Category Archives: Doing Business in China

Corpocracy & the Trade War


Author Gary Moreau, aka Avam Hale in fiction

Lost in all of the furor over the trade war with China is a critical social and business distinction between the two countries. The US operates on a system that presumes the supremacy of the individual. China, on the other hand, operates on a system that presumes the supremacy of geography and ethnicity.

The best example of the difference is the way in which the two countries dole out citizenship to newborns. In the US, if you have a baby on US soil, whether or not the parents are US citizens, or even here legally, the baby has the rights to US citizenship. While that may seem to suggest geography trumps lineage, it reflects the supremacy of the individual’s rights; in this case the baby’s.

In China, on the other hand, it is the ethnicity of the mother that drives the baby’s rights. A baby born in Beijing to a foreign mother has no rights to Chinese citizenship. A baby born to a Chinese mother in Houston, on the other hand, does have rights to Chinese citizenship.

To understand the business implications you must appreciate that under US law, a corporation is a person. They hold all of the rights, save voting, of every US citizen. As a result, they have the right to free speech and they can own property, like intellectual property, in the same way an individual can.

There are many implications of this. The first is the fact that the US taxes the corporation, not its location. It’s far more complicated than I want to get into here, but suffice it to say that the US is one of only a handful of countries that has historically taxed the worldwide income of its corporations. Those corporations could defer that tax, however, which is why so many companies were holding large amounts of cash overseas. The 2017 Tax Reform Act provided for a one-time exclusion in order to encourage companies to bring that cash to the US, and it introduced a hybrid territorial tax system, but the basic idea of treating the corporation as a person remains intact. (They are distinguished from individuals in terms of the tax rates they pay, however.)

China, on the other hand, does not treat its corporations as individuals and regulates them, instead, based on their geography. To the extent that a corporation is doing business in China, be it a foreign company or a domestic one, it will fall under Chinese regulations.

The best example is the way China treats the Internet. Foreign technology companies, including the Silicon Valley tech giants, are not allowed to just reach into the market of Chinese Internet users without being subject to Chinese Internet regulations. And there are regulations in place to require that foreign companies operating in China keep their local data on local servers (in the interest of national security) rather than on servers at the company headquarters in Chicago or Palo Alto.

The basic perspective is that China belongs to the Chinese people. If you, as a foreign company, want to make money off of the Chinese people, that comes with certain obligations. And one of those obligations is to pay taxes that benefit the people you are making money from.

American multi-nationals often charge their foreign subsidiaries enormous fees for what is characterized as corporate support from the home office. This can take many forms—from accounting to engineering—but is generally based on the perspective of the US corporate parent that “I own you” and I can, therefore, do what I want with the money you make in China. “Not so fast,” say the Chinese, however. Before we will allow the Chinese company to pay those fees we want to make sure that those services are really provided and were, in fact, truly necessary. The reality is that many of those fees are for the provision of services that could easily be provided within China at much, much lower rates. (Which would mean more Chinese taxes to benefit the Chinese people.)

The bigger impact of this distinction has to do with all of the fuss you are hearing from President Trump and others about intellectual property. If an American company develops new technology at a research center in China, it believes that it owns that technology. And that’s a perfectly logical position for a corporation to take if you believe that corporations are people and that the US parent company “owns” the Chinese subsidiary.


Available in paperback and Kindle versions
click here for paperback
click here for electronic

That’s not so logical, however, if you have a more collectivist perspective. If new ideas are created by Chinese nationals working in China, in the collectivist view, those ideas should benefit the Chinese people. After all, those inventors benefit from their rights as members of the Chinese community. They go to Chinese-funded schools, drive on Chinese roads, enjoy the fruits of Chinese farmers, and the benefits of community funded police and fire protection.

Which is why there is so much fuss over the sharing of technology between US multi-nationals and their Chinese joint venture partners. (In certain strategic industries that the Chinese consider critical to the interests of the Chinese people, foreign companies must have a minority Chinese partner for their Chinese business.) The word “forced”, however, which Trump is tweeting regularly, is, in my experience, a gross exaggeration. It is nonetheless true that China does not want foreign companies manufacturing there to install antiquated production technology for purposes of skimming profits off of the Chinese economy. And it is true that this technology will eventually leak out, much as it did here in the US back when we were a manufacturing country.

For GM, for example, China is now its single biggest market, and it makes a lot of money there. And it has a minority Chinese joint venture partner. And while I know nothing privileged about the inner workings of GM, I’m sure that they deploy their latest production technology there. Otherwise, they could not compete, the Chinese government would not have allowed China to become GM’s largest market, and after all, it is their largest market. And I’m equally sure GM is concerned about the rising Chinese automakers having access to their technology.

But that is the same concern they have here in Detroit. All of the Big Three automakers use essentially the same supplier base, frequently trade employees, and back engineer each other’s products extensively. Can you tell the difference between a Ford and a Chevrolet at first glance? Why should it be any different for a Chinese automaker? If anyone has a legitimate beef about design and technology leakage it’s probably the Germans—and the culprit is the US, not China.


Named to the List of Best Books of 2017 by Kirkus Reviews (starred review)
“A deeply thoughtful book about business management today and the nature of thought itself.”

As a related aside, the Chinese brand of collectivist thinking tends to infuriate US companies who are accustomed to assuming all of the rights of citizenship. They don’t like being told what to do or how to think. And that arrogance, in turn, has not ingratiated the US corporate community to Beijing. And it is that conceptual friction that is, in the end, contributing greatly to a lot of the US corporate angst toward China that Trump is currently tweeting on behalf of.

Make no mistake, however; the current perspective of US multi-national corporations is NOT “the American way.” This is a very recent development in the US, coinciding with the ongoing incorporation of America. At the time of the Founding Fathers, there were no multi-national corporations and corporations did not enjoy the rights of corporate personhood. Corporations were licensed for very specific purposes, such as building a canal, for a very specific and limited period of time.

As recently as 1900 the average factory in the US employed fewer than ten people, the economy was very localized, and the role of corporations in American life was largely limited to providing employment and supporting the local community. It is only in the latter half of the 20th Century that US corporations were able to achieve the scale and the power they have today. (And from a corporate insider let me assure you that US corporate power today is far greater than you fear.)

The US government, to be fair, resisted the incorporation of America until the rise of the conservative movement in the 1980s. They did it largely through antitrust regulation that promoted healthy competition and protected American consumers and citizens from the dangers of corporate monopolies and oligopolies.

The corporations, aided greatly by the banks and Wall Street, however,  ultimately won, and it wasn’t a fair fight. The politicians, after all, have no power if they can’t get elected, and in order to do that they need money. And since the courts ultimately eliminated any restriction on corporate involvement in politics, it’s no surprise that the deepest pockets ultimately took control of the American political process.

As a result, the US is no longer a democracy; it is a “corpocracy.” Conceptually, the American corporation now plays the same role that the church did in Medieval Europe. The kings may wear the crowns, but it is the corporate “popes” that are really calling the shots.

The incorporation accelerated greatly during the dot-com 90s when young entrepreneurs were preaching disruption and libertarianism. It is ironic, indeed, that this “common man” perspective has now produced among the biggest and most powerful corporations the world has ever known. And they pulled it off, quite impressively, while the anti-trust regulators stood by and watched. (Why would they complain, the politicians were benefiting as much as the entrepreneurs.)

Although Trump is a willing water carrier for American corporate interests, the American corpocracy is ultimately unsustainable. It will implode and the Trump revolution, ironically, is ample evidence that the implosion is already underway. (One of the many contradictions of the Trump era and the man himself.)

Perhaps the ultimate twist of history, however, is that Trump would never have been elected, and the trade war with China would never have been necessary, if the US had, just a few decades ago, adopted the collectivist perspective the Chinese are now applying. We sold our souls; we shouldn’t expect others to do the same.

photo credit above: iStock.com/400tmax

______________________________________

My newest book, We, Ourselves, and Us: Creating a More Just and Prosperous America, is now available on Amazon in paperback (click here) and Kindle (click here) versions.

If you read any of my books and like them  I would greatly appreciate it if you will take the time to post a review on Amazon, Goodreads, or whatever book site you enjoy. Thank you in advance.

The Survival Paradox

The expanding trade war between China and the US has dominated the news and the markets for several days now. I’ve said, however, for quite a while now, to be honest, much of what I have to offer on the topic. I can summarize as follows:

  1. Trump’s trade war with China will hurt American companies and farmers far more than it will hurt China. The time for a trade war with China was at least three decades ago. That horse is long out of the barn.
  2.  If American companies can’t compete without further intellectual property (IP) protection, as they claim, they have a much more serious problem than their need for the “rule of law” (ROL). The ROL promotes oligopoly and hampers market efficiency, as we are now witnessing in our own Silicon Valley.
  3. China has no desire to be the world’s steel or aluminum maker. Its focus is on clean energy and services.
  4. Yes, China has an industrial policy that identifies key industries for investment, as many Western companies complain. So do Germany and Japan. The US is the only developed country without one. (At least one that is transparent to everyone and not authored by corporate lobbyists.)
  5. While government owned enterprises in China enjoy certain benefits, as their American competitors complain, they also carry a lot of social burdens that those same US companies don’t.
  6. For Xi Jinping, saving face in this trade war with the US does not mean preventing any negative impact on the Chinese economy. He will have to clearly defeat the US to claim victory among his own people and Trump is clumsily forcing his hand.
  7. In Understanding China I strongly recommended that Americans try not to negotiate with the Chinese unless they have to. The rules of the game are different. However good a negotiator Trump may be in New York, he will not win in Beijing. It’s a certainty.

What I’d rather write about today, however, is the survival paradox.

There have been numerous books published recently that argue that the discontent the Western world witnesses on its newsfeeds each day is ill founded. Often written by statistical psychologists of one stripe or another, these authors typically provide page upon page of illuminating statistics relating to all the things we should be thankful for. (e.g., better health care, plenty of food, the absence of global war, etc.)

The message is consistent and clear: We need to “get over it.” Life is good in the West and if you don’t think so the failure is in your assessment, not the reality. While it is a message of hope at one level, it is an admonishment against juvenile self-preoccupation at another.

Fair enough.

But beyond the inevitable risk of using statistical averages to prove much of anything, the statistics offered as evidence of the things we should be thankful for are all measures of our survival; perhaps our happiness; but not our personal fulfillment. That I am healthy, have enough to eat, and own an iPhone is all well and good. Survival, however, is not the purpose of life any more than breathing is.

Personal fulfillment, of course, is much more difficult to define, much less measure, than mere survival. Artists have been trying since the beginning of time with little obvious progress. Judging by what is going on in the world around us, much less the fact that publishers and authors alike believe there is a substantial market for books admonishing us to get over our discontent, there is pretty strong evidence that all is not well on the Western front and there is, in fact, a crisis of confidence, if not genuine despair.

And, I increasingly believe, it is that very success in survival that the get-over-it authors refer to that is at the heart of the problem. Not because survival, by itself, is a bad thing, but because it does not exist in isolation. It is just one half of the many dualities that define human life and the universe.

Said differently, survival and fulfillment, the latter of which can be thought of as a sense of personal purpose, are the yin and yang of human life. They are complementary forces that cannot exist in isolation. When they are out of balance with each other, it is the imbalance itself that causes our despair.

In fact, I’ve recently concluded, there is a natural ‘echo chamber’ between survival and fulfillment not unlike the echo chamber created by social media that is the basic ‘scientific’ phenomenon behind fake news and the alt-whatever. The echo arises from the reverberation of the bias inherent in all information and what we misleadingly refer to as “truth.” It is caused by the gap between the reality of our survival on the one side and our personal fulfillment, or lack thereof, on the other.

I think of it as the survival paradox. In surviving more comfortably and successfully we actually disturb the natural balance that has defined, if not human happiness or contentment, human acceptance, since the beginning of time. Such is the disruptive force of modern consumerism and Buddhist monks, of course, have understood it for millennia.

Not everyone, however, wants to live like a Buddhist monk. So what are we to do? And how is that relevant to a blog about China?

It’s relevant for two reasons. The first is that for the West in general, and the US in particular, we have found no way to successfully bridge the survival paradox. To date our only solution has been to double down on consumerism. And that’s why President Trump is now in a trade war with China that he cannot win.

The second reason is that as China has developed over the last thirty years the social divisions that the survival paradox naturally gives rise to have started to show. When outlining his plan to open China to free market forces and Western investment, Deng Xiaoping famously cautioned, “Some must get rich first.”

But, as we in the West know all too well, free market capitalism has a fundamental flaw: The rich don’t just get rich first. They just keep getting richer and richer. And some in China, as Trump’s rally attendees are here in the US, are demanding to know when their time will come.


Available in paperback and Kindle versions
click here for paperback
click here for electronic

There is, however, a fundamental difference in circumstances. China has a collectivist culture and its leadership has shown beyond the shadow of any doubt its commitment to maintaining that orientation. (Ironically, the US has helped. The true individualists among the Chinese have largely emigrated over the last two decades—many to the US.)

American exceptionalism, on the other hand, has been built on a culture of uber-individualism. And our government, and the corporate forces it has merged with in the industrial and post-industrial eras, is in the process of doubling down on individualism in its response to the same survival paradigm.

The problem is that the information age in which we live is no longer compatible with fundamental individualism. Corporate consolidation, digital technology, and advances in personal mobility have made the world so small that it is virtually impossible to live as we did as recently as the Mid-20th Century. Life and the change inherent to it are unfolding at the speed of electrons and we can’t keep up if we insist on each piloting our own boat for our own benefit. (As would be the only reason to fight a trade war.)

This is, in part, why Western institutions of liberal democracy are crumbling. Donald Trump isn’t destroying them. Brexit isn’t destroying them. It is our refusal to acknowledge the survival paradox that is destroying them.

In all of history there have essentially been two types of government control—institutional and individual. And for much of the 20th Century the US was the paragon of the former and China, under Mao Zedong, was a visible example of the latter.

The roles have now reversed. China, while it has a strong personal leader, is governed by a collective institution ideally suited to address the survival paradox and the smaller, integrated world we have become. The US, on the other hand, has an individual leader who talks about collectivist ideals (e.g., Make America Great Again), but who operates outside of any institutional restraints.

One fights trade wars it has already lost. The other plans for a future in which trade wars will be unnecessary and counter-productive.

photo credit above: iStock.com/andriano_cz

______________________________________

My newest book, We, Ourselves, and Us: Creating a More Just and Prosperous America, is now available on Amazon in paperback (click here) and Kindle (click here) versions.

If you read any of my books and like them  I would greatly appreciate it if you will take the time to post a review on Amazon, Goodreads, or whatever book site you enjoy. Thank you in advance.

US Investors are Relieved but Advantage: China


Author Gary Moreau, aka Avam Hale in fiction

US investors went into this past weekend with severe anxiety, the major markets posting their worst week since January 2016. On Monday, however, the DJIA soared 669 points, the largest single day increase since 2008, while the tech-heavy NASDAQ jumped 3.3%

While there are plenty of experts offering an explanation for the wild turnaround, CNBC’s Jim Cramer suggests that China had a lot to do with it. And while that may seem like stating the obvious, Cramer does get China in a way few Americans currently seem to.

Having been a member of the American Chamber of Commerce in China for eight years, I can say with confidence that US corporations, as a group, have close to zero concern with China’s steel and aluminum exports to the US. Trump’s recently announced tariffs would hurt American allies, like Canada, far more than China.

And, of course, Trump knows this perfectly well. We often think of Trump as the first pure businessman to occupy the White House. But he’s not a businessman; he’s a real estate developer; and there’s a big difference. Perhaps more importantly, he is a man without any discernible economic or political ideology. He lives, in other words, for the deal alone.

In announcing the new steel and aluminum tariffs, Trump and his supporters suggest that he made a “successful” deal. He took on the Chinese when no administration in recent memory had the courage to. And he scored one, on the surface, for a core constituency that helped him to capture the White House in 2016.

But he has not fooled the Chinese. The Chinese know exactly what American business wants:
1. More protection for intellectual property (IP).
2. More access to the domestic Chinese markets for American companies in the tech, banking, and professional services sectors.

Everything else is just noise.

What happened over the weekend, according to Cramer and many others, is also pretty simple. China did not crush the American tech sector in response to Trump’s opening trade salvo on steel and aluminum. Investors breathed a sigh of relief and the markets soared.

The main thing to keep in mind, however, is that the Chinese did not pounce on the US tech sector for one very simple reason—they don’t need to. They have the upper hand.

Forget about President Trump’s relationship with President Xi Jinping. It is true that the Chinese put even more cultural, political, and business emphasis on relationships than their American counterparts do. But the emphasis is on the relationship, not the personalities involved. If China defers to the relationship it has with the US you can be assured it has little to do with the personal relationship between the two leaders. Chinese leaders do not have personal relationships.

The bigger issue is the amount of protection governments are willing to give to intellectual property. And here’s the really important news for US investors:

1. The US has the most individual-centric business culture on the planet. And Silicon Valley (SV) is the center of that universe. China, however, has a collectivist culture. The Chinese simply don’t view IP in the saw way that the SV libertarians do. (By the way, many Americans also believe that the government has gone too far in protecting IP rights for wealthy US tech companies. How can we say that Amazon ‘owns’ the one-click, which the US Patent Office says it does?)

The Chinese fully appreciate the role of IP in the West, and will ‘honor’ Western standards to the extent necessary to do business in the global arena. BUT, and it’s a big but, their heart will never be in it to an extent that will satisfy Wall Street or Silicon Valley. (Nor would most Americans want them to if they truly understood how far SV has pushed the concept for its own benefit.)

2. The IP debate is moot anyway. Now that Google and others have digitized the world, IP advantage has lost any sense of real long term value. Digital data is, by definition, discoverable. Security protocols like blockchains, while promising, are far from ready for prime time.

As a practical matter, therefore, digital technology, like water, will inevitably seek its own level globally. We can only slow it down. Which is why the US, China, Russia, and the EU should be focusing as much effort on how to deal with the military implications for global security as they are on grabbing headlines with revelations about teenage troll farmers.

3. The Chinese made a brilliant decision, but they made it decades ago. Unlike the US, which thought it could take over the digital world, the Chinese government decided from the beginning that the Chinese Internet belonged to the Chinese people for both economic and security reasons. At this point, as a result, neither China nor the Chinese people need Facebook. They don’t need Twitter or Instagram. They ‘like’ Apple because the Chinese like Apple’s products, the company employs a lot of Chinese, and Tim Cook has long agreed to play by their rules. (He was, coincidentally, in China over the weekend.) That’s not to say, however, that they are beholden.


Available in paperback and Kindle versions
click here for paperback
click here for electronic

Over the past weekend the Chinese government did announce that it would reduce the forced technology transfers previously required of US companies wishing to do business in China. But that train left the station a long time ago. The train I’m talking about, however, is not the one you might be thinking of. In the end, this concession will be of almost no practical benefit to US tech companies.

Following World War II, both Japan and Germany built advanced industrial economies on the back of their automotive industries – the tech companies of that era. And how did they do it? Both had national industrial policies that both drove the growth of car ownership (e.g. the Japanese paid substantial fines to drive cars more than a few years old) and protected the domestic industry, largely through incentives and non-tariff barriers.

The US has no industrial policy. None. At least not a public one. (If the US markets were truly free, as we are constantly told by our politicians, there would be no need for corporate lobbyists.)

China, like Japan and Germany, has a very transparent national industrial policy that it actively manages. (Tech, not surprisingly, is at the top of the list of priorities.) And, more importantly, now that China boasts the second largest economy in the world, and is home to 1.4 billion potential consumers, it has the domestic scale to make that industrial policy work. It doesn’t need our technology or our products. While the US tech companies need to push beyond US borders to achieve scale, the Chinese tech companies have no similar need to push beyond China’s borders in the short term. Advantage: China.

The bottom line is that if US investors had reason to be concerned about China on Friday, nothing has changed. If they are betting their collective futures on the world domination of the American tech industry, they really should be quaking in their boots.

Trump will continue to make his string of relatively insignificant deals. He will not take on China. And they won’t take him on. They don’t need to—and they know it.

At some point, however, the US would be far better off politically just accepting the reality that China is not the new global bogeyman that the Soviet Union once was. China is behaving entirely rationally and in the best interests of its people.

The US, on the other hand, appears insistent on sacrificing the American people at the altar of American corporate capitalism and its false dogma of absolute individualism. We should stop blaming the Chinese government for protecting its own interests and start asking the US government when they are going to start protecting ours.

photo credit above: iStock.com/sdlgzps

______________________________________

My newest book, We, Ourselves, and Us: Creating a More Just and Prosperous America, is now available on Amazon in paperback (click here) and Kindle (click here) versions.

If you read any of my books and like them  I would greatly appreciate it if you will take the time to post a review on Amazon, Goodreads, or whatever book site you enjoy. Thank you in advance.

It’s a Stumper – Or Not

photo credit: iStock.com/vandervelden

If a ship had 26 sheep and 10 goats onboard, how old is the ship’s captain?

This question made the rounds on the Internet recently. It went viral in the US, where netizens, one after another, marveled at the fact that such a difficult question had been given to 5th grade students in China. Is this some kind of new Chinese math?

It took me a minute, but having spent nine years living and working in China I got the answer fairly quickly. My Chinese wife got it immediately. (As I knew she would.)

The answer? There isn’t one. Or, more accurately, there are many. There is no single answer.

And, no, this isn’t a joke. My wife didn’t even smile. She just answered the question and left the room, after reading the original Chinese and verifying for me that the translation was accurate.

This question is the perfect explanation for why the future of technology is likely to belong to the Chinese and not Silicon Valley. Or maybe not.

The reason this school gave this question to fifth-graders is that there is concern among Chinese educators that Chinese culture fails to instill students with enough curiosity. And curiosity, they believe, is critical to achievement in a technologically advanced world. When I ran a glass factory in China I had the same concern. They’re right, but they’re wrong.

Chinese culture is built on a very inductive worldview. Inductive logic moves from right to left, from observation to speculation. That is why Confucius said, “Wherever you go, there you are,” and that makes all the sense in the world to the average Chinese fifth grader. (Ask your American fifth grader what Confucius meant.)

American culture, in contrast, is built on a deductive worldview. Deductive logic is the logic behind the scientific method and moves from left to right. For every cause there is an effect, and according to the laws of science it is the same every time. (In truth, it is not. Science is really about probabilities, not absolute truths.)

To put it in terms of the modern world, the machines in the glass plant I managed in China cost millions of dollars to build and were immensely complex. And when they broke down the Chinese mechanics at this plant could fix them in a fraction of the time that it took the mechanics at other plants around the world, including those in the US, to fix the exact same machine.

If you were to ask the Chinese mechanics what happened, however, they would surely respond: “The machine broke down.” And that drove our Western mechanics crazy. “Don’t they understand how important it is to understand why the machine broke down so that we can prevent it from happening again?” they would demand of me. The implication, of course, was, “What are you teaching them?” (BTW, this is where prejudice comes from, but that’s another topic.)

But the Chinese mechanics were, in fact, teaching me. “They don’t care why it broke down because while they were working to get it running again a different machine broke down and they felt it was a better use of their time to go fix the second machine than to waste a lot of time trying to answer a question that may have no answer or which more than likely has an answer the knowledge of which will do nothing to prevent it from happening in the future.”

American companies are infatuated with process because of their deductive worldview. And process can be a very good thing. It can also lead to excessive bureaucracy, a lot of extra costs, and terrible customer service. Process isn’t bad per so, but it can be.

So, too, can a lack of curiosity. Which is exactly what the Chinese educators were getting at with their question. They just wanted their fifth-graders to think about it. Instead of immediately assuming there is no answer, as older Chinese like my wife would be inclined to do, they wanted the students to wonder if there, in fact, might be a knowable answer.

So which way is better? Neither, of course. As in all things in life and the universe the truth is not binary. Real knowledge lies in the balance between the two extremes. In Silicon Valley they refer to these digital options as 0 and 1 (on and off). In China they refer to the same duality as yin and yang.

If you saw this question on the Internet you probably saw it referred to as a math problem. But it’s not. In fact, the Chinese character for math appears nowhere on the original document provided to the fifth graders. It is only we Americans who feel obligated to define it as a certain type of problem. And suggesting it is a math problem, of course, further reinforces the false assumption that there must be a solution.

To date, Silicon Valley has won the technology race, in large part, because a bunch of college dropouts were incredibly curious. And they quickly figured out that the 0’s and 1’s at the heart of the new technology is all about patterns. That’s what computer coding is, and Americans (and more than a few Chinese) proved very good at working with such binary patterns.

No one, however, will ever be better at working with patterns than the machines built from them. They are, after all, bigger and faster when it comes to patterns. It’s not in their DNA; it is their DNA. And, of course, as a result it is virtually inevitable that smart machines will soon program themselves. (They already are.) Being a computer coder will be about as valuable as being an expert blacksmith.

The economic race will then become not a coding challenge, but a race to tell them what to do, and, very importantly, to make sure they don’t do evil things; because, of course, neither a 0 nor a 1 knows what good and evil are.

Of course, curiosity will be a very valuable thing indeed in this digital world. What can I do with this technology? What is that machine basing its answers on? Does this make sense? Or is this machine acquiring a racist perspective?

Curiosity, however, will only have value until it doesn’t. And the inevitable truth is that sometimes it will and sometimes it won’t. To even understand the problem and the opportunity, in other words, people will have to think holistically. They can’t think in the simple terms of left to right or right to left.

Right now the Chinese have the edge in training their students for that day. Chinese educators fully recognize that the student of the future needs to be both inductive and deductive. They must think bi-directionally.

Some American educators, I have to believe, understand the same thing. Their challenge is the same one, although it comes at the problem from the opposite direction.

The problem is that most American business, and virtually all American politicians, don’t recognize that a problem even exists. To them it’s all about their very simple and one-dimensional perspective on truth.

Think about it.

And while you’re thinking about it, consider reading my latest book: We, Ourselves, and Us: Creating a More Just and Prosperous America. It’s now available on Amazon.

It’s a book about the age of the captain on a ship holding 26 sheep and 10 goats. Or is it 26 goats and 10 sheep? Or two captains, perhaps, one of whom happen to be ______.

I guarantee my book will be worth your time. And if you agree, I would greatly appreciate it if you take the time to post a review on Amazon, Goodreads, or whatever book site you enjoy. (It’s a binary world, after all. Authors, like everyone else, live by their clicks—whether they’re sheep or goats.)

click here to go to Amazon now

CES Update: Google Expands in China

photo credit: iStock.com/tomch


Author Gary Moreau, aka Avam Hale in fiction

On January 11, 2018, I posted “Consumer Electronics Show”, in which I gave some dimension to China’s importance to American tech and offered my assessment that China, for the reasons stated in the post, would be a major player in the future global tech industry. And, yes, this prognosis was very different from the one I provided in 2015, when I wrote Understanding China: There is Reason for the Difference. And, of course, I provided the reason for the change of heart.

Five days after I released that post, Google announced it was opening an office in Shenzhen, China, the center of the hardware manufacturing universe, just across the river from Hong Kong. And a few days after that Google announced a broad patent sharing agreement with Chinese tech giant Tencent, the $500 billion parent of China’s top social media and payment app, WeChat.

This, of course, all comes on the heels of Google’s previous announcement of a new AI research center in Beijing, where the software side of China’s tech business is growing rapidly, in part due to the presence of many of China’s top universities there. And, of course, the symbolism of Google’s CEO Sundar Pichai speaking at a conference in China, back in December, hosted by the Cyberspace Administration of China, which overseas Internet censorship in China, where Google’s search engine, as I write this, remains blocked.

In addition to providing some support for my prognosis, these announcements have triggered some additional thoughts that only reinforce my conviction in that previous prediction.

It is difficult for Westerners, and Americans in particular, to appreciate the role of the Chinese government in the economy. If your company does not maintain good relations with the government, you simply won’t succeed there. And it’s not enough to simply do what they ask you to do. If you want to succeed, you must be pro-active, and you must convince the government that you are a good partner. That means you have empathy for the job it faces and you share its goals for model corporate citizenship.

As my faithful readers know by now, I believe the universe is ultimately defined by dualities. For every pro there is a con, for every cloud there is a silver lining, for every yin there is a yang. Reality, as a result, is not so much defined by the dimensions of the two sides of that duality as it is by the degree to which equilibrium is established between them.

American business people look at the role of the government in the Chinese economy and immediately think oppressive regulation, bureaucracy, long delays, and, of course, bribery. And, of course, all of these things can exist. That is not to say, however, that they must exist, and, in fact, my nine-year experience there convinced me that while these concerns are realistic, they do not define the current reality. I found the government facilitated my business more than it hindered it and not once did my company pay a bribe, nor was one ever solicited.

And, yes, I am experienced enough to know that a government official looking for a little grease is not going to ask me, a foreigner, directly. If an official is corrupt it doesn’t mean he or she is stupid. Which is why every quarter I personally reviewed each and every cash disbursement made by my company, from the payment of invoices to the reimbursement of travel expenses, to the replenishment of the petty cash fund. If you are looking for fraud, that’s where you will find it. And I found none.

In the case of Google and the tech industry you have to look at the positive side of the government duality issue. In the fast moving tech industry, a government alliance is not a strategy for risk avoidance; it’s a strategy for gaining competitive advantage in the global tech industry.

That is because, unlike the US, China, like many developed countries, including Germany, has a very well defined national industrial strategy. The policy defines those industries where it sees the most positive growth potential, in fitting with the country’s social and political agendas, of course, which serves as a blueprint for both corporate leaders and government regulators. It’s totally transparent and insures that everyone is singing from the same song sheet.

The US, by contrast, leaves its national industrial policy up to the “free markets.” The US, in other words, lets the corporations decide, based on the theory that they will be guided by Adam Smith’s invisible hand of profits to do what, in the end, is in the best interest of the country and its citizens.

Like a lot of our political and economic theory today, unfortunately, that’s not the way things really work. The US has an industrial policy; it’s just not transparent. It is defined by politicans, corporate lobbyists, and special interests behind closed doors. This is one of the main reasons that the rich continue to get richer in the US. They are the only ones with access to real political power because they are the ones with the money that politicians need to remain in power. We don’t call it bribery, so that we can claim the moral high ground, but it is bribery of the worst kind—both distortive and clandestine. (I was a CEO and board member in the US as well as China, so this is not conjecture.)

Google has apparently seen the light. (Microsoft saw the light years ago but it learned some very hard lessons before it did.) They recognize that China is the world’s second largest economy, with 1.4 billion citizens who are the earliest of early-adopters, and which, if you have good government relations, is going to be the fastest moving playing field on the planet. As I noted last time this is because, if you make the national priority list, which tech sits atop of, your regulatory and legal problems will largely disappear. The government will clear the runway in the way that only a government can. In the meantime, the young bucks of Silicon Valley will be trudging through the quagmire of preventing “fake news” and fighting it out in court over who owns what intellectual property rights.

When it comes to China, Americans have been trained to see the glass, particularly when the government is involved, as half full. In reality, the opposite is true. A partnership with the Chinese government will not only set up your company to succeed in China, it will set you up to dominate the global market for tech or any other favored industry.

The world has changed. It is smaller and more crowded. But more importantly, technology has been a game-changer. And one of the things it has changed most dramatically is the integration and complexity of the political, economic, and social systems we use to govern the country. We can no longer think of them in discrete, independent terms.

Environmental scientists used to think of our environment as a collection of discrete ecosystems. We had a prairie here, a polar ice cap there, and a rain forest a long way away. They now recognize, however, that these are not discrete. They are all part of a single global ecosystem that is intricately interconnected. Yes, climate change can lead to huge snowstorms and record-breaking cold temperatures along the US eastern coastline. That doesn’t mean the climate isn’t changing. It just means that the global environment is more inter-connected than we ever imagined.

Other areas of science have discovered the same thing. The various branches of hard and soft science (e.g., biology and economics) were once studied and researched as discrete subjects. Today, however, the real science is being done in areas like evolutionary biology and behavioral economics. The knowledge of how the world works is found not within the functionally discrete pockets of science, but in the overlaps that pull them all together into one inter-connected reality.

I’ve actually written a book about it. It’s called We, Ourselves, and Us: Creating a More Just and Prosperous American and it will soon be available on Amazon in print and Kindle versions. It is not a book about China. It is a book about how to leverage our individual liberties and opportunities into a new model of political economy that emphasizes our collective advancement as a country and a just, inclusive society.

Here’s the text from the back cover:

The phrase “We the people” is the start of one of the most famous documents in American history, yet few have paused to consider what it truly means. In his new political guide, Gary Moreau ponders this expression and the change it could represent for our society. America has long perpetuated an idea of rugged individuality and exceptionalism. The “we” in society has been replaced with “me.”

Moreau explains why this notion is simply untenable for America. America has gone through some growing pains in the past two hundred years, and Moreau believes that society’s refusal to cast off some of its original, ineffective methods is a pressing issue. Instead, they should be replaced with a model focused on providing for the collective good.

The world is changing, and for America to continue to be the land of happiness and prosperity, it needs to change with it.

The release date is February 15, 2018, but that is subject to change as the design process wraps up. In the meantime I am offering 25 free copies of the book in either paperback or Kindle formats. Just send your name and address to gary@gmoreau.com with the subject line “Free Book” and I’ll send it out as soon as it is available. First come, first served. For print versions, US addresses only, please, and for the Kindle version you must have a US e-mail address and access to Amazon US. (I don’t need your physical address if you are requesting a free Kindle copy, and I promise not to sell any of your contact info or use it for any other purpose.)

 

You may contact the author at gary@gmoreau.com
Visit my personal blog at www.gmoreau.com

Follow on Twitter @gmoreaubooks

Working for a Chinese Company

Author Gary Moreau

Sino-US trade continues to get a lot of attention in Washington, particularly in light of North Korea’s relentless missile testing. And trade between China and the US continues to be characterized as a unilateral issue—from Chinese factories to US consumers.

In reality, however, Chinese companies have now made direct investments in every US state and most congressional districts. From 2000 to Q2 of 2017 Chinese companies have invested $135 billion in the US, reaching $3.4 billion in 2012 alone. Most of these investments have been in US manufacturing assets and have resulted, by one estimate, in more than 140,000 US jobs on American soil.

While it has become increasingly common to hear of American friends and family who now work for Chinese companies in the US, moreover, American companies continue to reap the benefits of China’s economic miracle.

McDonald’s has 2,200 stores in China and sells 1,600 hamburgers every minute. Walmart has close to 450 stores there, employing roughly 100,000 people. (wal-martchina.com), and that’s not counting Walmart’s extensive sourcing operations there.

General Motors, which has, in many ways, been the poster child for the declining US middle class, has 60,000 employees in China (gmchina.com), roughly 1/3 of its total global workforce. It plans to open, moreover, five new manufacturing plants in China in 2018, and sell close to 5 million vehicles there, almost half of its vehicle sales worldwide. (https://www.gm.com/company/about-gm.html)

Available in paperback and electronic formats.

It seems quite unlikely, therefore, that American industry will line up behind any attempt to start a trade war with China. And while there may appear to be some poetic justice in giving American companies that moved production out of the US their due, the trend has gone on for too long for a correction to do anything but further compromise the interests of American workers. Imagine what would happen to the GM jobs that remain in the US if the company were to find itself unwelcomed in China today?

The more likely scenario, once the heated rhetoric out of Washington dies down, is that there will be more and more direct Chinese investment on American soil. Wage rates are not as punitive as they once were, largely for the wrong reasons, energy is cheaper in the US than anyplace else on the planet, and local governments are lining up to shower new investments with taxpayer largesse in the form of infrastructure improvements, job training, and tax avoidance.

And what if you are one of those Americans that find you are working for a Chinese company in the future? Well, generalities are always risky, but here are a few pieces of advice:

1. Your Chinese employers will be laser-focused on one thing: results. They will care far less about programs, processes, and general initiatives that are often accompanied by acronyms, posters in the cafeteria, and tee shirts.

2. Your benefits may actually improve. Chinese companies, for example, provide far better maternity benefits than most US companies.

3. Words carry less weight to the inductively minded Chinese than they typically do in the West. Keep this in mind when you find yourself on either side of a communication.

4. The rules of socially acceptable personal questions are quite different. The Chinese will not hesitate to ask you how much you make or how much you paid for your home. They will not expect you to ask them personal questions about their marital status or family size, however. And they will certainly not expect you to invite them to your home.

5. Any questions you may have on issues of work/life balance will be accepted politely but are unlikely to register.

6. The investment horizon for those involved in capital projects will be measured in months, not years.

7. Cash is king. They are likely to have little tolerance for throwing good money after bad, no matter how confident you may be in the ultimate payback of your idea.

8. The inscrutable expressions you are likely to encounter among your Chinese colleagues can be very misleading. The Chinese are far less retentive than perceived and quite comfortable in being downright silly.

9. The Chinese consider Americans to be excessively polite. We’re always saying please and thank you. They are not so inclined and sometimes interpret our behavior in this regard to be a bit suspect.

10. Don’t expect a lot of “hi’s”/”hello’s” in the hallways. They are often baffled by our willingness to acknowledge total strangers. They generally divide people into two groups: Those they have a relationship with and are thus obligated to,and 2. Those they don’t. In essence these people don’t exist.

As luck would have it, I just got off the phone with a gentleman about to interview with a Chinese company. He is of European background and I summarized my experience as thus: I have worked with businesses around the world and the parallels I would draw are that in terms of personal culture, the Chinese are closest to the Latin cultures, particularly Mexico. In terms of business culture, however, I always found the Chinese to be closest to the Dutch. Both are very forthright and matter of fact.

On balance, I believe the Chinese and American economies will continue to mutually integrate. And that will be a good thing.

Keep an open mind. And remember what Confucius said: “Wherever you go, there you are.”

You may contact the author at gary@gmoreau.com
Visit my personal blog at www.gmoreau.com


Here’s what legendary Kirkus Reviews has to say about the author’s new book: “More than a guidebook for managers, this is a manifesto for an intellectually deeper – and happier – world of business.” Kirkus Reviews (starred review)
click here

The latest in the Understanding Series is now available.
click here
photo credit: iStock.com/tupungato

The Bicycles are Back

Author Gary Moreau

In the late 1980s I was granted a special visa to travel to Guangzhou, then called Canton. I traveled by plane (a fairly antiquated one, at that) from Hong Kong.

We landed at an airport where the terminal seemed no larger than a modest house. Today’s Baiyun airport, by comparison, handles 60 million passengers per year, more than New York’s Kennedy airport.

Bureaucracy and security were in full view. My paper work was passed along a row of officials, none of whom apparently spoke English or asked a single question. They did, however, stamp with big, loud, mechanical stamps that just sounded very official. Today, China is one of the most automated and digital countries on the planet. Many cities are very close to a cashless economy and there isn’t much you can’t do with just a mobile phone.

The latest in the Understanding Series is now available. Click here.

On the security side there were a lot of young men in military uniforms at the airport holding some fairly serious weaponry, and they had all apparently been trained to look menacing. We were supposed to put our hand luggage (in my case, a briefcase) on a conveyer for x-ray inspection, undoubtedly in search of contraband coming in from Hong Kong. I was so overwhelmed with the scene, however, that I didn’t see the sign directing everyone to do that until I was almost past. I continued to walk by at least three automatic weapons but no one said a word. (Probably because I was a foreigner, I know now.)

And then I walked out the door. There were bicycles and people everywhere. I still can’t put it in words. There were very few cars, although my official host, a representative of the Communist Party at some level, had a car, so I was a given a bird’s eye view of what a swarm of bicycles looks like.

What was most impressive, however, was the total lack of carnage. The cyclists were packed so close together that a single accident was sure to turn into a massive chain reaction. And there appeared to be no rules of the road. Cyclists ignored the cars, what few traffic signals there were, the pedestrians, and each other. And somehow it all worked.

Substitute cars for bicycles and you have the same scenario today. The traffic in places like Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou makes the traffic in any major American city pale by comparison. Imagine New York or Chicago with 25 million residents. And, to this day, while there are well-defined rules of the road, no one obeys them. Or even pretends. And the police don’t care.

This is China. It’s crowded and noisy. And it’s chaotic. (The Chinese don’t normally honor queues either.) But it works.

It works because the Chinese have learned how to cope with chaos. They live it every day. And yet things get done, usually at a speed Americans can’t quite fathom.

Bikes are now returning to the streets of China in the form of ride sharing platforms that work much like Uber and Lyft. It’s not a new idea. Bike sharing has been offered in major US cities for some time now.

Here’s what legendary Kirkus Reviews has to say about the author’s new book: “More than a guidebook for managers, this is a manifesto for an intellectually deeper – and happier – world of business.” Kirkus Reviews (starred review)

The difference, however, is transformative—or disastrous—depending on your perspective. China’s popular bike ride sharing platforms, like Ofo and Mobike, don’t require pickup, drop off, and storage stations. You find the bike wherever the last patron left it, but the app on your smart phone will tell you where that is. And you drop it off wherever you like. And that’s where it sits until someone else wants to use it.

The obvious lack of structure is ideal in solving the last mile problem. It really doesn’t matter where your last mile is. You don’t have to live next door to the subway entrance or bike rental station.

That same lack of structure, however, Americans have already noted, can create visual and pedestrian anarchy. Bikes will just pile up at the entrance to other forms of mass transit, and since there are no racks, and the Chinese typically reject rules, that can create an inconvenience for people just trying to get into or out of the tube.

This, I suspect, will be a much bigger hurdle for the Chinese ride sharing companies trying to expand into the US than they probably realize. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if these companies aren’t banned in otherwise “progressive” cities around the country. A recent article in The Washington Post claimed, in fact, “Opponents have branded Ofo and Mobike a menace, a plague and a public nuisance.”

It will start with the bureaucrats. In San Francisco the City Supervisor referred to China’s Bluegogo, which put 20,000 bikes on the street without permission in January, a “public nuisance,” and threatened legal action. (Of course. It’s the American solution.)

Even though these companies require no support from the cities themselves, since they don’t need racks or real estate, they will have to get a license to operate and they will, without a doubt, be excessively regulated. Local governments will try very hard to tell them where they can leave the bikes, offer the bikes, etc. And the police, of course, will be called upon to enforce the regulations, giving the men and women in blue yet another regulation to occupy their time and dilute their efforts to stop crime.

One of the reasons that the Chinese economy is so resilient is that the regulators don’t worry about the little stuff. If you want to start a small business, just start it. Sure, you technically need a license, but chances are that no one is going to bother you unless you give them a reason to. The police are more likely than not to patronize your business than shut it down.

And the reason that the police are able to keep a tight rein on violent crime is that they do little else. They don’t waste time writing out traffic tickets or fining some hapless predestination for jay walking. If you’re not threatening the Party or public security, the police are likely to leave you alone.

We Americans, on the other hand, are a nation of rule followers and enforcers. And rules are rules. There are no moral equivalents, if you will, when it comes to controlling what people do. Take a trip to your local DMV office and try to do something even remotely out of line with the rules if you doubt that.

The third, and perhaps most significant difference, however, is not that the Chinese won’t eventually see the need to do something about the problem. It is that the people impacted will do something about it. They will figure out some way to overcome the problem without throwing away the benefits.

Available in paper and electronic formats.

Americans, on the other hand, will, I suspect, look to the government to solve the problem. The government will inevitably over-reach, yet other people will get upset, and responsibility will just bounce around in that growing bin of social problems we just can’t seem to find a solution for.

The wealthy, of course, will get helicopter ride sharing apps or buy their own, if they can afford it. The mass middle will get prescriptions for higher doses of Xanax, and the poor will just shake their heads and get by.

Oh, one last thing. The regulators will tell you that they need to regulate these companies in the name of public safety and consumer protection. You will hear all kinds of dire concerns about the bikes being stolen, set afire in the middle of the street, or used in the commission of crime. These are all just red herrings. What is the price of climate change? What is the value of your time sitting in commuter traffic? What is the value of giving people just another simple way to get a little exercise without joining a fancy gym?

Ride on.

Opening photo credit: iStock.com/tupungato

Contact: You may write the author at gary@gmoreau.com
Author’s website & blog: www.gmoreau.com

Hong Kong: 20 Years On

Author Gary Moreau

July 1, 2017 marked the 20th anniversary of the return of Hong Kong and the surrounding islands known as the New Territories to Chinese control. President Xi Jinping himself, in the company of his wildly popular wife, Peng Liyuan, spoke at the commemoration ceremony during his first state visit to the autonomous region.

There was little to no rancor in the streets, as some Western media predicted, and perhaps hoped, there would be. It would appear that the Umbrella Movement of 2014 has lost much of its momentum, although there was a modest march for diverse causes—some having nothing to do with democracy—after Xi’s departure.

Many Western commentators, of course, continue to believe that the passion for American-style democracy runs deep in Hong Kong and that any reduction in crowd size was more a function of government oppression than a loss of enthusiasm. As one CNN contributor put it, Xi’s speech “shows just how deeply Beijing misunderstands Hong Kong.”

As I have maintained in prior posts, I continue to believe that any dissatisfaction with Chinese rule in Hong Kong is more likely to be economic and social than political. Just as many Americans have taken to the streets to voice their dissatisfaction with Washington, I have no doubt that there are some, if not a material many, whatever that means, who would like Hong Kong to enjoy more political autonomy.

Understanding China is available at Amazon in paper and electronic formats.

Political desire, however, more often than not, fails to recognize the dichotomy of our existence. Politics is but one thread in a multi-dimensional tapestry. Citizens around the globe inevitably want to eat their cake and have it too when it comes to politics, which is one of the reasons that politicians the world over are so universally unpopular with the citizens they dole the cake out to.

As is often the case where news is concerned today, moreover, any assessment of the pro-democracy sentiment in Hong Kong is conjecture in the end. Opinions may be supported by personal observations, but observations are greatly influenced by perspective and are conclusive only in a very relative sense. As always, I think it more informative to dig into the context in which current events are unfolding.

Hong Kong was incorporated into China during the Qin dynasty (221-206 BC), where it remained until the Treaty of Nanking (August 29, 1842) ceded control to Britain, marking the end of the First Opium War (FOW).

The FOW was fought over Britain’s right to sell opium to Chinese citizens, a trade that provided the British with precious silver that they needed to fund trade with India. Recognizing the negative social impact of opium addiction, the Qin rulers attempted to outlaw the use of opium in China, a move the British monarchy had already taken in the UK. Fearing the loss of its primary supply of silver, the British invaded, and ultimately won. And with the military victory came the spoils of war, allowing the UK to add Hong Kong to the colonial holdings of the British Empire.

Tensions with China never really went away, however, and the British were constantly worried that China would re-take that which had been taken from them. In 1898, therefore, at the Second Convention of Peking (the former name of Beijing), the British secured a 99-year lease on the New Territories that made up the border between Hong Kong, Kowloon, and the mainland.

That, of course, was the lease that expired in 1997, at which time Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher decided to return the entire colony, including Hong Kong and Kowloon, the two islands at the heart of what most Westerners know as Hong Kong.

The economic integration of Hong Kong and the mainland, however, was already well underway. The Bank of China Tower, the Hong Kong headquarters of the Beijing-based and state-owned financial powerhouse that has symbolically and literally dominated the Hong Kong skyline ever since, was finished in 1989, nearly a decade before the handover. It was built, in large part, to facilitate the economic integration of Hong Kong and the mainland that was already well underway.

I traveled to Hong Kong during the Bank of China Tower construction as my employer at the time sourced a lot of products there. And at that time Hong Kong was very much a manufacturing center of Asia, although the transition to becoming a global financial and trade powerhouse had begun. Hong Kong companies were already moving their production to the New Territories and to the mainland province of Guangdong, Hong Kong’s immediate neighbor and the most prosperous of China’s twenty-two provinces.

At the dawn of China’s political and economic opening in the late 1980s I was actually granted permission to travel into Mainland China. The trip was arranged by the owner of a Hong Kong supplier and my host was a Communist Party official in GuangZhou, then called Canton. The two men were brothers, a relatively common business scenario at the time, from what I could tell.

Today Hong Kong is a glittering world-class city. It’s one of my personal favorites and I highly recommend a visit if you haven’t made it yet. You can expect London and New York prices, but it’s delightfully easy to get around, the accommodations and restaurants are both plentiful and outstanding, and nearly everyone speaks some English, many fluently. (With a British accent, in most cases.)

Almost nothing is manufactured in Hong Kong anymore. It does, however, export 55 billion USD to the Chinese mainland, almost all of it imported from outside of China. And it imports 273 billion USD from China , most of which gets exported to destinations around the world.

Guangdong Province, Hong Kong’s neighbor whose residents typically speak Cantonese, the Chinese dialect of Hong Kong, has an annual GDP of 1.1 trillion USD, more than 10% of China’s total. Hong Kong, while wildly prosperous, has an annual GDP of less than 1/3 of that, and most of that is a result of the aforementioned trade with the mainland.

And what about the social costs to the residents of Hong Kong’s 7 million residents? One of the critiques I recently read noted, in a rather critical tone, that an influx of non-HK-Chinese is making it harder for Hong Kongers to gain access to health care and education.

There is little doubt that mainland Chinese are seeking access to the world-class services offered in Hong Kong. But accessing the services of a neighboring metropolis is universal. New York City, Chicago, London, and Sydney all experience the same enhanced demand for what services they offer from surrounding areas. The only difference is that these urban centers have had more time to accommodate the demand.

The same opportunity, moreover, is benefiting the Hong Kongese. For the 9 years I lived in Beijing my daughters attended one of the best international schools in the world. And over that nine-year period the student population became increasingly Asian in its roots. And guess what, many of those students were from Hong Kong.

The city of Shenzhen, a metropolis of 11 million people that many consider to be the Silicon Valley of China, sits less than 25 miles away from Hong Kong in Guangdong Province. That’s closer than New Rochelle, in Westchester County, is to New York City. It’s hard not to think of both as part of the greater metropolis, boundaries aside.

Governing is tricky business, as Americans know well. There will always be political dissent in places like Hong Kong, just as there is in virtually any country in the world. And the Western media, no doubt, will continue to give it a voice. Whether that’s news or the cloaked pursuit of its own political agenda is for each of us to decide.

As a practical matter, however, it is no more likely that Hong Kong will be granted complete political independence from China than Houston or San Francisco will be allowed complete autonomy from Washington. Or that a sufficient number of Hong Kongese will even want it to.

Setting all of our opinions aside, that is the context of the matter at the moment.

Contact: You may write the author at gary@glassmakerinchina.com

Understanding Business: The Logic of Balance, the author’s latest book, was released on June 27, 2017 and is now available at Amazon.

A sample:

It is, in fact, the Western distinction between philosophy and science, a gulf that has been expanding rapidly in the last three to four decades, that is at the heart of what ails much of corporate America today. The slide began the minute someone suggested that there could be such a thing as management science. When business schools and management consultants began to market the idea that successful business management could be modeled and graphed, corporate America lost more than its old habits. It lost its equilibrium. And with that, the long stumble began

Copyright © 2017 Gary Moreau

The Duality of Cybersecurity

Author Gary Moreau

On June 1 China began the implementation of a new cybersecurity law that is already being labeled “controversial” by the Western media. The context of this story, I think, is illuminating on many fronts.

That the Internet has become a scary place for citizens, corporations, and governments alike seems beyond debate at this point. Every government on the planet is taking steps to protect its national secrets from foreign hackers. China would be imprudent not to follow suit.

There are three provisions of this new law that appear to be the source of most of the anxiety in the West.

The first is that the law is relatively vague. This, of course, is by design and reflects the polar opposite approaches the US and China take to regulation. In the US the law would be spelled out in mind-numbing detail. And would-be violators would hire an army of lobbyists to craft loopholes and lawyers to exploit them.

The Chinese, in contrast, leave much of the interpretation in the hands of the regulators, not the lobbyists and lawyers. In this way, they largely eliminate the very existence of loopholes.

There are cons to every pro, of course, and the question of which approach to regulation is ‘best’ is no exception. On balance, however, while the Chinese approach opens the door to inconsistent enforcement, the American approach clearly favors those with the money to pay the best lobbyists and lawyers.

The second objection is that the new law requires all state secrets to be stored on servers within China. Many American companies operating in China now keep their servers and their IT on American soil, despite the fact that the IT industry in China is generally on a par with the West.

It’s easy to understand why the Chinese government wants to see this change. You don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to believe there is a reasonable chance that the US government has access to any server sitting within its borders. Perhaps it’s official; perhaps not. It’s not unreasonable to assume the risk exists, however, particularly given the US government’s openness about using IT to protect its own national security interests, both defensively and pro-actively. (To say nothing of private or foreign government hackers finding their way in.)

The third objection is that the law will require American hardware and service providers to open their products and services to some level of government scrutiny. The fear, one assumes, is that these companies will be circuitously giving their own secrets to their Chinese competitors. It could happen, in theory, although one has to wonder if it would be worth the risk for China. And isn’t there always a cost of entry, even to the US?

Understanding China is available at Amazon in paper and electronic formats.

These are the most vocally noted objections of the West, but I think there are a couple more issues at play, consciously or not.

The first is one I’ve referred to many times. It is the importance of the Chinese Century of Humiliation in the mindset of the current Chinese government. China was invaded and pillaged by foreign powers for much of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. And there is a national commitment not to let it happen in the future.

No one is currently attempting to force the import of opium or seeking land concessions. And there are no foreign troops on Chinese soil. Many foreign companies, however, have gone into China over the last three decades to reap the rewards of the second largest economy in the world, but left many of their best paying jobs at home – including many IT jobs.

There is nothing illegal about that. Perhaps nothing even unfair or underhanded given the risks for IP theft that exist in a country that admits it has a less stringent legal system currently in place than in the West. Nonetheless, the line between a legitimate reason and an excuse is drawn with perception. Is President Trump’s proposed immigration law aimed at Muslims even though that word is never actually mentioned in the regulation?

The biggest issue here, however, is what I believe ultimately prevents the West from really understanding China and its motivations. It has nothing to do with government suppression and everything to do with culture.

In the US we put individual rights and freedoms above all else. That, we believe, will result in a free and progressive society and there has been a lot of historical evidence to support that conviction, although a quick perusal of the daily news would suggest that argument might be fraying a bit at the seams.

The Chinese, on the other hand, have much more of a collectivist worldview. They believe that protection of society as a whole will, in turn, maximize individual well-being.

As Westerners we automatically attribute the Chinese perspective to the presumed oppression of a one-party political system (i.e., the Communist Party). That, however, is a bit of an over-simplification. There are many collectivist societies around the world that have no Communist Party. And even many Americans are beginning to accept that even dictatorships aren’t all bad when it comes to keeping a nation prone to civil war and ethnic exploitation at peace. The implosion of much of the Middle East and North Africa has obviously weakened the doctrine of “give them democracy and peace and prosperity will follow.”

The Communist Party came to power in China in 1949. For thousands of years prior to that, however, China was a nation of warring factions. There are fifty-six officially recognized ethnic groups in China today and, depending how you define them, hundreds of different languages and dialects. (Although Mandarin is the one official language, dozens of these languages are unintelligible to each other.)

While the Chinese I have met over the years are just as quick to criticize their government as most Americans are to criticize theirs, as a result, there is a general consensus among the Chinese that China requires a strong central government to insure progress – whether you define that in terms of law and order or economic opportunity.

In other words, the individual rights of the citizens in China are legitimized through government authority acting in the best interests of the collective society. In the US, by contrast, government authority, in theory, is legitimized through individual rights and freedoms.

There are two sides to every argument, of course. And most Chinese, I believe, openly recognize that there are both pros and cons to socialism with Chinese characteristics, as the Chinese refer to it.

I wonder, however, if we aren’t losing sight of that inescapable duality in America today (i.e., the duality of pro and con), and if that isn’t at the core of much of what ails us politically. When we start seeing the world as one-dimensional, whichever dimension that is, and whichever interest we put first, are we not creating exactly what it is we denigrate elsewhere in the world?

Contact: You may contact the author at gary@glassmakerinchina.com

The inevitable duality of pro and con. Do Americans still accept it?

The Rule of Law: Irony?

Author Gary Moreau

One of the byproducts of the yin and yang worldview that defines much of Chinese culture is the acute appreciation of irony. Which, in itself, is ironic given that much of the West thinks of China in quite the opposite terms.

Although China employs a political system tightly controlled by a single political party, restricts Internet access and media coverage, and manages day-to-day life through an enormous bureaucracy, it is the US that is often crippled by its preoccupation with rules and process. While Americans take great pride in “a job well done,” the Chinese are far more concerned with achieving the desired outcome.

One manifestation of this deductive/inductive difference in worldview is the difference our two cultures place on the rule of law. The rule of law, of course, is the foundation of the American way of life and business. And while that comes with many benefits, for every yin there is a yang. We tend, for example, to take decades to build infrastructure projects that the Chinese accomplish in months and our behaviors, in context, aren’t always practical or cost effective.

While the Chinese pass very general regulations and laws and leave it to local officials to interpret them in the most pragmatic way, we are slaves to the details of the law. We thrive on ‘loopholes’ and pay handsomely for lawyers and experts to find them.

Our legal system is the foundation of who we are as a country. But it is an identity that comes with a price tag. And, unfortunately, that price tag sometimes stands in the way of equal justice under the law. ‘Them that has’, you might say, can afford the best legal talent.

Understanding China is available at Amazon in paper and electronic formats.

My Chinese wife reminds of this excess on almost a daily basis when we set out on our daily walk in the suburbs of Detroit, Michigan. We live in a new subdivision of townhomes that have been tastefully and thoughtfully designed and set out. We are very happy here.

In front of each building unit, housing anywhere from 4-6 individual units, is a small turnout where guests and visitors can park. Each turnout is roughly 30-40 yards (25 meters) in length and will hold no more than 3 or 4 cars even with adroit parallel parking skills.

As you can see from the picture above, however, the turnouts that border a public street are equipped with both ‘One Way’ and ‘Stop’ signs, as is most certainly required by law, I’m sure. (The picture was taken with my iPhone and doesn’t do the depth perception justice. The turnout is tiny.)

My wife, however, finds this to be quite silly. “Of course,” she says, “The cars can only go one way and must yield upon exiting. And each car can easily see the other cars. This is all common sense. Who would think otherwise?” The signs, to her way of thinking, simply add unnecessary cost/taxes and contribute to general visual pollution. “It hurts my eyes,” she laments. (There are no real estate taxes in China.)

But this is the land where the law reigns supreme. The right to sue in a court of law is as fundamental as the right to vote. It is, in fact, a legal right you cannot give away even if you are willing to.

Yin and yang.

Irony.

When asked by people in the business world what I relished most about doing business in China I would inevitably say, “There are no lawyers.” When asked to name the most challenging aspect of doing business in China, however, I learned to say, “There are no lawyers. Specifically, there is very little case law.”

Case law, it turns out, is the stuff of predictability. And predictability is the essence of risk avoidance, which we, as Americans and American corporations, are increasingly consumed with.

There is nothing perfect about the American legal system. But there is nothing perfect about much of anything in life, with the possible exceptions of children and love.

It is, nonetheless, better than many of the alternatives. Yes, criminals may get off on technicalities. Frivolous lawsuits may harm corporations and citizens alike. And we may put road signs where they are clearly not needed. Hopefully, however, we can look at those signs and, well, smile.

Irony is okay. Even funny.

Unfortunately, it took the Chinese to help me learn that. And now, as we enter the Year of the Yin Fire Rooster, I share it with you. Do with it what you will.

Contact: You may reach the author at understandingchina@yahoo.com. Mr. Moreau is also available for public speaking and the provision of third-party written content on a wide variety of topics for your website or other communications material.