(一)
Thinker : As a middle-sized economy like Taiwan, peer comparison should target Nordic countries(Finland, Sweden and Norway) and South Korea**.you always compare Taiwan with Mainland China

Chiron>>> 我想Thinker先生可能未必了解台灣政經環境，本版許多有心之士熱切於中台間經濟議題；乃是憂心於台灣對中國的過度投資及反對所謂「大中華經濟圈」、「產業垂直分工」、「經濟統合」諸論調。上述論調在過去幾年來，由於統派媒體政客及你所謂「新自由經濟學者」的推動與蔚成台灣經濟政策主流，而諸如本版中多位各方專業人士精論被統媒壓抑下；無法揭示大眾。
實際上；你多項看法與台灣統媒力倡者相符，市井小民皆可朗朗誦之。未經檢證的政策議論，影響民氣之深，令人憂懼。
所以；我們的發言與您的質疑是兩碼子事。

(二)
Thinker: 台灣的經濟問題, 是缺少世界級品牌和龍頭企業,

Chiron>>>品牌與龍頭企業是上述問題的充要條件(sufficient condition)，非必要條件(necessary condition)。
如你所說的低價競爭也是一策略，另外；有些台灣電腦廠商提出了代工鏈品牌概念以彌補終端消費品牌的欠缺也是另一種思考。
有人會認為價格戰再怎麼也比不上中國，我們看法是；以價格與品質為競爭要素衡量下，台灣產品不見得一定比中國製缺乏競爭性。許多電子產品人工成本佔比例很低，台灣政府如能嚴格控管生管技術外移，更會消彌中國價格優勢。 現今市場；許多美日韓場商在中國產製品售價都比台製高。

另外，消費端品牌建立的確很重要，但這必需建立在堅實的技術研發基礎(必要條件)。

(三)
Thinker: 內銷市場受兩岸政治問題的困擾.如果台灣堅持獨立, 潛在的大陸市場回淪為國際市場. 相反,如果兩岸在政治和經濟上能夠朝融合的方向發展, 台灣企業則可以借勢壯大實力,成為大型企業,然後在向國際化發展.

Chiron>>>我們要明確的指出：今天版上菁英所有議論多是站在健全台灣總體經濟與廣大受薪階層及眾多小型內需企業發言，這是構成台灣的主體階層。
對大小資本家；企業外移中國也許是契機，但是資本外移非常不利臺灣全體居民。資本家利益與國家利益不一定平行是個常識不用贅述。
然而；台灣有許多統媒大言企業前進中國美景混淆民眾對自身利益之判別。

另；所謂靠大陸市場壯大，我們相當不茍同。您有提過南韓廠商前進中國事例， 還有中國試圖在許多產品另立法規及中國政府諸多作為；可以知道：中國並不願意將國內市場讓予他人，中國人也不會忍受其他國家以科技產品在中國市場進行列強割據，更不想看到外人在自己土地上賺走大把鈔票。
不要跟我說什麼台灣中國是什麼國內國外，對中國人而言台灣是國內國外的判別準則在於如何才能從台灣人身上括到錢或利益。
請不要跟我們說方便麵樣板，那不過五十萬台商之一，也只號稱拿回一億台幣。請您看看電腦及IT產品，台灣品牌廠商在中國市場又能沾到什麼利益。

「中國是個生產基地，不是個市場。」

(四)
Thinker: 台灣的困境是企業規模小,研發的力量太分散, 此技術這條路回很難.

Chiron>>>以現況企業體制與政府效能言，台灣走技術路確實比南韓更具瓶頸。
但是臺灣擁有豐沛的科技人力，並沒有得到充分的運用。台灣教育水平與人力素質均高。如果得到一有遠見領導者，妥善規劃國家產業發展方向，整合中小企業資源，產業水平是有脫胎換骨機會。

(五)
Thinker:實際上韓國和日本的很多技術也是從歐美進口的,這些歐美技術企業同樣可以出售給大陸企業. 日韓的經濟前景也是相當的嚴峻的. 但是大陸WILL NOT 止步,

Chiron>>>「實際上韓國和日本的很多技術也是從歐美進口」這句話二十年前可講，但現況不完全相符。您倒可跟我講；倒底現在有那些技術日韓非依賴歐美不可？ 南韓的研發經費近年來都居世界第一，日韓與中國的商品科技只有拉大距離跡象。

(六)
Thinker:目前FDI達到500億美元/年,更強的競爭還在後面. 這主要是有兩點決定的(1)很多跨國公司自去年以來,開始在大陸設立研究和開發中心,這意味著核心技術開始向中國轉移, 使得中國將來有勢力在高端向歐美發起挑戰. (2)大陸在海外40萬留學生已經逐步開始回流, 會提高大陸企業在觀念和全球視野方面水平.

Chiron>>>中國的文盲率與低教育水平，中國人許多觀念仍停留在科舉帝制時代。看不出在著重精確效率創意現代精神的商品科技裡；未來中國有超歐趕日的痕跡。

(七)
Thinker:在殘酷的低成本競爭和潛在的高技術競爭面前, 台灣企業應保持什麼心態, 怨天尤人有用嗎? 關起門來發展可行嗎? 真正的強者應該不畏懼的迎接挑戰,不要用意識形太來指導經濟發展.
台灣發展高科技, 有沒有技術儲備, 市場機遇和專門人才? 如果投資大陸所代表的低端發展被放棄, 而高科技沒有短期的效果, 靠什麼吃飯? 分散投資風險, 有沒有合適的替代地點(我THINK INDIA, RUSSIA, BRAZIL在成本上都競爭不過大陸,而政治經濟風險並不小於大陸)?
最可怕的是,台灣不投資大陸, 而台灣的經濟對手投資大陸然後與台灣企業在國際市場競爭怎麼辦?

Chiron>>>我們不曉的 「關起門來發展」 所言為何？
比較中國、印度、東歐、東南亞與南美的投資環境優劣；不是你講我講算數。
以世界各國對中國投資比例而言，台灣對中國投資比率嚴重高出數倍。
在九零年中期前，中國常不是美日最大投資地，日本對印度投資有時甚至高過中國。台灣對中國投資傾向有嚴重被政治力鼓舞引導現象，投資虧損率也遠超過成功率。台商過度對中投資，正是以「意識形態來指導經濟發展」。

另外；台灣政府如能嚴格控管生管技術外移，更會消彌中國價格優勢。現今市場；許多美日韓場商在中國產製品售價都比台製高，只要台商不外移回打本國，我們不怕對手國在中國生產。

(1) I do not disagree you on this point. My original intention is to warn against the mood in this forum to attribute Taiwans economic woes purely on the business ties with Mainland China. An objective approach is to study how other mid-sized economies adjust their economic policies in the face of globalization and IT recession. For example, Finland and South Korea also invest heavily in China. How do they strike the balance between off-shore investment and internal development? If Taiwans percentage of off-shore investment is higher than normal level, is it owing to economic structure or governmental policy? I believe it is primarily a result of economic structure of Taiwan. Unlike South Korea and Finland, Taiwan do not have giant Brandnames, which could survive even on a relatively high production costs. Those small and mid-sized Taiwan enterprise can either go westward or southward to survive. In terms of government policy, I think it is not in favor of Mainland China. However, the financial crisis in 1997 in southern countries reveal the attraction of westard investment.

(2)You are right to point out that labour costs only account for a small percentage of the total costs in some high-tech industries. But not all enterprises in Taiwan are engaged in high-tech industries. I do not think Taiwan labour could compete with Mainland counterparts in clothing, shoes and toy industries. Even in seemingly high-tech IT industries, labour with good eyesight and adroit hands can play an important role in some very special assemably lines. Furthermore,do not forget the liberal labour system in Mainland. In some countries(including India), it is hardly possible for investors to adopt the hire and fire employment policy.

(3)If Mainland China is not a big consume market, how can it accumulate an import value of 250 billion US dollars in 2001? If Taiwan companies cannot sell to the market, it is primarily due to the weak competitiveness of their products rather than market entrance constraints. The top three brands of mobile phone in China are all overseas, the top-selling automobiles are all overseas, lab-top computers, camera, films, soft drinks, digital vedios are all from overseas. How many Taiwanese companies can produce decent brandname in these markets? The lack of brandnames is the strategic shortcoming of Taiwan economy. However, even without the brandnames, Taiwan still benefits from a trade surplus of over 20 billion US dollars, which testifies to the increasing size of Mainland market.

(4)It is easier said than doing for the government to overhaul the R%D in Taiwan. In the competition for R%D strength, the key is to borrow foreign brains rather than only using your own brains. No matter how wise Taiwanese may be, the population is still limited. The strength of US IT industry is the combination of India, China, Russia and other immigrating brains. Does Taiwan have a open-door policy? Besides, government can never replace private sector in high-tech research. If the synergy is weak among loosely linked small enterprises, the government intervention will be a waste of public money.

(5) South Korea registers a trade deficit of 10 billions US dollars with Japan each year, because it relies upon Japan for key components and technologies. Japan is famous for applying R&D; results to commercial production but weak in technology innovation. It spent huge money on High-difinition TV and only found the products obsolete even before massive production. Digital technologies originating in US has easiy defeated them in the competition. Japan also lost out in the so-called fifth generation of computers. The combination of Windows and Intel still dominates the computer industries. Korea mobile phone producers purchase the key patents from United States. I do not deny that they are catching up very fast. My point is that in some industries traditionally dominated by Korea and Japan, like motorbike, shipbuilding, television, oven, washing machine, air-conditioner, fridgs, DVD, VCD, telephone, PC etc. their techology gap over China is being quickly eroded. Many Chinese enterprises have gradually copied their models of buying patents from US or Europe and commercializing them on low costs mass production. In view of the traditional strength in mathematics and engineering education in China, it is not impossible for Mainland China to leapfrog over some patents owned by Korea and Japan enterprises. For example, Japan and Korea have lost out in the competition for DVD market, where China has the largest share in the world.

(6)I will not argue with you about the average education level in China. When it comes to per capital figure, China is often close the bottome in world ranking. For instance, the per capital share of water, farmland and oil reserves. However the absolute total figure is still sizable. Each year universities in China churn out 2 million graduates. According to my experience, the majority of Chinese students perform better than Koreans and Japanese in US universities. I do not know how you drew your conclusion. Firstly, there is no such system as examination into officialdom. There is only examination for entry-level public servants. Secondly, I did not say S&T; capabilities of Chinese enterprises had already overtaken Japanese and Korean counterparts. I only stressed that the establishment of R£D center by multimationals will pave the way for the emergence of indegenious research capabilities, which is an important condition for future development in the high-end industry.

(7) The challenge is not necessarily cost competition. As I mentioned, many Taiwan enterprises do not have brandname and therefore could not survive on their own. They must secure a place in the global supply chain of multinationals. If Taiwan enterprises do not invest in China, they are going to be replaced by their rivals closer to the market and knowlegable about local conditions.

(1)
Finland與SK對中投資額與GDP比；無法與台灣相提並論。
台灣對中國投資嚴重失衡與你有關「台灣中小企業缺乏品牌競爭需外移圖存」敘述無關。世界主要國家對各區域投資遠比台灣均衡，不獨亞洲；南韓中小企業在南美洲，東歐國家投資很踴躍，甚至涉足非洲。在這些地方投資廠家，台灣差南韓甚遠。

過去台灣「南向政策」只是李登輝總統唱獨腳戲，連、蕭陽奉陰違，加上統派政客媒體拼命扯後腿，南向政策未真正執行過。金融危機發生，只是統派找到攻李南向政策著力點而已。所以南向政策並未招募多少廠家南下，金融危機發生後也沒多少廠家由南亞遷中國。倒是統媒日日宣揚南向失策，大構西進美景。台灣統派行徑需歸功貴國政府統戰工作，這正是你所謂「意識形態來指導經濟發展」。

所以對中投資嚴重失衡與政治力介入有極大關係。

另外；如果你對台灣資訊仍來自「台灣新華社」中國時報，或「台灣人民日報」聯合報；對台灣現實認識將有很大差距。這兩報記者多是一班蠢材，除了空搖筆桿外，沒什麼知識內涵，聽其言語有如觀小兒講道。

(2)
台灣電子產品佔出口值一半，台商電子廠商在中國產值直逼本土。這之中多數沒有明顯勞工成本效益者，亦即無迫切外移需要者。

投資環境良窳；不僅決定於明眼巧手，視歐美日韓對全球投資分佈可更客觀知曉。

對中國集中投資只是讓企業反全球化，縮進區域化。

另外；尋求低成本製造地阻斷廠商技術創新的動機。本人1990年前幾年，接觸過許多台灣廠商，多數言及公司研發升級急迫性。91年後卻互問何時移中國？ 主管經濟官僚的便宜行事與統派運作對中國投資開放，正是這噩夢的肇始。台灣中小企業不僅升級動力全無，更爭相將資產移往中國。

實際上；多數國家在中國產製品價格常比台製品貴，台商的敵手通常是台商。部份台商將中國製品運回台灣貼上「Made in Taiwan」或「Design in Taiwan」外銷，使得國際買家與消費者混淆了中國製品與台製品的品質，進而壓縮了台製、中製的價差空間。這種惡性的毛利壓縮，促使其於台商不得不跟進外移中國，從而提高中國製品生產技術。在買主眼中；是否台製品與不重要，價格才能決定訂單。

外移廠商的惡性競爭，促使產業群聚出走。

(3)
台灣2000年進口值是140billion USD中國市場只比台灣大一倍。
另外；台灣對中國的surplus從那來，想先生心知肚明。相關看法請參考Simon先生貼文。

對國際品牌；中國市場常是在外國政治壓力下開放。而且多數中國製產品層次相差甚遠者。
然而；不論有無品牌，台灣無政治籌碼，臺灣品牌無法橫掃中國是個事實。

以上緣故；
台灣要靠中國市場壯大的論調是荒誕不經。

(4)
自產業西移風起後，台灣研企業發經費佔GDP比 並未明顯升高。
台灣多的是科技人力，碩士現場值班是常態，博士終日畫工程圖不罕見。台灣產業水平停滯，使得科技人力未充分利用。不須言引進中國研究人力，如果台灣能提供一展長才環境，一堆矽谷人正整裝回國。

另外；以政府力量整合協助中小企業研發，不獨台灣為之；日本政府新振興經濟方案亦列入。言及浪費納稅人錢是雞蛋挑骨頭，有強詞之嫌。

(5)
新科技商品中零組件相護授權是很自然的事，南韓無論在3G通訊局端與用戶端的技術已達世界前茅，顯示器及多項電腦零件幾乎可全製，這非著重裝配的中、台可比。家電產品，日韓均走差異化與品牌化路線，市場擴及歐亞非，這也與中國製品全然不同。汽車、化工等重工業；兩國的基礎都不是中國一朝可及。

你所誇示諸項中國第一產品，不獨中國可造，東南亞諸國亦可。中國的優勢不在這些產品的技術，而在成本。反觀韓國技術層次；在世人眼中與你們位列不同。

當然中國在新產業上；由於美國回來科技人士努力，也會有進展。但別忘了，當我們追趕時，別人腳步也未曾稍歇。

一在強調中國人腦力優勝，是一件極可笑的事。

(6)
人多不代表有效率或更具實力。印度人才也很多，但產業表現不彰。以色列600萬人，確在產業科技上屢屢創新。產業技術發展，研發人才眾多只是條件之一。

反觀；從業人員的教育水平與文化；在在影響生產與商業活動。對中國；我們在這方面沒看到樂觀的理由。

(7)
「台灣中小企業不外移中國，就會被接進市場或知曉市場的對手國取代」這種論述不合邏輯。

台灣產業若須外移，也不一定移中國。全球化更重要。
南韓中小企業都可大量外移中南美，為何台灣不行。
何況外移不是唯一出路。

希望先生日後討論稟棄政治意識，為國盡忠不需圖此。

It would be much appreciated if you could drop the title Mr. I am not old enough to be addressed in such a formal way. Answering my posting in such a detailed way already confers me sufficient respects. I am very interested in the new information from your end.

(1) My favourite readings include economist, far eastern economic review, financial time and wall street journal. Although not an economist by training, I have developed an amature hobby of studying economic issues.

The south korean example seems to me not convincing enough. It is a worldwide obstacle for small and mid-sized enterprises to engage in international business, let alone overseas investment. Owing to the shallow capital base and weak marketing prowess, small enterprises cannot withstand the associated risks of international trade. Normally, they become member of the supply chain of multinationals or sold directly to domestic market. I wonder whether you could substantiate your reference to success investment stories by small South Korean companies. The emergence of e-commerce does provide a new channel for international trading among small business. However, the success of e-cluster model still hinges upon a third-party authentification.

Assuming you have some prior experience in private business, you must be able to understand the motivation behind investment decisions. Business people will not invest because of government or media propaganda. Small enterprise are particularly cautious since all their money are hard-earned rather than raised in the capital market. The reason why Taiwan small investors flush into China market could only be accounted for by two reasons: (1) China does represent a place that offer good investment returns (2) Taiwan government fails to create a new economic model that could offer equally profitable investment channels in Taiwan.

To spread the investment risks, vietnam is the second best destination except for its weak infrastructure. South America is a definitely high-risk region in view of its volatile currency system and notorious superinflation. Central Europe is natural backyard of western European countries owing to geographic location. Some much-publizied Korean Investment stories in central Europe have turned sour in the past several years. The financial crisis in 1997 has cut the cheap source of finance for Dawoo subsidiaries and eventually led to its bankruptcy. The automobile market is still dominated by the VW Skoda based in Czech Repulic. Indonesia has a history of discriminating local Chinese in a violant way.

(2) Give you some examples of big-tickets overseas investment in IT industry of China. Motorola announced to invest 30 billion US dollars in the next five years in China. Microsoft has established in China its second overseas subsidiary including the full gamut of research, production, marketing and services. A recent agreement with Chinese government will commit Microsoft to investing 6.2 billion RMB on the training of local IT engineers and students, through cooperation with leading universities and companies. Nokia has invested 10 billion RMB in Beijing to develop the Starlight IT industrial Park and facilitate the clustering of telecommuncation vendors in China. The value of electronic products manufactured by LG in China already surpassed domestic plants last year.

It is misleading to argue that China alone could successfully entice Taiwan investors to mainland. Actually, these multinationals are forcing Taiwan members of their supply chain to move across the strait. If they refuse to go, their rivals will take their places quickly.

(3) Your evidence defeat your arguement on this point. ^-^

Do you seriously think your data on import could help you deny the existence of mainland market. On the contratry, your evidence conveniently domenstrates which side is benefiting more from the trade. Taiwan closes its door while floods Mainland with Taiwan products. Actually, some mainland scholars have already raised doubts about the wisdom of this lopsided trade situation. China could manage a trade surplus even with such a tough exporter like Japan, but accept the huge imbalance with Taiwan. It is a political rather than economic decision.

Besides, it is not accurate to use import figure to describe Chinas market. Many foreign investors conduct business in local currencies and sell to local markets from their local plants. These business activities could not be captured by Import and Export data.

(4)Undoubtedly, Taiwan boasts some top IT brains in the world. Notwithstanding that, it is far from enough to develop International Brandnames. The failure of Acer to win the competition with Dell or even Legend(China brand) in Asia indicates it is short of international marketing and brand managing talents. You need to borrow the brains of foreign marketers to become successful multinationals. Engineers returning from Silicon Valley could not compensate for this gigantic lack of marketing talents. Even Mainland enterprises have learnt the importance of using foreign brains. For example, the top TV producer, TCL, has one Korean and one Japanese in its executive management team.

(5) How much do you know about the third-generation of mobile phone technology? Do you know that one of three international standards TD-CDMA belongs to a Chinese company? Do you know which company has the largest share of optical-fibre and programmed switcher market in Asia? It is a private company based in mainland.

Objectively speaking, South Korea and Taiwan are ahead of China in some selected industries. But you give the wrong examples. South Korea is ahead of China in memory drums, LCD and high-end shipbuilding. Taiwan is ahead of mainland China in chip manufacturing and some computer systems. But the technology gap is not as insurmountable as you might imagine. After all, all these IT engineers study in US universities and sharpen their tricks in US laboratories. Why mainland students could not follow suits? Besides, rapid technical breakthrough offers the chance for newcomers to frogleap over old guards. For instance, if quantum computers or biological computer technologies make breakthroughs, all the industries based on silicon will be outdated. If you compare the number of Chinese students studying in USA with the number of Korea students, you can foresee that big challenges lie ahead for them in the next decade.

When it comes to industrial development, the absolute number of engineers does make the difference.

(6) agree.
China needs to overhaul its economic structure to fully tap its potentials.
To be frank, I am not so optimistic as you probably envision.

But when you look back on the track record over the past 20 years, even people in China would not image that they could possibly achieve so much in such a short time. 20 year ago, urban dwellers had to use coupons to buy everything from cloth, salt, grains, soap, sugar, fish, coal and to all the daily necessities. Every family was rationed 2 kilograms of port per month. The change of new clothing is a luxury reserved only for lunar festival. It was really a miserable life in material terms.

The biggest change is peoples mindset. Many political and economic taboos have been dismantled since 1980. The liberation of minds is the most important driving force behind economic development. This liberation is being accelerated by the day and nobody could arrest its momentum. Who can predict how far China will progress down the road in the next decade? An ancient Chinese politician observed that countries thrive in crises and threats, but perish in complacency and indulgement.

The possibility of collapse does exist, even for United States. US dollar is apparently over-valued, the book-cooking practice of many big companies could damage investors confidence. Traditionally, Chinese people tend to reply upon families rather than government support. I think people could find a way out of troubles even if collapse occurs. The chance is becoming smaller without expected external intervention.

(7) Already answered in (1)

I have neither suspected your identity nor attempted to teach you a lesson and look forward to a reciprocal treatment from you.

I was stupid enough to join your title and began the ensuing debate with four briliant brains HitCat, Simon, Chiron and Nobody at the same time. Are you satisfied with my source of information in another post?

From now on, I can post one response per day at maximum. Otherwise, I will be fired by my boss for distraction from work.

欣見你對產業狀況了解。

由於養成教育之故，不少台灣純經濟學者與理工知識實務上有著巨大鴻溝。這現象深深影響他們對科技與產業的了解，也沒法弄清台灣產業在世界上真正地位及各產業發展關鍵或與競爭者差距，因此台灣許多產業政策議論極不實際。很遺憾；這些學者有德高望隆者；如Hitcat兄敬愛的老師。雖然；他也是我敬重的人。
這些有心學者；憂國憂民，戮力諫言；然而台灣經濟發展之途日露敗跡，令人不知該感激或苛責。

拾起感嘆，提勁回文；

(1) 贊同你所說台灣政府在致力產業結構提升上很失敗，但是縱容台商非理性對中投資，促使產業群落外移則是失敗主要導因。

非理性投資起緣於接受大量訊息灌輸，引起風潮，臺灣統媒在其中扮演重要角色。

另外；投資行為的誘因不單尋廉價成本，另有接近市場之故。在美州區域經經濟整合成果已有：南方共同市場(MERCOSUR)、中美洲共同市場(CACOM)、安地諾集團協定 (ANDEAN GROUP) 外，北美自由貿易區 (NAFTA)亦訂於2005年延伸至拉丁美洲，成為美洲自由貿易區 (FTAA)。各項資料顯示；南韓廠商對這趨勢頗在意，投資金額與廠家比台灣高甚多。2000年；南韓在中南美洲投資額竟近總對外投資金額35%。在中美洲某國；有南韓成衣廠三四百家，台灣投資者只十幾家。進年來外資急速湧入的墨西哥韓商投資也遠比台商踴躍。

對中南美語言與文化隔閡是台商怯步第一要因，然而這些並非難以克服，多數心理障礙罷了，您英文能力如此好應可體會所言。台商能單隻皮箱闖鄰國，到中南美也不應成問題。台灣政府對西語、葡語人才的訓練，對中南美州政商情資訊的放送，可引動投資信心。

實地了解中南美台商狀況者多認為；多數廠商營運獲利良好，不像多數中國投資者；虧損率6~8成。

有關中國市場風險有許多討論，您單獨樂觀並無說服力。以數字說明而言，台商每年在中國被謀財喪命者眾多，被欺詐者更不知凡幾。反觀在印尼，不曾聽過有被殺或傷者，在東南亞也極罕見。如有；多為華人所害。在中南美洲，更沒聽過。

投資風險由以上可見一般。所以；

台商對中國投資嚴重脫離歐、美、日、韓對該國風險評估，分散投資地是台灣對外投資的重要課題。

(2) 中國政府在通訊產業上的努力大家看得到。你所舉例僅手機業有影響，但是台灣電子業手機零組件產出金額比率不大。

回主題；
由於人工成本佔比率低，多數電子廠之外移不具必要性。

(3) 多數台商放棄耕耘台灣本地或南韓市場，認為規模太小。何況以中國僅大台灣一倍之市場，幅員廣度、市場複製度遠超過台灣。

更印証我們討論主題；

台商靠中國市場壯大論調不確實際。

(4) 認同你的看法，台灣需要國際行銷人才，有些廠商已進行中。

但回歸之前議論；

台灣目前無引用中國大陸人才需要。

(5)南韓在CDMA的世界領先地位 無討論餘地。

中國的TD-CDMA規格 是西門子幫忙建立，也展現中國不願將市場拱手他人的企圖，然而中國的手機業者掌握技術仍如皮毛。

南韓對電腦重要設備技術掌握不下台灣，如硬碟機、印表機各重要組件、高階數位相機；這都不是台灣所及的，希望您能了解更詳細。

如果你將中韓產業技術差距不大觀點說予國際業內人士聽，會被視為笑柄。

反之，台灣與中國的產業技術差距不大是個事實。所以；

台灣有人喊「垂直分工」一樣不實際。

對話到此, 兩岸的經濟情況已經清楚多了.

(1) 台灣制造業外移造成內部失業是一個不爭的事實, 但是開出的藥方不一定正確. 你建議的投資南美可解決對大陸貿易依存度的問題, 但是畢竟還是移出去了, 內部還是有失業.

(2) 大陸技術和經濟落後於台灣和韓國,我想沒有人能否認,道理很簡單, 大陸的起步晚了近
30年, 追趕起來不是一個簡單的任務. 現在主要靠廉價勞力來積累資金和管理經驗,另外還有一個所謂後發優勢的理論, 大致意思是借鑒別人成功的經濟發展模式, 超捷徑. 這在實踐上還有待檢驗.

(3) 大陸人喜歡引用毛澤東的一局名言, 戰略上藐視敵人, 戰術上重視敵人, 不要未開戰,就自己先認輸. 韓國可能在某些產業上確實先走一步, 但是不要被他們嚇倒, 台灣人為什麼不能超過他. 我想大中華經濟圈的說法其實意思是想利用一種資源上的組合優勢, 利用台灣的技術,香港的金融, 大陸的勞力和市場來和其他對手競爭. 反對的人, 認為台灣應該和日本或美國進行組合, 其實都是一種選擇. 如果和日本組合, 資源的匹配性如何, 台灣有哪些日本所不具備的優勢? 可能目前日本對台灣的定位仍是一個技術和產品的出口市場. 如果和美國組合, 主要是加入其電子產業的供應鏈, 代工或貼牌. 但是仍然受美國品牌的制約. 這兩種組合都不能幫助台灣向南韓進行實質性的挑戰. 或許還有一個選擇是台灣內部的資源組合, 就是向韓國那樣, 由政府出面, 組織幾個大財團, 推出LG, SAMSUNG那樣的世界品牌. 這就要克服很多華人企業所常用的家族經營模式, 廣納人材, 也要有承擔失敗的心理準備. 其實我的一篇貼子中已經介紹了韓國經濟的近況, 沒有什麼神秘和可怕的.

(4) 大陸的危機感實際並不比台灣人低, 很多人也擔心經濟出大問題. 但是也有亮點, 比如說, 政府領導團隊有較強的國際視野, 有一個務實的經濟學家擔任總理, 老百姓有知恥而後勇的謙虛態度,向先進國家學的很快, 全民學英語的熱潮可能是台灣人難以想象的. 我想大陸即使不能對台灣的經濟發展給予助力, 也絕對不會拖後腿的. 從長遠來看, 大陸的經濟規模決定它不可能以台灣企業作為競爭對手, 眼睛釘著的還是日本和美國.

如果〝競爭對手〞真是由〝經濟規模〞決定的，那麼老美豈不是沒有〝競爭對手〞？

又為何〝經濟規模〞還明顯比中國小甚至還被中國笑不停的俄羅斯，已經是第G8的
候選人，但中國卻連排隊的資格在那裡都還不知道？

大陸的市場容量決定了在以下幾個行業和美國日本競爭, 汽車制造業, 航空航天, 造船業, 高速鐵路, 衛星通訊, 生物工程. 可能你們覺得這些方面大陸的勢力目前還不強, 但是畢竟有基礎, 要建立真正的大國地位, 必需要搞, 目前的投入也很大. 我的原意在這些大陸重點發展的行業不會和台灣發生競爭.

解釋G8問題

技術輸出之論是窮人裝派頭

倒是三十年來的外匯積蓄, 還可以揮霍一陣子