Now who could have expected this! :o
We need a monocle popping smile for these situations.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35868432/ns/world_news-washington_post/
QuoteNewly powerful China defies Western nations
Analyst: 'This is a fundamental shift ... It's a change in national attitude'
By John Pomfret
The Washington Post
updated 4:57 a.m. ET March 15, 2010
BEIJING - China's government has embraced an increasingly anti-Western tone in recent months and is adopting policies across a wide spectrum that reflect a heightened fear of foreign influence.
The shift has accelerated as China has emerged stronger from the global financial meltdown, with a world-beating economic expansion rate and a growing nationalist movement. China has long felt bullied by the West, and its stronger stance is challenging the long-held assumption shared among Western and Chinese businessmen, academics and government officials that a more powerful and prosperous China would be more positively inclined toward Western values and systems.
China's shift is occurring throughout society, and is reflected in government policy and in a new attitude toward the West. Over the past year, the government of President Hu Jintao has rolled back market-oriented reforms by encouraging China's state-owned enterprises to forcibly buy private firms. In the past weeks, China announced plans to force Western companies to turn over their most sensitive technology and patents to Chinese competitors in exchange for access to the country's markets.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here
Internally, it has carried out more arrests and indictments for endangering state security over the past two years than in the five-year period from 2003 to 2007, according to a report released Friday by the Dui Hua Foundation, a San Francisco-based human rights organization.
China has also reined in the news media and attempted to control the Internet more vigorously than in the past. This month, it announced regulations designed to make it harder for China's fledgling community of nongovernmental organizations to get financial support from overseas. In foreign affairs, after years of playing down differences, it has reverted to a tone not heard in more than a decade, condemning recent U.S. decisions to sell weapons to Taiwan and to have President Obama meet the exiled Tibetan leader, the Dalai Lama.
"This is a fundamental shift, and I've been here a long time," said James L. McGregor, a senior counselor with the public affairs firm Apco China. "It's a change in national attitude."
'Arrogance'
For their part, senior Chinese leaders bristle at the notion that China is turning away from reforms or is reluctant to cooperate with Western nations. In a news conference on Sunday, Premier Wen Jiabao said he was aware of "theories about China's arrogance, toughness and triumphalism," but rejected them. Asked about widespread criticism of China's hard-line position at the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, for example, Wen replied: "It still baffles me why some people continue to try to make an issue about China."
Nonetheless, China's legislature, whose annual session ended this weekend, also showed the trend toward toughness. With a reported 700,000 security personnel posted throughout the city for the 10-day session, Beijing was in a virtual lockdown. Inside the Great Hall of the People, the proposals — albeit spurious — put forward by the delegates to the National People's Congress included calls for all Internet cafes to be taken over by the government and a declaration that all cellphones should be equipped with surveillance cameras.
The shift does not bode well for U.S.-China relations. The Obama administration entered office with an ambitious China agenda comprising plans to cooperate on climate change, curbing the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea, and stabilizing the global financial system. In China, those plans are generally viewed by the party leadership as a trap to overextend and weaken the country, according to a Chinese official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he would lose his job if his name were published.
In his news conference, Wen also seemed disinclined to bend to another American demand — that China allow its currency, the yuan, to appreciate against the dollar, which (theoretically) would boost U.S. exports. Wen countered that he didn't think the yuan is undervalued and that the U.S. method of seeking to enlarge exports through tweaking currency exchange rates is "protectionist."
Click for related content
U.S. looks to Shanghai Expo to help ease distrust
Economy the focus as China political session ends
U.S. human rights report hits China, Iran
China's troublemakers bond over 'drinking tea'
The change comes during what a leading Chinese economist, Hu Angang, in an interview called "the longest golden era in China since the opium wars" of the 1840s, when British warships forced China to open to trade. From its position as an impoverished, developing country, it has jumped into the ranks of the powerful.
But the closer China gets to a variety of firsts — No. 1 exporting nation and even No. 1 economy in the world — the more its government seems to exhibit a nagging insecurity and opposition to the West.
"The Chinese people are no longer embarrassed about being Chinese," said Wang Xiaodong, a leading nationalist writer who has co-authored a series of popular books with titles such as "China Is Unhappy," which capitalized on the growing anti-Western trend. "The time when China worshipped the West is over. We have a rightful sense of superiority."
"People are now looking down on the West, from leadership circles to academia to everyday folk," said Kang Xiaoguang, a professor at Renmin University who studies NGOs and Confucius.
Gettysburg Address
The turn away from the West is evidenced within China's leadership. China's previous president, Jiang Zemin, is widely thought to have been pro-American. He was fond of reciting the Gettysburg Address and crooning American songs. During a trip to the United States in 1997, he took the politically risky move of announcing that China welcomed continued U.S. engagement in Asia — including the stationing of American troops. On the other hand, Hu, who took power in 2002, is the first Communist leader with no experience outside the current system.
Other factors are at play. It is campaign season in Beijing. In two years, the leadership of the Communist Party will undergo a huge transition, with as many as seven of the nine seats of the Standing Committee of the Politburo — the center of power — up for grabs. Nothing looks better in China than being tough on the West.
Secondly, despite its apparent successes, China's leadership continues to be alarmed by international developments — such as the "color revolutions" inside the former Soviet Union — and domestic ones as well, such as the anti-Chinese riots in Tibet in 2008 and the northwest province of Xinjiang last year.
A recent example is how the party reacted to the threat by the Internet search company Google, which said it would leave the country if China continued to censor the Internet. Concerned about an outpouring of support in China for the American company, the Ministry of Propaganda framed the issue not as an argument over freedom but as part of a U.S. strategy to contain and isolate China.
On Friday, Li Yizhong, China's minister of industry and information technology, issued China's toughest statement on the dispute yet. "If you want to do something that disobeys Chinese law and regulations, you are unfriendly, you are irresponsible, and you will have to pay the consequences," he warned.
China's policy changes have met with opposition. Not all of its efforts to nationalize private companies have succeeded. And China's plans to compel Western businesses to share their technology have prompted a backlash from a community that does not like to criticize China openly. On that front, Wen on Sunday seemed to give in a little.
"I must say I am still not in very close touch with foreign businessmen doing work in China," he acknowledged. "In the next three years I will create more opportunities . . . to listen to your views."
More lead for everybody's toothpaste.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 15, 2010, 09:47:38 AM
More lead for everybody's toothpaste.
Now with 50% more midgets and birth defects.
It's a dangerous thing to buy into your own PR. You would think that a nation with such a penchant for gambling would grasp the concept of overplaying one's hand.
Are you talking about China or the US? :unsure:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 15, 2010, 10:01:41 AM
It's a dangerous thing to buy into your own PR. You would think that a nation with such a penchant for gambling would grasp the concept of overplaying one's hand.
Actually, overplaying one's hand is what gamblers, particularly Asian gamblers, do.
Quote from: Barrister on March 15, 2010, 11:07:02 AM
Are you talking about China or the US? :unsure:
The US has, with very few exceptions, historically grossly underplayed their hand.
I thought this was an Onion article.
ITT: China wishes to stand up for its national interests. West is furious because Beijing does not kowtow to the obvious western superiority. Much indignation ensues.
I, for one, am shocked that Obama's new policies have not improved relations with an aggressive foreign nation.
Quote from: Martim Silva on March 15, 2010, 11:13:05 AM
ITT: China wishes to stand up for its national interests. West is furious because Beijing does not kowtow to the obvious western superiority. Much indignation ensues.
Did you read the article? Or just desire to spout your familiar brainless bullshit?
Anyway I fail to see why I should care if China wants to arrest people, roll back private industry, and flip out about local nationalist movements. Those strike me as internal things and while I would probably want China to do things differently I guess I fail to feel like this is some sort of huge challenge to us outside the country. If they want to feel superior to us, well they always have felt that way whether they want to admit it or not.
Besides correct me if I am wrong but cutting yourself off from the outside world and believing yourself superior is hardly some sort of threatening new Chinese policy.
Quote from: Kleves on March 15, 2010, 11:13:45 AM
I, for one, am shocked that Obama's new policies have not improved relations with an aggressive foreign nation.
Um...pulling back and seeing every bit of involvement in foreign affairs as a conspiracy to weaken China is being aggressive now? What is your definition of passive? Being completely comatose?
Quote from: Valmy
Did you read the article? Or just desire to spout your familiar brainless bullshit?
Yes I did. And I did not see anything that others - especially the US - did not do often in their Histories, and that many (incuding America) do today. The fact that these articles come out so often only show that westerners are psychotic, being horrified everytime China shows even just 1% of the assertiveness that the US has shown almost all the time in the last 65 years.
And I'll let "intelligent" people like yourself to try to figure out why your country - indeed, your entire bloc - is trying desperately to dig itself out of the gigantic economic hole created by your fabulously deregulated and so private and liberal financial system.
Quote from: Valmy
Besides correct me if I am wrong but cutting yourself off from the outside world and believing yourself superior is hardly some sort of threatening new Chinese policy.
You're right, it isn't new. That the media give it so much attention speaks volumes of the western hysteria about the emergence of a power that isn't in their own side.
And IIRC it was also rather similar to the American policies up until WW2, except for the trade bit.
Quote from: Martim Silva on March 15, 2010, 11:38:57 AM
And I'll let "intelligent" people like yourself to try to figure out why your country - indeed, your entire bloc - is trying desperately to dig itself out of the gigantic economic hole created by your fabulously deregulated and so private and liberal financial system.
People borrowed money and couldn't pay it back. There, now we can get back to worrying about China.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 15, 2010, 11:50:01 AM
Quote from: Martim Silva on March 15, 2010, 11:38:57 AM
And I'll let "intelligent" people like yourself to try to figure out why your country - indeed, your entire bloc - is trying desperately to dig itself out of the gigantic economic hole created by your fabulously deregulated and so private and liberal financial system.
People borrowed money and couldn't pay it back. There, now we can get back to worrying about China.
But you left out the failure of democracy and constitutional republics!
Exploiting your working classes and ethnic minorities for the gain of a rich, lazy snobby upperclass is defying western tradition now? Man I never keep up.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on March 15, 2010, 12:10:56 PM
Exploiting your working classes and ethnic minorities for the gain of a rich, lazy snobby upperclass is defying western tradition now? Man I never keep up.
Don't forget the cultural annhiliation by colonization in Tibet adn other provinces.
Quote from: Martim Silva on March 15, 2010, 11:13:05 AM
ITT: China wishes to stand up for its national interests. West is furious because Beijing does not kowtow to the obvious western superiority. Much indignation ensues.
Its funny how your hostility to the US and western values blinds you to the obvious. The problem is not China standing up for its national interests. The problem is China doing things that are not particularly beneficial to its national interest in order to maintain the Party's control over the domestic sphere.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on March 15, 2010, 12:14:29 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on March 15, 2010, 12:10:56 PM
Exploiting your working classes and ethnic minorities for the gain of a rich, lazy snobby upperclass is defying western tradition now? Man I never keep up.
Don't forget the cultural annhiliation by colonization in Tibet adn other provinces.
I was using soft journalism by saying "exploiting" ethnic minorities.
So some dude writes some books about how the other countries suck, to cash in on local nationalism? That happens in places other than China. I'd want to hear a lot more about this guy and his importance before I take it to be an indication of big change of any sort.
But I'm headed to China next week. I'll make sure to let you know if I run into any new and rampant anti-Western attitudes.
Quote from: Valmy on March 15, 2010, 11:20:47 AM
Quote from: Martim Silva on March 15, 2010, 11:13:05 AM
ITT: China wishes to stand up for its national interests. West is furious because Beijing does not kowtow to the obvious western superiority. Much indignation ensues.
Did you read the article? Or just desire to spout your familiar brainless bullshit?
You didn't have to ask this, did you?
It ism amusing that Martim is now calling himself "the West" when he has previously called himself part of "the Union." He may be furious, but he isn't logical.
Quote from: Martim Silva on March 15, 2010, 11:38:57 AM
Yes I did. And I did not see anything that others - especially the US - did not do often in their Histories, and that many (incuding America) do today. The fact that these articles come out so often only show that westerners are psychotic, being horrified everytime China shows even just 1% of the assertiveness that the US has shown almost all the time in the last 65 years.
But why are you horrified and psychotic? That is the question. China has done things like this before, and so have many other nations.
QuoteAnd I'll let "intelligent" people like yourself to try to figure out why your country - indeed, your entire bloc - is trying desperately to dig itself out of the gigantic economic hole created by your fabulously deregulated and so private and liberal financial system.
I am not surprised you don't understand why, and am frankly surprised and pleased that you don't ask anyone to try to explain it to you, as that is probably a hopeless task.
QuoteYou're right, it isn't new. That the media give it so much attention speaks volumes of the western hysteria about the emergence of a power that isn't in their own side.
Not sure how you relate your hysteria to the west in this one. The media don't give this issue much attention at all, as far as I can see. It is probably just as well that they don't, as the phenomenon is a temporary one.
Quote from: Jacob on March 15, 2010, 01:34:56 PM
So some dude writes some books about how the other countries suck, to cash in on local nationalism? That happens in places other than China. I'd want to hear a lot more about this guy and his importance before I take it to be an indication of big change of any sort.
Pity you are so much less gullible than Martim. You just cannot enjoy being indignant, horrified, and psychotic to the extent that he can. :(
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 15, 2010, 09:44:58 AM
We need a monocle popping smile for these situations.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi195.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fz133%2Fsbr32%2Fsmilies%2F474png.gif&hash=9cc7deaf1abbb45dd099c8f2c6eeab68bd4d7127)
Quote from: Jacob on March 15, 2010, 01:34:56 PM
So some dude writes some books about how the other countries suck, to cash in on local nationalism? That happens in places other than China. I'd want to hear a lot more about this guy and his importance before I take it to be an indication of big change of any sort.
But I'm headed to China next week. I'll make sure to let you know if I run into any new and rampant anti-Western attitudes.
There has been a noticeable shift in policy since the Summer Olympics; that is the concern more than what the guy-in-the-street happens to be thinking at the moment.
Quotethat China allow its currency, the yuan, to
I think they are wrong here, don't they use the renminbi? :unsure:
Quote from: Alcibiades on March 15, 2010, 03:21:43 PM
Quotethat China allow its currency, the yuan, to
I think they are wrong here, don't they use the renminbi? :unsure:
One and the same.
Quote from: Alcibiades on March 15, 2010, 03:21:43 PM
Quotethat China allow its currency, the yuan, to
I think they are wrong here, don't they use the renminbi? :unsure:
It's fucked up. They use the renminbi, which comes in units of yuan. I saw an analogy a while back, which I cannot now find....
...found it:
Quoterenminbi is the name of China's currency; but yuan is the denomination of bills, the unit in which prices are measured, etc.. The closest parallel I can think of is Britain's currency, which is sterling, but whose unit is the pound.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/whats-in-a-name-3/
Its like DOLLARS and CENTS????? :huh:
And I find it deliciously STUPID that people are blaming this shift in China on Obama. Kleves is mini-Hans.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 15, 2010, 03:20:40 PMThere has been a noticeable shift in policy since the Summer Olympics; that is the concern more than what the guy-in-the-street happens to be thinking at the moment.
Yeah I agree, that is more of a concern.
Quote from: Jaron on March 15, 2010, 03:31:10 PM
Its like DOLLARS and CENTS????? :huh:
I think it's more like "yuan" means "general unit of money" (same word as "yen" in Japan, by the way) whereas "renminbi" is "the people's revolutionary democratic currency" or some such.
In Lettow terms, if the Southern States had seceded and founded their own currency, they might have named them "Confederated Free States Dollars" (i.e. "renminbi"), but the bills might have the word "Dollars" (i.e. "Yuan") on it most prominently, and that's what people would call them colloquially unless it was necessary to specify otherwise.
QuoteAnd I find it deliciously STUPID that people are blaming this shift in China on Obama. Kleves is mini-Hans.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that Chinese foreign policy, like American and most other foreign policy these days, is 95% about internal political issues and rivalries.
Example:
"You need at least 20,000 yuan to bribe a member of the Central Committee."
"The renmibi is undervalued against the dollar."
Quoteaccording to a Chinese official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he would lose his job if his name were published.
Losing his job would be the least of his concerns.
Anyway, I can't get too wrapped around the axle over an article about China anymore. Nobody wants to do anything about China anyway.
I'm just the guy at the radar station on Sunday morning, December 7th 1941 being told "don't worry about it". So I won't.
Quote from: Martim Silva on March 15, 2010, 11:38:57 AM
The fact that these articles come out so often only show that westerners are psychotic, being horrified everytime China shows even just 1% of the assertiveness that the US has shown almost all the time in the last 65 years.
I'm curious what acts you consider to be assertive by the US and what moments you consider China to have demonstrated its passivity.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 15, 2010, 05:37:53 PM
Quoteaccording to a Chinese official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he would lose his job if his name were published.
Losing his job would be the least of his concerns.
Anyway, I can't get too wrapped around the axle over an article about China anymore. Nobody wants to do anything about China anyway.
I'm just the guy at the radar station on Sunday morning, December 7th 1941 being told "don't worry about it". So I won't.
Someone is giving Marcin a run for his money in the dramatic department
FWIW, I haven't noticed a single anti-western attitude during my almost two years here. On the contrary, people (especially young people) seem quite enthralled with many elements of Western culture.
What I have noticed, though, is very rampant Chinese nationalism. Virtually everybody I've talked to (where the subject has come up) seems to be obsessed with the notion of self-sacrifice for China, and the importance of doing anything one can to make China more powerful. And of course, pretty much everyone is a staunch believer that, in the international realm at least, China can do no wrong.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on March 15, 2010, 06:09:58 PM
FWIW, I haven't noticed a single anti-western attitude during my almost two years here. On the contrary, people (especially young people) seem quite enthralled with many elements of Western culture.
What I have noticed, though, is very rampant Chinese nationalism. Virtually everybody I've talked to (where the subject has come up) seems to be obsessed with the notion of self-sacrifice for China, and the importance of doing anything one can to make China more powerful. And of course, pretty much everyone is a staunch believer that, in the international realm at least, China can do no wrong.
And that is why they are our enemies.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on March 15, 2010, 06:09:58 PMWhat I have noticed, though, is very rampant Chinese nationalism. Virtually everybody I've talked to (where the subject has come up) seems to be obsessed with the notion of self-sacrifice for China, and the importance of doing anything one can to make China more powerful. And of course, pretty much everyone is a staunch believer that, in the international realm at least, China can do no wrong.
Which is why they need to be bathed in nuclear fire.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on March 15, 2010, 06:09:58 PM
And of course, pretty much everyone is a staunch believer that, in the international realm at least, China can do no wrong.
The Canucks of the Orient, eh?
Quote from: Jacob on March 15, 2010, 03:56:04 PM
Quote from: Jaron on March 15, 2010, 03:31:10 PM
Its like DOLLARS and CENTS????? :huh:
I think it's more like "yuan" means "general unit of money" (same word as "yen" in Japan, by the way) whereas "renminbi" is "the people's revolutionary democratic currency" or some such.
In Lettow terms, if the Southern States had seceded and founded their own currency, they might have named them "Confederated Free States Dollars" (i.e. "renminbi"), but the bills might have the word "Dollars" (i.e. "Yuan") on it most prominently, and that's what people would call them colloquially unless it was necessary to specify otherwise.
QuoteAnd I find it deliciously STUPID that people are blaming this shift in China on Obama. Kleves is mini-Hans.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that Chinese foreign policy, like American and most other foreign policy these days, is 95% about internal political issues and rivalries.
Renminbi is just "People's money". ;)
Mono, stop defying us.
Quote from: grumbler
It ism amusing that Martim is now calling himself "the West" when he has previously called himself part of "the Union." He may be furious, but he isn't logical.
Typical crude demagogery - trying to pin me for something I never did. Where, pray tell, did I call myself "the West" in the post?
Quote from: Admiral Yi
I'm curious what acts you consider to be assertive by the US and what moments you consider China to have demonstrated its passivity.
Taiwan
Korea
Vietnam (including before the French defeat)
Laos
Cambodia
Israel
Granada
Chile
Cuba
Nicaragua
Afghanistan
Iraq
Iran
Plus everywhere the US intervened in conflicts, internal or not. Which includes most nations on Earth.
One way or another, the US takes an active stance on almost everything. Basically no nation on the planet can do anything without the US pronouncing its opinion about it, and often taking measures about it.
How often does China meddles with other countries' internal affairs?
Also, everytime the US stands for its national interests (remember the protectionist measures on steel? Or the blocking of CNOOC buying a large US oil firm? Or the recent manouvers to prevent EADS from getting a contract with the USAF and blatantly favouring Boeing?).
These are accepted by the Americans, but if China does the same... fire up the presses!
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos
What I have noticed, though, is very rampant Chinese nationalism. Virtually everybody I've talked to (where the subject has come up) seems to be obsessed with the notion of self-sacrifice for China, and the importance of doing anything one can to make China more powerful. And of course, pretty much everyone is a staunch believer that, in the international realm at least, China can do no wrong.
Just like most Americans. It reminds me of the Daily Show, where the comedian Jon Stewart pointed out that the US was waterboarding its islamic prisioners in Gitmo, while it had hanged for war crimes the Japanese interrogators who did exactly the same thing to US prisioners during WW2. The other actor replied "but we're the US!", and the audience applauded wildly, agreeing with him (and not getting the point they were making).
P.S.: Renminbi - 'People's money'. It is denominated in yuan. Like the US currency is demnominated in dollars.
Those are countries not acts.
Quote from: Martim Silva on March 16, 2010, 08:59:33 AM
Typical crude demagogery - trying to pin me for something I never did. Where, pray tell, did I call myself "the West" in the post?
Ironic words, coming from someone who just used "indignant," "horrified," "kowtow," and "fabulously deregulated!" :lmfao:
I see you use "psychotic" and assume you are talking of yourself. Maybe you aren't that self-aware, though, and are just resorting to yet
more crude demagoguery.
Quote from: Martim Silva on March 16, 2010, 08:59:33 AM
One way or another, the US takes an active stance on almost everything. Basically no nation on the planet can do anything without the US pronouncing its opinion about it, and often taking measures about it.
What was the phrase? "Crude demagoguery?" Indeed.
Quote from: Martim Silva on March 16, 2010, 08:59:33 AM
Just like most Americans. It reminds me of the Daily Show, where the comedian Jon Stewart pointed out that the US was waterboarding its islamic prisioners in Gitmo, while it had hanged for war crimes the Japanese interrogators who did exactly the same thing to US prisioners during WW2. The other actor replied "but we're the US!", and the audience applauded wildly, agreeing with him (and not getting the point they were making).
:hmm: Satire can backfire when used on stupid people.
Quote from: DGuller on March 16, 2010, 10:00:17 AM
Quote from: Martim Silva on March 16, 2010, 08:59:33 AM
Just like most Americans. It reminds me of the Daily Show, where the comedian Jon Stewart pointed out that the US was waterboarding its islamic prisioners in Gitmo, while it had hanged for war crimes the Japanese interrogators who did exactly the same thing to US prisioners during WW2. The other actor replied "but we're the US!", and the audience applauded wildly, agreeing with him (and not getting the point they were making).
:hmm: Satire can backfire when used on stupid people.
I heard those Japanese interrogators also pissed standing up -
just like the American interrogators. Clearly this is a total double standard.
Quote from: Berkut on March 16, 2010, 10:04:25 AM
I heard those Japanese interrogators also pissed standing up - just like the American interrogators. Clearly this is a total double standard.
I wasn't even talking about Stewart's point, which I agree can be challenged along those lines. I was talking about Martim's perception that the audience's jingoism was genuine rather than part of the act.
Quote from: DGuller on March 16, 2010, 10:29:16 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 16, 2010, 10:04:25 AM
I heard those Japanese interrogators also pissed standing up - just like the American interrogators. Clearly this is a total double standard.
I wasn't even talking about Stewart's point, which I agree can be challenged along those lines. I was talking about Martim's perception that the audience's jingoism was genuine rather than part of the act.
I know. Martim makes Fate look sane - mainly because I don't really think Fate believes Fate, but I do have this rather distressing idea that Martim really believes himself. Which is kind of scary.
Quote from: DGuller on March 16, 2010, 10:29:16 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 16, 2010, 10:04:25 AM
I heard those Japanese interrogators also pissed standing up - just like the American interrogators. Clearly this is a total double standard.
I wasn't even talking about Stewart's point, which I agree can be challenged along those lines. I was talking about Martim's perception that the audience's jingoism was genuine rather than part of the act.
That's kinda funny really. The Colbert Report would really throw him off.
Quote from: Martim Silva on March 16, 2010, 08:59:33 AM
One way or another, the US takes an active stance on almost everything. Basically no nation on the planet can do anything without the US pronouncing its opinion about it, and often taking measures about it.
How often does China meddles with other countries' internal affairs?
If by meddling you mean some windbag spouting off to reporters their opinions on said foreign affairs, I think you'll find Chinese do it quite often as well.
And deciding they'll sell their shit to any and everybody is as much a stand as trade embargoes.
Quote from: grumbler on March 15, 2010, 09:02:36 PMThe Canucks of the Orient, eh?
:lol: Much more competent and ambitious than Canucks, I think.
I see the attitude more like a mix of the Americans of the first half of the last century - with and unwavering belief in their own destiny and rightness - combined with the revanchist impulses of Eastern Europeans or Weimar Germans.
Of course, I wouldn't see the attitude as Canuckistani, more or less being one myself :)
Quote from: Martim Silva on March 16, 2010, 08:59:33 AM
How often does China meddles with other countries' internal affairs?
+ War against India
+ War against Vietnam
+ Sponsorship and armed support of the khmer rouge in Cambodia
+ War in Korea
+ Continued backing for North Korean regime
+ 60+ year military confrontation and subversion vs. Taiwan
+ Naval attacks on Vietnam in South China Sea
+ military, economic and diplomatic support of Burmese junta
+ State purchases of vast resource blocs and establishment of state enterprise colonies in many African nations such as: Anglola, Equitorial Guinea, Congo, and most notably the Sudan, where China also supplied the military equipment used by the butchers of Darfur to facilitate their genocide and then blocked UN response through its Security Council veto.
I assume this question was meant as some sort of ironic joke.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg502.imageshack.us%2Fimg502%2F7378%2Fposter35.jpg&hash=d581f8e05b053bd61715264b8f9879bb62f7ed30)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 15, 2010, 05:37:53 PM
Quoteaccording to a Chinese official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he would lose his job if his name were published.
Losing his job would be the least of his concerns.
Anyway, I can't get too wrapped around the axle over an article about China anymore. Nobody wants to do anything about China anyway.
I'm just the guy at the radar station on Sunday morning, December 7th 1941 being told "don't worry about it". So I won't.
I saw an interview in the History channel with the officer that was the actual commander of that radar station. The dude said in camera that he told his radar operator to not report to higher the huge big radar signature they got, because he, the officer, had word that a fly of B-17s were on their way to Pearl Harbor.
My question is, how can somebody deal with such a blunder. How can that guy still be alive. The guy single-handlely responsible for America getting caught with her pants down. I think I would have done the honorable thing and volunteer for some suicide mission and go down in flames with as many imperial japanese bastards as possible, and even that would not clear my conciouness.
Quote from: Martim Silva on March 16, 2010, 08:59:33 AM
Granada
Naturally we used our time machine to defeat the Nasrids.
Quote from: Siege on March 16, 2010, 01:46:33 PM
My question is, how can somebody deal with such a blunder. How can that guy still be alive. The guy single-handlely responsible for America getting caught with her pants down. I think I would have done the honorable thing and volunteer for some suicide mission and go down in flames with as many imperial japanese bastards as possible, and even that would not clear my conciouness.
Because he's a civilized person and not a barbarian who worships machismo-disguised-as-honor?
Quote from: Siege on March 16, 2010, 01:46:33 PM
The guy single-handlely responsible
Kimmel and Short will be thrilled to hear the news.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 16, 2010, 11:03:41 AM
Quote from: DGuller on March 16, 2010, 10:29:16 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 16, 2010, 10:04:25 AM
I heard those Japanese interrogators also pissed standing up - just like the American interrogators. Clearly this is a total double standard.
I wasn't even talking about Stewart's point, which I agree can be challenged along those lines. I was talking about Martim's perception that the audience's jingoism was genuine rather than part of the act.
That's kinda funny really. The Colbert Report would really throw him off.
What? The Colbert Report is not TRUE???111111
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 16, 2010, 01:53:46 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 16, 2010, 01:46:33 PM
My question is, how can somebody deal with such a blunder. How can that guy still be alive. The guy single-handlely responsible for America getting caught with her pants down. I think I would have done the honorable thing and volunteer for some suicide mission and go down in flames with as many imperial japanese bastards as possible, and even that would not clear my conciouness.
Because he's a civilized person and not a barbarian who worships machismo-disguised-as-honor?
It helped that Pearl Harbour didn't really matter in terms of the conduct of the war.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 16, 2010, 01:53:46 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 16, 2010, 01:46:33 PM
My question is, how can somebody deal with such a blunder. How can that guy still be alive. The guy single-handlely responsible for America getting caught with her pants down. I think I would have done the honorable thing and volunteer for some suicide mission and go down in flames with as many imperial japanese bastards as possible, and even that would not clear my conciouness.
Because he's a civilized person and not a barbarian who worships machismo-disguised-as-honor?
You fail at trolling.
Go back to Jaron's school.
Quote from: Neil on March 16, 2010, 02:00:49 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 16, 2010, 01:53:46 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 16, 2010, 01:46:33 PM
My question is, how can somebody deal with such a blunder. How can that guy still be alive. The guy single-handlely responsible for America getting caught with her pants down. I think I would have done the honorable thing and volunteer for some suicide mission and go down in flames with as many imperial japanese bastards as possible, and even that would not clear my conciouness.
Because he's a civilized person and not a barbarian who worships machismo-disguised-as-honor?
It helped that Pearl Harbour didn't really matter in terms of the conduct of the war.
It mattered to the people that died that day, you heartless piece of shit.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2010, 01:54:32 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 16, 2010, 01:46:33 PM
The guy single-handlely responsible
Kimmel and Short will be thrilled to hear the news.
I have no idea who those people are.
Quote from: Siege on March 16, 2010, 02:02:38 PM
You fail at trolling.
That's fine, considering it was a serious response. People screw up, they deal with it and hopefully don't make the same mistake again(but usually do). They don't kill themselves from shame.
The don't worry about it guy only died recently, at age 96.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g5u534BvMdIZ0xB5GdszFx0NRFGwD9E3D0J82
Quote from: Siege on March 16, 2010, 02:05:07 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2010, 01:54:32 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 16, 2010, 01:46:33 PM
The guy single-handlely responsible
Kimmel and Short will be thrilled to hear the news.
I have no idea who those people are.
The officers in command of the base and fleet at Pearl Harbor. In other words, the people who should have been making sure Pearl Harbor was alert and able to defend itself in a time of intense international tension.
Quote from: Agelastus on March 16, 2010, 02:25:35 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 16, 2010, 02:05:07 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2010, 01:54:32 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 16, 2010, 01:46:33 PM
The guy single-handlely responsible
Kimmel and Short will be thrilled to hear the news.
I have no idea who those people are.
The officers in command of the base and fleet at Pearl Harbor. In other words, the people who should have been making sure Pearl Harbor was alert and able to defend itself in a time of intense international tension.
WTF man, it was
Sunday!
Quote from: Berkut on March 16, 2010, 02:30:44 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on March 16, 2010, 02:25:35 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 16, 2010, 02:05:07 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2010, 01:54:32 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 16, 2010, 01:46:33 PM
The guy single-handlely responsible
Kimmel and Short will be thrilled to hear the news.
I have no idea who those people are.
The officers in command of the base and fleet at Pearl Harbor. In other words, the people who should have been making sure Pearl Harbor was alert and able to defend itself in a time of intense international tension.
WTF man, it was Sunday!
As has been demonstrably proven, wars start on Sundays as well. And given the most probable enemy for the defenders of Pearl Harbor was not a Christian nation and thus could not be expected to have any special attachment to Sunday, then said commanders become even more culpable for their failure, not less.
Quote from: Siege on March 16, 2010, 02:03:54 PM
It mattered to the people that died that day, you heartless piece of shit.
People die in war.
Quote from: Agelastus on March 16, 2010, 02:49:17 PM
As has been demonstrably proven, wars start on Sundays as well. And given the most probable enemy for the defenders of Pearl Harbor was not a Christian nation and thus could not be expected to have any special attachment to Sunday, then said commanders become even more culpable for their failure, not less.
Somebody's sarcasm meter needs looking at! :lol:
The defenses were no more or less ready the previous day.
The problem was a mindset that "knew" where the Japanese were striking, combined with poor communications at the base (had anyone known about both the radar hits
and the submarine sighting/sinking, he might have concluded that this was an attack). The fact that the patrol planes had seen nothing added to the sense of security.
Luckily, as Neil noted, the Japanese attack didn't actually change anything. Only fourteen ships were even hit, and only three (one of them a non-combattant) actually sunk. The loss of lives was unfortunate, but then, this was war and lives would have been lost had everyone been at GQ. In a way, more lives might have been lost had those poor pilots actually scrambled those deathtraps against the Japanese.
Quote from: Agelastus on March 16, 2010, 02:25:35 PM
The officers in command of the base and fleet at Pearl Harbor. In other words, the people who should have been making sure Pearl Harbor was alert and able to defend itself in a time of intense international tension.
I don't see how you can blame them. They didn't even lose a single plane to sabotage!
Quote from: grumbler on March 16, 2010, 04:43:04 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on March 16, 2010, 02:49:17 PM
As has been demonstrably proven, wars start on Sundays as well. And given the most probable enemy for the defenders of Pearl Harbor was not a Christian nation and thus could not be expected to have any special attachment to Sunday, then said commanders become even more culpable for their failure, not less.
Somebody's sarcasm meter needs looking at! :lol:
The defenses were no more or less ready the previous day.
Materially, no (although I suspect that the number of personnel on leave was higher at the weekend than during the week - I can recall reading that somewhere, but I have no clue of the reference now.) I suspect the mindset may have been even less alert on a Sunday morning than on any other day for precisely the reason Siege posted.
And besides, despite the sarcasm, Short and Kimmel were certainly culpable. They got caught with their "pants down", as it were.
Of course, MacArthur and the rest of the Phillippines command had even less excuse for Clark Field.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2010, 01:19:23 PM
Quote from: Martim Silva on March 16, 2010, 08:59:33 AM
How often does China meddles with other countries' internal affairs?
+ War against India
+ War against Vietnam
+ Sponsorship and armed support of the khmer rouge in Cambodia
+ War in Korea
+ Continued backing for North Korean regime
+ 60+ year military confrontation and subversion vs. Taiwan
+ Naval attacks on Vietnam in South China Sea
+ military, economic and diplomatic support of Burmese junta
+ State purchases of vast resource blocs and establishment of state enterprise colonies in many African nations such as: Anglola, Equitorial Guinea, Congo, and most notably the Sudan, where China also supplied the military equipment used by the butchers of Darfur to facilitate their genocide and then blocked UN response through its Security Council veto.
I assume this question was meant as some sort of ironic joke.
+ Conquest of Tibet
Quote from: Berkut on March 16, 2010, 02:30:44 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on March 16, 2010, 02:25:35 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 16, 2010, 02:05:07 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2010, 01:54:32 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 16, 2010, 01:46:33 PM
The guy single-handlely responsible
Kimmel and Short will be thrilled to hear the news.
I have no idea who those people are.
The officers in command of the base and fleet at Pearl Harbor. In other words, the people who should have been making sure Pearl Harbor was alert and able to defend itself in a time of intense international tension.
WTF man, it was Sunday!
Yeah, but NFL Gameday hadn't even been invented yet, so there was no excuse.
My understanding is that the Chinese government's internally tightening the vice a bit on Western companies. For example in Shenzhen or Guangzhou (I forget which) which is apparently used as a test ground for Chinese law they want to make unionisation compulsory in all foreign enterprises with more than 10 employees and they've recently made collective bargaining a requirement in the already unionised joint foreign-Chinese ventures. If nothing else that will add at least 2% to a companies' labour costs but is also a way for the Chinese government to become far more involved if they so choose.
On a global scale I think the past year or two's been very interesting. It's shown that the 'league of democracies' idea is absurd as, on most issues, Brazil, India and other democratic developing countries have far more in common, in terms of interests, with China than the US or UK. At the same time I think there's a sense within the developing world - first exhibited at Copenhagen - that actually China isn't just another developing country. The Chinese have, so far, been very successful at projecting an image of being both a developing nation and a great power. I think recently the outside perception has shifted far more towards the latter - though both are, of course, true. Linked to that is that I think the western press seems to be paying far more attention to what China's doing. They've wanted to be seen as a great power for a long time, but the cost of that is a lot more attention.
This strikes me as a problem for the Chinese because they aren't very good at external PR.
Quote from: Jacob on March 16, 2010, 01:16:58 PM
I see the attitude more like a mix of the Americans of the first half of the last century - with and unwavering belief in their own destiny and rightness - combined with the revanchist impulses of Eastern Europeans or Weimar Germans.
I imagine you'd know far more than me but I'd say it seems more like Wilhelmine Germany.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 20, 2010, 08:12:29 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 16, 2010, 01:16:58 PM
I see the attitude more like a mix of the Americans of the first half of the last century - with and unwavering belief in their own destiny and rightness - combined with the revanchist impulses of Eastern Europeans or Weimar Germans.
I imagine you'd know far more than me but I'd say it seems more like Wilhelmine Germany.
A good analogy, in many ways. They're diplomatic stance on the world stage does put one a bit in mind of Wilhelmine Germany's desire for a "place in the sun". I wouldn't take it too far though. I actually think the Chinese are much more subtle and competent at diplomacy than Wilhelmine Germany ever was.
Lovely time for a trade war isn't it? :bowler:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/21/AR2010032100380.html
QuoteChina vows to hit back if targeted by U.S. on yuan
By Langi Chiang and Ken Wills
Reuters
Sunday, March 21, 2010; 6:43 AM
BEIJING (Reuters) - Beijing will retaliate if the United States declares China a currency manipulator and imposes trade sanctions, Commerce Minister Chen Deming said on Sunday, firing the latest salvo in a spat over the value of the yuan.
Chen again accused Washington of politicizing the issue ahead of an April 15 deadline for the U.S. Treasury to rule whether China is unfairly holding down its exchange rate to gain a competitive edge in global markets.
"The currency is a sovereign issue and should not be an issue to be discussed between two countries," Chen told the China Development Forum.
"We think the renminbi is not undervalued, but if the U.S. Treasury gave an untrue reply for its own needs, we will wait and see. If such a reply is followed by trade sanctions, I think we will not do nothing. We will also respond if this means litigation under the global legal framework," he added.
ad_icon
Click here!
Chen did not specify how Beijing might respond.
Political pressure is growing in Washington to declare China a currency manipulator, with some U.S. senators threatening to slap duties on Chinese products if Beijing does not allow the yuan, also known as the renminbi, to rise.
The head of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) on Sunday joined the chorus of calls for Beijing to abandon the peg of 6.83 yuan to the dollar imposed in mid-2008 to help China's exporters weather the global financial crisis.
In the three years before that, Beijing had let the yuan climb 21 percent against the dollar.
"Greater flexibility in the exchange rate of the yuan would be in the interests of the Chinese economy. Rebalancing is a big challenge and exchange-rate flexibility could contribute to making that process smoother over the years to come," ADB President Haruhiko Kuroda told Reuters.
While it was wrong to rely exclusively on the exchange rate to tilt the economy away from exports and toward consumption, a freer-floating yuan would also strengthen Beijing's control over monetary policy, Kuroda said on the sidelines of the forum.
"When and how should be decided by the Chinese authorities," he said of the switch back to a more flexible currency regime.
The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank both urged China last week to let the yuan resume its ascent.
Some U.S. legislators and think-tanks say the Chinese currency is undervalued by as much as 40 percent, causing imbalances in bilateral and global trade flows.
TRADE SURPLUS 'OVERESTIMATED'
But Chen accused Washington of overestimating the size of China's trade surplus with the United States, putting more pressure on the relationship between the world's biggest and third-biggest economies.
The defiant comments stood in contrast to a ministry statement on Friday that was widely interpreted as an attempt to bridge differences.
The ministry said then that it would send a vice minister to Washington this week to try to ease trade frictions, although it specifically noted that China's currency policy was off-limits.
Speaking on Sunday, Chen said any adjustment to the yuan's value would not by itself resolve global trade imbalances.
China's trade surplus increased while the yuan was gradually appreciating from 2005 to 2008, yet the surplus fell 34 percent last year even though the yuan marked time against the dollar. Chinese trade could even lurch into the red this month.
ad_icon
"A country's currency appreciation is very limited in helping to rebalance global trade," he said. "I personally expect that China could possibly have a trade deficit in March."
Chen called on all countries to oppose any form of trade protectionism, a theme that echoed an earlier speech by Vice Premier Li Keqiang. Neither official mentioned specific countries.
Vice Minister of Finance Wang Jun, also speaking at the forum, said it was not time yet to talk about exiting the economic stimulus program but added "we should actively study the exit strategy together" with other countries.
(Additional reporting by Alan Wheatley; Editing by Jeremy Laurence and Hans Peters)
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 20, 2010, 08:10:50 PM
My understanding is that the Chinese government's internally tightening the vice a bit on Western companies. For example in Shenzhen or Guangzhou (I forget which) which is apparently used as a test ground for Chinese law they want to make unionisation compulsory in all foreign enterprises with more than 10 employees and they've recently made collective bargaining a requirement in the already unionised joint foreign-Chinese ventures. If nothing else that will add at least 2% to a companies' labour costs but is also a way for the Chinese government to become far more involved if they so choose.
There's that, there is the rampant theft of IP, then there is the Google affair, and my favorite - the arrest of four Rio Tino execs for the "crime" of reviewing public media reports about Chinese steel companies (which under an Orwellian application of Chinese law, is apparently a form of commercial espionage).
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3f71bf2c-35f2-11df-aa43-00144feabdc0.html (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3f71bf2c-35f2-11df-aa43-00144feabdc0.html)
QuoteRio Tinto courts China as bribery trial begins
By William MacNamara and Patti Waldmeir
Published: March 22 2010 22:48 | Last updated: March 22 2010 22:48
In the nine months since the "Rio Four" were arrested in Shanghai on charges of taking bribes and stealing commercial secrets, speculation has ranged widely on the Chinese government's motivations in the case.
Of many complex political explanations, the favourite was the allegation that the arrests were payback for Rio Tinto's treatment of the Chinese steel industry in 2009, when the mining company resisted steelmakers' demands for a 45 per cent cut in benchmark iron ore prices.
The arrests also came soon after Rio abandoned plans for a $19.5bn (£13bn) capital injection from Chinalco, a Chinese state-owned miner, which led to a loss of face for the Chinese government.
Rio has never commented on the case. Tom Albanese, chief executive, was in Beijing on Monday meeting Chinese premier Wen Jiabao on the same day that his four employees started their trial in Shanghai, a move that may have been designed to mend relations with his biggest customer.
A representative of the London-listed mining company could not confirm what had happened in the courtroom on Monday, after reports that Stern Hu, Rio's head iron ore salesman in China, had admitted taking bribes .
Mr Hu's apparent admission raises questions about Rio's business practices in China. The foreign business community in the country is watching closely to see whether the Chinese government proves its case against the four men, though with media barred from the courtroom and parts of the trial held in secret, the government may struggle to convince observers the main impetus for the trial is not political.
The argument in Tuesday's court session is likely to turn on whether the amounts received by the Rio employees were legitimate commissions relating to iron ore sales, or whether they were illegal bribes.
But whatever the result, it is likely to feed the more general concern that China has recently become a much tougher place to do business. Lawyers who represent multinationals in China say foreign companies should be aware that Chinese laws, which are often vague and ill-enforced, can be used against them if they fall foul of the authorities, or one faction of officialdom.
Divisions appear to exist within the Chinese government over how to handle the Rio case, with the men originally accused of stealing state secrets, and later charged with the lesser crimes of bribery and commercial secrecy violations, in an apparent attempt to defuse the political impact of the case.
If the employees are sentenced after admitting misdeeds, Rio's relations with China could actually improve. The government could gain face by apparently vindicating its legal system. By separating the company from the actions of a few employees, Rio could claim the case was closed and move on to repairing ties with its most important customer. That task would be harder if the company found itself fighting a controversial court case, watched at the highest levels by blue-chip corporations and the Chinese politburo.
Rio is enmeshed in a larger, complex political situation in China that goes beyond a case of alleged middle-management corruption.
Rio and BHP Billiton, the other top Australian iron ore producer, are trying to change the traditional method of annual negotiations for pricing iron ore, as well as pushing for price rises that could reach record levels this year. Both initiatives depend on support from the state-owned Chinese steelmakers, but antagonism between the miners and the steelmakers last year over iron ore prices may have contributed to Mr Hu's arrest.
Rio is also pushing for an iron ore mining joint venture with BHP in Western Australia that is as controversial as the Rio employees' trial.
Steelmakers are concerned that the two big producers could influence prices by combining operations. Several antitrust authorities round the world are reviewing the proposed venture, and many are watching to see whether China's Ministry of Commerce (Mofcom) launches its own investigation.
Rio has hinted it is putting in place a wider programme to improve Chinese relations. It is trying to approach the right officials in China who can help it understand the extent of its relationship problems and then help solve them.
The first proof of such initiatives was Rio's announcement last week that it will jointly develop the Simandou iron orer deposit in Guinea with Chinalco.
In a speech at the China Development Forum in Beijing on Monday, Mr Albanese said Rio wanted to help Chinese corporations explore for mineral deposits within China. "Our iron ore, copper, aluminium, and other mined products help to build China," Mr Albanese said. "A positive relationship with this market is vital to the continued success of this company."
In effect what appears to have happened is a coerced plea agreement: the Chinese backed off the espionage charges in return for an admission on a lesser bribery charge. Of course because there are no real procedural or substantive safeguards in Chinese legal proceedings (Hu for example was not allowed counsel of his choice and the admissions were made on his behalf by the state lawyers foisted upon him), Hu didn't have any real choice.
China overplayed their hand here - they wanted RT to pull back on huge increases in iron ore prices, but the fact is that they can't get it cheaper from another supplier, so they are stuck. On the other hand, RT didn't want to alienate its largest customer over the long run. But these sorts of antics raise real questions for foreign companies about how much they are willing to put up with just to keep access to the China market. (Google for one has made the decision the other way .)
This is the sort of thing we expect from countries like Libya, but China has aspirations to be a fare more significant player than that.
My employer has huge problems in China getting the necessary licenses to operate plants or sales outlets. I think the main problem is that China wants technology transfer and does usually not allow for foreign majority ownership in many types of business. Which is not really acceptable in many aspects.
If China is becoming increasingly un-capitalist, why are they still so fucking succesful?
We need a real plan to bring them down.
Quote
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2010/0316/China-the-coming-costs-of-a-superbubble
China: the coming costs of a superbubble
China may seem to have defied the recession and the laws of economics. It hasn't. When China's bubble bursts, the global impact will be severe, spiking US interest rates.
Denver
The world looks at China with envy. China's economy grew 8.7 percent last year, while the world economy contracted by 2.2 percent. It seems that Chinese "Confucian capitalism" – a market economy powered by 1.3 billion people and guided by an authoritarian regime that can pull levers at will – is superior to our touchy-feely democracy and capitalism. But the grass on China's side of the fence is not as green as it appears.
In fact, China's defiance of the global recession is not a miracle – it's a superbubble. When it deflates, it will spell big trouble for all of us.
To understand the Chinese economy, consider three distinct periods: "Late-stage growth obesity" (the decade prior to 2008); "You lie!" (the time of the financial crisis); and finally, "Steroids 'R' Us" (from the end of the financial crisis to today).
Late-stage growth obesity
About a decade ago, the Chinese government chose a policy of growth at any cost. China's leaders see strong gross domestic product (GDP) growth not just as bragging rights, but as essential for political survival and national stability.
Because China lacks the social safety net of the developed world, unemployed people aren't just inconvenienced by the loss of their jobs, they starve; and hungry people don't complain, they riot and cause political unrest.
Remember the 1994 movie "Speed"? A young cop (Keanu Reeves) had to save passengers on a bus that would explode if its speed dropped below 50 m.p.h. Well, China is like that bus with 1.3 billion people aboard. If the Communist Party can't keep the economy growing at a fast clip, the result will be catastrophic.
To achieve high growth, China kept its currency, the renminbi, at artificially low levels against the dollar. This helped already cheap Chinese-made goods become even cheaper. China turned into a significant exporter to the developed economies.
Normally, if free-market economic forces were at work, the renminbi would have appreciated and the US dollar would have declined. However, had China let this occur, demand for its products would have declined, and its economy wouldn't have grown at roughly 10 percent a year, which it did during the past decade.
The more China sold to the United States, the more dollars it accumulated, and thus the more US Treasuries it bought, driving our interest rates down. US consumers responded to these cheap goods and cheap home loans by going on a buying binge.
However, companies and countries that grow at very high rates for a long time will inevitably suffer from late-stage growth obesity. Consider Starbucks: In 1999, it had 2,000 stores and was adding 1.8 stores a day. In 2007, when it had 10,000 stores, it had to open 5.5 stores a day in a desperate bid to keep growth rates up. This resulted in poor decisions and poor quality – a recipe for disaster.
In China, political pressure for full employment has led to similar late-stage growth obesity. In 2005, China built the largest shopping mall in the world, the New South China Mall: Today it's 99 percent vacant. China also built up a lavish district in a city called Ordos: Today, it's a ghost town.
You lie!
All good things come to an end, and great things come to an end with a bang. When the financial meltdown erupted in 2008, US and global banks started dropping like flies. Countries everywhere suffered contraction.
Even China.
During the crisis, Chinese exports were down more than 25 percent, tonnage of goods shipped through railroads was down by double digits, and electricity use plummeted.
Yet Beijing insisted that China had magically sustained 6 to 8 percent growth.
China lies. It goes to great lengths to maintain appearances, including censoring media and jailing those who write antigovernment articles. That's why we have to rely on hard data instead.
Steroids 'R' Us
Today the global economy is stabilizing, thanks to Uncle Sam and other "uncles" around the world. But the consumers of Chinese-made goods are still in debt, unemployment is high, and banks aren't lending. You might think the Chinese economy would be growing at a lower rate. But no, it is growing again at nearly 10 percent, as though the financial crisis never occurred.
Though this growth appears to be authentic – electricity consumption is back up – it is not sustainable growth, because it is based on an unprecedented stimulus package and extraordinary government involvement in the economy.
In the midst of the financial crisis, in late 2008, Beijing fire-hosed a $568 billion stimulus into the Chinese economy. That's enormous! As a percentage of GDP, it would be like a $2 trillion stimulus in America, nearly triple the size of the one Congress passed last year.
It gets even more interesting. Unlike Western democracies, whose central banks can pump a lot of money into the financial system but can't force banks to lend or consumers and corporations to spend, China can achieve both at lightning speed.
The government controls the banks, so it can make them lend, and it can force state-owned enterprises (one-third of the economy) to borrow and to spend. Also, because the rule of law and human and property rights are still underdeveloped, China can spend infrastructure project money very fast – if a school is in the way of a road the government wants to build, it becomes a casualty for the greater good.
Government is horrible at allocating large amounts of capital, especially at the speed it is done in China. Political decisions (driven by the goal of full employment) are often uneconomical, and corruption and cronyism result in projects that destroy value.
To maintain high employment, China has poured money into infrastructure and real estate projects. This explains why, in 2009, new floor space doubled and residential real estate prices surged 25 percent. This also explains why the Chinese keep building new skyscrapers even though existing ones are still vacant.
The enormous stimulus has exacerbated problems that already existed, threatening to turn China into a less shiny but more drastic version of debt-riddled Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
What happens in China doesn't stay in China. A meltdown there – or even a slowdown – would have severe consequences for the rest of the world.
It will tank the commodity markets. Demand for industrial goods will fall off the cliff. Finally, Chinese appetite for our fine currency will diminish, driving the dollar lower against the renminbi and boosting our interest rates higher. No more 5 percent mortgages and 6 percent car loans.
No shortcuts to greatness
We look at China and are mesmerized by its 1.3 billion people, its achievements of the past decade, its recent economic resiliency, and its ability to achieve spectacular results on the fly. But we have to remember that economic bubbles are usually just a good thing taken too far. The Chinese economy is no exception. Its long-term future may be bright, but in the short run we've got a bubble on our hands.
Everyone wants a shortcut to greatness, but there isn't one. China has been trying to bend the laws of economics for a while, and with the control it exerts over its economy it may seem that it's succeeded.
But this is only a temporary mirage, which must be followed by a painful reality. No, there is no shortcut to greatness – not in personal life, not in politics, and not in economics.
Vitaliy N. Katsenelson is a portfolio manager/director of research at Investment Management Associates in Denver. He is the author of "Active Value Investing: Making Money in Range-Bound Markets."
Quote from: KRonn on March 24, 2010, 11:41:26 AM
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2010/0316/China-the-coming-costs-of-a-superbubble
China: the coming costs of a superbubble
I'm starting to see more of this kind of commentary. I wonder how bad it will be when the bubble bursts?
More business withdrawals from China, though this time it is just small fry.
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/192308/go_daddy_to_stop_registering_cn_domain_names.html (http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/192308/go_daddy_to_stop_registering_cn_domain_names.html)
QuoteGo Daddy to Stop Registering .cn Domain Names
* More...
* Facebook
* Twitter
* Digg
* Print
ShareThis
By Grant Gross, IDG News Service
GoDaddy.com, the world's largest domain name registrar, will stop registering .cn domains in China after the government there has demanded personal information about people who have purchased domain names from GoDaddy in the past, the company said Wednesday during a hearing in the U.S. Congress.
People who read this also read:
People Who Like This Also Like
*
Google Still Censoring Porn for Redirected Chinese Users 32168942
*
Google Protects Gmail Users with Suspicious Activity Alert 32182590
*
Sony to Nintendo: 3D a 'bit of a stretch' 32188286
*
Microsoft to Update Communications Server 32181998
*
Google Services Survive in China So Far, but Users Worry 32135624
*
OpenDNS Reaches Milestone in DNS Services 32175906
Recommendations by Loomia
GoDaddy's decision, announced at a Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC) hearing, comes after the Chinese government has demanded that the registrar provide photo identification, business identification and physically signed registration for all .cn domains registered through GoDaddy.com in the six years the company has been operating in China, said Christine Jones, executive vice president, general counsel and corporate secretary for the Go Daddy Group, GoDaddy.com's parent company.
"We're concerned about the security of the individuals affected by [the] new requirements," Jones said. "Not only that, but we're concerned about the chilling effects we believe the requirements could have on new domain name registrations, and therefore, the free exchange of ideas on the Internet."
Previously, China's domain-name authority, CNNIC, had only required GoDaddy to collect the name, address and e-mail address of .cn customers, and that information is commonly provided when people register domain names worldwide, Jones said. CNNIC requested the additional personal information for all domain owners in February, and it appeared to GoDaddy that the Chinese government was trying to gain more control over who registers domain names, she added.
CNNIC told GoDaddy that if it did not provide the additional information, "the domain names were going to stop working," Jones said. "We have 40 million domain names under management. We've done this a lot. This is the first time any registry has ever asked use to retroactively obtain information on individuals who have registered domain names through our company."
GoDaddy.com's decision to scale back its Chinese business comes two days after Google stopped censoring search results, news information and photos in China. Members of the CECC praised both companies for taking a stand against Chinese censorship and surveillance.
GoDaddy will continue to offer service to its past .cn customers but will register no new .cn domains out of concern for the safety of customers, Jones said.
Google's decision to stop censoring its search results in China is a "remarkable, historic and welcomed action," said Representative Chris Smith, a New Jersey Republican. "Google fired a shot heard 'round the world, and now a second American company has answered the call to defend the rights of the Chinese people."
GoDaddy has several other complaints about doing business in China, Jones said. The company fought off "dozens" of denial-of-service attacks originating from inside China this year, she said.
In addition, an "overwhelming majority" of Web sites promoted by spam e-mail are hosted in China, and the Chinese government seems to be encouraging spamming as a business model, Jones said.
Senator Byron Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat, said China wants global respect, but respected countries don't censor ideas or lock up citizens without trials.
"China wants to participate in the marketplace -- the marketplace of goods -- but to keep the marketplace of ideas outside of their country," he said. "Respected countries ... don't fear ideas or people or speech."
There were busy signals during multiple calls to the press office at the Chinese Embassy in Washington, D.C., Wednesday afternoon.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 25, 2010, 05:23:30 AM
I'm starting to see more of this kind of commentary. I wonder how bad it will be when the bubble bursts?
This kind of impeding doom of the Chinese economy commentary has been going on for at least a decade. I have a hard time taking it seriously anymore. When the shit does hit the fan, and like in all countries, it will, the most the pundits will be able to say is that they've predicted 6,000 of the past 1 recessions. ;)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 24, 2010, 11:11:34 AM
But these sorts of antics raise real questions for foreign companies about how much they are willing to put up with just to keep access to the China market. (Google for one has made the decision the other way .)
I imagine quite a few will be willing to put up with the BS in exchange for access to the Chinese market (RT itself is certainly trying to) - provided they can still make a profit. Google (which also wasn't close to being the dominant search engine in China) and a few others may be the exception to the rule.
Why would it blow? It's not like the Chinese gov is going to stop doing any of that manipulation anytime soon.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on March 25, 2010, 06:04:54 AM
I imagine quite a few will be willing to put up with the BS in exchange for access to the Chinese market (RT itself is certainly trying to) - provided they can still make a profit. Google (which also wasn't close to being the dominant search engine in China) and a few others may be the exception to the rule.
Their willingness to aid our enemies to make a buck is disconcerting.