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.
Politics : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Clarksterh who wrote (17776)3/17/1998 11:38:00 AM
From: derek cao  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 70976
 
Interesting article from IDB:

Spending Cuts By U.S. Defense Have Hurt Tech
Date: 3/17/98
Author: Michael Tarsala
In the mid-'80s, economists feared Japan's booming economy would overtake that of the U.S.

Foreign firms - especially Japanese companies - were beating U.S. companies in key manufacturing industries. And observers noted that the U.S. was losing its lead in emerging technologies.

Today, U.S. technology leadership is unquestioned. U.S. firms have taken the lead in software, telecommunications, networking and microprocessors - all drivers of an economic resurgence.

But is U.S. global dominance assured?

''Not by any means,'' said William Perry, former U.S. secretary of defense. ''We face very tough competition. Whenever the basis of competition is innovation, we do very well. When it's manufacturing skills, usually Japan wins. That may be true in the future as it has been in the past. Maybe not.''

Perry is concerned that the U.S. isn't doing enough to preserve its technology lead. There needs to be more research and development of technologies that will be used in tomorrow's products, he says.

Much of this R&D used to be funded by the U.S. Department of Defense, Perry says. But because of cutbacks, companies no longer can rely on this, he says.

Perry recently spoke with IBD about the future of U.S. technology.

IBD:

How did the U.S. beat Japan to emerge as the technology leader?

Perry:

Japan had a detailed plan to dominate technology. They invested in three areas they thought would give them an unbeatable advantage. The first was memory chips - which has turned out to be a commodity market. The other two were high-definition television and artificial intelligence - two markets that have yet to emerge.

Simply, Japan bet on the wrong horses. Most of the fundamental Japanese strategy was laid out by their government. Here in the U.S., it was laid out by individual entrepreneurs. The role of the U.S. government was providing support for the technology base - not individual products.

IBD:

What does the U.S. need to do to stay ahead?

Perry:

It all comes down to about five issues. We must increase the talent pool. We have to make sure there's plenty of capital available. It's important we continue to push for access in international markets. We must set good policy to keep the vitality of the economy. And we have to increase the research-and-development base.

IBD:

Technology long has been partially supported by the government, particularly the Department of Defense. How significant have defense cuts been?

Perry:

Consider that communications satellites and the first supercomputers, for example, were funded directly by the Department of Defense. The defense budget in the last 10 years has decreased by 40%. The part that deals with the technology base has decreased proportionally. But that's only half the story. The amount the DOD buys from its contractors has decreased 70% in that time. As a result, government-supported independent research and development also is down 70%.

IBD:

Has the government simply shifted its R&D spending away from defense?

Perry:

Presidents Bush and Clinton have tried to shift some of the funding to the National Science Foundation. But most of that is given for medical research - not for the information technology field.

IBD:

Has responsibility for R&D fallen to the private sector? If so, is that wrong?

Perry:

There aren't too many companies willing to put their profit dollars behind developing underlying technologies. For most companies, R&D spending is for product development. Any one company has a hard time rationalizing this kind of underlying technology spending to the bottom line. It's very expensive, and has to be done somewhat on faith or with a long-term view.

Plus, there are numerous examples of companies developing wonderful technology, then getting nothing out of it. Or worse, their competitors have taken the ball and run with it. This type of spending is best handled by the government.

IBD:

Can companies make up for the government's lack of spending by pooling resources with researchers?

Perry:

That's one solution. Some of the most successful partnerships have leveraged the brainpower of companies and universities -and have been partly funded by the government.

One of the best examples is the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center. It does some of the best fundamental research in software. There are many other partnerships. Some charge corporations a fee, then give them full technology rights.

But we still must be concerned that government funding for technology is down. Defense spending is a critical part of tech investment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(C) Copyright 1998 Investors Business Daily, Inc.
Metadata: XRX I/1003 E/IBD E/SN1 E/TECH



To: Clarksterh who wrote (17776)3/18/1998 10:54:00 PM
From: BigShoulders  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 70976
 
Clark:
Re: Japanese financial deregulation "Big bang"

See article below from Chicago Tribune, March 15

Also in news recently - Fidelity is opening investment office in Japan

Re: Asset values in Japan vs. world

There was an article in Barron's a couple months ago about the tremendous decline in Japanese real estate values . Loans are being foreclosed and American investors buying at 10-20 cents on the dollar.
This is an indicator of 1) the pain and suffering in Japanese financial circles that can be an impetus for financial reform, and 2) the fact that asset markets are global; investors around the world look at relative values.

Similar thinking applies to the stock markets.

These are a couple reasons why I think a Japanese crash is unlikely.

The Nikkei may go down some more. But I don't agree that a crash is necessary for reform or for eventual improvement in their markets.

BigShoulders

JAPAN HOPING 'BIG BANG' WILL TURN BUST INTO BOOM

By Michael A. Lev
Tribune Foreign Correspondent
March 15, 1998
TOKYO -- For decades, the United States has demanded that Japan remove trade barriers and open its huge but protected market to outsiders.
Sometimes the pressure has come from members of Congress smashing Japanese radios on the steps of the Capitol. Sometimes U.S. trade negotiators have threatened to levy punitive taxes on Japanese cars.
Rarely have the Japanese given in without a fight. Until now.
Japan is about to implement a sweeping plan to deregulate its financial industry that will unleash the forces of global capitalism there to an unprecedented level. The changes could irrevocably alter the way this nation does business with the world.
Instead of coming out of a nasty and protracted negotiating session, the changes appear to have been embraced out of self-interest by Japan's government. After nearly a decade in economic doldrums, Tokyo is so desperate to reignite growth that it is willing to set aside traditional practices and introduce a strong measure of free-market capitalism.
The deregulation plan, which the government has optimistically dubbed the "Big Bang"--the same name used to describe British financial deregulation in 1986--is designed to increase Japan's financial muscle by encouraging international competition.
If the plan works, Japan could find its traditional tight controls on the economy swept away by a tidal wave of money rushing into and out of the country. Americans could find themselves challenging the Japanese for dominance in investment banking and high finance, the linchpin of the economy.
"Markets taking the lead instead of the authorities--that's what this is all about and that's where our strengths lie," said Matthew Goodman, a Tokyo-based vice president with the investment house Goldman Sachs and a former U.S. Treasury Department official.
In theory, the effects of financial deregulation could cascade throughout the economy. Depositors will have new options for where to put their savings, and companies will gain access to new sources of funding for investment.
As banks there are forced to compete against global capital markets and profitability becomes key, the standards for lending will tighten. The result should be a shake-out, with strong players getting bigger and weaker ones failing.
"Everything is changing," said Hiroshi Nakagawa, a managing director at Merrill Lynch Japan. "We're going to have winners and losers, but in the end Japan will be healthier."
If the effort succeeds, the Big Bang might resolve one of America's great post-war conflicts: the battle to dismantle Japanese protectionism and convert this highly regimented, historically feudal society to the Western belief that the free market knows best.
If financial deregulation works, there would appear to be no retreat, and other industries might also move to be freed from government restraint.
Japan built its wealth--the world's second-largest economy after the U.S.--through a coordinated relationship between government and business that left very little to chance or the free market. Most aspects of the economy were planned, the weak were protected by the strong and foreigners were let onto the playing field grudgingly.
Given Japan's reputation as an economic bully who doesn't play fair and the fact that the system worked so well for so long, there was probably less skepticism about the Soviet Union's collapse and conversion to capitalism than about Japan's change of heart.
During a recent negotiating trip to Tokyo, Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Richard Fisher called Big Bang "a major step forward," but he suggested there were so many more trade disputes on the table--fights over access to the Japanese market for everything from American housing supplies and shopping centers to lawyers--that he was not willing to give the Japanese too much credit for financial deregulation.
"We'd like to see a Big Bang in goods and services as well," he said.
Big Bang is not yet being heralded as an economic equivalent to the Berlin Wall's coming down because nobody knows exactly what will happen.
The implications are enormous because there are trillions of dollars of Japanese household savings that have been trapped in the system, languishing in low-interest savings accounts because of a lack of competition.
If that money is freed to find its best use, it could mean a windfall for Japan-based institutions and a renaissance for the Japanese economy, or it could mean a slow financial hollowing out as investment rushes out of the country into more lucrative markets.
The possibilities seem bright enough to have set off a stampede of American and European investment houses into the market to get ready for the changes. In the last year, foreign financial companies have been beefing up their investments and starting joint ventures and other deals with Japanese firms to position themselves for the Big Bang era.
The dealmaking represents one of the fastest and most dramatic investment trends by foreigners in Japan. In one of the biggest steps, Merrill Lynch will create a new retail stock brokerage company, and it plans to hire 2,000 people from Yamaichi Securities, which failed last year.
The first step of the Big Bang comes next month, when controls on foreign exchange transactions will be relaxed. Theoretically, it means that individual investors and Japanese companies would be able to take their money out of Japan and invest through a brokerage in New York or anywhere in the world.
Over the next five years, the government plans to remove barriers and restrictions throughout the financial system to permit Japanese investors and companies the same freedom as Americans and Europeans to search the world for the best uses for their money.
Banks, investment houses and insurance companies--Japanese and foreign-owned--also will be freed from government control to compete as they do overseas. For example, brokerage commissions will be deregulated, banks will be allowed to sell mutual funds and innovative new investments like derivatives will be permitted.
The thinking is that if Japan opens the system to international competition, it will push the Japanese industry to become as innovative and efficient as overseas markets, and that will make Japan stronger.
The Japanese mutual fund industry could be one sector that mushrooms quickly. Japan has one of the highest savings rates in the world, but only 10.4 percent of household financial assets are invested in stocks, compared with 25 percent for Americans, because the financial industry there is overregulated and underdeveloped.
Along the way, the government also has committed to clearing away the secrecy and idiosyncrasies of the regulatory system. For example, accounting rules will be changed to the international system and it will become easier to get a full sense of corporate liabilities. That should make it easier for foreign companies to make acquisitions.
The Japanese government says it has pursued the Big Bang because it desperately needs to get its economy going again, and to do so it needs to make Tokyo a financial capital on a par with New York and London. The pressure is building because Japan is an aging society and it needs to finance the retirement of its Baby Boom generation.
In position papers and briefing sessions with reporters, Japan's Finance Ministry insists that it is committed to making the financial system "free, fair and global."
"It's a very, very major alteration to take this financial system that was so heavily protected and try to open it up to the world," said Walter Altherr, an analyst in Tokyo at Jardine Fleming Securities. "Japan's powers that be have decided they would rather have 60 percent of something than 100 percent of nothing."