主题：【讨论】对总经理述职报告的部分内容的简单解读 -- wqnsihs
跨行业投资做得最好的是比亚迪。这些都不是国企。
您在这个方面的认识简直与您所痛恨的张维迎、吴敬琏们一样
下面忙总说的没错， 执政者要的是危机到来的时间、危机传递的路径和危机展开的方式，而不是一直的唱衰派。但这一次美国次贷危机伊始，对中国如何影响，我知道中国至少有一个人是预言得相当准确的：世经所的余永定。包括中国后来提出的SDR等等之类应对，据我所知也是他一直在推的。不知道现在上层能听他多少，是仅仅择其战术而用之（这个我们已经可以看到），还是进一步听其战略。
而且，其道也孤。别人不说，接触到他试图当作接班人培养的一个学生，一脑子新自由主义浆糊，比他的水平差了千里万里。
我常跟一些中国人同事聊天，发现不少人或多或少有着类似的经验——教学生做实验，一些规矩是千叮咛万嘱咐，但是，只要自己不盯着，那些学生就肯定会出错，并且，出的错就是那些叮咛和嘱咐所能避免的。百教不行，只好最后放羊——你玩你的吧，关键时刻还是得自己动手。
有的学生拖到最后没办法，只好由这些带人的中国人博士后或者其导师来“帮忙”写学位论文。
yes, thumbs up.
中国不缺人精, but China lacks professionals and professionalism.
Huawai's Ren started the consulting contract with IBM Consulting since 1999. Its current framework is mainly copied from IBM. 10 years of effort with millions of dollars and lots of internal opposition. That's why Huawei is so professional now.
Huawei is more like SONY, sounding like a Japanese firms, but is actually an American firm.
ZhongXin is a joke. Since my former classmate worked there as an executive, I heard too many funny stories about this firm. In sum, a "Tu Ba Lu" firm. You can not even find senior executives who can present a product solution to foreign clients in fluent English, with professional PPT. Deeply in heart, people there dislike HaiGui.
actually a finance 金融 professor, with speciality in corporate governance/ownership in Asia.
He is not an accounting expert, actually, therefore, not 是个财务出身.
In China, accounting is mixed into 财务. Outside China, accounting and finance are totally different.
BTW, his analysis of several scandalous firms focuses on complicated ownership structure--that's actually his area of expertise. Lots of tricks used by Delong has been used by European and Asian family businesses for long long time.
I lived in Europe for a while. That's why I have high regard for his analysis.
可惜GM、FORD不争气，这两个流程化生产的鼻祖和发明者倒闭或濒临要倒闭
GM and Chrysler filed bankruptcy, not Ford. You need to get facts straight first.
Second, they failed not because of standardized operating procedures--they failed because of heavy burden induced by the unionized workers and bureacratic senior management.
Keep in mind, one unionized American auto worker costs $74 per hour, while a Chinese GM production line worker costs much less per hour. IF AMERICANS HAVE THE SAME CHINESE LABOR RATE, GM US WILL NOT bankrupt at all.
A LOT OF CHINESE FIRMS EXCEL IN THE EXPORT MARKET NOT BECAUSE OF THEIR productivity or superior management. They have only one weapon: extremely low labor cost. That's it!
BTW, for small firms, Standardized Operating Procedures are waste of time--costs overweigh benefits. For large-sized firms, that's the backbone of any successful enterprise. SOP are appropriate only for large-sized firms.
中央的财源应该支持就业。
这方面应该借鉴欧美的经验，由政府出钱，“办个不赢利的培训中心，建立实验工场或对口实习企业”。
看电视，前几天Chairman Hu在珠海去一家职业学校，和一个德国老头聊，印象中这个德国人就来自一家这样的培训中心。
这个描述好。
可以扩展成“欧美日台提供核心研发能力，大陆提供边缘研发能力”。
现在许多行业是这个状况：大陆企业通过大量进口技术产品（元器件、核心部件），引进西方的核心研发能力，再开发（“二次开发”）加工成产品，或国内消费，或出口。也是这种关系把大陆和其它几家联在了一起，形成当前中西方贸易的主流格局。
今后呢？远的不说，2010年这种格局会打破吗？欧美日会停止向中国出口技术产品吗？可能不会：一般这些技术产品西方有多家公司能生产，要欧美日一致行动停止向中国出口好像不容易，这样今年中国的日子就不会有大问题。因为只要能获得技术产品，中国国内的经济循环就能正常运转。其它初级产品的贸易冲突只会影响到就业，可以用社会动员的办法解决。
但换个角度看：产业升级可以说成是“把边缘研发能力升级成核心研发能力”。这会冲击西方的核心竞争力，他们会怎么反应？
不过中国的产业升级进展应该不会太快，西方的企业在危机的冲击之下自顾不暇，应该不会想得这么远，西方的贸易保护这一两年应该还不会进一步限制向中国的出口，所以问题也不大。
山寨这个词首先出在计算机硬件业
10来年前广东小电子厂高仿大牌行货产品的代称
公布述职报告其实是在征求意见、摆事实、讲道理和诉苦，当然不是征求老百姓意见，也不是跟老百姓诉苦，这是中国政治的一贯操作方式。只要回忆一下文革《我的一张大字报》和90年代初的《东风吹来满眼春》就明白怎么回事情了。我认为根本、永远不可能开放舆论，除非出了戈尔巴乔夫这样的超级政治白痴。