The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    Michael Maiello's picture

    High Anxiety Of The China Variety

    By Michael Maiello on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 10:33am | Politics

    If China were not the world's second largest economy and among the largest trading partners to the United States, I somehow doubt we would have friendly relations with its government which is oppressive, expansionist and, frankly, far more dangerous to world peace than many dictatorships we've toppled in the past.

    To be fair, I could rewrite the same paragraph about Saudi Arabia and its oil.  But what really concerns me about China is how its recent economic success, especially after the financial crisis, have so shaken American confidence.  That, more than anything, is a threat to democracy here, and the subject of my column in The Daily today.

    One of my hopes for the the networked age was that it would result in more direct democracy within the U.S.  But the trend has been in the opposite direction because globalization was the first and most pronounced result of our technological advances.  The democracies of Europe disempowered their own people and their own local governments in favor of a unified currency and, they're now learning, a unified monetary policy.

    In the U.S., commentator after commentator including the SEIU's Andy Stern, have pointed to China's command economy as an example for the U.S.  Ann Lee, a fellow at Demos, argues the same in her forthcoming book, What The U.S. Can Learn From China.

    Nobody who makes these arguments is pushing for the adoption of China's totalitarian system here.  They don't want to jail dissidents or censor the Internet in the U.S.  But they definitely want more non-partisan blue ribbon panels making choices in the U.S. -- basically freedom from the desires of a fractious population.  Lee also makes the case that the population is frequently ill-informed and that its politicians are unqualified for their jobs.

    They also ask us to consider that China's government is not a dictatorship and that there are somehow other measures of a government's legitimacy than "consent of the people."  They see China as mostly a benign dictatorship, a phrase that has always disturbed me.  Lee even suggested that Hu Jintao should have won the Nobel Peace Prize.

    Arguing the merits and demerits of China's system might be, in the short run, pointless, since we're powerless to do anything about it.  Oh, except that we don't actually have to trade with them the same way we don't absolutely have to trade with Iran, or Cuba or anybody.

    Our economy would not collapse without their imports.  China's would collapse first without being able to export to us.  Our own companies could repatriate assets and do work here instead of there.  Or offshore to approved democracies.  Or, if they threaten to "register themselves in Bermuda" they could lose their access to U.S. markets entirely.  See?  We don't have to actually engage in policies that empower China's current government at the expense of global democracy.

    What about the $3 trillion we owe them?  We pay them on schedule, printing bills as necessary.  And here's the thing -- if we cut China off, we no longer need its central government to buy our bonds to fund our trade deficit, which will no longer exist.

    Topics: 
    Politics

    Comments

    I somehow doubt we would have friendly relations with its government which is oppressive, expansionist and, frankly, far more dangerous to world peace than many dictatorships we've toppled in the past.

    Sounds just like us. No wonder we like them as trading partners.


    by cmaukonen on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 10:43am

    Good piece, Destor.

    Interesting point about the repatriation of assets. Are you meaning capital equipment? Is there anything on this in terms of current practices or feasibility? 

    The entire notion that China has "enduring principles" which need to be replicated here seems preposterous on its face.


    by Oxy Mora on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 11:05am

    I don't know what they would lose.  In Lee's book she argues that a lot of the economic activity in China is American companies using factories and equipment there to fabricate parts for export.  Basically, it's American companies trading with themselves.  They might well lose equipment in my scenario.  Wouldn't be the first time that companies lost equipment due to foreign policy decisions.  It's kind of a risk of doing business overseas, right?  The only equipment I'd lose would be the world's tiniest violin...


    by Michael Maiello on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 11:11am


    I'm thinking the equipment will be left there, something like in Iraq. (I remember going to all the machine tool auctions years back when all of our stuff was shipped over there). 

    Ya got me on the tiniest violin....??


    by Oxy Mora on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 11:24am

    tiniest violin = I don't have much sympathy for them.  They knowingly brought their equipment into a dictatorship.


    by Michael Maiello on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 11:43am

    But they definitely want more non-partisan blue ribbon panels making choices in the U.S. -- basically freedom from the desires of a fractious population.

    I don't think you're giving this argument its due. It isn't so much "freedom from" as it is a desire to do big things that require agreement and despair at ever arriving at that agreement given our current politics.

    They see that Chinese system DOES have SOME strong points. But it isn't so much a pining for dictatorship or their system as it is a desire to get some important things done here. Also the sense, based on polls, that regular Americans agree on many more things than the politicians they elect to office.


    by Peter Schwartz on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 12:47pm

    I see the latter as an argument for changing the way we elect politicians rather than ceding authority to panels and commissions.


    by Michael Maiello on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 12:55pm

    But who is suggesting we cede authority to panels and commissions?

    And aren't EFFECTIVE decision-making bodies ALWAYS smaller and more agile than holding general referenda on every question?


    by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 4:00pm

    They most certainly are.

    Let's get Huckabee, Bachmann, Santorum and Gingrich together and see how effective they can be at making a boatload of decisions ... shall we have them fix Medicare?

    Who gets to pick who gets to make the decisions? You?


    by kgb999 on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 11:54pm

    If regular Americans agree on more things than the politicians they elect to office and you think the things they agree on should be done, the correct course of action is to put more of the decisions into the hands of the people ... not put them into the hands of some blue-ribbon panel appointed by the idiots who can't seem to do what they were elected for.

    Maybe if the rules were something like any person who is involved with creating a blue-ribbon panel should be prohibited from any involvement in choosing who sits on it (including consultations with those making the selection) and also prohibited from participating themselves. And while we're at it, anyone who works in their office or has worked in their office for a period of 24 months prior to the panel being created should also be banned along with anyone who has accepted money from any impacted party or has lobbied any branch of government on related issues. And then like another dozen paragraphs of loophole-closing ...

    Blue-ribbon panels suck.


    by kgb999 on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 11:51pm

    One of my hopes for the the networked age was that it would result in more direct democracy within the U.S.  But the trend has been in the opposite direction because globalization was the first and most pronounced result of our technological advances.

    While I agree with you that the rise of the technocrats in Europe has been striking, I do think that technology has played a democratic role in the U.S.. The internet helped facilitate the Tea Party movement and OWS, which have shaken the traditional party establishments. In fact, I suspect that the wistful appeals to the Chinese model reflect establishment anxiety about the instability that grassroots movements have produced.


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 1:30pm

    Wow. Just so. Thanks I'm too tired to think, and once again, you have crystallized my wannabe thoughts, Genghis. Damn you.

    Love destors new avatar.

     


    by bwakfat on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 11:33pm

    I think Destor pretty much has the chronology and prevailing outcome right. Globalization was the push of the 90's and was very much driven by the go-go .com culture ... the wired boardroom ... commerce without walls, without limit, free from the traditional constraints of national boundaries .... global enterprise awareness ... the INTERNETs!

    Remember?

    Fast-forward 18-odd years and there is widespread consumer adoption, uptake, understanding ... and now all this has finally facilitated mass communication and peer-group based coordination (anarchist geeks have been planning for and dreaming of this moment for decades). The traditional party establishments being shaken are establishments long ensconced in the profits of ever-expanding globalism - and their patrons are welding technological tools that they alone possess wrapped in mega patent portfolios and million-dollar lobby shops. As far as the average citizen is concerned, we've got use of teh twitterz running on *their* backbone.

    Technology is not what created the impetus to employ it's use in angry grass-roots movements. That bit is all about the existence of anger. History seems to indicate these sorts of  angry groups have formed under the conditions we're experiencing ... pretty damn often, even when people had to use telegraphs and stuff. The technology is an facilitator not a precipitating factor IMO.


    by kgb999 on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 12:26am

    Seriously, destor? Is your view of the world so simplistic that you really believe your simplistic solutions would work? Let's stop buying Chinese-made stuff and pay the interest on what we already owe them by printing more money? Their economy will collapse and ours won't? Jeez.

    You claim your main concern about Chinese economic success is its effect on American democracy: eggheads like Ann Lee saying we need some of what they're having. Do you you really think that's the big threat to democracy? How about a two-party system in which both are beholden to an unelected ruling elite, and the Supreme Court rules that yeah, money talks and that's what the founding fathers intended?

    In your Daily column, you get on your high horse about the Chinese people's misplaced priorities:

    That China has made great economic progress does not forgive the immoralities of its system, which has shown beyond any doubt that it cannot tolerate real dissent. That any of China’s people care more about rising living standards than democratic freedoms is just evidence of the squalor from which they came.

    Yes, millions of ordinary Chinese have emerged from real squalor in little more than a generation. And it's pretty evident that the vast majority have embraced the transition from squalor-and-no-democracy to growing-prosperity-and-no-democracy. Now that they've got the basics, will they turn to representative government as their priority? Maybe, but that's their call, isn't it?

    Not yours, not mine, not any westerner's. And certainly not while our democratic governments are arresting and pepper-spraying peaceful demonstrators, jailing whistleblowers, and waging incessant wars for control of resources. 

    You call China "expansionist and, frankly, far more dangerous to world peace than many dictatorships we've toppled in the past." Who exactly are the Chinese threatening to attack? The country hasn't acquired territory by force in half a century. There was a month-long incursion into Vietnam more than 30 years ago, and since then it's been pretty quiet on China's borders. I'd also point out that all those topplings of dictatorships by the U.S. have involved a certain amount of death, destruction and disruption of world peace.

    Basically what I'm saying, destor, is shut up about lecturing the Chinese on what kind of system they should have and want. You want more democracy? look around you. There's lots that needs fixing.


    by acanuck on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 2:43pm

    Exactly, there's tons that needs fixing.  And bringing more top down, China style solutions into the mix is going exactly in the wrong direction.  Also, we made a major mistake by allowing our corporations to freely prop up a dictatorship there.  It's the same mistake we've made throughout the middle east, but on a much larger scale.  And when Tibet is independent and Taiwan doesn't have to worry, we can say China isn't expansionist.


    by Michael Maiello on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 3:58pm

    Those are your two examples of Chinese expansionism, Destor? Ask the U.S. State Department whether Tibet and Taiwan are parts of China. They'll equivocate and duck the question but, if pressed, they'll grudgingly concede that yes, they are. 

    Ask the Dalai Lama. He'll say he wants autonomy for Tibet, not independence. According to China, that's what they already have, and the only issue is how much.

    As for Taiwan, since the 1970s the United States, the UN and every major country in the world are in agreement: there is just one China and one legitimate government representing it. Taiwan itself officially subscribes to that policy; it just claims to be that government.

    What you call expansionism the Chinese see as a mere reassertion of their territorial integrity, after foreign powers (mainly the Japanese and Brits) picked the country apart for more than half a century.

    In the decade or so that followed the civil war/revolution, the People's Republic used the only tool they had: the Liberation Army. But they've always pulled back to recognized borders or demarcation lines. Wherever possible, they prefer diplomacy: negotiating a peaceful return of Hong Kong by the Brits, holding talks with the Dalai Lama, establishing de-facto cultural and economic ties with Taiwan, co-operating with the U.S. in the Security Council.

    Calling the market-oriented technocrats who currently run China dictators is over the top, Destor. I could supply you with a long list of far more bloodthirsty autocrats the United States has warmly embraced, and in many cases still does. The Chinese are cuddly pandas on that scale.


    by acanuck on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 4:13pm

    acanuck, excellent and astute analysis of the political and ideological situation regarding China. I agree with it almost in entirety.


    by tmccarthy0 on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 5:07pm

    I like both of you guys but I can't believe that you consider calling China's government a dictatorship is "over the top."  Hu Jintao oversaw atrocities in Tibet.  He routinely jails activists, artists and dissidents.  Yes, there is worse in the world and the U.S. has propped them up, but the U.S. has never before turned such a regime into a an economic super power, as we have with China (and at the considerable expense of its own workers).


    by Michael Maiello on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 8:28pm

    I said I agreed almost in entirety, because yes China is a dictatorship, but that shouldn't stop us from carrying on diplomatically nor having trade ties with them. Those ties have modernized China in a positive way, and have exposed many Chinese to a world they didn't know existed.

    However acanuks retelling of China's history with the world, is spot on accurate.

    And please there is no need to taint other liberals with my view on China and Asia, as my views diverge with most people in America on both sides of the aisle and the reasons for that should be obvious.


    by tmccarthy0 on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 9:20pm

    Just a quibble, its not really a dictatorship, so much as a party totalitarian regime. Hu is there for 5 years max, before him Jiang Zemin, before him, hell nobody even remembers Yang something or rather.  Folks serve for terms and require the confidence of the party. Sorta like the old Roman republic, but without the armies that corrupted the wealth allotment and screwed everything up. 


    by Saladin on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 10:25pm

    I just read Vaclav Havel's speech/essay "Politics and the Conscience" and I believe he'd describe China as something quite worse than a dictatorship.  A dictator, as he sees it, is motivated by human factors.  Like the pride of Agamemnon or the ambition of Richard III (my analogies, not his).  What really worries Havel is a less human regime that he calls "anonymous power, legitimized by science, cybernetics, ideology, law, abstraction, and objectivity -- that is, by everything except personal responsibility to human beings as persons and neighbors."  That seems to sum China up pretty well.

    And why is it dangerous for us to try to import ideas from what Acanuck charitably calls a technocracy?  Says Havel, "Totalitarian systems warn of something far more serious than Western rationalism is willing to admit.  They are, most of all, a convex mirror of the inevitable consequences of rationalism, a grotesquely magnified image of its own deep tendencies, an extreme offshoot of its own development and an ominous product of its own expansion."

    Havel later quotes another Czech philosopher as defining the threat as the "eschatology of the impersonal." 


    by Michael Maiello on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 12:09am

    It's not just you, I'm talking about TMac, or even Acanuck or anyone at Dag.  I've received similar reactions elsewhere, from liberals.  When I was growing up, lefties were organizing boycotts of Chinese goods over the issue of Tibetan independence.  What happened to that?  And while we can have diplomatic ties with China, maybe it shouldn't be in the WTO.  Maybe American companies shouldn't be fabricating their parts there and then selling them here.  Maybe we shouldn't have let China's rise from poverty be paid for by three decades of stagnant wages here in America.


    by Michael Maiello on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 10:30pm

    I am going to quibble with this des

    " Maybe we shouldn't have let China's rise from poverty.."

    We shouldn't have let China.. we need to ponder the wording of your sentence, which is quite telling, and exposes the hegemony and arrogance of how we think and it exposes how deeply embedded it is in our own culture. Even from a guy like you. It is true that we could possibly allow or disallow another country to attempt to thrive economically? How would that benefit us in the long run?

    Are we struggling now, yes, but is it really because of the Chinese? Did they cause the housing bubble? Did the Chinese ruin our economy by waging two wars without paying for them? We hired a bunch of Republicans who used the federal governments credit rating to borrow like crazy for everything and never pay for anything, and it helped to ruin our economy. How is that China's fault? Well they were our dealer for dollars now doubt, but whose fault was it really? Not the Chinese.  I am happy China is open to the world. Our continued exposure to the worlds oldest surviving civilization (around 10,000 years) can only be a net positive for all of us.


    by tmccarthy0 on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 12:57am

    I agree with what you wrote, tm. In its absolute, total entirety. But you knew that.


    by acanuck on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 3:26am

    I think I should have said, how could we have allowed ourselves to be so taken advantage of?  We let our companies go to China in search of cheaper labor in order to drive the cost of goods down here.  In the process, we drove wage growth here down below our inflation rate.

    In a culture with healthy wage growth, people aren't forced to borrow from banks, or against their homes, just to keep their standard of living.  They can pay for that without (or with little) debt.

    So, yes, in large part, the outsourcing that went on with regards to China managed to subtly break the backs of American labor, necessitating the use of credit for basic things and that means that China is somewhat responsible for the U.S. housing bubble.  The economy isn't entirely zero sum, but you don't run three decades of trade deficits with a country, with those deficits fueling a major economic boom on one side, without giving something up on the other.


    by Michael Maiello on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 6:13am

    You wrote:

    "I think I should have said, how could we have allowed ourselves to be so taken advantage of?"

    Exactly, but the people who took advantage of us are the people who convinced us as a nation that we don't; need to  pay for anything ever, and those people are not the Chinese, those people would be your regular run of the mill American politician.  Those folks, those politicians convinced Americans we didn't need to invest in our country any longer. We didn't keep our own infrastructure up-to-date, we didn't prepare for the inevitable total change from a manufacturing industrial economy to a hybrid economy, we didn't keep the cost of a college or technical education down thereby continually preparing ourselves for economic change, which is always inevitable. We didn't do any of that, and that doesn't happen to be the fault of the Chinese. We did it all to ourselves and instead of taking responsibility for what we did to ourselves and attempting to fix what is terribly wrong, why do that when we could do nothing and blame China!

    I am not willing to go that far, I am very interested in Americans to accept some responsibility and to quit blaming others for the things we did to ourselves.

    And then read this.

    Things are changing, very much so there. I realize there are political prisoners, but as a person who loves Asia and China with my whole being, when I am there I am home, and I believe that if they do better we do better, I am going to continue to support the sharing of the wealth all over the world. They are the 99% too.


    by tmccarthy0 on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 9:53am

    Actually we did control the technology that increases productivity which allowed them to escape poverty.  We also served as the export markets which allowed them to acquire hard currency to buy the commodities needed to have a modern economy--you know oil, rubber, metals, and all that jazz. 

    We gave up our power.  I fully agree that nobody has a right to dictate to someone how they should live, but that doesn't mean we are obliged to subsidize it either, or in the case of China fully encourage it while empowering the ruling party.  Your politically correct outrage is as naive as it is ironic. 

    As to other claims, China's refusal to allow their currency to float did contribute excess liquid capital into the world economic system which contributed to the housing bubble. How much is not quite certain, but it is clear that it was significant. 

    Go ahead and feel good about your multiculturalism, I embrace that as well, but quite confusing its virtue with reality.  

     

     


    by Saladin on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 9:44am

    The prospect of alleviating third world poverty has been used as a cudgel against people who have been skeptical of "free trade" since the very beginning of the debate.  But isn't the responsibility of the U.S. government to provide for rising living standards for its own citizens first?  It's almost as if somebody looked at post WWII-1980 wage growth and said, "That's it for them.  This far and no farther."

    Which speaks to notions of cradle to grave wage work as a means of social control, among other things.


    by Michael Maiello on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 10:02am

    Your confusing my opposition to our hegemony as some weird catch phrase of multiculturalism, which exposes the utter arrogance of Americans and how they/we envision their/our relationship with the world and that hasn't changed at all not since we were a British Colony!

    The Chinese invented foundries and metal manufacturing long before the west came out of the dark ages. What would eventually become modern manufacturing really began in China well before the alleged birth of Christ. So maybe we should thank them for the industrial revolution and our standard of living. (I could go on, but I won't)


    by tmccarthy0 on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 10:30am

    Yes one could go on, I keep expecting them to announce the discovery of a Song dynasty cell phone. I'm well aware of their historic contributions and greatly look forward to coming engineering contributions, particularly in renewable and industrial ecology.  But that is not really the point, and you are switching the argument.  Their government does not share our values, and in fact works to undermine them. 

    Somehow I doubt you would justify repression by caste, race, or sex because of differing cultural values. That would directly conflict with your political values, somehow because Chinese civilization is old and made some contributions it gets a pass?  Jewish civilization is even older, and has equally contributed does that justify Palestinian apartheid?  

    If you say yes, at least you are consistent, even if I would disrespectfully disagree with you.

    FWIW the hegemony of our consumer capitalism is no longer our own, it has moved beyond us becoming a global phenomenon, that was entirely my point to Destor.  Regardless I will still fight for a moral world, with appropriate values.  I would ask you to reconsider your knee-jerk anti-Americanism and re-embrace our shared values. 


    by Saladin on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 11:39am

    We should have had trade ties with Cuba, and Iran countries we could overwhelm with our sheer economic size and powerful cultural influence--like we have so much the rest of the world.  However we should have held a hard line with a huge totalitarian country that had a  culture which would withstand our influence, and has interests that directly oppose our core values, until they conceded value in our core beliefs.  

    I hope I am wrong and you are right, but the omens are not currently auspicious. 

     


    by Saladin on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 10:52pm

    Yes Saladin absolutely we should be trading with Iran and Cuba, I have no argument with that at all.


    by tmccarthy0 on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 12:58am

    We should have held a hard line ... until they conceded value in our core beliefs.

    Fuck yeah! Where do these people get off, having their own culture, interests and core values?


    by acanuck on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 3:34am

    Where did people get off telling South Africa that they wouldn't trade with them unless apartheid was ended?

    What the hell, man ... where are you coming from on this?


    by kgb999 on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 3:48am

    If the government in China is representative of "core values" than why are so many political activists, artists and bloggers in jail there?


    by Michael Maiello on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 6:15am

    I don't think it was over the top.

    And I think your response gets to the point of the uniqueness of this single party controlled nation and it's state controlled capitalistic system which is experiencing growing pains and about which no one can predict the outcome. It is so unique that traditional descriptors don't matter all that much, which is part of the reason I have no problem with the term "dictatorship". 

    I would not be surprised to find out that the country has been heavily corrupted with ties between company owners, developers and state officials, that a cultural backlash is coming, then reforms, and an entirely new genre of descriptors required.  


    by Oxy Mora on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 10:41pm

    I would not be surprised to find out that the country....

    Seems to me that already often is the case, but they have a handy traditional "punish a scapegoat" way of dealing with it when exposed, when things go wrong. A "just blame it on the guy that hardly anyone liked anyways" thing that seems to be a habit in their governing culture going quite a ways back. Then they do the "we're shocked, shocked, that gambling has been going on here" thing

    That scenario is suggested in this piece in today's Times that I was just reading Also reminds me of Upton Sinclair and Tamanny Hall days in the US; I really can't imagine someone trying to bury a whole rail car back then, tho (hat tip to destor for making me catch up on China news):
     

    Design Flaws Cited in Deadly Train Crash in China
    By Sharon LaFraniere, Dec 28/29

    BEIJING — Chinese investigators delivered a long-awaited report on Wednesday on the deadly July 23 high-speed train crash in the eastern coastal city of Wenzhou, citing a string of blunders, including serious design flaws in crucial signaling equipment.

    Two former top officials of the Railway Ministry — who had been removed from their posts months before the crash over alleged corruption — were singled out for blame.

    The disaster killed 40 people and injured 191. It was a serious setback to China’s hopes to turn high-speed rail into a symbol of the nation’s technological and industrial progress, and led to an online wave of public outrage that died down only after government authorities muzzled the domestic media [....]

    The investigators’ findings were presented Wednesday afternoon to the State Council, China’s equivalent of a cabinet, which decided to punish 54 officials for failing to do their jobs. Some were involved in a badly bungled rescue effort.

    The Railway Ministry called off the search for survivors after just eight hours and instead concentrated on clearing the wreckage so rail traffic could resume. Workers dug a pit and buried one carriage before investigators even showed up. They were forced to unearth it two days later. Officials “did not disclose information and did not respond to the concerns of the public in time,” the report said. “Both caused a negative impact in the society.”

    The report, which was posted online, did not address the question of whether the same design flaw threatens the signaling equipment on other lines. Government sources quoted by a Shanghai newspaper last summer said that the same equipment had been installed at 58 stations and 18 signal-relay stations [....]

    The disaster threw a spotlight on skulduggery in the Railway Ministry, a fief of two million workers that owns the railways it regulates, a stark conflict of interest that experts have repeatedly criticized. Caixin, a Chinese magazine known for aggressive reporting, disclosed last week that Mr. Zhang, the ministry’s former chief engineer, had purchased a luxurious home in a Los Angeles suburb in 2002, when his government salary amounted to about 2,200 renminbi, or $264, a month.

    The magazine estimated the cost of the house, which Mr. Zhang bought with his wife, at roughly $860,000, or about 7.12 million renminbi. It said Mr. Zhang, the right-hand man and confidant of Mr. Liu, the disgraced minister, transferred his share of the house to his wife in January, just before he was taken into custody. “Where did he get the millions needed to by an upscale home in California?” the article asked.

    by artappraiser on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 11:32pm

    Thanks, Artsy.

    I checked out the article on Huffpo where Lee lists ten points. I was really prepared not to like her or the book. She is a young elite with all the educational and investment banking connections, but one doesn't know the state of a privileged upbringing or not. I think one has to simply put aside the fact of what China is to get any value whatsoever from Lee;s "lessons".

    What she actually does is highlight many of the problems Progressives have already identified, particularly in the financial structure in the U.S. As such she is politely taunting Wall St. and, I would say, regressive social elements of the Republican party in the sense of---"you're getting your clock cleaned because you've abandoned sensible policies which even China sees as advantageous". 

    Some of her points. The need for more investment in education. Restrict banks to traditional banking functions. Encourage capitalism in the real economy instead of the financial markets. And, politicians should take competency tests. 

    So if Lee's book advances some actual progressive causes, which it does, one needs to separate out a totalitarian regime, including most likely rampant corruption,  from some great ideas it appropriated from the West. Of, course all of these "lessons" from Lee begs the question, why do we have to look to China to return to our own sensible roots? But that question shouldn't' deny Lee the good intent of the book. I think it might be an interesting read, and I wouldn't have said that before the discussion here.

    If you would post that Huffpo reference, I would appreciate it. 


    by Oxy Mora on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 10:47am

    China's government a dictatorship

    Let me say, that I  stand with Gerald Ford....there is no Chinese domination in Poland; wait, what??


    by jollyroger on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 11:56pm

    Acanuck, 

    Calling out a wrong does not neccesarily mean that one supports ones own countries actions. I am equally appalled by Gitmo as I am China's locking up activists in metal health wards...by Texas executions and Chinese exploitation of prisoners livers, by blowing up Pakistani village by unlawful drone attack, as the inhumane treatment of minorities.  So the fuck what?  My heart broke when Habbias Corpus was ended in this country.  But two countries doing seperate but equally serious wrongs does not make both of them justified. And its Destor's right to call a spade a spade, even if its one sided.  If you want to kowtow, go ahead. But don't make the rest of us do it. 

    You cite a bunch of folks who have an interest in maintaining relations with the existing powers that be, who declare every Westphalian right of sovereignty they can get away with, and will never cede.  Spratly Islands?  Chinese...whatever.  How about Damning every single river in the country that flows to neighbors (Mekong most recently). We are talking 40k dams nationwide, and they recogonize no right to the water for down river countries (India, Burma, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Thailand, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia--All of South Asia).  They fight with every tool they have. Sure they prefer diplomacy, once you know how the game is played.  That's what they did with Hong Kong,  promised to cut off everything with Britain, trade, water, etc.

    They aren't bad people, they just play with every card they have. In short good negotiators who have taken a weak hand and are using our greed to build it into a strong one. And on balance honorably. 

    But make no mistake they don't give a shit about poor folks civil rights, they will trade fair, and do best to be honorable, but not at the expense of their needs, and never concede an advantage out of weakness such as abstract moralities.  They will also fight democracy and nongovernmental organizations anywhere and everywhere (Ask the Fa Lun Gong).   

    But Yes, you are right. Our America sucks too.  

    I like political movies, and social commentary that includes fags as citizens, social networks where I can critize the gov, and most of all my writing this doesn't put me into a 10 year mental institution.  Its all we have, and we would be damn fools to forget that and continue this slippery slope. 

     


    by Saladin on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 10:45pm

    You say ....

    millions of ordinary Chinese have emerged from real squalor in little more than a generation. And it's pretty evident that the vast majority have embraced the transition from squalor-and-no-democracy to growing-prosperity-and-no-democracy. Now that they've got the basics...

    Certainly you aren't trying to imply that the "vast majority" of Chinese have experienced a transition from squalor to growing prosperity ... are you? That certainly is not the case.

    http://www.chinapost.com.tw/commentary/the-china-post/special-to-the-chi...

    Between 2008 and 2009 the number of Chinese millionaires with assets worth more than 10 million renminbi rose from 825,000 to 875,000, according to rough estimates by the Chinese government. Within just one year, 50,000 more Chinese struck it rich.

    The number of super rich with assets in excess of 100 million renminbi increased by 4,000 during the same period, from 51,000 to 55,000. China even has some 2,000 billionaires with assets of more than 1 billion renminbi and more than 100 mega rich worth more than 10 billion renminbi.

    Not long ago Xincaifu (“New Wealth”), a monthly Chinese business magazine, came out with its latest list of China's 500 richest people, which showed that 88 had made their fortune in real estate, owning an average 7.38 billion renminbi per person.

    The super rich at the top of the wealth pyramid are rapidly increasing, while the average peasant at the bottom earns less than US$5,000 per year.

    In other words, some 310 million people in China have an income that is on a par with that of people in France or the United States, but there are also hundreds of millions living at the bottom of society in abject poverty. “Don't forget, China's current success is built on 300 million people taking advantage of 1 billion cheap laborers. And the unfair judicial system and the unfair distribution of wealth are making the challenges even greater,” Zhou says with a tone of stern reproach.

    What really seems to be happening is that a small minority have prospered greatly by selling the slave-wage labor of their countrymen to American, Canadian, and European corporations in exchange for personal profits. If you think about it, there were groups in Africa who benefited similarly when the Americans and Europeans teamed up to help rescue their populations from squalor ... who, ironically, became economically dependent on trade with Europe and debt - in no small part as a result.

    ... will they turn to representative government as their priority? Maybe, but that's their call, isn't it?

    Abso-fucking-lutely. Just like it's our call who to make most-favored trading partner. Certainly you aren't implying that because America has problems of our own that we are obligated to implement self-defeating trade policy with every screwed up regime in the world are you? I don't see how we should be criticized for curtailing policies that exacerbate the worst tendencies in our trading partners while also hurting our own interests.

    I don't think we necessarily need to go as far as Destor proposes. But in the absence of other more complex genuine reforms, that might be simplest approach. I'm tired of importing their poverty - it turns out that's a limitless resource of which we have plenty right here.


    by kgb999 on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 12:58am

    Good point, kgb. In adopting the free-market approach whole hog, China has also adopted the worst excesses of West, income inequality among them. Billionaires aside, is some of that newly generated wealth being spread around? Three hundred million people earning western-level incomes is not nothing.

    Yes, there are sweat shops. Where do we in the West draw the line -- cut trade ties with Vietnam, India, Pakistan? Because they pay their workers even less than China does. The U.S. has no obligation to trade with any country. But going into a protectionist shell isn't going to cause flat-screen and sneaker factories to spring up in every desolated city core.

    I don't have the stats needed to compare, but I remain pretty sure even the peasant earning $5,000 per year is doing way better than his pre-revolution counterpart or those who lived through the Great Leap Forward. China started from a very low point in the 1950s, and rigid ideologues kept the economy stagnant for decades.


    by acanuck on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 4:19am

    In the U.S., commentator after commentator including the SEIU's Andy Stern, have pointed to China's command economy as an example for the U.S.  Ann Lee, a fellow at Demos, argues the same in her forthcoming book,

    We'll see:

    China Stocks to Drop on ‘Pretty Bleak’ Economy: Chart of the Day, Bloomberg, Dec 28,

    and

    A wealth terminator for small investors, by Huang Xiangyang, China Daily, Dec 29, excerpts, my bold:
     

    "If you think 2008 was bad, fasten your seatbelt for 2012," warns independent economist Andy Xie [....]

    Ten years ago, top economist Wu Jinglian criticized China's stock market as a place worse than a casino because of its excessive insider trading and market manipulation.

    "At least there are rules in a casino," he said.

    Not much has changed in terms of protecting small investors' rights. As wealthier people quit stocks to buy property instead, the stock market has become a casino only for the poor, who cannot afford to speculate in real estate, as Andy Xie says.

    Like an over-grazed pasture, China's stock market remains a place for random fund-raising to help cash-short State-owned enterprises. At least one IPO was launched each trading day in 2011 despite weak investor sentiment, making China lead the world in both the number of IPOs and the amount of capital raised.

    A record in which small investors can take little pleasure.


    by artappraiser on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 6:00pm

    Also see, from

    Southeast Asia-China rise, fall together, by Shawn W Crispin, Asia Times Online, Dec 22:
     

    [....] A residential property bubble, the impact of rising wages on global competitiveness and signs of weakening exports all threaten to undermine China's 2012 growth prospects. The question to many analysts is whether China's economy will merely slow or totally collapse.

    Amid those signs of trouble, Chinese authorities are apparently doctoring official statistics more than normal to maintain confidence in the broad economy's direction. Investment bank analysts note that robust export growth figures for November reported by China's General Administration of Customs are at clear odds with more downcast container throughput statistics released by different Chinese ports.

    The upbeat export growth statistics are also at seeming odds with the growing number of reported factory closures in the country's southern export belt, which in recent months has been buffeted by rising worker unrest. Doubts have also been cast on last month's official 16.9% jump in retail sales, which was out of step with a coincident month-on-month fall in inflation. China's residential property problem, meanwhile, is the country's largest statistical black hole.

    With those contradictory indicators, economic analysts are now weighing hard and soft landing scenarios [....]

    by artappraiser on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 6:17pm

    Yikes. Not surprising. But yikes.

    Was watching some videos of the ghost cities a couple weeks back ... really eerie.


    by kgb999 on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 1:36am

     

    The right time for this perspective was 1989. Instead under former Ambassador Bush we continued Most Favored Nation status, and then continued it under Republican lite Clinton...all the way to holding the door for them at WTO in 2000. 

    But first I must point out that your argument confuses advocacy of strategic planning with support for totalitarianism. Democracies can do strategic planning successfully and maintain their democratic character (see the city you live in, or PreEuro Europe, Japan, etc.). In fact one could even  have a democratically elected philosopher king, that was a goal behind our representative democracy with it's executive, checked by the id of the body politic (congress), and the super ego of the courts.  I haven't read Lee's book, but I read Sterns article and I don't think he would agree with your characterization. Regardless I pretty much agree with your overall point. 

    But sadly the game is likely up. Now China has the technology that we used to hold as a trump card, and now ostensibly control of our bond market. I am all about printing cash to pay them back, but that's not gonna happen.  We no longer live in a world defined by the real politic of nation states acting in their own interests, but instead one of networked elites that have very little interest in upending our global economic system--which is working very well for them--just to satisfy something as nostalgic as "democracy" or "human rights".  Its quaint.  Like Gitmo, or protesting random drone attacks.  But it doesn't appear to be how the world works anymore. Ask the Greeks, or the Irish, or the Spanish, Portuguese, Italians... The Fed doesn't work for you. It's independent. 

    Mind you I am not a conspiracy nut, just saying that this is how our system is designed and functioning. There are no Gnomes in Zurich making decisions after consulting the Rothchilds, just everybody playing the game by the rules that we have written (and of course as they are being rewritten). Our government gave up the fight for democracy and human rights when folks decided that Reagan had already won it. 1989-91 was the time to double down, instead we declared victory and decided to cash in. 

    China is and will continue to be a pernicious influence on global democracy and human rights. They fight NGO's at every step they can, they support dictators and any regime that will pester or weaken the West's domination. As a government the CCP is thinskined and will not hesitate to use whatever tool necessary--from claiming opium war indignities to imprisoning activists in mental health wards. (They are a little like the GOP in this) However they also embody a strong neoliberal success story, particularly in combating poverty, that lends the system credibility--and themselves. They have become powerful and are working hard to regain their rightful place at the center of the world.  

    This won't happen soon, as AA correctly notes they have massive problems, but even if it did it might not much matter. Our global system is no longer defined by nation states, but instead a heterogeneous mix of public and private entities, both grounded and ungrounded, marching forward.

    It might be a good think if folks heeded your claim, and we bring on a full blown trade war.  Clearly our democratic system is not working for us anymore, so we need to change it.  Wars always promise change. 


    by Saladin on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 8:05pm

    I agree with you that policy is being made to serve elite interests in both countries and thus American workers and oppressed Chinese are left out of the discussion.  I'm shocked by how acceptable this apparently is to American liberals, who you would think would be the first to oppose it.


    by Michael Maiello on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 8:52pm

    Yes, but it's not just "elite interests in both countries", it's a system of global international elite that doesn't have a real national allegiance. Yes individuals can be associated with a country here or there, but global leaders are a mass of networked elites, effectively as stateless as the liquid capital that zips around the globe.  But that gets into conspiracies again.  Whose even heard of Polayni anymore. Instead we cling to our civic ideals, cause that's what folks tell us to do. 

    As to liberals--well I am sure you know that convo...Will Rogers had a great line.  But I think liberals have been harping on this since at least the eighties, go dig up some Nation rags sometime. It's Clinton that so gladly got on his knees to kowtow, but he wanted to win reelection...so the game went on.  

    If you want my opinion the guy writing your checks has done more to destroy civil intellectual debate worldwide then anybody, bar none (this is not an attack, just an example of the craziness of our times). I don't see a way out of it, anytime soon. Democracy requires honest civil debate, and we don't have a forum for it. 


    by Saladin on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 10:19pm

    I do recall those old Nations you're talking about.  I also recall that the issues of China's one party despotism used to be more openly talked about.  And, yes, News Corp. was one of the multinationals that wanted in on China's consumer society, particularly to build a Sky TV network there, as I recall.


    by Michael Maiello on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 10:34pm

    I believe NewCorp's real damage was done in the slanted yellow coverage that has come to define the UK/Australia/Us news media environments, and therefore the course of our "civil discussion". Sky news was just a greed play.  Regardless different issue. 

    Keep up the good fight, Liberals should remember who they are talking about. Off to bed. 

    Best, 


    by Saladin on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 10:56pm

    Hey Sal, are you over on Frum Forum from time to time with a mis-spelled nickname, to wit :"Salladin?"  If not, sue the bastard.


    by jollyroger on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 11:48pm

    What!

    Damn, I am going to need a lawyer? 


    by Saladin on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 11:43am

    "We no longer live in a world defined by the real politic of nation states acting in their own interests, but instead one of networked elites that have very little interest in upending our global economic system--which is working very well for them--just to satisfy something as nostalgic as "democracy" or "human rights".  Its quaint."

    I've always HATED quaint. HATED it. Here it is biting me on the bottom, once again. I still hope. For my daughter.


    by bwakfat on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 11:44pm

    networked elites

    Did you think only the forces of freedom and love were empowered by the internet?

    Al Gore did not spend all that time inventing it for you and me...

    Withal, "they got the nodes, we got the numbers"...Jim Morrison said that...


    by jollyroger on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 11:52pm

    Come visit beautiful Brooklyn...


    by jollyroger on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 11:52pm

    There was a study back in October that I was complaining about the coverage for that really gets into what "networked elites" actually means.

    We find that, despite its small size, the core holds collectively a large fraction of the total network control. In detail, nearly 4/10 of the control over the economic value of TNCs in the world is held, via a complicated web of ownership relations, by a group of 147 TNCs in the core, which has almost full control over itself. The top holders within the core can thus be thought of as an economic “super-entity” in the global network of corporations. A relevant additional fact at this point is that 3/4 of the core are financial intermediaries.

    (If you like studies ... here's the .pdf)

    A handful of 1318 interconnected companies end up owning 60% of *global* revenues. Now, that is one hell of an internet.


    by kgb999 on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 2:16am

    That was a great post, I recall it, and I had a fleeting "crowd sourcing" moment (quickly surpressed) to cross  check with  the A.L.E.C  masthead...


    by jollyroger on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 2:35am

    That would be an interesting thing to check ... although likely depressing.

    I've been meaning to poke around and see if the raw data was ever released ... they were still planning a presentation or something back in Oct. and it wasn't available. That would make it possible to merge the data from ... say ... open secrets ... and produce a map for how the most connected companies are influencing the elections.


    by kgb999 on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 3:42am

    Then, of course, there's the Bohemian Grove...

    These guys spread so much money around, they find out retrospectively that the guy they greased ten years ago is today's Defense Secretary "flatmate" ( not that there's anything wrong..etc.)


    by jollyroger on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 3:46am

    On the more abstract issues of democracy et.al. which your post is provoking, Ian Johnson in China has an thought-provoking post up at NY Review of Books blog: Do China's Village Protests Help the Regime? On the question of the internet there, he explains how it is perhaps more appropriate to call it "vetted" than "censored": The idea is to allow people whom the authorities consider unthreatening to write about the protests and come up with useful analyses that don’t pose a challenge to one-party rule. And he gives examples of quite sophisticated analysis that is allowed. This syncs with a lot of what I have read. It does seem that the government does not react to unrest and to dissatisfaction expressed on the internet in a classic totalitarian manner, rather, it often uses it as a warning sign about how to proceed. They do seem to try to look for large group consensus dissatisfaction and react to mollify it,  what they seem to find dangerous is idiosyncratic and individualistic "agitators" and direct challenges to what they call "the people's rule."

    Isn't this the oft-cited "problem" of direct democracy/consensus democracy as well? The "tyranny of the majority"?

    Of course, I'm generalizing for purposes of this discussion, and yes, reality is not that simple; there are always complicating factors. For example, as is the case in many countries, if it involves ethnic minorities, they might feel they are not getting what Han get when they complain and they may be right.

    For an example in current news, the "elites" right up to Premier Wen Jiabao at a current conference are addressing the most recent village protests by announcing alterations to planned policy. Whether those kind of promises end up better than, worse than or a lot like a lot of our own politicians' promises, well that I don't know.


    by artappraiser on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 3:29am

    It seems to me that we've made a lot of advances in science, technology, medicine, and...public relations.  Since Tiananmen Square, China has learned a lot.  If what's going on in China isn't exactly Libya, that's probably by design. China's government can give a little in response to a local protest.  It doesn't have the same fear as, say, Saddam Hussein had, where he couldn't even afford the weakness of having U.N. inspectors paying too many visits, lest his enemies sense vulnerabilities and pounce.

    So, this isn't the Middle East and it's not exactly 1984 either.

    But it does seem that Vaclav Havel, who I quote a bunch from above, has it right when he talks about "anonymous authority, in this case an abstract "people's rule" that doesn't respect the individual experiences, desires and humanity that are, effectively a part of nature.  What he saw in Czechoslovakia was an attempt to do what China is attempting and he saw it has dangerously dehumanizing and, ultimately, against nature (not just human nature, but nature itself).

    Of course, Havel was a dissident who would have been as jailed in China as he was jailed in his homeland.  His story had the relatively happier ending of strong international support during his imprisonment and the ability to lead his country out after the fall of the USSR.  A dissident in China now can't count on either.  International support has devolved into "we gave a dissident a Nobel Prize and we're not going to say we're sorry but we also won't talk much more about it, please send more iPads" and, of course, China's government has learned how to avoid collapse by being selectively flexible, while so many other totalitarian states choose complete rigidity.


    by Michael Maiello on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 7:45am

    In case anyone visits this old thread, I did want to make my own personal views more clear. You took my citation exactly the way I intended it, destor, adding this kind of nuance to your intial writings:

    ....So, this isn't the Middle East and it's not exactly 1984 either...

    China's government has learned how to avoid collapse by being selectively flexible, while so many other totalitarian states choose complete rigidity...

    Personally, I am so much more with the Vaclav Havel side of things. I imagine myself dealing with a Chinese bureaucrat about something and I get shivers down my spine. (I will admit I even get a tiny bit of uneasiness reading some of the prognostications for a new US society by Dan Kervick types--ok if you want some big grand temporary work projects to get an economy back on its feet, no thanks if you're talking about growing the government white collar bureaucracy, and hoping things happen like my neighbors will become empowered in communal activism to pressure me into what the community considers a proper kind of life.)

    But I don't see how over simplifying the very real differences of another culture--one where I admittedly would probably not be happy--is going to help anyone accomplish anything useful.


    by artappraiser on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 2:28pm