• smh Posted: 2/24/2010 11:00am PST

    Just because the Chinese government is not transparent doesn't mean outcome #3 is a "distinct possibility". In fact, since they are promoting green vehicles then by publicly blocking the Hummer deal they'd be sending a strong message to car manufacturers of what the government wants; this analysis is amateurish at best.

  • richard avatar Richard Posted: 2/24/2010 12:55pm PST

    @smh: I'm sorry, maybe I need more coffee, but I don't follow your logic. I wasn't saying that outcome #3 was likely BECAUSE the Chinese government lacks transparency. I was saying that of the three outcomes, #3 was the most viable one. China's oblique communications system didn't CAUSE the rejection; it simply explained why the negotiations had dragged on so long with no official word from Tengzhong or GM, who were likely trying to call in some last-minute favors to get Beijing to reconsider.
    _
    I agree that China is sending a message to automakers, but what that message is remains vague and pretty diluted. IMHO, it's not a "strong message" at all. If China aims to become a true economic powerhouse and innovator, it's going to have to do better at encouraging innovation, relaxing censorship, and being more open across the board. Otherwise, the central government will continue throwing money at growth programs until China becomes a failed, bankrupt state like its former peer, the USSR.