Comments on Paul Hubbard "China’s global economic impact is no longer state-owned", 5/05/2016
Thank you Paul Hubbard for a fact based, balanced and well argued article in this particular field.
The point on China’s SOEs’ overseas investment reflected in the following statements are excellent:
“Foreign engagement with SOEs provides an opportunity for Chinese state business to experience and be subject to the discipline of competitive markets, without special privileges, in well-regulated economies.
“Foreign investment into China helped align China’s nascent private sector with the rules of the global trading system. Likewise, Chinese state investment overseas can be a channel to take back to China international standards for transparency, corporate governance and market behaviour.”
I highly appreciate and commend this article.
PS: More importantly, the point on the fact that SOEs exist in virtually all countries including advanced western economies. The differences are a matter of degree not a matter of having or not.
Understandably, there have been a privatisation process in many countries, particularly in advanced western economies. In Australia, for example, a number of big former SOEs have been privatised, such as the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, Qantas, Telstra (formerly Telcom).
Notwithstanding the privatisation process, there are still SOEs in western economies.
In Australia, for example, you still have SOEs including Australia Post, Medibank Private and Defence Housing at the national level, some electricity and water enterprises owned by the State and Territory government at the state level. The Snowy Mountain hydro electricity is jointly owned by the federal and some state governments. Some ports, rails and buses in Australia are government owned entities.
2016-05-05
Poor understanding on China’s e-commerce rules
Comments on Ryan Manuel "Why China’s e-commerce rules have exporters in a flurry", 4/05/2016
They, exporters to China. should not be worried, because the new rules, as you described, just aims at close loopholes, so importers, particularly consumers are treated the same whether the purchases are from special zones or not, as long as China imposes duties on those imports.
I don’t see any reasons for concerns. It is no worse and arguably better than the fact that Australia is imposing GST on online imports, because GST is a sales tax and the sales didn’t happen in Australia.
There is no need to exaggerate on what China does and to paint it to something it is not.
The title of this post, understandably, reflects a poor interpretation of the China’s e-commerce rules at its best, and is more likely at its worst to show the potentially China bashing sentiments in some circles in the West. It is regrettable at least.
I am surprised it is from the Australian Centre on China in the World, The Australian National University. It may reflect very poorly on the poor understanding of the author on China.
They, exporters to China. should not be worried, because the new rules, as you described, just aims at close loopholes, so importers, particularly consumers are treated the same whether the purchases are from special zones or not, as long as China imposes duties on those imports.
I don’t see any reasons for concerns. It is no worse and arguably better than the fact that Australia is imposing GST on online imports, because GST is a sales tax and the sales didn’t happen in Australia.
There is no need to exaggerate on what China does and to paint it to something it is not.
The title of this post, understandably, reflects a poor interpretation of the China’s e-commerce rules at its best, and is more likely at its worst to show the potentially China bashing sentiments in some circles in the West. It is regrettable at least.
I am surprised it is from the Australian Centre on China in the World, The Australian National University. It may reflect very poorly on the poor understanding of the author on China.
RCEP conducive to Asia’s next growth frontier
Comments on Peter Drysdale "Asia’s next growth frontier", 5/05/2016
The current participants of the RCEP, particularly those excluded by the TPP, should have some sense of urgency to accelerate the negotiation processes, so they are not too disadvantaged by their exclusion by the TPP.
I would suggest that they should aim at conclusion as early as possible and have provisions that whichever member countries ratified it, they could apply to those countries, so to avoid unnecessary delays in the ratification processes, in case some countries encounter difficulties of some sort.
Given the fact some of the RCEP members are also TPP members, all members must be aiming at helping the conclusion of RCEP and avoid any drag for other purposes.
And by achieving a non-regional exclusive and growth enhancing RCEP as early as possible, it will be not only for the region and members but also for the whole world.
In the context of maintaining continued and rapid regional economic growth, I appreciate the title of this post.
The current participants of the RCEP, particularly those excluded by the TPP, should have some sense of urgency to accelerate the negotiation processes, so they are not too disadvantaged by their exclusion by the TPP.
I would suggest that they should aim at conclusion as early as possible and have provisions that whichever member countries ratified it, they could apply to those countries, so to avoid unnecessary delays in the ratification processes, in case some countries encounter difficulties of some sort.
Given the fact some of the RCEP members are also TPP members, all members must be aiming at helping the conclusion of RCEP and avoid any drag for other purposes.
And by achieving a non-regional exclusive and growth enhancing RCEP as early as possible, it will be not only for the region and members but also for the whole world.
In the context of maintaining continued and rapid regional economic growth, I appreciate the title of this post.
2016-04-28
Such superiority does not necessarily mean everything
Comments on the comments by YOSHIMICHI MORIYAMA26TH APRIL, 2016, 11:10 PM, on
Hugh White "Need to face the facts in Asia", 18 April 2016
You have sated the following: “America will keep its military superiortity over China for an idefinite time, and it seems that it can deter China in the South China Sea.”
So what?
With all the respect, the US and its allies were equally, if not more superior during the Korea War as compared to China. The fact is that China didn’t lose that war and that America together with its allies didn’t win that war either.
And further (on his/her second comments), with all the possible respect to you, I have to say that your central interpretation of “中華人民共和国” is incorrect.
Hugh White "Need to face the facts in Asia", 18 April 2016
You have sated the following: “America will keep its military superiortity over China for an idefinite time, and it seems that it can deter China in the South China Sea.”
So what?
With all the respect, the US and its allies were equally, if not more superior during the Korea War as compared to China. The fact is that China didn’t lose that war and that America together with its allies didn’t win that war either.
And further (on his/her second comments), with all the possible respect to you, I have to say that your central interpretation of “中華人民共和国” is incorrect.
Voters even in the West may not have many choices
Comments on Nathan Attrill "China’s leadership model goes back to the future", 22/04/2016
Just as voters in any countries may choose different parties if they have the freedom to choose, the Chinese people may change their views about their political leaders, both past and present.
For example, when people see continually increasing inequality even in the context of huge economic growth, as well as rampant corruption over the past 20 years or so, many and possibly the majority may have fond memories of the Mao era when there was little corruption and people were virtually equal in income even though everyone was poor, equally poor.
The Chinese also would like to have more freedom, that is for sure. Equally, they are likely to prefer a strong, and just, government.
People outside China need to understand the whole of Chinese people, their way of lives and their way of thinking. There is no point to lecturing them in our own way.
Commenting on the comments
by RICHARD22ND APRIL, 2016, 7:33 AM
The two upheavals you said were facts and there is no question about it. The first one, the so called Great Leap Forward, however, was not the fault only of Mao even though he should have the greatest responsibility to it. It was the collective work of the then whole leadership including Deng Xiaoping and Liu Shaoqi, with Mao as the top leader. Most people in the leadership were carried away by the huge success of its first 5-years plan and thought, wrongly though, they could accelerate the development in China.
There was an interesting contrast between China and Japan while the latter had two decades of double income plans for every decade at that similar time. One adopted the correct method, while the other went astray. It took a few years to recover from that disaster, before the second, equally if not more disastrous, Cultural Revolution.
I agree with GODFREE ROBERTS that China had seen great changes due the Mao era, even though they were disrupted severely by the two mentioned disasters.
Just as voters in any countries may choose different parties if they have the freedom to choose, the Chinese people may change their views about their political leaders, both past and present.
For example, when people see continually increasing inequality even in the context of huge economic growth, as well as rampant corruption over the past 20 years or so, many and possibly the majority may have fond memories of the Mao era when there was little corruption and people were virtually equal in income even though everyone was poor, equally poor.
The Chinese also would like to have more freedom, that is for sure. Equally, they are likely to prefer a strong, and just, government.
People outside China need to understand the whole of Chinese people, their way of lives and their way of thinking. There is no point to lecturing them in our own way.
Commenting on the comments
by RICHARD22ND APRIL, 2016, 7:33 AM
The two upheavals you said were facts and there is no question about it. The first one, the so called Great Leap Forward, however, was not the fault only of Mao even though he should have the greatest responsibility to it. It was the collective work of the then whole leadership including Deng Xiaoping and Liu Shaoqi, with Mao as the top leader. Most people in the leadership were carried away by the huge success of its first 5-years plan and thought, wrongly though, they could accelerate the development in China.
There was an interesting contrast between China and Japan while the latter had two decades of double income plans for every decade at that similar time. One adopted the correct method, while the other went astray. It took a few years to recover from that disaster, before the second, equally if not more disastrous, Cultural Revolution.
I agree with GODFREE ROBERTS that China had seen great changes due the Mao era, even though they were disrupted severely by the two mentioned disasters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
