Alibaba’s Jack Ma Tells U.S. Companies to Stop Whining About China(wsj.com)
wsj.com
Alibaba’s Jack Ma Tells U.S. Companies to Stop Whining About China
https://www.wsj.com/articles/alibabas-jack-ma-tells-u-s-companies-to-stop-whining-about-china-1512476279
68 comments
Glad to see this up here. There's a ton of carefully crafted, targeted pro-China propaganda directed at the United States. Great effort should be exerted to identify this propaganda and remind ourselves and everyone else that China is: a repressive regime in which citizens lack basic freedoms that people in the free world take for granted on a daily basis.
I suspect your post and the GP are kneejerk reactions to the headline. It really isn't relevant, and is likely only upvoted because of popular anti-China sentiments. I don't disagree with your points but would rather not see any article mentioning China devolve into this kind of ranting.
Hey I didn't mean to rant. But yes you called it right, I couldn't read beyond the snippet since I am not a WJS subscriber. I will refrain in the future.
You have made some tangentially valid points, but those comments have nothing to do with entrepreneurship in China, which is the context of the article. The title is in response to criticisms that US companies find it hard to setup shop in CHina. Jack claims that Chinese companies find it hard to be successful in the US market too. Anyway, I'm hoping you'll read the article :)
Also, just a suggestion, but if you're a US citizen, don't be so quick to point fingers at other countries. If you want to divorce yourself from the actions of your government, you personally can claim to be on some sort of moral high ground, but when generalizing the morality of countries' domestic/foreign policy, nobody is a winner here.
Also, just a suggestion, but if you're a US citizen, don't be so quick to point fingers at other countries. If you want to divorce yourself from the actions of your government, you personally can claim to be on some sort of moral high ground, but when generalizing the morality of countries' domestic/foreign policy, nobody is a winner here.
[deleted]
Except that it exceptionally difficult to start a company in China for foreign firms; and that difficulty - spanning decades - has provided China advantages it used for purposes well beyond leaving developing nation status. If you thought American hegemony was bad, stay tuned.
Yeah, it probably is very hard to start a company in China. I think his point is 'complaining won't get you anywhere'. Either you can ignore China, or simply deal with the reality of the current situation and figure out a solution.
>has provided China advantages it used for purposes well beyond leaving developing nation status.
Sounds like -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_industry_argument
>has provided China advantages it used for purposes well beyond leaving developing nation status.
Sounds like -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_industry_argument
> If you thought American hegemony was bad, stay tuned.
Sorry man, we don't suffer from stockholm syndrome. It's still time to change America but the current one isn't hegemonic anymore.
Sorry man, we don't suffer from stockholm syndrome. It's still time to change America but the current one isn't hegemonic anymore.
I've gone through the process of starting a WFOE and I'm currently in the process of setting up a JV with a local partner in China. Yes, it takes longer than starting a company in Canada: about 6 months in China vs. about 2 business days in Canada. I would describe the process as more "tedious" than "difficult". But what is important is that it's not much more difficult than for a local to start a business in China. Any difficulties are due to China's large and annoying bureaucracy than anything nefarious. If you're doing business in China you will have to deal with bureaucracy. It's annoying and it sucks, but it also hits everyone, local and foreign, more or less equally these days (that wasn't so much the case 10 years ago).
Many of my points are directly related, and the others colour in how China treats capitalism: As a tool to use when it is in their interests, not as a level playing field. Entrepreneurs in China get somewhere if they're Chinese.
If your goal is to get China to change, join the politicking line, and wave your banner as hard as you can. If your goal is to start a business, then you simply have to deal with the current reality, and figure out a way. The article is for the latter group. There are US companies all over the globe, in varying kinds of markets, and political climates, and China is no different.
The guy says in his comment he is Canadian so no anti-US moral high ground argument here.
> The China that tries to have trade both ways by forcing Hollywood to portray China positively just to get 50% of what they should at the Chinese box office?
What's this one about?
What's this one about?
Super layman's take:
- China has a "ministry of culture" which decides what foreign media can enter the domestic market, especially to play on the big screen
- Chinese domestic films enjoy what effectively is media protectionism
- Hollywood obviously wants a piece of that giant market
- What movies get approved/denied and for what reasons can get very arbitrary. So it comes down to a matter of trying to win favors of people deciding the approval process.
- Often this means shooting big scenes in locations in China, or portraying China in a positive light, or starring Chinese characters, etc. This effectively translates to "you can help us look good globally and we allow you to make money in our market".
I have no idea where the "get 50% what they should" came from, and I'm too lazy to look. But dealing with the Chinese government regulations is really just a quagmire of conflicts of interest.
*Edit: formatting
- China has a "ministry of culture" which decides what foreign media can enter the domestic market, especially to play on the big screen
- Chinese domestic films enjoy what effectively is media protectionism
- Hollywood obviously wants a piece of that giant market
- What movies get approved/denied and for what reasons can get very arbitrary. So it comes down to a matter of trying to win favors of people deciding the approval process.
- Often this means shooting big scenes in locations in China, or portraying China in a positive light, or starring Chinese characters, etc. This effectively translates to "you can help us look good globally and we allow you to make money in our market".
I have no idea where the "get 50% what they should" came from, and I'm too lazy to look. But dealing with the Chinese government regulations is really just a quagmire of conflicts of interest.
*Edit: formatting
The Chinese government controls access to their lucrative movie market. There is no freedom of speech; people who displease them are punished with loss of access.
Hollywood complies by making films that please the Chinese government censors. A quick search will find a NY Times article about the head of Disney going to China to apologize about a film about Tibet, and promising that such a thing would never happen again. IIRC, there are stories that Hollywood gives Chinese government censors prior review of films before they are finalized, and edits them as instructed/requested.
When was the last time you saw a film critical of China? Showing China doing something bad? Complementary of the Dalai Lama?
Hollywood complies by making films that please the Chinese government censors. A quick search will find a NY Times article about the head of Disney going to China to apologize about a film about Tibet, and promising that such a thing would never happen again. IIRC, there are stories that Hollywood gives Chinese government censors prior review of films before they are finalized, and edits them as instructed/requested.
When was the last time you saw a film critical of China? Showing China doing something bad? Complementary of the Dalai Lama?
For example, the remake of Red Dawn a few years ago was supposed to feature China invading the US. They changed in to North Korea under pressure.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2237717/Red-Dawn-rem...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2237717/Red-Dawn-rem...
Chinese soft power. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-23/china-quest-for-soft-p...
This kind of thing:
https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/08/did-you-catch-t...
https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/08/did-you-catch-t...
that probably refers to the large amount of capital from China instilled into Hollywood over recent years.
[deleted]
You forgot vast environmental rape and slave “wages”
I think you're falling into the common western trap of misunderstanding Chinese culture by projecting our cultural proclivities onto their civilization.
The Chinese educated and wealthy, for the most part, already believe they have the truth. (I'm not faulting them, in the west our wealthy and educated believe we have the truth as well. That's just how things work.)
And they don't come too much more wealthy or educated than Jack Ma.
The Chinese educated and wealthy, for the most part, already believe they have the truth. (I'm not faulting them, in the west our wealthy and educated believe we have the truth as well. That's just how things work.)
And they don't come too much more wealthy or educated than Jack Ma.
For the wealth, you're right, but Jack Ma's education is not that impressive, he struggled in college and he has a bachelor in English.
So you can find a lot of people more educated than he is.
So you can find a lot of people more educated than he is.
> The China that's building artificial islands to get access to the South China Sea / East Sea?
This claim would make more sense if first a marketing campaign removed "China" from the name of these seas from history.
edit: some people are complaining that only the name is not enough for a country to build infraestructure around it. What is it different than for example US fourth fleet stationed close to Brazil and Argentine or any other american fleets? This fleet is enough to wage war against any or even all latin america countries.
In face of current developments, I fully support China construction in that vital area for their economy. My country should answer the same way if you ask me.
This claim would make more sense if first a marketing campaign removed "China" from the name of these seas from history.
edit: some people are complaining that only the name is not enough for a country to build infraestructure around it. What is it different than for example US fourth fleet stationed close to Brazil and Argentine or any other american fleets? This fleet is enough to wage war against any or even all latin america countries.
In face of current developments, I fully support China construction in that vital area for their economy. My country should answer the same way if you ask me.
I'm sorry, are you saying that India should control the whole Indian ocean and the West Indies for good measure? Maybe some reservations in Arizona as well?
The following are all potentially valid names for that body of water.
South China Sea, West Philippine Sea, North Natuna Sea. There are more if you start to go outside of English such as "East sea" in Vietnamese.
Proposals for new names include Indochina Sea and Asean Sea. South Sea might be viable.
It'd be nice to see the name settle as "The sea that can not be named".
South China Sea, West Philippine Sea, North Natuna Sea. There are more if you start to go outside of English such as "East sea" in Vietnamese.
Proposals for new names include Indochina Sea and Asean Sea. South Sea might be viable.
It'd be nice to see the name settle as "The sea that can not be named".
You know, people would get upset if California started building artificial islands to claim the Gulf of California, despite the name.
I've done a good deal of business internationally. A common experience in repressive regimes is the characterization of democratic discussion as whining.
That's a debate tactic for authoritarians in the US as well.
This is doubtless true in many countries (see the current clusterfuck in the UK as a prime example). But it's still a valid point.
>That's a debate tactic for authoritarians in the US as well.
E.g. see the current Net Neutrality headlines and articles.
E.g. see the current Net Neutrality headlines and articles.
A common experience in repressive regimes is the characterization of democratic discussion as whining.
I see what you did there.
On a more serious note, yeah, all about following “the rules” now are we, Jack? But I don’t know why it’s being reported. “Yeah...well, you’re a whiny poopy butt!” doesn’t strike me as all that newsworthy.
I see what you did there.
On a more serious note, yeah, all about following “the rules” now are we, Jack? But I don’t know why it’s being reported. “Yeah...well, you’re a whiny poopy butt!” doesn’t strike me as all that newsworthy.
China's public policy on dissidents is they are whiners/complainers, and they believe if they exile them then they will complain about the host country instead of China.
Actually now the Beijing gov does the opposite: put them into a secret jail and ask them to die there.
greywolf(3)
I don't think Jack Ma is at a place to tell other companies what to do given Alibaba itself benefits from the government's shield that keeps foreign competitors away. In the long run, an Alibaba monopoly formed of protective policy will be detrimental to the Chinese consumers.
P.S. I am Chinese and hold a neutral stance on US/Chinese political systems, but economics common sense tells me Jack Ma spat out quite some hypocritical BS there.
P.S. I am Chinese and hold a neutral stance on US/Chinese political systems, but economics common sense tells me Jack Ma spat out quite some hypocritical BS there.
There's no doubt that Jack Ma is smart and hard working. But he and his success is also a product of his environment. I don't have any direct evidence but no companies in China achieves the kind of success Tencent or Alibaba does without some sort of government officials silently nodding their heads behind them.
That means they're likely complicit in any information gathering the government wants to perform on its citizens as a precondition to their continued operations. The Chinese government is probably all too happy to see these "monopolies" that are effectively playing ball with the government, since the more users that adopt their platform, the more data they have on their citizens.
And this is not even touching on how they can exert themselves on these Chinese internet companies to shape the conversations that are happening online.
Of course you probably already know all this :P
That means they're likely complicit in any information gathering the government wants to perform on its citizens as a precondition to their continued operations. The Chinese government is probably all too happy to see these "monopolies" that are effectively playing ball with the government, since the more users that adopt their platform, the more data they have on their citizens.
And this is not even touching on how they can exert themselves on these Chinese internet companies to shape the conversations that are happening online.
Of course you probably already know all this :P
The younger generation (born in 80s/90s) in China is usually aware of the amount of censorship imposed and take the government policies and billionaires' success stories with a grain of salt. There are smart ways to get their voices out through music, art projects and onion articles, and escaping the censorship has become a fun game to play (hidden political memes are everywhere right under the big brother's eyes).
Exactly.
I think both China and US have their own "ways of doing things" that disadvantage foreign players, but I do think at this stage China has some catching up to do if it wants to claim to be an open, level playing field, etc, and Ma is in no position to be talking about such a thing.
I think both China and US have their own "ways of doing things" that disadvantage foreign players, but I do think at this stage China has some catching up to do if it wants to claim to be an open, level playing field, etc, and Ma is in no position to be talking about such a thing.
Can you tell me which part of what he said (as opposed to what other people said he said) is what you consider hypocritical?
“I gave advice to Jeff Bezos 10 years ago,” Mr. Ma said, referring to Amazon.com Inc.’s chief executive. “I said: ‘Please send people with entrepreneurial spirit, not professional management. Because wherever you go, doing business in another country is very difficult.’”
...
Mr. Ma spoke out against the perception that U.S. companies can’t succeed in China, citing Microsoft Corp. and Coca-Cola Co. as businesses that have thrived here.
“Give me five examples of Chinese companies that succeed in America,” he said. “Or Asian companies that succeed in America. Because it’s not easy to do business across nations, it takes time.”
“I gave advice to Jeff Bezos 10 years ago,” Mr. Ma said, referring to Amazon.com Inc.’s chief executive. “I said: ‘Please send people with entrepreneurial spirit, not professional management. Because wherever you go, doing business in another country is very difficult.’”
...
Mr. Ma spoke out against the perception that U.S. companies can’t succeed in China, citing Microsoft Corp. and Coca-Cola Co. as businesses that have thrived here.
“Give me five examples of Chinese companies that succeed in America,” he said. “Or Asian companies that succeed in America. Because it’s not easy to do business across nations, it takes time.”
> "I gave advice to Jeff Bezos 10 years ago,” Mr. Ma said, referring to Amazon.com Inc.’s chief executive. “I said: ‘Please send people with entrepreneurial spirit, not professional management. Because wherever you go, doing business in another country is very difficult"
He's stating the obvious (typical success story speech with no substance). It's way too generic to be a legit advice, and "entrepreneurial spirit" is definitely not why his company succeeded.
> “Give me five examples of Chinese companies that succeed in America,” he said. “Or Asian companies that succeed in America. Because it’s not easy to do business across nations, it takes time.”
He equates a highly controlled market with a relatively free market. Either he does not understand economics or he stirred up the concept intentionally. It's not easy to do business across nations, but clearly one market is easier to access than the other.
Look, I understand why lots of people worship Jack Ma. He's like the Steve Jobs/Bill Gates of China, but even those two had taken advantage of things most entrepreneurs had not. All in all, I care more about the health of economy of my home country than what Jack Ma has to say about U.S. companies.
He's stating the obvious (typical success story speech with no substance). It's way too generic to be a legit advice, and "entrepreneurial spirit" is definitely not why his company succeeded.
> “Give me five examples of Chinese companies that succeed in America,” he said. “Or Asian companies that succeed in America. Because it’s not easy to do business across nations, it takes time.”
He equates a highly controlled market with a relatively free market. Either he does not understand economics or he stirred up the concept intentionally. It's not easy to do business across nations, but clearly one market is easier to access than the other.
Look, I understand why lots of people worship Jack Ma. He's like the Steve Jobs/Bill Gates of China, but even those two had taken advantage of things most entrepreneurs had not. All in all, I care more about the health of economy of my home country than what Jack Ma has to say about U.S. companies.
It's profound what utter doublethink (not cognitive dissonance, because these people can literally say two egregiously hypocritical and contradictory statements in the same breath and not consciously recognize the inconsistency) people in China often have about what standards they should hold their own country to, versus standards for other countries.
The same can probably be said about US citizens’ relationship to their own country.
there is, and generally has been, a very healthy level of self-criticism within the USA. based on polling numbers most people dont approve of the current administration, and the primary messages of both the democratic and republican parties are essentially "the leadership of our country is screwed up and we are a morally deteriorating society"
not to say that people in the USA aren't ignorant or arrogant, but there certainly is a lot of expressed disdain for the government / politicians
not to say that people in the USA aren't ignorant or arrogant, but there certainly is a lot of expressed disdain for the government / politicians
…and this is called "whataboutism" (I am not american)
Can you give some examples that you've seen?
Disagree. Most Chinese I know are unhappy with Chinese domestic policy. They are largely unaware of Chinese foreign policy. Its not doublethink... there is a real imbalance of available information.
A few excerpts re: what Jack Ma actually said (although "whining" is in the title of the article, it's not even one of the words he actually said):
“I gave advice to Jeff Bezos 10 years ago,” Mr. Ma said, referring to Amazon.com Inc.’s chief executive. “I said: ‘Please send people with entrepreneurial spirit, not professional management. Because wherever you go, doing business in another country is very difficult.’”
...
Mr. Ma spoke out against the perception that U.S. companies can’t succeed in China, citing Microsoft Corp. and Coca-Cola Co. as businesses that have thrived here.
“Give me five examples of Chinese companies that succeed in America,” he said. “Or Asian companies that succeed in America. Because it’s not easy to do business across nations, it takes time.”
“I gave advice to Jeff Bezos 10 years ago,” Mr. Ma said, referring to Amazon.com Inc.’s chief executive. “I said: ‘Please send people with entrepreneurial spirit, not professional management. Because wherever you go, doing business in another country is very difficult.’”
...
Mr. Ma spoke out against the perception that U.S. companies can’t succeed in China, citing Microsoft Corp. and Coca-Cola Co. as businesses that have thrived here.
“Give me five examples of Chinese companies that succeed in America,” he said. “Or Asian companies that succeed in America. Because it’s not easy to do business across nations, it takes time.”
Meh. I'll continue whining about things like UPU subsidies. http://fortune.com/2015/03/11/united-nations-subsidy-chinese...
The complaints are a dead end.
- The global supply chain is inexorably tied to Chinese raw materials (eg. rare earths) and manufacturing.
- US and European employers are dependent on Chinese inputs for all manner of domestic jobs.
- Financial markets are dependent on Chinese overseas investment and repatriation flows.
Its simply too late. Any disorderly rebalancing of China's economic model is likely catastrophic on a global scale. If Ma's point is that we made our own bed and have to sleep in it - he's right. And none of this is to detract from @3pt14159 point because China has not demonstrated any interest in becoming a responsible global power/steward.
- The global supply chain is inexorably tied to Chinese raw materials (eg. rare earths) and manufacturing.
- US and European employers are dependent on Chinese inputs for all manner of domestic jobs.
- Financial markets are dependent on Chinese overseas investment and repatriation flows.
Its simply too late. Any disorderly rebalancing of China's economic model is likely catastrophic on a global scale. If Ma's point is that we made our own bed and have to sleep in it - he's right. And none of this is to detract from @3pt14159 point because China has not demonstrated any interest in becoming a responsible global power/steward.
China is the biggest importer of raw materials; they have some, but so does Australia and South Africa. Also, rare earths aren’t really that rare, just messy to process leading to higher costs (in the west) or severe environmental damage (in china). Environment protection will have to change regardless, or china simply won’t exist as a viable place to live anymore. Sure, we will need to pay more for rare earths as more responsible production comes online, and china loses its environmental 差不多 advantage so that capacity doesn’t have to be there.
Chinese investments are pretty focused in speculative asset bubbles (like real estate). When that bubble pops, there will be similar pain to Japan, but the world will recover fairly quickly.
Chinese investments are pretty focused in speculative asset bubbles (like real estate). When that bubble pops, there will be similar pain to Japan, but the world will recover fairly quickly.
Could anyone summarize this article? I can’t access it. Thanks
The title pretty much summarized it.
It's behind a Paywall for me.
https://outline.com/EUWDG8 - bypasses paywall
Attempt to redefine perception.
[deleted]
More whining please. It seems to be working, if they're becoming defensive about it.
Only they aren't getting defensive.
In Chinese cultural terms, this is Jack Ma's equivalent of a "victory lap".
I'm not entirely certain why our congress would have even given him a platform to do that?
In Chinese cultural terms, this is Jack Ma's equivalent of a "victory lap".
I'm not entirely certain why our congress would have even given him a platform to do that?
This. Its with great interest I read about 30,000 Chinese troops entering Syria to aid the Assad regime. 30,000 troops projected 6,900km is power projection on par with anything the US or Russia can accomplish.
The China that's building artificial islands to get access to the South China Sea / East Sea?
The China that tries to have trade both ways by forcing Hollywood to portray China positively just to get 50% of what they should at the Chinese box office?
The China that quietly supported the DPRK, destabilizing global peace, to get an edge on their interests?
The China that walls off their own internet completely then whines when politicians start to question their involvement in our (Canada's) newspapers and other media?
The China that disallows foreigners to purchase their currency while stockpiling greenbacks and buying western tech companies?
I don't think we should disengage from China, I think they're liberalizing (over the long haul anyway; rich, educated people figure out a way to get access to the truth) but don't for one second think that we should stop "whining" about China. If anything we should be more vocal in our responses.