So I would like an answer from the two Japanese participants whether they disagree with the presentations during the first session this morning, or whether they are operating very differently from American firms.
There is something that is not right in this picture. Both views cannot be right. So if you could either tell us if you disagree with this morning's discussion or give us a little bit more in terms of how you differ from American firms?
DR. TAKEDA: I would like to answer Professor Samuels third question. As to which businesses are conducted overseas or in domestic markets, this should be decided by the managers of the business groups, not by the technology manager.
In addition, this selection is based on marketing more than technology. For example, we are now distributing semiconductors and automobile components into the United States. Of course, when we create new businesses, we are forced to create new businesses for the company, not only, for example, Hitachi but also for General Electric. When we create new business, our resources are intensive. For example, at this moment, Hitachi has strong research resources near Tokyo.
CHRIS HILL: In response to Dr. Kantzenbach's observations on my comments, two quick points. First, it is important to realize that we are not talking about R&D policy. You may have been using that as shorthand, but that is simply grossly inadequate to characterize the subject of technology in modern economic development.
The second point is that it seems to me so clearly self-evident that the development application and integration of technology and culture are at the root of economic development. To suggest that there are no positive benefits from this activity is to ignore the last 5,000 years of history. Now, what does lie before us is a need to find constructive ways to cooperate internationally and not to use this as a substitute for shooting each other in the future.