Chapter 28 Chapter Ten Our Lady of Guadalupe (3)

Is our culture helping to create these monsters?Our education system does not develop tolerance for other faiths, let alone followers of other Islamic sects of thought.This approach needs to change.What also needs to change is Saudi Arabian culture itself, and the fact that most of us do not accept other ways of life, but impose our own ideas on others.From 4th grade to 12th grade, instead of telling our kids that there are other civilizations in this world, that we are just part of a global community, we just repeat over and over that the Islamic Empire is the only one.This situation cannot continue any longer. "When it comes to economic activity, it's easy to forget that what drives a country's growth most is cultural tolerance. When tolerance becomes the norm of people's behavior, everyone benefits from it, because tolerance is the prerequisite for mutual trust. , and mutual trust is the foundation of innovation and entrepreneurial spirit. To increase the level of trust between different groups, different companies, or societies, there are only benefits and no harm.” The essence of Hinduism is to teach people to learn tolerance, and this culture has led to India as a whole prosperity. "Take a look at those Indians in Uganda who were ostracized by the dictator Idi Amin and accepted into tolerant British society. This group now produces more millionaires than any immigrant group in Britain. All that came out. Looking back in history, when the Islamic world learned tolerance, it prospered, as exemplified by Moorish Spain. But in contemporary times, some Islamic countries have been informed by certain spiritual leaders that they reject tolerance, reject Change or innovation. This ideology ended up delaying the economic development of many Islamic countries.

Here, we have to mention the flat coefficient that I once said.The truth is, the flatter the country, the poorer its natural resources like oil, the more people's culture tends to adapt to the demands of a flat world.Countries that are poor in natural resources are more receptive to new thinking as they evolve, because it is the only thing they can rely on for survival and progress. We are happy that culture is not only important to the development of society, but also the culture of a society can be changed.Cultures are not woven into our human DNA, they are a combined product of geography, education levels, leadership abilities and historical experience in each society.Since the various factors that form culture can change, culture itself can also change.In the last 50 years, Japan and Germany have transformed from highly militarized societies to pacifist and democratic societies.Bahrain is the first country in the Arab world to discover oil, and also the first country to run out of oil resources.In the end, Bahrain became the first Arab country in the Gulf region to implement democratic parliamentary elections, and women have the same right to vote and be elected as men.Spain, composed of followers of Muhammad, is one of the most tolerant countries in the history of the world. Spain is a country that advocates trade and business, where people have to rely on wisdom and learn to cooperate with others to make a living.And Saudi Arabia can live a rich life by selling oil.Therefore, Saudi Arabian law prohibits the construction of churches or temples of other faiths.

However, Dubai, which is next to Saudi Arabia, used its petrodollars to build trade centers, tourism centers, service centers and computer centers in the Gulf.Dubai is one of the world's most tolerant metropolises, where there seem to be more sushi and golf courses than mosques, and tourists don't even need visas.Yes, culture is very important, but culture is the product of social development, not the genes of human beings. Since society is constantly advancing and leaders constantly change their governance policies, culture can also be changed. Unseen and intangible Like many Indian-Americans, venture fund manager Dinick.Singh often returns to India to visit relatives at home. In the winter of 2004, he returned to New Delhi.A few months later, he told me that after returning home this time, he understood why India's economy as a whole had not made the leap, except in the high-tech sector.

“I lived on the 6th floor of a hotel in New Delhi,” he recalls, “but when I stood in front of the window, I could see far away. Why? Because in New Delhi, the elevator power supply is not guaranteed, so the buildings here will not very high." Farsighted investors don't build high-rise buildings in cities without electricity, or if the power goes out, you have to climb 20 flights of stairs.In such cities, the utilization rate of space is low due to the large area of ​​tiled low-rise buildings.I told Singer that his story reminded me of my trip to Dalian, China.I went to Dalian in 1999, and when I came here again in 2004, I couldn't recognize the city anymore.

There are many new buildings here, including many modern skyscrapers with glass curtain walls and metal structures.I began to wonder if I had been here in 1999.Then, I remembered that in the summer of 1974, I visited a middle school in Cairo. At that time, the three most famous buildings in the whole city were the Nile Sheraton Hotel, the Cairo Tower and the Egyptian Television Building. In 2004, even after 30 years, they are still the most famous buildings in the area.Cairo's skyline has changed little over the years.Whenever I return to Cairo, I know where I am and I won't get lost.Shortly after finishing my visit in Dalian, I came to Mexico City.I haven't been here for 5 years. After coming back this time, I feel that the city is much cleaner than I remember. I should really thank the mayor for his work.I also found some new buildings, but not as many as I expected, even though Mexico has been in NAFTA for 10 years.Also, I find my Mexican friends a little frustrated.They told me that Mexico had passed its peak, that growth would never be as high as before, and that people's self-confidence was fading.

So in New Delhi, no matter how it is built, you can see the sky at a glance in the city.In Cairo, the horizon never changes.But in China, if you go to a certain city after a year, its rapid changes will make you feel as if you have never been here.For Mexico City, when people feel good about themselves and are far ahead, they suddenly bump into China at the corner, only to realize that China is taking a different path, faster than themselves. How to explain the difference between the two?We know that the basic formula for economic success is: economic success = wholesale reform + retail reform + good management + good education + perfect infrastructure + the ability to combine globalization and localization.What we don't know is why some countries can mobilize all aspects at the same time to make them continue to function, while others cannot.Why the horizon of some countries can change very quickly, while the horizon of some countries has not changed for half a century.The only answer I could find was "the intrinsic capacity of the state".This ability mainly refers to the ability and willingness of the society to gather all resources and make sacrifices for economic development, as well as the willingness of the leaders of this society to seek development through power instead of seeking benefits for themselves or maintaining the status quo of society.Some countries and regions, such as South Korea and Taiwan, seem to be able to focus all their energies on economic development.Others, such as Egypt and Syria, are completely distracted by ideology and long-term rivalries between local powers.The leaders of some countries vigorously promoted the modernization of the country during their tenure, and did not seek any personal gain for themselves.

And in some countries, leadership positions can be bought with money. During their reign, these corrupt officials only focus on collecting people's wealth, and then invest the capital in foreign projects.The reason why India's leaders were able to build technical colleges but Pakistan could not can only be explained by what I have called "the intrinsic capacity of the country".These invisible and intangible things are not easy to compare and measure, but they are very important. Let's take Mexico and China as examples to illustrate this problem.In theory, Mexico occupies unique geographical conditions, which are very conducive to its survival in a flat world.It is a neighbor of the United States, the largest and most dynamic economy in the world, and signed the North American Free Trade Agreement with the United States and Canada in the 1990s, thus serving as a springboard for the expansion of these two economies into Latin America.Mexico is also rich in oil, which accounts for one-third of government revenue.In contrast, China is thousands of miles away, burdened with a heavy population burden and various burdens left over from the planned economy era, with scarce natural resources, and the best labor force is concentrated in the coastal areas. 10 years ago, if you didn't predict their development prospects, most people would definitely bet on Mexico.The truth is, however, that China eventually overtook Mexico as America's second-largest trading partner.Even among Mexicans, there is a consensus that although China is far away, it is getting closer economically to the United States; while Mexico is close at hand, it is economically farther away from the United States.

I'm not saying Mexico is down.Given enough time, Mexico could end up victorious in a China-Mexico version of the tortoise and the hare.China still needs to continue to push forward the difficult reform of the political system, and any fluctuations in the process will have a negative impact on economic development.and.Mexico has many entrepreneurs as entrepreneurial as the Chinese, otherwise Mexico would not be exporting billions of dollars of goods to the US every year.Furthermore, Chinese farmers are no more productive than Mexican farmers.However, when you analyze the respective advantages and disadvantages of both sides, you will find that China is becoming the rabbit, although Mexico has more advantages in natural resources at the beginning of the game.Why?

Mexicans keep asking.When you come to Mexico City now, the Mexicans will tell you that they heard two giants sucking on food.Former Mexican Foreign Minister Jorge.Castaneda once said to me in 2004, "We are being attacked from both sides by India and China," "Except for high value-added industries, it is very difficult for us to compete with China. In areas where we should be competitive Services such as office business outsourcing and call transfer centers, we have been hit by India again.” There is no doubt that China has benefited to some extent from the centralized management system that it still has, which can forcefully repress all parties. The struggle and anarchy among the various interests make a unified deployment for the national policy.From the top down, Beijing's leaders can implement many specific measures of reform, whether it is moving from a planned economy to a market economy or joining the World Trade Organization.

China may be a centralized country, but it is undeniable that China is more capable of carrying out retail reforms. It has a stronger national organizational system and bureaucracy, so that it can put a large number of talented people in key policy decision-making positions. At the same time, there is a certain kind of popular spirit in China, and the enthusiasm of the broad masses of the people can be easily mobilized into national construction.There is still a tradition in the Chinese bureaucracy of promoting officials who have dedicated themselves to building the country. Frank, the author of the classic book "The End of History".Fukuyama said: "China has a tradition of rewarding and punishing officials according to their political achievements. South Korea and Japan also follow this similar tradition. Under this tradition, all officials have the basic concept of 'country' in their minds, and officials' administrative behavior must be considered. Consequences of such behavior can lead to policy makers rising in the officialdom to the long-term interests of the country.”

By contrast, Mexico had just transitioned from a centralized state with one-party rule to a multi-party democracy in the 1990s.Therefore, when Mexico wants to summon the will and energy of the people of the whole country to carry out micro-level retail reforms, it has to go through a legal and democratic but lengthy voting process.In other words, any Mexican president who wants to change policies cannot decide on his own like his authoritarian predecessor, but must take care of the interests of all parties in society. However, this is like herding a group of cats. Difficult to agree on.During the reform process, the interests of many interest groups—whether it is a coalition of many people or an organization monopolized by a few people—will be touched, and these groups are powerful, and their refusal to cooperate will lead to the failure of the reform plan.Like many other Latin American countries, Mexico's state system was for a long time a mere puppet of the patrons of the ruling party, serving local rather than national interests.Moises.In his book, A Journey to a Market Economy in Latin America, Naim said: "The state system in Latin American countries did not function well...Historians have emphasized that this is a legacy of Spanish and Portuguese occupation and colonialism. The sequelae of incomplete state organization, legal codes and political structures. Political scientists believe that the poor performance of Latin American countries reflects the distribution of political and economic power among different levels of the country. This distribution principle does not take into account the public interest, but rather Take care of the rich, use the middle class as the main service class, and exclude the existence of the poor. Government agencies led by special interest groups are unable to formulate and implement policies that serve the general public, and can only take care of and control their own "minority" narrow interests." Another thing that is invisible and intangible is the attitude of culture towards education.Parents in China and India have long told their children that a doctor or engineer is the best way to go.But Mexico does not have such an education concept, and naturally it will not invest more in educational facilities.Both China and India have more than 50,000 international students in the United States, and they have come to the United States to learn advanced technology.Although Mexico is close to the United States, it has only 10,000 international students.As the world's largest economy, the United States speaks English, but Mexico has never formulated a plan to step up popularization of English for its citizens, nor has it established any scholarship programs to support Mexican students to study in the United States.Former Mexican President Ernesto.Zedillo said there is a disconnect between the country's political system, the challenges of globalization to the country and the degree to which people are required to be educated. Seeing the differences between China and India, one might conclude that democracy is an obstacle to retail reform. But I think it's too early to draw that conclusion.In fact, the real reason is the level of leadership rather than the country's political system.In a democratic country, there have been capable leaders, like the former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who focused the attention of the people of the whole country on the reforms she advocated, and made her policies implemented in the UK.Of course, there are also examples of unsuccessful reforms in democratic countries, such as contemporary Germany, where policies vacillate from side to side and never hit the nail on the head. The same centralized system, China can successfully promote economic reforms, Zimbabwe muddle through, unwilling to mobilize the enthusiasm of the people, because its leaders are unwilling to take any blows. "Mexico and Latin America have incredible potential," said former President Zedillo. "Thirty years ago, Latin America was ahead of the rest of the world, but in the last 25 years, Latin America's development has been at a standstill. Other countries are catching up. Our political system is not capable of handling, accommodating and implementing so called retail reforms. To this day, you cannot openly talk about a market economy in Latin America.China is improving every month, and it will take us year after year to decide whether we need to carry out the initial reforms, which are very necessary and urgent for any society.Our competitiveness is not strong because our infrastructure construction is too poor. If we want to strengthen infrastructure construction, we must increase taxes.We haven't built a few new highways connecting the US and Mexico since NAFTA (none, in fact), and many people who benefit from government spending don't pay taxes, so the only way the government is going to work The solution is to impose higher taxes.But the policy would be stifled by opposition from all quarters. “A newspaper in Mexico recently ran an article about how Converse Sporting Goods in the U.S. used Mexican glue to make tennis shoes in China. The whole article was about why we gave China glue , "And the correct attitude towards this matter should be to think about how we can sell more glue from China?" It seems we still need to clear some mental hurdles. "It's not that Mexico hasn't strengthened its export industry. The main reason why Mexico is gradually lagging behind China is that China's development is too fast and has a wider scope, especially in terms of education and training of scientific and technological personnel. As business consultant Daniel. As H. Rosen pointed out in an article published in the Journal of International Economics (Spring 2003), since the world economy recovered in the 1990s, both China and Mexico have exported in many of the same areas Shares are growing -- from auto parts to electronic components to toys and sporting goods -- but China is growing faster.For this difference, rather than saying that China's development strategy is correct, it is better to say that Mexico has made mistakes in its development process - it has not adopted micro-level reforms to steadily improve its economic competitiveness.The correct decision made by Mexico is to allow Monterrey to take advantage of its geographical advantage of being close to the Mexican-US border to vigorously develop industry and commerce and encourage competition.But it never occurred to me to apply the Monterey model to the whole country.This helps explain why Mexico's ranking in the 'Global Competitiveness Report' has declined each year from 1996 to 2002, while China has increased each year.It's not just a matter of low wage costs, China has achieved a dominant position in education, privatization, infrastructure development, quality control, middle management and introducing new technologies. "So China is eating Mexico's lunch," Rosen said, "but in essence, it's mainly Mexico's inability to build on its success and deepen reforms in a wider range of areas in a timely manner, rather than China's low-cost labor." ’” In other words, Mexico’s retail-style reforms have gone horribly wrong.According to the International Finance Corporation's "Doing Business 2005" report: it takes an average of 58 days to set up a company in Mexico, compared to 8 days in Singapore and 9 days in Turkey; it takes 74 days to register an asset in Mexico, and only It takes 12 days; the corporate income tax rate in Mexico is 34%, twice that of China. The McKinsey Quarterly article "Cheap Labor Isn't the Only One" mentions that since 2000, when China joined the WTO and began to take advantage of the flattening of the world, Mexico lost 270,000 assembly jobs and closed hundreds of factories.However, the report offers the following advice to Mexico and other middle-income countries feeling pressure from China: “Instead of focusing on how many jobs are being taken away by China, these countries should remember this fact of economic life: A country will not enjoy the status of low-cost producer forever, and even China will lose this status one day. Mexico and other middle-income countries should focus on creating high value-added jobs, rather than still trying to protect low-cost producers. Assembly work for wages. Only when more productive firms with higher value-added replace those with less productive capacity can middle-income countries continue on their development path. In short, the only way out for Mexico is to promote reforms at the micro level so that it can push China up the ecological chain instead of pushing it off a cliff, because the impact of China's development on Mexico is far less than that on the United States. But it takes concentration and willpower to win this game.In a flat world, when your competitors, in addition to constantly reforming and strengthening their own basic construction, also enhance their internal management intangible capabilities, you will not be able to sustainably improve your own living standards.China not only wants to become rich, but also wants to become powerful. The entire Chinese nation regards this as its historical mission.China doesn't just want to learn to make GM, it wants to become another "GM" and drive the competition away. Luis Luis, director of the Mexican Center for Development Studies."The more confident you are, the less you want to dwell on past glories," Rubio said. "In the early 1990s, it was encouraging that Mexicans realized what they could do. However, in recent years, Mexico has People lost a lot of self-confidence because the government stopped the reform process. Lack of self-confidence will make a country constantly reminisce about the past, while a country full of self-confidence is more willing to look to the future. Lack of self-confidence in Mexico is when every single citizen thinks the US is going to make all of Mexico's money, which is why NAFTA is so important in building Mexico's self-confidence.The achievement of NAFTA is to get Mexicans to look forward and out rather than the other way around.Unfortunately, NAFTA is seen by Mexico's leaders as the end rather than the beginning of a process of political and economic reform, and the country has no strategy for moving forward. "Will Rogers said a long time ago: "Even if you are on the right path, if you sail against the current, if you don't advance, you will retreat. The flatter the world, the more obvious this phenomenon will be."Mexico carried out wholesale reforms in the right way, but then due to many external and internal reasons, it stopped retail reforms and started to stand still.The more Mexico stands still, the further it is left behind by its opponents.Of course, Mexico is not the only country like this. The World Is Flat Companies and the Flat World Corporations and the Flat World