The Fallacy of Vertical Integration (A Question of Rational Economics).

gadgetcool5

Senior Member
Registered Member
With the recent US-China tech war and sanctions on Chinese companies such as Huawei, vertical integration is now all the rage in China. Everyone is talking about how "China must develop X technology and Y technology" that is further up the supply chain. I have also participated in these discussions as well. Huawei comes under criticism for not anticipating problems earlier and relying so much on US tech.

However, there is something missing from all this. Its absurdity can be seen in the case of Huawei. Its specializations and advantages are 5G and handset design. It only makes sense to do what it does best: Just as, a bus driver should drive the bus, because that is what he is good at. He should not build the bus, nor engineer the bus, nor sell the bus. If you ask the bus driver to build the bus he will naturally waste a lot of time because that is not what he is good at. Sure, after a very amount of great effort, you might be able to teach some bus drivers to make buses, but the end product will still be inferior to what some other company that specializes in making buses from the start can do.

In reality, asking bus drivers to learn to make buses is just an exercise in wasteful duplication. It is a matter of spending a great deal of effort to figure out how to do what someone else has already learned to do better.

In the case of Huawei, it would have not only had to be Huawei, but to be TSMC, ASML, KLA-Tencor, Applied Materials, Tokyo Electron, Lam Labs, Synopsys, Cadence, and not only those companies but their suppliers such as Carl Zeiss, Cymer, 3M, DuPont, Corning, and also Google (with its Play Store) and god knows what else. It is ridiculous to expect one company to do all that, to become an entire industry. It is impossible. Therefore no, Huawei did not make a mistake in not integrating vertically years ago.

That is why the trend away from vertical integration has been the norm in the business world for decades. Vertical integration tends to promote closed, proprietary systems that stifle innovation. A misguided reliance on vertical integration is a big part of the decline of Japan, Inc.

Therefore, the entire effort to make China vertically integrated economy also makes no sense from a purely business perspective. China is about to invest billions, and perhaps even trillions in the long term, investing in trying to duplicate a bunch of technologies that other people have already learned to do better. This is called waste.

The trend, as Xi Jinping has said, is towards globalization and integration in the world economy. That means that Country X can do A,B,C,D, and E whereas Country Y can do F,G, and the two countries together can trade to integrate A,B,C,D,E,F,G together to create a final product. China is a big country so it will be the best at many things, but inevitably it cannot be the best at everything. No country in the world is the best at everything, not even the US.

Thus why is China in a rush to vertically integrate?

Purely for politics, no other reason. It is solely because the US has put Chinese companies on the entity list for political reasons. It is not because Huawei or any Chinese private companies did the wrong thing or made a mistake by not vertically integrating. It is because the relation between the US and China broke down.

Now the question is, why did it break down? Was it for a justified reason? It can simply be put to the following factors: A) China's refusal to liberalize, B) China's Senkaku dispute, C) China's SCS dispute, D) China's Hong Kong dispute, E) China's Xinjiang dispute, F) China's India border dispute. Every single one of these solely involves the oppression of Chinese people, or China's oppression of its smaller Asian nations. Not a single one of them is necessary or justified. That is my opinion.

In short, the trend towards integration in the global economy will continue, but China is being cut out of it. It is going to waste billions of dollars on vertical integration (a.k.a. duplication) while the rest of the world moves on. This will be damaging to China and for no good reason at all. Unfortunately, this is the reality we have to live with today.
 
Last edited:

gadgetcool5

Senior Member
Registered Member
Part 2: Moving Up the Value Chain

Actually, the situation is not as bleak for China as I have described it above. There is one way that China can win from this situation, and that is if instead of simply vertically integrating its economy, it moves up the value chain.

In the bus driver analogy, let us extend it to suppose that Bus Drivers typically don't make much money, say $20 an hour. Whereas Bus Makers make much more, say $40 an hour. Let's say that's because to be a Bus Maker you require a higher education level than Bus Driver. Further, Bus Maker are required to attend Bus Maker University, where Bus Maker Teacher makes $60 an hour teaching people to be Bus Makers, and Bus Maker University also conducts research on bus construction which generates technology that it licenses out for $100,000. In this case Bus Maker/Bus Maker Teacher/Bus Maker University are higher up the value chain than Bus Drivers.

Further, because Bus Maker University's technology only comes from Bus Maker University, the reason it can charge such a high price is because it is a monopoly. Meanwhile, because anyone can learn to drive a bus with a little training, Bus Drivers charge a low price because they are easily replaceable.

In this case, Bus Maker University is monopoly capital whereas Bus Drivers are commodity capital. An example of monopoly capital is Google, which controls software (YouTube, Search, Chrome) that has a dominant position around the world due to being tied to consumer preferences. An example of commodity capital is Samsung, which makes a handset yet can easily be replaced by a consumer on their next upgrade. (Whereas a consumer would never part with the Gmail, for example). Monopoly capital always leads to higher profit margins because it is irreplaceable. Commodity capital is subject to the rules of perfect competition, where barriers to entry can be overcome and there is not much product differentiation, so margins will tend to go to zero.

Huawei 5G was probably also targeted because Huawei was the first and only Chinese company to threaten to gain a monopoly capital position along the supply chain.

Going back to the analogy, if the Bus Driver company wants to make more money and starts trying to Make Buses, its product will probably be inferior, and the effort spent on it will diminish its competitive product quality in Bus Driving services (the Fallacy of Vertical Integration). It will not do either one successfully and probably fail at both. But what if Bus Driver company gets a $50 million Angel investment, hires away a bunch of employees from Bus Maker University, and sets up its own Bus Maker University 2, and keeps investing in it until it is just as good?

Then it has effectively moved up the value chain and broken Bus Maker's and Bus Maker University's monopoly.

Therefore, whether China can use this situation to move up the value chain or if it only falls into vertical integration will determine if it is a winner or loser from this situation. Yet moving up the value chain is extremely difficult. The difference between merely vertically integrating and moving up the value chain, is that the latter requires a massive increase in society's basic science level. I will discuss the factors that determine this in a later post.
 

Gatekeeper

Brigadier
Registered Member
Now the question is, why did it break down? Was it for a justified reason? It can simply be put to the following factors: A) China's refusal to liberalize, B) China's Senkaku dispute, C) China's SCS dispute, D) China's Hong Kong dispute, E) China's Xinjiang dispute, F) China's India border dispute. Every single one of these solely involves the oppression of Chinese people, or China's oppression of its smaller Asian nations. Not a single one of them is necessary or justified. That is my opinion.

Just unbelievable, you want to start a new thread on economics and particular vertical integration. Which is fine.

But you then come up with bullshit as above. Basically putting all the blame on china as to why SINO-US relationship broke down. But conveniently ignore the fact it all started woth pivote to asia or even earlier. The fact Trump is playing the nationalist playbook together with US and West' s insecurity of being eclipse as the world number 1 and all that entails have nothing to do with the current Sino-US relationship it's just laughable! Go and do your home work. I think you still got your assignment to hand in at Harvard!
 

Masticore99

Banned Idiot
Registered Member
Now the question is, why did it break down? Was it for a justified reason? It can simply be put to the following factors: A) China's refusal to liberalize, B) China's Senkaku dispute, C) China's SCS dispute, D) China's Hong Kong dispute, E) China's Xinjiang dispute, F) China's India border dispute. Every single one of these solely involves the oppression of Chinese people, or China's oppression of its smaller Asian nations. Not a single one of them is necessary or justified. That is my opinion.

Is this a joke? Go read on the US disputes with Japan in the 1970s and 1980s and how the US went after Japanese tech companies.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Now the question is, why did it break down? Was it for a justified reason? It can simply be put to the following factors: A) China's refusal to liberalize, B) China's Senkaku dispute, C) China's SCS dispute, D) China's Hong Kong dispute, E) China's Xinjiang dispute, F) China's India border dispute. Every single one of these solely involves the oppression of Chinese people, or China's oppression of its smaller Asian nations. Not a single one of them is necessary or justified. That is my opinion.

Your opinion has missed the most important reason for the breakdown in relations.

A wealthy and technologically advanced China will inevitably displace the US from its current hegemonic position.

In order to improve relations with the USA, perhaps China should stay poor and technologically backward?
 

horse

Major
Registered Member
Now the question is, why did it break down? Was it for a justified reason? It can simply be put to the following factors: A) China's refusal to liberalize, B) China's Senkaku dispute, C) China's SCS dispute, D) China's Hong Kong dispute, E) China's Xinjiang dispute, F) China's India border dispute. Every single one of these solely involves the oppression of Chinese people, or China's oppression of its smaller Asian nations. Not a single one of them is necessary or justified. That is my opinion.
Imperialism always leads to war.

Military, political, economic, technological - who is attacking who?

The Americans are the worst offenders. This is thief crying out thief.

See ... the old rhetoric works! True classics they are!

--------------------------------------------------------

As for vertical integration, industries like the high speed rail, and quantum communications, even the Chinese space program, those are example of vertical integration the way you describe it. Those internal vertically integrate supply chains inside China probably exist for that.

Vertical integration that term the way I learned it, it was applicable to corporations specifically.

Such as a petroleum company, owning the oil fields, then refinery, then the gas station. If Dutch Shell Petroleum owns all off that from digging it up from the ground, to processing it, to retail at the pump, that operation is vertically integrated.

Usually an economy is not described in that terms.

The coal miner's daughter digs the coal out of West Virginia, then it goes to Pittsburgh Pennsylvania to be made into steel, then that rolls into Detroit Michigan to be made into Government Motor vehicles such as the GM truck. I feel this is just industry, and not vertical integration.

China is a continental economy. It probably has more industries that America.

Time marches on. The more you learn, the better your product. The more engineers you have, the more improvement can be made.

China already ahead of the Americans in several economic and technical endeavors. That is to be expected, that is just natural evolution.
 

free_6ix9ine

Junior Member
Registered Member
Vertical integration makes no sense economically, however from a national security perspective it makes a ton of sense. Instead of specializing in one area such as low cost assembly, we shift resources to chip fabs etc.


Look your making it seem that it is a waste to copy stuff that has been done, thats not a waste, your investing in a secure supply chain.

Applying the same logic to weapons, whats the point of building our own engines if we can buy them from Russia? What's the point of building the J-20 if we could buy the Su-57?

No one is advocating building absolutely everything, its about ensuring that we have control over the crucial parts of the supply chain. Sometimes you have to sacrifice some efficiency for security.

If you want to have geopolitical power, you need to control the crucial components of the supply chain. We can import shoes or whatever from Vietnam. Doesn't matter.

Globalism works in a perfect world, unfortunately the world is not perfect.
 
Top