The China Vortex

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.