Chinese Economics Thread

Blackstone said:

Let's ditch the emotional outburst and address the facts of the article.

Click to expand...

No, let's not, because the tone of the article reflects the entire point of the exercise, which is not to carefully investigate India's development prospects past and present, but to reassure Chinese of their own superiority. Any number of western articles share the same perspective, only with China as the nation that needs to be "put in its place", and members here have no difficulty recognising such articles for what they are and distinguishing them from attempts at genuine engagement and understanding, and nor do I have any difficulty recognising the same kind of smug, self-satisfied hit job aimed at India.

I celebrate Chinese achievements for the same reason I celebrate Indian achievements and Indonesian achievements and Brazilian achievements and indeed all achievements of humanity in having their peoples emerge into the kind of prosperity that Euro-American cultures have long enjoyed, and of reclaiming their cultural dignity in the process. It is always sad -- though unsurprising -- to discover that the same attitude of contempt for the rest of humanity expressed by many westerners during their era of ascendance (i.e. the last few centuries) is just waiting to emerge (or re-emerge...) amongst others as soon as their societies are in a position to look down upon others.

Lethe said:

No, let's not, because the tone of the article reflects the entire point of the exercise, which is not to carefully investigate India's development prospects past and present, but to reassure Chinese of their own superiority. Any number of western articles share the same perspective, only with China as the nation that needs to be "put in its place", and members here have no difficulty recognising such articles for what they are and distinguishing them from attempts at genuine engagement and understanding, and nor do I have any difficulty recognising the same kind of smug, self-satisfied hit job aimed at India.

Click to expand...

To begin with the author is NOT Chinese He is Indian and it has nothing to do with superiority feeling
The first steps of progress is self inspection and acknowledgement of one short coming.
The proof is overwhelming that culture did play a role in economic development . Take example of Mongolia and Korea both country are Asian but different culture Korea follow Confucianism which put emphasize of reason. learning, hard work,family. to save for rainy day.

Mongolia is nomadic they get all what they need from the land in the form of animal husbandry etc. They work to satisfy their immediate need.And no need to advanced or improve oneself. Now can you tell which country is more advanced?



Sometime progress require sacrifice and it is the duty of politician to make the people accept the sacrifice in order to get better life. Now here where reason come. When the people are reasonably they will make that sacrifice If people are not then they demand even more entitlement . And in democracy politician will relent and give what their constituent demand in order to garner vote

Lethe said:

Hello, Australian here.



Actually Turnbull has made

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

comments regarding his conversation with the US President. The only thing he has denied is the claim that Trump hung up the phone call.

As for China ... frankly I think you've got it the wrong way around. The Australian government has made a domestic political commitment that asylum seekers will never be resettled in Australia: rather they are to be housed in offshore facilities and in other nations and, if their claims are approved, resettled in other nations. The difficulty for Australia has been finding other nations willing to take asylum seekers off Australia's hands on a consistent basis.

Enter the Obama administration. Turnbull and Obama arranged to transfer up to 1250 asylum seekers on a one-off basis, representing basically all of those currently languishing in Manus Island and on Nauru. Now, the question you have to ask is why did Washington offer to make this arrangement? When you see the awkward position that Turnbull is in now, you have the answer: it gives Washington leverage over the Australian government. Leverage at a time when the US military is setting up shop in Darwin and agitating for a more "assertive" policy with China. Leverage, in other words, that could be very useful in advancing Washington's strategic objective of containing China.

And now Trump comes along and threatens to blow things up, because he's an idiot who doesn't understand how to win friends and influence people. The recklessness and belligerence of the Trump administration is occasioning a long overdue public discussion in Australia of the merits of our current relationship with the United States. While that discussion is still far too timid for my tastes, it is an enormous improvement over the situation even twelve months ago.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the information from Australian perspective. One thing great about SD forum is we are in a multi-national forum to share knowledge and information.

Regarding the "Trump is an idiot", I have a different thought. Maybe he is very smart in using the leverage now, harvesting the fruit planted by Obama? Using the refugee leverage to get something more out of Australia? See, he is not (yet) blowing things up, but ONLY threatening, that's exactly how one does. Maybe soon Australia will concede something, and we will see Trump fulfill his "intention" of honoring that agreement?

Lethe said:

Blackstone said:

Let's ditch the emotional outburst and address the facts of the article.

Click to expand...

No, let's not, because the tone of the article reflects the entire point of the exercise, which is not to carefully investigate India's development prospects past and present, but to reassure Chinese of their own superiority. Any number of western articles share the same perspective, only with China as the nation that needs to be "put in its place", and members here have no difficulty recognising such articles for what they are and distinguishing them from attempts at genuine engagement and understanding, and nor do I have any difficulty recognising the same kind of smug, self-satisfied hit job aimed at India.

I celebrate Chinese achievements for the same reason I celebrate Indian achievements and Indonesian achievements and Brazilian achievements and indeed all achievements of humanity in having their peoples emerge into the kind of prosperity that Euro-American cultures have long enjoyed, and of reclaiming their cultural dignity in the process. It is always sad -- though unsurprising -- to discover that the same attitude of contempt for the rest of humanity expressed by many westerners during their era of ascendance (i.e. the last few centuries) is just waiting to emerge (or re-emerge...) amongst others as soon as their societies are in a position to look down upon others.

Click to expand...

I agree with Blackstone that we should keep emotion away. As Hendrik has said in #6792, the author of the article that you got "pissed" was Indian, not Chinese, Pakistani or Westerner. It is not rare that some author use extreme self-defaming tactics to make a strong point when investigating their own cultures. Some of them, not all, are very patriotic, but very disappointed in their own countries' apparent backwardness. To give an example in turn, there is a Chinese author who wrote a controversial essay "The Ugly Chinaman". Not every Chinese can accept his view nor the style of the writing, but he did raise a hot debate among Chinese during the 1980s, the beginning of China's change. I was very involved in the debate with my peers, he may be wrong and extreme in many ways, but he did open our eyes to wonder why China was backward even the final conclusion is opposite to the author.

Maybe the Indian author is inspired to do the same?

taxiya said:

.. but he did open our eyes to wonder why China was backward even the final conclusion is opposite to the author.
.

Click to expand...

What were his and the actual conclusion?

t2contra said:

What were his and the actual conclusion?

Click to expand...

to put it simple, his conclusion is that Chinese traditions are responsible for every recent failure of China. There is no actual conclusion, but many conclusions of many readers including myself. I can only speak for what I concluded, in a simple way, China had her rights and wrongs, but the very facts of China's long lasting past leading position of the world proves his harsh conclusion wrong if that is what he really believes which I doubt he really does, I also believes that he has pointed out many very valid focal point of differences between China and the west that dragged China's behind.

If one looks at the cold hard facts, there is no real empirical evidence or support that democracy does anything benefitcial as far as economic development is concerned.

The western democracies did not earn their power, wealth and position as democracies.

The sole exception may be America, but then I would argue the annexation of an entire continent's worth of land and resources, slavery, the opium trade and sheer good luck to be the only major power who's homeland was not devsstabled by the world wars did far more to get America to where it is today than democracy.

If one was to backtrace Imperial China's decline, I would argue the start was went the ancient Chinese got too full of themselves and started believed in racial superiority, inherent superiority of their systems of governance and manifest destiny BS nonsense.

The key to China's current success is simple, rather than trying to downplay other's successes and making wet dream predictions of what should happen, the Chinese are far more concerned about learning the actual reasons for success so they can apply it to their own efforts.

The west overwhelmingly sneeringly chalk that off as mindless copy pasting, but in my experience, the Chinese copycats often have a far more sound grasp of the fundamentals of success and than the western originals.

Far too often now western 'innovations' are more about cosmetic changes and reinvention of the wheel, and one of the primary causes is actually the thing the west most commonly cite as an advantage in their innovation - intellectual property.

Yes, IP protection is important, but only up to a reasonable point.

Western IP protection is vastly imbalanced and often works to the detriment of innovation and end user experience.

Leaving aside all the patent troll companies, and just look at all the frankly pathetic patent court battles between the likes of Apple and Samsung.

Fatal flaws in the western patent system means people are able to successfully file for absurdly broad patents. And often core technology that is fundamental to an entire industry could be monopolised and used to extra exorbitant fees and/or stifle completion.

So you have various top technology companies spending vast sums and time to reinvent the wheel just enough so it is no longer covered by your rival's patents rather than looking to develop the next step in technology breakthroughs.

That is a key reason China has been able to catch up so quickly technologically.

There are many areas where I would argue Chinese innovation is more valuable and useful.

Take the popular Chinese apps like WeChat and QQ. There is simply nothing comparable to them in the west.

There are apps and services that offer parts of the capabilities those apps brings, but none that offers anything like the full range of functions and capabilities.

Not because Chinese coders are inherently better than their western counterparts, but because western IP protection is far too stringent as to start stifling creativity and competition.

The key issue seems to be that significant parts of the western public, if not the overwhelming majority, have become conditioned to only care about the superficial form of something so much that it overrides any rational analysis of the actual substance.

Say 'good' words like democracy, freedom, capitalism, patriotism etc, and people will be positive of pretty much anything you wrap in those labels irrespective of their he actual merits of what you are selling them.

In this regard, I fully agree with what the original article said about people starting to ignore facts and reason, but rather than limit it to the developing world, I would argue that it is in fact much of the developed world that is suffering the most from this rejection of facts and reason.

The most recent and significant examples being the Brexit vote and the election of Trump.

taxiya said:

Regarding the "Trump is an idiot", I have a different thought. Maybe he is very smart in using the leverage now, harvesting the fruit planted by Obama? Using the refugee leverage to get something more out of Australia? See, he is not (yet) blowing things up, but ONLY threatening, that's exactly how one does. Maybe soon Australia will concede something, and we will see Trump fulfill his "intention" of honoring that agreement?

Click to expand...

The agreement still gives Washington leverage over Australia, but less than if the arrangement had not been called into question publicly by Trump.

The issue is important for the Australian government because it has made a public commitment that no asylum seekers arriving by boat will ever be resettled in Australia. This message is intended specifically to deter asylum seekers from coming to Australia, and is the culmination of a generation of policies pursued by Australian governments designed to satisfy domestic political constituencies demanding "secure borders". The former Prime Minister John Howard put it succinctly when he said that "we will decide who comes to this country, and the circumstances under which they come."

It is never admitted as such, but the disproportionate political focus in Australia on "boat people" basically acts as a safety valve for the expression of broader societal anxieties about immigration in general. Something like 30% of Australians were born overseas, a higher ratio than any other country of significant size, higher than USA and much higher than UK. At the same time, the level of anxiety about immigration in Australia, although growing for similar reasons as in other western nations of late, seems lower than most of those nations. And unfortunately, I think the fact that successive governments have managed to redirect the bulk of anxieties toward a small subset of prospective immigrants, i.e. boat people, is one of the reasons that there has not been a stronger backlash against immigration levels more broadly.

So the Australian government is caught between the political imperative fulfil its promise that no asylum seekers arriving by boat will ever be resettled in Australia, and the lesser problems that are posed by indefinite detention of asylum seekers in other localities, some of whom have been there for years. The direct costs of such policies are high, the arrangements with foreign government precarious, the criticism of conditions from the UN, humanitarian organisations, and the political left (a category in which I include myself) in Australia unrelenting, and there are regular "incidents" that bring the matter to national political attention and controversy, such as those in which asylum seekers commit suicide, including by immolating themselves, or a pregnant asylum seeker in a country that does not permit abortions, or hostile relations between current and former asylum seekers and local peoples, or reports into the mental wellbeing of, especially, children who are in detention.

The deal between the Turnbull government and the Obama administration therefore promises to take a great load off the Australian government by all but emptying our current offshore detention facilities of asylum seekers, some of whom have been there for years. And therein lies the leverage that the agreement gives Washington over Australia.

But by publicly calling the arrangement into question, Trump has already caused the Australian government a significant degree of embarrassment. Trump is by no means popular here, and his objections have highlighted the fact that the Australian government is beholden to his whims. In this light, if the deal were to fall apart, Turnbull would be able to say -- or rather project indirectly -- that, look, we did the best we could, but the new US administration is just unreasonable and does not honour its word. It's possible that Turnbull could even spin the development to his political advantage by projecting that he "stood up to" Trump on behalf of Australia and did not cave to his unreasonable demands. After this public dispute, the domestic political costs to Turnbull of failing to implement the agreement are much lower than they would've been otherwise.

On the other hand, if Washington had sought to use its leverage privately, e.g. "You don't want B-1 bombers based in Darwin? Wouldn't it be unfortunate if something were to happen to the asylum seeker transfer agreement you signed last year", that could well have been an effective source of political pressure. Once tensions are aired in public, matters of national pride and the domestic political standing of politicians enter the picture, especially when the figure on the other side is as widely disliked in Australia as Donald Trump.

taxiya said:

I agree with Blackstone that we should keep emotion away. As Hendrik has said in #6792, the author of the article that you got "pissed" was Indian, not Chinese, Pakistani or Westerner.

Click to expand...

Gordon Chang is Chinese too, so what?

It is not rare that some author use extreme self-defaming tactics to make a strong point when investigating their own cultures. Some of them, not all, are very patriotic, but very disappointed in their own countries' apparent backwardness. To give an example in turn, there is a Chinese author

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

who wrote a controversial essay "The Ugly Chinaman". Not every Chinese can accept his view nor the style of the writing, but he did raise a hot debate among Chinese during the 1980s, the beginning of China's change. I was very involved in the debate with my peers, he may be wrong and extreme in many ways, but he did open our eyes to wonder why China was backward even the final conclusion is opposite to the author.

Maybe the Indian author is inspired to do the same?

Click to expand...

Nobody denies that India has enormous problems and challenges to face. And anyone who engages with India in good faith, seeking to understand those issues and address them should be welcomed. But when you begin with absurd, sweeping, prejudicial claims such as the idea that India lacks "reason", it immediately becomes clear that such engagement and understanding is not the point of the exercise. Tell me, how do you send an orbiter to Mars without "reason"? How do you develop in parallel with the Greeks 2600 years ago without "reason"?

And downplaying the significance of India's economic growth by pointing out that the annual growth is, in absolute terms, less than China's is beyond stupid. We focus on growth as a percentage for a very good reason, because it tells the real story about what is going on. In absolute terms, China's annual growth did not overtake USA's until 2007! I guess nothing much had been happening in China before then? Of course this is just rubbish.

If anyone wants to engage in good faith with the problems in India, I certainly won't stand against them. Write about systemic corruption, or about the challenges of infrastructure development, or about striking the correct balance between the short-term imperative of economic growth and longer-term concerns about environmental degradation, health problems, etc. Write about communal tensions, caste discrimination, or the mistreatment of women in Indian society. Write about the social and economic implications of rampant inequality. Write about managing scarce water resources across intra- and inter-national boundaries. Write about managing relations with Pakistan. Write about trade policy and the best means of encouraging self-sufficiency in agriculture, industry, technology, etc. Write about flaws and necessary improvements in the education system. Write about problems in federal/state divisions of power. Write about anything real, but not garbage like the idea that India lacks "reason".

Lethe said:

Gordon Chang is Chinese too, so what?



Nobody denies that India has enormous problems and challenges to face. And anyone who engages with India in good faith, seeking to understand those issues and address them should be welcomed. But when you begin with absurd, sweeping, prejudicial claims such as the idea that India lacks "reason", it immediately becomes clear that such engagement and understanding is not the point of the exercise. Tell me, how do you send an orbiter to Mars without "reason"? How do you develop

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

in parallel with the Greeks 2600 years ago without "reason"?

And downplaying the significance of India's economic growth by pointing out that the annual growth is, in absolute terms, less than China's is beyond stupid. We focus on growth as a percentage for a very good reason, because it tells the real story about what is going on. In absolute terms, China's annual growth did not overtake USA's until 2007! I guess nothing much had been happening in China before then? Of course this is just rubbish.

If anyone wants to engage in good faith with the problems in India, I certainly won't stand against them. Write about systemic corruption, or about the challenges of infrastructure development, or about striking the correct balance between the short-term imperative of economic growth and longer-term concerns about environmental degradation, health problems, etc. Write about communal tensions, caste discrimination, or the mistreatment of women in Indian society. Write about the social and economic implications of rampant inequality. Write about managing scarce water resources across intra- and inter-national boundaries. Write about managing relations with Pakistan. Write about trade policy and the best means of encouraging self-sufficiency in agriculture, industry, technology, etc. Write about flaws and necessary improvements in the education system. Write about problems in federal/state divisions of power. Write about anything real, but not garbage like the idea that India lacks "reason".

Click to expand...

Gordon Chang is different from Bo Yang.
1. Gordon has Chinese heritage, but not a Chinese, rather an American. Bo Yang is a Chinese national/citizen. Their purpose is different, one want China down, the other want China up albeit through a controversial means. Huge difference. Therefor, Chinese take Bo Yang's words much seriously than Gordon Chang. BTW, Bo Yang was born in mainland China in 1920s and moved to Taiwan after the civil war, so he wrote his essay in Taiwan, but nobody in present day PRC took him offensive.

2. All your arguments and ways are called "constructive criticism", that is good. And most of your statements are right. I was not opposing that, but rather advising you not to take it offensive.
My example is Bo Yang who took an opposite approach "destructive criticism", an provocative one. His approach was not accepted by all Chinese in PRC, ROC or other countries, just like you couldn't accept that Indian author's approach. That is ok. But what I wanted to point out is that being able to listen to the unpleasant harsh criticism is sometimes good for oneself, it is another kind of maturity. At least many Chinese back in the 1980s were willing to listen.