What Is China?
13 January 2010The following post is a reprint of last week’s January 4 issue of the Strategic News Service Technology Letter. At the request of our members, we are hereby authorizing distribution of that issue to the general public. If you find this blog useful, please point to it in your own blogs and writings.
This issue is retroactively dedicated to my friend Sergey Brin of Google, for having the courage to say No to Chinese censorship.
» What Is China?
Most people probably assume that the reason for China’s enormous economic growth rates is simply size: anything powered by 1.2B people is bound to make a big splash. But India, with the self-proclaimed “oldest democracy in the world,” is about to exceed China’s population.
What makes China so different?
Westerners remember China’s turn toward “socialist market economics” under Deng Xiaoping (Teng Hsiao-ping). Deng was a political adept who outmaneuvered Mao’s hand-picked successor, Hua Guofeng, and often ruled without a specific single title of power. (See our “Takeout Window” for more biographical data.)
Deng once said: [chinese characters]
Translation: “It does not matter whether the cat is black or white; as long as it catches the mouse, it is a good cat” (commenting on the whether China should turn to capitalism or remain strictly in adherence with the economic ideologies of communism). Westerners assumed this meant that Deng, the pragmatist, was turning China toward free markets.
Deng did not turn China into a market economy; far from it. Here is a quick description of early Deng achievements, from The Hutchinson Encyclopedia:
“By December 1978, although nominally a CCP vice chair, state vice premier, and Chief of Staff to the PLA, Deng was the controlling force in China. His policy of ‘socialism with Chinese characteristics,’ misinterpreted in the West as a drift to capitalism, had success in rural areas.
“His reputation, both at home and in the West, was tarnished by his sanctioning of the army’s massacre of more than 2,000 pro-democracy demonstrators in Tiananmen Square, Beijing, in June 1989.”
In summary: the fellow who brought market economics to China, really didn’t. Instead, he helped install an economic model designed to gut its trading partners, described in detail below.
Too often, today, sloppy thinkers and Western optimists assume that China is just a Big America, or a Big Vietnam, or a Fast India – or their Next Big Business Partner.
Wrong. At a time when the world thinks the communist model has been proved obsolete, China remains a communist country. In fact, under the current leader, Hu Jintao, human rights in China have recently suffered and are now in serious decline, according to Amnesty International-USA, the Committee to Protect Journalists, Human Rights Watch, and others.
China has tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of human censors monitoring citizen clicks and comments on the China government–controlled Internet. When my friend’s teenage daughter (a U.S. citizen) taught English there last year, police came to her apartment and grilled her about specific computer entries she had made. When one of Australia’s top mining firms, Rio Tinto, refused to allow China’s Chinalco to double its ownership interest last year (to 18%), China arrested local CEO (and Australian citizen) Stern Hu and three managers, who remain in jail today, under espionage charges. China denies any connection. In politics, thought, and business, China remains a police state.
We all refer to China as “China” now, as though it’s just One of the Gang, like “Ohio” or “Denmark”; after all, it’s a member of the G7, right? Just another market economy finding its way in the global river of events —
No, it’s not. And it isn’t in the G7. In fact, it isn’t even part of the G8, which includes Russia.
So now ask yourself: When is the last time you called Communist China, Communist China?
You’d better get used to it. There is no indication that the Chinese Communist Party has any intention of giving up any power at all, or of changing its power structure. In fact, discussion of anything political is basically off limits inside China; it is not done. Ah, you heard that there were some small moves toward shadow property rights in China? Sorry, that move has recently been reversed.
Wait, you say – what about the spread of democracy, at least in town and provincial elections? Didn’t Hu Jintao just give a speech praising democracy? Well, that turns out to have been another false start: today, democracy seems to be declining rather than growing, and it never reached the national stage. In fact, these days Hu is insisting on a new policy of “no debate” on government decisions, even (and especially) at the highest levels.
It is time to look at China, not for what it says, but for what it does, and to judge it accordingly. It is time to tell the truth about what Nobelist Paul Krugman calls “a misbehaving superpower,” rather than letting misplaced greed dictate the conversation. China is not what we hope it could be. China is what it is.
Those who take this new tack will have a differing view, in general, from the global media – and a much more accurate one.
___
What Is China?
Most of our readers are more interested in the economic aspects of this question than in issues of human rights, media control and censorship, military buildup, or the country’s increasingly interesting international political alliances. All of these areas are worth study, and, in general, all veer from the view generally portrayed in Western media. The story of an increasingly aggressive Chinese navy, about to become a Blue Sea (open water) force with its own carrier fleet, buttressed by continued additions of attack nuclear-armed submarines, is not much told, although I can’t see why not.
The successful Chinese shoot-down of a satellite by a land-based missile got media attention, for a week. But it should be taken on a much more serious level, as a direct threat expression against any nation intending to use satellites in war.
The now-documented cyber attacks by Chinese-sourced computers against Western economic and military targets, suddenly ramping up on a straight line for the last two to three years, deserve more public conversation. Recent estimates are that 80% of such global attacks on U.S. economic, infrastructure, and military targets come directly or indirectly from the Chinese government and military.
And China’s continued shipping of weapons and parts to Iran, and general violation of U.N. sanctions against North Korea and other dangerous nuclear wannabe states, is disconcerting at best.
But in this discussion we will focus on economics, both because it is in SNS members’ near-term interests and because the successful implementation of Chinese economic policy enables all of these other programs.
What Is the Chinese Economic Model?
Although the politics of China remains communist, the economics might be called Advanced Mercantilist. China has taken the lessons of Japan and South Korea in dealing with the West and modified them with “Chinese characteristics.”
Here are the basic tenets of the Chinese Model:
1. Steal Intellectual Property. IP represents the crown jewels of the global economy; they are the peak achievement of Western civilization, and of all of China’s competitors. China steals IP daily, in every possible way: through force, through simple copying, through reverse engineering, through industrial and government espionage, through common theft. China also has a national policy which prevents non-Chinese firms from selling in China unless companies transfer their most valuable IP to China as the price of market access. The clueless ones obey; just ask Boeing.
2. Use Slave Labor Rates to Become the Low-Cost Producer of All Goods and Services. If you are building a downtown tower in Shanghai (and there are a lot of them, many empty), you may not have to pay some of your workers for six months to a year. Or you fire them just before that: free labor! It doesn’t work that way in Chicago or Paris, does it? With 800MM country folk in line for coastal jobs, there is perhaps a 30-year supply of poverty-level wage earners happy to make export goods at below global cost. The rest of the world’s workers are paying, with their own jobs, for this unhappy result of near-term Chinese economic history, and of the past actions of the Communist Party.
3.Sell Stolen IP Back As Global Exports. Japan opened this model, but China has perfected it. In addition to the usual pirating of IP, for domestic markets and for export, there is a new twist that further harms the global marketplace. It isn’t enough to find Windows – or a foreign film on DVD – for sale for $1 in Hong Kong these days. How about in Nebraska, California, or Texas? No global market is secure from pirated IP.
4. Industrial Policy: Subsidize Key Industries. Japan also started this idea, but China takes it much further. Originally, the government (or the People’s Liberation Army) owned virtually all large enterprises, but even today, it retains strong interests in most key export companies, which makes government assistance less transparent. Many outsiders assume they are dealing with “real” companies, when they are actually dealing indirectly with the Chinese government. Examples of subsidization and export dumping would include tires and, more recently, steel exports (sound like Japanese history?), now being tariffed by the E.U. and the U.S.
Look at the big sales of wireless 4G LTE gear in Europe for the last six months, and ask the local competitors (Nokia Siemens, Alcatel) why they can’t match price, and have been losing out to Huawei and no-brand upstarts from China? Or why the final (China) bid price is sometimes as little as 10% of the European group bid price average? Does this sound a bit like Japan in the U.S. TV market back in the ’60s and ’70s?
Here is a rather fascinating question: Given China’s model, is it possible that ALL exports in government-selected industries represent poverty labor and subsidies, and therefore the practice of dumping?
5. Prevent (or Restrict) Unwanted Imports. Use structural rules to prevent any real competition in your domestic market in any areas targeted by industrial policy. (Example: wind power equipment sold today into China must be made using Chinese manufacturing tools, and must fit a non-standard Chinese watt figure.) China has chosen the original path of allowing two kinds of imports: food and raw materials – the latter for making things to be value-added and exported back to the seller – and industries such as cars and planes, in which IP needs to be stolen domestically before the local industry can be created.
Members will note that both the auto and aerospace industries are just making this turning point during 2010, and China will soon be an exporter in both markets.
6. Use Currency Manipulation to provide artificial aid to your export companies. Why play fair? The Japanese perfected this through currency market (forex) intervention, but the Chinese did them a step better, by locking into the (U.S.) market they wanted to parasitize. This “dollar peg” recently has had the added benefit of devaluing the yuan vs. virtually all other Asian and emerging-nation currencies as the dollar dropped, giving China a further global competitive edge and enraging past trading partners, from Brazil to Indonesia.
7. Price for Export, Suppress Domestic Consumption, and use domestic savings to drive the above policies. While everyone is talking about how wealthy the new Chinese coastal middle class has become, they forget that there are another 800MM+ Chinese still waiting inland on the farm for anything good to happen to them. Despite the latest boom, the Chinese people are still among the top global savers. China seems to be allowing faster wage growth, and is encouraging domestic consumption, more than Japan has.
China has further modified this Japanese model by building domestic investment pools through imbalance of trade accounts, the direct result of the policies described here. China is no longer a poor country; it now holds the largest currency reserves in the world. This leads to a big public relations issue for the country, as the rest of the world asks anew: What is China?
8. Create the Appearance of Free and Fair Trade, Without the Fact. By making certain promises for the future, and by pointing to talk vs. the action inherent in the above policies, the global community somehow allowed China to join the World Trade Organization, although, in fact, China has not signed off on all of the WTO requirements, which might surprise less-informed members, and it regularly loses cases before the WTO. Even so, China achieved its primary goal: market access around the world, which is key to its own mercantilist model working properly. The results have been spectacular: on Wednesday morning, the Wall Street Journal declared China the new leader in global exports, beating out Germany and the U.S.
9. Encourage Foreign Direct Investment – But Don’t Allow Controlling Ownership. We’ll take your cash, the message is, but you don’t get anything for it. Sure, outsiders can invest; but we’ll hold all the poker chips. This is China’s improvement over the Japanese and SK models, and it is a meaningful one. Japan has since become the largest source of FDI in China. But the Japanese are smart: they build assembly plants, not design and production plants, and leave their IP at home.
Does this combined policy set sound anything like free markets, or free trade? Not at all. China has made use of markets only on the most limited basis. If you doubt it, take a close look at Chinese banks.
I have found myself increasingly frustrated by the gap between what the media seem to think about the Chinese model vs. what it appears to me to be. At our recent SNS Annual Predictions Dinner in New York, I mentioned the uneasy relationship between reality and the public Chinese GDP figures. When they were publishing 11%, I was figuring 11%-15%. Then publicly announced rates dropped to 6.5%, at which point the government spent about 3X more than the U.S. on stimulus (on a GDP basis, but there you go again) and brought it right back up to its pre-announced, politically required sweet spot: 7.5%-8%.
This is not a market, it’s a lever. Want a different number? No worries.
Earlier, while speaking to the Orange Wireless CIO Forum in Hampshire, England, I read the audience a quote from the Financial Times which perfectly described the problem, and which I will paraphrase here:
“The top two Chinese banks announced record profits this quarter, although note must be made that, in this case, the definition of costs and revenues, and therefore profits, are dictated by the government. Their stocks subsequently rose in Hong Kong.”
This is not a joke; it’s the FT. Revenues and costs are decided by the Party, so profits are decided by the Party, then “free market” equity trades occur on the Hong Kong stock exchange as a result. Are you kidding?
Chinese banks are not banks; they are cash distribution pipelines, generally controlled or heavily influenced by the government. Selective industries are fed loans, based on the flavor of the week, on terms dictated from above. When the pipelines are empty (as they are now), the government just inserts more money into the other end.
(Yes, in the days of the TARP, one is forced to make the comparison to recent U.S. and U.K. behaviors; but these are a “bailout,” and the Chinese banks have operated like this for years. Unlike their Western cousins, they are supposed to operate like this.)
What can one say about an economy in which numbers are not numbers and banks are not banks?
So, before the world continues on in its near-breathless wonder at the Chinese Miracle, let’s reassess:
It pays to steal IP, to use slave labor wages, to lie about trade practices, to ship pirated goods into foreign markets, to force IP disclosure in return for limited market access, to subsidize exports, and to manipulate currencies. Is there any part of this that is legal in international terms, or that should be applauded by the world community?
Not that I can determine.
Remember how China dealt with 3G – at the time, the most important (patented) technology in wireless communications in the world? Instead of letting out contracts to foreign firms, as all other countries did, China stole the IP from Qualcomm, with some help from Siemens and perhaps local firm Datang. It took years to reverse-engineer and then differentiate the tech into TD-SCDMA, now coming to China’s consumers about five to seven years late.
When will the world catch up to this kind of charade? The answer just might be: now.
I think there have been two turning points, and we have just recently passed both. First, China’s “friends” suddenly find themselves equally the victims of China’s model, their currencies undercut by 30%+ per year, and their trade balances going deeply into the red. Surprise! Suddenly they, too, can see how the model works, and the U.S. doesn’t look quite so stupid anymore.
And second: Copenhagen.
China appears to have gone to the December Copenhagen meeting on climate change with the intention of blocking a major agreement while scoring political points against the U.S. In practice, perhaps thanks to some quick moves by President Obama, the opposite seems to have happened. (See “Quotes of the Week.”) By sending a lackey in Wen Jiabao’s place to leadership meetings, and then blocking agreements, while Obama came up with a global financial solution to the rich/poor debate, the tables were turned on China.
There is even some talk that Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were tipped to a secret “blocker’s meeting” being held between China, Venezuela, Brazil, and a few other countries, which they literally “crashed” (walked in on, uninvited) and turned to their advantage, bringing Brazil back to the table.
China came out of Copenhagen appearing to have played a saboteur’s role, and no one in the world (except Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez) is happy about it.
Who’s Counting?
Without accurate or standardized accounting, even China’s equity markets are intrinsically dangerous, insofar as there, too, the numbers are essentially made up, or are arbitrary at best. And without the rule of law, specifically as regards theft of intellectual property, there is literally no way of the nation getting from where it is now to where the civilized world is now, without decades of work on judicial and legal infrastructure.
And then there is the issue of a command economy in the modern world. One recent study on Chinese pricing found the equity market vs. real estate market pricing with a 7X larger gap than was found in Japan, just before its own real-estate bubble collapse decades ago. Clearly, there are asset bubbles inside China: real estate is overpriced while apartments and offices lie vacant in huge numbers in the cities. China-made steel has gone from under- to over-supply, and is now going begging on the global markets.
Indeed, the global outcome of a fast-growing command economy has been the government-determined explosion of asset bubbles all over the world – not because China is growing, the cause assumed by most economists, but because the government is buying resources (and their future options) on the global market, forward for 5-20 years. The result: instant commodity asset bubbles, worldwide, and further destabilization for non-Chinese consumers of these commodities. Of course, if the Chinese play the bubbles wrong, they will lose even more as prices collapse.
Could the Chinese create a global catastrophe by commanding all of this leverage into the wrong assets at the wrong time, by deflating the value of high-IP goods, by forcing global competition against unsustainable cost bases, and destroying non-Chinese business infrastructure? Sure. In fact, this is almost a “when,” and not an “if,” question. What could possibly be more dangerous to the world than a command economic system run on a global scale?
(One good answer: five evil traders on the 7th floor at Goldman Sachs.)
In summary, China should not be treated as though it were just another fast-growing free-market nation, with inevitable road bumps making things a bit uncomfortable; it isn’t. China is a top-down, completely controlled system, running on a zero-sum economic model made to produce one winner, and many losers.
So What Is China?
There is nothing like it. It is a communist country that has fooled the West out of its money, and the West has been only too willing to go along for the ride. Now, as China’s other trading partners come in for the same rough treatment, it is becoming a global pariah, and its excuses and delays are increasingly falling on deaf ears.
What can its trading partners do to help bring China into compliance with global economic practice? Insist on actions, not words. Use tariffs when dumping, subsidies, or internal structural market blocs are the issues. Insist on justice where IP is involved. Do not disclose IP to China, under any circumstances. Stand up for your own rights and property; refuse to be bullied. If you can’t trade there, trade elsewhere. Make sure that goods made in China do not use slave labor, in one form or another. Make your goods somewhere else.
Instead of rewarding outrageous behavior, condemn it, in public.
Ask politicians and leaders espousing free-trade bills whether they have thought through the result of free trade in a rigged game, in which all of the cheapest goods and services are made by China? Stop shopping at Wal-Mart, a wholly-supplied Chinese distribution system.
Do not be shy about tariffs: it is the one thing that can go wrong for the Chinese economic model described here. If China stops buying our goods, what happens? Boeing takes a hit. (This was coming anyway.) If we stop buying Chinese goods, what happens? It would be the end of the Chinese model, and the Communist Party knows it.
Require fair trade; refuse extortion. Tell the truth about China’s tactics. Become an economic locovore, not just eating local food, but buying local goods and services.
Write, or share, letters like this one.
47 Responses to “What Is China?”
January 13th, 2010 at 8:38 pm
This article really shows how little you know about China; or may be I should say how your biases prevent your eyes from opening and seeing the big picture.
So who exactly are you to criticize what Boeing does in China? May be if you are really somebody, you wouldn’t be writing a blog like this, but actually doing something to take advantage of opportunities China offers!
If China’s shortcomings were so unbearable, I would assume business leaders over the last 50 years would not have done any business with China. They probably wouldn’t need you to point out the shortcomings either. Businesses know the risks going into China before they decide; and you know why they still do, one big word – Capitalism! It simply makes more money from them. Ironic isn’t it?
The US would simply collapse without all the investment US companies have in China.
If you wanna be a somebody, try understand what China really is before criticizing out of your big fat ass!
January 13th, 2010 at 10:19 pm
The US would certainly not collapse without its investments in China; what a joke.
Conversely; China would collapse without access to the US market.
So, let’s be clear: we do not need to invest in China. China does need us to buy its goods.
Period.
January 13th, 2010 at 10:50 pm
I assume Kin Lo has been reading too much from behind the Great Firewall and doesn’t know fact from communist party fiction. If I say “Free Tibet” or “Prosecute the soldiers at the Tiananmen Square Massacre” does that mean the firewall will conveniently get rid of the remaining ignoramuses who might be tempted to comment?
I thought this is a very insightful post and especially given it was published on SNS before Google’s annoucement. Thanks!
January 13th, 2010 at 11:32 pm
You’re welcome, Nick; I hope this is of use both to people inside China, and in the rest of the world. We need to have a new conversation about this relationship as it goes forward.
January 14th, 2010 at 4:48 am
[...] A great essay relevant to China's stance in Copenhagen as much as towards GoogleClose [...]
January 14th, 2010 at 5:20 am
Given the timing of Google’s recent annoucement, 9 days after you sent out that newsletter, to which I presume many top executives at Google are subscribers, one almost suspects a causal relationship here
In which case, that’s it, I’m signing up for your newsletter. It’s true that I’m already well saturated with information, but there’s a difference between the good, which I get a *lot* of for free (via 400 handpicked RSS feeds, including this blog, and my link-happy friends on twitter), and the *great*, which you often have to pay for, even in this day and age. The other info service I’m tempted to pay for is RGE Monitor / roubini.com, but that site really is a *firehose* and focused on the sort of detailed economic analysis I find interesting (sometimes fascinating) but not terribly relevant to my line of work, whereas your focus on “computing and communications” is more or less in my sweet spot. Arguably I should have signed up ages ago!
January 14th, 2010 at 9:12 am
Good article which summarizes the whole situation pretty well. Of course, there is always the pink spectacle brigade, who think all is hunky dory.
Well, in Europe we still remember 1933, and it looks like history is indeed going to repeat itself.
January 14th, 2010 at 3:40 pm
Great contribution:
And a question: is this sustainable? For China, for the world? And even for the myopic vampire investors?
I signal also this very well written article about the “improbable China”:
http://www.actionforex.com/fundamental-analysis/weekly-forex-fundamentals/improbable-china--part-one-2009103099577/
as well as the China Bubble:
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/1228/economy-ponzi-debt-peking-china-bubble.html
January 14th, 2010 at 3:47 pm
Apologize:
Hope the link is correct now…
part 1
http://www.actionforex.com/fundamental-analysis/weekly-forex-fundamentals/improbable-china--part-one-2009103099577/
and part 2
http://www.actionforex.com/fundamental-analysis/weekly-forex-fundamentals/improbable-china-part-ii-20091109100209/
January 15th, 2010 at 2:30 am
Kin Lo: businesses invest in Red China for all sorts of reasons – greed, stupidity, naivety and short-term thinking being perhaps the biggest.
When I challenged the CEO of a large US networking company a couple of years ago about his company’s choice of China for manufacturing, he admitted that he knew it was a risk but said he was legally bound to “maximise shareholder value” and if he didn’t do it, the greedy shareholders would sue him. Never mind that it might make their investment worthless in a few years when their Chinese “partner” sets up in competition.
As for the Red China apologists, your government really has bought you off with shiny baubles, hasn’t it?
“May be if you are really somebody, you wouldn’t be writing a blog like this, but actually doing something to take advantage of opportunities China offers!”
What, opportunities like being thrown in jail for saying things that the Communist Party disapproves of, or for refusing to let yourself be ripped off by your local “partners”? Nice.
January 15th, 2010 at 3:57 am
Not so much communist as Leninist. Chinese communist party survival strategy is very close, in spirit, to the NEP (New Economic Policy) lauched by Lenin in the 20s. And who said “We will sell them the rope to hang them” ?
January 15th, 2010 at 10:16 am
You have a typo. India usually claims to be the *largest* democracy in the worst (by number of voters). I have never heard India claiming to be the oldest democracy (the US claims that fyi).
January 15th, 2010 at 10:18 am
This is shameless propaganda. I could bear the obvious bias in the beginning of the article, but the “Chinese Economic Model” section just makes it impossible. To an ignorant South American like me, it even looks like this was sponsored by the American government! I acknowledge most of the statements as facts and agree with most of the conclusions, but can’t ignore the fact that many of the arguments presented would fit Weekly World News better. Joseph McCarthy would love it.
January 15th, 2010 at 10:27 am
No use debating Kin Lo & co., he and fellow spammers come out in force every time an article critical of China is published be it in The Economist, FT, etc. A more aggressive China is something we will have to get used to.
January 15th, 2010 at 10:34 am
250 years ago there was no U.S.
500 years ago there was not a single white person in America.
What`s wrong with China becoming number one in the world, by cheating away your money (that`s what you call it). It used to be the largest economy of the world. It just takes back the stolen gold.
How can the U.S. have the largest gold reserve anyway? It didn`t even existed 500 years ago, when China and Inda used to be the world leaders. What happened last 500 years? The native Americans got genocided, African cultures got mixed together and taken away from their home continent.
- You can blame it on the flu epidemic, I´m sure the Nazi`s would have had a politically correct answer to their holocaust if they won the war. -
Let me tell you what China is.
China was the world power that is reclaiming it`s rightful position, so will India eventually.
No, you cannot accept that? is it to hard for the west to deal with the fact that they are not going to be number one anymore?
Go ahead make some war, two buildings is already reason enough to invade 2 countries.
Luckily for North Korea there was not a third building.
What was the previous war about?
Kuwait if I remember. I`m sure they do lots of oily business with U.S. now.
Talking about China doing unrightful business.
- I´d say, learn from China by not making war first, then oppressing the local population to let white people do businesses in their country with eachother all in the name of free market economy.
Maybe write a blog about that -
Oh, I should talk about Chinese economics only? Well, economics decides the course of politics, what makes history.
And if it makes you any comfortable, I´ll give you a prediction about your future.
Better start make business with China now, cause in 500 years, your children will be part Chinese and Indian.
Ni Hao!
January 15th, 2010 at 10:50 am
India isn’t a self-proclaimed “oldest democracy in the world”. It is a self-proclaimed “biggest democracy in the world”.
January 15th, 2010 at 11:03 am
[...] What Is China? – Most people probably assume that the reason for China’s enormous economic growth rates is simply size: anything powered by 1.2B people is bound to make a big splash. But India, with the self-proclaimed “oldest democracy in the world,” is about to exceed China’s population. [...]
January 15th, 2010 at 11:09 am
You’re one of the rare people who get it and actually talk about it publicly.
At the same time I think you either don’t get it or are writing for people who don’t get it.
Most of your points are motivated by one or both of these primary goals:
- obtain control of the means of production (industry and, in the modern era, ip)
- maintain national sovereignty (no re-runs of recent vassal-state humiliation)
This is what Deng meant when talking about cats and mice.
I may have time later to fill in the blanks but I’d say the west has wound up giving themselves a voluntary lobotomy in their economic discourse over the last 30-40 years, which leaves the public debate without even the terms to express what’s happening.
January 15th, 2010 at 12:19 pm
Great writing.
I can personally confirm the China’s behavior is true to the core. You can go back to the beginning of this communist country to verify that what they said and what they did are not matching.
Also, on the company that get screwed by China, Motorola (remember them?) is the first well-known first one to fall into the trap of investing in China. Cisco’s IP was stolen by Huawei; and many more…
January 15th, 2010 at 12:53 pm
Why is my comment deleted?
Am I not allowed to write a long comment about fair trade and nothing fair about it, if all the wealth of the world is in the hands of the west.
Calling for free and fair trade in China`s economy for what purpose?
So that the few rich and wealthy people can trade `freely` and `fairly` (e.g. unhindered).
How about this, China will become the number one economy in the world and then China tells the west to open up it´s borders for Chinese to trade ´freely´ and politically ´unhindered´.
Don´t delete this comment, pls!
ty.
January 15th, 2010 at 1:32 pm
Well, looks like my comment has been put back.
Anyway, it doesn´t matter what colour the cat is, or who is the number one eventually.
As long as war is made on economical level and not with peoples lives!
You have to admit, fair or unfair, China is giving you a very strong competitor to deal with.
just don´t cry and start using violence.
Take out the cash instead and compete back with it!
January 15th, 2010 at 3:42 pm
I agree with most of the article, but I don’t understand why you insist on calling the country “communist” China. What is communist about it? Sure, it’s a police state ruled by a single party that has “communist” in it’s name, but that’s all. Its political and economical system (as described in the article) is as far from communism as it gets. In fact, it is much closer to fascism.
January 15th, 2010 at 3:44 pm
Yuzecheng,
We did not remove your comment. There is a delay in posting since comments are moderated. We moderate comments based on the principles noted here:
http://www.tapsns.com/blog/index.php/faq/
Although for this discussion we permitted the first comment on this thread from Kin Lo (in spite of the personal attack) to promote discussion on this important topic.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
-Scott Schramke
—–
SNS Admin
January 15th, 2010 at 5:41 pm
I sense fear and envy
Lets get used to a resurgent China. The Chinese are smart and hardworking. They are 1/6th of humanity and one of its most ancient civilizations. They have a government that has the collective political will of 1.3 billion humans at its disposal, and which places a FORMIDABLE FOCUS on propelling China to the top.
China will reclaim its place as the world’s dominant power soon, and quite rightly so. About HR, IP, etc. – c’mon, lets consider who’s talking. All’s fair in love and war. And all’s especially fair when correcting history’s injustices.
January 15th, 2010 at 5:48 pm
Why do we compete with China at all? It takes discipline, but the simple answer is for the US to take care of itself and let China manage in a world where trading partners make informed decisions. It is greed and short term profits that make companies open shops in China – it is the easy thing to do. With a small bit of forethought and fiscal discipline companies can CHOOSE to trade with partners that behave in a fair manner. Our job is not to fix China – our job is to fix ourselves.
January 15th, 2010 at 7:08 pm
China has found a winning strategy in the global market game, and it appears to be a sort of nash equilibrium. It may be that the best we (the U.S.) can do is to maintain good ties with China (and develop economic defenses), so that this pool of capital is not (and cannot be) used to strike against us.
I don’t believe that the U.S. can fare will without Chinese exports, nor vice versa. I think we just have to learn to live with each other.
January 16th, 2010 at 3:04 am
Mark,
I suspect that to get China to be more reasonable the US has to give up on the US Dollar being the world’s reserve currency.
I know nothing about WTO rules but it strikes me that membership should be contingent upon a floating exchange rate for any member country of significant size.
Maybe 1 and 2 were linked in the negotiations for China’s entry or someone screwed up in not having a time-out clause?
Tim
January 16th, 2010 at 8:10 am
A big point is this. China is changing from being a totalitarian communist country to a totalitarian fascist country. It does not now try to control every means of production, but lets its new corporations do the manufacturing and controls them. Mussolini would have approved. What it needs is democracy, but on present indications there is fat chance of that.
January 16th, 2010 at 10:34 am
yuecheng
> You have to admit, fair or unfair,
Unfair? You mean criminal (and suicidal in environmental terms). And that’s why any reason for a permanent decline in US relations with China is any opportunity for us. Even the US’s corporate overlords who’ve kept US business in China – for the profits – are now having second thoughts. China wildly abuses the rules – moreover China considers this a point of pride.
China’s ‘long’ history? So why does that entitle anyone to anything?
The evidence for the Xia is inconclusive at best, so Chinese history starts with the Shang dynasty. Let’s say 1750 BC. That’s 2250 years after large-scale agricultural civilization had begun in Mesopotamia.
Something like the nexus of skills and institutions that went into making Mesopotamia are very seldom invented twice.
There were already extensive trade routes across Eurasia prior to Mesopotamia. So China learned of the skills of this new civilization (over 2000 yrs later) and copied and made its own variant.
Big deal.
And China’s 1.3 (and India’s 1.1 or so) billion people? As there an asset? Many times through history large populations have been a _liability_. The Renaissance in Europe occurred in part because the large swell in population that had occurred in Europe between 1000-1300 AD suffered a huge collapse. Agricultural failures because of the Little Ice Age and the black death. I’ve heard various theories as regards the place or original of the plague. Two likely candidates are the Himalayan foothills in northern India or the Gobi Desert which China is now colonizing (Xinjiang).
But then E and South Asia have long (through all of human history) been big exporters of disease.
So does the Renaissance mean that after 100 years of collapse in modern China or India (say sometime after 2100) there would be a Renaissance? No, there was only one Renaissance in the sense of what occurred in Europe in 1400. More often a civilization remains at a much lower level of population and output for a very long time and then struggles back up some not very far distance. No brilliant recovery.
So how deep does one now have to drill for water in either the North China Plain (home to 100s of millions of people) or the Punjab? And what happens is that water fails?
January 16th, 2010 at 1:09 pm
make that
yuzecheng, et al.
Et al. being Latin something to the effect of “all others within the same group”.
And not necessarily just Chinese nationalists. Many non-Europeans around the world are struggling to rewrite or re-visualize or whatever history in such a fashion as to soften the blow of the tide of European conquest and acquisition that washed over the entire world (and was the first – and probably the last – people to ever do so). It’s now receded of course but has left a vastly different map of the world. And come to think of it, this explosion of European civilization is also the first to have provided accurate maps of the entire world. Maps now extending as far as the entire cosmos.
January 16th, 2010 at 8:20 pm
The sad, underlying thrust of “What is China” is a big whinge, buttressed by poor logic and faulty fact. After centuries of using every trick in the book – fair and foul, economic and political (including war) to loot the rest of the world at will, the West doesn’t like getting its own medicine back. Suddenly fair trade and human rights are the rallying cry – because other tactics haven’t worked. As though fair trade, humn rights, the environment or gobal warming ever mattered to the West, especially abroad or when its economic interests were at stake. But there is another vital truth – brutal dictatorships don’t last. They eventually crumble under the assault of superior forces – superior in societal survival terms. Democracy, Fascism, Communism are broad descriptors. Eventually, 1.2 billion Chinese will throw off their chains somehow – if indeed, as the article suggests, they are in chains. I believe there are over 80,000 episodes of social unrest, strikes etc in China every year, according to statistics published by the Chinese government. While most, if not all, of these are put down with an iron hand, the government does not remain unresponsive. It is a reality in China that the government reacts to such incidents and invariably assuages the situation, with changes for the better. Its a messy process and far from perfect but it seems to be working to keep the Chinese juggernaut on the rails, at least so far. In their own way the Chinese practice “democracy” at the local level and the Chinese Communist leadership will introduce more of “it” as the situation demands. China must evolve towards a more “just” and “fair” society because of it doesn’t it will collapse like the USSR did. What is interesting to watch is who will collapse first – the capitalist West where untrammelled private greed is rapidly wrecking its own machine or communist China where its emerging liberal sentiment will overthrow its totalitarian structure. However, it doesn’t do to whinge!
January 17th, 2010 at 11:27 am
when the author wrote ‘India is self-proclaimed oldest democracy’, which is wrong, that too in such an assuring tone, I guessed his intentions. I want to know how fair the author has treated others in his life, and also if he is a humanitarian, a politician or anything related to making others’ life better. If no, then shut the eff up..
Whatever they do, and however the ppl face it, leave it to them Chinese. Please don’t talk about them using manufacturing to get powerful, Industrial era, as you’d have studied in your school, started from England, spread to europe and to america, is all about that…
All these ‘Amnesty-USA’ or whatever watch groups, whats China doing that other countries like Israel or Palastine does? These guys don’t even have enough food, but fight for some century old history fuelled by hate..so I don’t think they’ve done something graver than whatever is found everywhere, think about Guantanamo, hahaha.. I am even surprised how you had guts to write this with so much crap in your backyard.
America is experiencing reverse brain drain, people are returning to India and China due to burgeoning economies in them countries, while Xenophobia is rotting it. The once american dream is slowly blurrin while the crappy greed that brought the world to it’s knees, richer nations like Iceland to bankrupcy, the freakin market meltdown, and still prevelant racism, I am just surprised about how many self-assured dumbasses have replied positively to this thread.
And you do think Google has done it because it’s a staunch follower of Gandhian principles?? hahaha everyone knows how Google is trying to freakin own the internet but capturing each and every part of it, Murdoch pissed it off dude, in the news section by not allowing it to search, so should other Chinese companies now, if they have real balls, cos with Chromium and live everything online mentality propaganda, everyone knows Google is a bigger but beautiful (in a false) form of Microsoft!!
http://dashes.com/anil/2009/07/googles-microsoft-moment.html
The only thing appalling now is that you people aren’t working towards the correct goal of reviving the economy, american dream, cosmopolitanism etc, and creating more avenues for people affected by recession, but waste time in these kinds of wrong propoganda!!
I wouldn’t be surprised if this was pushed by someone in power in USA, because its just losing the economy battle with China.
I was awestruck at the infrastructure developments in China , 1400 miles on land in 8 hrs – trains,beautiful places!! I am just waiting to see what the govt would do after the become no.1, which will be pretty soon.
January 17th, 2010 at 1:38 pm
We in the West live in the West. Why should we sell the family silver to China so that the Chinese can prosper? Well, that is what the China apologists have done in the last generation. Our interest in the West should be us, the West and not China. The decisions by the China apologists have ensured that China eats the West’s breakfast and lunch and during the next generation it will eat our dinner too. The ordinary man on the street understands this.
It is beyond imagination that the West created, developed and nurtured the industrial revolution from which came tens of thousands of innovations in the form of patents and trade secrets. This innovation is the bedrock of the West. In one fell swoop the China apologists started giving this IP away. That way lay madness and we have now arrived at madness.
January 19th, 2010 at 1:34 am
Ah, the stench of Chinese nationalism.
Whoever wrote this has it right on the money. China will use aggressive, power economics and have no shame or honor in doing so. If the West is constantly worried about protectionism, and doing “the right thing”, then it cannot compete with China given such a handicap. This is not China’s fault, this is YOUR fault. There is nothing wrong with China’s realpolitik stance. It is the West that makes a poor, complacent rival too scared to talk about China or even acknowledge them as a rival.
The problem with Americans is that you try to rationalize with China. China is not interested in argument. They are interested in argument for the ultimate goal of personal gain. You want to reach an understanding, they want an excuse to get your money.
See Kin Lo up there? He’s angry because he knows everything in this article is true. Yet he will deny it outright and claim that foreigners do not understand China. It is pointless to debate with him on these points because his aim is to simply refute whatever negatives thrown at China, and not an attempt at rational discourse.
My country understands this, so does Japan. India is also aware of it. But America, Europe are completely in the dark, assuming good faith from China where there is none.
Whether they are the oldest civilization or historically wealthiest is all irrelevant. Japan wasn’t anything until recently, but they will hang onto their huge economy for some time. America did not exist in the past. Russia has never been this powerful. And so forth. The only way China could topple the West is 1. if they gain more allies (unlikely) and 2. if you let them.
January 19th, 2010 at 7:04 am
You have it generally right, but you ignore that despite all of the above, China is still critically important for Western businesses. I see the big question as whether China is trending “better” or “worse.” I used to think better, but lately things have been getting worse in many areas. See my recent post on this here:
http://www.chinalawblog.com/2010/01/with_chinas_new_standing_come.html
January 19th, 2010 at 7:52 am
This is nothing but a rant blaming China for US’ failures.
January 19th, 2010 at 10:29 am
well, you could have resumed your article in one sentence : China is evil, period.
China is far from perfect, we all agree on that. It is a dictatorship, there isn’t the freedom of speech,, blah blah.
But China is not the only reason you should be angry about your own situation. We all know, as it is marvelously demonstrated by Google, that china is the perfect scapegoat.
Don’t get me wrong, China doesn’t play nice with Western countries, but honestly,why should they ? But our main problem is our endless greed, not China.
January 19th, 2010 at 11:31 am
Sounds like a big anti-china screed. China is a large country. It’s easy to take potshots at China. I can write a similar article about the USA starting with the historical genocide of the natives, and the outsized defense spending, the torture regime, the NSA spying network, the invasion and occupation of 2 countries, the per capita emission of greenhouse gases, the debt financing of personal and government debt, the financial collapse caused by unregulated derivatives and compliant rating agencies which subsequently dragged down the world world economy, politcs dictated by private and corporate money, undemocratic electoral system that is a leftover from compromises made during the slavery days, the genetic pollution caused by GMO creations, the patenting theft of indigenous plants and even human genes, etc, etc. I could write an essay like that and paint the US as some kind of evil empire. Do you think that is a fair and complete portrayal?
January 19th, 2010 at 3:18 pm
I am not sure which is worse, the anti-West propaganda from the Chinese media, or the anti-Chinese propaganda coming from the “capitalists” from the West.
For the non-sheeples who actually use their brains to think rather than repeat the same mantras, it’s pretty easy to laugh at the author’s points. Reverse Engineering = Stealing IP? The automobile industry around the world buy each other’s products ALL the time to reverse engineer features. For all of the other “methods” of stealing IP which Chinese is being accused of, why not point out the most obvious one: exec hiring? When Google China hired away MS exec to be the president of its China Operations, did Google hire this guy because this guy is smart? No, Google hired the guy so google would find out the process and strategy which MS is trying to use to conquer the market. Corporations around the world do this all the time. So foreign companies come to china treats its Chinese execs like dirt, what do they expect will happen? Loyalty?
Next, the author complains about the “slave wage” which the Chinese workforce gets. Does it ever occur to the author and fellow citizens of the West that in places like China and India $1 USD per hour one can actually afford a fairly decent lifestyle? “Slave wage” is just another excuse for the wealthier nations who cannot compete because their citizens are used to wasting goods.
The author’s next few points deal with Chinese government’s attempt to protect their own economy. Government subsidizing key industries? Has the author ever heard of Government bail out for Auto and Bank industries in the US? Protectionist policies for certain industries? Currency manipulation? Which country DOES NOT do this?
The problem with the author and those who support this sort of neo-McCarthyism is that they want to blame their current position on anyone but themselves. Instead of whining about China, why can’t the Americans even agree on something as simple and commonsense as universal healthcare? Instead of spending money on military build up why doesn’t Americans spend it on education? No one forced Americans to buy Chinese goods, there are plenty of 3rd world nations which offers to make cheap goods. China became a powerhouse because it is more competitive.
Rather than hoping for China’s demise, which would affect billions of people, not to mention the entire Asian economy which depends on them exporting to China (heck China is US’ third largest importer), why don’t the Sinophobes use their brains and think of ways to improve their own countries?
January 19th, 2010 at 5:10 pm
@myeongsoo: All parties are acutely aware of China’s behaviour, the EU is no exception. All have largely accepted the situation because of the economic benefits of the Chinese market. As China’s methods become sophisticated and potentially threatening to foreign interests I expect to see more visible signs of irritation from governments, but not much else. Google is in a unique position to rally fellow investors and moderate China’s behaviour.
January 19th, 2010 at 6:15 pm
It’s weird, almost all of those points against China could have or could be made about the US model and how it developed.
1. Steal IP: IP treaties came from the fact that companies in countries like the UK and US were constantly stealing each others IP.
2. Slave Labour: The US’s industrial revolution was built on dirt cheap immigrant labour and the USs continued growth relies on it right now. Ask a Mexican.
3. Stolen IP resold: again, how much IP did Americans steal from the Brits and Germans and then sell back to them? Come one!
4. Subsidize Key Industries: the US and UK do this TODAY!!! America was built on government subsidizing transport, telecom, agriculture, steal, etc. etc.
5. Restrict Imports: Seriously? The US doesn’t have some of the strictist import rules and quotas in the world? Wait, it does.
6. Currency Manipulation: No American or US government entity has ever done this? I think a quick search will show entire economic collapses pinned on the currency gaming of America.
7. Price for Export, Discourage Consumption: Though certainly unusual, it has happened,even in the UK or US
8. The Appearence of Free Trade: Come on!!! Does free trade really exist in all of the pacts between the US, Canada, and Mexico? No!
9. Encourage Foreign Investment without Foreign Control: There are plenty in the US govenment and in US business who would love that. The fear of foreigners controlling anything in the US is strong.
January 20th, 2010 at 2:24 am
Just to point out, our dear author conflates the category of what is “Communist” and thus makes a very confused argument that “China is bad and therefore communist” and/or “Communism is bad and therefore China.”
If you remember George Orwell’s “Politics and the English Language” from 1946, he writes,
“The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable’. The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides.”
Generally, criticism of China or any other country for that matter, must be couched in some kind of comparative basis which assumes certain values countries should “aspire” to. Are you a proponent of more democracy? Are you arguing that Free Trade means no country can have subsidies?
In this case, the author has taken gone through great lengths to illustrate how China is still “communist”– but does he mean authoritarian? Does he mean China’s not run by a legitimate government? Does he mean China’s fiscal policies are irresponsible? Does he mean that China lacks civil rights a la the US? Is he looking for the Dalai to be MLK Jr to China? Is he proposing somebody rise up? Maybe he’s proposing all foreign journalists should protest @the Square.
If one wants to use systems of government and economics like swear words that have no meaning– you might as well say China has a “shitty” or “really bad” or “stupidhead” government and then afterwards discuss what type of government you are ARGUING FOR.
Would you like to discuss nation building (e.g. Iraq and Afganistan)? Would you like to discuss the development of South Korea and Japan? Would you like to discuss what it takes to raise a significant portion of your population out of poverty? Those are generally the important questions of the day, that most Westerners have powerpoint presentations but no experience in handling. Even George Sr. said it takes a Carpenter to build a barn and it only takes a Jackass to kick it down. There’s almost nothing constructive about your article and it just sounds like someone wining about a country they might know something about (maybe), but don’t care enough about to do anything about.
To me, this post has about the same value to me as some blogger dude who writes, “China blows” and then copy-pasted an NYT editorial about a(fill-in the blank: IP, Currency, Political Prisoners) China issue.
Though, because I am in a pissy mood, I did have a fun time taking this article and this “blogger” to task.
Thanks for chuckle,
FC
January 20th, 2010 at 2:44 pm
Dear readers,
This post looks like NY banker being upset because there are finally some other big players on the world stage who are able to stand against USA abusing its power. I find this post annoying.
The author has some points. Let discuss his points.
1. Steal Intellectual Property.
What else can they do? Intellectual properties/patents are to extert money from poorer countries/companies and prevent them from reaching a position were they can compete. USA is allowing to patent seeds and the big companies producing one time seeds can make the agriculture completely dependent on their seeds making the farmers completely dependent on it. To hell with Intellectual Property rights since they are often used to extort money and prevent progress. The initial great idea to protect the inventors was turn by army of lawyers into an excuse to prosecute anybody who does not have enough money to defend himself in courts.
2. Use Slave labour.
This is so funny. In USA the working class has seen its wages frozen for many years. People have to work 2 jobs to afford health care, education of their kids. Now they are even being forced to buy healthcare. USA has even worse form of slavery cold debt slavery. They even tax people so they can provide them proper retirement but Social Security is just one big scam because the goverment will have no money or the money will loose its purchasing power. In USA the workers work benefits big corporations which are often flooding other markets at low price to kill the competition.
The chinese middle class is rising, the USA middle class is in huge decline and their savings rate is negative.
4. Subsidizing key industries.
USA was not doing it all? What about steel industry?
They are creating a competetive advantage. They give their industries the money and the power to compete on their own on the world markets. What are they then suppose to do with USA $? Keep them until they get the value of the toilet paper?
5. Prevent or restrict unwanted imports. 6. Use the currency manipulation.
Yes, and the USA is not doing that. They are happy about debasing the currency so their exports can be more competetive even they maintain a mirage that they are interested in a strong dollar policy. You also play this game but
you are being beaten by the Chinese.
You have used the status of the petrodollar to your advantage for a long time. You have arbitrarily withdrawn from the obligation to change dollar to gold. China is just following the example of USA.
8, Complain about Free/Fair trade.
Fair trade? USA overthrowing goverments in Latin America (confession of the economic hitman John Perkins) to be able to buy their resources cheaply. Fair, by far not from the USA side. Chinese at least use their money on the free global market to buy resources. USA is using their armies in Iraq to grab the remaining oil reserves.
Free? Congress is creating so many regulations that your capitalism is no longer free. It is crooked capitalism for corporations who have access through lobbiest and money to kongressmans.
It is a blog entry filled with hypocrisy.
Chine is a communist country with elements of capitalism which seems to be going in the right direction when it comes to domestic freedoms in economy.
USA was a free capitalist country, once time great since based on Constitution of USA which was the greatest document ever created by mankind. Now, USA fits the definition of a fascist country as Mussolini described the country were corporations merge with the state.
China is the only rising superpower which is capable of putting the USA in check and makes sure it does not abuse its powers at least on internation state. However, they will not care
and rightly so for your fate. Although you are
the elite of NY, possibly a banker (?), so you
will enjoy your life until the next revolution (if any) happens in USA.
best,
Radek
January 21st, 2010 at 7:45 am
Exactly what is China doing to the US?
Intellectual property is certainly the crown jewel of the developed world’s economy. But how is intellectual property’s ownership determined?
In America, engineers, mathematicians, and scientists often sign away the ownership rights of their discoveries to corporations for job tenure. Does anyone believe that such corporations are incapable of protecting their rights, even in China?
In these matters there are no knock-offs; a process that is new and advanced receives a specific patent for that process. Changing the process and developing something new is creative work, too. The patent only protects the one process, not its derivatives.
IF Americans are concerned about the erosion of our technological paramountcy we should be studying law, commerce, math, science and technology insteand of creationism.
January 22nd, 2010 at 1:48 am
A look at comments here show that the Western mindset is incapable of surviving actual competition with a real competitor. Virtually no one here is able to focus on the important issue and strategies, preferring to blather on about ethics and ideologies.
People pretend hypocrisy is actually a bad thing here. The US needs to match exactly what China is doing in order to compete. Whether or not it’s “hypocritical” is simply irrelevant.
Do you think China cares if what they’re doing is hypocritical? Or do they care more about what’s best for them? The point is to criticize them while denying doing the same thing they do. In fact, that’s exactly what China does whenever they denounce [foreign] protectionism while applying protectionist policies at home.
Not only must we bolster our own advantages, we must speak and act in ways that prevents the opponent from being able to compete with us. That’s how it’s been since the dawn of history. It is a struggle on both fronts. Modern Westerners live in some bubble of delusion where they believe that if they’re “nice”, others will emulate them like a role model.
It is the sad state of things that only East Asians are savvy enough to put money and pragmatism before morals and “honor”. But we have realized now that the West is a slow-witted, incorrigible man whose senses have been dulled by decades of decadence. No amount of council, however prudent, has proved to change this fact. The unfortunate truth we face now is that both South Korea and Japan must stand alone when history repeats itself and China inevitably tries to bully us again.
January 25th, 2010 at 12:16 am
I am interested to see here the tenor of comments, coming from those in China, vs. those outside China. Because we are allowing anonymous comments on the blog (if we did not, perhaps NO Chinese could comment, out of fear of reprisals), it is a bit difficult to sort things out, but, to my surprise, it is easier than I thought it would be.
Look for good English, would be the first step.
In general, we seem to be getting angry, aggressive and nationalistic comments back from those writing for (and perhaps even being paid by) China. We are NOT getting an even mix, which suggests that we hit some kind of tripwire for the Chinese government.
Offense may be the best defense, but it does not pass the smell test on this blog, where we have rules against personal attacks, and try to encourage the use of real identities, and the rational discussion of world problems.
I think we have here a fascinating psychological profile of how the Chinese government itself feels about the U.S. – the “party line,” as it were.
It isn’t pretty.
I’ll end with one sentence that puts it in its place: I’ve complalained about the US for eight years running, and no one says the US is perfect, but the behavior attached to the China Model I have described here is, generally, much worse.
My advice to Chinese Communist Web cops: exchange your aggression for thoughtfulness, and forget all the red herrings about “everyone’s doing it.” Everyone is not doing it: you are.
Instead, ask yourselves: do we even have good data on our own country? As far as I can tell, you do not, which is the reason China censors Google, an infamous fact known to those in the West, and then publicly claims it does not censor the Net. Those in the West have to laugh at this clownish attempt to deceive – whom? Only those inside the Great Firewall of China.
You should consider: you might feel very different about the West, and about China, if you had full access to information.
I hope this access happens soon, but I do not expect it. Until you do have it, no one will listen to your advice, since your information foundation is insufficient.
January 30th, 2010 at 8:31 am
As someone with Chinese lineage, I am proud of the culture and proud of its hard working people.
What I am ashamed of is what the Chinese government has turned its people into: blind, faithful followers without access to truth (hrm, and one of them mentioned the Nazi movement – irony).
I was raise with the value that the Chinese people should be honest and honorable. Spoken words alone should be enough to make a promise. If you say it, you mean it, you deliver it. (for time reference, I am 30).
Today: Even written/signed contracts don’t mean anything to the Chinese government/companies, I’m sure as many of you have learned.
Breaks my heart to think/read that so many modern day Chinese people buy into the charade the government has created.