What Is the Chinese Economic Model?

http://www.tapsns.com/blog/index.php/2010/01/what-is-china/

by ilamont • 17 years ago

95 83 17 years ago

newsio• 17 years ago

The list under the subheading "What Is the Chinese Economic Model?" is worth reading. He is overly harsh on some points ("there is perhaps a 30-year supply of poverty-level wage earners happy to make export goods at below global cost") but he is right on the money for others (currency manipulation, stolen IP, etc.)

Note that this came out more than a week before Google made its announcement that it was considering pulling out of China. I think other startups or established companies considering an expansion into China should read this first. There are certainly opportunities, but lots of asterisks too.

BrentRitterbeck2• 17 years ago

Sorry about the downvote. It was a mouse slip. It should have been a +1.

nfnaaron• 17 years ago

"When one of Australia’s top mining firms, Rio Tinto, refused to allow China’s Chinalco to double its ownership interest last year (to 18%), China arrested local CEO (and Australian citizen) Stern Hu and three managers, who remain in jail today, under espionage charges. China denies any connection. In politics, thought, and business, China remains a police state."

I think any CEO should be concerned about his and his employees' safety in light of this kind of thing.

misdirection• 17 years ago

> at below global cost

The funny thing about cost is that it defines itself.

mrtron• 17 years ago

Not when you manipulate your currency and throw aside human rights and environmental restrictions.

The playing field isn't level.

showerst• 17 years ago

For those looking for actual economic policy history and statistics, I suggest Barry Naughton's excellent "The Chinese Economy: Transitions and Growth" http://www.amazon.com/Chinese-Economy-Transitions-Growth/dp/...

It's a textbook, but extremely readable and full of interesting history, as well as modern stats and tables.

garply4• 17 years ago

"At a time when the world thinks the communist model has been proved obsolete, China remains a communist country. In fact, under the current leader, Hu Jintao, human rights in China have recently suffered and are now in serious decline, according to Amnesty International-USA, the Committee to Protect Journalists, Human Rights Watch, and others."

I take two related issues with this statement:

1) He says "in fact... human rights have recently suffered" as if it demonstrates that China remains a communist country. Certainly attempts at communist societies and human rights violations are correlated in recent history, but human rights violations are not evidence of communism.

2) China is not communist, it is Communist - that is, run by a political party which has the name Communist in it. People use the phrase "communist China" as slur. I believe this perpetuates the notion that China is actually communist among a non-trivial portion of the American population. It would be better to call attention to China's authoritarianism, which I think is what he's taking issue with.

poutine11• 17 years ago

While China is certainly not communist in the literal sense do not underestimate the extent that the Communist party and its ideals pervade society.

However I do agree that China is better referred to as an Authoritarian government with communist and capitalist influences.

Also, we should all not underestimate how revolutionary the Chinese can be. They have a short fuse and do not in general enjoy the authoritarian regime. They put up with it for strictly pragmatic reasons, if given a path of their own choosing that they perceive as better they quite possibly will take it.

rw• 17 years ago

Imagine saying "Capitalist America". How accurate is that? Not very :-)

zaphar5• 17 years ago

Name an attempt at communism that isn't correlated with human rights violations. The fact is that despite the "ideals" of pure "communism" every time it's tried bad things happen.

garply4• 17 years ago

That wasn't my point, but here's an example anyway:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Reunion_(Dallas)

garply4• 17 years ago

One seeming inconsistency that stuck out at me is how he criticizes China's lack of free market behavior - he uses the pegging of the RMB to demonstrate this, which is definitely valid support for his argument - and simultaneously decries the "slave wages" paid to workers.

Claiming the workers are underpaid relative to the USD because of the RMB peg is one thing, but saying that they underpaid relative to their own economy (which is how I interpret "slave wages") is a very different thing. He suggests that the government is the source of these "slave wages". In what way is the government responsible for low wages for uneducated workers when those workers are in competition with many other uneducated workers in a country with a population of ~1.3 billion?

Is it so unreasonable that an "auntie" who cleans houses and does laundry for a living is paid about 1.25 USD / hour (approximately the rate here in Beijing) when a low-level analyst at McKinsey here makes 15,000 USD a year? In relative terms, the manual laborer doesn't seem like she's making slave wages to me.

pchristensen2• 17 years ago

He meant it literally - he said you don't have to pay construction workers for the first 6-12 months of a job, and you could fire them before that time without consequences.

"If you are building a downtown tower in Shanghai (and there are a lot of them, many empty), you may not have to pay some of your workers for six months to a year. Or you fire them just before that: free labor!"

SlyShy• 17 years ago

Yes, this kind of payment withholding happens to immigrant workers almost always, and to native Chinese workers often.

That's not to mention the children and mentally handicapped that are literally sold into slavery. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1635144,00.htm...

poutine11• 17 years ago

Though it's in a bubble, Beijing's current median salary to median house price is 1:27. Normally anything over 1:4 is considered expensive. That analyst will have a hell of a time getting an apartment, nevermind the Ayi (aunt).

The Ayi doesn't have much beyond a subsistence living. Needless to say she's probably supported as well by her kids or something, but if not she's in a world of hurt when she's too old to work.

I do appreciate why it's used but slave wages is probably the wrong term, the Ayi is working in a market economy that simply has way too many completely unskilled workers for the work needing done.

grandalf11• 17 years ago

China's currency manipulations harms its export industries' profits at the expense of all Chinese consumers.

pchristensen2• 17 years ago

Well that's the scariest thing I've read in a long time. Turns out the image of China as a worthy, powerful opponent destined to greatness is a carefully crafted ruse. There's no doubt about it's power but some of the stuff in the article would make a young Bill Gates blush.

I wonder what would have to happen for America and Europe to stand up and deal with this? What would be worth the conflict and political outcry due to temporarily lowered standard of living?

poutine11• 17 years ago

It suits those in power in western governments to paint China as an existential threat to their respective countries. The reality is somewhat more complicated but it will be impressive if China manages to hold itself together over the next 20 years, never mind becoming a superpower which is laughable on examination.

grandalf11• 17 years ago

You're supposed to feel scared, that's the goal of that kind of propaganda. You may feel better if you read my other comment:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1056013

poutine11• 17 years ago

After working (in tech, not as an english teacher) and living in China for several years this is pretty much on the mark.

The deck is stacked against foreign companies. If they get large enough their business will be manipulated to fail in the favour of a home grown competitor. There is no effective rule of law and most foreign companies are seen as resources to strip and discard when their utility has ended.

(I had posted a more detailed comment along these lines in the Google thread here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1050829 )

China also has a looming demographic timebomb that will tear the country apart. This year was the peak of the working age percent of the workforce. From now on the ratio of working age adults will only decline (thanks to the single child policy). China isn't wealthy enough to support all those non-working people.

The world needs to start being more forceful with China. We don't want their model to succeed. Trust me, you don't want to live in that world.

garply4• 17 years ago

Foreign businesses won't necessarily fail - I think what is primarily necessary for a foreign company to be successful in China is for it to cede a significant portion of control and operation to Chinese co-owners / managers of the company. Essentially, to people who understand and are willing to work with the current system.

Successful examples would include Starbucks, KFC, Pizza Hut.

poutine11• 17 years ago

Indeed these business are quite successful (especially KFC and McDonalds) but I believe they're mostly joint ventures which in itself has a whole bunch of pitfalls.

More importantly they're in an exceptional business segment (that of selling western fast food) which local Chinese companies are unable to play almost by definition. I suppose Intel is another example, but that's really only due to the fact that it's also not practical to have a local competitor to it. They would if they could.

I'm sure you could find other companies where there's an exception, so my statements and that of the OP's article should only be taken as generalities. But I believe they're true much more often than not.

est4• 17 years ago

> If they get large enough their business will be manipulated to fail in the favour of a home grown competitor

Rationally, it's just the competitor will take advantage of your foreign identity to against you. Nationalism is an important market factor to consider when doing business in east Asian countries.

It's more serious if your business is in strategically critical industries.

poutine11• 17 years ago

No, this is much more than something like "Buy American". It is not an appeal to the consumers patriotism. It is structural and government favouritism and outright corruption.

If it were up to the Chinese consumer they would actually prefer to buy a foreign product assuming they could afford it. Foreign brands are associated with quality and status. And after all, foreign companies are not poisoning their milk and killing babies.

jhancock9• 17 years ago

Western IT and Internet companies find themselves being marginalized and having their intellectual property copied. There exists quite a bit of local innovation in applying tech to China as much applied tech requires different workflow models, so not everything that is copied can be applied directly with success.

Many consumer product companies: Coke, P&G, Nike, etc.. have done well. How their revenue breaks down to sharing with local partners and how much gets back to the international public entity is unknown to me.

The article makes some good points, but still tries to label the gov as "Communist China". The author makes a good case for educating Westerners that China isn't what you think it is. We need more of this kind of talk. But reusing the old label of "Communist China" misses the mark. I don't know what a better label would be.

I agree with much of what you have said. The deck is stacked against many types of foreign companies. It is well past time for these entities to start publicly acknowledging this.

All that said, I cannot agree with everything the author has said. His 9 points listed under "What is the Chinese Economic Model" are well identified (the bold bullet text itself). But his rational in each of the associated paragraphs is one-sided. He seems to fully support Western economic models without acknowledging their flaws and culpability in our engagements with China. Stolen IP? Slave labor? Western government and business knew this full well when we got started and we did it anyway because we reaped short-term value from doing so. We helped fuel this fire. We allowed the Yuan to be a fixed/manipulated currency and knew full well why China was doing it and what would happen after they amassed enough wealth. These "playbooks" have always been completely open. We may not be able to directly influence China, but we can directly influence the Western leaders we elect and the Western companies we buy goods and services from.

If you need to understand the mindset of the typical Chinese government official, I will offer this: Many of them are living a "good life" and those that support their governance are living good lives. They do not want economic growth to collapse and do not see communist-era economic methods as appropriate tools. They kept the structure of governance but replaced the tools. But even though the structure of governance has remained very similar, the number and variety of participants has changed considerably. Unlike most U.S. leaders and citizens, most Chinese have experienced great suffering. There is support by mainstream Chinese for much of the current heavy handed behavior and as such the government will continue to use such tools they feel are useful in hedging against various forms of collapse. Its critical to understand much of this is not big gov oppressing its people as the majority of Chinese approve of hedging against extreme failure at most all cost. Will this approach even out over a reasonable period of time? Will it avoid more severe outcomes? I have no idea. I do know if things get bad enough that it effects the security of Western countries, then its already extremely bad for the Chinese.

zaphar5• 17 years ago

The label "Communist China" is exactly the right label though. The Government of china is unashamedly communist and have no intention of ever changing. Maybe the reason you can't come up with a better label is because there isn't one.

noelchurchill• 17 years ago

(One good answer: five evil traders on the 7th floor at Goldman Sachs.)

What did they mean by this?

po• 17 years ago

> What could possibly be more dangerous to the world than a command economic system run on a global scale? > (One good answer: five evil traders on the 7th floor at Goldman Sachs.)

I didn't get that either. My reading of it was simply to answer the question of what could possibly be more dangerous? I don't think it's referencing any actual event, only pointing out that the western model is vulnerable to top-down destruction as well.

I think it's a bad point.

raphar• 17 years ago

I like the article and agree in the increasing threat of this nation. What it isn't mentioned, but I think it adds to the main points, is the relationship of China with Africa. You can read about this situation in this excelent report [2008 fast company]: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/126/special-report-china...

In short, the complete report tells how china is extracting and securing its future flow of raw materials. China is extracting all that is possible from the continent by every mean available to them.

Semiapies• 17 years ago

While not a prototypical example, "fascist" describes China's economic system from the 70s forward better than "communist". Fascist systems seem to tolerate private enterprise better than communist ones, though the government tends to pick winners and losers (and shamelessly back the winners with force, as in the Chinalco example).

Of course, in such a system, the government is still mucking about in the economy, substituting cronyism for market decisions, and trying to dictate profits and define their rate of economic growth just like that state legislature tried to redefine pi. Even Europe and the post-bailout US look like libertarian fantasies of free enterprise and transparency in comparison.

We have nothing to fear from the Chinese Model. Their explosive economic growth has almost certainly been exaggerated, and even if taken at face value, this fascist system still leaves China, aside from a few rich spots, closer to the third world than the first. Companies dealing with China should be aware of what they're getting into - but to put it coldly, they should do so at their own risk, without tariffs or rattled sabers on their behalf when things go wrong.

Tangentially, I'm a little amused that "locovorism" has a better cachet than open "anti-globalism".

Perceval2• 17 years ago

The Chinese model is not new. It's called mercantilism, and this was the predominant economic development model before Adam Smith's free trading capitalist critique of mercantilism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism

This is how the United States developed in the past. Alexander Hamilton's economic strategy for the United States followed a similar script. See his Report on Manufactures: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Report_on_Manufactures

This report was read by Friedrich List, who then wrote a similar development strategy for the 19th C. German economy. It was this strategy that made the German industrialization so rapid and effective. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_List

There are a number of spectators who have correctly characterized China's model as modern-day mercantilism (even though they disagree on specifics and the appropriate response):

Krugman: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/macroeconomic-ef...

NRO: http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett20031105...

grandalf11• 17 years ago

It's worth pointing out that some US economic policies count as mercantilism, and many Americans would prefer that the US adopt more mercantilist policies.

The US is far from a proponent of free trade!

Perceval2• 17 years ago

The U.S. most certainly is a proponent of free trade, even if we aren't the best practitioner of free trade.

As far as I know, only one country ever practiced fully free trade, and that was Great Britain for about thirty years starting in 1846 (after the repeal of the Corn Laws, a feat accomplished in part by David Ricardo, who you might remember came up with the theory of comparative advantage). This time period was more or less the height of the British Empire's power.

gamble• 17 years ago

The degree to which East Asian economies are built to exploit Western liberalism is almost as astonishing as the amount of abuse Western nations will tolerate in pursuit of another quarter's profit.

The Chinese may participate in free trade, but it's a mistake to assume they've become liberals in any sense. When the Chinese learn about free trade, it's in the context of gunboats shelling their cities to protect drug runners, not John Stuart Mill.

cturner• 17 years ago

    When one of Australia’s top mining firms, Rio Tinto,
    refused to allow China’s Chinalco to double its ownership
    interest last year (to 18%), China arrested local CEO
    (and Australian citizen) Stern Hu and three managers,
    who  remain in jail today, under espionage charges.
    China denies any connection. ... In politics, thought,
    and business, China remains a police state.

No. I'd support the conclusion, but the evidence presentation here is shabby.

The event that immediately preceded the Rio executive being arrested was the closing of contract negotiations for a yearly contract on iron ore shipments [1]. The rejected Chinalco acquisition mentioned in the quoted section was only a month before, but evidence for link of causality between that and the arrests is weaker than between the price negotiations and the arrests.

Other motivations need to be weighed up as well:

* At the time the arrest happened there were internal riots in China's western provinces (causing their leader to abort one of those G meetings and fly back to China). There's nothing like stirring up trouble against foreign devils as a mechanism to distract your people away from internal strife.

* The snubbing given to the Australian foreign office also suggests a political aspect. Did the Rudd government imply that it could cause things to happen that it could not deliver? Or did it hamper the process? Or are China just being big-girl's-blouse because they can? [2]

In weighing up iron ore issues you need to be aware that China is easily the largest producer [3]. It tends towards bilateral deals on 'strategic' commodities rather than working through global markets like the other major consumers (e.g. oil). This pushes the dynamic of areas affected by those commodities from flexible markets into a zero-sum game.

[1] See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_Tinto_Group#Arrests_in_Chin...

[2] "The Chinese seem determined to continue to humiliate Canberra.", http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/beijing-ramps-up-the-hu...

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Ore

drinian3• 17 years ago

While traveling in China, I realized that nearly everything about the way they do business, produce goods, etc. is far less efficient than in the US. Many activities that would be automated in the US require the interaction of many people; ever bought a train ticket online and had to pay a bike courier in cash to receive it?

If the Chinese let their currency float on the open market, my bet is that China would go from being extremely cheap for Westerners to fairly expensive. They're effectively using currency manipulation to compensate for an uncompetitive internal economic structure. (Hopefully in the long run they will be able to use what is in effect a huge foreign subsidy to fix their problems, but who knows).

poutine11• 17 years ago

This in many ways is quite desirable. China has so much excess labour that automation would cause severe problems.

I once worked with a North American automated parking meter company that was ambitious at entering the untapped Chinese market for parking meters. This was doomed since parking is almost always done by a parking attendant, even on the street. Parking is also often controlled by the owner of the block. The attendant is usually someones uncle or whatever that needs a subsistence job.

Another example are elevator attendants who sit on stools (often in private apartment buildings) and press the button for you. They often come with the building and are relatives of the manager or property developer. Absurd, but there you go.

Chinese work gangs always take at least 3 times more people to do the same job that you'd do in the west. Most of the peoples jobs in such a gang is to sit around watch and offer advice as far as I could tell.

heresy• 17 years ago

Coincidentally, this is though to be one of the reasons why the Industrial Revolution occurred in the West.

Because of the excess of cheap, expendable labour in China and India, there was never really any push for mechanization and automation and associated development of technology and methods related to mechanized production.

Of course, the ascendance of the science in the West also contributed substantially.

drinian3• 17 years ago

It might be desirable in the short-term, but as an expanding middle class and the one-child policy begin to shrink the population (and that is a very good thing, the world can't support a billion Chinese forever), then China's going to have to learn how to solve its problems with methods that don't involve throwing people at them. Not to mention that the West is probably going to end up paying for this, when the currency floats and suddenly all those factories in China are making $600 iPods instead of $300 ones.

Also, let's take your parking example. Putting aside the Chinese disregard for all road signs and instructions, let's imagine that they install coin-op parking meters. (Yes, I know, with the coin shortage in China this isn't realistic, etc. etc.). Your uncle now has the much easier job of cleaning out the meters, rather than running around all day. And maybe someone gets a skilled-labor job as a parking meter repairman?

jhancock9• 17 years ago

Good anecdotes. It is funny to think of a parking meter company trying to break into China. The last one, about work gangs sitting around doing nothing reminds me of just about every road construction crew I've ever seen in the U.S.

One thing that greatly impresses me is road construction work in Shanghai. I've seen them rebuild a street, completely rip it up, install new sewage and fiber optics at lightning speed. This entails coordination of at least 3 different departments of the municipal government. In contrast, there is a construction project on I-95 through the middle of Jacksonville, Florida that has been ongoing for over 20 years!!

grandalf11• 17 years ago

I'm shocked by the amount of anti-China bias on HN.

Consider a few points:

- The conditions inside US prisons (daily, predictable rape, etc.) rival those in any labor camp anywhere in the world.

- Many US prisoners are nonviolent drug offenders.

- Don't forget the human rights abuses in Abu Ghraib and Gitmo and the hundreds of thousands of innocents killed in our oil wars.

- China's main social issue is rich coastal cities and extremely poor inland areas. This geographical accident is behind many economic policies. The US is lucky to have rivers that tend to lead to a far more even distribution of wealth across geographical areas.

- In its early days the US embraced mercantilism. It has particular political causes and over all countries who practice it lose more than they gain from it, but the tradeof is considered worthwhile for political reasons in spite of its foolishness. In China's case, it represents a way to grow the Chinese economy while not risking social stability (which is considered highly important considering the above bullet).

- The US was also formerly a thief of intellectual property. Notably, many writers and publishing houses in England were irate that presses in the colonies paid no royalties, etc., a situation made worse after the American revolution.

- Massive sectors of the US economy are under significant government control, even before the bailouts. It's splitting hairs to bemoan China's "communism".

- The average person in China does not care about all the political nonsense that we are being propagandized to stew over. Most people all over the world just want to be able to lead a reasonably happy life, etc. China surely has some "backward" aspects, but consider that we did not have women's suffrage in the US until quite recently, and that we had a draft until VERY recently. Suppose China is 100 years behind, is that the end of the world? Do we really deserve to feel such righteous indignation?

poutine11• 17 years ago

I would like to clarify that at least personally I'm anti Chinese government and not anti China or the Chinese people. I love the country for many reasons and don't fundamentally wish it harm.

When someone points out something bad about a country it's silly to say they can't say that because there's bad things about their own country. There's bad things about every country, it doesn't make them beyond criticism.

And that sir is why you get my downvote.

PieSquared2• 17 years ago

You make a good distinction, I agree (between government and country).

Also, I think he doesn't deserve that downvote. He contributed his own thoughts, which were in no way rude or trollish, and seemed more or less educated. They also sparked a bit of interesting discussion. Anyway, my upvote balanced it out. ;)

grandalf11• 17 years ago

I think the problem with your stance is that you don't give the Chinese people credit for their own sovereignty.

Why is it not possible that Chinese leaders are not all-powerful despots who rule with an iron fist? They do not have absolute power, and regardless of whether they have official democracy, power is largely decentralized and influenced by populist needs (notably channeling some of the coastal wealth to the country's majority who are extremely poor)...

You are, I think, falling into what I call the "Saddam Trap". Saddam was a bad guy, most likely, but we were all told to hate him so that we'd support a war that killed hundreds of thousands of innocents.

I think a far more accurate and rational perspective is to realize that no ruler has fully centralized power and that by its nature decentralized power is essentially populist (if not somewhat democratic) in nature, even if there isn't an explicit constitution declaring it to be. The Tienanmen square uprising offers evidence of vibrant currents of dissent within China, and so change is inevitable over time. The question is why you think it must happen on your timetable or on the timetable of the Tienanmen protesters.

* * * *

Also, are you sure that the propaganda is not intended to make Americans view the Chinese people as broken saps held hostage by despots and worth sacrificing a few hundred thousand of should our leaders deem military action necessary? For all the concern about Saddam's despotism, the myriad innocent Iraqi dead from our oil war don't make US headlines.

jhancock9• 17 years ago

I agree that its fine to point out problems you've observed from living in China. Certainly no country is beyond criticism. I have been reporting the other side of the coin in my posts simply to balance out the conversation. I have a long list of negative stories from 10 years in Shanghai. Some are absolutely shocking. But I have an even longer list of positive things to say. I suspect most making negative posts here have little to no direct knowledge of daily life in China.

PieSquared2• 17 years ago

You're criticizing US past, mostly. That's key: it's the past. No one is criticizing foot binding here. If you want to provide examples of the US being immoral, make them current.

Now, I have no doubt there are dozens of examples. On the other hand, at least US laws allow the rest of the world to know about these examples when they happen.

And yes, if China is 100 years behind, it may be a significant. Is there any reason that the suppression present should be endured? The more pressure is put on China and other countries that devalue human rights, the sooner they'll have to change.

Personally, I would love to see more indignation at the United States as well. Some of the stuff going on with this country is just plain unacceptable for a first world country.

cglee2• 17 years ago

Indignation is precisely how NOT to engage China. The political culture is very different from the US. Leaders want face and respect above all - there are no Jon Stewart type shows poking fun at any political bosses. You want China to change - it is, at its fastest pace in its long history. You want China to improve its human rights record - it is, just not as fast as you'd like. The right course of action - FOR CHINA - is through incentives that make the leadership look good.

Another way to put it is, everyone learns differently. You don't publicly scold a sensitive child and think that is going to be effective. China is that sensitive child (at least relative to the in-your-face ways of US politics).

zaphar5• 17 years ago

China isn't just 100 years behind they are going backwards. China has a civilization going back 1000's of years. It's the comparatively recent changes in government for their country that have caused the ruin you see now.

    The conditions inside US prisons (daily, predictable rape, etc.) rival those in any labor camp anywhere in the world.

Those in US prisons for the most part all did something harmful to society that caused them to be put there. In China you get sent to prison for bad-mouthing the wrong person. I personally know people who have experienced this. And it's the norm not the exception. The comparison you make only demonstrates how truly different it is.

    China's main social issue is rich coastal cities and extremely poor inland areas. This geographical accident is behind many economic policies. The US is lucky to have rivers that tend to lead to a far more even distribution of wealth across geographical areas.

The inland areas aren't poor because of geography. They are poor because it suits the government for them to be so.

    Do we really deserve to feel such righteous indignation?

yes

grandalf11• 17 years ago

China believes that it imprisons people who are doing things that are harmful to its society. How is selling someone Marijuana harming society?

I think your conspiracy theory about China's poor regions is fairly off the wall. Look at the mountains and rivers and see how there are not good shipping routes, etc.

plinkplonk2• 17 years ago

"I'm shocked by the amount of anti-China bias on HN"

I think any bias that exists is not so much anti China as anti authoritarianism, anti-democracy, anti-suppression-of-freedom-of-speech, anti-bunch-of-thugs-killing-people-for-having-a-different-opinion etc.

I doubt it is really China specific. It is just that the present Chinese government is a nasty ruthless authoritarian dictatorship. The same arguments would be raised here against, say North Korea or Saudi Arabia in other circumstances.

People here seemed to be biased towards democracy, rule of law(even with occasional lapses), freedom of expression(even with an occasional lapse or imperfection) etc etc. Not sure it is a bad bias to have.

grandalf11• 17 years ago

You are right in the sense that one would hope that citizens of the US who live in a relatively free state would appreciate the concepts that we claim to hold above all else.

However, the question I have it "what should we do about it?".

Should we impose trade sanctions? (surely the US tire lobby would appreciate that). Should we begin flying drones over Beijing? (surely our defense lobby would appreciate that), should we engage the CIA to help Chinese dissidents bribe/assassinate Chinese officials who oppose democratic reforms? Should we send warships to wait near Taiwan?

All the ire must be directed into action if there is any purpose to it other than self-congratulatory "we're so great b/c we don't use tanks to shut down civilian protests, at least since the 1960s"...

What range of actions are you comfortable with? Which of them truly promote the interest of democracy and freedom in China, and which serve a more narrow or militaristic interest?

China is full of enlightened people who see the direction they wish China to go over time. Do they all want to become martyrs and die in some coup attempt engineered by the CIA? Or would they rather make a few sacrifices and do what they can to nudge their country toward change?

I think it's awfully arrogant for anyone in the US to attempt to engineer revolutions and suffering abroad. The sort of self-righteous moral high ground that China bashers use is essentially neoconservative ideology. Yet we are told it's about human rights. Wake up!

IsaacL• 17 years ago

An excellent article; my only caveat was at the beginning, where he basically said "China is not capitalist, it's communist because it lacks human rights". My initial thought was "it's possible for a country to be both capitalist and authoritarian." However, the rest of the article states his case more clearly.

grandalf11• 17 years ago

The article was full of poorly reasoned points. See my more elaborate rebuttal:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1056013

gscott• 17 years ago

Human rights in China is similar to here in the United States... as long as you stay out of trouble you are largely ignored. Once you do something that brings negative attention to yourself you can find yourself in the "system". A person doesn't want to get to closely exposed to the justice system of the United States, it is not always just.

danbmil99• 17 years ago

"But reusing the old label of "Communist China" misses the mark. I don't know what a better label would be."

They've created something new, and it seems to be very powerful. By allowing some small-scale free-market enterprise at the local level, but keeping iron-fisted control at the top, they seem to be maximizing their competitiveness wrt the rest of the world, in a no-holds-barred fashion.

Our Western system is in some ways inherently too fair to compete effectively with this new scenario. Not sure what that means but I suspect it isn't great if you're a big fan of western ideals, most particularly the idea that the rights of individuals should be paramount.

I sometimes wonder if Asian cultures simply don't believe that the way we do. They seem to have a bit more of a 'hive mind' thing going on. Europe and USA have had to deal with a crazy mix of cultures and ethnicities; not so much in Asia.

lucifer• 17 years ago

Strike a strategic deal with the International Banking Cabal (HQ: Basel, Switzerland), whereby they move production capacity from the West to China and China agrees to continue the Ponzi scheme affectionately known as the "International Monetary System" by buying the bonds of the consumers of their products.

The cartel hope that in the process the Communist China will transform and become integrated in the political control system before the scheme comes crashing down.

The Chinese hope to acquire sufficient technological and industrial base to mount a credible defense/attack which will inevitably occur when the scheme crashes.

amutap• 17 years ago

its like taking the greediest best out of communism and capitalism. china implements a wonderful new beast - "commu-talism"

What Is the Chinese Economic Model?

Related Stories