Cadillac: The Standard Of… The Chinese Communist Party?

Edward Niedermeyer
by Edward Niedermeyer

Pop quiz: when does an eight-month-old story generate a huge amount of interest? When it’s got political overtones, of course. And what better way to milk the last dregs of bailout resentment than by telling a story that seems too bizarre to be true: Cadillac is a “proud” chief sponsor of a Chinese Communist Party-produced film entitled “The Birth of a Party” (or “The Great Achievement of Founding the Party” depending on the quality of your translator). The story started last September, at ChinaAutoWeb.com, and was recently revivified by the Washington Times, Commentary Magazine, and Big Hollywood. Our main interest in the story has to do with its lessons about the rise of China, that country’s tortured relationship with luxury goods, its foreign (from the American perspective) political economy and Cadillac’s continued need for better momentum in China… but clearly others are more interested in it for different reasons.

The political point seems to be that government money is being funneled to the Chinese Communist Party via General Motors, an accusation that, though shocking, doesn’t hold up well to scrutiny. After all, nearly anyone doing business of any kind in China ultimately supports the political and economic structure created by the Chinese Communist Party, legitimizing it and lining its pockets. And surely nobody is suggesting GM abandon China altogether, thus eliminating its greatest opportunity for growth. Meanwhile, as the Freep helpfully points out, Caddy needs all the help it can get in China: without a single vehicle in the luxury car top-ten, Cadillac needs to be aggressive in marketing to China. Still, from a PR perspective, Cadillac clearly has a line to walk here… perhaps it should look for less visible (and risible) ways of building up guanxi (connections) with the powers that be in the world’s largest market for cars.


Edward Niedermeyer
Edward Niedermeyer

More by Edward Niedermeyer

Comments
Join the conversation
4 of 43 comments
  • Sching Sching on May 18, 2011

    Ed, small point, but the transliteration for the Chinese word for "connections" or "relationships" is guanxi, not guangxi. Guangxi could be a number of different things, depending on the tones of the two syllables, including the name of a Chinese province.

  • VanillaDude VanillaDude on May 18, 2011

    We pay a billion dollars a day to China in interest. That is more than what we pay out for both wars in the Middle East each year. We are winding down the wars, while our national debt is escalating and our debt doubling within two years, so we could be paying two billion a day to China within a couple of years. That said, there comes a point where we must do what the Chinese want us to do in order to keep our economy upright. If you are offended by what Cadillac has done here, then you better start growing thicker skin when you see how we will be pimped out due to our massive debt in the future. The Chinese government isn't just communist, it is not a place where the freedoms we know even exist. The idea that our economic security is held hostage by this country's government is a concern. The economic boom they are experiencing, we have paid for by moving our manufacturing there. The knowledge they have in bringing 21st Century goods and services to market arrived there in US briefcases. So not only do we owe them trillions, we gave them our ability to earn the funds to pay them back. So why should we be surprised to see Cadillac kissing Communist ass? When you prostitute your future, the paying John wants a kiss now and then.

    • See 1 previous
    • SVX pearlie SVX pearlie on May 18, 2011

      @Darkhorse It is very fair to say that the average (that is, across all 1+ BILLION) Chinese enjoys a higher standard of living, broader self-autonomy and greater day-to-day freedom than any other point in recorded Chinese history. The CCP has basically given the Chinese people continuous, unbroken economic growth and progress for the past 30 years. Plus, there are a *lot* of people who remember the bad old days of peasantry, poverty, foreign dominion / occupation, etc. So all else being equal, the CCP has earned a certain amount of slack and the benefit of doubt before things turn against them. They're acutely aware of this, and have reacted and planned accordingly. Plus, they take things pretty seriously. Screw up big enough, and they *will* take you out back and shoot you, no matter who you are and how powerful you were.

  • Ltcmgm78 It depends on whether or not the union is a help or a hindrance to the manufacturer and workers. A union isn't needed if the manufacturer takes care of its workers.
  • Honda1 Unions were needed back in the early days, not needed know. There are plenty of rules and regulations and government agencies that keep companies in line. It's just a money grad and nothing more. Fain is a punk!
  • 1995 SC If the necessary number of employees vote to unionize then yes, they should be unionized. That's how it works.
  • Sobhuza Trooper That Dave Thomas fella sounds like the kind of twit who is oh-so-quick to tell us how easy and fun the bus is for any and all of your personal transportation needs. The time to get to and from the bus stop is never a concern. The time waiting for the bus is never a concern. The time waiting for a connection (if there is one) is never a concern. The weather is never a concern. Whatever you might be carrying or intend to purchase is never a concern. Nope, Boo Cars! Yeah Buses! Buses rule!Needless to say, these twits don't actual take the damn bus.
  • MaintenanceCosts Nobody here seems to acknowledge that there are multiple use cases for cars.Some people spend all their time driving all over the country and need every mile and minute of time savings. ICE cars are better for them right now.Some people only drive locally and fly when they travel. For them, there's probably a range number that works, and they don't really need more. For the uses for which we use our EV, that would be around 150 miles. The other thing about a low range requirement is it can make 120V charging viable. If you don't drive more than an average of about 40 miles/day, you can probably get enough electrons through a wall outlet. We spent over two years charging our Bolt only through 120V, while our house was getting rebuilt, and never had an issue.Those are extremes. There are all sorts of use cases in between, which probably represent the majority of drivers. For some users, what's needed is more range. But I think for most users, what's needed is better charging. Retrofit apartment garages like Tim's with 240V outlets at every spot. Install more L3 chargers in supermarket parking lots and alongside gas stations. Make chargers that work like Tesla Superchargers as ubiquitous as gas stations, and EV charging will not be an issue for most users.
Next