Respect to the first guy to ask a question. He phrased it perfectly. He challenged their narrative so well that the moderator needed to sprinkle a bunch of U.S. propaganda after the speaker responded. Wonderfully phrased!
it is interesting to note that the speaker talked about the "uneven playing field" because China has long-term goals and plans while western countries and companies don't. Therefore, this is not fair and China should abandon its long-term plans and do things in the way western countries do.
They wan chinese companies to aspire to be wall street type companies focussing on quarterly profits sacrificing r n d and selling asset to do that. How stupid. I m sure huawei didnt win the 5g race by focussing short term profits.
So the perspective is! It is ok that "Made in the Europe or America" but not "Made in China". I can sense it the fear in the western world about the " made in China 2025". One thing I am sure about made in China 2025. Poor country around the world and its citizen can benefit the high technology product with affordable price. This is the win win situation my friend.
Interesting talk! Max is being very objective. However, this discussion is delivered through the prism of Western values. Despite the honest talk, it offers little guidance.
If you charge a very high premium for your technology, it'd make sense for China to eventually develop their own technology to replace you in the long run. If you license your technology at a reasonable rate, they may contend with continue using your technology.
These all story is about who will menage the savings of the Chinese people because all the banks even the central banks aren't owned by their own gouverments. So wall Street and the city want desperately to have their control on Chinese market.
A characteristics of Europeans and American is to cry about “equal playing fields” whenever they are losing business in China. They assumes china’s market were theirs before they win it. They wants state intervention in their favour from China while preaching free market to China. If they want to compete on real equal playing fields, the chinese should have the roughly same technology, same education, same management skills, and same investment per capita. Instead they want the kind of level playing fields where the Europeans use cheap chinese labor and crush low tech competitors, charge what the chinese workers produce back to them at a high cost.
Mary kay you said you are a journalist in China many years then you should be well verse if not expert in China policies, but unfortunately your comments on the Q n A on Sri Lanka did not reflect your profession as journalist as you have and quoted on what was said by South East Asia countries about China on Sri Lanka, what is your comment on this without quoting the SEA countries. Don't you have your comments as a seasoned journalist. A very disappointing interview, only with western perspective
The analysis is correct, but the deduction - that "China must play by our rules" - is pointless. This gentleman is correct: the playing field is not level, and that China's preference for the long-term view means trouble for Western short-time addicted businesses. goal means that when competing for a project - let's say, building a port - the Chinese company will not aim a making an immediate profit, because it aims at future benefits, while the Western company has no other aim but short-term profits - maximum return on investment. The Western company cannot act otherwise, because the shareholders want their dividends. Therefore, in that sense, the playing field is not level. But the reality is not that the field is not level: it is that the two sides are not playing the same: the competing Chinese company is funded by the government to a lesser or greater degree, while the Western company is funded by its shareholders. However, hoping to pressure China into playing the same game is a waste of time: the economic and industrial policies are different, and only partially compatible. What is needed is for the two sides to agree on how to work together. Unfortunately, the West still thinks it has a God-given right to dominate the world, and stubbornly insists that its rules are the only valid ones. And since China will not give up its model and adopt the American "rule-based" order, then I don't see how a serious clash can be avoided. And the constant bad-mouthing and demonisation of China will only make things worse.
This guy is SPOT ON. Members of the 50 cent party can disagree however much they want but I speak from a free place where I am not controlled by any oppressive regime.
i dont understand a country that is willing to invest massive amount of money in RD is bad for the world. I cannot see why countries can't invest same amount of money in RD as well ? They argument is China is too big, they cannot complete.... China's scale is too large. Gosh is that China's fault its too big, it has 1.3 billion people? What is the solution for being too big, don't invest? don't progress 1/6 of humanity ? You want China to get smaller ? The argument is flawed
Aside from technology issue, The key drive of the current conflict lays largely on absence of TAX on profit made by both western multi national capitalists as well as chinese industry workers. This generate hostility. As we know that China has no individual Tax system, so the high income chinese businessman walked away from social responsibility so did western multi nationals played all tricks to avoid tax which results electoral success of Trump.
Respect to the first guy to ask a question. He phrased it perfectly. He challenged their narrative so well that the moderator needed to sprinkle a bunch of U.S. propaganda after the speaker responded. Wonderfully phrased!
Very precisely
Looking at history, Western media or scholars have never accurately predicted China's future. Think about the reasons and motivation behind all this?
it is interesting to note that the speaker talked about the "uneven playing field" because China has long-term goals and plans while western countries and companies don't. Therefore, this is not fair and China should abandon its long-term plans and do things in the way western countries do.
They wan chinese companies to aspire to be wall street type companies focussing on quarterly profits sacrificing r n d and selling asset to do that. How stupid. I m sure huawei didnt win the 5g race by focussing short term profits.
So the perspective is! It is ok that "Made in the Europe or America" but not "Made in China". I can sense it the fear in the western world about the " made in China 2025".
One thing I am sure about made in China 2025. Poor country around the world and its citizen can benefit the high technology product with affordable price. This is the win win situation my friend.
Interesting talk! Max is being very objective. However, this discussion is delivered through the prism of Western values. Despite the honest talk, it offers little guidance.
If you charge a very high premium for your technology, it'd make sense for China to eventually develop their own technology to replace you in the long run. If you license your technology at a reasonable rate, they may contend with continue using your technology.
These all story is about who will menage the savings of the Chinese people because all the banks even the central banks aren't owned by their own gouverments.
So wall Street and the city want desperately to have their control on Chinese market.
A characteristics of Europeans and American is to cry about “equal playing fields” whenever they are losing business in China. They assumes china’s market were theirs before they win it. They wants state intervention in their favour from China while preaching free market to China. If they want to compete on real equal playing fields, the chinese should have the roughly same technology, same education, same management skills, and same investment per capita. Instead they want the kind of level playing fields where the Europeans use cheap chinese labor and crush low tech competitors, charge what the chinese workers produce back to them at a high cost.
Mary kay you said you are a journalist in China many years then you should be well verse if not expert in China policies, but unfortunately your comments on the Q n A on Sri Lanka did not reflect your profession as journalist as you have and quoted on what was said by South East Asia countries about China on Sri Lanka, what is your comment on this without quoting the SEA countries. Don't you have your comments as a seasoned journalist. A very disappointing interview, only with western perspective
Cooperation is best for the world.
Drugs offence is not a common offence, but a death sentence in china and also in many other countries.
Did the questioner at 49:54 called drug trafficking by the kilos a common crime? He got 15 yrs and appealed before he get death sentence.
China: how can I improve my country?
USA: how can I mind other countries' business, by passing HK Act , Taiwan Act, Uighur Act
The analysis is correct, but the deduction - that "China must play by our rules" - is pointless.
This gentleman is correct: the playing field is not level, and that China's preference for the long-term view means trouble for Western short-time addicted businesses.
goal means that when competing for a project - let's say, building a port - the Chinese company will not aim a making an immediate profit, because it aims at future benefits, while the Western company has no other aim but short-term profits - maximum return on investment. The Western company cannot act otherwise, because the shareholders want their dividends. Therefore, in that sense, the playing field is not level.
But the reality is not that the field is not level: it is that the two sides are not playing the same: the competing Chinese company is funded by the government to a lesser or greater degree, while the Western company is funded by its shareholders.
However, hoping to pressure China into playing the same game is a waste of time: the economic and industrial policies are different, and only partially compatible.
What is needed is for the two sides to agree on how to work together. Unfortunately, the West still thinks it has a God-given right to dominate the world, and stubbornly insists that its rules are the only valid ones. And since China will not give up its model and adopt the American "rule-based" order, then I don't see how a serious clash can be avoided.
And the constant bad-mouthing and demonisation of China will only make things worse.
all China trying to do iS trying to raise stand of living for his own People not to compete for number one in the world with US
Millions of foreigners are doing business and living in China guys.
This guy is SPOT ON. Members of the 50 cent party can disagree however much they want but I speak from a free place where I am not controlled by any oppressive regime.
Oh my god we cannot travel as tourist to USA where death penalty exist!
Respect to the two gentlemen addressing the Sri Lanka debt trap issue.
China needs to be "more transparent". In other words stop lying, stop cheating, stop taking advantage of your partners' weaknesses.
the most objective view about Sri Lanka expressed here.
YOU BUY IT, IT WILL BREAK.
i dont understand a country that is willing to invest massive amount of money in RD is bad for the world. I cannot see why countries can't invest same amount of money in RD as well ? They argument is China is too big, they cannot complete.... China's scale is too large. Gosh is that China's fault its too big, it has 1.3 billion people? What is the solution for being too big, don't invest? don't progress 1/6 of humanity ? You want China to get smaller ? The argument is flawed
Aside from technology issue, The key drive of the current conflict lays largely on absence of TAX on profit made by both western multi national capitalists as well as chinese industry workers. This generate hostility. As we know that China has no individual Tax system, so the high income chinese businessman walked away from social responsibility so did western multi nationals played all tricks to avoid tax which results electoral success of Trump.
Now Germany are using huawei 5G