adam najberg

Much of the West’s commentary about China is produced at 40,000 feet. Business in China actually operates on the ground. Policy is interpreted, negotiated, and adapted across provinces, firms, and regulators in a highly dynamic system. For anyone making real business decisions, the difference between those two perspectives is enormous. Most China commentators’ exposure is primarily policy, theory, or non-resident observation. Neither romanticizing China nor caricaturing it helps. Understanding how the system actually works does. That’s why voices like Adam Najberg matter. Formerly @WSJ, @AlibabaGroup, @TencentGlobal, and @DJIGlobal, Adam earned his China credentials the right way—decades of mainly on-the-ground experience across multiple disciplines. In his case, journalism first, then business. Worth reading his thoughtful post below. 🦉 Original post from @adamnajberg on LinkedIn: “I've spent 30 years in and around China. I covered the student protests in 1988 and 1989. My relationship with the Chinese government has never been comfortable. So I'm not a China apologist. But I'm also not someone who thinks the story is simple. I find it surprising when I scroll LinkedIn and see former US government officials, think tank fellows, academics and advisory firm partners confidently explaining what's happening in China and claiming the sky's about to fall there. Their views have value. I read them. But there's a difference between 40,000-feet analysis and on-the-ground business reality. Between the letter of CCP policy and how lawyers, provincial officials and businesspeople are actually interpreting it and acting on it today. If you're making business decisions, you need to know which one you're buying. Are you getting history, context and bias - or the latest intelligence? They aren't the same thing. I'm not selling anything here. This is just free thoughts from someone who has spent time on both sides of the equation - as a journalist covering China, and the last 10 years inside three of its biggest tech companies. China's government is authoritarian. It's also not monolithic. Policy isn't handed down from on high and followed robotically. It gets interpreted, pushed back on, worked around. And the government - whatever you think of it - understands that speed matters. China is hyper-competitive. It moves at blazing speed. We cut off its access to advanced chips and the country bootstrapped its way forward anyway. IP theft is a serious concern and needs to be stopped. But American exceptionalists love to treat it as the only explanation for how China develops technology. It isn't. If you've spent real time in China recently, you would never say there's no innovation there. It makes you sound out of touch. American roads are full of potholes. Our auto industry has been creaky for decades. We still stick cards into readers at the checkout counter and write paper checks. China leads the world in EV production. BYD sells more cars than Tesla. Hell, it sold more overall CARS than Ford did last year. Meanwhile Chinese trains go from Shanghai to Beijing - 1,315 miles - in 4.5 hours at an average 215mph. Boston to DC is 450 miles and takes 6 hours. That's not propaganda. That's a normal Monday. I'm not a shill for Chinese tech. But I remember how confidently American pundits predicted Japan's implosion. Japan is doing just fine, decades later. Before you pay for anyone's China advice, ask: When were they last actually there? Do they have real business experience or just policy exposure? Are they helping you make a decision - or just confirming one you've already made? Their bias isn't the real problem. Not realizing they have one is.”