The China Vortex

As a consultant in software product development, I have followed trends not only in software development, but in other businesses as well. Software is one of those businesses which changes fairly quickly, since its main output is code. When software engineers decide to retire code or a standard, that code is said to be deprecated. In short, it is no longer supported in the current version, though it may be in previous versions. One of the major reasons for poor performance in consumer software is the support for deprecated systems and code; this causes a performance hit.

With the rise of the Internet, more service work is easily done in remote locations and time zones. This change is most common among software developers, many who work in other locations and are never seen in any office, but continue to contribute. It is also happening in the field of writing and reporting; I write for Forbes.com The China Tracker and Business Insider; but I have never stepped inside their offices. There simply is no need to.

Michael Pettis, an economist and observer of the Chinese economy, has made the criticism that China’s party, government and technocrats have invested too much in export production capacity, while Chinese consumer spending is actually shrinking as a percentage. This is all happening at a time when the rest of the world is looking to the Chinese consumer as the last hope for the global economy. Definitely, this is not a good sign.

The intrinsic problem is that China has become too dependent on its own state-owned enterprises to maintain growth and employment at all costs following the events of September 2008. Because they were so huge and had ready access to capital from the state-owned banks, they were able to keep China’s economy growing, even while the rest of the world headed into a funk. Nearly two years later though, cracks in the dike are beginning to appear.

For one thing, China’s economy has become too dependent on the large corporate enterprise. Both the US and China have been trying to do the same thing: trying to save large corporations at a time when they should be deprecated. This article from the Wall Street Journal, The End of Management, says it best:

Corporations are bureaucracies and managers are bureaucrats. Their fundamental tendency is toward self-perpetuation. They are, almost by definition, resistant to change. They were designed and tasked, not with reinforcing market forces, but with supplanting and even resisting the market.

In the US, government has become too closely aligned with the financial industry and its interests, and in China, the party exercises dominance and control of the economy through state-owned enterprises, many of which have become dependent on real estate speculation to be profitable. The WSJ article goes on further to say:

British economist Ronald Coase laid out the basic logic of the managed corporation in his 1937 work, “The Nature of the Firm.” He argued corporations were necessary because of what he called “transaction costs.” It was simply too complicated and too costly to search for and find the right worker at the right moment for any given task, or to search for supplies, or to renegotiate prices, police performance and protect trade secrets in an open marketplace. The corporation might not be as good at allocating labor and capital as the marketplace; it made up for those weaknesses by reducing transaction costs.

Mr. Coase received his Nobel Prize in 1991—the very dawn of the Internet age. Since then, the ability of human beings on different continents and with vastly different skills and interests to work together and coordinate complex tasks has taken quantum leaps.

Most of the reasons which Coase outlined for the creation of the corporation in The Nature of the Firm no longer exist. Thanks to Google and other tools, small organizations can resolve all of these issues for almost no costs at all. Isn’t it time we start thinking and talking about deprecating large corporations?

Of course, many in the US and China would argue that only a very small and select minority would be able to work on different time zones and in remote locations with minimal supervision; I would beg to differ. For many service jobs where key personal relationships are not important, this will become the norm within 20 years. It’s just that the US and Chinese government haven’t figured it out yet.

In China’s case, this change is particularly disturbing. Most outside observers of China don’t understand that the main metric which drives China’s economic decision-makers is job creation and employment, not company profitability. Recently, I was pointed to a long article by Daniel Cloud called Ghost Money. In the article, Cloud says:

Simply endlessly printing more money is more likely to lead to catastrophic failure – devaluation, inflation, default, or all three – than to any permanent rescue of the situation. That, in an open economy with large cross-border trade and capital flows, debasing your currency is not a long term solution to any real economic problem is something we’ve known for a rather long time. A one-off devaluation is sometimes useful, but the endless abuse of segniorage has not traditionally been viewed in a very favorable light. Someone will pay in the end; now we are beginning to see who it is. Anyone who holds a lot of sovereign debt is at risk of eventually discovering that it is fairy gold, ghost money, mere joss paper that didn’t ever correspond to any pile of goods and services actually available in this world. (Imagine an endless stream of ships leaving America full of cargo and returning from China empty, as if we were paying war reparations, individual Americans making terrible personal sacrifices to make sure the debt was paid…. The scenario is just so implausible.)

So what can China do? Cloud goes on:

Export-led growth works well in a world where the price elasticity of demand for the exported goods is effectively infinite, where any decrease in costs will always lead to an expansion in sales. Even in a world like that, though, sooner or later the very development it brings about will put upward pressure on export prices. So even in a world where the first condition continues to hold indefinitely, sooner or later it will be necessary to switch to growth driven at least partly by domestic demand. But large countries like Japan and China are bound to run into another barrier as well. Eventually their exports will become so big relative to the economies they are exporting to that people in those countries will not be able to afford to continue increasing their purchases of the exports at the same rate year after year. A country the size of Singapore can afford to ignore the limits of their customers’ purchasing power. But both Japan in the ‘80’s and China in the last decade found themselves having to lend their export earnings back to the countries they were exporting to, to keep the growth in exports going.

Once you get to this point, it should be obvious to the exporter that he is never going to get paid back at today’s prices. (Where would the money come from?) The importer is likely to try to avoid bankruptcy by forcing a revaluation on the exporter, which is politically easier for him than persuading his own voters to adopt the necessary austerity measures would be. The exporter, seeing this risk, will frantically try to switch over to an economy based on domestic demand. Whether or not he can do this depends on the condition of his political system.

Basically, Cloud’s argument is the same as Pettis’, that there is way too much capacity for the Chinese consumer to absorb, and if the Chinese consumer doesn’t spend, we are all effectively screwed. According to an article in the Financial Times, Chinese retail consumers are reluctant to spend. Cloud says that the only way out is for political reform to come to China.

If that is indeed the case, then the Chinese government will continue to fund Chinese money-losing state-owned companies until it can no longer do so. The Economist has a recent article on how the Chinese government has introduced a new circular bail-out for SOEs.

Hmmm. Looks like short-term thinking to me. Short-term bailouts do not resolve long-term structural issues.

For this reason, an article by Perry Link, a long-time China authority, in the the New York Review of Books drew my attention. This article was titled “Waiting for WikiLeaks: Beijing’s Seven Secrets” goes into some detail about the seven closely guarded secrets which are closely held in the party’s archives. I won’t go into detail about those secrets here, but what grabbed my attention about the leaked story was the final paragraph:

The anonymous reporter who leaked the contents of the July 21 meeting commented on a looming atmosphere of demise at the meeting. The underlying mood, he suggested, was, We had better get control of these archives, and perhaps destroy them, before a day of reckoning is upon us.

Does this sound like the confident leadership of the world’s fastest growing major economy? You can draw your own conclusions.

At the same time, there is an article in the People’s Daily titled “Chinese leaders vow to make Party affairs public”.

Hmmm. Interesting.

There is a point which western critics of China and the Chinese government have not pointed out. To a large extent, China is where it is now because it has followed the western model of economic development for developed economies, while retaining its own political system. Critics like Cloud say that this is why China is doomed to failure; it has followed the economics, but did not follow the political model.

I don’t think that it’s that simple.

The real problem in the Chinese model is an over-reliance on state-owned enterprises and since 2008, state-created employment. In fact, what the Chinese government should do is increase lending to Chinese private companies, and allow them to compete on a level playing field with Chinese SOEs. Instead, the Chinese government has focused all its attention and capital on Chinese SOEs, while pretending that the Chinese private sector doesn’t exist. At best, the party has treated China’s own private sector as the wife’s red-haired son from her first marriage.

For a long time in the US, private companies have been the main engine of growth and job creation. But unfortunately, Americans are not as good at entrepreneurship after they have been in the US for several generations. In the US, the best entrepreneurs have historically been the immigrants who have opened restaurants, groceries, laundries and other small businesses. They would then save money, sending their children to the best schools, so that they could become managers, doctors and lawyers. This has been true of every immigrant wave to the US, and is why the US is so dependent on new immigrants. Then, when their kids go into the mainstream, they become the new white-collar class of doctors, lawyers and managers. The problem now for blue collar workers, is that they look for jobs at corporations, and when they can’t find any, they go on welfare. But the problem is that the system is broken, and most state governments are broke.

Compared to the US, China is more fortunate. It has always had a large population of entrepreneurs. But many have had trouble finding capital to start their own businesses, or feel discriminated against by the government, which is why so many continue to emigrate to Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the US even though they have been able to achieve some degree of success in China. The end result is that many of the best remaining entrepreneurs are government bureaucrats, who abuse their privilege to become wealthy. Then the Chinese government goes after some of those, putting them on trial for corruption, and serving them up to the people as examples of how the government is helping them.

But doesn’t it make much more sense to help China’s own private sector by providing them needed capital for growth at critical moments? Why should China’s own private sector continue to be treated as the red-haired stepson by the government?

The best way for China to stimulate real consumer growth and spending is to remove the barriers to growth for the Chinese private sector, so that they obtain needed capital to grow at home in China. This will work much better than any slogans about Chinese global brands, innovation and creativity for large Chinese SOEs.

Most likely, these new businesses will start small. At the beginning of this article, I talked about how there is less need for large numbers of people and large corporate organizations anymore. This is what Schumpeter’s creative destruction thesis was all about.

Through its control of the financial sector, the Chinese government and party has the basic tools to help China regenerate itself more, much more, than it has up until now. It has long been my view that China is a nation of small business people, farmers and engineers. The problem in today’s China is that there is not a good balance: the engineers have too much power and influence on policy, and the small business people and farmers have suffered at their expense. The engineers are good at producing, but are less good at profitability. This has led to severe imbalances in China’s economy and society.

The Chinese government has, within its own hands, the power to unleash China’s small business sector and private entrepreneurs not only as a force for change inside China, but as a force which can change the world for the better. So far, it has not given them that power.

Historically, China has had major social disruptions when the rural and urban gap widened too much, and the rural population felt that they were ignored by the central government. The Chinese Communist Party came to power in 1949 based on widespread rural support for what was seen as a largely corrupt urban Kuomintang leadership. Yet this is what is happening now in China; except this time, the gap is widening at a much faster pace. The leak from the party archives meeting shows that the party is aware of this imminent danger at its most senior levels, yet has no way to deal with it.

Now, the Chinese government is trying to build an urban middle class while retaining a dominant public sector. This has never been done before, and the leak from the party archives meeting suggests that even the government leadership has its doubts about whether it will succeed. It is time to rebalance Chinese society so that the private business sector and farmers have a greater say in China’s future. This is all the more reason for China to build a REAL urban middle class; one which is based like Taiwan’s, Hong Kong’s and Singapore’s, on a vibrant, healthy and growing private business sector.

It is time to let a hundred flowers bloom in China’s private sector.

@GregoryLent on Twitter just pointed me to this article, A User’s Guide to 21st Century Economics, by Umair Haque which I recommend highly.

After reading this article, some questions which came to mind:

• Chinese companies traditionally have not been good at adding value. How well can they adjust to the new 21st century economic situation?
• Chinese companies have been spending much on acquiring steady supplies of raw commodities. How much are they thinking of what is needed for the 21st century? Will they continue to build a twentieth century economy modeled on the American model, which is going defunct rapidly, or will they build a new development model for the 21st century?
• The 21st century development model is reliant on individual human talent and creativity, and making it possible for them to succeed. How is China going to attract the best minds in the world to China in the 21st century?

In the past few days, Henry Paulson has come up with his US$700B proposal to save the major lending institutions which made bad decisions re CDOs, with all the bad loans being covered by the US taxpayer. This is happening at a time when the US middle class is under unprecedented pressure already.

Over the next year, all the bad decisions made by China’s economic planners over the past 30 years will show through. These include:

• The decision to become overly dependent on the US as an export market, and buying US treasuries to effectively buy this single captive market and continue to sell it goods far beyond its capacity to pay for China’s exports.
• Somewhere along the line, a decision was made to jumpstart China’s economy and put it on the fast-track of economic development. To a large extent, this has happened. But China’s economy is like a body builder whose upper body strength is massive, but has toothpick legs. More incidents like the melamine milk incidents will become common, simply because the government is not equipped to handle incidents of this kind.
• China, unfortunately, has a reputation for cheap, low-quality products, in spite of the successful Beijing Olympics. For the most part, Chinese companies do not have the talent to work up the value chain creating better products. (There are some, but they are too few to make a significant difference.) This takes time to build.
• Exports will slow, and the Chinese domestic market will not pick up the slack fast enough to prevent major unemployment problems, especially among university graduates.
• The wealth gap between the rich and poor will widen dangerously, and real estate prices, which are already falling, will fall even more.

China became addicted to US orders and the US dollar the same way Americans became addicted to Chinese junk products. (This is a generalization; many goods are not junk. But the general image is of, well, junk.) For both sides, it was a dream which was too good to be true.

Now it’s over, and the Beijing Olympics are turning into the final hurrah for that period.

If you would like a well-presented systematic presentation, my friend Corbett Wall has written an interesting piece.

The fat days are over, and we are in for a tough 20-30 years ahead.

If you are interested in the kinds of social networking applications Chinese are now using today, David Feng offers some ground-level observations in this article. I’m a great fan of first hand research and observations and David offers some excellent observations.

Maybe it’s been a reaction to some of media coverage of everything which has been going on with the coverage of China and Tibet, but I have been diving into technology lately. Specifically, I have been digging deeper into Apple’s frameworks for development on the Macintosh and iPhone platforms.

Here are some of my observations:

– Everything’s an object, and everything’s object-oriented. Think of actors on a stage, and passing data to objects, which act on them. All the time.
– The MVC (model, view, controller) analogy is used throughout, which makes it natural for Macintosh developers to make the leap over to Ruby on Rails development and other non-Ruby frameworks such as Django;
– While Microsoft has worked on developing new languages such as ASP.net and C#, Apple has stuck with one: Objective-C, which has roots in NeXT and OpenStep. (For instance, all classes begin with NS. What does NS stand for? NextStep.)
– Apple’s efforts, in contrast with Microsoft’s, has been on developing frameworks;
– Think of the frameworks as sandboxes which Apple provides for you to play in, which you can gradually grow and develop with, and then later contribute to;
– Cocoa and Cocoa Touch are frameworks of classes, all based on Objective-C. You use these classes to instantiate your objects;
– Instead of thinking about writing code, you spend more time thinking what you want your objects to do, and objects messaging each other;
– Apple provides many sample applications and their code. You learn by making minor changes to the code and seeing what happens;
– There is a small and very dedicated community made of Apple developers. Very smart people.
– The documentation is REALLY good, and includes videos which you can download into iTunes, online documentation, and documentation in Xcode, the development tool. It is clear, sharp, concise and jargon-free.
– Every Macintosh ships with all the development tools you need, including Xcode, Interface Builder and Dashboard so that you can develop native apps or web apps right out of the box.

After some play with it, I’ve come to the conclusion that part of the reason there are relatively few developers working on the Objective-C/Macintosh/iPhone platform is because it completely rejects procedural programming as a development model. In fact, procedural programming would most likely be a handicap in shifting to the Macintosh programming model because it basically requires programmers to relearn a new programming model.

If you embrace object-oriented programming and agile development as a model though, it’s the best.

The Chinese government has done much to encourage the development of China’s west, particularly Sichuan province, which is the home to some 100 million people, making it larger in population than any single western European country, including Britain, France and even Germany.

From a business and consumers’ point of view, the region holds tremendous promise. Many large western companies, including Intel, Wal-Mart, MacDonald’s and KFC have all moved into the region in the hope of capturing some of the yuan which locals have to spend. From a consumer marketing point of view, and also from the manufacturing point of view, the region holds great promise.

However, this is still not enough. Compared to the east coast region’s of China, it is still far behind.

So what is holding the region behind in development?

In two words, it’s human talent. “Interesting places attract interesting people” is one of my favorite mantras. When I go to a place, I like to find interesting people, regardless of their profession, and listen to what they have to say. I look for different angles and insights from individuals which I cannot easily find elsewhere. Most of the time, I think of these people as very smart generalists.

My experience is that Shanghai and Beijing is full of interesting intelligent and very talented people, which is why I’m attracted to these two cities in China. They are evolving rapidly, which means that these cities have not yet congealed around certain professions in the way American or European cities, or even Hong Kong, have. They are full of surprises, and most of the time, these are pleasant surprises.

My theory is that these two cities draw the best Chinese talent away from the rest of China, leaving the other cities to struggle with the people they can convince to stay there, who usually are not as smart and talented. So, when Chinese or expats talk about Tier 1 cities (Beijing and Shanghai), they could just as easily be talking about quality human talent.

This creates a problem for western China: they have the consumers, and they can have good manufacturing up to the middle of the value-added chain, but they cannot catch up with Beijing and Shanghai at the top of the value chain.

Unless cities like Chongqing can figure out a way to keep the best human talent in Chongqing, the wealth and knowledge gap between the western part of China and the Tier 1 cities will continue to widen. Instead of climbing to the top, they will peak out around the middle and won’t make it into the ranks of world-class cities.

What the Chinese government, and most other governments, fail to understand is that it is not buildings, boulevards and museums which make cities world-class, it is very literally human talent. In spite of China’s huge population, I have only seen two cities, Beijing and Shanghai, which have the potential to make them world-class.

While some Chinese may take this as a slight, it’s worth remembering that the US, which has only 1/4 the population of China, but has a longer history as an economic superpower, has only three cities which can be classified as “Tier One”: New York, Los Angeles and Chicago.

There must be some undiscovered rule which makes this the case.

A good way to find out how sharp a person is to listen carefully to the questions they ask. Smart people ask very sharp questions which cut right to the core of an issue, while less astute individuals kind of dance around the edges.

Smart entrepreneurs ask the sharpest questions because often the success of their own business depends on the questions they ask. Smart people who work for large organizations usually do not have to ask such sharp questions because they have an employer who tells them what they need to do, and they are usually not paid to ask questions, they are just paid to do things they are told to do, regardless of whether the tasks are smart or not.

I have long been an admirer of the folks at 37 Signals because I think that they are a small and very smart crowd of people. For me, they represent the kind of company which future entrepreneurial organizations should be like: small, smart, fast and lightweight. They are the Davids (as opposed to Goliaths) who want to continue to be small and smart, and focus on serving their customers’ needs.

One of the reasons I admire them is because they were the incubator/developer for Ruby on Rails, which I talked about earlier in this article. What is significant about the 37 Signals team is that they think of themselves more as designers than developers, which gives them a different perspective. Instead of adding features, they are focused more on making software programs easier to use. This is the thinking behind their online application suite offering which includes Basecamp, Highrise, Campfire, Backpack, Writeboard and Ta-da. After doing web development over several years, they have captured their thoughts about web application development in a downloadable PDF book called Getting Real.

A major part of their appeal is that aside from being designer/developers, they also have an appreciation of how the business world works. For this reason, I’m a frequent visitor to their website. Recently, they had a posting to their company blog called Question your work. According to this article, there are several questions which you should always ask:

• Why are we doing this?
• What problem are we solving?
• Is this actually useful?
• Are we adding value?
• Will this change behavior
• Is there an easier way?
• What’s the opportunity cost?
• Is this actually worth it?

All of the questions are very good big-picture questions which should be asked up-front before embarking on any major development project. I have seen many fairly major software development undertakings, as well as marketing projects, which did not answer these questions well, and frankly, a good deal of grief would have been saved if these questions were posed first.

So regardless of where you are, whether you are in the US, China or anywhere else, ask these questions first before you embark on a major business adventure.

This week’s Economist has a lead article and section on “The New Colonialists” which covers China’s expansion and search for natural resources on a global scale.

For many Chinese, being equated with colonialism is a bad thing, because Chinese have historically seen themselves as victims of colonialism, having had Hong Kong taken away by the British, and the Unequal Treaties with the leading European powers in the 19th century. When the Chinese see themselves portrayed as new colonialists, they go into hedgehog mode, curling up and sometimes fighting back against their western critics who are criticized for not understanding or being sympathetic to the Chinese point of view.

This kind of attitude is not helpful for the western critics, and is not helpful for the Chinese. The issues are real, and they are too serious to be trivialized, and for people to get into nationalistic shouting matches. The effects are huge, as they will affect the overall health of the planet.

Over the past thirty years, China has adopted an open economic development policy to raise the standard of living of the Chinese people. This policy has been enormously successful, unleashing the traditional Chinese ethics of curiosity about technology, thriftiness and hard work to elevate their standard of living dramatically. Today, China has the second largest economy in the world, trailing only the US, which is now currently undergoing a dramatic readjustment following the growing subprime mortgage debacle.

The party has been forcefully pushing a policy of development, and more significantly, urbanization of China, and plans to move more and more Chinese into cities. Throughout its long history, China has traditionally been a country mostly made up of farmers, engineers and small business people. The plan is for many of the farmers to become cityslickers, eating at restaurants, taking subways, and working in office towers.

The trouble with having so many big cities is that they are huge consumers of energy, which is why China now has to go overseas to satisfy this huge demand. Securing energy resources also means getting entangled in the affairs of many countries which are frankly, not very well-run. This in turn means that the country’s foreign policy has to feed its energy needs.

This is how America’s foreign policy and domestic energy policy got so screwed up. In Washington DC and across the nation, there is a strong and influential pro-Israel lobby, while the country depends on many middle-eastern countries which are hostile to Israel for its energy needs. These contradictions are unresolvable, and have resulted in the rise of middle-eastern terrorism and eventually in the 9/11 attacks.

Seeing these problems, it would seem to make sense that the Chinese leadership would find a new model for China’s economic development which did not depend so much on an outdated 19th century European mercantilist model for economic development in the 21st century.

Last night I had dinner with five individuals in Beijing. Except for me, all of them had real hands-on experience in the gaming industry in China. (My experience in gaming is limited to the business side; not programming and production.) All of them were Americans, or had extensive experience in the US.

Long story short: China has become a boomtown for gaming companies doing development. There are several reasons for this:

• A large Chinese gaming population
• Smart programmers and artists
• A large cheap labor pool which is eager to work, and more importantly, learn

Significantly, most of the group had started, or were starting, their own companies in China. The president of one company, Gage Galinger, had been working in stealth mode for three years, quietly hiring and developing its own title for his company, Possibility Space.

Most of them were former Microsoft employees.

Gage was from Texas, and had come to Beijing to start his own game development studio. He is not Chinese, or Chinese-American, but Caucasian. I always admire someone who is not of Chinese extraction, and is willing just to jump on a plane to Beijing or Shanghai, learn, and start a company. More than anything else, that is what starting a business is all about in this age of globalization. This is the mark of a true entrepreneur.

After arriving in Beijing, he started hiring for his own studio where he is lead programmer and president.

I’m sure many of my readers may be wondering how someone who does not know Chinese could possibly function in an environment where many people do not speak a common language. How could he add value?

This is where his background at Microsoft came in handy, and the American style of collaboration for game development really shines. In Chinese gaming companies, the artists and programmers are just worker bees, performing repetitive tasks. They are not asked, and do not offer their opinions about the games they are developing; they are told what to do, and just do it. In his company, employees are required to show their day’s work to everyone else in the company, and others are encouraged to critique the work. Of course, most Chinese are reluctant to say bad things about other peoples’ work, afraid that it will hurt their colleagues’ feelings. For Americans, it is more natural to critique other peoples’ work because Americans are able to separate the work from the person.

Most of the time anyway.

Gage said that the path was not entirely smooth; he had to fire people who did not fit. But all in all, he was encouraged by the experience, and he had a very clear idea about how he added value to his company. He was very optimistic about his experience, and said that for him, living in China was about realizing the American dream of having his own company and making his own title, and launching it worldwide.

The economics of the gaming industry in the US is broken; developments costs are high, and game developers are always in debt and losing their IP to investors. But development costs in China are low, and Gage claims that his developers in China are better than any team he has worked with in the US by an exponential factor, or anywhere else.

He said that he has tried to get other game developers to come to China to partner with him, but while they have expressed interest, none have made the move. He has just opened an office in Austin, Texas.

If America had more entrepreneurs like Gage, who don’t overthink, overplan, have a solid core skill, and just get on a plane to China and start their company, and are humble and willing to learn, the US would be in a much better place.

America used to be a much more entrepreneurial country, now it is overly regulated, overly expensive, overly specialized, overly structured and overly corporate. In order to be competitive again, the entire society and culture will have to make major adjustments. The road will not be a smooth one.

That is why the smart entrepreneurs, like Gage, start their businesses in China.

In this new globalized world, China has become what America used to be.