Regarding Prof. Reich’s blog, I wondered about other reasons of China being a limited source of US export market and boosting US economy: (a) the huge gap between the rich and the poor in that country; (b) the limitation of US international marketing / business.

Regarding the huge income gap in China’s rich and poor as a source of limiting the country’s potential to help out US economy and job losses, Chinese rich live like the corresponding American rich. Chinese poor live like the corresponding African poor; they starve like poor Africans. Rather than high Chinese savings and investment rates, I wonder whether it may be the huge income gap between Chinese rich and poor that cancel out the potential of Chinese consumers as a whole to help out US. Years ago, I heard from a Chinese that, in poor rural China, there were even families that owned only one pants for 7-8 family members. So, whenever family members had to go out, each member took turn to wear that pants while the rest of family members stay home naked or without wearing pants. Of course, this is a side story compared to their starvation. This is the story of “Rural China” where there are few industrial bases and job sources to feed people. This Rural China story may be comparable to those of US cities or towns that have declining or disappearing industrial bases, less and less jobs available, and increasing homelessness and starvation, such as the conditions of mining towns or cities of declining car manufacturing. On contrast, in “Urban China” booming industries and jobs exist to support Chinese people to increasingly live like people in richer countries.

In case of my country of origin, South Korea, in the 1980s and early 1990s, the young generations of rich in their 20s lived like the corresponding age group in US, attending universities, partying, drinking, killing times for ultimate entertainments and dating, enjoying such spoiled lifestyles and consumption patterns. In contrast, the young generations of poor Koreans, such as sons and daughters of poor farmers or factory workers, were often involved with underground student/labor/political organizations and demonstrations against the military governments and social/political issues. They ran away from smoke bombs and got arrested during street demonstrations. They were blacklisted by the government and often tortured by police or military. Their story is maybe partially comparable to that of young terrorists in Middle Eastern countries.

What I am trying to say here is, the choices of lifestyles and consumption patterns seem to determined by the availability of money, not by nationality. The hierarchy of income levels and choices of lifestyles and consumption patterns within a country is exactly parallel to those across different countries regardless of nationality or different economic profiles of countries but more because of availability of money. I believe, human nature is the same all over the world.

Regarding US firms’ limitation of exploring foreign consumers, although US has the finest business schools such as Harvard Business School etc., either many US corporates haven’t utilized these human resources or these human resources forgot what they learned in school after their graduation and run business based on what they feel like or their personalities. Despite some exceptions, many US companies seem to only target domestic consumer and produce goods at corporate/executives’ convenience and needs (as shown by US auto industries), rather than considering / analyzing what consumers or competitors think and act. Some time ago, I read a review/rating of international travelers by, I think, French employees of tourism. They rated Japanese as most cordial and pleasant travelers, French most obnoxious (French travelers were even disliked by their only country fellows), and Americans being as the only nationality who insist to speak only English instead of learning the local languages even while traveling foreign countries. This attitude of American tourists may also explain the mentality of US corporate executives. The story of US corporate people in doing foreign business often sounds similar to that of American tourists. These American business people in foreign countries often don’t like to learn local languages and cultures. They prefer / expect the local people learn English to communicate with them. I may call it as “US Corporate Centralism” although there may be other terminologies given to this kind of behavioral, cultural pattern. Instead of providing goods that fit to the tastes, sizes, and consumption patterns of people in foreign countries, US corporates expect foreign consumers to adjust, adapt to the ways of American-made goods that US corporates produce and provide as they like.

Along with the role of exchange rates between China and US (which has been another huge issue between two countries over a decade) and China’s country profile, this American style of doing foreign business has been and may continue to be the major barrier of selling American goods in foreign countries. In the past, there had been strong, high demand for American goods all over the world. In South Korea, for example, Korean mothers got crazy to rush to OshKosh clothing stores in Korea if they had heard about those stores’ sales advertisements. Because those OshKosh children clothing were sold in Korea at 200%-300% higher prices than the original US prices and not easily available there, if those clothing store had had sales, their were crowds of mothers around those stores and many people behind the crowd even couldn’t look at the products and just wait until somebody toss behind some unwanted products. That’s what I heard from Korean mothers. US products have often meant status symbols for many consumers in developing countries because of the image of US as world super power and American products were not easily available there. Foreign people wished to have American products to show up to their friends and neighbors, but they couldn’t find them. US corporates probably didn’t know that because they were not interested in foreign markets and didn’t do market research, mainly serving US consumers with products that the corporate people like to produce. Without solving visible barriers in engaging in international business, are we supposed to keep talking about why Chinese consumers would not really help US economy and unemployment problem?