In the post above there is talk about ‘Chinese innovation’. Now lets be honest, innovation isn’t something that China is known for, and its that mentality thats holding China back in many economic aspects. The Chinese have perfected the art of replication, and because of this are now stuck at the cusp of what could catapult them to be the #1 economy in the world. When people think China they think masses of people and they think cheap. Now whether this is the case or not isn’t the point, but the fact that China has been ‘branded’ this has made things ever more difficult for them.

I know I’m all over the place this this comment and I apologize for that, but the main point I’m trying to make is that the degree’s of separation within China’s economy are so great that until there is a realized need for innovation on a personal level China will always be viewed as one big factory. Its elite (the ones who view the system from an external view) will remain elite and its masses will remain masses. I feel the effects of this everyday and until the time comes where China allows its internal system (from which the Chinese mentality is built upon) to be ‘cracked’ by outside influences it will remain a means to an end.

What they didn’t have is a contact in the U.S. to assist with the launch nor did they know anyone who could introduce them into this market. What if however, they partnered up with a strong cookware company or better yet someone who was already doing infomercials? Could they hit the $50-100MM in sales they felt was possible?

If you take this story out of the realm of turkey fryers, the Chinese are innovating every day but will rely on marketing expertise here to be successful. Likewise, there are Western companies who will require the next generation of innovation to maintain and gain market share. This commentary doesn’t even scrape the surface of potential cross boarder M&A activity that could and likely will commence as Eastern entities establish beachheads in the U.S. The typical hurdle rates that private equity and investment banking firms require to do deals will be cast aside by Chinese courtiers who seek to incorporate their intellectual property with U.S. brands.

It is truly a global community that does not have to be protectionist.

For example, the recently announced 600MW / $1.5B Texas wind farm has already drawn sharp criticism in America for its use of Chinese turbine technology and its role in Chinese job creation. Also, the emergence of China’s Geely as the preferred bidder for the sale of Volvo by Ford has resulted in skepticism from the American (and EU) perspective. Specifically, observers question Geely’s commitment to IP safeguards and ability to manage a ‘sophisticated’ brand. Geely has noted that it plans to keep much of Volvo’s management team intact and is working to address IP concerns through ongoing contract negotiations. The optics in both of these deals do seem to point towards a more conservative/protectionist American perspective vis-a-vis a rather straight forward Chinese perspective.

That being said, China-US bilateral investment issues may be something of a red herring for a potentially more substantive change in global trade, investment and development. Specifically, China’s role in the developing world is changing quickly; a lot of this change is driven by private or state investment into the developing world. Ben Simpfendorfer, writing in the NY Times (http://bit.ly/2PYLSz) and elsewhere (http://bit.ly/3uJqN)notes economist Xu Shanda’s vision for a Chinese ‘Marshall Plan’ to significantly boost demand for Chinese goods in the developing world. China’s development activities in the developing world will arguably have a far greater impact ultimately on foreign policy and the role of China in the world. It’s worth noting that while the reaction in America to Chinese investment in the US may dominate news cycles and political leaders with a focus on protectionism and related issues, China will be busy developing new ties in the developing world founded on trade and economic policy. To quote Simpfendorfer, “…it is within the emerging (developing) world itself that the bigger surprises from China will lie.”

what is the whole-systems view of this .. (i.e. looking at earth “from the moon”, as a single object) ..

what is good/better/best from that pov?