Bloomberg News Suspends Reporter Whose Article on China Was Not Published
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
>> Out of the press box and onto the field - http://pressthink.org/2013/11/newco/
As Bill Bishop (one of the best 'China experts' on Twitter) recently said:
"Perhaps the new omidyar news venture can hire some of the excellent Bloomberg journalists in the projects and investigations team"
https://twitter.com/niubi/status/401645221022142464
==============
[1] http://online.wsj.com/news/article_email/SB10001424052702303...
It was not american brands manifacturing goods in Japan, it was Japan copying US products and selling them at a cheaper price, with an acceptable quality.
The last few years I've been getting tons of small-run, custom manufactured goods from China, ranging from custom keyboards (and CNC'd aluminum cases for them), custom electronics (mostly routers), to handcrafted belts and tailored clothes. All of them are of absolutely outstanding quality and all of the communication I've seen demonstrates some incredibly skilled craftsmen who take pride in their products.
A lot of the knowledge/experience is gone from US manufacturing.
Once they figure out customer service (which is generally poor, but good with some shops), you're going to see a lot more people doing what I've been doing.
Good for china , bad for most of us, because there is a hidden cost to all these cheap stuffs , it's called debt.
We could build stuff so people can actually afford it, instead of working at McDonalds or Walmart for a minimum wage, but it's not profitable enough in a world of short term profit.
China is not 1,1 billion new consumers. It's a 200 million people extension of the western economy with 900 million people in Africa level poverty.
And despite this massive human surplus wages keep rising because even assembling an iPhone is relatively hard.
And soon other Asian countries will start doing it cheaper. If that happens, China has a huge industrial plant with no internal market to afford it.
Also, the average profit of Chinese exports is just 1.7%. So basically the Chinese made massive investments based on a projection of export demand that lasts long enough for sustainable internal demand to catch up. When the discount rate turns out to be a bit higher than expected, the house of cards falls.
Think of China as the Groupon of nations.
The smart Chinese elite is also buying foreign assets as fast as they can. Like insider stock trades, when a management of a country starts divesting, that's a sign of troubles, not of wealth.
This is not to say the Chinese elite was wrong to grow via market liberation and exports. What I do say is that the bulls on China conflate revenues with profits, and activity with lasting competitive advantages.
It also means the Chinese are buying US debt not to enslave the US (hard to do that with zero procent interest rates!), but as a favor to their largest client base.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2043026/foxconn-to-speed-up-r...
What is the average net profit margin on American exports? Due to the nature of much of what the Chinese export, we can assume low profit margins, but we need some context for this.
>when a management of a country starts divesting, that's a sign of troubles, not of wealth.
Wealthy countries own vast amounts of foreign assets.
>but as a favor to their largest client base
It isn't a "favor"; Americans purchase Chinese exports with dollars. What else are the Chinese to do with all those dollars? They purchase "risk-free" government bonds. There's no magical arrangement. It's mutually beneficial.
What "stuff" are you talking about? Manufacturing? Because the US actually makes a lot of "stuff", it just doesn't need people to do it, thanks to a lot of engineers like us who have automated it to hell.
That's just 5 I could think of off the top of my head. Tried to mix it up with regards to industries too.
[1] http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2008-03-01/business/36793...
[2]http://cagematch.dvorak.org/index.php?topic=3751.0
And last I knew, Intel did a lot of its chip work in Mexico, though the supply chain issues they had (counterfeits) may have changed that.
And Intel's 22nm chips are made in Chandler, AZ.
Even/especially the ones that proudly claim to be "Made in the USA". It doesn't reflect the reality of the global market.
Hell, I know a guy with a gun business who gets all of his parts manufactured overseas, but he's allowed to put "Made in the USA" on them and it's a huge selling point to his customers just because he assembles them in his warehouse himself.
Headquarters couldn't figure out why the BOM was costing so much, so they flew an engineer down there to figure out what the problem was.
Turns out most of the locally sourced parts and raw materials were being purchased at a significant premium - from friends of some of the local managers.
Ie. giving a contract for small civil engineering works to your mate for kickbacks.
Of course in Mexico you run the risk of ending up dead if you dont go along with the scam.
http://www.nam.org/Statistics-And-Data/Facts-About-Manufactu...
It's not bad for the US because China owns treasuries. They never gave China any leverage over the US.
It's bad because buying those treasuries pushed the value of the dollar up and the yuan down. That's why the pearl river delta is the richest conglomeration of manufacturing industries in the world, and factories are being closed left, right and center in the US.
And one day it will be as hard for the US to bring that manufacturing base home as it was for China to build it up in the first place. That's when the US is really screwed.
I seem to have heard this exact same thing 25 years ago with Japan (that is @camus2's comment, not the FA). At least when Japan was our counterparty they bought real estate and companies and were not so foolish as to buy Treasury bonds.
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/ti...
As I can't find any stats to back that up, I guess I'll leave it as my possibly untrue impression...
Let me fix that for you:
"Good for the communist party leaders, bad for China and the majority of Chinese people"
This is selling the democracy movement down the river. :-(
edit: various pointless teenager-y references to characters redacted now moocow has pointed out what I missed. Weird
Yes, they were not in the version you saw. http://kotaku.com/why-many-in-china-hate-iron-man-3s-chinese...
I though that lactose intolerance was so widespread in China that it wouldn't be a product for mass-market advertising.
1) There are many lactose-free milk drinks -- from literally "lactose free milk" (milk with lactose removed) to any kind of kefir/yogurt like products.
2) Being lactose intolerant doesn't mean sudden death upon drinking products that contain lactose. In most cases, it means "generic upset stomach" symptoms (that could have any number of causes -- e.g., is it the lactose in the latte, the coffee in the latter, or is it lack of sleep?) with moderate lactose intake or very few or no symptoms when lactose intake is only occasional.
(I'm lactose intolerant, but I didn't actually know this until recently.)
That's really, odd.
But the rest of your point is accurate, yes.
If they're not going to report on meaningful things what is the purpose of them still being there then?
I suspect it's money but that just confirms my suspicion of them not being real journalists.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/18/world/asia/reporter-on-unp...
> Bloomberg L.P., the parent company of Bloomberg News, receives much of its revenue from selling subscriptions for its financial-information terminals. After Bloomberg News published an article in June 2012 on the family wealth of Xi Jinping, at that time the incoming Communist Party chief, sales of Bloomberg terminals in China slowed, as officials ordered state enterprises not to subscribe. Officials also blocked Bloomberg’s website on Chinese servers, and the company has been unable to get residency visas for new journalists.
If you mean in terms of investigative journalism, probably not much purpose. But if you mean in terms of profits, they could run an inoffensive newswire that just reports on business news without digging too deep into sensitive subjects like corruption.
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/17/china-blocked-ac...
I call this coping strategy the John Stewart method.
I think it's because nothing really surprises me anymore. I've just reached peak cynicism. So nowadays I just try to make light of the absurd brutality that is the world that we live in, because doing otherwise just seems pointless.
All the world is a farce.
/rant
PS: I'm not a conspiracy nut or anything like that. I'm just disappointed with the local incentive driven actions that some people take at the expense of society at large some of the time.
The zenith of peak cynicism is when you wouldn't be surprised if the .01% (or powers that may be) decided one day to reduce the world population through NBC warfare just to maintain their power.
Amen. And I love Daily Show and Colbert Report. But laughter is no substitute for action.
What Wikileaks does is breaking the ice by publishing something that everybody else wouldnt touch, and keeping it in the open.
Once Wikileaks took all the risk and blame, traditional risk averse media can jump on the bandwagon claming "It wasn't us" and serve the news to the end users.
If our media are too corrupt, then we need to create new ones that work better and change our habits. Submission to corruption can not be a mid- or long-term solution.
"A reporter for Bloomberg News who worked on an unpublished article about China, which employees for the company said had been killed for political reasons by top Bloomberg editors, was suspended last week by managers. "
A reporter for Bloomberg News ... which employees for the company said
had been killed for political reasons by top Bloomberg
editors,
Is it just me or did anyone else read the first paragraph and wonder if top Bloomberg editors assassinated a reporter ? Tough newsroom.Edit: ellipsis
The bit where they say he went up to HR's office and never returned was particularly worrying, until I realized they'd only fired him...
Deleted comment
What really is the point of putting in the effort of commenting on something, when you cannot be arsed to put in the effort to comprehend it in the first place.