? or do you think this isn't the future?

    • by edfardos (863920)
      Well said!! End free trade with non-free countries.... or try communism, it's great! Please choose while you still can.

      --edfardos

      • that really is how you do it. you expect standards for the companies and countries who wish to do business with in your country, or you don't trade with them. that's really how to do it. unfortunately, the free flow of money in our politics means the opposite will happen: our standards will be destroyed under the corruptive power of corporate money, soon to be under the control of beijing

        it will be very hard to fight the corrupting influence of money in our politics (thanks roberts court, you fucking antiam

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by atticus9 (1801640)
      Consumers have a ton of power as well, they could have chosen at any point simply not to buy cheap imported goods and it would've ended right then and there. It's only because hundreds of millions of people are buying those goods every week that the engine keeps going.

      Likewise China's rise is largely due to a billion people working as hard as they can to make the country (and their own lives) the best it can be. If Americans (speaking in generalities) had the same resolve/objective world politics would
      • "Consumers have a ton of power as well, they could have chosen at any point simply not to buy cheap imported goods and it would've ended right then and there"

        LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

        you're a funny person

      • by SageMusings (463344) on Saturday January 01, 2011 @10:50PM (#34734622) Journal

        That's a fallacy.

        Walk through a grocery store or mall. Where are the non-Chinese goods? You can't find them no matter the price. And while I don't shop Walmart, it's common knowledge they strong-arm their suppliers into outsourcing in their fervor to shave a nickel off their costs. Electronics, textile, heavy machinery, even pharma is nearly entirely off-shore. We've only services, aircraft manufacture, and agriculture left.

        As a consumer (we stopped being citizens long ago), show me where my power is? The only American thing left to purchase anymore is politicians and I don't have that kind of money.

    • by iserlohn (49556)

      There is a movement dedicated to forwarding what you identify as corporatism.

      - Fascism -

      When corporations take over the government of a nation-state, what we get is a fascist state.

      • by circletimessquare (444983) <circletimessquare&gmail,com> on Saturday January 01, 2011 @09:43PM (#34734250) Homepage Journal

        you have to use your terms more precisely. fascism is a nice scare word, but what you describe as an accepted ideology died in failure in world war ii. you need to update your terminology. i am not interested in debate about how and why fascism is corporatism, i am interested in defeating corporatism. as such, fascism, is just a bugaboo, a scary word, and not a useful intellectually valid concept

        what we are really fighting is corporatism, and corporatism alone, corrupting our democracy. the oligarchy in beijing, which will eventually come to own all multinational corporations as their economic power becomes the greatest in the world, will wield their influence through corporations to subvert our democracy

        that's the danger

        fascism, communism: these are dead terms from the previous century. i will not use those terms because i wish to be taken seriously, and no one serious thinks of the idea of fascism or communism as valid ideologies anymore. one died in 1945, one died in 1990. the year is 2011. update your terminology please. i'm interested in intellectually useful terms, not scary boogeyman words from the dustbin of history

    • by dbIII (701233) on Saturday January 01, 2011 @10:02PM (#34734368)

      the chinese will just buy our democracy outright

      That couldn't happen, it's bribery by a foreign power! It would be just like President Ford getting a large donation for the Republican Party in person in Jakarta on the day Indonesia invaded East Timor, and the USA reversing their policy on East Timor on that day, even calling them (the same party that runs East Timor today) Communists! Oh wait. When the papers were released in 2005 we found out that was EXACTLY what happened.
      Time to start learning Mandarin.

  • by YesIAmAScript (886271) on Saturday January 01, 2011 @08:25PM (#34733792)

    China bought a number, with an agreement for Airbus to then build a number in China and not long after that the Chinese companies will have what they need from their relationship with Airbus and will then instead just build their own planes without Airbus making a cent.

    Its unclear why Airbus made this deal with China. Could it be just shortsightedness?

    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 01, 2011 @08:38PM (#34733862)
      I worked for a high tech company where the Chinese just seized the imported equipment outright and stopped payments. No doubt everything was duplicated and what software wasn't already transferred was reverse engineered. Posting anon...
    • by gman003 (1693318) on Saturday January 01, 2011 @08:49PM (#34733920)
      Because if Airbus didn't make the deal, Boeing would, and then Airbus wouldn't have the consolation of "sold a bunch of planes to China before they figured out how to do it themselves".
    • by Dutchmaan (442553)
      Yes, that's the problem. Shortsighted goals have fueled our financial woes. China will succeed for the time being because their goal isn't to make a fast buck, It's to strengthen their global position. China will become dominant because of our shortsighted greed. Not to worry though, because even China isn't immune to the corruption of 'values' that comes with success. China will have It's moment in the sun then fall to the same corruption that has destroyed empires for ages past. It all goes in cycles folk
      • by rabtech (223758) on Saturday January 01, 2011 @10:27PM (#34734514) Homepage

        Well everyone in the 1980s thought Japan would rule the world and own everything but internal problems proved that there were limits to their power... just as any nation has limits. We in the US often forget our own limitations because we're used to having our own way.

        China has severe internal issues; a massive property bubble that makes the US housing crisis seem tame by comparison; local governments are addicted to land sales to fund their massive infrastructure projects, loaded down with loans from the state banks. Unless you truly believe that empty apartment blocks or even empty cities are a good investment and property prices will always go up that game has to end at some point and when it does China won't be able to hide the pain. Plus massive corruption and cheating (how can you make decisions at the top when all your stats are based on outright falsified data?). Official government statistics say that about 40% of the academic papers published from Chinese Universities contain falsified research and that's just what they will admit.

        Did I also mention the leadership/succession problem? How many times in world history has some political succession BS thrown a wrench into a country's previously bright future?

        I'll put it another way: if China gets too annoying and the EU+US slap a 50% tariff on Chinese imports who do you think will blink first? The consumers who have to pay $5.99 for that plastic toy instead of $2.99? Or the communist authorities in China facing millions of unemployed laborers with no job prospects, nowhere to go, and nothing to do? The political situation in China is far less straightforward and stable than people suppose.

        • Unless you truly believe that empty apartment blocks or even empty cities are a good investment and property prices will always go up that game has to end at some point and when it does China won't be able to hide the pain.

          Here are a bunch of satellite photos of these "ghost cities" [businessinsider.com] - I can't say if the commentary is accurate or misleading, but at the very least there are practically no cars visible on any of the streets which suggests that most of it is true.

    • by Dachannien (617929) on Saturday January 01, 2011 @10:27PM (#34734518)

      Russia recently got dinged on the same issue with regard to the Su-27, which they allowed the Chinese to manufacture under license but that the Chinese then copied, and now they're refusing to manufacture [washingtonpost.com] the Su-35 in China as a result.

  • "Another strategy is buy-to-build. The first three trains were imported as a whole; the second three were assembled with imported parts; subsequent trains contain more and more Chinese made parts."

    In other words, the first were imported. The next were partially imported. The last are clones, without paying patent royalties. Nice.

  • by RightwingNutjob (1302813) on Saturday January 01, 2011 @09:57PM (#34734342)
    Not that I'm begrudging anyone success or prosperity, but it seems that the way the Chinese are operating in this respect screws everyone over in the long run. The buy-and-clone mentality can put Western manufacturers out of business, and since all the Chinese companies did was reverse-engineer, they don't really build up internal expertise of the level they just quashed. And just like Embrace,Extend,Extinguish, in the long run innovation doesn't happen as fast as it might have.
  • by MarkvW (1037596) on Sunday January 02, 2011 @12:48AM (#34735012)

    The colonialists ate Chinese lunch. The current regime isn't serving.

    Guess there's not going to be a sequel to the Opium Wars.

  • by FoolishOwl (1698506) on Sunday January 02, 2011 @12:50AM (#34735024) Journal

    It's interesting that the people who criticize centralized economic planning always point to the failures of that model in Eastern Europe, ignoring its early successes, or the more obvious recent successes in China. It goes to show that there's more than one way to organize a political economy, and that the Chinese model has some strategic advantages.

    As far as this strategy goes, the thing I find to dislike about it is that it's emphatically nationalist: the goal is to benefit China, at the expense of competing economic powers. But, the criticisms I read here are also at least implicitly nationalist.

  • by DNS-and-BIND (461968) on Sunday January 02, 2011 @05:05AM (#34735904) Homepage
    I've been on the Chinese CRH2 train many times. The first time I saw one sitting in the station, my immediate reaction was "It's a Japanese shinkansen!" You know your gut feeling that you don't rationally control? Yeah, that. A total copy.

    But try telling the Chinese that: they simply won't accept it. The CRH2 is Chinese innovation through and through, it was built from blueprints up by Us Good Chinese People. Same as the Shanghai maglev. Tell any resident of Shanghai that the maglev was built by Germans and they'll turn their brains off.

  • by unity100 (970058) on Sunday January 02, 2011 @05:16AM (#34735936) Homepage Journal

    What we do is to exchange market for technologies

    true and true. its a basic trade. they gave technology, chinese gave them the money. (as market).

"Floggings will continue until morale improves." -- anonymous flyer being distributed at Exxon USA

Working...