SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Maurice Winn who wrote (149647)7/15/2019 8:04:19 AM
From: TobagoJack  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 218304
 
am guessing below trend is macro-bullish irrespective of what kibitzertariates might spin or alt-spin, and

if so, good that some African folks did not take up the illogical advice of "just say no to goodies"

bloomberg.com

Africa Isn’t Being Re-ColonizedThere’s a big difference between military conquest and development with overseas capital and know-how.
Noah Smith15 July 2019, 02:00 GMT-4



This is how development typically starts.
Photographer: Michelle Cattani/AFP/Getty Images
LISTEN TO ARTICLE
A number of African countries appear to be in the early stages of their own industrial revolution, promising to lift hundreds of millions out of grinding poverty. Much of the impetus for this transformation is coming from Chinese investment:

China's Big Move
Country foreign direct investment growth in Africa, 2010-2014
Source: McKinsey & Co.

But when confronted with this news, some well-meaning Westerners -- as well as some wary Africans -- worry that what’s really happening is a new form of colonialism. This worry especially crops up with respect to China and its large, well-publicized infrastructure projects, but it also sometimes gets applied to independent Chinese-owned factories operating on the continent, or just to foreign investment in general. If foreigners are profiting from Africa’s rise, some reason, that can only mean the continent’s resources are being extracted on unfair terms.

This concern is natural, given Africa’s tragic recent history of foreign conquest, occupation and exploitation. And in the case of China’s infrastructure projects, the worry may be justified. But privately owned factories in Africa are not a colonial project.

Colonialism involves domination through violence. The many small Chinese entrepreneurs moving to Africa to set up shop do not have the backing of a mighty state or an armada of warships. They are on their own, and as author and development researcher Irene Yuan Sun reports in her book, “The Next Factory of the World: How Chinese Investment Is Reshaping Africa,” these independent capitalists often lose everything they have to fires, crime or other local hazards.

What’s more, Sun’s research shows that these Chinese entrepreneurs generally hire locals. Despite much-publicized cases of Chinese companies importing Chinese workers to Africa, this is the exception rather than the rule. Something like 95% of Chinese manufacturing companies in Africa hire local workers, and 54% hire managers locally, while 73% offer apprenticeships or professional training programs for locals.

Skeptics may believe that Chinese factory owners’ profits, which can run to more than 20% , represent exploitation by foreigners. But because most Chinese entrepreneurs live in Africa near the factories they run, much of that profit gets spent locally, and is thus pumped back into the local economy. Furthermore, although wages are low and factory conditions are often harsh or dangerous -- sadly typical for countries in the early stages of industrialization -- a profit margin of 20% still means that the bulk of the businesses’ expenditures are flowing to workers and suppliers, many of whom are African.

The profits reaped by these expatriate Chinese entrepreneurs don't represent colonialist resource exploitation. Instead, they represent the win-win nature of industrialization. Unlike economies based on natural resources, industrial economies are not zero-sum games -- they represent the creation of wealth through human ingenuity and labor. Just because Chinese factory owners are winning doesn’t mean African workers are losing.

Of course, in the long run, Africans should and will become owners and capitalists themselves. African managers in Chinese factories will learn the tricks of the trade and then strike out on their own. But for now, foreign investment in African manufacturing looks similar to the early stages of industrialization in China itself. Under Deng Xiaoping and his successors, China threw open the doors to foreign capital, offering itself as a low-cost production platform for foreigners. That was only the first stage, however, as Chinese workers learned from the foreigners and eventually moved up the value chain.

So private Chinese investment in Africa isn't a form of colonialism, and the Japanese, German, and Indian multinationals now setting up shop in Africa aren't colonizers. This is how development works.

But there is one type of Chinese involvement in Africa that does threaten to become something akin to colonialism -- Chinese government infrastructure loans. Chinese government banks are lending African governments large amounts of money to build roads, bridges, ports and so on, often secretly. Although some of that infrastructure will be beneficial for African countries, some projects will not recoup their costs. When that happens, small African countries will be left holding the bag, owing money to the mighty Chinese government. China will then hold substantial leverage over its African debtors.

If that’s not old-style colonialism, it’s too close for comfort. African governments should be wary of Chinese state-owned banks offering lavish loans. Instead, they should focus on soliciting private investment in manufacturing industries, while providing infrastructure, education and other public goods on their own. This strategy will ensure that Africa’s road to industrialization is as rapid and smooth as possible without the taint of colonialism.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

To contact the author of this story:
Noah Smith at nsmith150@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story:
James Greiff at jgreiff@bloomberg.net




To: Maurice Winn who wrote (149647)7/15/2019 8:41:07 AM
From: TobagoJack  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 218304
 
am glad that the 737 max-anything is kept off of the menu as the growing pile of cockroaches crawl out due to pilot error for flying the plane earlier

wsj.com

Boeing 737 MAX Grounding Could Stretch Into 2020Company executives, FAA engineers and regulators have expanded their safety analyses to cover a growing list of issues

By
Andy Pasztor,
Alison Sider and
Andrew Tangel

Updated July 14, 2019 12:07 pm ET


Grounded Boeing 737 MAX aircraft are seen parked at Boeing Field in Seattle, July 1. Photo: lindsey wasson/ReutersThe situation remains fluid, no firm timeline has been established and Boeing still has to satisfy U.S. regulators that it has answered all outstanding safety questions. But under the latest scenario, the global MAX fleet is now anticipated to return to the air in January 2020, a full 12 months after the plane maker proposed its initial replacement of software eventually implicated in a pair of fatal crashes—one in October and one in March—according to some Federal Aviation Administration officials and pilot-union leaders.

The process of developing and certifying revised software and pilot-training changes has been repeatedly delayed, with airlines scrambling to cope with slips month after month.

Share Your Thoughts
Do the delays in getting the 737 MAX back into service add to doubts about the airplane or inspire confidence in the work regulators and Boeing are taking to ensure public safety? Join the conversation below.

Boeing executives, FAA engineers and international aviation regulators have steadily expanded their safety analyses to cover a growing list of issues spanning everything from emergency recovery procedures to potentially suspect electronic components. Some of those assessments are further complicated because they also cover earlier 737 models.

Already, carriers have given up on flying their MAX planes until late this year. American Airlines Group Inc. said Sunday that it would keep the plane off its schedules through Nov. 2, two months beyond its previous target of an early September return. It is the fifth time American has pushed off MAX flying since it first had to call off flights when regulators grounded the plane in March.

United Airlines Holdings Inc. announced a similar move on Friday, but FAA officials and others tracking the issue said there is no assurance the November date will hold.

Airlines didn’t expect to be in this position at this point in the year, with no end to the grounding in sight. When American first decided to scrub MAX flights for much of the summer, executives said they were doing it to save customers from last-minute cancellations but were still “highly confident” the plane would return sooner.

0:00 / 0:00



How Boeing’s 737 MAX Troubles Ripple Through the Industry

Two crashes and the global grounding of Boeing’s 737 MAX commercial airliner led to extensive disruption in the international aerospace industry. WSJ’s Robert Wall explains the continuing effects of the plane’s grounding. Photo: Getty Images
Instead, they have had to cope without their MAX jets through what has proven an exceptionally busy summer. The Transportation Security Administration has notched eight of the 10 busiest days in its history since May.

Senior Boeing executives and some FAA leaders have told government and industry officials they still expect the agency to be ready to lift the grounding in the fall, which presumably would enable the jets to resume carrying passengers before the end of the year.

But based on a history of previous delays and unexpected technical challenges, many of these officials said, at this point sentiment seems to be building that a conservative January timeline is more realistic.

The FAA has said it is following a thorough process that has no timetable, with agency leaders vowing to resolve all safety issues before allowing the planes back in the air.

Boeing has said it intends to “provide the FAA and the global regulators whatever information they need,” noting that the company won’t offer the 737 MAX “for certification by the FAA until we have satisfied all requirements” for such approval and safe return to service.

The specific software fix for MCAS—an automated system that misfired, overpowered pilot commands and strongly pushed down the noses of both of the MAX airliners that crashed—has been essentially completed and has been awaiting formal FAA approval for months.

But in the intervening period, Boeing and safety regulators have been delving into various related issues that cropped up from earlier engineering studies, ground-simulator sessions and flight tests.

During early stages of work on the fix, Boeing and FAA officials disagreed behind the scenes about the extent of changes needed to reduce hazards posed by the MCAS system, according to people familiar with the details. Then in March, just as Boeing was slated to submit a long-awaited proposal with the goal of jump-starting the process, new questions arose about related software systems and emergency checklists, requiring weeks of additional intense evaluation.

The topics included concerns about whether the average pilot has enough physical strength to manually crank a flight-control wheel in extreme emergencies.

In late June, Boeing and the FAA disclosed still another flight-control problem on the MAX, involving failure of a microprocessor that meant test pilots couldn’t counteract a potential misfire of MCAS as quickly as required.

Since the 737 MAX and its earlier version, called the 737 NG, share the same flight-control computer, fixes related to the microprocessor also apply to NG models, thousands of which remain in service around the world. Boeing also faces the task of convincing the FAA that a software fix, instead of physically replacing the suspect electronic component on all MAX planes, will suffice.

Even assuming new MAX issues don’t crop up, Boeing will need FAA approval for its entire suite of fixes, not just those directly related to MCAS, along with a new round of flight tests, a green light for enhanced training procedures and approval of updated simulator software.

In addition, airlines have said it could take them up to 45 days to complete necessary maintenance procedures and other mandatory checks by mechanics to bring MAX aircraft out of storage.

From a purely technical standpoint, some senior FAA officials believe they could be in a position to approve Boeing’s proposed fix at some point in October, though working with international regulators on a coordinated return to service could cause a delay, according to one person briefed on the matter. Another wild card, this person added, relates to the potential impact of new FAA leadership if the U.S. Senate confirms Stephen Dickson in the fall as the next agency administrator.

Each month the plane’s return is delayed means a new puzzle for airlines: how to build a new schedule that covers as much flying as possible with fewer jets. Some customers who had already planned flights have to be rebooked—sometimes at a less convenient time or with an added stop. Pilots and flight attendants also have to be reshuffled.

Now, carriers are nervously eyeing the holiday season, when they will face a crush of travelers whose Thanksgiving and Christmas travel plans leave little wiggle room. United was supposed to have 30 MAXes in the coming months, up from 14. As a result it is cutting 2,900 flights in October—more than twice the number it has had to cull in July. American Airlines had 24 MAXes in its fleet at the time of the grounding—less than 3% of its total. But it was supposed to have 40 by the end of the year.

At Southwest Airlines Co. , Alan Kasher, vice president of flight operations, said in a message to employees Friday that the airline is “overstaffed,” with more pilots than it needs to operate a shrunken schedule stemming from the grounding of its 34 MAX jets. Some Southwest pilots have complained of lost earnings from fewer flying opportunities.

With the timing of the MAX’s return still murky, the airline is postponing training for some newly hired pilots who were set to start this fall and pushing back training for some current Southwest co-pilots on track to upgrade to captain.

Write to Andy Pasztor at andy.pasztor@wsj.com, Alison Sider at alison.sider@wsj.com and Andrew Tangel at Andrew.Tangel@wsj.com




To: Maurice Winn who wrote (149647)7/23/2019 7:10:28 AM
From: TobagoJack  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 218304
 
watch & brief

have not decided what take-aways if any to take away

general trend is still tech war, cleaver-ing, and such

nytimes.com

Tech Executives Push Trump on Huawei Sales

By Alan Rappeport and Kate Conger
July 22, 2019

Technology companies have been lobbying the Trump administration to allow a resumption of sales to Huawei after a ban that was imposed this year.Ng Han Guan/Associated Press


Technology companies have been lobbying the Trump administration to allow a resumption of sales to Huawei after a ban that was imposed this year.Ng Han Guan/Associated Press

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Monday assured executives of several big technology companies that his administration would make “timely” decisions about whether to allow American firms to continue selling products to Huawei, the Chinese telecom equipment giant that has been placed on a government blacklist, the White House said in a statement.

Mr. Trump met on Monday afternoon with the leaders of Google, Qualcomm, Cisco, Intel, Micron, Western Digital and Broadcom to discuss the administration’s ban on Huawei as well as the economy and trade relations with China, the White House said.

The meeting comes as tech companies, including semiconductor firms, continue to push the administration to follow through with Mr. Trump’s promise to ease restrictions on selling chips and other technology to Huawei. The industry has been lobbying the administration to allow a resumption of sales to Huawei after a ban on the sale of American technology that was imposed this year over national security concerns.

That ban prevented many big tech companies, like Google, from doing business with Huawei without getting a government waiver. As a result, Google cut off support to Huawei for many Android hardware and software services, and other companies also stepped back from doing business with the firm.

Mr. Trump, in an effort to restart trade talks with Beijing, said in June that he would allow some sales to Huawei to continue. That decision, which surprised many within the administration, came after a meeting with President Xi Jinping of China in June at the Group of 20 summit. The move was viewed as a significant concession by the Trump administration, which has warned that Huawei’s gear poses national security risks and has tried to persuade allies not to use the telecom firm’s equipment in their buildout of the next generation of wireless networks, known as 5G.

In a statement on Monday afternoon, the White House said that chief executives from the companies “requested timely licensing decisions from the Department of Commerce, and the president agreed.”

Mr. Trump was joined in the meeting by Larry Kudlow, the director of the National Economic Council; Steven Mnuchin, the Treasury secretary; Wilbur Ross, the commerce secretary; and Robert Lighthizer, the administration’s top trade negotiator.

“Besides the request to move the applications along, they really spent some time just helping us figure out how to do 5G better and faster,” Mr. Kudlow said Monday evening in an interview.

The Commerce Department’s move in May to block sales to Huawei, by adding the company to its so-called entity list, prompted confusion within Huawei and among its many American suppliers.

Mr. Trump added to that confusion last month when, after the meeting with Mr. Xi, he said that “U.S. companies can sell their equipment to Huawei” because China agreed to buy large amounts of agricultural product from the United States.

Administration officials have said repeatedly that no licenses will be granted for products that could jeopardize national security. In practice, that will mean the only granted licenses are likely to be for items, such as older semiconductor technologies, that are freely available on global markets — which Huawei could buy in places like Europe.

“Commerce will issue licenses where there is no threat to U.S. national security,” Mr. Ross said this month at a conference. “Within those confines, we will try to make sure that we don’t just transfer revenue from the U.S. to foreign firms.”

A Commerce Department spokesman declined to say whether any companies have had applications approved to sell general merchandise.

Tech companies said little about the outcome but expressed gratitude for the meeting.

“We believe strategic technology investment and policies that ensure open and fair trade on a level playing field are essential to ongoing U.S. technology leadership, as well as economic growth throughout the world,” Micron said in a statement.

Intel said that it was grateful for the opportunity to have its concerns heard.

“We regularly engage with the administration on issues important to Intel and our industry,” the company said in a statement. “We appreciate joining our peers attending today’s White House economic meeting and sharing Intel’s perspective on economic issues, including how the current trade situation with China impacts the critical U.S. semiconductor industry.”

Alan Rappeport reported from Washington, and Kate Conger from New York.

A version of this article appears in print on July 23, 2019, Section B, Page 4 of the New York edition with the headline: Tech Executives Push Trump on Huawei Sales. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe