3 ms·

I am trying to understand how this fiasco is any different from Boston's big dig? Are we just posturing because it was a Chinese company? Neither was bid/price

I am trying to understand how this fiasco is any different from Boston's big dig? Are we just posturing because it was a Chinese company? Neither was bid/priced right and both have/had safety problems. Welcome to the world of government contracts, big projects tend to be vastly different than what is proposed or agreed too. Hence I am confused as to why the controversy this time.

masomenos 12y ago
Are you implying that there wasn't controversy over the Big Dig? I remember plenty.
- jusben1369 12y ago
  I read the article as having a strongly anti Chinese bias. So I think Shivetya's point was a fair one which is "Should this be a story on government mishandling of big projects" as the lead and move away from the Chinese bashing? Or is there a legitimate angle for the overall story about the fact the cheapest bid also happened to be a Chinese company.
  - Mtinie 12y ago
    The communication problems detailed in the article, coupled with the pre-construction work that was completed in China and then shipped across the Pacific, makes a difference when it comes to the management of the project. That's not to say that these are unique problems because the contracting firm was Chinese, rather than, say, French. However, in this case it is relevant to the overall narrative that the challenges exist, because they make it that much harder to proactively address quality deficiencies.
dandelany 12y ago
So your argument is, because government projects are usually problematic, we should not be calling attention to new problematic projects? Doesn't that seem a little... fatalistic?
- Shivetya 12y ago
  I am not aware of many if any actually big government projects that are not problematic. However I do think the story was full of underhanded/indirect Chinese bashing, if not just plain foreigner bashing; like the quote "unaccustomed to the rigor of American construction rules". I guess they are just too stupid to do business in the real world, and this in the state that wants to waste billions on a train to nowhere. Frankly I am amazed at how much oversight there isn't on billion dollar plus projects. You would think there should be more than one agency, in particular neutral non government agencies that should be required to sign off on projects that crest a certain dollar amount. This is not to say that big government projects are all bad, they do lay ground work for many private companies to build on. Look as Space X, it would not be where it is today if not for NASA but it is a better choice for many things that NASA because of its big government mentality are not good at anymore. We only have to look at the recent boondoggle that was the ACA's main website to understand that oversight by non politically aligned, no government groups, is warranted. TL;DR. Yes, a lot of China bashing going on, to redirect the ire from its rightful spot, inept government with no real oversight. There needs to be "civilian" oversight on large government projects, appointed by industry experts.

masomenos 12y ago

Are you implying that there wasn't controversy over the Big Dig? I remember plenty.

jusben1369 12y ago
I read the article as having a strongly anti Chinese bias. So I think Shivetya's point was a fair one which is "Should this be a story on government mishandling of big projects" as the lead and move away from the Chinese bashing? Or is there a legitimate angle for the overall story about the fact the cheapest bid also happened to be a Chinese company.
- Mtinie 12y ago
  The communication problems detailed in the article, coupled with the pre-construction work that was completed in China and then shipped across the Pacific, makes a difference when it comes to the management of the project. That's not to say that these are unique problems because the contracting firm was Chinese, rather than, say, French. However, in this case it is relevant to the overall narrative that the challenges exist, because they make it that much harder to proactively address quality deficiencies.

dandelany 12y ago

So your argument is, because government projects are usually problematic, we should not be calling attention to new problematic projects? Doesn't that seem a little... fatalistic?

Shivetya 12y ago
I am not aware of many if any actually big government projects that are not problematic. However I do think the story was full of underhanded/indirect Chinese bashing, if not just plain foreigner bashing; like the quote "unaccustomed to the rigor of American construction rules". I guess they are just too stupid to do business in the real world, and this in the state that wants to waste billions on a train to nowhere. Frankly I am amazed at how much oversight there isn't on billion dollar plus projects. You would think there should be more than one agency, in particular neutral non government agencies that should be required to sign off on projects that crest a certain dollar amount. This is not to say that big government projects are all bad, they do lay ground work for many private companies to build on. Look as Space X, it would not be where it is today if not for NASA but it is a better choice for many things that NASA because of its big government mentality are not good at anymore. We only have to look at the recent boondoggle that was the ACA's main website to understand that oversight by non politically aligned, no government groups, is warranted. TL;DR. Yes, a lot of China bashing going on, to redirect the ire from its rightful spot, inept government with no real oversight. There needs to be "civilian" oversight on large government projects, appointed by industry experts.