- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 1991 Hour
- Reading permission
Jaaja Post time: 2018-5-16 12:22
If the funding goes to private corporations, state does not own the IP.
As I mentioned earlier, ...
If the funding goes to private corporations, state does not own the IP.
This is same in every Western country where only Capitalists get to own the IP by funding startups.
As I mentioned earlier, Finnish state is not interested in ownership of things that have no strategic importance. The state does fund R&D with various instruments, but the reason for that is to not getting to own the IP as national wealth, but to help companies to create jobs and tax revenue for the state. That's the national wealth in Finland.
Again, this is neoliberal Capitalism where only private Capital is allowed to own the national wealth while the State is supposed to privatize the national wealth. In Finland, Capitalists not the State own much of the Capital stock of high-tech companies such as Nokia even though much of its initial technology came from State funded R&D. This is the same situation throughout the West. GSM, for example, was the creation of the EU-funded ETSI but only Capitalist-owned enterprises commercialized the technology. Google’s search engine technology came out of NSF-funded research but only private Venture Capitalists commercialized the technology.
It doesn't matter, if the jobs produce more wealth to the capitalist employers than the state, as long as employment to Finnish citizens and sufficient tax revenue to Finnish state is generated.
This is the liberal model of Capitalist social democracy: Capitalists gets to own the wealth of nations while citizens of that nation get to work for Capitalists. The only role of the State is to collect taxes to pay for the welfare of its citizens.
Finnish state also owns research institution of its own, but it's role is more to collaborate with and assist private companies to grow than to create IP as national wealth. Situation is similar in Finnish universities that are all state-owned. They do basic research and educate students, both of which will hopefully convert into prospering private businesses.
In other words, the Finnish State funds most of the R&D but owns none of technology nor the wealth derived therefrom.
Finnish state also does have investments in private companies, but it holds majority ownership in very few, that all have some kind of strategic importance. Historically these have been railways, national airline company, postal services, oil refining, etc. Recent development in Finland continues to denationalize these.
Yes, neoliberal Capitalism serves the interests of private Capital by promoting the privatization of State-owned enterprises.
For example with postal services, packet deliveries have already been liberalized earlier, but things like delivering newspapers and letters has not. The concerns in Finland are not so much of "national wealth" (and therefore not ideological) but more pragmatic like how to guarantee that services are also available in less densely populated areas - which there are a lot.
Same in China. For example, the Chinese State invested trillions in building 25,000 kms of high-speed rail and 1,000,000 4G TD-LTE basestations in China after the GFC in 2008. This was part of the “Go West” strategy of developing the infrastructure of inland provinces in order to promote their economic development and encourage private companies to relocate from the coastal cities to serve domestic markets.
Also in China, the state does finance private enterprises (like Tencent) - if not directly, then indirectly in ways like tax incentives or at the very least by educating engineers to work in the company. Despite the state contributions, it is Tencent that owns the IP - not the state and not the employees.
Tencent (as well as Alibaba) are Capitalist-owned enterprises in which the State does not have any ownership stake nor management control. In fact, they were funded and are owned by foreign and local Capitalists. Jack Ma (Alibaba) and Pony Ma (Tencent) are entrepreneurs-turned-Capitalists who applied for and received their funding (Capital) from foreign Capitalists. Tencent is listed in the HKEX while Alibaba is listed in the NYSE, both of which are designed for Capitalist investors.
I don't mean just high-tech startups, but any company that wishes to upgrade with "Made in China 2025". How do you prevent them from turning (if they already weren't) equally capitalist as Tencent? I'm not saying that you need to prevent that, but your opinion seems to be that all that is bad in this world is due to capitalism. Or is a Chinese capitalist just much better than a foreign capitalist, because through his capitalism he would produce wealth to China and not someplace else.
The goal of Made in China 2025 is to nurture world-class technology industries and high-tech industrial companies. For SMEs, the State will fund and support them as privately-owned enterprises. For high-tech startups, the State will
fund and support them either as SOEs or MNCs. LENOVO started out as an SOE which was privatized to become an MNC while Spreadtrum started out as an MNC but was nationalized to become part of an SOE (Tsinghua
Made in China 2025 will help both State-owned as well as private enterprises. I don’t know whether these type of State-funded but privately-owned enterprises — both SMEs and MNCs — qualify as “Capitalist” but they are supposed to serve the national interests of China.
Let's consider through an example. Let's take an imaginary Chinese shoemaker "Ying", which previously has just produced cheap sneakers as contractor to overseas enterprise.
That’s what been happening over the last 10 years since the GFC 2008. China has produced Chinese sportswear brands (ANTA, 361, Li-Ning, Telent, etc) which serves the Chinese market. A million other SMEs have resorted to selling their wares on taobao.
Now they upgrade to their own brand with "Made in China 2025". They become popular in China and get by nicely.
In any other field (basically 99% of manufacturing), internationally recognized Chinese brand will be more popular also among Chinese consumers, than a Chinese brand that is not internationally recognized.
Most of the SMEs selling on taobao serve Chinese not foreign consumers. The few Chinese brands that have gone global had already succeeded locally and nationally before going overseas, eg., Huawei, VIVO, OPPO, Xiaomi in smartphones. There’s a few brands — Oneplus — that have succeeded Internationally but is unknown nationally. So there’s no requirement that Chinese brands have to go overseas. Most of them (99%) will survive and prosper just by selling to Chinese consumers.
And in your opinion, is Alibaba a capitalist enterprise or not? Again we get to the core issue, that there seems to be nothing wrong with capitalism as long as the capitalist is Chinese.
Yes, you could say that the Chinese State wants to fund and support its own class of privately-owned SMEs and MNCs so they don’t have to depend on foreign markets, foreign brands, foreign designs, foreign technologies, foreign Capital and foreign MNCs.
Obviously Alibaba has provided channels for Chinese SME's to prosper, but my point is that would those channels exist at all if one jackma or another didn't want to get rich by providing them.
Yes. But Jack Ma relied on foreign Capitalists to fund Alibaba. Made in China 2025 aims to change this situation so that Chinese entrepreneurs would get their funding and support inside China not outside China.
There you have a solid example of capitalist greed serving the whole country - or at least millions of Chinese SMEs. Of which many (if not all) are smaller, but probably just as capitalist Alibaba or Tencent - and certainly at least equally greedy.
And none of this relates to workers' rights or Marxism in any way - with possible exception of robots making human workers redundant.
Chinese Socialism has already adopted market Capitalism under State Socialism. After the Dengist reforms, the State allowed private enterprises — SMEs — to serve export markets under the global economy. But those SMEs became dependent upon foreign designs, brands, channels, technologies, all of which were owned by foreign Capitalists (MNCs). Now Made in China wants to eliminate this foreign dependency by helping Chinese SMEs (including hi-tech startups) get State funding, create their own brands, design their own products, develop their technologies to serve domestic markets.
What I see here, is that "Made in China 2025" is not an alternative to labor unions and the state will still only look after workers in SOEs, while capitalism looks after everyone else - by assuming that a Chinese capitalist is better than foreign capitalist.
Labor unions? What labor unions? Western MNCs — as part of neoliberal globalization — decided to outsource the manufacturing of their consumer products in order to bypass labor unions, both Western and non-Western, and evade paying taxes back to Western governments so they can rip off Western consumers by charging them the Capitalist tax for their overpriced Western brands produced by sweatshop factories in developing countries.
China’s answer is Made in China 2025 which aims to reorient Chinese SMEs to serve domestic instead of export markets. That way, these Chinese SMEs will own their own brands, designs, channels, technologies to serve the Chinese market.