Welcome to Dr Lincoln's blog

Welcome for visiting my blog. Hope you enjoy the visit and always welcome back again. Have a nice day!


Flexibility and creativity key to resolving nuclear issues and tensions on the Korea Peninsula

Comments on Moon Chung-in, Seoul: “Diplomatically denuclearising North Korea”,

The author should be commended for this excellent proposal/approach as shown in this post. To achieve the paramount goal of denuclearisation in the Korea Peninsula, it may be necessary that everyone should do some compromise.
I think the offer of suspension of joint military exercises between the US and South Korea in conjunction with asking the North Korea to freeze its nuclear and missile programs is particularly constructive and very helpful, because it is a suggestion of a useful compromise from both of the opposite sides.
I think, depending on the progress in future negotiations of the relevant parties, it may also be helpful and desirable to consider some sort of security guarantee agreement. Such a guarantee may involve the four other parties outside the Korea Peninsula, namely the US, China, Russia and Japan, as guarantors.
Of course, such guarantee should not preclude the possibility of Korean unification, should both parties on the Korea Peninsula wish and agree to do so. But it should only be up to the two Koreas as opposed to any outsiders.
Once again, I highly commend the author for the excellent ideas presented in this post.


A good deal for China?

Comments on Dong Dong Zhang “What does their trade deal tell us about US–China relations?”, 24/05/2017

While it may be understandable that it seems from the post that the deal was very much one-sided, that is, give the US so much and China so little, given the so hard rhetoric Trump had against China for a while, I am still surprised the one-sided nature!

Is that really the case?

People have started talking about possible impeachment in the US now. How would people in China including its leadership view such a deal in the longer term in this context, that is, the Trump administration may not necessarily last for too long?



二什齋米辰峰 [转载]血淋淋的事实——中国要赶上美国还要多少年?的评论,21/05/2017:



Reforming the Hukou system requires more top-level design

Comments on Bingqin Li, UNSW: "China going nowhere on hukou reform", 19/05/2017

It is likely to be one of the most difficult reform tasks in China to reform its Hukou system, given the fragmented nature of government services responsibilities including school education and some other social security as mentioned by the author.
Acknowledging the difficulties, what does the author see is the most practical way or ways to undertake Hokou reforms?
Arguably, a top-level design should have a well considered and thought-through framework and practical ideas to go forward.
It may be helpful to have a coordination and adjustment program by the central government to facilitate the expansion and provision of services such as school education, in addition to the portable social security provisions. It may involve some additional funding from the central government, although a substantial part of that funding could come from those regions where there are net negative population migration, that is people/students are moving away to other regions.


US high-tech leadership offshoring?

Comments on Andrew Kennedy, ANU "Is the United States offshoring high-tech leadership to China?" 17/05/2017  

Could the author clarify the situation in the following paragraph please on whether it is more economical from the users’ point of view, that is, value for money given cheaper prices but shorter durability?  Quote from the post: “And fourth, overseas R&D often complements the work done at home, rather than substituting for it. Firms doing R&D abroad may be trying to tap into expertise not readily available in their home country, or they may be adapting products for foreign markets in an effort to promote local sales — a task more easily done in that market. Such adaptation may actually make a product less advanced. One global wind power firm, for example, re-designed its gearbox in China to make it less expensive — but in doing so it cut the durability of the product in half.”  The durability was cut by half, what about the price, was it cut by half or almost by half, taking into account compounding interest rate or discounted present value? 
It seems that there are both advantages and disadvantages for big tech firms to have some of their R&D activities in developing countries including China where the business environment including the effects of politics may not be as ideal as in their home countries or in developed countries. Certainly the challenges faced by multinationals in China raised in this post should give food for thought to China as it aims to develop into a developed country sooner or later. 
While the author is focused on whether the US is offshoring its high-tech leadership to China or not and obviously that is a very important issue both for the US and others involved including other developing countries, arguably there will be newcomers to the high-tech leadership roles from other countries and that will in turn in the future influence whether the US will offshore its leadership in this regard, won't it?