AS I wrote a few weeks ago, I have been reading a lot of articles recently on education, CEO skills, Vietnam as the major beneficiary of diversification of production and manufacturing outside China, tech companies hiring a lot of economists and more. I ask myself, why are our business news so abysmal in comparison? What do we mostly read in the business pages and press in the Philippines — who is screwing or trying to screw who competitively, which business leaders are currying favor with the government (no change in headline there — everyone as has always been in the case, the question always is who are succeeding), events are usually new malls, real estate developments, and retail establishments, plus what are we importing and on what terms? Worst of all for me are the society and personality pages masquerading as faux business news. Comparing that with the articles I referred to on what is being reported and analyzed outside the Philippines implies the need among many other things for wholistic thinking and analysis. This is sorely lacking in our one-dimensional approach to issues where we seek the one default answer when most issues and answers are partial and nuanced. What are some of these articles telling us? While the progressive parts of the world and companies are playing chess, are we playing checkers?

China’s great economic story

China has long found its own way to become the greatest economic story for mass wealth creation in history for its growth over the last 50 or so years from Deng Xiaoping’s reforms from the late 1970s to today. I previously quoted that from 1960 to 2021, GDP per capita in China grew from $90 to $12,556, or nearly 140 times. By contrast, we grew from $286 to $3,549, or 12.4 times or less than 10 percent of the growth rate of China. It is not just China either. By contrast, Thailand grew 71.6 times and India 27.8 times. Even the already rich US grew 22 times over that period. My source for the data is macrotrends. net and I quoted that and more in my column last Aug. 25, 2022.

Look at the New York Times article published September 26, “For China’s auto market, electric isn’t the future. It’s the present.” It clearly shows what happens when you have long-term goals, execution and results. They did not just leave it to the private sector as moving from the internal combustion engine to electric and hybrid vehicles was imperative and could not be left to market forces on whether it succeeded or not. Let me quote from the article.

“This year, a quarter of all new cars purchased in China will be an all-electric vehicle or a plug-in hybrid. There are, by some estimates, more than 300 Chinese companies making EVs, ranging from discount offerings below $5,000 to high-end models that rival Tesla and German automakers. There are roughly four million charging units in the country, double the number from a year ago, with more coming.

“While other EV markets are still heavily dependent on subsidies and financial incentives, China has entered a new phase: Consumers are weighing the merits of electric vehicles against gas-powered cars based on features and price without much consideration of state support. By comparison, the United States is far behind. This year, the country passed a key threshold of EVs accounting for five percent of new car sales. China passed that level in 2018.”

‘It’s not a subsidy thing’

How did they achieve it? The three paragraphs I will quote are full of insight. “It took China more than a decade of subsidies, long-term investments, and infrastructure spending to lay the foundation for its electric vehicle market to start standing on its own. Tu Le, a managing director of the Beijing-based consultancy Sino Auto Insights, said competition and dynamism are now driving the Chinese market, not government subsidies. “We have reached a point in China where we’re competing on price. We’re competing on features. So it’s not a subsidy thing,” Mr. Le said. “The market is taking over.”

China’s top leader, Xi Jinping, declared in 2014 that the development of electric vehicles was the only way that his country could transform “from a big automobile country to an automobile power.” Underscoring its ambitions, China set an aggressive goal: 20 percent of new car sales would be electric vehicles by 2025. China will most likely fly by that target this year, three years ahead of schedule. Already the biggest EV market, China also has one of the fastest growing, with sales expected to double this year to about six million vehicles — more than the rest of the world combined.

Of the world’s top 10 best-selling EV brands, half are Chinese, led by BYD, which lags only Tesla in global market share and is starting to ship its electric cars abroad. And it’s not just the car sales that are thriving in China. The Chinese battery manufacturers CATL and BYD are the biggest players in the industry, while Beijing holds a tight grip on access to critical raw materials.”

Incentive, investment, goals

Read the first sentence again. It is the opposite of the Washington Consensus and leave-it-to-theprivate-sector types. Subsidies, investments and infrastructure investments to lay the foundation. Then when it reached a critical mass that was set forth in the plan, market forces can take over. A blend of incentive, investment and goals. Not Darwinist free markets or perpetually coddled and protected favorites either. We have one or the other. Plus, the integration of components needed to manufacture electric vehicles. Think this is only China? Vietnam is doing the same with its own electric cars.

We can argue with justification that given our no-manufacturing, all-import mentality, we can’t even aspire for that. What can we realistically aspire for with the same type of long-term planning, execution and goals? Look at this article from Bloomberg published on September 26: “Flight orders out of Hong Kong leap 400 percent; up 7,300 percent to Osaka.” Where are they looking to go? Note Manila is the closest outside of Taiwan and Southern China, with the former only beginning to open and the latter still closed. The top five destinations, according to Trip.com, are Osaka up 7,300 percent, Tokyo up 1,385 percent, Seoul 700 percent, Bangkok 628 percent, and Singapore 197 percent. We are the closest and can’t even make the top 5. In an area where we could have prepared, or at the very worst copied as best we could what Thailand did, what did we do? Whatever it was I don’t know, and it does not seem to have worked. Let’s assume we are 20 to 25 percent of the bookings of Thailand out of Hong Kong. Back to where we were in 2019 or worse. Did we take the opportunity to gear up and upgrade? Nothing. I will save for another article the moves companies are making especially in the convergence of education, tech and leadership. While we wrangle over imports vs subsidies or some muddle of both in agriculture, going back to bilingual education which no major country does versus improving comprehension and quality. Plus bringing back ROTC. If we want to be realistic in integrated development for either necessity or ability, let’s work on something wholistic for agriculture, mining, tourism and education.