[SpamCop-List] Re: The chinese own spam

[Frog Prince]

"Marjolein Katsma" <

| >| > In return for support in Iraq the Chinese were given preferential
| >| > treatment on imports of woven products.  The only stipulation was
| >| > that the twine/string/tread be from US manufactures.  Chinese
| >| > government sore that was the deal but when it developed that there
| >| > was insufficient production much less export of US made yarn to
| >| > support the amounts imported it developed that the Chinese
| >| > government was faking the certification.
| >|
| >| So you're saying the Chinese were being duped by the American
| >| government. How's that for "business culture"?
| >
| > How did you read that into my comments? Leaving out the political pay
| > offs, the trade agreement was, basically, the Chinese got favorable
| > treatment on finished woven goods with the clear commitment that the
| > woven goods would be made with American produced yarn.
|
| "there was insufficient production much less export of US made yarn to
| support the amounts imported"
|
| Easy to see how they were duped, isn't it? If the quantity of the raw
| product they are supposed to use isn't enough to make up for that
| contract, they were duped into believing it would be enough or they
| wouldn't have accepted that condition.

You read into the 'facts' more than was there.  The production capacity was
there (not now due to lay offs and plant closings).  The problem was that
the Chinese did not order sufficient raw product to meet the needs of the
contracts they signed to deliver in the US which is what tripped up the
game.   BTW this happened to TCBY as their franchises were selling far more
product than was supported by the raw material being ordered (which had to
be ordered) under the franchise contracts.  Each franchisee figured that his
small 'get by' would slide but in aggregate the numbers did not even come
close to matching so TCBY took them all to court and won a substantial
settlement.

| > The point is that the Chinese do what is best for the Chinese and use
| > situation ethics to gain the advantage.
|
| Of course. And the US does differently?

The majority of the rest of the world doesn't engage in the level of
situation ethics and their governments tend to keep the playing field level
by adhering to international law whereas in my experience the Chinese and
the Chinese government are universally the opposite.  That is to say that in
over 10 years of doing business with the Chinese I have NEVER, EVER had a
Chinese vendor fully honor the commitments.  Most problems had to do with
attempted, substantial abuse of IPR.

| > I'm not taking, so much, about the Chinese culture but of China, Inc.
| > which is the face put forward in trade and on the internet.
|
| There are more "faces" on the Internet than you see if all you look at
| is spam. When did you last look at a Chinese website?
|
| > Part is pure greed and part is as you say a product of commercial
| > racism. (screw the foreign devils)
|
| Sounds very much like what western countries and many others are doing.
| Since when was trade intended to benefit the partner?

Basic premise of trade and business is that a good deal benefits both
parties.  Lopsided deals work only in the short term and often to the
detriment of both sides.  Note that I'm not naive enough to believe that the
west is much different in outlook (see ENRON) only in the level of the
practice.   I've had to watch suppliers from the rest of the world but never
as much nor as carefully as the Chinese.  On occasion I've had to put the
stop to abuse by my own employer.  (once almost cost me my job but I tend to
document carefully <g>)