The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

The word 'Leica' is now banned ...

RLB

Member
I've seen the "commercial" and from one who spent a good portion of their career in advertising working for large agencies I can honestly say that the piece is amateurish at best.
If they really wanted to do this right they could have hired someone on par with Kubrick who'd have made this beyond realistic. That said I'm not sure how this forward's Leica's cause in any way with their target market..who are not the journalist depicted. Any time one tries to use shock value to make a point in advertising they had better be damn sure that there is truth in what they are saying or its going to backfire.

R
 
"It is also a falsehood to think China became rich because a few Western companies built some factories over there."

Actually Peter... while I agree with much of your post, it's a good portion of the factories in the US and the rest of the western world that were moved to China because of labor costs and the absence of labor unions. CEO's of these companies could make 10-50X more because of the reduced operating costs in China. China didn't invent these jobs. Hundreds if not thousands of companies worldwide moved to China and the labor force was readily available and willing. This isn't rocket science. It began during the Nixon administration, and I personally know CEO's who are swimming in lucre because of their company relocations to China. In March of 2017 Apple alone employeed over 4.8 million workers in it's factories... and this is just one company.
 
Last edited:

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
"It is also a falsehood to think China became rich because a few Western companies built some factories over there."

Actually Peter... while I agree with much of your post, it's a good portion of the factories in the US and the rest of the western world that were moved to China because of labor costs and the absence of labor unions. CEO's of these companies could make 10-50X more because of the reduced operating costs in China. China didn't invent these jobs. Hundreds if not thousands of companies worldwide moved to China and the labor force was readily available and willing. This isn't rocket science. It began during the Nixon administration, and I personally know CEO's who are swimming in lucre because of their company relocations to China.
There have been cases of investors buying European industrial entities with the sole purpose of closing down in Europe, selling the assets to pay for the acquisition and then starting production in a low cost country with the same products and brand name. It's legal, but if you ask European workers affected by this, they would probably say that it shouldn't be.
 

PeterA

Well-known member
Well, at least you have not resorted to silly stereotypes. (BTW, have we met? And when did I ever state I take my standard of living for granted? I am pretty sure I would not be that stupid.)

Neoliberal economics is actually a precise term. Chile suffered under that for a very long time. The idea that market forces will always lead to the best outcomes has pretty much been debunked, which is why some of the best countries balance the private and public sectors, understanding not everything is a private good.

Yes, China has reduced poverty greatly in its application of capitalism. (I am not sure who is arguing that populations should suffer for an economic model.) But "free-market" capitalism has not really turned out to be sustainable in the long run. Can China maintain a growth model? Land degradation is a huge problem for their agriculture. Their fisheries have only been able to grow because of their fishing down the food chain, but it is pretty much unsustainable. Pollution is a problem and while they have invested in renewables, they have also stated building coal-fired plants again. And I am not really pointing to China is the sole global sinner, just as one example that many countries face. China has, as you have pointed out, a bigger issues because of their population. The default global economic model is based on neoliberal economic ideas (just look at the World Bank, UN, and other foreign aid schemes) which will require a solution beyond China. The rightward swing in political leadership has been to some extent a reaction to neoliberal economic outcomes by those that have not benefited--and there are a lot.

The problem is capitalism is built on two basic ideas: there is always a new frontier to exploit (in order to grow) and there are no externalities to account for--I rarely hear capitalists talk about market failure. So your socialist irrationality comment (do you actually know what socialism means?) needs to be compared to capitalist irrationality. We are not facing the greatest environmental threat in human history because of runaway socialism.
I can't understand what you are trying to say - but I do get the feeling you are offended enough to try and personalise a discussion. If you think economic irrationalism is a better course than economic rationalism - that is your problem - and personally I gave up taking any 'isms' seriously in high school.

Constructions and labels like 'neo-liberal' are meaningless - devoid of content or substance they are mere memes much like left wing/right wing...I wont waste a second more of my time 'debating' stuff that has zero uitlity.
 

PeterA

Well-known member
"It is also a falsehood to think China became rich because a few Western companies built some factories over there."

Actually Peter... while I agree with much of your post, it's a good portion of the factories in the US and the rest of the western world that were moved to China because of labor costs and the absence of labor unions. CEO's of these companies could make 10-50X more because of the reduced operating costs in China. China didn't invent these jobs. Hundreds if not thousands of companies worldwide moved to China and the labor force was readily available and willing. This isn't rocket science. It began during the Nixon administration, and I personally know CEO's who are swimming in lucre because of their company relocations to China. In March of 2017 Apple alone employed over 4.8 million workers in it's factories... and this is just one company.
Yes a lot of Western companies have manufacturing facilities in China and a lot of Chinese companies have manufacturing facilities outside China - so what? More interesting to me anyway is the fact that Chinese companies are investing in a faster rate outside China than so called developed country companies.

Maybe if the US tax system was more economically rational and less a result of doctrinaire uneducated nonsense and politics ( ditto for the 'Europeans') - the US tax base would be a lot larger since so many large US companies pay no taxes - after all - studies dating back to the 60's comprehensively proved that the lower the tax rate - the higher the amount of tax revenue the government received...

We either embrace the fact the we live in one world and that the likely effect of open trade is that poorer countries 'export' their poverty by importing investment OR we can all go back to using war as a clearing house for the unemployed. I find it interesting that the most reactionary types are those who declare themselves 'for' the worker and social justice blah blah blah - but fail to understand that 'the worker' and social justice' is now a global phenomenon - and all that goes with that.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
I can't understand what you are trying to say - but I do get the feeling you are offended enough to try and personalise a discussion. If you think economic irrationalism is a better course than economic rationalism - that is your probleand personally I gave up taking any 'isms' seriously in high school.

Constructions and labels like 'neo-liberal' are meaningless - devoid of content or substance they are mere memes much like left wing/right wing...I wont waste a second more of my time 'debating' stuff that has zero uitlity.
"Economic rationalism" (I assume the Australian term, it is meaningless in the US) has the same meaning, or perhaps no more meaning, as "neoliberal." Very similar to the neoliberal economic policies of Thatcher and Reagan, both influenced by Pinochet and Hayek. Unfortunately, your "economic rationalism" has worked about as well as any other ideology. And this is really the problem with the political discourse today: it is just idealogues and their uncritical adherence to their "philosophies." What good does it do?

And I am totally fine with you dismissing me--I just wanted to challenge your statement, but I don't need a reply. There are others in this thread that can actually have a conversation.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Yes a lot of Western companies have manufacturing facilities in China and a lot of Chinese companies have manufacturing facilities outside China - so what? More interesting to me anyway is the fact that Chinese companies are investing in a faster rate outside China than so called developed country companies.

Maybe if the US tax system was more economically rational and less a result of doctrinaire uneducated nonsense and politics ( ditto for the 'Europeans') - the US tax base would be a lot larger since so many large US companies pay no taxes - after all - studies dating back to the 60's comprehensively proved that the lower the tax rate - the higher the amount of tax revenue the government received...

We either embrace the fact the we live in one world and that the likely effect of open trade is that poorer countries 'export' their poverty by importing investment OR we can all go back to using war as a clearing house for the unemployed. I find it interesting that the most reactionary types are those who declare themselves 'for' the worker and social justice blah blah blah - but fail to understand that 'the worker' and social justice' is now a global phenomenon - and all that goes with that.
It's interesting to see how, when western journalists want to find ways to take down China's reputation, they point to weaknesses in their financial systems and realities. It's probably natural, since western countries seem to be managed by the banks nowadays, or maybe they always were. But the successful East Asian countries are run by innovation more than finances. Successful, well implemented innovation will result in a sustainable economy if handled properly.

Western innovation seems increasingly aimed towards short term financial gain. That's not sustainable. We don't need iPhones, but we do need renewable energy. Some western countries seem to have entered a kind of "panic mode", placing sanctions on any country that seem to represent some kind of threat to yesterday's world order. Sanctions however are often counterproductive, since they encourage innovation to circumvent them. Take Russia, which has always depended on imports of food. After western sanctions were enforced, they have increased food production dramatically and is now exporting food products in direct competition with the countries that placed the sanctions on them in the first place. Together with China, they are again developing passenger airplanes, and it's just a question of time before they'll hack into the Boeing/Airbus duopoly, particularly in the huge Asia market.

--

All this would make it easy for China to ignore an unpleasant video from a little German company. But then pride and honour enters the stage, and the feeling of being unfairly treated. To take an example: There were enough photos taken with Leica cameras during conflicts like the Vietnam war, where westerners were "the bad guys", but Leica chose not to include anything that could be seen as critisism of western countries. Leica did the opposite, depicting Chinese, Africans and Muslims as uncivilised, rude, brutal and dangerous, while photographers, mostly western, are heroes who document their misdeeds.

That's a mistake in my eyes, and makes the Chinese reaction understandable. Maybe China would have reacted like they did anyway as long as the scene from China was included, as far as I remember the only scene with information about location and time. But if we're going to critisise China, we'd better stand for a balanced point of view. The Leica video lacked that balance.
 
Top