What's new

Vietnam premier wants to finish privatizing 289 state-run firms by 2015

Well said bro!

Even in an industry, we have distinguished various assets based on their nature, monopolistic status, and position in the value chain. Take electricty as an example, grid vs generation (电网分离) is one principle, the state keep the grid, let generation capacities be privatized partly.

Within generation capacities, keep hydro power and nuclear (for the time being), and let wind farms, solar farms, coal/oil/gas-powered etc to be privatized.

There are three major pillars to support an independent socialist country; SOE, military, media.

While the later two are supported by the former one.

When the SOE got destroyed, then the domino effect will also cause the other two pillars to collapse.

USA had done this to USSR, so they know the true way to destroy a socialist nation which is to destroy its SOE.

After the collapse of USSR, Russia got Putin. Although he is not communist in name and a converted Christian, but technically he is still a communist. Since he favors to re-nationalize those privatized strategic sectors and to firmly control over the military. And soon, he will also make his government more authoritarian.
 
.
The merge of CSR and CNR was a big domino effect for the future trend of our SOE.

If our strategic SOE got dismantled, then we are done, no more dream about China's rise. So thank to Xi Jinping, we will eventually meet our destiny.

Although Vietnam is extremely anti-China, but I still feel bad for them when I heard this news. And many Vietnamese members are still not aware that a big crisis in their country is up ahead.
they don't care, why should we? It's a good opportunity of us, isn't it?
 
.
they don't care, why should we? It's a good opportunity of us, isn't it?

CPC is in fact a good guy with conscience, and they are still very clinging to the nostalgic socialist brotherhood.

Although USSR was extremely hostile to them, but they still pay a lot of tribute to it after its demise.

Same for Vietnam, CPC will rather choose to let them staying alive although the Vietcong is extremely paranoid and spoiled.
 
.
given only few years experiences and constant harassment from inside and outside, there are way more private made cars running on road than state made cars (domestic or overseas), this fact speaks

Not just that, Chinese SOE car manufacturers are a BIG JOKE. LMAO. :rofl: They are just OEM of foreign brands/car makers. At least the POE rely on their on brands/designs like great wall (which is one of the only Chinese car manufacturer I respect since it has no foreign 'JV' and makes all its cars indigenously) and I have seen a few of their SUV here in London. At least they are trying , the other SOE car makers are just relying on foreign brands, as fr as they make money behind foreign brands they don't care. :omghaha:
 
.
Not just that, Chinese SOE car manufacturers are a BIG JOKE. LMAO. :rofl: They are just OEM of foreign brands/car makers. At least the POE rely on their on brands/designs like great wall (which is one of the only Chinese car manufacturer I respect since it has foreign JV and makes all its cars indigenously) and I have seen a few of their SUV here in London. At least they are trying , the other SOE car makers are just relying on foreign brands, as fr as they make money behind foreign brands they don't care. :omghaha:

China's POE carmakers are nonetheless a big joke as well.

However, China's SOE has earned a lot of points from its HSR.

Same for our military, our SOE is always our backbone.

Otherwise, the US shouldn't freak out about China's military growth.
 
.
China's POE carmaker are nonetheless a big joke as well.

However, China's SOE has earned a lot of points from its HSR.

Same for our military, our SOE is always our backbone.

Otherwise, the US shouldn't freak out about China's military growth.

Nope Nope bro, Chinese POE carakers are wayyyyy better than SOE , in fact there is no comparisms at all. Great wall, Geely, BYD etc beat all SOE car makers by a wide shot. SOE just rely on foreign brands to make their money and make foreign brands more dominant. In fact its thanks to them foreign brands dominate the Chinese market, had it not been for them POE car makers will have dominated the Chinese market which will have giving them a good spring board/capital/scale to challenge/better compete with foreign car makers overseas. Anyway its typical of state owned companies, they couldn't care less s far as they make money on the back of selling foreign branded cars :rofl:

This is a good read:

Why China’s Privately Held Car Companies Like Geely, BYD And Great Wall Can’t Seem To Compete With State-Owned Companies
By Angelo Young
@angeloyoung_
a.young@ibtimes.com
on August 25 2014 4:40 PM EDT
Share on facebook
3

Share on twitter
4

Share on linkedin
2

Share on google_plusone_share
More Sharing Services


General Motors just released a Chinese version of its Chevrolet Cruze, produced in partnership with SAIC, China's largest (and state owned) automaker. China's state-owned car companies don't need to invest as much in research and development thanks to their foreign partners. China requires all foreign automakers who want to sell cars in the country to form joint ventures with domestic automakers. General Motors
General Motors recently released its first compact car built on its new D2XX vehicle platform that will be used for at least seven upcoming models, but instead of picking the U.S. as the first market to receive its latest welded steel base for Chevrolet, Buick and GMC compacts sedans and crossover SUVs, GM opted to release the new platform in China. The Chinese version of the 2015 Chevrolet Cruze built on the D2XX went on sale Friday in Beijing.

GM’s nod to China with its newer, roomier and more stylish Cruze compact underscores how much attention foreign automakers are giving to the world’s largest and fastest growing auto market. And financial figures being released now by Chinese and foreign automakers indicate when a domestic automaker wants to attract Chinese buyers, it helps to have a well-known foreign brand at its side.

“The cars being made by the domestic automakers in China are pretty much as good as anything that was made in the U.S. 15 years ago, but they’re aiming at a moving target as foreign automakers continue to innovate,” Greg Anderson, author of “Designated Drivers: How China Plans to Dominate The Global Auto Industry,” said by phone Monday. “The Chinese are getting richer and the aspiration is to own a foreign brand. To be driving around in a Buick impresses your friends more than driving around in a BYD.”


BYD Co. Ltd., the privately owned Chinese car and battery maker backed by Warren Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (NYSE:BRKA), said Sunday its net profit fell 15.5 percent to $59 million in the first half of the year as its vehicle sales plummeted 27 percent. The news comes a month after another privately held automaker, Great Wall Motors, reported lower profits and shrinking market share in the first six months of the year.

Meanwhile, China’s state-owned domestic automakers joined up with foreign brands seeking entry into the Chinese market are riding the rapid growth in the Chinese car market. Brilliance China Automotive recently announced a 79 percent jump in net profit, to $590 million, thanks largely to its partnership in making BMW brand cars and its prevalence in the local market for luxury wheels. Dongfeng Motor, which will soon announce its first-half financial statement in Hong Kong, is expected to report a 23 percent jump in profits to $1.1 billion, JPMorgan said, with the help of its relationship with Honda Motor Co. Ltd. (TYO:7267) and Toyota Motor Corp. (TYO:7203).

Chinese law requires foreign automakers to establish joint ventures with local manufacturers to gain access to the country’s exploding population of consumers who can afford mid-level and luxury passenger cars, and the country isn’t likely to bow to pressure from critics who say allowing foreign automakers to set up shop in China the same way they can in the United States and Europe would improve innovation.


Chinese officials say if they don’t force foreign-local partnerships, then the country's home-grown automotive industry would be left in the dust as foreign automakers would dominate. But if that’s the case, the policy isn’t working: Chinese automakers continue to shed market share as consumers flock to foreign brand names like the Chevy Cruze. GM and Ford both reported double-digit year-over-yowth in China car deliveries in the first six months of 2014.

One of the more outspoken critics of China’s policy is Li Shufu, the founder of Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co. Ltd., whose company bought Volvo Car Corp. from Ford Motor Co. (NYSE:F) in 2010. Li says allowing the competition would be good for local innovation as more Chinese car companies would be forced to invest in research and development (R&D) instead of relying on technology transfers from companies like Volkswagen AG (FRA:VOW) and GM.

Anderson agrees.


“If those [privately held] companies were able to compete on a level playing field they would become formidable competitors,” he said. “Private [Chinese] automakers have every incentive to invest. They have to sell their Chinese branded cars, but because foreign automakers are tied with state-owned companies, it gives them the advantage because they can forego R&D costs.”

Last week, Volvo Car Corp. Chief Executive Håkan Samuelsson said sales from the Geely-owned Swedish carmaker are expected to be up 10 percent this year, to 470,000 units. In the first half the company swung back into profitability of $78 million compared to a loss in the same period last year. One of the main drivers of this growth has been Chinese demand for the Swedish marque. Technically, Geely and Volvo are separate companies, but for Volvo to expand operations in China it has been developing a closer local relationship with Geely. And this means Geely could emerge as one of the major private players in the Chinese market to benefit from technical guidance from a foreign automaker, much like China’s top (and state-owned) car company, SAIC Motor, benefits from its relationship with GM and Volkswagen.

Geely could certainly use a hand. Like its privately held rivals BYD and Great Wall, the automaker reported a 20 percent drop in profit due to "competitive pressure on indigenous brands” that it expects to intensify in the coming years. Volvo is revealing this week in Stockholm its new XC90 turbocharged crossover, the first vehicle build under Geely’s ownership on the company’s new Swedish-designed new vehicle platform. The company has high hopes for the car in China.
 
Last edited:
.
Nope Nope bro, Chinese POE carakers are wayyyyy better than SOE , in fact there is no comparisms at all. Great wall, Geely, BYD etc beat all SOE car makers by a wide shot. SOE just rely on foreign brands to make their money and make foreign brands more dominant. In fact its thanks to them foreign brands dominate the Chinese market, had it not been for them POE car makers will have dominated the Chinese market which will have giving them a good spring board/capital/scale to challenge/better compete with foreign car makers overseas. Anyway its typical of state owned companies, they couldn't care less s far as they make money on the back of selling foreign branded cars :rofl:

This is a good read:

Why China’s Privately Held Car Companies Like Geely, BYD And Great Wall Can’t Seem To Compete With State-Owned Companies
By Angelo Young
@angeloyoung_
a.young@ibtimes.com
on August 25 2014 4:40 PM EDT
Share on facebook
3

Share on twitter
4

Share on linkedin
2

Share on google_plusone_share
More Sharing Services


General Motors just released a Chinese version of its Chevrolet Cruze, produced in partnership with SAIC, China's largest (and state owned) automaker. China's state-owned car companies don't need to invest as much in research and development thanks to their foreign partners. China requires all foreign automakers who want to sell cars in the country to form joint ventures with domestic automakers. General Motors
General Motors recently released its first compact car built on its new D2XX vehicle platform that will be used for at least seven upcoming models, but instead of picking the U.S. as the first market to receive its latest welded steel base for Chevrolet, Buick and GMC compacts sedans and crossover SUVs, GM opted to release the new platform in China. The Chinese version of the 2015 Chevrolet Cruze built on the D2XX went on sale Friday in Beijing.

GM’s nod to China with its newer, roomier and more stylish Cruze compact underscores how much attention foreign automakers are giving to the world’s largest and fastest growing auto market. And financial figures being released now by Chinese and foreign automakers indicate when a domestic automaker wants to attract Chinese buyers, it helps to have a well-known foreign brand at its side.

“The cars being made by the domestic automakers in China are pretty much as good as anything that was made in the U.S. 15 years ago, but they’re aiming at a moving target as foreign automakers continue to innovate,” Greg Anderson, author of “Designated Drivers: How China Plans to Dominate The Global Auto Industry,” said by phone Monday. “The Chinese are getting richer and the aspiration is to own a foreign brand. To be driving around in a Buick impresses your friends more than driving around in a BYD.”


BYD Co. Ltd., the privately owned Chinese car and battery maker backed by Warren Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (NYSE:BRKA), said Sunday its net profit fell 15.5 percent to $59 million in the first half of the year as its vehicle sales plummeted 27 percent. The news comes a month after another privately held automaker, Great Wall Motors, reported lower profits and shrinking market share in the first six months of the year.

Meanwhile, China’s state-owned domestic automakers joined up with foreign brands seeking entry into the Chinese market are riding the rapid growth in the Chinese car market. Brilliance China Automotive recently announced a 79 percent jump in net profit, to $590 million, thanks largely to its partnership in making BMW brand cars and its prevalence in the local market for luxury wheels. Dongfeng Motor, which will soon announce its first-half financial statement in Hong Kong, is expected to report a 23 percent jump in profits to $1.1 billion, JPMorgan said, with the help of its relationship with Honda Motor Co. Ltd. (TYO:7267) and Toyota Motor Corp. (TYO:7203).

Chinese law requires foreign automakers to establish joint ventures with local manufacturers to gain access to the country’s exploding population of consumers who can afford mid-level and luxury passenger cars, and the country isn’t likely to bow to pressure from critics who say allowing foreign automakers to set up shop in China the same way they can in the United States and Europe would improve innovation.


Chinese officials say if they don’t force foreign-local partnerships, then the country's home-grown automotive industry would be left in the dust as foreign automakers would dominate. But if that’s the case, the policy isn’t working: Chinese automakers continue to shed market share as consumers flock to foreign brand names like the Chevy Cruze. GM and Ford both reported double-digit year-over-yowth in China car deliveries in the first six months of 2014.

One of the more outspoken critics of China’s policy is Li Shufu, the founder of Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co. Ltd., whose company bought Volvo Car Corp. from Ford Motor Co. (NYSE:F) in 2010. Li says allowing the competition would be good for local innovation as more Chinese car companies would be forced to invest in research and development (R&D) instead of relying on technology transfers from companies like Volkswagen AG (FRA:VOW) and GM.

Anderson agrees.


“If those [privately held] companies were able to compete on a level playing field they would become formidable competitors,” he said. “Private [Chinese] automakers have every incentive to invest. They have to sell their Chinese branded cars, but because foreign automakers are tied with state-owned companies, it gives them the advantage because they can forego R&D costs.”

Last week, Volvo Car Corp. Chief Executive Håkan Samuelsson said sales from the Geely-owned Swedish carmaker are expected to be up 10 percent this year, to 470,000 units. In the first half the company swung back into profitability of $78 million compared to a loss in the same period last year. One of the main drivers of this growth has been Chinese demand for the Swedish marque. Technically, Geely and Volvo are separate companies, but for Volvo to expand operations in China it has been developing a closer local relationship with Geely. And this means Geely could emerge as one of the major private players in the Chinese market to benefit from technical guidance from a foreign automaker, much like China’s top (and state-owned) car company, SAIC Motor, benefits from its relationship with GM and Volkswagen.

Geely could certainly use a hand. Like its privately held rivals BYD and Great Wall, the automaker reported a 20 percent drop in profit due to "competitive pressure on indigenous brands” that it expects to intensify in the coming years. Volvo is revealing this week in Stockholm its new XC90 turbocharged crossover, the first vehicle build under Geely’s ownership on the company’s new Swedish-designed new vehicle platform. The company has high hopes for the car in China.

The performance of our POE carmakers are still disappointing, nowhere near to our HSR.

And they now represent as the majority of China's auto industry and got no less support than the SOE carmakers.
 
.
Both Vietnam and China have wasted enough time on experimenting an imported utopian ideology, it's time to resume the right way of doing things like the other East Asian did!.

One favor man, can you translate the Chinese writing on this picture of Vietnamese land reclamation? I wonder about the writing related to the areas that have a red and a green border. I wonder if that's the area that will be filled and if they are going to joint them with the 3 small fortifications south of them. Thanks in advance.

0AA-West London Reef-Jan 11 ,2014.jpg
 
.
China's POE carmakers are nonetheless a big joke as well.

However, China's SOE has earned a lot of points from its HSR.

Same for our military, our SOE is always our backbone.

Otherwise, the US shouldn't freak out about China's military growth.
You seem more like someone who's father is a high ranking member of the government/CCP. The way you defend themLol

Anyway, chinas high speed railway SOE re so big dominant simply because its a monopoly, they have no competitors at all. Even if they were privately owned they will still enjoy the same scale/dominance and maybe even more. So I dont see any reason for you to think they have done something extraordinary. Lool

Same with your military, few SOE have a monopoly, no matter how corrupt (and GOD they are corrupt) or inefficient they might be, they won't lose any market share nor are they accountable to any shareholders/public, so of course they will do what they like(I must confess me myself i will do the same by embezzling as much as i can if I was in the same situation of being given huge sums of money by my government and knowing I don't have to account for how I spent it to anyway. Hihihihihi). Give the same support/capital, time and facilities to POE and they will build the same if not better/more innovative weapons systems than the SOE behemoths.

Anyway,China is still a developing country though, so it still has lots to learn/go through until it becomes developed/mature. :)
 
.
:cheers:

True talk, Vietnam will be privatising sectors in which, there is no need for state intervention/control. Those strategic sectors will still remain state controlled. Vietnam has to get rid of those ineffective/inefficient SOE that has been sucking the blood out of the country and who are highly corrupt to the core and are controlled by a few VCP elites who don't give account of how they have been running the country/company to anybody.

It's also for this reason Vietnam has been underperforming economically compared to its peers in SEA and reason it's still the poorest of them all(bar Laos, Cambodia and sanctioned isolated Myanmar). There is no reason Vietnam should be a laggard compared to these countries, giving Vietnamese are very entrepreneurial, disciplined and hardworking. Its only due to the government amd its paat policies the country lags behind. Same with China, some of us might think China has done very very well, but I disagree, looking at what overseas Chinese have achieved, what Chinese influenced countries like Japan, south Korea have achieved , I must say China is still lagging behind big time and hasn't fully exploited its true potential. Thus is also due to government past policies, if not there is no reason China should be lagging sooo much behind its east Asian peers who all got their culture, language, way of life from China. So we have to always put things into perspective. :cheers:

Singapore, Taiwan, Japan and South Korea was highly successful because of confucius values and puesdo democracy. While in SEA, bastarized democracy has led to laggard countries like military rule Thailand, Myanmar and the Philippines. China and Vietnam are between the ladder of the two. The governments are holding on to power but want to embrace capitalism without democratic reform.
 
Last edited:
.
You seem more like someone who's father is a high ranking member of the government/CCP. The way you defend themLol

Anyway, chinas high speed railway SOE re so big dominant simply because its a monopoly, they have no competitors at all. Even if they were privately owned they will still enjoy the same scale/dominance and maybe even more. So I dont see any reason for you to think they have done something extraordinary. Lool

Same with your military, few SOE have a monopoly, no matter how corrupt (and GOD they are corrupt) or inefficient they might be, they won't lose any market share nor are they accountable to any shareholders/public, so of course they will do what they like(I must confess me myself i will do the same by embezzling as much as i can if I was in the same situation of being given huge sums of money by my government and knowing I don't have to account for how I spent it to anyway. Hihihihihi). Give the same support/capital, time and facilities to POE and they will build the same if not better/more innovative weapons systems than the SOE behemoths.

Anyway,China is still a developing country though, so it still has lots to learn/go through until it becomes developed/mature. :)

Well, if I am the family members of the high-ranking SOE officials, then I would 100% support the privatization of our SOE.

Since it can make our family super rich multi-billionaire for many generations, and to be the owner is much better than to be the manager.

BTW, if you wanna talk about the corruption of the military industrial complex, then please first take a look at the F-35 project.
 
. . .
We don't have any common language with those westerners who were indoctrinated to hate the socialist economy.

Even Putin will strongly disagree with you.
It's not about which one performs better. I don't care which one does better in hybrid bus, BYD or state-owned Golden Dragon.It's about national security based on our strategic sectors.
 
.
We don't have any common language with those westerners who were indoctrinated to hate the socialist economy.

Even Putin will strongly disagree with you.

No, this is not about liking or disliking a socialist economy. In Europe there is a lot of support for semi socialist policies, its quite a tradition actually, its very different than in USA. You are assuming that I'm for an all out capitalist policy, but I'm actually not.

There is a place for SOEs if properly run and are of benefit to the country. Very few cases as such in Vietnam. 69 billion usd in debt from the vietnamese SOE's, how can you justify that?

The SOEs in Vietnam are a horror story, but you are not familiar with them at all, you are supporting something that you actually don't know much about. You might know about China's SOEs, but not about the ones in Vietnam. Why do you think that the majority of vietnamese support getting rid of them? They are the ones that have to live with them.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom