What's new

Beijing residents blame government for flash flood deaths

in the west,people can occupy the wall street for months or march to their capital to protest,but very often the case is nothing would happen after the protests,those governments see so many of them everyday and became used to those protests.they care more about winning an election than seriously addressing people's woe.in China is the other way around,we dont always have those demonstrations but once an issue is revealed and discussed by the people,the government will work their as. off to fix those issues cause they dont have to worry about using tricks or empty promises to beat their political rivals,their whole focus is no developing and country and making the people happy.
 
.
I dont know whats the problem with collective mentality of people when they accuse the Government for heavy rain fall.
I am sure that most governments in the world do the basic things like better strom drains ect and if still a flash flood occurs, then it just reminds human being that we can not do any thing against nature's furry.


China is no longer a developing country, and the countries that you are comparing in your post are not developing countries either, they are countires that are politically, economically unstable ones.
This is like comparing a topper in a class to the students who fail with 5 marsk/100 (i'll not say these countries as 0 mark students)

First, China is still a developing country.

Second, try to make a list of large "developing" countries that are democracies, and tell me which one has better economic performance than China. You will realize that China has consistently outperformed ALL the other major developing countries even though we are not a democracy.

I named Nigeria, Sudan, Columbia, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in order to show that Democracy alone is not a "silver bullet", and cannot save a country that does not fix its other problems. India and many other countries in South Asia should know this better than anyone.
 
.
western propaganda brain washed the whole western world,they never say truth about China,China bashing is the way they have to do to hold on to their jobs.

May be to an extent , but is there smoke without fire ? there should be some truth in it that Communism does restrict freedom to a certain degree where as it has certain advantages too like it may give the govt extraordinary powers to take quick and bold decision without any opposition or fear of backlash !
 
.
First, China is still a developing country.

Second, try to make a list of large "developing" countries that are democracies, and tell me which one has better economic performance than China. You will realize that China has consistently outperformed ALL the other major developing countries even though we are not a democracy.

I named Nigeria, Sudan, Columbia, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in order to show that Democracy alone is not a "silver bullet", and cannot save a country that does not fix its other problems. India and many other countries in South Asia should know this better than anyone.
i dont know in which parameter you are saying that your nation is a developing one. you have a good transportation system, a good GDP, a very good governing body and is politically stable and can handle internal issues in times of disaster with out forign help. yet you claim yourself as a developing nation.

Democracy does not suit under developed countries and i am not saying its a solution to every one.
It depends on the mentality of people, collective thinking. INDIA and most countries succeded with Democracy because the people when Democracy was introduced already had the habit of collective thinking.
 
.
i dont know in which parameter you are saying that your nation is a developing one. you have a good transportation system, a good GDP, a very good governing body and is politically stable and can handle internal issues in times of disaster with out forign help. yet you claim yourself as a developing nation.

Democracy does not suit under developed countries and i am not saying its a solution to every one.
It depends on the mentality of people, collective thinking. INDIA and most countries succeded with Democracy because the people when Democracy was introduced already had the habit of collective thinking.

it's cultural difference,Eastern Asian Confucian countries and regions care more about collective interests over individual ones,neither Japan,Korea,Taiwan,Singapore were democracy before they became fairly developed,some of them can be called dictatorship during the heydays of their development.
 
.
i dont know in which parameter you are saying that your nation is a developing one. you have a good transportation system, a good GDP, a very good governing body and is politically stable and can handle internal issues in times of disaster with out forign help. yet you claim yourself as a developing nation.

Democracy does not suit under developed countries and i am not saying its a solution to every one.
It depends on the mentality of people, collective thinking. INDIA and most countries succeded with Democracy because the people when Democracy was introduced already had the habit of collective thinking.

China is a developing country. and this will last a very long time.
 
. .
China is no longer a developing country
Surely it is. Still a 3rd world country.

First, China is still a developing country.
Exactly.

Second, try to make a list of large "developing" countries that are democracies
- Brazil(Brazil's status is ambiguous, but most still classify Brazil as a developing country)
- South America
- India

You will realize that China has consistently outperformed ALL the other major developing countries even though we are not a democracy.
All the benefits of growth has been taken by the rich and powerful, while ordinary Chinese languish in poverty.
 
.
I am from HK so I will give you my perspective as a Hong Konger.

I feel that democracy works best for countries that are already developed. Not for developing countries like China.

Let's look at some democracies in the "developing" world: Nigeria, Sudan, Columbia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, etc.

In fact, China has by far the best economic performance in the developing world. My city as well (Hong Kong) has a very good economic track record, and we have never been a democracy either.

Once we reach a higher stage of development, then I think it will be good to start political liberalization, but I don't think we should ever have Western-style multi-party democracy. We will build our own system.

Not to mention that China's government is being less corrupted than those "democracy" countries you have listed and including the largest democratic nation in the world according to Corruption Perceptions Index.

Also most of the time people in so call "democracy" countries only have the illusion of having freedom. Here is some quote from Georgre Carlin.
But there’s a reason. There’s a reason. There’s a reason for this, there’s a reason education SUCKS, and it’s the same reason it will never, ever, EVER be fixed.

It’s never going to get any better, don’t look for it, be happy with what you’ve got.

Because the owners, the owners of this country don't want that. I'm talking about the real owners now, the BIG owners! The Wealthy… the REAL owners! The big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions.

Forget the politicians. They are irrelevant. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don't. You have no choice! You have OWNERS! They OWN YOU. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They’ve long since bought, and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the state houses, the city halls, they got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies, so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear. They got you by the balls.

They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying, lobbying, to get what they want. Well, we know what they want. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else, but I'll tell you what they don’t want:

They don’t want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don’t want well informed, well educated people capable of critical thinking. They’re not interested in that. That doesn’t help them. Thats against their interests.

Thats right. They don’t want people who are smart enough to sit around a kitchen table and think about how badly they’re getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard 30 ******* years ago. They don’t want that!

You know what they want? They want obedient workers. Obedient workers, people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork. And just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shitty jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime and vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it, and now they’re coming for your Social Security money. They want your retirement money. They want it back so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street, and you know something? They’ll get it. They’ll get it all from you sooner or later cause they own this ******* place! Its a big club, and you ain’t in it! You, and I, are not in the big club.

By the way, its the same big club they use to beat you over the head with all day long when they tell you what to believe. All day long beating you over the head with their media telling you what to believe, what to think and what to buy. The table has tilted folks. The game is rigged and nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care! Good honest hard-working people; white collar, blue collar it doesn’t matter what color shirt you have on. Good honest hard-working people continue, these are people of modest means, continue to elect these rich **** suckers who don’t give a **** about you….they don’t give a **** about you… they don’t give a **** about you.

They don’t care about you at all… at all… AT ALL. And nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care. Thats what the owners count on. The fact that Americans will probably remain willfully ignorant of the big red, white and blue dick thats being jammed up their assholes everyday, because the owners of this country know the truth.

Its called the American Dream,because you have to be asleep to believe it.
 
.
Surely it is. Still a 3rd world country.

then why millions of S.Koreans came to China to live,that's the very reason in Beijing we carried severe crack down on illegal immigrants and main targetting group are S.Koreans.why these many Koreans are living in China if Korea is such a good place to live?
 
.
China is no longer a developing country, and the countries that you are comparing in your post are not developing countries either, they are countires that are politically, economically unstable ones.
This is like comparing a topper in a class to the students who fail with 5 marsk/100 (i'll not say these countries as 0 mark students)

The "Three Worlds Theory" developed by Mao Zedong is different from the Western theory of the Three Worlds or Third World. For example, in the Western theory, China and India belong respectively to the second and third worlds, but in Mao's theory both China and India are part of the Third Non-Aligned World.
 
.
then why millions of S.Koreans came to China to live
Not to live, but to work as expats and study language.

There are 40K Korean companies operating in China. Assume 10 Korean managers per company and it's already 400K. Some of these Korean managers have their families with them.

The "Three Worlds Theory" developed by Mao Zedong is different from the Western theory of the Three Worlds or Third World. For example, in the Western theory, China and India belong respectively to the second and third worlds, but in Mao's theory both China and India are part of the Third Non-Aligned World.

Currently, it's just first world(developed) by third world(developing).

China is a third world country because it is a developing economy with a totalitarian regime that brutally crushes any demand for democracy and freedom.
 
.
Currently, it's just first world(developed) by third world(developing).

China is a third world country because it is a developing economy with a totalitarian regime that brutally crushes any demand for democracy and freedom.

That actually would put China in the first world by your logic.
China's authoritarian capitalism undermines Western values, argue three new books.
China's authoritarian capitalism undermines Western values, argue three new books.
Network NewsX Profile

View More Activity


TOOLBOX
Resize Print E-mail Reprints
By Steven Levingston
Sunday, May 30, 2010

THE BEIJING CONSENSUS: How China's Authoritarian Model Will Dominate the Twenty-First Century

By Stefan Halper

296 pp. $28.95

THE END OF THE FREE MARKET: Who Wins the War Between States and Corporations?

By Ian Bremmer

244 pp. $26.95

FREEDOM FOR SALE: Why the World is Trading Democracy for Security

By John Kampfner

304pp. $27.95


In a chest-thumping essay and book published 20 years ago, Francis Fukuyama asserted that the end of the Cold War ushered in the everlasting dominance of Western democracy. History, as Fukuyama famously declared, had ended -- the evolutionary struggle between ideologies was over, and market democracy had emerged as "the final form of human government."

Well, it turns out history lives on. Three convincing new books show that, far from ascending as predicted two decades ago, Western values are under threat in many corners of the world. The books identify a convergence of forces: the influence of China's authoritarian capitalism, skepticism over free markets in the wake of the financial crisis, and the willingness of millions of people to exchange individual rights for a secure middle-class life. The authors -- a former White House and State Department staffer under Presidents Nixon, Ford and Reagan; a political risk expert; and a journalist -- collectively create a portrait sure to chill the hearts of Western optimists.

Stefan Halper, the former administration staffer and now a senior fellow at the University of Cambridge, England, sums up the dilemma as "the shrinking of Western appeal as a politicoeconomic brand." In "The Beijing Consensus," he lays out the crafty tactics China has deployed to push its brand of state capitalism over the West's messy, market-driven version. For example, China has shown countries from Africa to Asia to South America that robust economic growth can be achieved and sustained under the controlling hand of the state. In place of the aid structure known as the Washington Consensus, which imposes onerous, free-market conditions on emerging countries in exchange for assistance, a Chinese alternative has emerged that provides generous debt relief, infrastructure investment and other assistance with fewer demands. The Beijing Consensus, as Halper calls it, diminishes the monetary and ideological suasion of the West that has long guided international development.

"Twenty years ago . . . globalization was driven by American capitalism and its two founding ideas -- that markets, not governments, drive progress, and that democracy is the optimal way to organize society," Halper explains in his tightly written argument. "Today, in the world beyond the West, these certainties are eroding."

In "The End of the Free Market," Ian Bremmer, president of Eurasia Group, a research and consulting firm specializing in political risk, presents a solid primer on the emergence of state capitalism, its operation in countries such as Algeria, Ukraine and India, and "how it threatens free markets and the future of the global economy." The Western model is an ever tougher sell to these countries, thanks to that ugly poster child of free markets: the global financial crisis. But China, Russia and the nations of the Persian Gulf are not averse to exploiting markets to their advantage. Bremmer shows how they have built massive state-run companies that now control three-quarters of the world's crude-oil reserves and intervene in a range of industries from aviation to telecommunications. Their success has spawned national wannabes among regimes -- particularly in Africa -- attracted by the prospect of strong growth and limited democracy. Bremmer points out that the goal of state-run capitalism differs markedly from that of its free-market cousin: "The ultimate motive is not economic (maximizing growth) but political (maximizing the state's power and the leadership's chances of survival)."

But when markets are exploited for political gain, Bremmer adds, inefficiencies result, causing price distortions and imbalances in the global economy. What's more, state-ordained commercial relationships freeze out free-market competitors such as U.S. multinationals. Bremmer cites an energy partnership between Iran and Venezuela that "is more about political stagecraft than commercial cooperation." If these kinds of business ties accumulate, he writes, they "will have important consequences for America's global political influence and the longer-term health of the U.S. economy."

But state capitalism has its vulnerabilities. Despite his book's dire title -- "The End of the Free Market" -- Bremmer is confident that over the long term an authoritarian model will prove a poor rival to Western capitalism. Governments that make themselves responsible for economic performance also will have to shoulder the blame when prosperity falters. China, for instance, must continue to push its economic engine at high speed to satisfy consumers' accelerating demands. Beijing acknowledges it is under pressure to deliver 10 million to 12 million new jobs every year to maintain current employment rates. Too many Chinese out of work, Bremmer says, and the threat of social unrest escalates. "In the end," he adds, "it's much more likely that the Chinese leadership will have to reconsider core assumptions about government's role in an economy than that the leaders in the United States will retreat fundamentally from free-market principles."

To John Kampfner, the differences between the two economic approaches hardly seem the point anymore. Both systems are dedicated to creating wealth -- and over the past 20 years have done so with remarkable success. The result, Kampfner writes in "Freedom for Sale," is a "narrowing of the gap between democracies and autocracies." What has emerged, he contends, is populations dedicated to amassing wealth and material comforts, even at the expense of their individual liberties. In Kampfner's telling, consumers now pursue the same goals no matter whether they live under authoritarian regimes in Singapore, China, Russia or the United Arab Emirates, or in democratic societies of the United States, United Kingdom or Italy. In all cases, he argues, these consumer societies have produced docile, disengaged citizens who have formed a pact with their governments: The people will overlook an infringement of liberties so long as they are permitted the freedom to pursue a lifestyle of designer clothes, sports cars and holiday travel. The loss of liberties is obvious in the authoritarian countries. But Kampfner, the former editor of the New Statesman, also identifies subtle encroachments in Britain, for example, where authorities spy on citizens using a fifth of the world's closed-circuit television cameras, and in Italy, where Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi has systematically eroded the independence of the Parliament, media and courts, and in the United States, where the war on terror brought covert surveillance of citizens, expanded the government's powers of detention of noncitizens and gave the Treasury increased power to investigate bank dealings.

The assumption among free-market proponents over the past 20 years has been that the globalization of wealth would inspire a growing middle class to lead a march toward ubiquitous democracy. Kampfner takes the reader around the world with him on an engaging first-person journey packed with interviews of locals and finds such optimism sorely misplaced. "It sounds good in theory," he writes, "but it has not worked out that way."

Steven Levingston is the nonfiction editor of Book World.
 
.
Not to live, but to work as expats and study language.

There are 40K Korean companies operating in China. Assume 10 Korean managers per company and it's already 400K. Some of these Korean managers have their families with them.



Currently, it's just first world(developed) by third world(developing).

China is a third world country because it is a developing economy with a totalitarian regime that brutally crushes any demand for democracy and freedom.

How about a Korea?
 
. .
Back
Top Bottom