MarcsPakistan
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2017
- Messages
- 235
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
They can't afford to leave China even if they want to...
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
As of 2015, over 30% of China's exports were high tech exports (as defined by the World Bank) which makes about 500$ billion USD, or one third of China's total export.
How much of this is indigenous content is the BIG question. Increasing the indigenous/domestic content in this high-end export is the big challenge.
As you say, this is a process of accumulation of knowledge and expertise, which takes time. It is a learning process. Of course, China's relative gain means their relative loss.
China needs really more and more aggressive, R&D-oriented entrepreneurs.
Can you stop pretending to be a dummy because I have high hope for you. LOLI agree totally.
That is why China should extend loans to companies like Huawei and DJI, instead of spending them on totally incapable state owned companies, some of which survive only because of state support.
Can you stop pretending to be a dummy because I have high hope for you. LOL
Huawei and DJI are a PRIVATE company, a company that don't need much funding. If they WANT FUND, they can easily go IPO and raised billion! These two DON"T need the govt fund. They NEED govt policy aim to aid their expansion. For that 5G plan and promotion of drone in the next 5 years are already enough to help Huawei and DJI.
Can you stop pretending to be a dummy because I have high hope for you. LOL
Huawei and DJI are a PRIVATE company, a company that don't need much funding. If they WANT FUND, they can easily go IPO and raised billion! These two DON"T need the govt fund. They NEED govt policy aim to aid their expansion. For that 5G plan and promotion of drone in the next 5 years are already enough to help Huawei and DJI.
SOEs served as the backbones and founding blocks of national economy. How can one ignore or underestimate their importance for China's industrial capacity? The ongoing SOE reforms are not to phase the SOEs out, but to restructure them for greater competitiveness.
In the end, some public goods and services cannot be left entirely in the hands of the private enterprise, let alone foreign enterprise.
So, the two are equally important for national economy, especially for a socialist national economy. People like it or not, this is how China operates. They are free to pursue their own way in their own liking. For once, I do not care what they are doing with their economy.
http://www.caishimv.com/wap/party/1454556652.htmlEverybody needs funding.
Ofcourse they are private companies.
What I'm saying is that they should be encouraged to aim even higher.
Let's talk about DJI for example.
It did need money. It raised around 200 million dollars worth of cash, largely from foreign VCs.
Wouldn't it have been good to have a state owned back give them the bucks? It would perhaps have been the most profitable transaction for the bank, and would have kept growing chinese wealth in China.
Further, DJI is so good, in executing and implementing stuff, that they should be encouraged to aim higher, by giving them funds.
I'm not asking for totally overthrowing SOEs.
I am asking to stop funding them exorbitantly and only them.
Despite getting trillions of dollars in loans, they have very little to write home about.
Rather, I am suggesting a singaporean model of SWFs.
There should be funds that invest and retain ownership of companies, BUT the companies must function like private enterprises, in an efficient way.
This would take the best of both the worlds.
http://www.caishimv.com/wap/party/1454556652.html
Cheap land for DJI
For every 1 successful DJI, there is a hundred failure. If the bank fund EVERY single one of them in their startup expansion, the banks would go bankrupt! That is the why startup like to raise from VC because of the associated risk and reward.Everybody needs funding.
Ofcourse they are private companies.
What I'm saying is that they should be encouraged to aim even higher.
Let's talk about DJI for example.
It did need money. It raised around 200 million dollars worth of cash, largely from foreign VCs.
Wouldn't it have been good to have a state owned back give them the bucks? It would perhaps have been the most profitable transaction for the bank, and would have kept growing chinese wealth in China.
Further, DJI is so good, in executing and implementing stuff, that they should be encouraged to aim higher, by giving them funds.
but that could not stop him making blabla on topics that he has NO knowledge at all!!Your understanding of how real world business work is extremely limited.
For every 1 successful DJI, there is a hundred failure. If the bank fund EVERY single one of them in their startup expansion, the banks would go bankrupt! That is the why startup like to raise from VC because of the associated risk and reward.
Also it is important for you to understand the DJI does not LACK FUNDING. The market demand is not there yet, and that is why it's pointless for them to have BILLIONS of available fund in hand. And like I said, if DJI want fund, go IPO. No needs for bank to take risky business decision. Banks dont' operated that way.
Your understanding of how real world business work is extremely limited.
Gou also claimed the U.S. lacked the supply chains and skilled labor required for display panel production, which would be the main focus of the proposed facility. A lack of a skilled workforce and the inability to acquire materials would give the U.S. a considerable disadvantage when attempting to attract investment, whereas China's existing manufacturing industries already have the supply chains and the eager workforce in place.