China Economy Forum

[HariPrasad]

I think India has place too much hope on just one man.

Did not the same hope occurred when Manmohan Singh became India's PM ? Wasn't he supposed to be the economic genius that would reform and open India's economy ?

Because leadership and vision are very Important. He has proved that as CM of Gujarat in last 12 years.
I think India has place too much hope on just one man.

 

[IsaacNewton]

个人认为中国的某某排名靠前或者靠后，都是别的国家或组织按照自己的标准来定下的，事实上，中国的事情只有中国人自己最清楚，哪些需要急切解决，哪些需要重视，哪些需要慢慢来。中国人和中国的朋友看到这些也不用过度高兴，因为中国的很多问题还需要自身的发展来解决，这需要时间。印度网民帖子也看出很爱自己的国家，对自己的国家有信心，从爱国的角度看，这是值得肯定得。只是印度的网民得更多的关注现实，先督促你们的政府修建足够印度国民使用的公共厕所，还有解决好印度糟糕的交通问题，还有严重的社会治安问题再理直气壮的同别的国家比较。
看到不少印度网民经常跟中国比谁更民主、自由，如果是讲这个，你们不过是捧着西方反华媒体的洗脚水在喝，在中国起码没有邪恶的种姓制度，没有哪个姓氏高贵，哪个姓氏低贱，民主自由不是靠嘴说的，更不要拿多少年后的发展蓝图来画饼充饥寻找自我安慰，非常不理智！

Speak English man. This is an English based defence forum.

 

[Genesis]

Before I start, I will say I see where you are coming from, I do. You truly are brought up in America, you deal in absolutes and have too much of a blind spot, while China has played both sides of the fence you have played one and detested the other.

I'm not insulting you or anything, just that there is a blind spot.

But this is only possible because the CCP intentionally chose this course of action as the best way to retain power. The moment that is no longer possible, nothing is stopping the CCP from reverting to its Mao-era hard-power stance.

Nothing? How about 1.3 billion well educated men and women? How about a population hell bent on reaching number one, how about an army system that have 2 year service models, and more and more university students in the army as NCOs?

How about a fractured system made by Chinese to never again let anyone have absolute power.

You know how many protests are in China and how much appeasement are done?

For Xinjiang and Tibet as well as HK and Taiwan, the only reason CCP can clamp down is we just don't give a crap about them. So in that sense they have the people's blessing to do so.

HK today, XYZ region of China the day after, all of China next week. That's precisely my point--nothing stops the CCP from not caring about the Chinese people, because even if the people try to revolt, they will be put down by military force. The CCP is unanswerable to the people.

I wonder if @Chinese-Dragon is aware that the CCP and most Chinese regard HK as little more than a Chinese colony, not on the same level as other Chinese. If it's true, I pity HK, and believe the island portion should have been kept under the UK administration.

Now obviously I exaggerated a bit, HK and Taiwan people are our people, but they must realize they have put us down for so long, looking down on us, now that we are stronger, much stronger, we are not the perfect human that can just forget.

HK people used to so look down on us, if you only knew. I was 8 at the time and I knew.

This is where the cultural differences emerge, and the prism through which we each view the world dictates how we perceive the CCP. Perhaps age is also a factor, which could potentially anchor our views in different eras. You have focused on what the CCP is today. I focused on what the CCP has been, and could be again.

I agree that the CCP has remarkable mechanisms today to promote talent. Today. Yesterday, it did not. The CCP was not forged out of an exam system, or promotion by talent, it was forged out of war, and then succession by political maneuvering. The CCP "elevation" process is also not transparent (at least not to Westerners), so we don't know what factors go into deciding who is elevated and why. Does it not cause you to question the system at all that out of 1.3 billion people, so many princelings sit in positions of power? The CCP really could not find more qualified administrators out of such a large pool of talent? Or do you believe that the princelings have superior DNA, and thus the superior talent of the parent was passed down to the child? At least in the West, we recognize nepotism when we see it, and acknowledge that political families are a problem in our political system due to the way it's run. The first step in solving a problem is acknowledging that you have a problem.

Here is my proof that there's a problem: There wouldn't be corruption among the "tigers" today for Xi to combat if the system were as pure as you represent. If corruption can help a CCP member get rich, why can't corruption help a CCP member get promoted? Getting rich and getting promoted aren't mutually exclusive, either.

There was a story during Ming dynasty, the finance minister is one of the cleanest officials yet he was sacked. His ideas for economy was too pure, the emperor explained he rather the minister was somewhat corrupt and brought the country up, than a nation of poor morally sound folks.

Another story, yea story teller, my grandfather was a worker, nothing special, but he went to high school, at that time it was rare. He made my father study really hard and he made it into a great college. Remember at that time the cultural revolution was crazy, and nobody studied. Now my father is normal person, but because of the type of person my grandfather is, he excelled while people of similar talent faltered and many of his classmates are retired and don't have a job, while I'm speaking English with you right now.

Does prince-lings have privilege? Yes, by being around the best, their parents. Even sports sign vets to help younger guys. They also have more opportunities, that's also true, but the fact their father introduced them, gave them more power than they otherwise would have and more, they are in fact the idea guys to help the country.

Would a person that is disrespected and nobody gave a crap be better suited for the job? As I said Zhou YongKang's talent was extraordinary, so he rose despite his humble beginnings. A person with similar talent as Xi couldn't do what Xi is doing.


The world isn't fair, that's just the way it is. Maybe the kingdom of heaven is better, but then a billion rockets from Gaza would disagree.


Lastly, I know giving gifts sound easy, but I can assure you, if you try to bribe using 10 million euros, you won't even be able to see the person you want. It's an art and extremely difficult. I'm around "account" men all day, they handle clients, they are some of the best smooth talkers ever, it's not just saying complements, it's body language, it's timing, it's everything. It's extremely difficult.

I don't mean to hurt anyone's feelings, but Japan pioneered the investment-intensive, export-oriented model that all of the Asian Tigers and China have followed. The CCP isn't special in that it used this system to develop; the CCP is special in that it managed to turn around its purely dictatorial instincts and actually focused on development; otherwise, China would just be a larger version of North Korea today. China is to be congratulated, but the Chinese development model is provably repeatable.

Yea, China has been trading for a very long time, since 1000 years ago. Sure it's more refined today, but the model always existed. China had capitalism right before the Nomads took over, then they destroyed it. It's a good read, if you are interested.

Also Japan was destroyed, but it's infrastructure, educated people, experience and prestige was still there. China really came from nothing.

Chinese model is defiantly repeatable, I just meant, not repeatable without the sacrifices we had to make.

If joining the CCP is the only way to effect change in China, then I choose democracy. The CCP only has what, 90 million members? That's less than 10% of the population given a voice to choose a future for 100% of the population.

Let's go further. What I am getting at with the 50.1%-49.9% remark is that while many here, and many analysts, have claimed that the CCP conducts polling in order to be responsive to the people, we can't verify that. Does the CCP publish the polls and the cross-tabs for public consumption and analysis? I don't know, but I doubt it. And then there is the biggest and most important poll of all, one which has never been taken. Meanwhile, we have to trust that 10% (and in reality, not even that, but rather the 7 members of the Standing Committee) are best placed to decide China's future.

We all have roles, by joining CCP, I mean going into politics, it's the same thing in China. In the West, you can join Unions, blah blah blah, and it's still going into poltiics, that's what I meant. It's all going into politics, would you prefer if we called it Xi party and Bou party instead, just to have two parties?

I refuse to believe. 10,000 workers in the US would have more impact, if they didn't have an effective Union leader, who is in politics, than their Chinese counter part who also has an effective leader, but is CCP.


All Chinese top brass came from the bottom, Xi was in the rural areas, all officials came from the bottom, and the least significant positions, they know the plight of Chinese people. I refuse to believe Obama knows more by being an activists and Senator and never actually worked in the cities or states. Not sure Obama's credentials, not American.

Not to say one is better than the other, but there's advantages and disadvantages to all.

I agree, what China achieved has been remarkable, but whereas you ascribe that success to the genius of the CCP, I ascribe that success to the genius of the Chinese people. I'm willing to bet that if China is provided with rule of law, strong and unbiased institutions, and stability, then it will continue to grow at a healthy pace, whether or not the CCP is in power. This has been the case in the Asian Tigers, when they transitioned from authoritarianism to democracy.

Why do I keep harping on democracy when China has turned out so well? To return to the beginning of this post, the CCP has not always been so benevolent, or focused on development (Mao being the worst example). You believe that the CCP rewards meritocracy and is best positioned to determine what is best for China; I do not trust the CCP, and posit that it's impossible for us to know whether the CCP is taking the best course of action for China, since there are no constraints on the party. When China makes mistakes, like the one child policy, or corruption, then all of China has to wait for the CCP to reform itself, and if it chooses not to reform itself, then there is no recourse.

Neither of us will know who is right unless or until China has democracy, but given Japan's long one-party rule with democracy, and Singapore's long one-party rule with democracy, and Sweden's long one-party rule with democracy, I don't think China has anything to fear from democracy. If you're right, and the CCP is the best option, the people will continue to choose the CCP, and all will be well. If I'm right, the people will choose something else; but in either case, the people would have the choice.

CCP doesn't even exist to me, I look at it for what it is, I hate using the word CCP, it's really just Chinese government and the people of China who fill them. So yea Chinese people. I attribute nothing to CCP, I attribute it to Deng, to Jiang, to Hu, to all the workers, to all the farmers, to all the people of China.

Oh and nothing is unbiased, come on, you been on this world longer than me, no?

Also, CCP doesn't reward meritocracy, just like the people who compete with me for a job didn't reward me the position. I beat them. They lost, I took it. God has spoken and he makes three times more than me, at least. The best thing of meritocracy, survival of the fittest. We pit 90 million men and women in a pit and they fight to the last men, women and animal.



BTW, is Obama taking the best course? I find you don't think so, at least not all of it. There's draw backs to all. Chinese corruption is more like a child to a teen, suddenly these officials had so much new power, and the country had no laws against it. For example, 1980s, no one understood stocks, how can we regulated? How can we regulate what we don't know.

As China matures, new laws will be put into place and new norms will set. I doubt American stock market was rosy when it first introduced just because it was democratic. It's not rosy now.

I won't defend any Chinese policies be it one child or others, like Hukou, but it's always so easy criticizing. India had no one child, and 400 million got born into poverty, to replace the 400 million that got out.

Not saying that will happen, but it's not impossible is it.


Finally, the party don't have to be benevolent, I never trust someone else to hold my fate. Chinese people are far stronger today, if Xi even thinks of reverting back or using the army to crush the people, he will be crushed, and the government will be over. Even Deng couldn't get a few armies to get to Beijing.

 

[tranquilium]

个人认为中国的某某排名靠前或者靠后，都是别的国家或组织按照自己的标准来定下的，事实上，中国的事情只有中国人自己最清楚，哪些需要急切解决，哪些需要重视，哪些需要慢慢来。中国人和中国的朋友看到这些也不用过度高兴，因为中国的很多问题还需要自身的发展来解决，这需要时间。印度网民帖子也看出很爱自己的国家，对自己的国家有信心，从爱国的角度看，这是值得肯定得。只是印度的网民得更多的关注现实，先督促你们的政府修建足够印度国民使用的公共厕所，还有解决好印度糟糕的交通问题，还有严重的社会治安问题再理直气壮的同别的国家比较。
看到不少印度网民经常跟中国比谁更民主、自由，如果是讲这个，你们不过是捧着西方反华媒体的洗脚水在喝，在中国起码没有邪恶的种姓制度，没有哪个姓氏高贵，哪个姓氏低贱，民主自由不是靠嘴说的，更不要拿多少年后的发展蓝图来画饼充饥寻找自我安慰，非常不理智！

按HDI的排法利比亚和黎巴嫩能比中国排的高，所以这东西看看就好。

 

[TimeToScoot]

I think India has place too much hope on just one man.

One man can change the world. Many many examples from Mahatma Gandhi to Buddha to Steve Jobs to Henry Ford. When Steve Jobs was brought back to Apple to save the company what did he do? Did he fire all the employees at Apple and recruit completely new ones? Nope. All the company needed was a passionate leader with a far sighted vision who could give the company a new direction and purpose. India's citizens are like those Apple employees who flourished under Steve Jobs but failed to live up to their potential under Jobs predecessors because their leadership was not up to the mark.

Did not the same hope occurred when Manmohan Singh became India's PM ? Wasn't he supposed to be the economic genius that would reform and open India's economy ?

 

[boke]

Speak English man. This is an English based defence forum.

我是中国人，用本国语言表达自己的意思是我理所当然的选择，与这个论坛用的语言无关，我要传递的是我的意思，并不需要表现自己的英语掌握的怎样。对中国人来说，英语就是一个工具，而且只是工具中的一种，它并不是中国人的首要选择，更非最重要的选择。
我懂你的意思，你懂我的吗？

 

[Phukimak]

I think India has place too much hope on just one man.

Did not the same hope occurred when Manmohan Singh became India's PM ? Wasn't he supposed to be the economic genius that would reform and open India's economy ?

Well, that's happened when Bollywood films culture rooted inside India citizen mind...

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

Before I start, I will say I see where you are coming from, I do. You truly are brought up in America, you deal in absolutes and have too much of a blind spot, while China has played both sides of the fence you have played one and detested the other.

I'm not insulting you or anything, just that there is a blind spot.



Nothing? How about 1.3 billion well educated men and women? How about a population hell bent on reaching number one, how about an army system that have 2 year service models, and more and more university students in the army as NCOs?

How about a fractured system made by Chinese to never again let anyone have absolute power.

You know how many protests are in China and how much appeasement are done?

For Xinjiang and Tibet as well as HK and Taiwan, the only reason CCP can clamp down is we just don't give a crap about them. So in that sense they have the people's blessing to do so.



Now obviously I exaggerated a bit, HK and Taiwan people are our people, but they must realize they have put us down for so long, looking down on us, now that we are stronger, much stronger, we are not the perfect human that can just forget.

HK people used to so look down on us, if you only knew. I was 8 at the time and I knew.



There was a story during Ming dynasty, the finance minister is one of the cleanest officials yet he was sacked. His ideas for economy was too pure, the emperor explained he rather the minister was somewhat corrupt and brought the country up, than a nation of poor morally sound folks.

Another story, yea story teller, my grandfather was a worker, nothing special, but he went to high school, at that time it was rare. He made my father study really hard and he made it into a great college. Remember at that time the cultural revolution was crazy, and nobody studied. Now my father is normal person, but because of the type of person my grandfather is, he excelled while people of similar talent faltered and many of his classmates are retired and don't have a job, while I'm speaking English with you right now.

Does prince-lings have privilege? Yes, by being around the best, their parents. Even sports sign vets to help younger guys. They also have more opportunities, that's also true, but the fact their father introduced them, gave them more power than they otherwise would have and more, they are in fact the idea guys to help the country.

Would a person that is disrespected and nobody gave a crap be better suited for the job? As I said Zhou YongKang's talent was extraordinary, so he rose despite his humble beginnings. A person with similar talent as Xi couldn't do what Xi is doing.


The world isn't fair, that's just the way it is. Maybe the kingdom of heaven is better, but then a billion rockets from Gaza would disagree.


Lastly, I know giving gifts sound easy, but I can assure you, if you try to bribe using 10 million euros, you won't even be able to see the person you want. It's an art and extremely difficult. I'm around "account" men all day, they handle clients, they are some of the best smooth talkers ever, it's not just saying complements, it's body language, it's timing, it's everything. It's extremely difficult.




Yea, China has been trading for a very long time, since 1000 years ago. Sure it's more refined today, but the model always existed. China had capitalism right before the Nomads took over, then they destroyed it. It's a good read, if you are interested.

Also Japan was destroyed, but it's infrastructure, educated people, experience and prestige was still there. China really came from nothing.

Chinese model is defiantly repeatable, I just meant, not repeatable without the sacrifices we had to make.



We all have roles, by joining CCP, I mean going into politics, it's the same thing in China. In the West, you can join Unions, blah blah blah, and it's still going into poltiics, that's what I meant. It's all going into politics, would you prefer if we called it Xi party and Bou party instead, just to have two parties?

I refuse to believe. 10,000 workers in the US would have more impact, if they didn't have an effective Union leader, who is in politics, than their Chinese counter part who also has an effective leader, but is CCP.


All Chinese top brass came from the bottom, Xi was in the rural areas, all officials came from the bottom, and the least significant positions, they know the plight of Chinese people. I refuse to believe Obama knows more by being an activists and Senator and never actually worked in the cities or states. Not sure Obama's credentials, not American.

Not to say one is better than the other, but there's advantages and disadvantages to all.



CCP doesn't even exist to me, I look at it for what it is, I hate using the word CCP, it's really just Chinese government and the people of China who fill them. So yea Chinese people. I attribute nothing to CCP, I attribute it to Deng, to Jiang, to Hu, to all the workers, to all the farmers, to all the people of China.

Oh and nothing is unbiased, come on, you been on this world longer than me, no?

Also, CCP doesn't reward meritocracy, just like the people who compete with me for a job didn't reward me the position. I beat them. They lost, I took it. God has spoken and he makes three times more than me, at least. The best thing of meritocracy, survival of the fittest. We pit 90 million men and women in a pit and they fight to the last men, women and animal.



BTW, is Obama taking the best course? I find you don't think so, at least not all of it. There's draw backs to all. Chinese corruption is more like a child to a teen, suddenly these officials had so much new power, and the country had no laws against it. For example, 1980s, no one understood stocks, how can we regulated? How can we regulate what we don't know.

As China matures, new laws will be put into place and new norms will set. I doubt American stock market was rosy when it first introduced just because it was democratic. It's not rosy now.

I won't defend any Chinese policies be it one child or others, like Hukou, but it's always so easy criticizing. India had no one child, and 400 million got born into poverty, to replace the 400 million that got out.

Not saying that will happen, but it's not impossible is it.


Finally, the party don't have to be benevolent, I never trust someone else to hold my fate. Chinese people are far stronger today, if Xi even thinks of reverting back or using the army to crush the people, he will be crushed, and the government will be over. Even Deng couldn't get a few armies to get to Beijing.

Thanks for the response. I accept that the Chinese system has a degree of nuance that I may not appreciate, given my own background, but I'm trying hard to understand the paradox of why otherwise driven, ambitious Chinese seem so fatalistic when it comes to the political sphere and control of their country's future.

Your first paragraph resonates with me, because that's exactly the transformation I saw after Tiananmen: the citizens turned their aspirations from self-actualization to tangible wealth, and it appears that's still the priority.

Anyway, that's a side note. I disagree with some of your assertions, but I won't waste your time by focusing on the details. Let's go to the big picture.

America has its flaws (and Obama is the most flawed of all), but here's the component that I'm still missing after our conversation. At the most fundamental level, the value of the American citizen is that he has the power to vote for his own future. Sure, there are rich Americans who can lobby directly, or wine-and-dine politicians, but in the end, the politicians still need to get 50.1%+ (ok, sometimes a plurality) of the vote, and so their behavior is tied to how they treat their citizens. That's the check on an ever-powerful elite in society, whereas in China, there doesn't appear to be such a check. It's true that certain people have natural advantages over others (IQ, born into wealth, athletic ability, etc.), but the democratic system serves to level society, whereas an elitist system (as with China) reinforces elitism. You mentioned Zhou Yongkang, which is a great example. He was born in 1942, and was able to rise up the ranks before the current system was firmly established (for that matter, so too was Xi Jinping, although he had extra help through his father's connections, I'm sure). This is an open question: now that the current system is in place, can there be another Zhou Yongkang (i.e. someone who came from nothing), from the cohort that was born in the 1980s? I'm highly skeptical. I suspect we will see an increasing percentage of children of wealthy business-people and princelings inhabit the higher levels of power in China over the next decades. I will be very happy to be proven wrong, but Xi Jinping is not a good omen for the alternative.

This self-reinforced elitism serves to disenfranchise segments of society; that's why China is able to embark on awe-inspiring projects like the Three Gorges Dam, which on the one hand are marvels of engineering and economic development, and on the other hand, destroy the lives of millions of people. What is the "greater good," and who determines it? Democracy serves as a check on political calculations of "the greater good," what serves as that check in China? For example, what would happen if the CCP decided that the Muslim residents of Xianjiang should be relocated to the center of the country to improve the stability of the Western frontier. Would anyone stand up to that (other than the Muslims)? Would anyone be able to stop the CCP if it made such an extreme decree?

I know you don't like my focus on the CCP, but since the CCP is the only viable conduit to the political levers of power, I can't help it. You rightly focused on Obama's incompetence and lack of experience; but on the other hand, it's a great example of the potential of each American citizen to come out of nowhere to change the course of America's history. Indeed, what about the Ronald Reagans of the world--those who were not professional politicians (Reagan was 56 when first elected to political office), but nevertheless made it to the pinnacle of power, and changed world history? The CCP will never know whether such individuals exist in China, because there is no avenue for such citizens to be tested except through the CCP. The CCP is the government, the government is the CCP.

Sovereignty in China clearly does not reside with the Chinese people, so what ties the CCP to the Chinese citizen? The CCP doesn't answer to the Chinese citizen, except possibly through fear of a revolution if they don't satisfy the vast majority of the population, but that's the case in every society. What makes the average Chinese citizen valuable in the current Chinese political system? I have my biases, true, but from my perspective, the average Chinese citizen is valueless in the Chinese system. I would be interested in hearing why I'm wrong.

By the way, do you have any recommendations for books on Chinese capitalism before the nomad invasion?

 

[TaiShang]

What the CCP needs to do now is to stay steady and further improve people's life quality while keeping not allowing foreign elements to interfere its own business.

What India needs to do is stop calling themselves a democracy because such a corrupt, inefficient and inherently unequal savage regime defiles the title of democracy, which means good, efficient governance.

 

[TaiShang]

Ban GPS completely from China.

That will eventually happen through soft (state support of domestic companies) and hard (anti-monopoly) measures.

China is a smart power and will not let any strategic industry rain the domestic market. But all will take time. The good thing is political consciousness and will is right there.

 

[TaiShang]

As the dust settles on China's high-tech giant Huawei Technologies Co Ltd's latest innovation,a new wonder chip, the Kirin 920, it is important to review the significance of this new product.

In the month since the Kirin 920 was announced, it has certainly captured the attention of the media. The tone generally has been one of admiration and respect for the chip in a market long dominated by the United States in general and US-based Qualcomm Inc in particular.

On a technical level, Huawei's Kirin 920 provides support for QHD displays, 4K video recording and a high-speed LTE category-6 platform. None of Huawei's global competitors,not even Qualcomm, can match this functionality.

Huawei's Kirin 920 announcement also signals that the company as well as other Chinese companies are increasingly innovative and internationally competitive.

Technical innovation is an absolute necessity to remaincompetitive both domestically and globally, but it is not sufficient by itself.

Huawei needs to match its impressive technical innovation record with equally impressive brand image creativity and innovation.

The high-tech industry, perhaps with Apple Inc as the only exception, is dominated by software and electronic engineering advances and specialists. As a result, brand imaging is often relegated to a "bolt on" added by an outside marketing agency.

Huawei, therefore, can step further ahead of its global rivals by matching its latest Kirin 920 innovation with a brand image overhaul and redesign.

The key to any successful brand image is the set of associations chosen that collectively form a powerful impression in the minds of the brand's target market.

Here, Huawei could demonstrate real innovation and some courage by choosing associations that evoke a powerful Chinese image.

Chinese history, rich in artistic imagery, is full of such associations.

It is important to stress what sort of brand image Huawei should target. Huawei already hasan enviable worldwide reputation, for technical excellence and innovation, but high-tech consumers also value a brand that attaches itself to an important aspect of their lifestyle.

High-tech brands also need to be seen as lifestyle solutions and provide a certain amount of "personality" as well as effective technical delivery.

Huawei, like many of its global high-tech rivals, does not appear to have considered any sortof emotional brand personality, but now is the time.

But with China's 5,000-year history and an abundance of associations from which to choose, where should Huawei start?

Perhaps an effective starting point would be inside the typical high-tech global consumer's mind, where the company can uncover their knowledge and appreciation of Chinese history.

Such a starting point will undoubtedly lead to one of the nation's most famous literary works, The Romance of The Three Kingdoms, a brilliant novel that winds through Chinese history with a multitude of rich characters.

Huawei could "attach" some of the book's characters and images in order to build a brand with real personality.

Intellectual giant and masterful military strategist, Zhuge Liang, could feature prominently in any brand imagery andenable Huawei to begin to build an emotionally powerful, competitive brand.

Huawei continues to lead Chinese companies' international expansion with technical excellence and creativity, but it is brand image innovation that is much needed now.

That coincides very well with the anti-monopoly measures against Qualcomm. Chinese-made chips will have to dominate at least the majority of the market in a decade.

 

[aliaselin]

按HDI的排法利比亚和黎巴嫩能比中国排的高，所以这东西看看就好。

Yeah. Just can not believe they still rank Libya as green. Do we live in the same planet?

 

[Kolaps]

What kind of HDI is that???

So low!

A country of uncultured barbarian.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Yeah. Just can not believe they still rank Libya as green. Do we live in the same planet?

Might seem unreasonable that Libya has higher HDI than china but thats probably because you live in urban costal china which has pretty high HDI (comparable to developed countries in a sense).

2010 data so a bit outdated but you get the point. What drags China down is the incredibly poor rural area that lacks water, electricity, infrastructure, ect.

 

[Genesis]

Thanks for the response. I accept that the Chinese system has a degree of nuance that I may not appreciate, given my own background, but I'm trying hard to understand the paradox of why otherwise driven, ambitious Chinese seem so fatalistic when it comes to the political sphere and control of their country's future.

Your first paragraph resonates with me, because that's exactly the transformation I saw after Tiananmen: the citizens turned their aspirations from self-actualization to tangible wealth, and it appears that's still the priority.

Anyway, that's a side note. I disagree with some of your assertions, but I won't waste your time by focusing on the details. Let's go to the big picture.

America has its flaws (and Obama is the most flawed of all), but here's the component that I'm still missing after our conversation. At the most fundamental level, the value of the American citizen is that he has the power to vote for his own future. Sure, there are rich Americans who can lobby directly, or wine-and-dine politicians, but in the end, the politicians still need to get 50.1%+ (ok, sometimes a plurality) of the vote, and so their behavior is tied to how they treat their citizens. That's the check on an ever-powerful elite in society, whereas in China, there doesn't appear to be such a check. It's true that certain people have natural advantages over others (IQ, born into wealth, athletic ability, etc.), but the democratic system serves to level society, whereas an elitist system (as with China) reinforces elitism. You mentioned Zhou Yongkang, which is a great example. He was born in 1942, and was able to rise up the ranks before the current system was firmly established (for that matter, so too was Xi Jinping, although he had extra help through his father's connections, I'm sure). This is an open question: now that the current system is in place, can there be another Zhou Yongkang (i.e. someone who came from nothing), from the cohort that was born in the 1980s? I'm highly skeptical. I suspect we will see an increasing percentage of children of wealthy business-people and princelings inhabit the higher levels of power in China over the next decades. I will be very happy to be proven wrong, but Xi Jinping is not a good omen for the alternative.

I know you don't like my focus on the CCP, but since the CCP is the only viable conduit to the political levers of power, I can't help it. You rightly focused on Obama's incompetence and lack of experience; but on the other hand, it's a great example of the potential of each American citizen to come out of nowhere to change the course of America's history. Indeed, what about the Ronald Reagans of the world--those who were not professional politicians (Reagan was 56 when first elected to political office), but nevertheless made it to the pinnacle of power, and changed world history? The CCP will never know whether such individuals exist in China, because there is no avenue for such citizens to be tested except through the CCP. The CCP is the government, the government is the CCP.

Sovereignty in China clearly does not reside with the Chinese people, so what ties the CCP to the Chinese citizen? The CCP doesn't answer to the Chinese citizen, except possibly through fear of a revolution if they don't satisfy the vast majority of the population, but that's the case in every society. What makes the average Chinese citizen valuable in the current Chinese political system? I have my biases, true, but from my perspective, the average Chinese citizen is valueless in the Chinese system. I would be interested in hearing why I'm wrong.

By the way, do you have any recommendations for books on Chinese capitalism before the nomad invasion?

Books? Not really, I mean most of it is Chinese, by that I mean all. But I think starting from Wiki is a good read, then moving on to more specifics. It might surprise you what Chinese were doing at that time, almost 300 years pre-industrial revolution.

The Portuguese were there, and I know there are many English books by Americans, but usually I read online things. The last book I read was well, my text book, lol.


Now, I thought of a couple responses, and I don't really have an response. I could tell you that Chinese are competitive, hate the rich and powerful, or I could say talent trumps all, but without an election I guess all those are not sure fire ways of ensuring anything.

But that is actually what it is, your methods are set in stone and written in stone, while ours are more unwritten.

My belief is 1 + 1 = 2, no matter what font one uses or what country they are from this remains true.

America failed miserably in Iraq, I mean reconstruction, why? Iraq didn't have the necessary ingredients to fulfill what America wanted.

Today's Iraq is so like yesterday's China, ROC is exactly like that before they got defeated.

Why did democracy fail so miserably there but succeeded so spectacularly in US? While China in a different system has also achieved success as did pre war Japan and UK, as well as German Empire and Nazi Germany.

Why did China fail so miserably in the 1960s and 70s, when essentially it's the same people, but succeeded in the 80s and 90s? Policy certainly played a role, but all nation needed that first spark, UK supremacy and later US didn't happen simply because people choose their leaders, especially since it's not even true in the UK.

What's consistent? Educated people, infrastructure in all sectors, and many more that are tangible rather than idealistic signs of a developed nation.

Democracy rarely if ever works in poor nations, reason is not democracy don't work it's those nations don't work.


The government should be as good as its people most of the time, because the government is the people. There are no special places that produce leaders.

While you worry about what the government might do, I'm saying government is the instrument of the people, doesn't matter if its elected or not. HOWEVER, the requirement is the people can exert influence DUE TO THEIR OWN POWER, rather than any given power.

Obviously nothing is 100%, Obama is on top of the US for better or worse, and India did kick out a lame party despite its low development level.

I'm not a fan in dealing in ideology to be honest, I find them tedious and too far from reality, there are too many variables to simply say this is going to happen due to this.

Even if I set everything the right way 100% for a presentation, I can still be hit by a truck, US can launch a nuke by accident, or something of that nature, point is, the only thing certain is that nothing is certain. But as long as you got the right stuff, you should more chance than not be able to achieve your goal.

This self-reinforced elitism serves to disenfranchise segments of society; that's why China is able to embark on awe-inspiring projects like the Three Gorges Dam, which on the one hand are marvels of engineering and economic development, and on the other hand, destroy the lives of millions of people. What is the "greater good," and who determines it? Democracy serves as a check on political calculations of "the greater good," what serves as that check in China? For example, what would happen if the CCP decided that the Muslim residents of Xianjiang should be relocated to the center of the country to improve the stability of the Western frontier. Would anyone stand up to that (other than the Muslims)? Would anyone be able to stop the CCP if it made such an extreme decree?

One of the key reasons I moved back to China more or less is because of delay of pipeline in the US and Canada. So a project good? Bad? Depends on who you are, as someone always benefits, China is simply letting part of the benefit also reaching those affected, is that good? All I will say, it could be worse.

But men make tough choices, I always like Kennedy's not because it is easy but because it is hard speech. That's really been my philosophy. CCP is a leader, they can never satisfy everyone, do what you think it's best, if not, handle the consequences. As with perks their are also downsides, and being responsible is one of them.

We can't let fear and self doubt dictate our lives. We must set the pace.