|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#21
January 25th, 2007, 11:34 PM
posted to soc.culture.china,soc.culture.japan,rec.travel.asia,soc.culture.singapore,hk.politics
|
|||
|
|||
China is Still Very Poor On Average....A Realistic Appraisal with Supporting Pics and Articles
On Jan 24, 7:33 pm, "mettas_mother" wrote: To control chaos in society or groups there was a need to prevent revenge by individuals and reduce violence to sustain peace. Therefore rules were created by rulers or leaders. These rules are now known as laws. The purpose of these laws is to sustain peace and uphold JUSTICE. 'Rule by Law' or 'Rule of Law' are social creations by humans for the ultimate principle of Justice and upholding it. Laws are as imperfect as their creators and do have faults in them. And therefore had to be implemented together with error correction mechanism. However the institutions that enforces Laws are too stupid to regulate the reduction or elimination of these errors and faults. What do we get as a result? We get : "JUDICIAL VIOLENCE AGAINST JUSTICE"! Laws were created to protect Humans, but in most cases we humans are punished to protect the Laws. This flaw in any system if not corrected will eventually lead to its demise. Emancipation of women may be an proclaimed act of democracy. Democracy is rule by people. However children are not allowed to vote in any system. That means no democracy is a true dmocracy. What happened to emancipation of children? Are they too weak to protect themselves? Ehat happened to the protection of the LAW? There is truely no pure democracy today. America is a imposter that flies the flag of democracy when needed to justify war and dominance. What these idiots do not realise is that there is something called evolution and nature that could end human rein and make irreversible changes. Nature always finds its ways. That's quite true, esp wrt the children bit, that's why others (I've discussed this before so will not do so again) have argued that democracy (and economic success, GDP etc.) requires certain prerequisites, namely intellectual capital (IQ), to understand the issues at hand and to be functional, and clearly some countries do not have it. And yes you can chase nature out with a pitchfork but she returns with a vengeance. I've previously quoted this - perhaps democracy is not universally practiceable and some parts of the world may just have to live in poverty for the rest of their lives. The neoconservatives are being too naive - perhaps they're culturally imperialistic yes - but there are some who really believe that everyone can be lifted out of, say, poverty, or every country really can be free. That may not be the case for reasons mentioned above, as well as from human evolutionary history: This is worth reading the entire article even thought it's a tad long: http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/ep04142148.pdf "RichAsianKid" wrote in messagenews:1169673104..806371.146730@j27g2000cwj. googlegroups.com... On Jan 24, 1:40 am, Vernon North Vernon wrote: In article .com, says... You're forgetting about Chinese Hubris, the Middle KingdomMentality.Not at all -- I know it all too well. But trace the trajectory. China is catching up, and FAST. Yes, the trajectory. That's big IF. And you're betting against it, right? I favor realism - reminder!!! Exactly the title of this thread!! See for instance this report - China, India Superpower? Not so Fast! http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6407 Likewise I concur with Singapore's Lee Kwan Yew's realism where he said something like this in the recent past: "What is gradually happening is the restoration of the world balance to what it was in the early 19th century or late 18th century when China and India together were responsible for more than 40 percent of world GDP. With those two countries becoming part of the globalized trading world, they are going to go back to approximately the level of world GDP that they previously occupied. But that doesn't make them the superpowers of the world." Britain and the US are, for all their faults, democracies that accept the rule of law. This is not true of China. So simplistic I have to laugh. The powers in China accept the rule of law as much as the powers in our democracies. Actually it's the average guy who accepts the rule of law perhaps. The powers of China? According to Wikipedia (modified Jan 2007) when you type in the terms China and rule of law, "In the Anglo-American legal tradition rule of law has been seen as a guard against despotism and as enforcing limitations on the power of the government. In the People's Republic of China the discourse around rule of law centers on the notion that laws ultimately enhance the power of the state and the nation, which is why the Chinese government adopts the principle of rule BY law rather than rule OF law." Another article from ATimes concludes, "However, in China, there is a problem when the law meets authority. If a case arises between two normal people, then the law is somewhat powerful. But if one person is a company official or from the government, then **there is no power in the law.** Business people know that if they have bought political backing, they can get investigations into their affairs called off and stories in the state media killed (8, 9). (my emphasis) Despite reams of laws written by Beijing over the past two decades, one prominent foreign lawyer in China believes the rule of law has actually weakened. By 1997, she says, she encountered Chinese judges who wanted to build a truly fair legal system. But in 2000, the Communist Party quietly instructed courts to consider the nation's interests first and moved independent-minded justices out of power (10). Worsening the rule of law in China is the fact that many in China see smuggling, bribes and piracy as victimless crimes, and thus tolerated. (Bribes and success mean almost the same thing.) The gap in perceptions highlights the difficulties the Chinese government faces as it tries to curb corruption. As China is becoming a leading global trading partner, the lack of law among the government and the citizens is also becoming an important problem worldwide. This problem must not be ignored. " You should at least accept that 'gifts' are often necessary to do business in China? Even you said something similar before, I believe! No wonder in the perceptions (your fav subject?) of corruption index, China is ranked so very very low compared to Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, US etc etc!! http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781359.html In a world that's increasingly fluid, where the only constant is change, the past may not always map out the future 1:1. My point exactly. That's why those who laugh up their sleeves at China -- always for the past and the present (which becomes the past tomorrow) -- are indulging in the most dangerous kind of rear-view-mirror-gazing hubris of underestimating the competition. That's a fool's game. Again I favor realism - title of this thread, with articles quoted above. Even you admitted the whole slew of problems in mainland China. And if reality is so fluid, the past is probably much less predictive of the future. I've quoted before this very readable article by an English/American writer (with a Chinese wife I believe) for National Review - read it in full to understand just what many mainland Chinese really think!! http://www.vdare.com/derbyshire/sino....htmNoneofthis is asurprise to me, but you are ignoring the rate of progress China is making -- like picking out flaws in a paused frame instead of watching where the movie is going. See above - the problem lies with the extrapolation and no one really knows what it will be. And one more point about trajectory: Here. It will take a very long time for China to reach the level of a developed country *EVEN IF* the trajectory continues - and this is very uncertain and in fact may not continue ( Hutton above). It doesn't have to reach the level of a developed country to kick the props out from under the economies of many developed countries. From the OP I explicitly said this was more a cultural post - looking at the average guy in China, reflection of what things are really like, rather than from an international business perspective. What you said may be true with all the copying and pirating among other things from China, of course, but that's due to China's sheer numbers, and not per capita merit (WRT above discussion obviously most rules can be bent at the top, not just for China but for other countries as well) - the per capita point is very shocking: compared to the US, the GDP of China even in an optimistic projection in 2020 is not yet even the relative level of Japan compared to the US in 1960!! The per capita part is important because it addresses how the average mainland Chinese lives. http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/5603/gdpindex4jl.gif You're right in that feminism bit - in fact as you probably read in Buchanan's Death of The West he did identify feminism as a factor of decline of the West - demographic collapse and all the DINKS - but also the importation of third world invasion and conquest of America, especially with regards to Hispanics. Hmmmm, as side point, will Hong Kong, the highest net worth "country" in the world by PPP and 2nd highest after Japan by US exchange rates, decline as well especially with the invasion of hordes and hordes of pregnant women from the mainland who abuse the system face a similar fate, now that it has the lowest fertility rates in the world and is being invaded by third world pregnant mainland Chinese moms? http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?c=hk&v=31 You wrote: "HK has always found a way to prosper from its position on the edge of China. HK made a living by dipping its spoon into the river of gold flowing in and out of China, and it's finding new ways to do that as the "river" changes course and content. HK won't be THE centre it once was, but HKers are busy ensuring their future and, I think, doing a good job of that -- pregnant PRC moms notwithstanding." Do you not think the West will do the same? Why can't it be more inventive? Are you bowing to theories of IQ here? As for whether HK will be the center - some power will likely to be transferred to Shanghai, but HOng Kong with its rule of law and British legacy and English facility will likely remain an IFC (international finance center), while Shanghai will only be a NFC for some time to come. Think New York (HK) vs Chicago (Shanghai) if recall an article saying. You're right in that feminism bit - in fact as you probably read in.... read more » 
|
|
#22
January 26th, 2007, 05:08 AM
posted to soc.culture.china,soc.culture.japan,rec.travel.asia,soc.culture.singapore,hk.politics
|
|||
|
|||
|
China is Still Very Poor On Average....A Realistic Appraisal with Supporting Pics and Articles
You eat noodles? "lechergod" wrote in message ups.com... that is what you do, wet noodle wonton dirty vagina ******* !!!!! ardeedee wrote: Like white men using Singapore women for sex to increase their values to Singapore men? wrote in message ups.com... Tora wrote: This is one of tricks used by poor to earn their living in China to ask for a small sum of money for living. You don't have to give if you don't want to, in fact you should not give because it gives them wrong idea of earning money the easy way. Asking strangers for money is not easy. Try it sometime. Mao Zedong did it. I tried at Beijing's Summer Palace in 2005, and I picked on the "westerners" for a few RMB for bus fare thinking it would be an easy pick. I didn't get any money. In Singapore, we can see many whitemen are using little toy to trick the kids in the food court . Their aim is to stir up the desire in kids wanting to have the little cute toy, then he will ask for high price to make the parent pay for it. Japs businessmen also use the many tricks, and they cheat even more money by making customer pay even more. "RichAsianKid" wrote in message ups.com... I was in Kunming and Li Jiang just last year. Sample pic of Kunming from the web: http://glasnost.itcarlow.ie/~powerk/...g-downtown.JPG Great cities, great trip. From the pic, obviously Kunming is *not* exactly your poor rural China, and yet I swear there are all these *children* and beggars on the streets just hugging your feet chasing tourists down in desperate poverty! There are some families who release them to tourists and they go fetch money for them. Unlike some countries in SE Asia, these people know no shame and never let go until you'd paid them. Then that's trouble - another group just swarms you. They are not allowed near the hotels though, so if you just wander round the immediate vicinity of your hotels you may not see them. But walk a few blocks away and you'll run into them invariably. More children beggars than adult beggars actually. Gotta to learn the trade early! A casual search on the web, btw, will show people the real China is in spite of all the self-congratulatory posts by some: http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.image?id=6401 See the other side of China: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/asia-pacific/3906641.stm Or more beggars! http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/153500...2_world300.jpg Bottom line: if you've been to China, you'll realize that a lot of posts or reports of Chinese success is really hype. Hype in the sense that there is a great disparity of wealth and it's simply wrong to generalize from a few exceptional wealthy nouveau riche cases at the top to overall levels of wealth in China. People need a reality check here and not just romantic fantasy. Why? People should know this in the interest of truth about China in general, as these are primarily a *.culture newsgroup, and NOT business newsgroups which would have a better reason of focussing on the very top and exceptional. And when travelling it is best not just visit the tourist attractions but go and see how an ordinary citizen lives his/her life, rather than see a country through the distorted lens of journalists and the commercial hype of business media. Obviously China has improved compared to before. Yes, a very small fraction of the population *did* make millions and even billions. But again, the relative successes of a very few in Shanghai and Beijing often do not trickle down to most poor mainland Chinese. First of all, unemployment rates for university grads may be as high as 39% according to a China Youth Daily survey as posted before (1), and this is consistent with why most mainland Chinese students who study in Hong Kong choose not to return to mainland because there is little opportunity - they choose to remain in Hong Kong or go to the West because of the low earning power in China(2). After graduation, whether one's employed or not, there's the starting of family. Why there is such a wave of pregnant Mainland Chinese women flooding to Hong Kong to anchor their jackpot babies? (3) Why are so many eager to flood this rich former British crown colony and obtain Hong Kong citizenship? To get the Hong Kong benefits of course - and HOng Kong is not exactly known as a very generous provider of welfare or other social services. But Hong Kong does offer the rule of law, democracy, and is ranked the richest in the world by net worth per capita PPP adjusted, or 2nd highest in the world after Japan by net worth per capita by exchange rates. The abrasive fact remains: the average Hong Kong citizen is worth more than 66 times that of typical mainland Chinese. Likewise, the average net worth of a mainland Chinese is an abysmal $2613 US per capita (US exchange rates) while the average net worth of a Japanese (highest in the world) is $180,837 - the average Japanese is worth close to 70 times the average mainland Chinese etc. (4) Just look at this pic. This was taken NOT in a hospital maternity ward. It was taken at the "Chinese Travel Agency" where you obtain a permit/Visa (valid for 10 years) to go to China! Hmmmm. Look at the red writing on the right hand side of the pic on the wall - it's the China travel agency!! And look at the third world nature of things - how ugly people are dressed etc. (Why was RAK forced to be there? Well, another story, but just enjoy the pic for now.) http://i18.tinypic.com/2rna134.jpg And think of it - the quoted stats from other posts are very damning even if you look at the top. Though growing, only ~ 0.025% of China's 1.3 billion people have $1 million US or more - what a ridiculously tiny razor-thin microscopic fraction. (5) Guys, if you don't believe RAK, just visit China - outside the very core of Shanghai or Beijing (remember that last scene in Mission Impossible 3? Rural and undeveloped Shanghai in the core of the city just outside those skyscrapers to give the movie a nice ending, a very nice contrast, and contrast that was!!) and perhaps Shenzhen and a few other places the country and you'll immediately see that most of China is still essentially rotten. (People say how things have improved, wow, guess China must be real **** in the 1970s and 80s!) Travel advice: remember: don't stay in your 5-star hotels - the hotels are not bad actually (but hot water often remains a problem, and there are some accusations of cheating and overcharging I heard) and I find them acceptable - and don't just hog those continental breakfest buffets and think that's the real China - you won't see the real ugly China, how the average Chinese lives, if you go on a tour group and just visit tourist attractions. You'll get a very biased and rosy picture of China and leave with a very wrong impression of how most of China still lives. Who would want to live like an average mainland Chinese mired in abject poverty? Everyone has their own choice. And some Chinese relics and sites are nice to visit. But so is that exotic forgotten pristine island in Thailand for, say, spiritual growth, as to disconnect from a wired world. Yet most of us would not want to abandon the comforts of materialistic wealth and technological civilization and live permanently as a primitive native inhabitant over there. For most in the first world, China is (still) really not liveable. And many average mainland Chinese have already voted with their feet (if they have the resources and power to leave, that is) to escape the country - or at least to seek an escape hatch in case China messes things up and turn sour - to live less repressed lives and to spread their previously clipped wings in a world that offers much better educational and economic opportunities for themselves and for their families. * * * References: (1) http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchin...ent_664943.htm "About 51.5 per cent of the respondents said they had learnt nothing practical in university and 39.2 per cent said they couldn't land a job with a bachelor's degree, the survey said." (2) http://english.people.com.cn/200612/...04_328261.html "Only 2 percent of Chinese mainland graduates from Hong Kong universities returned to the mainland to work in 2006, according to a survey by the University of Hong Kong." (3) http://en.ce.cn/National/Local/20061..._9770882.shtml "Government statistics show that the number of babies born to mainland parents in Hong Kong had risen from 620 to more than 10,000 in five years. Also, some mainland women had not settled their hospital bills, putting more pressure on the SAR's medical system. The government generally welcomes tourists, Secretary for Security Ambrose Lee said, but some pregnant mainland women were not coming as tourists, even though they had valid tourist visas, but to misuse Hong Kong's public resources. " (4) Based on UN WIDER 2006 study database: http://tinyurl.com/yd4hh4 (5) http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/stor...945637,00.html "Yet the Chinese are becoming increasingly well off: according to the CapGemini Merrill Lynch Asia Pacific wealth report, there are already 320,000 'high net-worth individuals' - those with more than $1m (£525,000) of net financial assets, excluding their houses - and the number is growing rapidly. "
|
|
#24
January 26th, 2007, 06:06 PM
posted to soc.culture.china,soc.culture.japan,rec.travel.asia,soc.culture.singapore,hk.politics
|
|||
|
|||
|
China is Still Very Poor On Average....A Realistic Appraisal with Supporting Pics and Articles
In article . net,
Here's an article a friend just sent to me: ================================================= Macau vies with Vegas for top revenue MACAU - Macau may have dethroned the Las Vegas Strip as the world's biggest casino center, according to figures available Wednesday that show the Chinese territory's gambling revenue jumped 22 percent to $6.95 billion last year. The former Portuguese enclave has been booming since the government busted up a casino monopoly three years ago and began welcoming U.S. gaming powerhouses like Las Vegas Sands Corp., MGM Mirage Inc. and Wynn Resorts Ltd. The American companies have been furiously building mega casino and resort projects in the tiny city _ less than one-sixth the size of Washington, D.C. _ on China's southeastern coast. They say they'll do what they did to Las Vegas: transform a seedy, worn-out, crime-ridden town into one of the world's best spots for gambling as well as conventions, glitzy shows, dining and other family entertainment. Key to Macau's success will be luring the masses of high rollers from mainland China, who are growing richer and tend to bet more at the casino tables than Americans do in Las Vegas. "Las Vegas doesn't have the radius of the population that is as anxious to come to gamble," Sands Chairman Sheldon Adelson, ranked No. 3 on Forbes magazine's list of the 400 richest Americans, told The Associated Press in a recent interview. Sands' promotional material makes the point that this city _ the only place in China where casino gambling is legal _ is located within a two-hour flight from 1 billion people. About 3 billion people _ half the world's population _ in Asia can get to the city within five hours by plane, the company says. The Las Vegas Strip has yet to announce its full-year revenue figures for 2006, but it would have to bring in nearly $1 billion in December alone to beat Macau's figure, which was posted with no fanfare on the Web site of its Gaming and Inspection Coordination Bureau. The Las Vegas Strip has said for the 11 months through November, revenue came to $6.08 billion. If December's revenue is the same as it was the previous year, the annual total would hit about $6.57 billion _ just behind Macau. Last year, Macau's gambling revenue totaled 55.88 billion patacas, or $6.95 billion, compared to 45.80 billion patacas in 2005, the gaming bureau's Web site said. The figure includes revenue from casinos, lotteries and dog and horse racing. Still, Macau lags far behind the entire state of Nevada, which raked in $10.66 billion in 2005, according to the Center for Gaming Research at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Despite the recent success, developing Macau is still fraught with many risks. Analysts say they include an economic meltdown in China, a chronic labor shortage or a severe outbreak of bird flu or SARS, which hammered nearby Hong Kong in 2003. There's also the possibility that a business model that has been wildly successful in one part of the world fails to take off in a foreign market. One example is Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world's largest retailer, which retreated from Germany after failing to repeat the enormous success it had in America. But Adelson insists that Macau is a sure bet: "There is nothing on the horizon that will interrupt the growth trend that what we in Macau are experiencing," he said. His archrival, billionaire Steve Wynn, is just as bullish. "The speed of development is dizzying," he said recently. "The population that is seeks to serve is expanding and is economically growing at a rate larger than any other part of the world." Late last year, Wynn opened his $1.2 billion Wynn Macau resort, with 600 rooms, designer boutiques, restaurants, spa and swimming pool. The sleek building with a sloping roof is surrounded by gardens and a man-made lake that wows crowds with a musical water shows. Adelson opened up first in Macau in 2004 with the gleaming Sands Macau, which has been wildly successful. Now the billionaire is developing Macau's Cotai Strip - an area of reclaimed land that connects two islands: Coloane and Taipa. He says it will include more than 20 resorts with 60,000 rooms. Adelson's $2.4 billion Venetian Macau will be part of it, with 3,000 suites on a construction site big enough to park 90 Boeing 747 jumbo jets, the company says. It plans to open later this year. The next big event in Macau will likely be the opening of the 430-room Grand Lisboa Hotel and Casino. It's the latest effort by Macau casino kingpin Stanley Ho, who lost his gaming monopoly in 2002, to open a modern casino complex that can compete with his Las Vegas rivals. The Grand Lisboa was expected to open within the next month. " ========================== So who in the US would you expect to benefit from this? To whom is it an opportunity, and to whom is it a threat?? Verno
|
|
#25
January 26th, 2007, 07:32 PM
posted to soc.culture.china,soc.culture.japan,rec.travel.asia,soc.culture.singapore,hk.politics
|
|||
|
|||
|
China is Still Very Poor On Average....A Realistic Appraisal with Supporting Pics and Articles
That pdf article was very educational. The erosion of evolutionary
competition according to the article will reduce functional systems to be run by unnaturally selected non-fittest for the job personnel! Darwin would be turning in his grave should he laern that natural selection had gone the way of unnatural democracy! "RichAsianKid" wrote in message oups.com... On Jan 24, 7:33 pm, "mettas_mother" wrote: To control chaos in society or groups there was a need to prevent revenge by individuals and reduce violence to sustain peace. Therefore rules were created by rulers or leaders. These rules are now known as laws. The purpose of these laws is to sustain peace and uphold JUSTICE. 'Rule by Law' or 'Rule of Law' are social creations by humans for the ultimate principle of Justice and upholding it. Laws are as imperfect as their creators and do have faults in them. And therefore had to be implemented together with error correction mechanism. However the institutions that enforces Laws are too stupid to regulate the reduction or elimination of these errors and faults. What do we get as a result? We get : "JUDICIAL VIOLENCE AGAINST JUSTICE"! Laws were created to protect Humans, but in most cases we humans are punished to protect the Laws. This flaw in any system if not corrected will eventually lead to its demise. Emancipation of women may be an proclaimed act of democracy. Democracy is rule by people. However children are not allowed to vote in any system. That means no democracy is a true dmocracy. What happened to emancipation of children? Are they too weak to protect themselves? Ehat happened to the protection of the LAW? There is truely no pure democracy today. America is a imposter that flies the flag of democracy when needed to justify war and dominance. What these idiots do not realise is that there is something called evolution and nature that could end human rein and make irreversible changes. Nature always finds its ways. That's quite true, esp wrt the children bit, that's why others (I've discussed this before so will not do so again) have argued that democracy (and economic success, GDP etc.) requires certain prerequisites, namely intellectual capital (IQ), to understand the issues at hand and to be functional, and clearly some countries do not have it. And yes you can chase nature out with a pitchfork but she returns with a vengeance. I've previously quoted this - perhaps democracy is not universally practiceable and some parts of the world may just have to live in poverty for the rest of their lives. The neoconservatives are being too naive - perhaps they're culturally imperialistic yes - but there are some who really believe that everyone can be lifted out of, say, poverty, or every country really can be free. That may not be the case for reasons mentioned above, as well as from human evolutionary history: This is worth reading the entire article even thought it's a tad long: http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/ep04142148.pdf "RichAsianKid" wrote in ooglegroups.com... On Jan 24, 1:40 am, Vernon North Vernon wrote: In article .com, says... You're forgetting about Chinese Hubris, the Middle KingdomMentality.Not at all -- I know it all too well. But trace the trajectory. China is catching up, and FAST. Yes, the trajectory. That's big IF. And you're betting against it, right? I favor realism - reminder!!! Exactly the title of this thread!! See for instance this report - China, India Superpower? Not so Fast! http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6407 Likewise I concur with Singapore's Lee Kwan Yew's realism where he said something like this in the recent past: "What is gradually happening is the restoration of the world balance to what it was in the early 19th century or late 18th century when China and India together were responsible for more than 40 percent of world GDP. With those two countries becoming part of the globalized trading world, they are going to go back to approximately the level of world GDP that they previously occupied. But that doesn't make them the superpowers of the world." Britain and the US are, for all their faults, democracies that accept the rule of law. This is not true of China. So simplistic I have to laugh. The powers in China accept the rule of law as much as the powers in our democracies. Actually it's the average guy who accepts the rule of law perhaps. The powers of China? According to Wikipedia (modified Jan 2007) when you type in the terms China and rule of law, "In the Anglo-American legal tradition rule of law has been seen as a guard against despotism and as enforcing limitations on the power of the government. In the People's Republic of China the discourse around rule of law centers on the notion that laws ultimately enhance the power of the state and the nation, which is why the Chinese government adopts the principle of rule BY law rather than rule OF law." Another article from ATimes concludes, "However, in China, there is a problem when the law meets authority. If a case arises between two normal people, then the law is somewhat powerful. But if one person is a company official or from the government, then **there is no power in the law.** Business people know that if they have bought political backing, they can get investigations into their affairs called off and stories in the state media killed (8, 9). (my emphasis) Despite reams of laws written by Beijing over the past two decades, one prominent foreign lawyer in China believes the rule of law has actually weakened. By 1997, she says, she encountered Chinese judges who wanted to build a truly fair legal system. But in 2000, the Communist Party quietly instructed courts to consider the nation's interests first and moved independent-minded justices out of power (10). Worsening the rule of law in China is the fact that many in China see smuggling, bribes and piracy as victimless crimes, and thus tolerated. (Bribes and success mean almost the same thing.) The gap in perceptions highlights the difficulties the Chinese government faces as it tries to curb corruption. As China is becoming a leading global trading partner, the lack of law among the government and the citizens is also becoming an important problem worldwide. This problem must not be ignored. " You should at least accept that 'gifts' are often necessary to do business in China? Even you said something similar before, I believe! No wonder in the perceptions (your fav subject?) of corruption index, China is ranked so very very low compared to Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, US etc etc!! http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781359.html In a world that's increasingly fluid, where the only constant is change, the past may not always map out the future 1:1. My point exactly. That's why those who laugh up their sleeves at China -- always for the past and the present (which becomes the past tomorrow) -- are indulging in the most dangerous kind of rear-view-mirror-gazing hubris of underestimating the competition. That's a fool's game. Again I favor realism - title of this thread, with articles quoted above. Even you admitted the whole slew of problems in mainland China. And if reality is so fluid, the past is probably much less predictive of the future. I've quoted before this very readable article by an English/American writer (with a Chinese wife I believe) for National Review - read it in full to understand just what many mainland Chinese really think!! http://www.vdare.com/derbyshire/sino....htmNoneofthis is asurprise to me, but you are ignoring the rate of progress China is making -- like picking out flaws in a paused frame instead of watching where the movie is going. See above - the problem lies with the extrapolation and no one really knows what it will be. And one more point about trajectory: Here. It will take a very long time for China to reach the level of a developed country *EVEN IF* the trajectory continues - and this is very uncertain and in fact may not continue ( Hutton above). It doesn't have to reach the level of a developed country to kick the props out from under the economies of many developed countries. From the OP I explicitly said this was more a cultural post - looking at the average guy in China, reflection of what things are really like, rather than from an international business perspective. What you said may be true with all the copying and pirating among other things from China, of course, but that's due to China's sheer numbers, and not per capita merit (WRT above discussion obviously most rules can be bent at the top, not just for China but for other countries as well) - the per capita point is very shocking: compared to the US, the GDP of China even in an optimistic projection in 2020 is not yet even the relative level of Japan compared to the US in 1960!! The per capita part is important because it addresses how the average mainland Chinese lives. http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/5603/gdpindex4jl.gif You're right in that feminism bit - in fact as you probably read in Buchanan's Death of The West he did identify feminism as a factor of decline of the West - demographic collapse and all the DINKS - but also the importation of third world invasion and conquest of America, especially with regards to Hispanics. Hmmmm, as side point, will Hong Kong, the highest net worth "country" in the world by PPP and 2nd highest after Japan by US exchange rates, decline as well especially with the invasion of hordes and hordes of pregnant women from the mainland who abuse the system face a similar fate, now that it has the lowest fertility rates in the world and is being invaded by third world pregnant mainland Chinese moms? http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?c=hk&v=31 You wrote: "HK has always found a way to prosper from its position on the edge of China. HK made a living by dipping its spoon into the river of gold flowing in and out of China, and it's finding new ways to do that as the "river" changes course and content. HK won't be THE centre it once was, but HKers are busy ensuring their future and, I think, doing a good job of that -- pregnant PRC moms notwithstanding." Do you not think the West will do the same? Why can't it be more inventive? Are you bowing to theories of IQ here? As for whether HK will be the center - some power will likely to be transferred to Shanghai, but HOng Kong with its rule of law and British legacy and English facility will likely remain an IFC (international finance center), while Shanghai will only be a NFC for some time to come. Think New York (HK) vs Chicago (Shanghai) if recall an article saying. You're right in that feminism bit - in fact as you probably read in... read more »
|
|
#26
January 28th, 2007, 11:13 PM
posted to soc.culture.china,soc.culture.japan,rec.travel.asia,soc.culture.singapore,hk.politics
|
|||
|
|||
|
China is Still Very Poor On Average....A Realistic Appraisal with Supporting Pics and Articles
On Jan 26, 12:01 pm, Vernon North Vernon wrote: In article .com, says... On Jan 24, 7:22 pm, Vernon North Vernon wrote: In article .com, says... On Jan 24, 1:40 am, Vernon North Vernon wrote: In article .com, says... You're forgetting about Chinese Hubris, the Middle Kingdom Mentality.Not at all -- I know it all too well. But trace the trajectory. China is catching up, and FAST. Yes, the trajectory. That's big IF. And you're betting against it, right? I favor realism - reminder!!! Exactly the title of this thread!! See for instance this report - China, India Superpower? Not so Fast! http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6407 Likewise I concur with Singapore's Lee Kwan Yew's realism where he said something like this in the recent past: "What is gradually happening is the restoration of the world balance to what it was in the early 19th century or late 18th century when China and India together were responsible for more than 40 percent of world GDP. With those two countries becoming part of the globalized trading world, they are going to go back to approximately the level of world GDP that they previously occupied. But that doesn't make them the superpowers of the world."More navigation by watching the rear-view mirror. You were right when you said the future is unpredictable. And it's possible that the PRC has invented a "better" system through which the "collective" may prosper and even dominate at (what we in the west might call) the expense of the individual. How did China "invent" a better system? Certainly the system as practised right now is not "invented" by Chinese - they're Western ideas - whether it's communism (from Marx) till the late 20th century for China or the now more liberalized "free-trade zones"/ideas of capitalism whatever it's called (politico-philosophical ideas from Locke-Smith) - from a Western heritage. It's true that China might have trimmed Western ideas down to Chinese characteristics, a system that might provide a better fit for its own people, but to pretend that China somehow found this magic bullet and "invented" a system de novo ex nihilo-- thus perhaps implying originality -- is just ludicrous. Not saying that you meant it that way, but that was my first impression when I read what you wrote. This may sound like semantics, but it's actually an important point for some I suspect - Chinese sentiment is such that it's like a scorned women - never underestimate the fury! The 19th and 20th century witness a decline of power of China, the sick man of Asia etc, will civil war, defeats by foreign western/japanese power etc, that now with a surge in perceived economic (and military) might it is really hellbent on asserting a rightful place in the world - hence its atavistic anti-West (and anti-Japanese) sentiment. Thus if you can invent a system and succeed at it, then that would be intellectual (perhaps spiritual) vindication. BUT....if the ideas are based on the West anyway (Marx, Locke-Smith, ancient Greeks) that would be a HUGE concession - the West found it first. Anyway that's my take on it, feel free to disagree. (BTW Singapore's prime minister also said something similar: China is living on the West's intellectual capital or something similar a while back if I recall correctly)How metaphysical! If you want to take that line, there's very little true innovation that occurs anywhere -- most innovation is simply existing ideas recycled, used in new applications, or combined in new ways. Kinda like Chinese cooking -- most of the ingredients have been used in other cuisines, but the Chinese have combined them in proportions and combinations nobody expected. Are Chinese dishes new inventions? I'd say yes. Feel free to differ. And by extension, fusion. Most people, like you and me, would say yes. But the Chinese mentality says, ah, no, no, no! That's *******ization! Even American Chinese cooking - yeah they're cheap but that's not the point - that's just another blight on our national culinary honor etc etc. China's combination of state control, free enterprise and capitalism is unique. If you want to talk about inventing a totally new system, I'll agree China has not. But the way it has combined concepts IS new. Every country has developed a unique socio-politico-economic system that suits is people - the Swedish system is not the same as Singapore's, for instance. It's a matter of degree, and there are infinite nuances. And the comment by Singapore's PM misses the point. So what if China is living off the West's intellectual capital? Who is profiting from that capital, and what are they doing with the money? Does the fact that rats steal food make them any less successful in evolutionary terms? It doesn't stop them from breeding and dominating an ecological niche. In Darwinian terms, that is victory. Ah, Vernon now understands why Chinese do not respect an an iota of respect for intellectual property rights! How about that! It never pays to underestimate threats. Threats? Come on, there are only opportunities in business!? (only real threat would be for blue collar Americans who lose their jobs, now *that's* a real personal threat) Opportunities not seized early enough become threats. Good job - you were in mainland China recently, you recognized opportunities early; very shrewd!! Yet I don't believe in hype either. Bottom line - no one knows the future (by 1980s projection Japan would have overtaken America?) and an unexpected financial crisis or burst of the bubble or social unrest etc may well derail the jugglenaut. It's a possibility. How likely is it no one knows. All a matter of debate, see, for example, another essay from the Stanford Journal of East Asian Studies concludes the following which I know you'll disagree but it goes as such. I'll spare you the links. "By all these measures, China is not now a superpower, nor is it likely to emerge as one soon. It is establishing itself as a great power, on a par with Great Britain, Russia, Japan, and, perhaps, India. China is today a serious player in the regional politics of Asia but just one of several. In global affairs, its stature and power are growing, but in most respects it remains a regional power, complementing the cast of other great powers under the overarching dominance, however momentary, of the United States. China's rise over the past two decades has been spectacular from any perspective and deserves attention and respect, especially in view of the difficult course of China's attempt to adapt to the modern world since the nineteenth century. From the perspective of realist geopolitics, however, it does not merit the alarm and trepidation that the announcement of a rival superpower might conjure. Napoleon, in that regard, may be right, but not yet and not soon. " One word -- trajectory. Yes, there may be an unexpected gust of wind. But don't stand in the line of fire counting on the wind to save you. Get out of the way! You're just reiterating what you wrote/implied before - no one is denying that China is on the rise. The question is how much? How much longer? How sustained? Is that gonna make China a superpower? It will be a great power (though that's nothing to brag about cuz it has, like, 1.3 billion people!!) The powers of China? According to Wikipedia (modified Jan 2007) when you type in the terms China and rule of law, "In the Anglo-American legal tradition rule of law has been seen as a guard against despotism and as enforcing limitations on the power of the government. In the People's Republic of China the discourse around rule of law centers on the notion that laws ultimately enhance the power of the state and the nation, which is why the Chinese government adopts the principle of rule BY law rather than rule OF law." Another article from ATimes concludes, "However, in China, there is a problem when the law meets authority.. If a case arises between two normal people, then the law is somewhat powerful. But if one person is a company official or from the government, then **there is no power in the law.** Business people know that if they have bought political backing, they can get investigations into their affairs called off and stories in the state media killed (8, 9). (my emphasis)No doubt about it. Chinese companies employ PR directors with connections. Their primary functions are navigating through the power structure and leveraging connections. I much prefer our system. But I wonder what the average CEO of a US company thinks about whether they'd prefer a system completely free of corruption, or one in which it is possible to win a bid through bribery or to use "palm-oil" to persuade an official to turn a blind eye? Which system will win out in the long run? An orderly country governed by the rule of law, or one driven by greed in which anything goes so long as you bribe the right people? What do you think? Networking is very important. As to your second part, it's difficult to know. One can easily cite The End of History and the Last Man by Japanese-American Francis Fukuyama? "What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government." (quoted from "The End of History?", 1989)" But I'll not do that - as freedom and democracy really had a very little lifespan and elsewhere I've read stuff of how hierarchy, authoritarian systems may be the default MO of the human condition. As to the actual questions, what's 'winning'? More productive economically? Theoretically the rule of law in an orderly country would win out because it's more conducive towards meritocracy, and it is very possible that you'll form extended dynasties and blocs which are highly inefficient and everyone loses with a corrupt system, even if it's driven by greed. But that's in theory. Of course the easy way out is 'time will tell', as everything is ultimately Darwinian why not wait and see.Human organizations (companies, states, etc.) have a unique un-Darwinian characteristic -- they ... read more » As usual, new google interface sucks, so have to quote he\ ----- You wrote: "Human organizations (companies, states, etc.) have a unique un- Darwinian characteristic -- they can "change their DNA", at will, and within a single generation -- in response to opportunities and threats. The only thing that stops them is their emotional inability to give up their old DNA. But they won't change it, or else they'll change it too late, if they don't recognize opportunities early and pounce on them before they become threats. And the longer a threat exists before a decision is made to respond, the more it damages them before they change. For the West, time's a wastin'. " --Reply: I think it's a matter of numbers and the lack of breeding as you/Buchanan said before, side-effects of democracy, aggravated by feminism, birth control, abortion etc. Afterall if anything Western mentality is probably more dynamic than Chinese mentality which has the rep of being very inertial - look, the medieval Chinese mentality is still very much alive today. But as long as it has the advantage in numbers, that swarms everything, even if the individual Chinese is very poor, uneducated, filthy etc. One Englishman can beat one Zulu easily, slightly more difficult to beat 10, very hard to beat 100, impossible to beat 1000 etc. ------ You wrote: "Yes -- there is a lot of hype about China, particularly in the business press. I have clients (with Chinese business interests) who received a rude awakening in their first years about what was, and was not, possible in China. A significant proportion of Chinese privately owned companies are not profitable (as corporations), unreliable and untrustworthy as suppliers, and are not worth acquiring. The business people I visited in China told me that even they don't trust their brother Chinese suppliers to make parts for them -- they make all the parts and pieces they need themselves because they can't afford to be at the mercy of unreliable suppliers or suppliers who will hold them hostage. But Chinese businesses, including the unreliable, unprofitable businesses among them, are taking markets away from companies in other countries, wealth away from foreign shareholders, jobs away from foreign workers, and enriching the owners of the Chinese companies. Like many Chinese operated businesses in North America, they survive on razor- thin margins that their competitors would not consider to be adequate return on the risks taken. But they're still taking the business because they're willing to "do it for less". It's a very significant threat. By the way, most companies don't consider "a bold new era of increasing competition and declining margins" to be an genuine "opportunity". It's a threat. " -- Reply I agree with all of that. But then that comes back to Darwinism - the MO of business, do you think that's a good thing, bad thing, are you neutral on this? ------ Speaking of India, what do you think of the prospects of India vs China? You wrote: "At this point, I'm taking a very simplistic view -- India's demographics and levels of education may be hard for China to overcome. India's economy could overtake China's within 30 to 50 years, but I don't see the trajectory to forecast this yet. But it's a possibility. " -- Reply: In fact I read that China's population is more educated than India's, I can be wrong though, didn't check. I was asking as I was surprised you didn't bring India up as counterpoint to China's 'unique' or 'invention' of a new political system - of how democracy does not always triumph. From all the stats I've read, China just razes India (on average, don't look at the extreme ends of the distribution). See this, for instance: http://in.rediff.com/money/2005/sep/27china.htm ------- You wrote: "I've heard similar things about both China and HK. One major difference between the East Asia and the West is the respect and reverence for expert opinion. In the west, we have been seeing "the declining influence of, and respect for, learned intermediaries" for at least 3 decades -- probably ever since Watergate. People are less and less likely to trust "experts" whether these experts are doctors, engineers, accountants, investment analysts, lawyers, or politicians. I never heard anyone in China say "I want a second opinion". ("OK, you're ugly, too!" ba-boom!) On average, people in China (and other East Asian countries) are more willing to trust and believe experts of all kinds than are people in the West. How else do you explain Chinese herbal medicine? "The doctor told me eating this ground-up rhinoceros horn would make me sexually potent! It makes sense, too -- horn:horny -- get the connection? Gotta get me some!"  "-- Reply: Yes I agree with that totally. ------- Reply: did you read my thread on Another Reason to Love the Far East...True Story? Did you try out something similar in China? You wrote: "Yes, I read it in Penthouse Forum twenty years ago. I didn't believe it then, either. Whether your story is literally true or not, I know it is common." -- Reply: Of course that implies a no, bwahahaha!! You haven't tried it, else you'd have believed it! All right, let RAK educate you then. While women tend to be $-oriented especially in SE Asia, a few niceties (and a desired look & accent of course) often goes a long way. Forgot this denouement (all true, dialogue, of course, condensed) After the girl left, RAK donned his tee, shorts & flip flops and went & sat down at the hotel lobby after ordering a Heineken at the bar for a mere $1.50. It was only 9:30 pm. The rest of the tourist group soon came trickling back in after that optional night tour of 'shopping extravaganza': Young Tourist: "Dude, sup? Last night on the tour and you're just here drinkin' doin' nothin'?" RAK: "Actually I did everything. "Woman Tourist: "You look so bored and tired. You should have joined us! It's exciting outside - good shopping lah! Look how much I've bought!!" RAK: "Believe me I was excited. Just exhausted that's all...." Male Tourist: "Leave him alone, he's just chillin' here in the lobby. It's too hot out anyway." RAK: "It's even hotter in my room." Tour Guide: "So what d'ya think of the trip, huh? You wanna return for a visit?" RAK: "Yeah, I'll come again." ---- You wrote: "And I still say you're navigating by gazing in the rear- view mirror. What interests me is the motivation and purpose of your anti-China posts. Are you an agent for the PRC trolling to lull others into a false sense of security? Are you mischievously trolling to **** off chauvinistic Chinese? Or do you actually believe what you're posting?" -- Reply: Ideas are more important than the person posting let alone their motives, no? Thought you're above ad hominems etc. What do you think I am? Just not to be rude not to answer your questions however, no, no, & yes with a resonant chorus.
|
|
#27
January 28th, 2007, 11:21 PM
posted to soc.culture.china,soc.culture.japan,rec.travel.asia,soc.culture.singapore,hk.politics
|
|||
|
|||
|
China is Still Very Poor On Average....A Realistic Appraisal with Supporting Pics and Articles
On Jan 26, 1:06 pm, Vernon North Vernon wrote: In article . net, Here's an article a friend just sent to me: ================================================= Macau vies with Vegas for top revenue MACAU - Macau may have dethroned the Las Vegas Strip as the world's biggest casino center, according to figures available Wednesday that show the Chinese territory's gambling revenue jumped 22 percent to $6.95 billion last year. The former Portuguese enclave has been booming since the government busted up a casino monopoly three years ago and began welcoming U.S. gaming powerhouses like Las Vegas Sands Corp., MGM Mirage Inc. and Wynn Resorts Ltd. The American companies have been furiously building mega casino and resort projects in the tiny city _ less than one-sixth the size of Washington, D.C. _ on China's southeastern coast. They say they'll do what they did to Las Vegas: transform a seedy, worn-out, crime-ridden town into one of the world's best spots for gambling as well as conventions, glitzy shows, dining and other family entertainment. Key to Macau's success will be luring the masses of high rollers from mainland China, who are growing richer and tend to bet more at the casino tables than Americans do in Las Vegas. "Las Vegas doesn't have the radius of the population that is as anxious to come to gamble," Sands Chairman Sheldon Adelson, ranked No. 3 on Forbes magazine's list of the 400 richest Americans, told The Associated Press in a recent interview. Sands' promotional material makes the point that this city _ the only place in China where casino gambling is legal _ is located within a two-hour flight from 1 billion people. About 3 billion people _ half the world's population _ in Asia can get to the city within five hours by plane, the company says. The Las Vegas Strip has yet to announce its full-year revenue figures for 2006, but it would have to bring in nearly $1 billion in December alone to beat Macau's figure, which was posted with no fanfare on the Web site of its Gaming and Inspection Coordination Bureau. The Las Vegas Strip has said for the 11 months through November, revenue came to $6.08 billion. If December's revenue is the same as it was the previous year, the annual total would hit about $6.57 billion _ just behind Macau. Last year, Macau's gambling revenue totaled 55.88 billion patacas, or $6.95 billion, compared to 45.80 billion patacas in 2005, the gaming bureau's Web site said. The figure includes revenue from casinos, lotteries and dog and horse racing. Still, Macau lags far behind the entire state of Nevada, which raked in $10.66 billion in 2005, according to the Center for Gaming Research at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Despite the recent success, developing Macau is still fraught with many risks. Analysts say they include an economic meltdown in China, a chronic labor shortage or a severe outbreak of bird flu or SARS, which hammered nearby Hong Kong in 2003. There's also the possibility that a business model that has been wildly successful in one part of the world fails to take off in a foreign market. One example is Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world's largest retailer, which retreated from Germany after failing to repeat the enormous success it had in America. But Adelson insists that Macau is a sure bet: "There is nothing on the horizon that will interrupt the growth trend that what we in Macau are experiencing," he said. His archrival, billionaire Steve Wynn, is just as bullish. "The speed of development is dizzying," he said recently. "The population that is seeks to serve is expanding and is economically growing at a rate larger than any other part of the world." Late last year, Wynn opened his $1.2 billion Wynn Macau resort, with 600 rooms, designer boutiques, restaurants, spa and swimming pool. The sleek building with a sloping roof is surrounded by gardens and a man-made lake that wows crowds with a musical water shows. Adelson opened up first in Macau in 2004 with the gleaming Sands Macau, which has been wildly successful. Now the billionaire is developing Macau's Cotai Strip - an area of reclaimed land that connects two islands: Coloane and Taipa. He says it will include more than 20 resorts with 60,000 rooms. Adelson's $2.4 billion Venetian Macau will be part of it, with 3,000 suites on a construction site big enough to park 90 Boeing 747 jumbo jets, the company says. It plans to open later this year. The next big event in Macau will likely be the opening of the 430-room Grand Lisboa Hotel and Casino. It's the latest effort by Macau casino kingpin Stanley Ho, who lost his gaming monopoly in 2002, to open a modern casino complex that can compete with his Las Vegas rivals. The Grand Lisboa was expected to open within the next month. " ========================== So who in the US would you expect to benefit from this? To whom is it an opportunity, and to whom is it a threat?? Verno I'd imagine that Las Vegas Sands Corp., MGM Mirage Inc. and Wynn Resorts Ltd. etc will benefit, or at least they expect to benefit, else why else would they build mega casinos and resort projects there? And the Chinese of course, the local illiterate Chinese workers in Macau. The losers may be those refugees from California (i.e. those displaced already by other prevailing factors like illegal immigration, outsourcing etc.) who naively thought they would be escaping & finding paradise in Nevada?
|
|
#28
January 29th, 2007, 01:11 AM
posted to soc.culture.china,soc.culture.japan,rec.travel.asia,soc.culture.singapore,hk.politics
|
|||
|
|||
|
China is Still Very Poor On Average....A Realistic Appraisal with Supporting Pics and Articles
In article om,
says... On Jan 26, 12:01 pm, Vernon North Vernon wrote: In article .com, says... On Jan 24, 7:22 pm, Vernon North Vernon wrote: In article .com, says... On Jan 24, 1:40 am, Vernon North Vernon wrote: In article .com= , says... You're forgetting about Chinese Hubris, the Middle Kingdom = Mentality.Not at all -- I know it all too well. But trace the trajectory. = China is catching up, and FAST. Yes, the trajectory. That's big IF. And you're betting against it, right? I favor realism - reminder!!! Exactly the title of this thread!! See for instance this report - China, India Superpower? Not so Fast! http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=3D6407 Likewise I concur with Singapore's Lee Kwan Yew's realism where he = said something like this in the recent past: "What is gradually happening is the restoration of the world balanc= e to what it was in the early 19th century or late 18th century when Chi= na and India together were responsible for more than 40 percent of wor= ld GDP. With those two countries becoming part of the globalized tradi= ng world, they are going to go back to approximately the level of world GDP that they previously occupied. But that doesn't make them the superpowers of the world."More navigation by watching the rear-view= mirror. You were right when you said the future is unpredictable. And it's possible that the PRC has invented a "better" system through which the "collective" may prosper and even dominate at (what we in the west might call) the expense of the individual. How did China "invent" a better system? Certainly the system as practised right now is not "invented" by Chinese - they're Western ideas - whether it's communism (from Marx) till the late 20th century for China or the now more liberalized "free-trade zones"/ideas of capitalism whatever it's called (politico-philosophical ideas from Locke-Smith) - from a Western heritage. It's true that China might have trimmed Western ideas down to Chinese characteristics, a system that might provide a better fit for its own people, but to pretend that China somehow found this magic bullet and "invented" a system de novo ex nihilo-- thus perhaps implying originality -- is just ludicrous. Not saying that you meant it that way, but that was my first impression when I read what you wrote. This may sound like semantics, but it's actually an important point for some I suspect - Chinese sentiment is such that it's like a scorned women - never underestimate the fury! The 19th and 20th century witness a decline of power of China, the sick man of Asia etc, will civil war, defeats by foreign western/japanese power etc, that now with a surge in perceived economic (and military) might it is really hellbent on asserting a rightful place in the world - hence its atavistic anti-West (and anti-Japanese) sentiment. Thus if you can invent a system and succeed at it, then that would be intellectual (perhaps spiritual) vindication. BUT....if the ideas are based on the West anyway (Marx, Locke-Smith, ancient Greeks) that would be a HUGE concession - the West found it first. Anyway that's my take on it, feel free to disagree. (BTW Singapore's prime minister also said something similar: China is living on the West's intellectual capital or something similar a while back if I recall correctly)How met= aphysical! If you want to take that line, there's very little true innovation that occurs anywhere -- most innovation is simply existing ideas recycled, used in new applications, or combined in new ways. Kinda like Chinese cooking -- most of the ingredients have been used in other cuisines, but the Chinese have combined them in proportions and combinations nobody expected. Are Chinese dishes new inventions? I'd say yes. Feel free to differ. And by extension, fusion. Most people, like you and me, would say yes.=20 But the Chinese mentality says, ah, no, no, no! That's *******ization!=20 Even American Chinese cooking - yeah they're cheap but that's not the=20 point - that's just another blight on our national culinary honor etc=20 etc. China's combination of state control, free enterprise and capitalism is unique. If you want to talk about inventing a totally new system, I'll agree China has not. But the way it has combined concepts IS new. Every country has developed a unique socio-politico-economic system=20 that suits is people - the Swedish system is not the same as=20 Singapore's, for instance. It's a matter of degree, and there are=20 infinite nuances. And the comment by Singapore's PM misses the point. So what if China is living off the West's intellectual capital? Who is profiting from that capital, and what are they doing with the money? Does the fact that rats steal food make them any less successful in evolutionary terms? It doesn't stop them from breeding and dominating an ecological niche. In Darwinian terms, that is victory. Ah, Vernon now understands why Chinese do not respect an an iota of=20 respect for intellectual property rights! How about that! Are you kidding? It's obvious that intellectual property rights enjoy very low levels of support in China. I've known that for more than a decade. It never pays to underestimate threats. Threats? Come on, there are only opportunities in business!? (only real threat would be for blue collar Americans who lose their jobs, now *that's* a real personal threat) Opportunities not seized early enough become threats. Good job - you were in mainland China recently, you recognized=20 opportunities early; very shrewd!! Yet I don't believe in hype either. Bottom line - no one knows the future (by 1980s projection Japan would have overtaken America?) and an unexpected financial crisis or burst of the bubble or social unrest etc may well derail the jugglenaut. It's a possibility. How likely is it no one knows. All a matter of debate, see, for example, another essay from the Stanford Journal of East Asian Studies concludes the following which I know you'll disagree but it goes as such. I'll spare you the links. "By all these measures, China is not now a superpower, nor is it likely to emerge as one soon. It is establishing itself as a great power, on a par with Great Britain, Russia, Japan, and, perhaps, India. China is today a serious player in the regional politics of Asia but just one of several. In global affairs, its stature and power are growing, but in most respects it remains a regional power, complementing the cast of other great powers under the overarching dominance, however momentary, of the United States. China's rise over the past two decades has been spectacular from any perspective and deserves attention and respect, especially in view of the difficult course of China's attempt to adapt to the modern world since the nineteenth century. From the perspective of realist geopolitics, however, it does not merit the alarm and trepidation that the announcement of a rival superpower might conjure. Napoleon, in that regard, may be right, but not yet and not soon. " One word -- trajectory. Yes, there may be an unexpected gust of wind. But don't stand in the line of fire counting on the wind to save you. Get out of the way! You're just reiterating what you wrote/implied before - no one is=20 denying that China is on the rise. The question is how much? How much=20 longer? How sustained? Is that gonna make China a superpower? It will=20 be a great power (though that's nothing to brag about cuz it has,=20 like, 1.3 billion people!!) Then why all the posts about how bad China is, with no mention of the trajectory? The powers of China? According to Wikipedia (modified Jan 2007) when you type in the terms China and rule of law, "In the Anglo-American leg= al tradition rule of law has been seen as a guard against despotism an= d as enforcing limitations on the power of the government. In the People= 's Republic of China the discourse around rule of law centers on the notion that laws ultimately enhance the power of the state and the nation, which is why the Chinese government adopts the principle of rule BY law rather than rule OF law." Another article from ATimes concludes, "However, in China, there is a problem when the law meets authority= . If a case arises between two normal people, then the law is somewhat powerful. But if one person is a company official or from the government, then **there is no power in the law.** Business people = know that if they have bought political backing, they can get investigat= ions into their affairs called off and stories in the state media killed= (8, 9). (my emphasis)No doubt about it. Chinese companies employ PR = directors with connections. Their primary functions are navigating through the power structure and leveraging connections. I much prefer our system. But I wonder what the average CEO of a US company thinks about whether they'd prefer a system completely free of corruption, or one in which it is possible to win a bid through bribe= ry or to use "palm-oil" to persuade an official to turn a blind eye? Which system will win out in the long run? An orderly country govern= ed by the rule of law, or one driven by greed in which anything goes so long as you bribe the right people? What do you think? Networking is very important. As to your second part, it's difficult to know. One can easily cite The End of History and the Last Man by Japanese-American Francis Fukuyama? "What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government." (quoted from "The End of History?", 1989)" But I'll not do that - as freedom and democracy really had a very little lifespan and elsewhere I've read stuff of how hierarchy, authoritarian systems may be the default MO of the human condition. As to the actual questions, what's 'winning'? More productive economically? Theoretically the rule of law in an orderly country would win out because it's more conducive towards meritocracy, and it is very possible that you'll form extended dynasties and blocs which are highly inefficient and everyone loses with a corrupt system, even if it's driven by greed. But that's in theory. Of course the easy way out is 'time will tell', as everything is ultimately Darwinian why not wait and see.Human organizations (compa= nies, states, etc.) have a unique un-Darwinian characteristic -- they ... read more =BB As usual, new google interface sucks, so have to quote he\ ----- You wrote: "Human organizations (companies, states, etc.) have a unique un- Darwinian characteristic -- they can "change their DNA", at will, and within a single generation -- in response to opportunities and threats. The=20 only thing that stops them is their emotional inability to give up their=20 old DNA. But they won't change it, or else they'll change it too late, if they don't recognize opportunities early and pounce on them before=20 they become threats. And the longer a threat exists before a decision is made to respond, the more it damages them before they change. For the West, time's a wastin'. " --Reply: I think it's a matter of numbers and the lack of breeding as=20 you/Buchanan said before, side-effects of democracy, aggravated by=20 feminism, birth control, abortion etc. Afterall if anything Western=20 mentality is probably more dynamic than Chinese mentality which has=20 the rep of being very inertial - look, the medieval Chinese mentality=20 is still very much alive today. But as long as it has the advantage in=20 numbers, that swarms everything, even if the individual Chinese is=20 very poor, uneducated, filthy etc. One Englishman can beat one Zulu=20 easily, slightly more difficult to beat 10, very hard to beat 100,=20 impossible to beat 1000 etc. ------ That's my point. You wrote: "Yes -- there is a lot of hype about China, particularly in=20 the business press. I have clients (with Chinese business interests) who received a rude awakening in their first years about what was, and was not, possible in China. A significant proportion of Chinese privately owned companies are not profitable (as corporations), unreliable and untrustworthy as suppliers, and are not worth acquiring. The business people I visited in China told me that even they don't trust their brother Chinese suppliers to make parts for them -- they make all the parts and pieces they need themselves because they can't afford to be=20 at the mercy of unreliable suppliers or suppliers who will hold them hostage. But Chinese businesses, including the unreliable, unprofitable businesses among them, are taking markets away from companies in other countries, wealth away from foreign shareholders, jobs away from=20 foreign workers, and enriching the owners of the Chinese companies. Like many Chinese operated businesses in North America, they survive on razor- thin margins that their competitors would not consider to be adequate=20 return on the risks taken. But they're still taking the business because they're willing to "do it for less". It's a very significant=20 threat. By the way, most companies don't consider "a bold new era of=20 increasing competition and declining margins" to be an genuine "opportunity". =20 It's a threat. " -- Reply I agree with all of that. But then that comes back to=20 Darwinism - the MO of business, do you think that's a good thing, bad=20 thing, are you neutral on this? From a business perspective, it is bad -- at least for those who think business should have symbiotic relationships with its customers, employees, suppliers, the states in which it does business, and (gasp) the earth itself. But there are those who think "rape and pillage" is the right credo. ------ Speaking of India, what do you think of the prospects of India vs China? You wrote: "At this point, I'm taking a very simplistic view --=20 India's demographics and levels of education may be hard for China to overcome. India's economy could overtake China's within 30 to 50 years, but I don't see the trajectory to forecast this yet. But it's a possibility. " -- Reply: In fact I read that China's population is more educated=20 than India's, I can be wrong though, didn't check. I was asking as I=20 was surprised you didn't bring India up as counterpoint to China's=20 'unique' or 'invention' of a new political system - of how democracy=20 does not always triumph. From all the stats I've read, China just=20 razes India (on average, don't look at the extreme ends of the=20 distribution). See this, for instance: http://in.rediff.com/money/2005/sep/27china.htm ------- Hmm. I note they mentioned female literacy rates, but not male or overall average. Why do you suppose that is???? You wrote: "I've heard similar things about both China and HK. One major difference between the East Asia and the West is the respect and reverence for expert opinion. In the west, we have been seeing=20 "the declining influence of, and respect for, learned intermediaries" for=20 at least 3 decades -- probably ever since Watergate. People are less and less likely to trust "experts" whether these experts are doctors, engineers, accountants, investment analysts, lawyers, or politicians. =20 I never heard anyone in China say "I want a second opinion". ("OK,=20 you're ugly, too!" ba-boom!) On average, people in China (and other East Asian countries) are more willing to trust and believe experts of all kinds than are people in=20 the West. How else do you explain Chinese herbal medicine? "The doctor told me eating this ground-up rhinoceros horn would make me sexually potent! =20 It makes sense, too -- horn:horny -- get the connection? Gotta get me some!" "-- Reply: Yes I agree with that totally. ------- Reply: did you read my thread on Another Reason to Love the Far East...True Story? Did you try out something similar in China? You wrote: "Yes, I read it in Penthouse Forum twenty years ago. I=20 didn't believe it then, either. Whether your story is literally true or not, I know it is common." -- Reply: Of course that implies a no, bwahahaha!! Most men don't engage in such activities with their wives in tow, and I'm one of them. ---- You wrote: "And I still say you're navigating by gazing in the rear- view mirror. What interests me is the motivation and purpose of your anti-China posts. Are you an agent for the PRC trolling to lull others into a false sense of security? Are you mischievously trolling to **** off chauvinistic Chinese? Or do you actually believe what you're=20 posting?" -- Reply: Ideas are more important than the person posting let alone=20 their motives, no? Understanding what motivates a writer increases one's understanding of his work. Thought you're above ad hominems etc. It's a legitimate question -- your answer may help me to decide whether to read your posts in future. What do you=20 think I am? Just not to be rude not to answer your questions however,=20 no, no, & yes with a resonant chorus. But your posts have apparently not been an accurate summary of your opinion, no? How does this square with your answers above? Verno
|
|
#29
January 29th, 2007, 10:50 PM
posted to soc.culture.china,soc.culture.japan,rec.travel.asia,soc.culture.singapore,hk.politics
|
|||
|
|||
|
China is Still Very Poor On Average....A Realistic Appraisal with Supporting Pics and Articles
In article om,
says... One word -- trajectory. Yes, there may be an unexpected gust of wind. But don't stand in the line of fire counting on the wind to save you. Get out of the way! You're just reiterating what you wrote/implied before - no one is=20 denying that China is on the rise. The question is how much? How much=20 longer? How sustained? Is that gonna make China a superpower? It will=20 be a great power (though that's nothing to brag about cuz it has,=20 like, 1.3 billion people!!) You wrote: "Then why all the posts about how bad China is, with no mention of the trajectory?" Reply: Because China's still vely vely bad! Duh! Do you know what tutors say to failing students? "Johnny, you're making good progress!" Because if you're at the bottom, you can't go any lower. And your past and present GPAs are still not mentionable. Thus the positive focus has got to be 'progress'. Let's say that the GDP per capita of China were to double. That's still very low compared to the US or Japan! The ramifications for the world when China 'grows' has to do with its population size, but if you take into account per capita stats, China is really really backward. That's btw the intention of this thread, now that we're drifting off again and again. Furthermore, as countries grow, growth tends to plateau out (sigmoidal curve?). So you cannot just use 'trajectory' and then project China's into the infinite future in a vacuum - and that's barring any natural disasters, bursting of economic bubbles, or whatever terrorist surprises we may have for us. And it will take a very very long time before China catches up to Japan or US in GDP per capita. -- Reply: In fact I read that China's population is more educated=20 than India's, I can be wrong though, didn't check. I was asking as I=20 was surprised you didn't bring India up as counterpoint to China's=20 'unique' or 'invention' of a new political system - of how democracy=20 does not always triumph. From all the stats I've read, China just=20 razes India (on average, don't look at the extreme ends of the=20 distribution). See this, for instance: http://in.rediff.com/money/2005/sep/27china.htm ------- You wrote: "Hmm. I note they mentioned female literacy rates, but not male or overall average. Why do you suppose that is????" Reply: Good point, perhaps the liberalization of womanfolk is considered an 'index of human development'? Checked out the stats comparing China and India in literacy rates - from CIA factbook: China: definition: age 15 and over can read and write total population: 90.9% male: 95.1% female: 86.5% (2002) India: definition: age 15 and over can read and write total population: 59.5% male: 70.2% female: 48.3% (2003 est.) Reply: did you read my thread on Another Reason to Love the Far East...True Story? Did you try out something similar in China? You wrote: "Yes, I read it in Penthouse Forum twenty years ago. I=20 didn't believe it then, either. Whether your story is literally true or not, I know it is common." -- Reply: Of course that implies a no, bwahahaha!! You wrote: "Most men don't engage in such activities with their wives in tow, and I'm one of them." Reply: "You don't want to have any regrets on your deathbed though....... And the amount of swinging of some of my friends ....well.... let's just leave it at that. Mind you one of them used me (tipped off by an elementary schoolfriend, wow, she's a 1st rate actress!) to get back at her boyfriend once, hehe. And this type of thing may happen more with Caucasians then high achieving geekish WOW playing East Asians - my schoolfriend's WASP and that gf is eurasian. And it's surprisingly how women don't understand men! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/ma...th/2007/01/23/ hlife23.xml&page=1 And Incidentally the default sexual mode for men is serial monogamy or polygamy, and not strict monogamy." ---- You wrote: "And I still say you're navigating by gazing in the rear- view mirror. What interests me is the motivation and purpose of your anti-China posts. Are you an agent for the PRC trolling to lull others into a false sense of security? Are you mischievously trolling to **** off chauvinistic Chinese? Or do you actually believe what you're=20 posting?" -- Reply: Ideas are more important than the person posting let alone=20 their motives, no? You wrote: "Understanding what motivates a writer increases one's understanding of his work. " Reply: "In fact that may introduce bias. I favor reading the article if subject matter/title captures your interest and leaving the poster or even the source and author of the published articles posted. If they come from a reputable paper or a peer-reviewed publication or a reputable reference then I give those higher credence." Thought you're above ad hominems etc. You wrote: "It's a legitimate question -- your answer may help me to decide whether to read your posts in future." Reply: "That's your choice. I never killfile anyone and I most certainly don't read all articles." What do you=20 think I am? Just not to be rude not to answer your questions however,=20 no, no, & yes with a resonant chorus. You wrote: "But your posts have apparently not been an accurate summary of your opinion, no? How does this square with your answers above?" Reply: "You'll have to judge that for yourself. Within the context of China posts, since reading newsgroups and then taking the personal initiative to dig into info about China and NorthEast Asia, I realize that even though I've always known that china is a poor country, I've underestimated just how backward it is, in spite of all the hype and catching up. For instance, the GDP per capita of China is even lower than Mexico or Thailand (World Bank Data)!! I didn't know that!!!" You should also check out soc.culture.china and see that there are some who may be labelled as 'anti-China' or more accurately, anti-communist (recently opening up of markets notwithstanding). My divine role is thus to preserve a Zen balance of the real China - serving as a mirror to reflect - no more, no less - from a cultural (soc.CULTURE.china, remember?) perspective.  How do I know that I'm mostly right? From first hand conversations, and also when I forwarded some of my contributions/posted articles to others (friends/relatives) some comments are "boring! We know this already!" and yet in soc.culture.china my posts are considered to be trollish!"
|
|
#30
January 30th, 2007, 05:14 PM
posted to soc.culture.china,soc.culture.japan,rec.travel.asia,soc.culture.singapore,hk.politics
|
|||
|
|||
|
China is Still Very Poor On Average....A Realistic Appraisal with Supporting Pics and Articles
In article . com,
says... In article om, says... One word -- trajectory. Yes, there may be an unexpected gust of wind. But don't stand in the line of fire counting on the wind to save you. Get out of the way! You're just reiterating what you wrote/implied before - no one is=20 denying that China is on the rise. The question is how much? How much=20 longer? How sustained? Is that gonna make China a superpower? It will=20 be a great power (though that's nothing to brag about cuz it has,=20 like, 1.3 billion people!!) You wrote: "Then why all the posts about how bad China is, with no mention of the trajectory?" Reply: Because China's still vely vely bad! Duh! Do you know what tutors say to failing students? "Johnny, you're making good progress!" Because if you're at the bottom, you can't go any lower. And your past and present GPAs are still not mentionable. Thus the positive focus has got to be 'progress'. Let's say that the GDP per capita of China were to double. That's still very low compared to the US or Japan! The ramifications for the world when China 'grows' has to do with its population size, but if you take into account per capita stats, China is really really backward. That's btw the intention of this thread, now that we're drifting off again and again. Furthermore, as countries grow, growth tends to plateau out (sigmoidal curve?). So you cannot just use 'trajectory' and then project China's into the infinite future in a vacuum - and that's barring any natural disasters, bursting of economic bubbles, or whatever terrorist surprises we may have for us. And it will take a very very long time before China catches up to Japan or US in GDP per capita. IOW, the views you express lack balance. -- Reply: In fact I read that China's population is more educated=20 than India's, I can be wrong though, didn't check. I was asking as I=20 was surprised you didn't bring India up as counterpoint to China's=20 'unique' or 'invention' of a new political system - of how democracy=20 does not always triumph. From all the stats I've read, China just=20 razes India (on average, don't look at the extreme ends of the=20 distribution). See this, for instance: http://in.rediff.com/money/2005/sep/27china.htm ------- You wrote: "Hmm. I note they mentioned female literacy rates, but not male or overall average. Why do you suppose that is????" Reply: Good point, perhaps the liberalization of womanfolk is considered an 'index of human development'? Checked out the stats comparing China and India in literacy rates - from CIA factbook: China: definition: age 15 and over can read and write total population: 90.9% male: 95.1% female: 86.5% (2002) India: definition: age 15 and over can read and write total population: 59.5% male: 70.2% female: 48.3% (2003 est.) Here's why I gave the edge to India. "India’s emphasis on graduate and post-graduate education as well as the availability on the India job market of a large pool of people with excellent English skills offset the disadvantages of a low literacy rate and weak primary and secondary school education. Moreover, while the absolute size of the tertiary-educated population in China is higher than in India, it is much lower as a percentage of population: 5% versus 8% in India. China now adds “only” 1.9 million university graduates a year (up from 600,000 in 1990), while India adds about 2.3 million bachelor-degree graduates and some 300,000 engineers." From: China and India: the rivals’ unequal talent pools Hillary K. Wood Chan, Egon Zehnder International, Hong Kong and Shanghai http://www.egonzehnderknowledge.com/...cles/index.php ?article=1903 Reply: did you read my thread on Another Reason to Love the Far East...True Story? Did you try out something similar in China? You wrote: "Yes, I read it in Penthouse Forum twenty years ago. I=20 didn't believe it then, either. Whether your story is literally true or not, I know it is common." -- Reply: Of course that implies a no, bwahahaha!! You wrote: "Most men don't engage in such activities with their wives in tow, and I'm one of them." Reply: "You don't want to have any regrets on your deathbed though....... And the amount of swinging of some of my friends ....well.... let's just leave it at that. Mind you one of them used me (tipped off by an elementary schoolfriend, wow, she's a 1st rate actress!) to get back at her boyfriend once, hehe. And this type of thing may happen more with Caucasians then high achieving geekish WOW playing East Asians - my schoolfriend's WASP and that gf is eurasian. And it's surprisingly how women don't understand men! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/ma...th/2007/01/23/ hlife23.xml&page=1 And Incidentally the default sexual mode for men is serial monogamy or polygamy, and not strict monogamy." The way to avoid deathbed regrets is to get the whoring out of your system by the time you're 30 or 35, before you marry. Whoring around while married is a formula for turmoil, unhappiness, and deathbed regrets. ---- You wrote: "And I still say you're navigating by gazing in the rear- view mirror. What interests me is the motivation and purpose of your anti-China posts. Are you an agent for the PRC trolling to lull others into a false sense of security? Are you mischievously trolling to **** off chauvinistic Chinese? Or do you actually believe what you're=20 posting?" -- Reply: Ideas are more important than the person posting let alone=20 their motives, no? You wrote: "Understanding what motivates a writer increases one's understanding of his work. " Reply: "In fact that may introduce bias. I favor reading the article if subject matter/title captures your interest and leaving the poster or even the source and author of the published articles posted. If they come from a reputable paper or a peer-reviewed publication or a reputable reference then I give those higher credence." That makes sense with articles from reputable sources, but not SCJ posts. Thought you're above ad hominems etc. You wrote: "It's a legitimate question -- your answer may help me to decide whether to read your posts in future." Reply: "That's your choice. I never killfile anyone and I most certainly don't read all articles." What do you=20 think I am? Just not to be rude not to answer your questions however,=20 no, no, & yes with a resonant chorus. You wrote: "But your posts have apparently not been an accurate summary of your opinion, no? How does this square with your answers above?" Reply: "You'll have to judge that for yourself. Within the context of China posts, since reading newsgroups and then taking the personal initiative to dig into info about China and NorthEast Asia, I realize that even though I've always known that china is a poor country, I've underestimated just how backward it is, in spite of all the hype and catching up. For instance, the GDP per capita of China is even lower than Mexico or Thailand (World Bank Data)!! I didn't know that!!!" You should also check out soc.culture.china and see that there are some who may be labelled as 'anti-China' or more accurately, anti-communist (recently opening up of markets notwithstanding). My divine role is thus to preserve a Zen balance of the real China - serving as a mirror to reflect - no more, no less - from a cultural (soc.CULTURE.china, remember?) perspective. A mirror with a filter. How do I know that I'm mostly right? From first hand conversations, and also when I forwarded some of my contributions/posted articles to others (friends/relatives) some comments are "boring! We know this already!" and yet in soc.culture.china my posts are considered to be trollish!" Mostly right? You could say every person is a bag of water, and you'd be "mostly right". But there's more to some than that. Verno
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| poor poor Martin | Jacqueline | Europe | 13 | June 23rd, 2006 09:49 PM |
| Realistic Expectations | roberts | Travel - anything else not covered | 0 | March 24th, 2005 12:25 PM |
| Realistic Expectations | roberts | Travel - anything else not covered | 0 | March 24th, 2005 12:25 PM |
| Average IQ of RTC | Mizsta Cruise | Cruises | 5 | October 31st, 2003 10:49 PM |
| International train travel - a realistic option? | Al Grant | Europe | 11 | October 1st, 2003 01:15 AM |
Linear Mode
