You must watch this video. Inspirational (at least to me).
http://shareably.net/little-boy-and-girl-sing-you-raise-me-up-on-chinese-show/
continuously updated blog about China & India
China’s Shan Dong Sun Paper Industry Joint Stock Co (002078.SZ) said on Monday it would spend about $1.36 billion to build a pulp mill in the United States in its first investment outside the country.
The facility is expected to break ground in 2016 and start operations in 2018, Sun Paper spokesman Song Weihua told Reuters.
The mill in the southeastern state of Arkansas is slated to make fluff pulp, a raw material for diapers and sanitary products.
On Friday Sun Paper Chairman Li Hongxin signed a memorandum of understanding for this at a ceremony in Jinan which was attended by U.S. Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker and Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the company to manufacture paper at the mill, Sun Paper said in a statement to the Shanghai Stock Exchange on Monday.
The investment by the northern China-based company is the latest in a slew of deals by Chinese manufacturers looking to diversify their operations and take advantage of initiatives and rebates in western countries.
Shandong Tranlin Paper Co Ltd invested $2 billion in a paper and fertilizer plant in Virginia last year. (reut.rs/1PUY1r4)
Sun Paper declined to give details on its financing of the project, although sources said the company is likely to involve a combination of equity and debt.
Source: China’s Sun Paper to build $1.36 billion facility in U.S. | Reuters
Yale Zhang, the head of Shanghai-based consultancy Automotive Foresight, called the export of the Buick Envision SUV from China to the U.S. a “landmark.”

“It means that China’s manufacturing quality has met the requirements of the world’s strictest market,” he said.
GM introduced the Buick Envision SUV in China last October. Since then, it has been one of the best-selling cars sold by GM in the country. According to the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers, a government-backed industry group, the Envision ranked seventh in China’s fast-growing SUV market in October, with monthly sales of 17,300 vehicles. Data from Automotive Foresight show that sales of Buick Envision SUVs totaled 100,826 cars in the period from January to September.
Despite the progress, experts say that Chinese home-grown car manufacturers will continue struggling to compete with foreign brands, even in China.
China is already the world’s largest market for cars in terms of sales and production. But global auto makers have been slow to ship Chinese vehicles to the U.S. and Europe on worries that Western buyers would shun them over quality concerns. European car maker Volvo Car Corp., which is owned by China’s Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., was the first to challenge that assumption when it started shipping sedans from a plant in China to the U.S. this spring. A Volvo China spokesman declined to disclose how many Chinese-made Volvos have been shipped to the U.S., saying only that it is a “small volume.”
A study released by automotive industry consultants J.D. Power in October shows that although Chinese car makers have been improving in quality in recent years, they still lag behind international brands in producing reliable vehicles. According to the study, Chinese brands had 120 problems for every 100 vehicles this year, compared with 131 in 2014 and 155 in 2013. International brands had 98 problems for every 100 vehicles in 2015.
“Buick is a household brand in the U.S.,” said Ms. Li from Deren Electronic. “American consumers are probably not aware that the car is made in China. But Chinese local auto brands, like Chery and Geely, are little known outside of China.” Victor Yang, a spokesman for Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., said that as a global player, it’s normal for GM to sell its China-made cars at home in the U.S. “All the cars made by foreign companies in China should be produced in line with their global standards,” Mr. Yang said.
“Geely aims to sell its cars to developed markets including the U.S. By doing so, our quality and technology will be well recognized,” he said, without specifying a time frame. Jin Yibo, a vice president for Chery Automobile, said that Chinese home-grown auto makers “will absolutely go to the U.S. and other developed markets to sell their cars.”
But he cautioned: “It will take time.”
Source: In ‘Milestone’ Move, GM to Sell Chinese-Made Cars in U.S. – China Real Time Report – WSJ
A widely held Western view of China is that its stunning economic success contains the seeds of imminent collapse. This is a kind of anchoring bias,1 which colors academic and think-tank views of the country, as well as stories in the media. In this analysis, China appears to have an economy unlike others—the normal rules of development haven’t been followed, and behavior is irrational at best, criminal at worst.
There’s no question, of course, that China’s slowdown is both real and important for the global economy. But news events like this year’s stock-market plunge and the yuan’s devaluation versus the dollar reinforce the refrain, among a chorus of China watchers, that the country’s long flirtation with disaster has finally ended, as predicted, in tears. Meanwhile, Chinese officials, worried about political blowback, are said to ignore advice from outside experts on heading off further turmoil and to be paranoid about criticism.
My experience working and living in China for the past three decades suggests that this one-dimensional view is far from reality. Doubts about China’s future regularly ebb and flow. In what follows, I challenge five common assumptions.
A key tenet of the China-meltdown thesis is that the country has simply not established the basis for a sustainable economy. It is said to lack a competitive, dynamic private-enterprise structure and to have captured most of the value possible from cheap labor and heavy foreign investment already.
Clearly, China lacks some elements of a modern market economy—for example, the legal system falls short of the support for property rights in advanced countries.2 Nonetheless, as China-economy scholar Nicholas Lardy recently pointed out, the private sector is vibrant and tracing an upward trend line. The share of state-owned enterprises in industrial output continues to drop steadily, from 78 percent in 1978 to 26 percent in 2011.3 Private industry far outstrips the value added in the state sector, and lending to private players is growing rapidly.
In fact, much of China’s development model mirrors that of other industrializing and urbanizing economies in Asia and elsewhere. The high savings rate, initial investments in heavy industries and manufacturing, and efforts to guide and stabilize a rapidly industrializing and urbanizing economy, for example, resemble the policies that Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan followed at a similar stage of their development. This investment-led model can lead to its own problems, as Japan’s experience over the past 20 years indicates. Still, a willingness to intervene pragmatically in the market doesn’t imply backwardness or economic management that’s heedless of its impact on neighboring economies and global partners.
Furthermore, China’s reform initiatives4 since 2013 are direct responses to the structural changes in the economy. The new policies aim to spur higher-value exports, to target vibrant emerging markets, to open many sectors for private investors, and to promote consumption-led growth rooted in rising middle-class incomes. Today, consumption continues to go up faster than GDP, and investors have recently piled into sectors from water treatment to e-commerce. These reforms are continuing at the same time China is stepping up its anticorruption drive, and the government hasn’t resorted to massive investment spending (as it did in 2008). That shows just how important the reforms are.
Think tanks, academics, and journalists alike maintain that China has, at best, a weak capacity to innovate—the lifeblood of a modern economy. They usually argue as well that the educational system stomps out creativity.
My work with multinationals keen on partnering with innovative Chinese companies suggests that there’s no shortage of local players with a strong creative streak. A recent McKinsey Global Institute (MGI) study describes areas where innovation is flourishing here.5 Process innovations are propelling competitive advantage and growth for many manufacturers. Innovation is at the heart of the success of companies in sectors adapting to fast-changing consumer needs, so digital leaders like Alibaba (e-commerce) and Xiaomi (smartphones) are emerging as top global contenders. Heavy investment in R&D—China ranks number two globally in overall spending—and over a million science and engineering graduates a year are helping to establish important beachheads in science- and engineering-based innovation. (See “Gauging the strength of Chinese innovation.”)
To believe this, you need to think that the Chinese are content with a dirty environment and lack the financial muscle to clean things up. OK, they got things wrong in the first place, but so did most countries moving from an agrarian to an industrial economy.
In fact, a lot that’s good is happening. Start with social activism. A documentary on China’s serious air-pollution problems (Under the Dome), by Chai Jing—a former journalist at China Central Television (CCTV), the most important state-owned broadcaster—was viewed over 150 million times in the three days after it was posted online, in March 2015. True, the 140-minute video, which sharply criticizes regulators, state-owned energy companies, and steel and coal producers, was ultimately removed. But the People’s Daily interviewed Chai Jing, and she was praised by a top environmental minister.
China is spending heavily on abatement efforts, as well. The nation’s Airborne Pollution Prevention and Control Action Plan, mandating reductions in coal use and emissions, has earmarked an estimated $277 billion to target regions with the heaviest pollution.6That’s just one of several policy efforts to limit coal’s dominance in the economy and to encourage cleaner energy supplies. My interactions with leaders of Chinese cities have shown me that many of them incorporate strict environmental targets into their economic master plans.
To believe this, you would have to think, as many skeptics do, that the Chinese economy is fundamentally driven by overbuilding—too many roads, bridges, and buildings.7 In fact, as one economist has noted, this is a misperception created by the fact that the country is just very big. An eye-popping statistic is illustrative: in 2013, China consumed 25 times more cement than the US economy did, on average, from 1985 to 2010. But adjusted for per-capita consumption and global construction patterns, China’s use is pretty much in line with that of South Korea and Taiwan during their economic booms.8
China’s rising debt, of course, continues to raise alarms. In fact, rather than deleveraging since the onset of the financial crisis, China has seen its total debt quadruple, to $28.2 trillion last year, a recent MGI study found.9 Nearly half of the debt is directly or indirectly related to real estate (prices have risen by 60 percent since 2008). Local governments too have borrowed heavily in their rush to finance major infrastructure projects.
While the borrowing does border on recklessness, China’s government has plenty of financial capacity to weather a crisis. According to MGI research, state debt hovers at only 55 percent of GDP, substantially lower than it is in much of the West. A recent analysis of China’s financial sector shows that even in the worst case—if credit write-offs reached unprecedented levels—only a fairly narrow segment of Chinese financial institutions would endure severe damage. And while growth would surely slow, in all likelihood the overall economy wouldn’t seize up.10
Finally, the stock-market slide is less significant than the recent global hysteria suggests. The government holds 60 percent of the market cap of Chinese companies. Moreover, the stock market represents only a small portion of their capital funding. And remember, it went up by 150 percent before coming down by 40.
Rumors drive the volatility on China’s stock exchange, often in anticipation of trading by state entities. The upshot is that the direct impact on the real economy will most likely be some reduction in consumer demand from people who have lost money trading in shares.
On this one, I agree with the bears, but it’s not just China that must worry about this problem. While economic growth has benefited the vast majority of the population, the gap between the countryside and the cities is increasing as urban wealth accelerates. There’s also a widening breach within urban areas—the rich are growing richer.11
Urban inequality and a lack of access to education and healthcare are not problems unique to China. People here and in the West may find fruitful opportunities to exchange ideas because the pattern across Western economies is similar. Leaders of the central government have suggested policies to improve income distribution and to create a fair and sustainable social-security system, though implementation remains a matter for localities and varies greatly among them.
In short, China’s growth is slower, but weighing the evidence I have seen, the sky isn’t falling. Adjustment and reform are the hallmarks of a stable and responsive economy—particularly in volatile times.
The choice of Singapore as the venue for Saturday’s historic meeting between the Chinese and Taiwanese presidents is a diplomatic coup for the famously neutral city-state.

The meeting is the first between China’s President Xi Jinping and Taiwan’s President Ma Ying-jeou, and the first time leaders from both sides have met since Taiwan and China split in 1949.
The decision to hold the summit in Singapore shows it maintains its reputation as a rare neutral ground in a region where tensions are rising, even after the death in March of the city-state’s widely-respected former leader, Lee Kuan Yew.
Mr. Ma said this week the summit is the product of years of diplomacy between the two sides, and that Singapore was chosen for its impartiality.
Singapore’s selection as host “further highlights Singapore’s role in international politics,” said Huang Jing, professor of U.S.-China relations and director of the Centre on Asia and Globalisation at the National University of Singapore. The meeting “gives Singapore a status that no other country except Singapore can match up to,” he said, adding that the city-state’s relations with both sides will likely improve as a result.
Mr. Lee, Singapore’s first and longest-serving prime minister, earned the admiration of many national leaders, such as Britain’s Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan in the U.S., during his 31-year tenure in the top job. Many foreign leaders, including U.S. President Barack Obama, sought meetings with Mr. Lee to discuss international relations, both before and after he stepped down.
His son, Lee Hsien Loong, now heads a government that is keen to maintain Singapore’s regional relations. The younger Mr. Lee, although viewed as a competent and respected leader, has not inherited his father’s reputation for straight-talking, no-nonsense politics, and doesn’t yet have the leadership experience that drew his predecessor favor with other politicians in Asia.
Still, the younger Mr. Lee has worked to maintain diplomatic and economic relations with Singapore’s neighbors, sharing his father’s view that a small, multi-ethnic island surrounded by much larger countries is best served by fostering strong relationships, rather than by taking sides. It’s a position that is rare in a region brimming with diplomatic tension, as shown by current disputes such as the conflicting territorial claims in the South China Sea.
Singapore, which Chinese ethnic majority and large Indian and Malay populations, is frequently chosen as a diplomatic hub, hosting Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meetings and other summits. It is also the annual venue for the Shangri-La Dialogue, a high-profile international security conference.
The Shangri-La Hotel, close to the city’s central shopping district, was the venue of choice for Saturday’s meeting between Messrs. Xi and Ma. The National University of Singapore’s Mr. Huang said that allowed the Singapore government to maintain its policy on China-Taiwan relations by avoiding hosting the meeting in a government facility.
The city-state maintains a “one-China” policy on cross-strait issues, officially recognizing only Beijing as China’s capital. Lee Kuan Yew broke Singapore’s relations with Taiwan in 1990 to open them with China, although relations with both sides today are close. He also helped ease decades of tension between the two nations. In 1993, shortly after Mr. Lee stepped down from his post as prime minister to take an advisory role, Singapore hosted the first talks between representatives of China and Taiwan since the two sides clashed.
Source: China-Taiwan Summit a Success for Singapore – China Real Time Report – WSJ
The sales are a significant rise compared with the three million phones the company said it sold in its first year of business in India.
Xiaomi aims to sell 80 to 100 million smartphones this year and has been valued by investors at $46 billion. But increasing competition at home, from companies who mimic Xiaomi’s business model of selling high-end phones at low prices, will make it tough to meet its sales target. So the five-year-old startup is setting its hopes on growth in India. Xiaomi found success in China by combining razor-thin profit margins on hardware with glitzy product launches that helped build its fanbase.
The closely-held company needs to prove that it can export its business model to other countries to continue to justify its high valuation.
Xiaomi introduced its first model, the Mi 4i, outside China, at a launch in New Delhi in April. In August, it said it would begin assembling its entry-level Redmi 2 Prime in India.
Xiaomi’s recent success in India shows that its model can work there, said the company’s Vice President Hugo Barra. Since January, sales in the South Asian country increased 45% quarter-over-quarter, on average.
The firm’s Indian office is tweaking Xiaomi’s model of Internet flash sales, designed to boost demand and cut costs. During the company’s sale for the Hindu holiday Diwali, items were sold for as little as a rupee. “Some people bought a Mi TV for one rupee,” Mr. Barra said. One rupee is equal to $0.02. The heavily discounted deals meant that Xiaomi spent nothing on marketing. “This is an idea the India team came up with that you will see reused in other markets,” he said. The company still faces challenges in India.
While Xiaomi says it sold three million phones in its first year in India, market leader Micromax Informatics Ltd. says it sells three million phones a month. While the Chinese company relies mostly on online sales to cut costs, the majority of Micromax’s sales are in brick-and-mortar retail outlets, where most Indians still shop.
It remains unclear how much India can help bolster Xiaomi’s balance sheet. While smartphone sales are booming in India, the market is still tiny.
Xiaomi’s Mr. Barra says the company will slowly add to its catalogue of products in India, which currently includes phones and a handful of accessories like headphones and a fitness tracker. In China, Xiaomi sells everything from water purifiers to power strips.
Next up could be the company’s line of Internet routers, Mr. Barra said, which includes a model with six terabytes of storage.
“We are looking at bringing the router family to India,” he said. But don’t expect the smart bathroom scale to show up in India right away, or even the company’s newest gadget: a cut-price Segway-like device. “We carefully select things that will sell in India in good volumes. We have to be thoughtful and plan carefully.”
Source: Xiaomi’s Big Bet on Indian Internet Revolution Starts to Pay Off – China Real Time Report – WSJ
continuously updated blog about China & India
continuously updated blog about China & India
continuously updated blog about China & India