再过二三十年，更会另眼看中国

对 二什齋米辰峰 [转载]血淋淋的事实——中国要赶上美国还要多少年？的评论，21/05/2017：

我看这文中讲的有一定道理，但尚有些悲观。中国很可能会经历一个量变到质变的过程，在摘完低枝果后会被逼走上高科技高创新高质量的经济体。这个过程有多长？估计还得二十到三十年左右。也就是说，在建国一百周年时，中国经济很可能具有与美国真正竞争能力平起平坐的水平。
苹果的历史有多少年？谷歌多少年？很多事实说明几十年是可以大有作为的。要有雄心，有恒信，有创心！

Reforming the Hukou system requires more top-level design

Comments on Bingqin Li, UNSW: "China going nowhere on hukou reform", 19/05/2017

It is likely to be one of the most difficult reform tasks in China to reform its Hukou system, given the fragmented nature of government services responsibilities including school education and some other social security as mentioned by the author.
Acknowledging the difficulties, what does the author see is the most practical way or ways to undertake Hokou reforms?
Arguably, a top-level design should have a well considered and thought-through framework and practical ideas to go forward.
It may be helpful to have a coordination and adjustment program by the central government to facilitate the expansion and provision of services such as school education, in addition to the portable social security provisions. It may involve some additional funding from the central government, although a substantial part of that funding could come from those regions where there are net negative population migration, that is people/students are moving away to other regions.

US high-tech leadership offshoring?

Comments on Andrew Kennedy, ANU "Is the United States offshoring high-tech leadership to China?" 17/05/2017  

Could the author clarify the situation in the following paragraph please on whether it is more economical from the users’ point of view, that is, value for money given cheaper prices but shorter durability?  Quote from the post: “And fourth, overseas R&D often complements the work done at home, rather than substituting for it. Firms doing R&D abroad may be trying to tap into expertise not readily available in their home country, or they may be adapting products for foreign markets in an effort to promote local sales — a task more easily done in that market. Such adaptation may actually make a product less advanced. One global wind power firm, for example, re-designed its gearbox in China to make it less expensive — but in doing so it cut the durability of the product in half.”  The durability was cut by half, what about the price, was it cut by half or almost by half, taking into account compounding interest rate or discounted present value? 

It seems that there are both advantages and disadvantages for big tech firms to have some of their R&D activities in developing countries including China where the business environment including the effects of politics may not be as ideal as in their home countries or in developed countries. Certainly the challenges faced by multinationals in China raised in this post should give food for thought to China as it aims to develop into a developed country sooner or later. 

While the author is focused on whether the US is offshoring its high-tech leadership to China or not and obviously that is a very important issue both for the US and others involved including other developing countries, arguably there will be newcomers to the high-tech leadership roles from other countries and that will in turn in the future influence whether the US will offshore its leadership in this regard, won't it?

Developing countries beware: cheaper in price but less advanced

Comment on Andrew Kennedy, ANU: "Is the United States offshoring high-tech leadership to China?", 17/05/2017

Could the author clarify the situation in the following paragraph please on whether it is more economical from the users’ point of view, that is, value for money given cheaper prices but shorter durability?
Quote from the post: “And fourth, overseas R&D often complements the work done at home, rather than substituting for it. Firms doing R&D abroad may be trying to tap into expertise not readily available in their home country, or they may be adapting products for foreign markets in an effort to promote local sales — a task more easily done in that market. Such adaptation may actually make a product less advanced. One global wind power firm, for example, re-designed its gearbox in China to make it less expensive — but in doing so it cut the durability of the product in half.”
The durability was cut by half, what about the price, was it cut by half or almost by half, taking into account compounding interest rate or discounted present value?
It seems that there are both advantages and disadvantages for big tech firms to have some of their R&D activities in developing countries including China where the business environment including the effects of politics may not be as ideal as in their home countries or in developed countries. Certainly the challenges faced by multinationals in China raised in this post should give food for thought to China as it aims to develop into a developed country sooner or later.

Both optimism and caution are needed for the One Belt And One Road project

Comments on Sourabh Gupta, ICAS: “The Belt and Road Initiative should learn from paths already travelled”, 17/05/2017

I highly appreciate the positive views of the author in terms of the BRI as well as the argument for caution and learning from the paths already travelled, because both are important for the success of BRI.
Given the scale of the BRI, it is essential to plan and coordinate the whole projects and to take into account the broader world economic conditions and developments.
Perhaps there is a strong need to establish a modelling framework to undertake the planning, implementation and monitoring of the whole BRI (incorporating all the economies involved as well as the rest of the world which may be further divided into a few major economic blocks), in addition to the planning and cost and benefit study of each individual project.