4 ms·

> We never expected China to be able to manage domestic risk well Well, they have seemingly largely recovered and move their way back to normalcy, as other cou

> We never expected China to be able to manage domestic risk well Well, they have seemingly largely recovered and move their way back to normalcy, as other countries started catching fire. I think a lot of people's takeways will be different than yours: China's ability to control crisis like this scale is going to be valuable assets to global investors.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
mullingitover 7y ago
> Well, they have seemingly largely recovered and move their way back to normalcy, as other countries started catching fire. It's not time to start popping champagne bottles in China quite yet. They have a tiger by the tail. The country is shut down, and as they start rolling back travel restrictions it could easily blow up again. They still have well over a billion people who are vulnerable. They just tried rolling back travel restrictions two days ago and immediately reversed course[1]. [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-china-qianjiang/chinese-city-in-hubei-reverses-relaxation-policy-to-continue-transport-ban-idUSKBN20Y09U?il=0 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-china-...
- unityByFreedom 7y ago
  Plus who knows if the current numbers from China are accurate. They could still be underreporting as the world focuses elsewhere, we only have the CCP to go by.
AnthonyMouse 7y ago
> China's ability to control crisis like this scale is going to be valuable assets to global investors. Their ability to control the crisis is useful from a public health perspective, but they're doing it by shutting down production. Look at how the markets have responded. Are you claiming investors wouldn't have been better off if these companies had invested in a more diversified supply chain? For that matter, having a more diversified supply chain makes it easier to implement these kinds of public health measures in general. Shutting down production is much less costly when there is another region capable of quickly picking up the slack. And making it less expensive to implement measures to contain a contagion makes it more likely they'll be properly implemented, which helps everybody, investors included.
- tanilama 7y ago
  There is a critical flaw in this thinking. Other countries will catch the virus at some point too. Without stringent measures, it will take more time for other countries to come back from it. In other words, China becomes safer after this.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    But that's exactly why diversification works. If you have manufacturing only in China and China shuts down, you lose. If you have manufacturing in both China and Mexico and China shuts down, you manufacture in Mexico. If six months later China is back online and Mexico is in quarantine, you manufacture in China. Having presence in multiple regions lets you keep going the whole time. Having presence in only one region doesn't.
    - hnick 7y ago
      It's easy to say it'd be great to have diversification now but it also costs more to maintain that capability every day that nothing like this is happening. If supply is not interrupted for a 10 year streak that will add up and you fall behind riskier competitors. It depends on a company's risk profile as to whether that is tolerable.
    - tanilama 7y ago
      Diversification looks great, but is not easy. It is not like software where it can be easily replicated across continent. Manufacturing requires logistics, capability of water/electricity and skilled labour. Those are not easily scalable across the globe. And manufactures do concentrate, it is easy to source parts to make stuff from the same region. So in a way, expanding physical manufacturing is very hard and expensive. And in case of COVID-19, it is not the answer even, since, the disruption is almost simultaneously happening globe wise, capacity planning and shifting can't be that agile to adjust, let alone the demand will be hampered too. So, I think unless it is for megacorp that has that much of money to burn, diversification on globe scale is just a dream. But for key industry, like medical supplies, I think that is where the state should come and play, to incentivize a domestic capacity that could chime in handily when disruption happens.
handedness 7y ago
If one completely ignores their dangerous obsession with secrecy and its major role in the spread of said fire to the rest of the globe, yes.
- tanilama 7y ago
  Which I don't disagree. However, such virus already exists in the wild, though the chances are there, it can jump to human anytime in the future regardless of national boundaries.
  - hnick 7y ago
    We should all be prepared but developed nations have a much smaller interface with the natural world meaning this kind of crossover is less likely, and many developing nations have a smaller global role meaning it won't spread as easily (see Africa & Ebola). I think China is somewhat unique here.
    - handedness 7y ago
      This is an excellent point. I've experienced living in a small, developing nation for years, and while they have the same dangerous mixture as China of live animals (and the associated excretions), dead animals, produce (unwashed, washed, and already skinned for consumption all available from the same table), fertilizer of human origins, farming supplies, pesticides, medical products, hygiene products, clothing, food transport, food storage, food preparation surfaces, cutlery, dish ware and dining surfaces all overlapping to alarming degrees (often sharing the same surfaces at different times), they don't have the potential global role, both based on their size, relative lack of population, lack of foreign travel and foreign entanglements, and so on. Inadvertent power projection from a biological perspective is an interesting concept. Edit to add: I can't judge the people working in these markets and offering products under horrendous conditions. They're trying to feed their families. But China needs to get serious about public health if it hopes to improve its reputation, which is roughly the same from Tehran to Toledo with some justification.
  - handedness 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

mullingitover 7y ago

> Well, they have seemingly largely recovered and move their way back to normalcy, as other countries started catching fire. It's not time to start popping champagne bottles in China quite yet. They have a tiger by the tail. The country is shut down, and as they start rolling back travel restrictions it could easily blow up again. They still have well over a billion people who are vulnerable. They just tried rolling back travel restrictions two days ago and immediately reversed course[1]. [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-china-qianjiang/chinese-city-in-hubei-reverses-relaxation-policy-to-continue-transport-ban-idUSKBN20Y09U?il=0 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-china-...

unityByFreedom 7y ago
Plus who knows if the current numbers from China are accurate. They could still be underreporting as the world focuses elsewhere, we only have the CCP to go by.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago

> China's ability to control crisis like this scale is going to be valuable assets to global investors. Their ability to control the crisis is useful from a public health perspective, but they're doing it by shutting down production. Look at how the markets have responded. Are you claiming investors wouldn't have been better off if these companies had invested in a more diversified supply chain? For that matter, having a more diversified supply chain makes it easier to implement these kinds of public health measures in general. Shutting down production is much less costly when there is another region capable of quickly picking up the slack. And making it less expensive to implement measures to contain a contagion makes it more likely they'll be properly implemented, which helps everybody, investors included.

tanilama 7y ago
There is a critical flaw in this thinking. Other countries will catch the virus at some point too. Without stringent measures, it will take more time for other countries to come back from it. In other words, China becomes safer after this.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  But that's exactly why diversification works. If you have manufacturing only in China and China shuts down, you lose. If you have manufacturing in both China and Mexico and China shuts down, you manufacture in Mexico. If six months later China is back online and Mexico is in quarantine, you manufacture in China. Having presence in multiple regions lets you keep going the whole time. Having presence in only one region doesn't.
  - hnick 7y ago
    It's easy to say it'd be great to have diversification now but it also costs more to maintain that capability every day that nothing like this is happening. If supply is not interrupted for a 10 year streak that will add up and you fall behind riskier competitors. It depends on a company's risk profile as to whether that is tolerable.
  - tanilama 7y ago
    Diversification looks great, but is not easy. It is not like software where it can be easily replicated across continent. Manufacturing requires logistics, capability of water/electricity and skilled labour. Those are not easily scalable across the globe. And manufactures do concentrate, it is easy to source parts to make stuff from the same region. So in a way, expanding physical manufacturing is very hard and expensive. And in case of COVID-19, it is not the answer even, since, the disruption is almost simultaneously happening globe wise, capacity planning and shifting can't be that agile to adjust, let alone the demand will be hampered too. So, I think unless it is for megacorp that has that much of money to burn, diversification on globe scale is just a dream. But for key industry, like medical supplies, I think that is where the state should come and play, to incentivize a domestic capacity that could chime in handily when disruption happens.

handedness 7y ago

If one completely ignores their dangerous obsession with secrecy and its major role in the spread of said fire to the rest of the globe, yes.

tanilama 7y ago
Which I don't disagree. However, such virus already exists in the wild, though the chances are there, it can jump to human anytime in the future regardless of national boundaries.
- hnick 7y ago
  We should all be prepared but developed nations have a much smaller interface with the natural world meaning this kind of crossover is less likely, and many developing nations have a smaller global role meaning it won't spread as easily (see Africa & Ebola). I think China is somewhat unique here.
  - handedness 7y ago
    This is an excellent point. I've experienced living in a small, developing nation for years, and while they have the same dangerous mixture as China of live animals (and the associated excretions), dead animals, produce (unwashed, washed, and already skinned for consumption all available from the same table), fertilizer of human origins, farming supplies, pesticides, medical products, hygiene products, clothing, food transport, food storage, food preparation surfaces, cutlery, dish ware and dining surfaces all overlapping to alarming degrees (often sharing the same surfaces at different times), they don't have the potential global role, both based on their size, relative lack of population, lack of foreign travel and foreign entanglements, and so on. Inadvertent power projection from a biological perspective is an interesting concept. Edit to add: I can't judge the people working in these markets and offering products under horrendous conditions. They're trying to feed their families. But China needs to get serious about public health if it hopes to improve its reputation, which is roughly the same from Tehran to Toledo with some justification.
- handedness 7y ago