LyrArc Article Gist
Some of the flaws in China's development model are shown by the Economist. Over half of the economy is dominatd by state run enterprises. And the remainder is also heavily influenced by local government and officials from the government. Financing goes through state run banks which lend to state run enterprises, and only a small fraction of lending goes to small businesses. These busineses are not actively looking to support innovation and new products. The other weakness that the Economist correctly points out, is that by contrast even in the 1960's, about 10 years into Japan's postwar development, quality control was a big thing with companies in Japan. The Deming Prize was seen as the most prestigious prize for Japanese companies, and Japanese engineers tried to learn everything they could about quality control to make Made in Japan mean high quality. They succeeded by the 1980's in making this happen, with leading global brands like Sony, Matsushita, Panasonic, Toyota, Honda, Canon and a host of other brands. If 1980 in China, is where Japan was in 1950, now about 30 years later there is nothing like what was seen happen in Japan in the area of quality and global brands. The area in which the freewheeling culture of capitalism has been most successful is the economic zone, a 2 hour drive between Guanghou and Shenzen. It manufactures mostly low tech goods like toys and apparel and shoes, and these manufacturing facilities are of low quality, with poor conditions for labor. With the efforts by the government to move to higher value added and high tech products these businesses came under pressure by mid 2007, with new labor laws, more enforcement, pollution control laws and resulting higher costs. As they felt the impact by mid 2008 from the higher costs, some businesses disappeared. Then another and even bigger problem hit these businesses. The global economic crisis, the shortage of credit in western countries to sustain import orders, and the rapid fall off of demand from highly indebted consumers in the USA, has led to closure of most of these businesses. The rapidity with which many of these businesses closed is amazing, as row after row of these buildings are now empty in the Guangzhou-Shenzen area. Another development is happening in Taiwanese firms like Hon Hai, that with little disclosure, make IPods, laptops, PC's, and other electronic products in the same area. At one point this firm employed 250,000 people in a industrial city sized factory campus. Now it is shifting production to places like Vietnam. Now Taiwanese reports say that the workforce of Hon Hai in Shenzen area will drop to 100,000. Other Taiwanese firms are also shifting production to other countries. Climate change and the heavily polluting industries that are widespread in China is one of the other flaws in the Chinese development model. Another is the lack of energy efficiency in these industries. With all these changes exposing the deeper flaws in the model China has used for development for the last 30 years, this a time for change in the way economic development takes place in China. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
What Handan Iron and Steel in Hebei Province 300 miles south of Beijing and ThyssenKrupp in Dortmund, Germany, have in common. The transplanting of Germany's aging defunct iron and steel furnaces and plant to Handan, boxed and crated away- its unreal that in 1998 Handan Iron and Steel bought and transferred an aging polluting plant to a city where the steel works are located in China which has 8.5 million residents. When years later the steel works were debated to be moved to a distance away from the city with Baoshan Steel, the decision was made to instead put a new plant there instead. The solution was to make pollution payments to residents of Handan. It was Mao's dream to build a steel industry in Hebei province ,which has large deposits of iron ore and coal and a rail line. Couple of questions come up to mind- one why did the first steel works go up right in Handan, and same is true of Dortmund, labor supply perhaps but couldn't homes be built nearby instead and these plants located away from cities. Second the deal for bringing the ThyssenKrupp plants was as recent as 1998, by this time China was already a big steel producer (producing more than the US by one estimate) and in a few years Chinese steel production was to exceed the US, Europe and Japan combined. With steel production already on the rise why didn't China move more carefully. Some of the Thyssen Krupp assets were built only a few years before 2000 and met stringent environmental control. China bought these.. Why didn't China pick out the best assets instead of old aging blast furnaces. The possible answers are that they were available at cut rate prices, but were they worth it. The second is that Hebei must be competing with other parts of China, and there wasn't a rational allocation of capital as would happen if a sophiticated company like a Mittal or a Tata Steel is involved. Is China operating on a outmoded concept- nationalism, competition between provinces with local government officials running the show? The other question is that in the case of the automobile industry a different pattern is seen, the most modern technology was selected , and in the case of Cherry, the most recent technology was selected for manufacturing cars, then why was this same pattern not adopted in the case of steel. In the end China has a surplus of steel mills, which makes this rush into steel production without carefully thinking through this appear to have been a mistake. The visual picture if one flies into Dortmund of manmade lakes, green park areas and residential housing and shopping from the $22 billion the EU and Germany are investing to turn the Ruhr valley region of Dortmund into a centre of education, technology and tourism now contrasts sharply with Handan in Hebei province. Can emerging countries do better, build manufacturing for jobs but keep living conditions in mind, be patient and work to achieve the best overall results, and build education, technology, appropriate for their own situation. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Under new proposed changes carbon emissions permits would be sold to industry and heavier polluters would have to pay more. And to make it fair to European companies exporters in other countries like China would have to buy these carbon permits to be able to export to Europe. There is similiar discussion about this in the USA which expects caps on greenhouse gas emissions in a few years. These changes wouldn't go into effect till 2013 at the earliest and industry will be trying to create a level playing field by then. Countries like China and India because they are developing have been exempt from the greenhouse caps under the Kyoto Protocol which expire 2012. Under the Kyoto Protocol which Europe signed and the USA did not sign, European companies are giving carbon permits free to emit a certain amount of greenhouse gas every year, the heavier polluters have to buy the permits from the ones that pollute less creating an incentive for companies to reduce emisssions.

LyrArc Article Gist
In a first at Davos World Economic Forum, China's president Xi Jinping uses the 2017 meeting to give a one hour long spirited defense of the world trading system, critical of U.S. president elect Trump's protectionist views without naming him. Xi pointed out that "no one will be winners in a trade war." And went on to add that restricting world trade was like "locking oneself in a dark room, keeping out wind and rain from outside but also light and air." For the first time Jinping stated that China would take the U.S. role of defending the world trading system from attack as needed. On climate change Xi defended the Paris accords, and gave China's commitment to pursue changes regardless of what the U.S. under president Trump does. This follows Chancellor Merkel of Germany's statements on the issue critical of the views of president elect Trump, and taking the lead to defend the world trading system. Xi also pointed out that many of the ills that led to voter discontent in the West were not really from the freeing up of trade but from the pursuit of excessive profit with the financial crisis of 2008.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Mr Leung, the highly unpopular Chief Executive of Hong Kong, and target of protesters demanding his resignation and universal suffrage in 2017 as originally promised, is a reserved man who does not interact much with the public. His secondary scholing was at Kings School in Hong Kong followed by studies at Hong Kong Polytechnic for a higher diploma in building surveying. He then studied valuation and estate management at Bristol Polytechnic in Britain graduating in 1977. He was a surveyor by training and worked in this field to help China open up its property markets in the 1980's. By 30 he was made head of the JLW real estate firm's Hong Kong branch, and in 1993 formed his own firm DTZ Debenham. Throughout his life he has worked for or had close ties to the authorites in Beijing in the property field, and has little political experience. In 1985 he was elected to the Hong Kong Basic Law Consultative Committee, and later became its Secretary General. This was followed by a position in the Chinese government as a member of the National Standing Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference till 2012. His first political campaign in 2012 was itself of a limited nature because he only had to win support from members of a 1200 member pro-China, pro-business Executive Council that currently approves nominees and elects the Chief Executive. Albert Ho, one of three candidates in 2012, says Leung was completely insulated from political pressures, political give and take, and uses a "greenhouse" comparison to describe this isolation from the public. His progressive credentials for providing affordable housing involve ideas to open up housing development in territories near Hong Kong appear to be merely election period ideas. The large gaps between rich and poor, or rich and a struggling middle class in Hong Kong- becoming sharply accentuated in China to the point where China is probably one of the most unequal societies similiar to Brazil- are also keenly present in Hong Kong. How much part this plays in the protests is not clear in media reports, though the "Occupy Central" name for one of the protest groups suggests a connection to social issues as well. Protestors may see democratically elected chief executives as more responsive to voter concerns including social, income, housing and other issues, in sharp contrast to more than 1200 well heeled business executives who have prospered greatly in China's boom years. China's national leadership under Jinping and LiKeqiang appeared to sense this income divide as they focussed on extragavant displays of wealth in the transition, but may still have failed to grasp how big that gap has become and how the political processes of rigid control cannot keep up with the times even with the best of intentions. Especially when growth slows and the problems of the boom years such as hyperinflation in property prices and pollution remain unsolved. Bloomberg quietly let the Occupy Wall Sreet protests fizzle out clearing protestors at times, yet voters could peacefully elect Mr. Blasio as Mayor of New York in response, a level to which Beijing's political system has not evolved and to which Hong Kong offers both a challenge and an opportunity. As one protester quoted in the NYT put it- "we are not the enemy, we are the people."...

LyrArc Article Gist
Daniel Bell at Tsinghua University in Beijing, Andy Xie, economist in Shanghai, Zhang Habin, professor at Peking University, and Michael Meyer, author and hutong expert, talk about what issues are important. Bell says Obama mania is absent among the young in China, though they respect his intellectual abilities, and Chinese are not looking to the USA for ideals. They are looking to Chinese culture and characteristics, and democracy is seen in this light with emphasis on Chinese characteristics. This means the US has to engage at a deeper level with China. Treat China as an equal with something positive to offer, says Bell. Andy Xie is concerned about the US-China relationship, based as it is today on tenuous grounds, where what happens in Florida and California can have a significant and immediate effect on what happens in Guangdong. With 70% of the furniture sold in the US made in China, the effects are immediate when housing slumps. So he says the US lost 3 million jobs since the subprime crisis, and China lost 20 million jobs. And for the 5 million college graduates coming out in 2009, they will be adding to the 5 million college graduates from previous years who are seeking jobs. Ten million unemployed college graduates mean China is seeing whole new conditions as the backdrop of US-China relations. Habin says its important for the US to set an example in climate change and emissions of greenhouse gases. The US should sign an agreement with China with binding targets, make its technology available to China, and provide development aid to make this technology and other assistance accessible to China. Cooperation on this issue is vital to future relations says Habin. Meyer says the hutong, small enclaves of old Beijing with lanes and small homes, that the city officials call neighborhood slums, but actually have a sense of community and a vibrant life, are worth preserving. He questions the Walmart and Pepsi commercial culture, and questions building of the American car culture urban plan that generates pollution, lacks community feeling, and is not energy efficient. In fact he has a point here, because the US is shifting away from its own older urban planning design that encourages urban sprawl, as in California. The new Sacramento urban plan that is being adopted for the future in America has energy efficiency, more community and easy interaction, less urban sprawl in mind. See the link to this. But Meyer says Chinese planners insist on their right to make the same mistakes American urban planners made. And Meyer quotes the head of the first Chinese environmental NGO, who says, "if the Chinese want to live the American way of life we need 7 earths to support them". Which raises a disturbing question of the US postwar way of life with its large SUV's, urban sprawl, and less sense of community. Wouldn't the US have to join India and China in the worldwide scramble for resources to preserve this way of life? Just this week China signed $51 billion of deals for natural resources, see the link. And is the rapid decline of the SUV, just the first sign of changes that are taking place, with the economic changes in coming years leading to grappling with issues of better quality of life, smaller quantity of things, health and obesity and lifestyles, community, all coming to the fore. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
How ethanol picture as a useful alternative fuel has changed completely in the past year. The economics of ethanol also have changed completedly in the past year, as corn prices have risen to above $3 abushel and stayed there, even with the biggest corn crop since 1945, and prices of ethanol have dropped with huge oversupply of ethanol from $5 a gallon in June 2006 to about $1.85 a gallon today. Global ethanol production has grown from 10.9 billion gallons in 2006 to 13.4 billion gallons in 2007 according to IEA. US's ethanol production is about half of this or 7 billion gallons and is up 80% in 2 years. The production capacity of ethanol with new plants is expected to jump to about 12 billion gallons in 2008 even as demand for ethanol is about 7 billion gallons.This huge oversupply accounts for the drop in prices of ethanol with margins dropping from $2.30 in 2006 to 25 cents in late 2007. Its become less and less attractive as an alternative fuel as more studies appear and more groups cite the different ways in which ethanol has destructive effects on the environment. Corn is in demand by food companies and by livestock companies in the USA and generally across the developing world so raising corn prices is seen very unfavorably around the world. Nation Academy of Sciences study and a National Research Council study says corn based ethanol could strain water supplies and impair water quality. American Lung Assocation worries about the the air pollution from burning ethanol in gasoline. And a EPA Spring 2007 report says ozone levels increase with increased use of ethanol. A study coauthored by Nobel prize winning chemist Paul Crutzen says it might exacerbate climate change because of the added fertilizer used to produce corn raised emissions of nitrous oxide. All this has made people wary of ethanol and much of the early enthusiasm for ethanol has vanished. The lobbying struggle pits the ethanol producers and the farm lobby in the midwest against oil companies which don't like being forced to use a non-petroleum fuel even with a subsidy of 54 cents of gallon for blending ethanol into gasoline, and food and livestock companies which need corn at lower prices. Add to this the weight of environmental organizations and countries across the developing world which simply don't like the idea of using scarce food resources in this manner and find this to be just not a right thing to do for the world's poor which need corn as a basic food source. Consider Mexico where this affects the price of a staple food corn tortillas and China which bans the use of corn for making biofuels, both countries seek to keep food prices low for the country's large numbers of rural and urban poor people and could see the stability of these countries disturbed by huge rise in food or fuel prices. As a result of all this the ethanol lobby is looking to Congress to mandate a certain usage figure of ethanol in gasoline production in the new energy law. This legislation now could become controversial in the future as better ways of solving the energy crisis such as automobile fuel efficiency reducing demand and conservation, as well as other alternative sources that have fewer adverse environmental impact come into play. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
China's GDP growth of 8.7% for 2009 is based on private sector investment in housing and infrastructure spending through the stimulus funds. Now with a asset price bubble developing from excesssive lending in 2009 the government is trying to slow bank lending. Experts see a situation similiar to Japan, as an asset price developed there in the 1980's after rapid industrialization. Even though China will still be a developing country after this phase of growth. Property prices are going up by 20% a year in the major cities. And with it making housing unaffordable for most people except the top 20% of the people who comprise about 120 million. This raises issues of equitable growth for Beijing. Much of the rest of the country is being left behind when it comes to housing and in other areas like health care.

LyrArc Article Gist
China's Environment Ministry has not released the results of a soil survey from across China. Independent estimates from Nanjing Agricultural University in a 2007-2008 survey showed about 10% of rice in China contaminated by high levels of cadmium. In May 2013 officials found a large number of samples of rice from markets in Guangzhou contaminated with cadmium. Cadmium is a carcinogenic metal that damages the kidneys and weakens bones when unknowingly taken in excessive levels.

LyrArc Article Gist
The story behind the Mattel recall of a million toys for high concentrations of lead in the paint contamination gradually emerges. Fake lead free paint shipped by a supplier, the supplier owned by a friend of the owner of Le Deer, the Matttel supplier of toys in China. All this while Mattel seems unconcerned about the damage that one woud expect to see done to its own image among parents who buy these toys.

LyrArc Article Gist
Mattel and the import of lead contaminated toys from its Chinese supplier, as its quality monitoring system failed completely.

LyrArc Article Gist
Reports that the family and relatives of China's prime minister Wen Jiabao have accumulated assets worth about $2.7 billion.

LyrArc Article Gist
The astounding fact in this French FR24 report on the Paris Climate Change Agreement and country carbon emissions show that China's emissions accelerated to rise 3 fold in 2015 to about 12 billion tons of carbon emissions from about 4 billion in 2000. US remains at about 6 billion. India is at about 3 billon tons of carbon emissions, about where China was in 2000 when it had about 4 billion tons of carbon emissions. This is shown in the graph on carbon emissions from FR24. The US, European Union graph curves on tons of carbon emissions since 2000 are all flat or declining, India rising slowly from a small base, China's curve is rising straight up from a large enough base at an unbelievable and dangerous rate. What has happened and is it getting worse? China's economy expanded too quickly as globalization was accelerated by banks, and business in the US and Europe, and by the Chinese governments at the local level and the state level. This had negative consequences for US, Europe and China. The too fast growth in China at rates of 10-15% based solely on False GDP indicators that did not take into account damage to the environment and workers was that it hurt manufacturing and working class in US and Europe and contaminated the environment. This was not like growth of Japan in 1960-1980, a smaller country in the way it affected the US and European working classes. Hyper Growth at 10-15% of a large country with 1 billion people compressed over a short period, is cited by Greg Ip in the WSJ as the cause of the negative impact on America.  It hurt China through pollution of rivers and land at an accelerated pace. It hurt China as trade with US and Europe became unsustainable with the loss of manufacturing in the US and Europe leading to a trade war. From these graphs of emissions it now appears that the 3 fold rise in carbon emissions from about 4 billion tons in 2000 to about 12 billion tons in 2015 is the result of unregulated business activity of all those who preferred to push hyper growth in China purely for reasons of profit such as investment banks and corporations in US, Europe, and state or local companies in China.  This has also aggravated inequality in US, Europe and China, and hurt rural populations. Xi Jinping is attempting to correct this in China, Biden is trying to correct this in the US, and Scholz will now attempt to correct this in Germany and the European Union. It is also to be noted that China in 2000-2015 did not have the benefit of the newer technologies that India now has access to, which is why India says it is able to reduce carbon emissions per each unit of GDP by 35% from 2005 levels by 2030. It is this efficiency in producing units of GDP with newer and newer technologies that China lacked in its period of hyper growth 2000-2015 that now looks to have hurt China- with overflow of highly polluting steel mills and other factories which it would prudently and wisely have cut back on. Looking back at this period one sees the wholesale transfer of highly polluting plants in Germany being sold and put up in China, a poor developing country in 2000. Was this a good decision for Germany or for China? In this way the banks and large corporations in the US and Europe who use economic indicators that are limited such as dollar profits, without overall indicators that include negative effect damage to the environment that requires huge investments to correct, problems of trade wars leading to political conflicts, are acting like a person walking blindly in one direction.  With some foresight China and all its trading partners would have done better with slower but more careful Chinese growth of 7-8% that would have better met societal goals in US, Europe and China, avoiding high carbon emissions segments of industries from Day 1. Jinping is doing this in China, and Biden is doing this in the US- cutting out highly polluting factories and segments of industries- but in a climate of mutual distrust, which could have benefitted the world when conducted in a climate of cooperation and trust. The pandemic made the situation even more difficult. Power shortages in factories and blackouts in Chinese cities have led to a reversal of policies on use of coal in China months before the COP26 Glasgow conference and G-20 summit leaving a huge gap. Without the presence of Xi Jinping at COP26 in Glasgow and with Chinese participation uncertain significant progress on climate change is elusive. Estimates by US Renewable Energy Agency is that it would cost $131 trillion to pay for limiting emissions to global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius. Some major share of this cost can be attributed to the increase from about 4 billion tons in 2000 of carbon emissions in China to about 12 billion tons in 2015, increase by 3 times. One can clearly see from this sudden jump in carbon emissions in China that policies of hyper growth with unregulated polluting industries adding to GDP growth figures was bad policy for China, bad policy for US, and Europe, even if it offered temporary profits for individual companies. India has the advantage of learning from this experience and charting its own wiser course as a partner with US, Europe and Japan and by Modi's vigorous efforts in renewable energy. The lesson- look at all indicators of progress, including climate and society, not just economic indicators in profit or dollar terms, take the tough decisions early in regulating polluting companies and industry segments, and bring full and active public participation with transparent access to data on climate damaging activity in real time because climate and the environment we live in free of polluting substances belongs to all the people, belongs to all life on the planet from trees to animals and birds, not companies that can choose to ignore it. ...