The Europeans are pulling their hairs trying to convince the big corporations from being over reliance on China, both in manufacturing and consumer market. The Americans are using these to frighten the European corporations, but in vain. The profit minded western corporations, including American corporations, found the Chinese market and China as a manufacturing base indispensable for their growth and revenue. No country today can provide this kind of opportunity. Cheap land, cheap cost in everything, a pro business central govt, efficient supply chain and most of all, the best and most hardworking workers in the world, cheap, skilled and highly educated and highly disciplined.
Foxconn is employing a few hundred thousand workers in China producing iPhones for Apple. Why would Apple want to put all their eggs in one basket? Simple logic, simple business sense. The benefits are worth the little risk of having all their eggs in one basket. Even with all the rhetoric and aggressive anti China policies, the manufacturing of iPhones and all items, including machiney and automobiles, continues unscathed. It is business as usual, no political interference. There is certainty in the policies of the Chinese govt, to protect the businesses and interests of investors, particularly foreign investors.
The western media have been harping about foreign investors running away, pulling out of China, including obsessive and outrageous American behaviours to force corporations to quit China, but foreign investors would not move, keep on piling into China.
The alternatives are poor options, poor quality workers, instability, bad govt policies, poor infrastructure and supply chains, corruptions etc etc that would cripple foreign investors and end in big losses. Some tried, Apple also tried, to divest away from China, to not be over reliance and dependence on China. But every such move ended up in bigger losses and inefficiency.
The Chinese workers are highly skilled and productive, cooperative and disciplined, the best in the world. Singapore used to be the best in the world, with mainly ethnic Chinese workers until it corrupted its workforce with fake and low productive workers from the third world. Today, there is no pride in Singapore workers, no more bragging rights as the best in the world, only low productivity and inefficiency. The real productive and efficient workers are the Chinese workers in China. The reliance of foreign talents is turning into a big joke, plenty of headcounts but low in productivity.
Singapore's Chinese workforce are now no talent ex PMETs, despised and sneered by the third world so called talents from dunno where and what universities. What a joke!
Apple is not alone, the big automotive manufacturers, chemicals and pharmaceuticals, are all queuing up to enter China. They know where to find value. Cutting off China, running away from China, anti China rhetoric of not wanting to be dependent on China would lead to one way, the loss way, the lost way.
China is the place to make things happened and to make money, high profits from low cost and efficiency and disciplined workforce. The current glitch as a result of Covid is temporary and short term and production would return to normal soon, very soon. The Chinese govt is determined to stop the Covid at all cost and return to normalcy.
7 comments:
Talks and threats about manufacturing and companies running away from China are just propaganda to demonise China.
There are so many factors to take into consideration and not just empty talk about manufacturing moving out. China is too big a market to run away from, and that is the most important reason for it's attraction. And it still is.
Other factors include supply chain backing up those big manufacturers, like mobile phone makers, that would be difficult to find elsewhere. They are all mostly there in China, ready to be tapped if needed. Where else in the world can manufacturer's find all that with ease? Sure, they can build a big manufacturing base in another country, but they have also to build the supply chains that can provide all that is needed to support the base.
Another factor is finding skilled workers needed to support the manufacturing process. China has all the skilled workers that have been well educated and already well experienced in such highly skilled manufacturing. Sure, other countries can train workers from scratch, but at what cost and who is doing all that? What about the time factor to do all that? Putting the cart before the horse is not going to achieve anything.
Not all countries have the kind of transportation infrastructure for moving raw materials and finished goods, efficiently and speedily to and from ports and airports. Sure they can start building ports and railways to cater for that, but again at what cost, and who is doing all that and there is again the time factor. Again, putting the cart before the horse is not going to move anything.
The question is, if manufacturing is indeed running away from China, why are the Germans trying to move the bulk of their top manufacturers like BASF, Volkswagen, Mercedes, Siemens and BMW into China. It does not make sense and defies logic. And they are not moving from anywhere else, but from Germany and Little Britain, all well established manufacturing hubs. Think about that!
Soon the flats would be shrunk and sitting on the bed one can touch the toilet and the kitchen. Very super convenient. No need to move around, no need to walk to the kitchen or toilet.
The most important factor is that China's Workforce is a very well disciplined and respected workforce!
>>>>>
@Virgo49 said...
"Hi Anon 1.02
You know the reasons why?
Because they were just afraid that with the Oppo MPs seeking clarifications and debates in the Parliament, they might unprepared and unwittingly show their foxes tails and legs and leaked out policies that might aggravated the masses.
So they have to rid of the Opposition Parties MPs as many as possible.
That's why they spelt groom and doom if many Oppo MPs are in.
Take today Jamu and Disgraceful debates in which now the WP and Cheng Bock's MPs are eloquent than the Papies MPs."
November 09, 2022 8:04 pm
<<<<<
Hi Uncle Virgo,
Abraham Maslow once said sthg along the line that if one only has a hammer, everything looks like a nail....
Imho, to be useful for the cause, one needs to adapt to the situations or problems on hand... And in that sense economist Dr James Ling fell (far) short in that debate. Credit should be given where it is due. And in that aspect, IMHO, non-economic trained Environment Minister ironically understood correctly the (micro)Economics of the carbon tax issues they were debating when clarifications were sought?
She rightfully stated and implied that the carbon tax is NOT meant to be a fiscal policy instrument per se.
IMHO, in this aspect, the Environment Minister is spot on and hit the "nail" on its "head".
As Abraham Maslow said, anyone (including Dr James Ling?) should NOT only have a hammer (as his sole ability) and treat every problem /issue as a nail?
To treat everything as a nail or rather every issue as an economic case is IMHO doing a disservice to the reputation and discipline of the Economic field. For example, even if you are the BEST surgeon in town, you should NOT treat say inflation as a medical issue and try to prescribe solutions through the lenses of a doctor?
Though climate change and carbon emissions may be seen to be economic issues or have economic implications, the tools to solve it may NOT be necessary macroeconomic in nature?
Macroeconomic stabilisation tools in the form of G (govt expenditure) and T (taxes) essentially address macroeconomic issues such as aggregate demand to smoothen fluctuations in KEIs for example actual economic growth around the trend line.
Dr James Ling argument seems to tag carbon tax as such a tool which analytically can be problematic?
In this case, carbon emission is a market failure situation aka microeconomic issue. Carbon tax is utilised as a tool in such situation to internalize the social costs of negative externalities arising from economic activities that generate carbon emissions.
Hence, IMHO, Environment Minister correctly gave the knock out blow by reminding the economic Professor that the nail or rather issue on hand is NOT fiscal in nature?
To argue using a fiscal model analysis for issue non-fiscal in nature, IMHO, seems NAQ (NOT answering the question)?
Can some other real economists stand up and confirm the above-mentioned?
Cheers,
Leo 81
If Singapore stops flooding the island with more people, it does not need to do anything more, no need to save the use of plastic bags and all the nonsense, and it will save a lot of wasteful consumptions and destruction of the few forests left, and it would not contribute to raising temperature of the world.
If countries of the world stop population growth, the only reason for it is for economic growth, the world would be saved, no need to panic about temperature rising.
See how stupid these politicians are, spreading fears of climate change but keep raising consumption of everything, burning down forests, to build and build, actually to destroy and destroy, all for economic growth.
Let us go straight to the Cruz.
All these talks of carbon emission and all polutant matters are moot looking at them from any angle.
One thing that is inevitable is that mankind shall destroy themselves with their own invention and doing, long before nature itself dies.
The hooha about climate change due to the Humankind, though factual is secondary to the Fact that Earth itself is aging and dying with volcano, earthquake, tsunami and other natural disasters happenning.
Say it again, humankind
shall destroy themselves long before nature does it.
Cruz,
in my comment above to be corrected to
Crux.
My Sincere Applogy.
patriot
Post a Comment