Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Injin

Protection-your-ism

Recommended Posts

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/KF11Cb02.html

HONG KONG - Foreign businesses keen to benefit from China's 4 trillion yuan (US$586 billion) economic stimulus package announced last November are being thwarted by Chinese government insistence that the funds are public and their spending must therefore be governed by government procurement law.

This stipulates that public purchases must give priority to Chinese-made products and domestically generated services. Chinese officials also say the procurement law is largely bypassed in practice, especially by local-authority officials. Efforts are being made to limit such deals.

The issue came to public attention after a European business representative said the government had kept foreign firms out of contracts under its stimulus package.

"All the foreigners are out of the race" for a package of 25 wind turbine orders worth more than 5 billion euros (US$7 billion), said Joerg Wuttke, president of the European Union Chamber of Commerce in China, on May 28. "It seems that the central government has decided that this must be awarded to Chinese manufacturers and not foreigners who have invested big in China," he was quoted by the Financial Times as saying.

The world's top three wind-turbine makers - Denmark's Vestas Wind Systems, US-based GE Energy and Spanish company Gamesa - failed even to make it into the second round of bidding. Also excluded was India's Suzlon Energy, ranked fifth in the world. This despite such companies having invested heavily in China in response to Beijing's demand that they source at least 70% of their components locally for sales in the country, the English newspaper said.

Wind-turbine makers and other companies involved in producing alternative energy were expected to benefit from the stimulus package as China is also seeking to reduce its dependence on highly polluting fossil fuels. China's wind capacity will rise nearly tenfold by 2020, the head of National Energy Administration, Zhang Guobao, said on May 26.

The National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), which oversees the implementation of the stimulus package as the country's top economic planner, responded to Wuttke's claims by saying on its website that purchases for government investment projects count as government procurement, hence priority must be given to home products unless the technologies, goods or services to be bought are not available or cannot be obtained under "reasonable commercial conditions" and "within the boundaries" of the country.

continues at link....

The "fun" stuff begins right about now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Indeed, one wonders how much longer they need us and our dodgy paper for.

Can't be long now.

why buy from foreign companies when those companies make the parts there and the blueprints can be stolen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
why buy from foreign companies when those companies make the parts there and the blueprints can be stolen.

The US & Japan developed by stealing Intelectual Property don't see why the Chinese were going to do any different.

Watched the Money programme last night interviewing Dyson about how valuable IP rights would be going forwards had a bit of a giggle at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The US & Japan developed by stealing Intelectual Property don't see why the Chinese were going to do any different.

Watched the Money programme last night interviewing Dyson about how valuable IP rights would be going forwards had a bit of a giggle at that.

spot on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the script..

China welcomes foreign investment and technology.

China subsidises startup of foreign businessess within China.

China integrates itself into these businessess.

China gets a look at the books and prototypes.

China punts them and reverse engineers their stuff.

China produces its own and kills off orginaters, flaunts copyright laws etc...

Repeat

This is the way of the present and future. Get used to it kiddies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
China produces its own and kills off orginaters, flaunts copyright laws etc...

Funny you should say that. It's a very prevalent story: so much that my first reaction when contacted by the chinese translator of my book was (I'm ashamed to say) "is this legit?" Of course it was, and the basic story was exactly the same as any translation: they work with the publisher, and the first the author knows is when the translation appears on a royalty statement. The only difference in this case was that the translator had taken the initiative to contact me and ask if I'd write a preface for the translation! It's chronicled on my blog:

  1. Request arrives, out-of-the-blue

  2. The preface

  3. Royalty payment

Must be stealing my IP and ripping me off? Yeah, right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest KingCharles1st
Here is the script..

China welcomes foreign investment and technology.

China subsidises startup of foreign businessess within China.

China integrates itself into these businessess.

China gets a look at the books and prototypes.

China punts them and reverse engineers their stuff.

China produces its own and kills off orginaters, flaunts copyright laws etc...

Repeat

This is the way of the present and future. Get used to it kiddies.

This is what Japan did in the thirties, leading up to WW2- BUT, certainly with regard to Aviation (the highest tech thing of its time) They DID at least BUY from America each aircraft they were interested in before doing the copying, and in many cases, compacting and improving

With regard to China, firstly- kick all their companies out, then stop exporting ALL second hand machinery and scrap metals to them- bollo cks the them

Our Governments are so weak

Edited by KingCharles1st

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is obviously a positive development, as it will increase the likelihood of retaliatory protective measures, therefore increasingly confining industrial enterprises within their own national borders.

As such, global wage arbitrage will be reduced, driving up wages, thus offering a genuine stimulus to national economies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Our governments are the problem. They only care about their own personal wellbeing. As if they care about us or our country.

Our governments reflect us. Who do you think has been buying all the cheap stuff that puts people out of work?

Edited by bogbrush

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The US & Japan developed by stealing Intelectual Property don't see why the Chinese were going to do any different.

Watched the Money programme last night interviewing Dyson about how valuable IP rights would be going forwards had a bit of a giggle at that.

The same rule-book that says that debt ought to be repaid, also says that property ought to be respected (they are different expressions of the same rule).

Both sides are going to end up ignoring the rule-book IMO. I'm not sure who has most to lose...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Our governments refelct us. Who do you think has been buying all the cheap stuff that puts people out of work?

Our governments, especially leaders and trade negotiators, have been more than willing to accept bribes to sell out their countrymen.

That is what the Chinese and Japanese before them have sussed out.

Reagan took millions in speaking/ bribery fees in Japan after leaving office a demented old man. How many US car manufacturers got a toehold in Japan? Free trade?? Not really - it only ever worked one way

You cannot blame the people for the decisions made by our leaders behind closed doors. It wasn't the purchasing decision that caused this. It was trade agreements negotiated by our bribed elites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Must be stealing my IP and ripping me off? Yeah, right.

Maybe not in your case (how would you know?) but it happens:

The iterations of Potter fraud and imitation here are, in fact, so copious they must be peeled back layer by layer. There are the books, like the phony seventh novel, that masquerade as works written by Rowling. There are the copies of the genuine items, in both English and Chinese, scanned, reprinted, bound and sold for a fraction of the price of the authorized texts.

...

The attitude reflected in Wang's comment goes a long way toward explaining not only the explosion of unauthorized Harry Potter literature in China, but also the much larger problem of rampant piracy in China, where travelers can find six different knockoffs of Viagra, without prescription, on display at airport drugstores, and where bootleg DVDs, fake Picassos, and even near-identical copies of famous-brand automobiles are widely available.

China has recently stepped up efforts to rein in the production, and especially the export, of fraudulent and substandard goods in the wake of scandals concerning dangerous drug and food exports. Authors and editors say, though, that cleaning up the worlds of literature and publishing is, at best, an afterthought.

The prioritisation of tackling exports of stolen IP seems highly pragmatic/Mercantilist. I wonder what the impact of all this IP theft would be, if it were set against the Chinese trade surplus. (edit: and how much of the future debt-enslavement of the West can be put down to the accounting imbalances caused by this theft?)

Edited by huw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   289 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.