logo
Why the West has lost to China

Why the West has lost to China

These last few weeks I have been driving around in the latest and greatest cars from a number of European and Japanese manufacturers, cars that cost anywhere between $50,000 to around $500,000.
While they're exceedingly lovely and do so many things well, it became clear to me as I kept losing my cool at the poor implementation of basic technology and general automotive smarts, that there is now an almost generational gap between where the Chinese automakers are and where the Western and Japanese manufacturers sit.
Want your Apple CarPlay to work wirelessly without dropping out and driving you mad? Don't look to Europe.
Want your infotainment system to look like something from this century? Don't look to Japan.
Want the screen on your $200,000 European car to have the same quality and responsiveness as what you will find in a $30,000 MG, Chery, GWM etc? Look elsewhere.
Want your reversing camera to be in high definition? Japan prefers it in 320p.
Want to be able to control a huge amount of your car remotely via an app that works? Best to look East (or at Chinese-made Teslas).
If you're wondering what I'm talking about, because you have bought into the hysteria that Chinese cars are poorly made and unsafe, then you're living about a decade in the past.
If you're in the market for a new car, and even if you have absolutely no intention of buying a Chinese car, I implore you to go and drive a few and take a look at the price, warranty, and build quality.
Play with the technology, look at all the things it can do and then come back to a known legacy brand and tell me with a straight face it's a better value for money or a superior technological proposition.
Take a moment to realise that the phone, laptop, screen or whatever you are reading this on, is made in China – and soon, most cars will be too.
Paul Maric and I recently had dinner with the CEO of a legacy manufacturer who flat-out admitted his company is decades behind and has no hope of catching up in the near future. His literal words were, "We buried our heads in the sand and now it's too late."
How did we get here? Let's take a walk back in time. The Europeans have had almost 140 years of internal combustion engine, engineering and manufacturing excellence and know-how. The first Daimler/Mercedes vehicle was made in 1886. To say they had a first mover advantage with the automobile would be an understatement.
However, as is the nature of capitalism and short-term greed, most CEOs, executives, and shareholders tend to think only in the short term. There could be no more obvious example of this than the technology and knowledge transfer that has occurred from the West to China in the automotive sector.
When the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) opened its market to Western car companies decades ago, they all rushed in like schoolchildren looking for free lollies and their personal mega-bonuses.
However, there was a slight caveat: if you want to sell your product in China, you must form a 50:50 joint venture with a Chinese company. Which, coincidentally, is likely fully or partially owned by the CCP.
You could almost imagine all the European CEOs smirking at the time, "They will learn our ways, but I'm going to make so much money selling in China, I'll be long gone before that is an issue".
Fast forward three or so decades, and here we are. The issue is clearly apparent if you are a shareholder in a legacy manufacturer in Europe or the United States.
The Chinese have taken almost every single industrial, manufacturing, engineering and technological know-how from the West and now not only have similar, if not better, cars, excellent engineering, and know-how… but they have stopped desiring Western cars. In fact, they are actually making (arguably better for the money) cars for the Europeans under European brands!
Tell that to someone in the late 1990s, and they would laugh at you. This whole shift of power to the East has been heavily aided by the electric vehicle revolution.
You may have recently seen that several German automakers have joined forces to develop software together, a near-admission that if they don't respond to the technological Chinese threat faster, they're doomed.
The Japanese, too, are in trouble, but at least they didn't take the initial bait as hard (arguably due to the poor social relations between the countries). Still, we're talking about an insular culture that invented the Walkman and then refused to adapt when MP3s and streaming became a thing.
Where the Chinese differ from the Japanese is their willingness to hire and bring in foreign experts – paying them huge sums of money – to improve their products. To really make a point, think about how many Western car brands the Japanese have bought versus how many the Chinese own?
In many respects, the way the Japanese schooled the Americans and Europeans in the late 80s and early 90s when it came to quality and lean manufacturing, the Chinese are now doing on a global scale with respect to technology and electrification.
Like my colleagues at CarExpert and across the industry, I attend many events where I get to speak to CEOs of many car companies and I get asked very frequently what I thought of their cars, and more often than not, my first response is "have you driven a $30,000 Chinese car recently?"
You know what? Most of them haven't, and the reason they haven't is because Europe and America have hefty tariffs to stop the Chinese from selling cars, which means most (but not all, with Ford's CEO Jim Farley being the most vocal exception) have no direct experience or idea of just how far behind they are.
Australia is an incredibly unique market, where we have no meaningful tariffs and a low barrier to entry. This means that any manufacturer can easily set up shop in half a dozen key cities and experiment in our market.
In fact, the aggression with which the Chinese have entered our market suggests to anyone with an economic mind that the goal here is not just profit, but to capture market share at the expense of legacy manufacturers. To drive them out and then, over time, raise prices.
This is what China has achieved globally, encompassing everything from technology to core minerals. This is what happens when a country's government thinks 50 years ahead, rather than in a four-year election cycle.
The irony that capitalist markets have blocked access to the 'communist' Chinese does not escape me. In a free market, everyone is allowed to sell their product without discrimination, but in Europe and America, when things get tough and the competition is better and cheaper, they close the market down.
Of course, it makes sense to protect jobs and the local industry, but it also insulates those automakers from understanding their competition before it's too late.
I know many of you will rush to the comments to say I am wrong, and I might be – in fact, I hope I am. There are also many areas where Chinese carmakers can improve. The thing is, though, they are listening and they are actually improving. For example, one Chinese OEM updated one of its best-selling cars three times within a 12-month period, purely based on customer feedback.
I am not talking about minor changes; they redesigned the entire rear and altered the vehicle's dynamics, while also enhancing the interior. They treat cars like smartphones.
From what I have seen during my recent trips to China, from the nine million senior software engineers to the incredible factories, R&D centres and the industrial and manufacturing knowledge that exists in the country, I can only assume that the tide has shifted so far East that it will never shift back again.
There's an excellent quote from Apple CEO Tim Cook about how the West continues to misunderstand and underestimate the Chinese manufacturing complex. I have left it below in full, and while it doesn't directly apply to vehicle manufacturing, it gives you a good idea of why China is leaving the West behind:
You may have noticed that I have excluded the South Koreans from this, and that's for good reason: they can adapt and change, which has so far enabled them to remain very competitive with the Chinese.
Like the Chinese, the Koreans and Indians are also eager to hire the best and learn as quickly as possible while having a long-term view. This may just be their saving grace.
Content originally sourced from: CarExpert.com.au
These last few weeks I have been driving around in the latest and greatest cars from a number of European and Japanese manufacturers, cars that cost anywhere between $50,000 to around $500,000.
While they're exceedingly lovely and do so many things well, it became clear to me as I kept losing my cool at the poor implementation of basic technology and general automotive smarts, that there is now an almost generational gap between where the Chinese automakers are and where the Western and Japanese manufacturers sit.
Want your Apple CarPlay to work wirelessly without dropping out and driving you mad? Don't look to Europe.
Want your infotainment system to look like something from this century? Don't look to Japan.
Want the screen on your $200,000 European car to have the same quality and responsiveness as what you will find in a $30,000 MG, Chery, GWM etc? Look elsewhere.
Want your reversing camera to be in high definition? Japan prefers it in 320p.
Want to be able to control a huge amount of your car remotely via an app that works? Best to look East (or at Chinese-made Teslas).
If you're wondering what I'm talking about, because you have bought into the hysteria that Chinese cars are poorly made and unsafe, then you're living about a decade in the past.
If you're in the market for a new car, and even if you have absolutely no intention of buying a Chinese car, I implore you to go and drive a few and take a look at the price, warranty, and build quality.
Play with the technology, look at all the things it can do and then come back to a known legacy brand and tell me with a straight face it's a better value for money or a superior technological proposition.
Take a moment to realise that the phone, laptop, screen or whatever you are reading this on, is made in China – and soon, most cars will be too.
Paul Maric and I recently had dinner with the CEO of a legacy manufacturer who flat-out admitted his company is decades behind and has no hope of catching up in the near future. His literal words were, "We buried our heads in the sand and now it's too late."
How did we get here? Let's take a walk back in time. The Europeans have had almost 140 years of internal combustion engine, engineering and manufacturing excellence and know-how. The first Daimler/Mercedes vehicle was made in 1886. To say they had a first mover advantage with the automobile would be an understatement.
However, as is the nature of capitalism and short-term greed, most CEOs, executives, and shareholders tend to think only in the short term. There could be no more obvious example of this than the technology and knowledge transfer that has occurred from the West to China in the automotive sector.
When the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) opened its market to Western car companies decades ago, they all rushed in like schoolchildren looking for free lollies and their personal mega-bonuses.
However, there was a slight caveat: if you want to sell your product in China, you must form a 50:50 joint venture with a Chinese company. Which, coincidentally, is likely fully or partially owned by the CCP.
You could almost imagine all the European CEOs smirking at the time, "They will learn our ways, but I'm going to make so much money selling in China, I'll be long gone before that is an issue".
Fast forward three or so decades, and here we are. The issue is clearly apparent if you are a shareholder in a legacy manufacturer in Europe or the United States.
The Chinese have taken almost every single industrial, manufacturing, engineering and technological know-how from the West and now not only have similar, if not better, cars, excellent engineering, and know-how… but they have stopped desiring Western cars. In fact, they are actually making (arguably better for the money) cars for the Europeans under European brands!
Tell that to someone in the late 1990s, and they would laugh at you. This whole shift of power to the East has been heavily aided by the electric vehicle revolution.
You may have recently seen that several German automakers have joined forces to develop software together, a near-admission that if they don't respond to the technological Chinese threat faster, they're doomed.
The Japanese, too, are in trouble, but at least they didn't take the initial bait as hard (arguably due to the poor social relations between the countries). Still, we're talking about an insular culture that invented the Walkman and then refused to adapt when MP3s and streaming became a thing.
Where the Chinese differ from the Japanese is their willingness to hire and bring in foreign experts – paying them huge sums of money – to improve their products. To really make a point, think about how many Western car brands the Japanese have bought versus how many the Chinese own?
In many respects, the way the Japanese schooled the Americans and Europeans in the late 80s and early 90s when it came to quality and lean manufacturing, the Chinese are now doing on a global scale with respect to technology and electrification.
Like my colleagues at CarExpert and across the industry, I attend many events where I get to speak to CEOs of many car companies and I get asked very frequently what I thought of their cars, and more often than not, my first response is "have you driven a $30,000 Chinese car recently?"
You know what? Most of them haven't, and the reason they haven't is because Europe and America have hefty tariffs to stop the Chinese from selling cars, which means most (but not all, with Ford's CEO Jim Farley being the most vocal exception) have no direct experience or idea of just how far behind they are.
Australia is an incredibly unique market, where we have no meaningful tariffs and a low barrier to entry. This means that any manufacturer can easily set up shop in half a dozen key cities and experiment in our market.
In fact, the aggression with which the Chinese have entered our market suggests to anyone with an economic mind that the goal here is not just profit, but to capture market share at the expense of legacy manufacturers. To drive them out and then, over time, raise prices.
This is what China has achieved globally, encompassing everything from technology to core minerals. This is what happens when a country's government thinks 50 years ahead, rather than in a four-year election cycle.
The irony that capitalist markets have blocked access to the 'communist' Chinese does not escape me. In a free market, everyone is allowed to sell their product without discrimination, but in Europe and America, when things get tough and the competition is better and cheaper, they close the market down.
Of course, it makes sense to protect jobs and the local industry, but it also insulates those automakers from understanding their competition before it's too late.
I know many of you will rush to the comments to say I am wrong, and I might be – in fact, I hope I am. There are also many areas where Chinese carmakers can improve. The thing is, though, they are listening and they are actually improving. For example, one Chinese OEM updated one of its best-selling cars three times within a 12-month period, purely based on customer feedback.
I am not talking about minor changes; they redesigned the entire rear and altered the vehicle's dynamics, while also enhancing the interior. They treat cars like smartphones.
From what I have seen during my recent trips to China, from the nine million senior software engineers to the incredible factories, R&D centres and the industrial and manufacturing knowledge that exists in the country, I can only assume that the tide has shifted so far East that it will never shift back again.
There's an excellent quote from Apple CEO Tim Cook about how the West continues to misunderstand and underestimate the Chinese manufacturing complex. I have left it below in full, and while it doesn't directly apply to vehicle manufacturing, it gives you a good idea of why China is leaving the West behind:
You may have noticed that I have excluded the South Koreans from this, and that's for good reason: they can adapt and change, which has so far enabled them to remain very competitive with the Chinese.
Like the Chinese, the Koreans and Indians are also eager to hire the best and learn as quickly as possible while having a long-term view. This may just be their saving grace.
Content originally sourced from: CarExpert.com.au
These last few weeks I have been driving around in the latest and greatest cars from a number of European and Japanese manufacturers, cars that cost anywhere between $50,000 to around $500,000.
While they're exceedingly lovely and do so many things well, it became clear to me as I kept losing my cool at the poor implementation of basic technology and general automotive smarts, that there is now an almost generational gap between where the Chinese automakers are and where the Western and Japanese manufacturers sit.
Want your Apple CarPlay to work wirelessly without dropping out and driving you mad? Don't look to Europe.
Want your infotainment system to look like something from this century? Don't look to Japan.
Want the screen on your $200,000 European car to have the same quality and responsiveness as what you will find in a $30,000 MG, Chery, GWM etc? Look elsewhere.
Want your reversing camera to be in high definition? Japan prefers it in 320p.
Want to be able to control a huge amount of your car remotely via an app that works? Best to look East (or at Chinese-made Teslas).
If you're wondering what I'm talking about, because you have bought into the hysteria that Chinese cars are poorly made and unsafe, then you're living about a decade in the past.
If you're in the market for a new car, and even if you have absolutely no intention of buying a Chinese car, I implore you to go and drive a few and take a look at the price, warranty, and build quality.
Play with the technology, look at all the things it can do and then come back to a known legacy brand and tell me with a straight face it's a better value for money or a superior technological proposition.
Take a moment to realise that the phone, laptop, screen or whatever you are reading this on, is made in China – and soon, most cars will be too.
Paul Maric and I recently had dinner with the CEO of a legacy manufacturer who flat-out admitted his company is decades behind and has no hope of catching up in the near future. His literal words were, "We buried our heads in the sand and now it's too late."
How did we get here? Let's take a walk back in time. The Europeans have had almost 140 years of internal combustion engine, engineering and manufacturing excellence and know-how. The first Daimler/Mercedes vehicle was made in 1886. To say they had a first mover advantage with the automobile would be an understatement.
However, as is the nature of capitalism and short-term greed, most CEOs, executives, and shareholders tend to think only in the short term. There could be no more obvious example of this than the technology and knowledge transfer that has occurred from the West to China in the automotive sector.
When the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) opened its market to Western car companies decades ago, they all rushed in like schoolchildren looking for free lollies and their personal mega-bonuses.
However, there was a slight caveat: if you want to sell your product in China, you must form a 50:50 joint venture with a Chinese company. Which, coincidentally, is likely fully or partially owned by the CCP.
You could almost imagine all the European CEOs smirking at the time, "They will learn our ways, but I'm going to make so much money selling in China, I'll be long gone before that is an issue".
Fast forward three or so decades, and here we are. The issue is clearly apparent if you are a shareholder in a legacy manufacturer in Europe or the United States.
The Chinese have taken almost every single industrial, manufacturing, engineering and technological know-how from the West and now not only have similar, if not better, cars, excellent engineering, and know-how… but they have stopped desiring Western cars. In fact, they are actually making (arguably better for the money) cars for the Europeans under European brands!
Tell that to someone in the late 1990s, and they would laugh at you. This whole shift of power to the East has been heavily aided by the electric vehicle revolution.
You may have recently seen that several German automakers have joined forces to develop software together, a near-admission that if they don't respond to the technological Chinese threat faster, they're doomed.
The Japanese, too, are in trouble, but at least they didn't take the initial bait as hard (arguably due to the poor social relations between the countries). Still, we're talking about an insular culture that invented the Walkman and then refused to adapt when MP3s and streaming became a thing.
Where the Chinese differ from the Japanese is their willingness to hire and bring in foreign experts – paying them huge sums of money – to improve their products. To really make a point, think about how many Western car brands the Japanese have bought versus how many the Chinese own?
In many respects, the way the Japanese schooled the Americans and Europeans in the late 80s and early 90s when it came to quality and lean manufacturing, the Chinese are now doing on a global scale with respect to technology and electrification.
Like my colleagues at CarExpert and across the industry, I attend many events where I get to speak to CEOs of many car companies and I get asked very frequently what I thought of their cars, and more often than not, my first response is "have you driven a $30,000 Chinese car recently?"
You know what? Most of them haven't, and the reason they haven't is because Europe and America have hefty tariffs to stop the Chinese from selling cars, which means most (but not all, with Ford's CEO Jim Farley being the most vocal exception) have no direct experience or idea of just how far behind they are.
Australia is an incredibly unique market, where we have no meaningful tariffs and a low barrier to entry. This means that any manufacturer can easily set up shop in half a dozen key cities and experiment in our market.
In fact, the aggression with which the Chinese have entered our market suggests to anyone with an economic mind that the goal here is not just profit, but to capture market share at the expense of legacy manufacturers. To drive them out and then, over time, raise prices.
This is what China has achieved globally, encompassing everything from technology to core minerals. This is what happens when a country's government thinks 50 years ahead, rather than in a four-year election cycle.
The irony that capitalist markets have blocked access to the 'communist' Chinese does not escape me. In a free market, everyone is allowed to sell their product without discrimination, but in Europe and America, when things get tough and the competition is better and cheaper, they close the market down.
Of course, it makes sense to protect jobs and the local industry, but it also insulates those automakers from understanding their competition before it's too late.
I know many of you will rush to the comments to say I am wrong, and I might be – in fact, I hope I am. There are also many areas where Chinese carmakers can improve. The thing is, though, they are listening and they are actually improving. For example, one Chinese OEM updated one of its best-selling cars three times within a 12-month period, purely based on customer feedback.
I am not talking about minor changes; they redesigned the entire rear and altered the vehicle's dynamics, while also enhancing the interior. They treat cars like smartphones.
From what I have seen during my recent trips to China, from the nine million senior software engineers to the incredible factories, R&D centres and the industrial and manufacturing knowledge that exists in the country, I can only assume that the tide has shifted so far East that it will never shift back again.
There's an excellent quote from Apple CEO Tim Cook about how the West continues to misunderstand and underestimate the Chinese manufacturing complex. I have left it below in full, and while it doesn't directly apply to vehicle manufacturing, it gives you a good idea of why China is leaving the West behind:
You may have noticed that I have excluded the South Koreans from this, and that's for good reason: they can adapt and change, which has so far enabled them to remain very competitive with the Chinese.
Like the Chinese, the Koreans and Indians are also eager to hire the best and learn as quickly as possible while having a long-term view. This may just be their saving grace.
Content originally sourced from: CarExpert.com.au
These last few weeks I have been driving around in the latest and greatest cars from a number of European and Japanese manufacturers, cars that cost anywhere between $50,000 to around $500,000.
While they're exceedingly lovely and do so many things well, it became clear to me as I kept losing my cool at the poor implementation of basic technology and general automotive smarts, that there is now an almost generational gap between where the Chinese automakers are and where the Western and Japanese manufacturers sit.
Want your Apple CarPlay to work wirelessly without dropping out and driving you mad? Don't look to Europe.
Want your infotainment system to look like something from this century? Don't look to Japan.
Want the screen on your $200,000 European car to have the same quality and responsiveness as what you will find in a $30,000 MG, Chery, GWM etc? Look elsewhere.
Want your reversing camera to be in high definition? Japan prefers it in 320p.
Want to be able to control a huge amount of your car remotely via an app that works? Best to look East (or at Chinese-made Teslas).
If you're wondering what I'm talking about, because you have bought into the hysteria that Chinese cars are poorly made and unsafe, then you're living about a decade in the past.
If you're in the market for a new car, and even if you have absolutely no intention of buying a Chinese car, I implore you to go and drive a few and take a look at the price, warranty, and build quality.
Play with the technology, look at all the things it can do and then come back to a known legacy brand and tell me with a straight face it's a better value for money or a superior technological proposition.
Take a moment to realise that the phone, laptop, screen or whatever you are reading this on, is made in China – and soon, most cars will be too.
Paul Maric and I recently had dinner with the CEO of a legacy manufacturer who flat-out admitted his company is decades behind and has no hope of catching up in the near future. His literal words were, "We buried our heads in the sand and now it's too late."
How did we get here? Let's take a walk back in time. The Europeans have had almost 140 years of internal combustion engine, engineering and manufacturing excellence and know-how. The first Daimler/Mercedes vehicle was made in 1886. To say they had a first mover advantage with the automobile would be an understatement.
However, as is the nature of capitalism and short-term greed, most CEOs, executives, and shareholders tend to think only in the short term. There could be no more obvious example of this than the technology and knowledge transfer that has occurred from the West to China in the automotive sector.
When the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) opened its market to Western car companies decades ago, they all rushed in like schoolchildren looking for free lollies and their personal mega-bonuses.
However, there was a slight caveat: if you want to sell your product in China, you must form a 50:50 joint venture with a Chinese company. Which, coincidentally, is likely fully or partially owned by the CCP.
You could almost imagine all the European CEOs smirking at the time, "They will learn our ways, but I'm going to make so much money selling in China, I'll be long gone before that is an issue".
Fast forward three or so decades, and here we are. The issue is clearly apparent if you are a shareholder in a legacy manufacturer in Europe or the United States.
The Chinese have taken almost every single industrial, manufacturing, engineering and technological know-how from the West and now not only have similar, if not better, cars, excellent engineering, and know-how… but they have stopped desiring Western cars. In fact, they are actually making (arguably better for the money) cars for the Europeans under European brands!
Tell that to someone in the late 1990s, and they would laugh at you. This whole shift of power to the East has been heavily aided by the electric vehicle revolution.
You may have recently seen that several German automakers have joined forces to develop software together, a near-admission that if they don't respond to the technological Chinese threat faster, they're doomed.
The Japanese, too, are in trouble, but at least they didn't take the initial bait as hard (arguably due to the poor social relations between the countries). Still, we're talking about an insular culture that invented the Walkman and then refused to adapt when MP3s and streaming became a thing.
Where the Chinese differ from the Japanese is their willingness to hire and bring in foreign experts – paying them huge sums of money – to improve their products. To really make a point, think about how many Western car brands the Japanese have bought versus how many the Chinese own?
In many respects, the way the Japanese schooled the Americans and Europeans in the late 80s and early 90s when it came to quality and lean manufacturing, the Chinese are now doing on a global scale with respect to technology and electrification.
Like my colleagues at CarExpert and across the industry, I attend many events where I get to speak to CEOs of many car companies and I get asked very frequently what I thought of their cars, and more often than not, my first response is "have you driven a $30,000 Chinese car recently?"
You know what? Most of them haven't, and the reason they haven't is because Europe and America have hefty tariffs to stop the Chinese from selling cars, which means most (but not all, with Ford's CEO Jim Farley being the most vocal exception) have no direct experience or idea of just how far behind they are.
Australia is an incredibly unique market, where we have no meaningful tariffs and a low barrier to entry. This means that any manufacturer can easily set up shop in half a dozen key cities and experiment in our market.
In fact, the aggression with which the Chinese have entered our market suggests to anyone with an economic mind that the goal here is not just profit, but to capture market share at the expense of legacy manufacturers. To drive them out and then, over time, raise prices.
This is what China has achieved globally, encompassing everything from technology to core minerals. This is what happens when a country's government thinks 50 years ahead, rather than in a four-year election cycle.
The irony that capitalist markets have blocked access to the 'communist' Chinese does not escape me. In a free market, everyone is allowed to sell their product without discrimination, but in Europe and America, when things get tough and the competition is better and cheaper, they close the market down.
Of course, it makes sense to protect jobs and the local industry, but it also insulates those automakers from understanding their competition before it's too late.
I know many of you will rush to the comments to say I am wrong, and I might be – in fact, I hope I am. There are also many areas where Chinese carmakers can improve. The thing is, though, they are listening and they are actually improving. For example, one Chinese OEM updated one of its best-selling cars three times within a 12-month period, purely based on customer feedback.
I am not talking about minor changes; they redesigned the entire rear and altered the vehicle's dynamics, while also enhancing the interior. They treat cars like smartphones.
From what I have seen during my recent trips to China, from the nine million senior software engineers to the incredible factories, R&D centres and the industrial and manufacturing knowledge that exists in the country, I can only assume that the tide has shifted so far East that it will never shift back again.
There's an excellent quote from Apple CEO Tim Cook about how the West continues to misunderstand and underestimate the Chinese manufacturing complex. I have left it below in full, and while it doesn't directly apply to vehicle manufacturing, it gives you a good idea of why China is leaving the West behind:
You may have noticed that I have excluded the South Koreans from this, and that's for good reason: they can adapt and change, which has so far enabled them to remain very competitive with the Chinese.
Like the Chinese, the Koreans and Indians are also eager to hire the best and learn as quickly as possible while having a long-term view. This may just be their saving grace.
Content originally sourced from: CarExpert.com.au
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump says US will start TikTok deal talks with China
Trump says US will start TikTok deal talks with China

The Advertiser

time9 hours ago

  • The Advertiser

Trump says US will start TikTok deal talks with China

US President Donald Trump says he will start talking to China next week about a possible TikTok deal. He said the United States "pretty much" has a deal on the sale of the TikTok short-video app. "I think we're gonna start Monday or Tuesday ... talking to China, perhaps President Xi or one of his representatives, but we would we pretty much have a deal," Trump told reporters on Friday aboard Air Force One. In June, Trump extended to September 17 a deadline for China-based ByteDance to divest the US assets of TikTok. A deal had been in the works to spin off TikTok's US operations into a new US-based firm, majority-owned and operated by US investors, but it was put on hold after China indicated it would not approve it following Trump's announcements of steep tariffs on Chinese goods. Trump said the US would probably have to get a deal approved by China. When asked how confident he was that China would agree to a deal, he said, "I'm not confident, but I think so. President Xi and I have a great relationship, and I think it's good for them. I think the deal is good for China and it's good for us." US President Donald Trump says he will start talking to China next week about a possible TikTok deal. He said the United States "pretty much" has a deal on the sale of the TikTok short-video app. "I think we're gonna start Monday or Tuesday ... talking to China, perhaps President Xi or one of his representatives, but we would we pretty much have a deal," Trump told reporters on Friday aboard Air Force One. In June, Trump extended to September 17 a deadline for China-based ByteDance to divest the US assets of TikTok. A deal had been in the works to spin off TikTok's US operations into a new US-based firm, majority-owned and operated by US investors, but it was put on hold after China indicated it would not approve it following Trump's announcements of steep tariffs on Chinese goods. Trump said the US would probably have to get a deal approved by China. When asked how confident he was that China would agree to a deal, he said, "I'm not confident, but I think so. President Xi and I have a great relationship, and I think it's good for them. I think the deal is good for China and it's good for us." US President Donald Trump says he will start talking to China next week about a possible TikTok deal. He said the United States "pretty much" has a deal on the sale of the TikTok short-video app. "I think we're gonna start Monday or Tuesday ... talking to China, perhaps President Xi or one of his representatives, but we would we pretty much have a deal," Trump told reporters on Friday aboard Air Force One. In June, Trump extended to September 17 a deadline for China-based ByteDance to divest the US assets of TikTok. A deal had been in the works to spin off TikTok's US operations into a new US-based firm, majority-owned and operated by US investors, but it was put on hold after China indicated it would not approve it following Trump's announcements of steep tariffs on Chinese goods. Trump said the US would probably have to get a deal approved by China. When asked how confident he was that China would agree to a deal, he said, "I'm not confident, but I think so. President Xi and I have a great relationship, and I think it's good for them. I think the deal is good for China and it's good for us." US President Donald Trump says he will start talking to China next week about a possible TikTok deal. He said the United States "pretty much" has a deal on the sale of the TikTok short-video app. "I think we're gonna start Monday or Tuesday ... talking to China, perhaps President Xi or one of his representatives, but we would we pretty much have a deal," Trump told reporters on Friday aboard Air Force One. In June, Trump extended to September 17 a deadline for China-based ByteDance to divest the US assets of TikTok. A deal had been in the works to spin off TikTok's US operations into a new US-based firm, majority-owned and operated by US investors, but it was put on hold after China indicated it would not approve it following Trump's announcements of steep tariffs on Chinese goods. Trump said the US would probably have to get a deal approved by China. When asked how confident he was that China would agree to a deal, he said, "I'm not confident, but I think so. President Xi and I have a great relationship, and I think it's good for them. I think the deal is good for China and it's good for us."

Trump says US will start TikTok deal talks with China
Trump says US will start TikTok deal talks with China

Perth Now

time11 hours ago

  • Perth Now

Trump says US will start TikTok deal talks with China

US President Donald Trump says he will start talking to China next week about a possible TikTok deal. He said the United States "pretty much" has a deal on the sale of the TikTok short-video app. "I think we're gonna start Monday or Tuesday ... talking to China, perhaps President Xi or one of his representatives, but we would we pretty much have a deal," Trump told reporters on Friday aboard Air Force One. In June, Trump extended to September 17 a deadline for China-based ByteDance to divest the US assets of TikTok. A deal had been in the works to spin off TikTok's US operations into a new US-based firm, majority-owned and operated by US investors, but it was put on hold after China indicated it would not approve it following Trump's announcements of steep tariffs on Chinese goods. Trump said the US would probably have to get a deal approved by China. When asked how confident he was that China would agree to a deal, he said, "I'm not confident, but I think so. President Xi and I have a great relationship, and I think it's good for them. I think the deal is good for China and it's good for us."

Melbourne locals miss property bargains as offshore and interstate investors step up
Melbourne locals miss property bargains as offshore and interstate investors step up

The Age

time13 hours ago

  • The Age

Melbourne locals miss property bargains as offshore and interstate investors step up

However, the vendors, a family who had owned the shop at 423-425 Elizabeth Street since 1981, held their ground and reaped $9.1 million in post-auction negotiations. The deal delivered the highest building rate – $32,155 a sq m – achieved in the city in the past five years and the tightest yield – 3.66 per cent – of the past two years. Cushman & Wakefield's Ma, along with Anthony Kirwan, Hay and Wolman, handled the negotiations. The 283 sq m shop is on a 184 sq m piece of land at the Queen Vic Market end of Elizabeth Street and is leased to giant Chinese retailer Mixue. The price is a sure guide to where the market is heading: income. Mixue pays an estimated $428,490 a year. It proved quite the contrast with Thursday's auction at 105 Elizabeth Street, between Collins and Little Collins streets. The 870 sq m five-storey building sold under the hammer for just $6 million (equalling the final vendor bid) after bidding from two parties – an investor from Singapore and a representative from Advise Transact. It was a tight price but a good 30 per cent lower than what the building could have achieved in 2021. Records show investor Bin Ma paid $7.55 million in February 2024. The property returns $283,798 a year, most of which is derived from the ground floor Coleman's Music shop, giving the deal a sharp yield of 4.72 per cent The office floors above are empty. Levels two to four were last occupied by US credit card giant American Express until the mid-1990s when it left for Hothlyn House, a building owned by former prime minister Bob Hawke. The buyer will need deep pockets to fund a major renovation, but the payoff could be substantial. Fully leased it could rake in close to $600,000 a year. Cushman & Wakefield's Kirwan, Wolman and George Davies handled the auction, which attracted about 50 people and just 11 bids in more than 30 minutes. Skyloft carpark Another little piece of the CBD is up for grabs, but buyers won't have to dig too deep for the car park in the basement of 601 Little Collins Street. The 53-bay car park is for sale at about $3.5 million, which equates to $66,000 per car park, or $3100 per sq m. Colliers agent Christian Hatzis, who is handling the listing with Nick Garoni and Yvonne Zhou, suggests the car park could be converted into a different use, such as a gym or novelty escape room. The 1118 sq m property is under the Skylofts 601 apartment building and has access from Francis Street. It last changed hands in 2006 for $2.64 million. It's one of a clutch of car parks and self-storage facilities owned by the Fry family. Loading In 2016, James Fry used the roof of another car park, on the corner of Market Street and Flinders Lane, to set up a short stay caravan business. Greville shops An interstate investor has splashed out close to $11 million for a Greville Street holding belonging to rich-lister Patricia Ilhan. Ilhan, who made her fortune with the late John Ilhan in the early 2000s selling the Crazy John's mobile phone business, bought the properties in 2011 for almost $8 million. The three shops at 136-144 Greville Street are leased by swanky French restaurant Entrecote and its neighbours, Kookai and Acai Brothers. The properties are on three titles, covering 909 sq m, on the funky Prahran shopping strip. The tenants pay $479,370 a year in rent. Vinci Carbone's Frank Vinci and Joseph Carbone handled the expressions-of-interest campaign. Vinci told Capital Gain there had been interest from offshore investors, but an interstate family secured the investment. Union sells The Australian Services Union is selling its long held office building in Carlton, on the city-fringe. The building at 116 Queensberry Street, on the corner of Cardigan Street, has been ASU headquarters since 1989. The 2250 sq m three-storey office is on a 1026 sq m parcel of land. CBRE agents Nick Peden and Jamus Campbell are handling the expressions-of-interest campaign. They're expecting about $13 million. No word yet on where the ASU will land next. On the other side of the city, an office at 29-33 Palmerston Crescent, South Melbourne, is back on the market for the third time in recent years. The five-storey building was previously the long-time headquarters of the National Tax and Accountants Association and last changed hands in 2005 for $4.6 million. It's a short walk to St Kilda Road and the new Anzac railway station at the Domain Interchange. Cushman & Wakefield's Kirwan, Davies and Raphael Favas have the listing and expect it will fetch more than $10 million. Industrial shed Perth-based investor Westbridge Funds Management has splashed out $13.25 million on a logistics property at 62 Northgate Drive, Thomastown. Loading The 4970 sq m property is on a 7600 sq m piece of land next to the Ring Road and is leased to logistics company NPFulfilment. Colliers agents Daniel Telling, Billy Kanakis and Nick O'Brien handled the transaction. The acquisition marks the completion of Westbridge's $77 million Total Return Fund. 'The Thomastown property strengthens the fund's logistics exposure in a location with proven occupier demand and constrained supply,' Westbridge head of capital transactions Simon Worth said.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store