GE Venture Will Share Jet Technology With China 266
A user writes "This week, during the visit of Chinese president Hu Jintao to the United States, GE plans to sign a joint-venture agreement in commercial aviation that shows the tricky risk-and-reward calculations American corporations must increasingly make in their pursuit of lucrative markets in China. GE, in partnership with a state-owned Chinese company, will be sharing its most sophisticated airplane electronics (NYT reg. required, reg.-free alternative here), including some of the same technology used in Boeing's new state-of-the-art 787 Dreamliner."
Repeating history (Score:5, Insightful)
Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it... see: software piracy, high speed trains, stealth fighters, aircraft carriers. Up next: commercial aircraft!
Re: (Score:3)
The problem that I see for China is that without having to do the R&D, they get the current tech, understand it, maybe make some improvements to that tech. However, I'm not sure if China has the capability to keep up w
Re: (Score:2)
While I would agree with your assessment in the short term, China is pushing out huge numbers of engineers, PhDs and otherwise. Granted there is some question as to how competent these graduates are compared to Western counterparts, but as with anything they do, they are incrementally improving.
Pretty soon, they will have enough of a research and development base home grown that I don't think developing cutting edge technology would be that much of a problem.
Re:Repeating history (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem that I see for China is that without having to do the R&D, they get the current tech, understand it, maybe make some improvements to that tech. However, I'm not sure if China has the capability to keep up with other global companies, companies that are investing for future technologies. If China doesn't steal those plans, they'll start to fall behind again, which creates a nice purchasing loop for those global companies.
You're assuming US companies will still have any revenue with which to fund R&D. We're not talking about microprocessors here -- the technology doesn't change that fast. The 747 is from 1969. That's the year we first landed on the moon. If China starts selling five year old technology for half price, five years worth of aircraft "innovation" isn't going to make up for the price difference.
Re: (Score:3)
We're not talking about microprocessors here -- the technology doesn't change that fast. The 747 is from 1969. That's the year we first landed on the moon.
Ummm.... RTFS again.
"Boeing's new state-of-the-art 787 Dreamliner"
G.E.'s new joint venture in Shanghai will focus on avionics -- the electronics for communications, navigation, cockpit displays and controls. G.E. will be contributing its leading-edge avionics technology -- a high-performance core computer system that operates as the avionics brain of Boeing's new 787 Dreamliner.
P.S. The 747 has had numerous refreshes of its cockpit avionics over the last 41 years.
2010: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Delta-Air-Lines/Boeing-747-451/1843286/L/ [airliners.net]
Re:Repeating history (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
They can't just copy an existing design and manufacture it for half the price. Apart from the difficulty of selling such a product to other countries due to international laws on patents etc. you can't just build an aircraft and fly it. It has to be extensively tested and certified as safe. You have to develop complex documentation and procedures. There is on-going maintenance and you usually buy your engines from someone else which could present problems.
Besides that the actual manufacturing costs are prob
Re: (Score:2)
Except China is doing R&D, and the agreement isn't short-term:
Re: (Score:2)
Contributing to building a research facility is not the same as doing R&D. The R&D he was talking about was already done - over decades of jet engine research. What they are in effect doing is buying that expertise for a measly $700 million.
Re:Repeating history (Score:5, Insightful)
Those Chinese companies may be able to make and improve these commercial airliners, making them cheaper than anyone else, but they won't have the drop on the next new thing, which most global companies are looking for and are investing in.
Next new thing? What's that going to be? Hypersonic aircraft or teleporters or something? Be realistic: there IS no next new thing, not for 50-100 years at least. Commercial jet airliners have been with us since the 50s now, and haven't changed significantly in that time. The only things that have changed are 1) engines are a little more efficient and quieter, but not by orders of magnitude, 2) planes are flown slower now to save fuel and keep prices low, 3) seats are packed together so that only toddlers are comfortable in them, and 4) "air rage" is now common whereas it never happened back then.
There's been some other minor improvements of course: much better avionics (which isn't something that GE does to my knowledge), electronic engine controls (which GE does do), etc.
But the idea that Americans or other Westerners are going to come up with huge new advances to always stay ahead of the Chinese is simply ridiculous. For instance, look at the article subject: this is about GE, which doesn't make planes, but jet engines and associated controls. Jet engines haven't changed much in 50 years, just small steady improvements. Most of the advances in jet turbines were in their early days, not any time recently; they're a mature technology, and current advances are only eking out fractions of a percent in improvement, much like automobile engines.
GE is basically giving away their secrets here, and pretty soon there won't be a reason to buy a GE jet engine, because you'll be able to get one just like it made in China for less.
What's worse, China's society heavily values science and engineers. America's does not. Very few people go into engineering any more, except for software engineering. When was the last time you met an aerospace engineer? Way back in the early 90s when I was in college, we joked that AEs would never find a job, because it was a pretty dead industry. Very few engineering majors went into the AE school. ME (which a lot of jet engine engineers probably have) is a little better, but still not great. Go into any major engineering school, and look at the students: most of them are Chinese and Indian, and these days, they go back to their home country when they finish their degree.
America's days as a technology power (except maybe for web development) are almost over.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually it is about avionics:
Re: (Score:2)
Whoops, missed that.
Re: (Score:2)
Those Chinese companies may be able to make and improve these commercial airliners, making them cheaper than anyone else, but they won't have the drop on the next new thing, which most global companies are looking for and are investing in.
Next new thing? What's that going to be? Hypersonic aircraft or teleporters or something? Be realistic: there IS no next new thing, not for 50-100 years at least. Commercial jet airliners have been with us since the 50s now, and haven't changed significantly in that time. The only things that have changed are 1) engines are a little more efficient and quieter, but not by orders of magnitude, 2) planes are flown slower now to save fuel and keep prices low, 3) seats are packed together so that only toddlers are comfortable in them, and 4) "air rage" is now common whereas it never happened back then.
There's been some other minor improvements of course: much better avionics (which isn't something that GE does to my knowledge), electronic engine controls (which GE does do), etc.
But the idea that Americans or other Westerners are going to come up with huge new advances to always stay ahead of the Chinese is simply ridiculous. For instance, look at the article subject: this is about GE, which doesn't make planes, but jet engines and associated controls. Jet engines haven't changed much in 50 years, just small steady improvements. Most of the advances in jet turbines were in their early days, not any time recently; they're a mature technology, and current advances are only eking out fractions of a percent in improvement, much like automobile engines.
GE is basically giving away their secrets here, and pretty soon there won't be a reason to buy a GE jet engine, because you'll be able to get one just like it made in China for less.
What's worse, China's society heavily values science and engineers. America's does not. Very few people go into engineering any more, except for software engineering. When was the last time you met an aerospace engineer? Way back in the early 90s when I was in college, we joked that AEs would never find a job, because it was a pretty dead industry. Very few engineering majors went into the AE school. ME (which a lot of jet engine engineers probably have) is a little better, but still not great. Go into any major engineering school, and look at the students: most of them are Chinese and Indian, and these days, they go back to their home country when they finish their degree.
America's days as a technology power (except maybe for web development) are almost over.
50-100 years? You're delusional. We have only had commercial Jet Engines for 50 years. What we see in the next 20 years will technologically dwarf what we are seeing today. You think they are selling the Farm to China? Hell no. They are giving crap that has been declassified by the US Government as old technology. You think they get to see that crap w/o the White House and the Department of Defense signing off on it first? Hell No.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're delusional if you think something better than jet airplanes will be around in 20 years for transporting people long distances and between continents quickly.
We're going to be flying jets, just like we do now. They might have nicer avionics, and have better entertainment systems for the passengers, but that's it. Some more advanced countries might have high-speed trains for shorter and medium distances, but trains won't take you across oceans, and even the fastest maglevs aren't fast enough
Re: (Score:2)
Don't tell me you saw a program on Discovery about an evacuated undersea tube and you think they'll have those everywhere in 20 years.
Actually, it was on NBC, and in fact it the first one will open in 2032.
Re: (Score:2)
However.. the GP didn't say that something better than jets will be around in 20 years. He just said that the tech in 20 years is likely to dwarf what we have now. And he's probably right. Look at the history of aviation.
So what? It looks a lot like the history of cars: lots of huge advances in the early years, and then it became mature and little changed.
What's changed with cars in the last 20 years? Very little really. Some engine advances to get somewhat more horsepower while keeping the same fuel eco
Re: (Score:2)
China might own the world by perfecting Last Year's Tech. They can take things like XP and build stuff on it. They can force MS to struggle with the problems of innovation like Vista and even 7, and then when the lifecycle of XP finally draws to a close, they can make a deal for Windows 8 fresh off the shelf, because it's been vetted by 10 years of R&D. Stuff they build on Windows 8 will last for the next ten years while MS once again struggles with their first implementation of Azure Cloud OS.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, they were setting the standard, as far back as the 80s and even before: their automotive technology in the 70s was already ahead of the American automakers (check out the history of the Honda CVCC engine).
Unfortunately, they made some serious economy screw-ups in the 90s, and while they're still leading in many areas, they've also moved much of their manufacturing to China, and will probably be eclipsed just like the USA.
Re:How about the ... (Score:2)
Engine Analogies!
The Japanese went like a regular-gas engine. They ran through the whole improvement cycle faster, let's say within 40 years. But they're reaching their limits.
China is like the electric engine. Much slower to really get rolling, lots of startup bumps. But watch out, once they slam that gearshift into 5th it will be all over.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you talking engine performance, or the history of the development of these engines?
If the former, you have it backwards. Electric motors have peak torque from 0rpm, and peter out after that. It's gasoline engines that suck at low speeds and do better at higher speeds (up to a limit of course).
Now for engine development, you'd be right. While electric motors have been around longer than gasoline engines, they've really improved a lot in the last couple of decades thanks to stuff like brushless DC tech
Re: (Score:3)
People were saying the same things about the Japanese in the 1950,s and 1960's.
Except that Japan is a parliamentary democracy with regular and peaceful ruling party changes. Ask the latest Nobel Peace Prize winner if its just needless hand-wringing to worry about the Chinese authorities getting their hands on yet more latest tech.
Re:Repeating history (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This has nothing to do with the US people, government, or taxpayers. GE is a private company; "publicly-owned", but it's owned by its shareholders. The shareholders are the only people it answers to. The shareholders WANT them to do deals like this, because this gives them bigger profits, and pushes up their stock price. That's what shareholders want. They don't care about long-term issues, because they'll sell off the stock when it peaks and let someone else worry about that.
If you think the governmen
oh yes it does: export controls and arms traffic (Score:2)
I'm guessing that GE will be violating the export control laws related to arms control. If not, then we need to adjust the law. We do a piss-poor job of enforcing our laws, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
I'd toss in a charge of treason as well, and not be wimpy about serving up the punishment that is explicitly mentioned in the US constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it... see: software piracy, high speed trains, stealth fighters, aircraft carriers. Up next: commercial aircraft!
But... but... they are indeed learning!!
Like: why spend so much in guarding your secrets, that's a huge cost. Isn't it much better to offer them secrets in return for... something... I don't know... money? Afterall, China has enough of US bonds, getting some of them back means something?
Seriously guys: letting aside movies, music and MS Windows (in which China doesn't seem to be interested), what else have US of A to export?
Re: (Score:2)
And your point is?
Russians have licensed to the Chinese the full blueprint of Su-27 (the license is now revoked because of illegal cloning), the Chinese have bought a whole load of them. Despite all that they have failed to clone the engine. As a result the "stealth" jet fighter they have produced may be low radar profile (that is actually the easy bit nowdays), but it is still equipped with third generation engine 20 years behind US, EADS and Russia. As a result it is a piece of stealthy dead meat if it me
Re:Repeating history (Score:4, Interesting)
More specifically jet technologies like the WS-10, an engine which is a nut-for-bolt ripoff of the Russian AL-31.
By now Chinese companies are famous for making partnerships with foreign firms and then burning their partners once they think they can get away with it. Whoever made this decision at GE is an idiot.
Re:Repeating history (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong. Short-sighted, yes, but irresponsible, absolutely not. Western companies giving away their secrets to Chinese companies are doing exactly the right thing, because this brings them short-term profit, which is what their shareholders want, and exactly what they're paying their CEOs for. The CEOs are doing exactly what their shareholders want them to.
The shareholders want the CEOs to do anything they can to increase the stock price in the short term, so that they can sell their stock at a profit. After that, they aren't shareholders any more, and don't care what happens to the company. The way American corporations are set up, and the way their stocks are trade with such frequency, long-term strategic moves just aren't in their interest.
Re:Repeating history (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case, stock price is part of the equation, but is not the entire picture.
Re:Repeating history (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Repeating history (Score:4, Informative)
American companies aren't "American" anymore. There is no real link between a large corporation and any nation or people. The rich of any country can and will continue to profit even as their country goes bankrupt. America may be competing with China, but American corporations are not. American corporations are not citizens, they are not our allies, and we have no longer have any interests in common. What is good for American corporations is not what is good for the American people, it is only what is good for the ultra wealthy. American corporations are not competing with China any more or less than they are competing with America.
Re: (Score:2)
Give me a break? You buy this drivel? You just made the case that because our system is set-up to externalize as many costs as possible in favor of short-term profit, it must be OK. So goes the thinking of the rest of the idiots who have driven the economy off a cliff: "It's not illegal, so it must be OK." In the technology world, we have an entire industry dedicated to figuring out the impact of technological change on society and the human implications of that change. It's called Science Fiction. We
Re:Repeating history (Score:4, Interesting)
Give me a break? You buy this drivel?
It's not drivel; I'm just pointing out that there's nothing "irresponsible" about a company selling its crown jewels if it can make a short-term profit, because that's all its owners care about. Maybe you don't like it, but you don't own the company. I don't like it either, but I don't own GE (nor do I hold any stock in it).
You just made the case that because our system is set-up to externalize as many costs as possible in favor of short-term profit, it must be OK.
I never made any moral judgments, I only pointed out that the players in the system are doing exactly what they're supposed to do. If you don't like it, you need to change the system. (Good luck with that; our elected leaders like things the way they are.)
In the technology world, we have an entire industry dedicated to figuring out the impact of technological change on society and the human implications of that change. It's called Science Fiction. We think about what could happen; what could go wrong; what could go right and we write millions of stories about it.
Yes, of course. There's many good stories that I think offer a pretty good glimpse into what our future is like. The movie "Blade Runner" I think shows an accurate view of what cities in America will look like in 20 years, for instance.
Read, for instance, stories about Chinese Mothering [wsj.com] to see where the individual is repressed to favor some other goal of more immediate and concrete utility. If mothers are forcing their wills relentlessly on their children all over China, what lessons does the Chinese ruling class take to it's job of governing and use of its increasing power? Since most of us aren't in the ruling class, we have a lot to lose if they become the next hegemony.
Yes, they're more interested in the good (and success) of society; the happiness of the individual is unimportant. If a few kids get depressed and kill themselves, so what? There's plenty more to replace those. However, it seems to be a successful strategy so far, so we probably better get used to not being top dog any more. I certainly wouldn't want to live that way, but I can't say that their system is a failure.
It's taken a lot of hard, expensive work and lives were lost in developing the technologies that gave us the edge to "win" the cold war. Now we're bartering this long-term advantage for some short-term profits? And you say this is justified?
I never said it was "justified", only "responsible" (to the people who own the company).
I see this as a sign that we're circling the drain. Our grandparents' generation would recognize this for what it is: Treason.
What makes it treason? Giving away important technology? Where do you draw the line? Was it treason when garment manufacturers moved manufacturing operations offshore? Is it treason to buy food produced in other countries? Is it treason to have software developed in India? Exactly what international trade is treason, and what isn't? How do you determine that? Some people seem to think buying a Japanese car is "treason", but buying an American car (made in Hermosillo, Mexico) isn't, even if the Japanese car is made in Mississippi. Do we need to seal the borders and stop all trade in order to not be treasonous? That would kinda suck for anyone needing gasoline, since we can't produce enough for our demand.
I see this as a sign that we're circling the drain.
Of course we're circling the drain, but the causes are many and complex, not just because one company is selling some avionics technology to the Chinese. At many levels, and for many reasons, our society is regressing, and is no longer able to compete with the Chinese.
My advice? Get out while you can.
Re: (Score:3)
IANAE, but it looks like an issue with the basic concept of stocks. Stocks are a nice way for a small company to get external funding and grow, but once it breaches the small company size and the companies growth decreases in speed, then short term benefits override long term benefits for the share holder.
For smaller companies, the money put in by the investor grows in multiples within few years - so the investor is wary of doing anything that can jeopardize the future of the company - since the profit marg
Re: (Score:2)
You may not be an E, but I think you're close to the mark. School Jingo sez that stocks are wonderful etc.
There's a new factor going on here that given the same stocks, 40 years ago the slow and steady dividends were "smart". But if we make all of society devalue long term worth of anything, then we encourage abuse of the short term effect.
Globalization (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Globalization (Score:5, Insightful)
Would China owned companies share any of their military technology with us? We are are simultaneously the strongest and most soft-headed country in the history of the world. How come talk of globalization somehow only includes us selling our shiz off?
Did you expect China to just keep selling you cheap toys and clothing? Eventually an emerging market...emerges.
Re: (Score:2)
We are are simultaneously the strongest and most soft-headed country in the history of the world.
... and by we you clearly mean the Slashdotters.
Re: (Score:2)
Would China owned companies share any of their military technology with us? We are are simultaneously the strongest and most soft-headed country in the history of the world.
What else you have for sale to balance the trade deficit? I mean, what? Music? Movies? MS Windows? What else that China would be interested in buying?
Strongest country? Stop deluding yourself... PR of C doesn't need to invade US of A... if it starts selling only 10% of the US Treasury bonds it owns and in 1 month the USD will be so weak, China will buy the entire US of A on closing-down-sale prices.
How come talk of globalization somehow only includes us selling our shiz off?
Because in a globalize market you live or die by the strength of your economy and not by the strenght of your
Yep (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep. This is how the Chinese have been doing their technology transfer without needing to pay billions in R&D themselves.
They go to a company and tell them that they'd like to build some nuclear reactors or high speed trains or something. The deal they make always goes like:
1) We'll buy the first two nuclear plants.
2) The next two you build using our people.
3) The ones thereafter you give us the plans to build, and we'll do it all ourselves, and pay you a royalty.
Now China has the plans to the AP1000, one of the most modern nuclear plants being built today, as well as a trained workforce in building it, all without having to do any of the R&D work themselves, or pay much more than just the cost of a couple plants (which they get to use anyway).
It's a very clever idea, and companies are all falling over themselves to give away their best technologies to China, since they're so eager for short-term profits, they don't realize they're shooting themselves in the foot, long term.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a very clever idea, and companies are all falling over themselves to give away their best technologies to China, since they're so eager for short-term profits, they don't realize they're shooting themselves in the foot, long term.
It's a very clever idea, and executives are all falling over themselves to give away their corporation's best technologies to China, since they're so eager for short-term profits and the individual profits and advancement, they don't care they're shooting the corporation they work for (but don't give a rat's ass about) in the foot, long term.
It's the mercenary attitude with which employees are treated and the reciprocal mercenary attitude of said employees that is responsible for this type of "short term is
Re: (Score:2)
It's a very clever idea, and companies are all falling over themselves to give away their best technologies to China, since they're so eager for short-term profits, they don't realize they're shooting themselves in the foot, long term.
On the flipside, if these companies have management that's worth a damn, they will spend that money on R&D for the next generation of stuff. So far, China has been great at copying but pretty sucky at development. I remember very similar characterizations of Japan back in the 70s and 80s. Eventually Japan got good at development too, but by then they had lost the edge of low labor costs. Korea is further along that path than China is (look at LG and recent korean cars for example), but not yet wher
Re: (Score:2)
These companies will spend that money on either R&D or bonuses for the top management. It is too early to tell which.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but was that a bad thing for Japan?
Of course not.
You get ahead through cheaper labor OR superior technology. Soon, the US will have neither.
Yeah, I think you missed the point. Japan is competitive with the US, but they are not even close to being overwhelmingly superior.
China's no more likely than Japan to get a leg up over the US in technology either.
Re: (Score:2)
With the greatest possible respect, it's not even the most modern nuclear plant being built in China. It's a Westinghouse dinosaur and little more than a scaled down TMI without the containment that saved the place. The old Chinese stuff is better than that so all they are getting is information on a few components that are better.
Re: (Score:2)
The big three designs right now are the GE ABWR, the Westinghouse AP1000, and the Areva EPR. The AP1000 is a simplified version, but it is a bit of a misnomer to call it a scaled down TMI.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yep (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
This would be great if it were true, but somehow I highly doubt it. GE's existing Chinese JVs in other businesses (consumer appliances for example) are making either what they are doing here, or stuff that is ahead of what can be done outside of China if only because of materials access.
Re: (Score:3)
>>One thing you did not take into account is while China takes the plans for the AP1000 or next gen doohickey, GE is forging on with their next idea. China, using this technique, will catch up, but they will always be 1 step behind. No more, no less
Well, the AP1000 is made by CBS (owner of Westinghouse), not GE (owner of NBC).
No matter how you slice it, they're getting a tremendous leg up in technology, and will be able to either continue R&D from a really good starting point, or will be able to j
Re: (Score:3)
There is ample evidence that this doesn't really work that way. They learn the underlying theory while working with the technology. Even if they don't push towards the most advanced stuff, they'll still seal up the market, blocking out the company that originally sold them the airplanes.
In the end, the U.S. and E.U. will need to impose tariffs to balance the trade with China, not much choice otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh please. Next idea? GE makes jet engines, a very mature technology that hasn't changed significantly in decades. So what if GE comes up with an improvement that results in a 0.25% increase in fuel efficiency? 1) The Chinese, after becoming completely familiar with the tech, will make their own improvements, thanks to all the engineers they have (many of whom get their advanced degrees here in the USA). The USA, by contrast, can't get its citizens to go into engineering any more. 2) The Chinese jet e
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations aren't interested in future shareholders or employees, only current shareholders. Those are the people who own the company, and who call the shots. They want short-term profits, so they can sell their stock at a profit and bail out. The CEO is only doing exactly what the company's owners want him to do, his "fiduciary duty".
Typo in summary (Score:3, Funny)
Shouldn't that be late-of-the-art 787 Dreamliner
Also wasn't there a court case a while ago about Boeing getting the results of some industrial espionage into Airbus? Hasn't there been speculation that some of the Boeing problems were due to blind copying without knowing why parts of the most recent Airbus were designed that way? Are the Chinese really getting anything new that they couldn't get from elsewhere anyway?
Re: (Score:2)
Also wasn't there a court case a while ago about Boeing getting the results of some industrial espionage into Airbus? Hasn't there been speculation that some of the Boeing problems were due to blind copying without knowing why parts of the most recent Airbus were designed that way?
Aren't the Dreamliner's problems largely due to the massive use of composites? If so, what would Boeing be learning from Airbus?
Re: (Score:2)
Not enough apparently. To make things worse the US taxpayer allegedly footed the bill and provided the people for the industrial espionage. With the Chinese buying the stuff outright we at least know what they've got and that they should get it right. The second part is important because budget airlines will buy the cheapest stuff they can get their hands on and you don't want a Chinese made engine coming through your roof.
Re: (Score:2)
you don't want a Chinese made engine coming through your roof.
Donnie Darko, is that you?
Re: (Score:2)
Turnabout? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps we might start demanding that every Chinese company wanting access to American markets must locate offices here, staff them with US workers, and share their technology in turn.
Yeap. Le'me guess China's answer: are US workers willing to get only USD200 a month? No? Well, will gladly pay them USD3000. (hmm... not that will help them too much after we'll be dumping on the financial marker all the US treasury bonds we own.... actually, might come even cheaper than the chinese workforce).
We did that with the Japanese...
Well, well... did the Japanase also had almost 1 trillion dollars worth of US public debt [treasury.gov] and had a trade balance in their favor of a quarter of a trillion/year [census.gov]?
Re: (Score:2)
This US is simply a junkie to chineese goods, that is why China can demand more and more from you.
Trading The Crown Jewels... For What? (Score:2)
This is even more bone-headed a move than Boeing farming out airframe subassemblies. This is one of the few areas where we have a competitive advantage, and they're going to give it away so that they can sell a few more engines. I don't care if the rationale is that Rolls Royce, SNECMA, P&W, or if it's the price for lower labor costs at a PRC plantsite, or whoever will do it if "we" don't.
When a technology firm is selling off their IP, it's obvious that they are out of the business of developing new IP,
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, I'd like an engine at the lowest price. Are you going to sell it to me, or is Boeing? Hmm, guess I'm going with Boing. I'm a poet and I didn't even know it.
Capitalism, it's what's for dinner. Want something else? Go be born to someone else, or embrace a different economic system. Mmm, capitalism. Goes down easy, comes up hard.
Re: (Score:2)
Capitalism, it's what's for dinner. Want something else? Go be born to someone else, or embrace a different economic system. Mmm, capitalism. Goes down easy, comes up hard.
It wouldn't be a problem if it was just capitalism. The problem is that China is a company and a country. There is nobody there to enforce antitrust laws. You like your cheap stuff today, but what happens if they dump cheap goods on the market below cost until everyone else goes bust, and then raise the price once no one is left who knows how to make it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: "Giving up" on the Chinese market... it's like dealing with Walmart: you can either say "no" now and work at adding more value to the product to survive; or, you can sign on the dotted line and watch them suck your margins in-house.
Granted, offsets are a major part of international aerospace. But, offsets to - say - Finland and offsets to China are two all together different birds.
You can see where this is going... (Score:5, Interesting)
"The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them." -- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
Re: (Score:2)
"The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them." -- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
Not if we can smoke it instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
BWAHAHA.
Seriously, that's funny. Resources grow with the capitalist system? I need some self-growing oil, can I subscribe to your newsletter?
No. Resources don't grow any better under capitalism than under any other system. That's just nonsense designed to confuse people like you who don't understand physics.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Physics plays a very fundamental part:
For how much would you buy an apple? You might pay $1. You might pay $1M, if it's the last apple on the planet. But no matter what, you woulnd't pay two apples.
Same way, bringing oil from asteroids will cost a lot more in oil than it will bring. So at some point, oil ceases being an energy source and becomes an energy store perhaps.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You know, these guys are so greedy and so shortsighted, a dangerous combination. I swear they'd sell a mugger the gun to rob them with.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, these guys are so greedy and so shortsighted, a dangerous combination. I swear they'd sell a mugger the gun to rob them with.
No, bad choice of words. The muggers you speak of are, in fact your banker and your retailer selling you goods "on the tab". You may want to think twice before pissing them off.
US of A could not be helped to stop using the rope to hang themselves, even before they started selling the rope to China. With a trade deficit of more than a quarter of a trillion [census.gov] in2010 alone and a public debt to China close to 1 trillion [treasury.gov], I don't know how to put it in other words.
Good deal for China (Score:5, Insightful)
China is getting a great deal on this. Not only do they get investment, but they get the tooling and most importantly first-hand knowhow to build reliable high-performance jet engines. China has had lots of trouble mastering jet engines. They are very tricky to get right, especially for them to last a long time and not be replaced every 1000 hours. Apparently just because your net.agents stole the plans from poorly-secured GE desktops doesn't mean you actually know how to use the knowledge.
The unnamed state-owned company that GE will be giving money to isn't even identified in the article. This is because state-owned company means that it is an arm of the Chinese government. Americans unfamiliar with the Chinese SOE and searching for an American equivalent merely need think of GM: owned by the government and not so much worried with making profit as keeping workers employed and achieving national political objectives. These SOEs are a major part of the Chinese economy (even though "journalists" like to tell us that China has gone all capitalist now) and doing a JV (joint venture) with them is putting on lipstick and stockings and getting into bed with the government. Whatever happens next, you know you're getting fucked. We are all aware, of course, that under Chinese law JVs are required to be owned 51% by the Chinese partner? And that there is a long list of broken companies in the last ten years that went into JVs and ended up lying by the roadside, lipstick smudged and used condoms hanging out of their asses? Look up Danone vs. Wahaha for a well-known example. GE's slogan, "imagination at work", should serve it well as it goes shopping for lingerie and a nice water-based lube for the pleasure of its new Chinese husband.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You have a disturbing fondness for graphic rape analogies.
Seems foolish (Score:2)
Sharing militarily-valuable technology with a potential military enemy doesn't seem wise.
Reminds me of Master of Orion (Score:2)
There goes america's last export (Score:2)
Planes are about the only thing the US exports anymore. Soon we won't even have that.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. America exports lots of other stuff, such as huge quantities of corn and coal. Oh wait, you were talking about high-value manufactured goods. No, we might as well give up on that stuff. Maybe we could sell our cutting-edge military tech to China? That's about the only thing we have left.
Re: (Score:2)
agriculture exports don't count because they're subsidized. Which means we lose money on them.
Oooh goody! (Score:2)
We'll see (Score:2)
Of Obama has any common sense at all, he will get this stopped using ITAR.
"NYT Reg Required"? (Score:3)
It's a bit off topic, but I don't think NYT requires registration, and I was certainly able to access their article without logging in.
So they have no one to blame but themselves (Score:4, Insightful)
Open source ... (Score:2)
all this technology is going open source
Why not, let it be that way. many things are going that way. Music CDs are dying and you can only make money through live performaces.
Simply put China is a huge market, and so they have huge leverage
Short term gain and (Score:2)
...long term pain. This is epic stupidity.
The American Empire is dead (Score:2)
This story and the Goldman Sachs story convinces me of that fact. From this time forward all you will see is a few sporadic twitches and spams, but it's over.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure they say the same thing about us. Just swap "communist" with "capitalist" and "melamine in milk" with "trans fats in french fries."
Amoral business practices are not limited to a single culture or country.
Re: (Score:2)
B.S.
The melamine thing was by one company, and was punished by the government.
Overall, they absolutely do have morals in business, which is why they're so successful: their moral is to do things that will benefit their country in the long term, without worrying about what benefits their shareholders in the short term. They'd rather spend more money to acquire a technology which will make them the leader in that technology in 20 years, than to work out a deal that costs less in the short term but doesn't gi
Re:Don't Trust the Chinese (Score:4, Insightful)
They have no morals in business... because of the Communist mentality that they were brain washed when they were little.
Unlike Enron, Halliburton, ...
The idea that morals are irrelant is a very capitalist and, dare I say it, American one. Isn't is in America that you go to business school to learn that the only thing that matters is shareholder profit? That if you have a clear suspicion that your company's products are harming people's health, you ignore it until a court ruling forces you to do otherwise? And so on - this is not about Communism, mate.
What kind of a business man will put melamine in milk - this is the same type immoral thinking that they have.
The kind of business man that has gone to business school in America. Bear in mind that these businesses have arisen after China have opened up their markets; their managers have gone to mostly American universities to get their MBAs - they have learned their ways from you guys. What you are saying is that people and community should matter more than profit - very, very Communist ideas, if I am any judge.
Re: (Score:2)
stupid^H^H^H^H^H^H greedy
Stupid or facing the inevitable? (Score:2)
I can't believe that GE is this stupid.
stupid^H^H^H^H^H^H greedy
Let me start by saying that I am naturally skeptical of this sort of deal. However let me offer the logic that may be behind this decision ...
Basically GE has competition and believes that if they decline the offer then a competitor may accept it. In this scenario they lose in both the short term and the long term. To prevent the tech transfer GE and its competitors must essentially establish a cartel and coordinate their actions. The problem is that cartels almost always fail, some member almost always
Re: (Score:2)
No, and neither was 13th century Venice when they became more powerful than Constantinople.
China is less powerful now on the world stage than it was a couple of centuries ago so I think you can put Revelations away. China is still recovering from Mao which hit it harder than the Japanese could. China increasing in global influence is expected. The US decline in global influence was because idiots have been in charg
Re: (Score:3)
The US decline in global influence was because idiots have been in charge for too long. Ignore China, just worry about your own country and don't jump at shadows to turn a good faith into an armageddon cult.
Worrying about your own country isn't going to improve conditions there, when the leaders are corrupt and the voters absolutely moronic. I think better advice would be to find a good place to bail out to. Get out while the gettin's good, as they used to say.
Re: (Score:2)
Is China the Beast of Revelations?
Nope, but they'll get to meet him if they don't deliver my next shipment of Cup-O-Abominations [openfilm.com] before noon tomorrow.
Re: (Score:2)
and the communists will build the gallows.....
ideologues of all types always justify taking freedom from everyone else under the guise of defending it.