China wants to be a manufacturing-based superpower, not a financialized one (like the US).
Very few understand this.
(Which is bizarre, since it's all the gov't talks about.)
Really weird that people can be triggered by this, this is just a fact that this is China's strategy, you can disagree if you want, but if stating this fact bothers you, then you have some problems engaging with reality.
Today I learned that people love it when you tell them that the sky is blue.
Machine translation of a speech made earlier this year by the chief economist Chen Li at Soochow Securities that is going viral (again) & original of which was shared below.
“We have abandoned the American path for the German path.”
I’m gonna stop commenting on this thread for a bit and go write for our China tech community at @techbuzzchina insider now, smarties welcome, but only if you’re nice too: techbuzzchina.com/insider
OK I'm back. I understand why some confused now!
To Americans*, manufacturing = low value / jobs added.
To China, it = supply chain integrity, a more resilient economy, long term strength.**
*In fact, most Chinese commentary point out that EVEN the US wants to RE industrialize!
**I don't even have to resort to semis or other chokepoint tech to know this is true. You can learn design and branding etc fairly quickly, just look at new Chinese CPG. But you cannot just uproot entire manufacturing hubs so easily, and a lot of mfg is still process knowledge.
I don't think China has it all figured out, but refusing to engage a different perspective and instead just reducing all CCP actions to "control" or worse, "idiocy," is actually SELF-sabotage. So yea, I actually question the loyalties of those who purposefully misinform re China.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The takes that Chinese tech cos now going into manufacturing upgrade / industrial internet / B2B bc you know, the govt said so, are so damn ignorant.
I remember giving interviews to Chinese tech media on B2B prospects in 2015 and saying "maybe this is finally the year."
Actually, just go google, 2015 widely considered first year in China that cloud, B2B platforms, supply chain finance, smart manufacturing, etc. you know, all the things that go into this "industrial internet" concept, became a thing. Numerous funds were raised on this concept.
And now, as folks have been working on these biz and investing in them for like SIX YRS (at least, it just wasn't as popular pre 2015), just cuz now it's in the English news, doesn't mean it's NEW. Doesn't mean everyone's coerced to by the govt. Ridiculous take.
Alibaba CEO letter today wrote about it becoming "consumer + industrial internet" together. You probably recognize "industrial internet" from Tencent, who's made this a big direction since 2018, even wrote a book on it in 2020. But what is industrial internet?
Apparently it was coined by Frost & Sullivan in 2000. In 2014 ish I notice it's starting to be a popular word but mostly referring to IoT (sometimes still does). It becomes REALLY popular by 2017, and of course by 2019 it's pretty much ubiquitous. It includes a lot of things:
- B2B marketplaces, not just of goods but also info
- credit & financing platforms for businesses
- any kind of smart manufacturing / agriculture
- I see folks include logistics, payments too
Honestly, kinda broad, but basically tech "connecting sector value chains," so non B2C🤷♀️
"In the next 100 years, education will still exist, but New Oriental might not. Education is not the same as New Oriental."
-- Jack Ma in 2016
The above was from a conversation where Yu Minhong, founder of New Oriental $EDU & Jack Ma were arguing whose business would stick around for 100 years.
Tbf, Jack didn't think it was necessarily a given Alibaba would be around either. He said the co could be gone in 3 years.😆
"Very few internet companies last more than 3 years“ & "there are only two long-lasting realms in human society, religion and education." -- also Jack Ma in same conversation 🙃
I think the confusion over “China tech” is due to lack of specificity: 1. consumer tech platforms & brands 2. service biz tech / B2B 3. tech for supply chain / mfg 4. chokepoint tech (China doesn’t have it, can be sanctioned) 5. frontier tech
5a. Climate / carbon reduction tech
1. Consumer tech platforms were too lightly regulated before with respect to antitrust. But many provide digital infrastructure on which domestic consumption (dua circulation!) relies. So the biz *practices* are curbed, the biz itself is not problematic. Brands are doing v well.
2. Basically SaaS / enterprise software. Huge area of upgrade for the economy, easy to unleash a lot more productivity. VCs already all over this for past few years. A great overview on it here:
1/ So I've been talking a lot abt the surge in D2C (direct to consumer) brand investing in China. I spoke to & wrote abt one of the most visible cos of this trend, Genki Forest, a bottled beverage co, aiming to become IMO not just the Coca-Cola of China, but the next $KO period.
2/ Genki is 5 yrs old, $6Bn valuation, ~$450mm rev last year, targeting $1.2Bn this yr. It sells sugarfree sodas, milk teas, energy drinks, etc. So what's special about it? Well, first, let me tell you what's diff abt the Chinese ecosystem.
3/ Chinese e-commerce ecosystem, in case you forgot:
- Highly concentrated: Just 2 players (Alibaba & JD) have 80%+ mkt share
- New digital platforms enable new formats: mini programs & short videos, even faster now to build a brand
- Very cheap logistics
- Advanced supply chain
What is China thinking when it comes to regulating its consumer internet companies? 2 main things: 1) must not go against national strategic objectives 2) sustainable / real profit or social benefit, not just capital gains
Pretty simple.
National strategic objectives:
Mitigate / solve demographic crisis
Keep manufacturing onshore & continue to upgrade as this is a matter of national security
Stable economic growth
Basically, balance for long term over maximizing short term
Real benefits over gains from playing games with capital:
Monopolies are bad. Throwing capital at a sector to get to monopoly status is very bad (ie crazy subsidies). Using other shady methods also very bad.