|Publisher’s note: In a recent phone interview with Arizona 2014 gubernatorial candidate JL Mealer, founder of Mealer Automobiles (http://mealercompanies.com/) he advised that “It is my intent to encourage the return of a Phoenix Grand Prix -type street racing event after a 22 year absence (despite a strong attempt in 2007) with Indy Car (http://www.indycar.com/) and the Pirelli World Challenge Series (http://www.world-challenge.com/ ) as the signature events. The economic stimulus of such events is well known and I see this as compatible with my revitalization/re-stabilization strategies for Arizona. I will forward any inquiries received via my email Mealer2014@gmail.com to the exploratory committee that has been founded for this purpose.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Grand_Prix)|
Battle of The South China Sea Scenario: http://www.slideshare.net/GHHLLC2/the-defense-industrial-baseissues-to-be-considered-and-recommendations-dr-sheila-ronis-dir-mba-programs-walsh-college
“Once Again, The Chinese… Have Proven Themselves Masters of the Endgame, and True Progeny of Sun Tzu…” -Myron D. Stokes, Publisher and the eMOTION! REPORTS.com Industry Analytics Team
Excerpt: “What Kevin Wales euphemistically calls China’s process of ‘Innovation
through commercialization’ to accelerate technology prove-out and
utilization, is simply considered, by every other industrialized society, as
theft, industrial espionage, illegal acquisition of intellectual property,
patent right infringement, unfair trade practice by government subsidization…
“In other words, economic war on a massive scale, coupled with an endgame
strategy epitomizing zero sum. Grammatically, we rank ‘Innovation through commercialization’ right along with ‘ethnic cleansing’ in sheer euphemistic audacity.
“Mr. Wales and other GM executives have played -willingly or unwittingly- into the most reprehensible example of (perhaps) illegal transfer of wealth, technology, production process and economic stability at the DNA level in the history of the world. And of greater concern, a concomitant compromise of US national security through provision of sensitive
technologies -like the neodymium magnets pioneered by former GM subsidiary
Magnequench which was itself inexplicably purchased by the Chinese in the same
time frame GM resumed sales in that country- with weapons applicability to
China’s military. No, Mel Brooks (History of The World, Part I) is not laughing, nor is Ford amused amidst recent reports of an F-150 ‘commercialization’ by a Chinese car firm. And yes, you should be worried: The Once Great Britain learned the hard way as it woke up to the fact that world-renowned brands spawned within its borders were now owned by offshore others, while reducing its manufacturing base capacity to pre-industrial levels.” Go to full analysis
“All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him.” Sun-Tzu; 6th Century C.E.
Publisher’s note: As can be readily inferred from this latest United States China Economic and Security Review Commission Report, companies doing business, or seeking to do business with China must never, ever, forget they are dealing with a communist, dictatorial regime that has created a facade of privatization to lure foreign business entities to their shores with the ominous, insidious intent to extract proprietary technology and process. And then, unceremoniously, discarding of the carcass while simultaneously preserving, with the skill of a taxidermist, the external aesthetics and internal workings of firms (read; GM) deemed critical to their ideological, militaristic and economic mission. Too late, too many companies and their governments, most recently SAAB-Swedish Automobile and Sweden, are finding this to be a sad, if not shocking, reality.
Indeed, Sun Tzu should be required reading for anyone desirous of doing business with the world’s oldest continuing civilization. To not do so is tantamount to mounting a military campaign without weapons…
– Myron D. Stokes
From the USCC Release:
Washington, D.C. – Today (10/27/11) the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission released a new report, “An Analysis of State-owned Enterprises and State Capitalism in China.”
China’s breathtaking economic growth, has often led observers to assume that the
country’s economic system has been transformed into a capitalist economy dominated by
private enterprise. Although China’s reliance on private enterprise and market-based
incentives has been growing, and the CCP’s treatment of private enterprises and
entrepreneurs has been changing, it is a mistake to minimize the current role of the
State and the CCP in shaping economic outcomes in China and beyond. The Chinese
government and state-owned enterprises (SOEs) remain potent economic forces. Indeed,
some of China’s SOEs are among the largest firms in China and the world. They are
major investors in foreign countries. They have been involved in some of the largest
initial public offerings in recent years and remain the controlling owners of many
major firms listed on Chinese and foreign stock exchanges.
Previous reports and analyses by academics and policy experts have estimated that
Chinese SOEs, and other state-affiliated enterprises, hold a lower share of China’s
non-agricultural GDP than that estimated in this report, which provides a
comprehensive analysis of that country’s control and influence over its economic
enterprises. This report tracks testimony heard by the Commission that China’s
privatization reforms have, in some cases, reversed and that the state sector is
The report concludes that:
· SOEs and entities directly controlled by SOEs, accounted for more than 40
percent of China’s non-agricultural GDP. If the contributions of indirectly controlled
entities, urban collectives, and public Township and Village Enterprises (TVE) are
considered, the share of GDP owned and controlled by the state is approximately 50
· The share of GDP accounted for by the non-state sector, including foreign
invested firms without ties to the government of China, is also approximately 50
· Based on the current direction of economic policy making in China the state
sector will continue to play an important role in China, even if its share of GDP
· China’s SOEs are potentially formidable competitors because they benefit
from a number of government preferences in China. Based on recent U.S. regulatory
filings by SOE-owned entities, SOEs and their subsidiaries benefit from preferred
access to bank capital, below-market interest rates on loans from state-owned banks,
favorable tax treatment, policies that create a favorable competitive environment for
SOEs relative to other firms, and large capital injections when needed. Further,
Chinese SOEs also appear to dominate China’s expanding government procurement market.
· When it joined the WTO in 2001, China promised that the government would
not influence, directly or indirectly, the commercial decisions of SOEs. China does
not appear to be keeping this commitment. The state very much does influence SOE
commercial decisions and the most recent five-year guidance does not herald that this
is changing. If anything, China is doubling down and giving SOEs a more prominent role
in achieving the state’s most important economic goals.
· For some U.S. firms whose participation in China’s economy facilitates the
government goals, China will continue to be a profitable market. For others,
especially those in strategic and emerging industries that the government is
targeting, the Chinese market may become far less hospitable. (italics ours)
This report was prepared for the Commission by Capital Trade, Incorporated. It can
be found online at:
Publisher’s note: As Renault very recently found out much to its shock and dismay, the need for business intelligence and counter-intelligence is as critical to a company’s success and security as that of a nation. In this vein, the words in 2002 of national security strategist Dr. Sheila Ronis, Director of MBA Programs at Walsh College in Troy, Michigan, could not have been more prescient:
“The fates of companies, as well as countries are tied to their intelligence capability. Guess what organization in the world, long before the Internet’s arrival, was found to send half a million messages a day from just one country to its home base via satellite? The CIA? The Israelis? The Russians? Toyota? If you guessed Toyota, you would be right.
“As unlikely as it sounds, a CIA study in the late eighties found that Toyota sent over 500,000 messages a day from its Torrance, California facility to Tokyo via an encrypted satellite hookup. We know that our CIA sent about half as many messages around the world per day at that time, and although the Russian’s intelligence was still top notch in the early nineties, its infrastructure didn’t compare to that of Toyota’s.
“Today, many intelligence experts believe that Toyota’s intelligence capabilities are still superior to those of the CIA, the Israelis or any global power. That’s because Toyota represents an organization filled with learners who share their knowledge.”
Conversely, it would be unwise for Toyota’s competitors to assume that the company, given the current quality problems necessitating recalls of even its Lexus brand, has somehow dropped the ball in terms of its much vaunted “Relentless Pursuit of Perfection”. Indeed, nothing is further from the truth, and we know from our own intelligence sources that Toyota’s difficulties primarily stem from internal sabotage at the design and manufacturability level put in place nearly two decades ago.
This activity constituted a core element of a grand strategy by an emergent global player, who understood implicitly that the success of its long range plans required crafting a loss of consumer confidence in the Toyota brand.
One needs look no further than Renault to understand how dedicated this emergent global player is to the accomplishment of its set objectives.
Myron D. Stokes