61–70 of 105 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the only post that matters here. Thanks for providing the proper context to this (non) news.
Yes. The fact that this is considered newsy enough to make it to the front page tells us more about the fever pitch China paranoia in these parts than about the actual news itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am wondering, what is the quid pro quo here. I don't like most of these people, but they don't ring to me like the kind of people who could be bribed with a seat at a prestigious university's board.
I think a public and a personal gain would suffice. Even if it's only that their own stocks would gain with market access in China...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do I interprit this list. As tit for tat or why else would a CEO join this board? Tesla is one of the only companies that really seems to be successful in China. Then you have Apple and others that are getting overtaken by domestic companies and not coincidentally a lot of financial companies ( that niche was pretty open in China, I thought) Does this list also explain why Microsoft asked the White House to lift…
> Tesla is one of the only companies that really seems to be successful in China. > Am I wrong? If so, please explain. GM has, over time, made an enormous business out of the Chinese market. They got in early and printed a lot of money there. Something like 1/3 of all their unit sales have been in China over the past decade. More recently it was closer to half. They went from 900,000 annual units in 2004, to 1.8 mill…
Based on your detailed explanation, it is public. Still not sure if it's also for personal gain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Tesla is one of the only companies that really seems to be successful in China. > Am I wrong? If so, please explain. GM has, over time, made an enormous business out of the Chinese market. They got in early and printed a lot of money there. Something like 1/3 of all their unit sales have been in China over the past decade. More recently it was closer to half. They went from 900,000 annual units in 2004, to 1.8 mill…
The am I wrong was mostly on: is this tit for tat. Based on your detailed explanation, it is public. Still not sure if it's also for personal gain.
Being on this board is the global business equivalent of reputation sharing, like giving China valuable IP in exchange for them letting you have market access. That's a list of highly respected global business titans, they're lending China and that University their reputation to warm ties and buy favor - absolutely.
Zuckerberg is the only one seriously on the outside in that list. He has seen effectively zero benefit so far to all his efforts on relationship building. Although they'll still take his reputation sharing (credibility enhancing; I know that seems absurd in the West right now, he's regarded as a respectable business titan in China). He has been wishing on a star for years now to get access to China. Amusingly, the Chinese authorities have (for their own purposes) thought better of it and know not to let FB in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am wondering, what is the quid pro quo here. I don't like most of these people, but they don't ring to me like the kind of people who could be bribed with a seat at a prestigious university's board.
Maybe they can’t be bribed with cash, but could they be bribed with a nice contract for the company they founded? Or threatened for access to a market?
A selection of other members of this university board: http://www.sem.tsinghua.edu.cn/en/aboutsem/advMem.html Henry M. Paulson, Jr. Chairman, Paulson Institute Former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Former Chairman and CEO, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. Mary T. Barra Chairman and CEO, General Motors Company Lloyd C. Blankfein Chairman of the Board, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. Carlos Brito CEO, Anheuser-Busch InBev M…
Genuinely wondering, how many more Uighur Muslims have to die before associating with the Chinese Govt. becomes bad optics? I understand this is a Chinese university but we all know all entities in China serve the agenda of the Chinese Govt.
Problems require real struggle and sacrifice. So far nobody in the west is punishing those corporations by boycotts. Nobody is throwing all their made in China stuff on the street. Nobody is making million people marches on the Chinese embassies.
Why should they change? Uighur Muslims are the latest cause celebre to feel good about how virtuous we are, not really solve their problems.
I’m as diehard an Apple fanboy as they come but I might be in the market for a new ecosystem...
I've long questioned if Toyota is really a Japanese company, but at least they have significant manufacturing in Japan. If Apple isn't already a Chinese company, they will be within a few short years.
I personally don't have anything against buying non-USA products, so I don't mean this as a condemnation of Toyota or Apple. Just an observation. I consider the local Chinese restaurant to be an American business. I consider Apple to be a Chinese business.
For the record, School of Economics and Management (SEM) of Tsinghua University has always been having high caliber business leaders, Nobel Laureate, central bank governor and government officials on their board.[1] e.g. In fact, I doubt any school has a better advisory board than that of SEM of Tsinghua's, anywhere in the world. Even Hardvard / MIT / Yale's school dean/provost are on Tsinghua's board. If as an CEO,…
Big names are important in China just like elsewhere. Does this board actually do anything or is it just a Guangxi play?