english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90778/90860/6819131.html

The number of millionaires with personal holdings in excess of $1 million is expected to cross 450,000 by the end of the year, with assets under management hitting $1.73 trillion, surpassing the country's pre-crisis levels, said the report released by Boston Consulting Group (BCG) yesterday.

I'm not sure what it is meant by "personal holdings". I'm assuming it means net assets. The article goes on to say that 0.1% of China's households own nearly half of the total wealth. And the wealth is concentrated in the coastal areas such as Guangdong, Shanghai, and Beijing. It is obvious that China has become one of the most inequitable countries in the world. It is also obvious that this inequitable distribution of wealth is due entirely to the excessive exports predicated on the excessively cheap value of yuan. As I've repeatedly warned the cheapness of the yuan only allowed those in the exports sector to take wealth from the rest of the country. And the nation as a whole is losing huge amounts of labor, natural resources, and energy to exports while creating dangerous amount of pollution and gaining more dollars that must ultimately be devalued by the rising yuan as well as by inflation in America.

While many people have been fooled into thinking that China is undergoing rapid and miraculous economic advancement, the truth is it is nothing more than a dangerous sellout of Chinese economic assets that will in the process freeze China's internal development while allowing the foreigners to take over China's internal economy. And once China's economy has been taken over by the foreigners, then China's political sovereignty will also be controlled by foreigners. In the end, what the foreigners weren't able to accomplish in 200 years of armed aggression have been handed to them on a silver platter by the foolish policies of the CCP.

To understand why exports take wealth from the rest of China and give it to those in the exports sector, please go to the following links:

"Comments on “The Lesson of Japanese Currency.”"

www.network54.com/Forum/238054/thread/11...apanese+Currency.%94

"Subsidized exporters are parasites."

www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=2...00&lp=1107805397

Liang wrote:
[quote]english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90778/90860/6819131.html
[color=#008000]


While many people have been fooled into thinking that China is undergoing rapid and miraculous economic advancement, the truth is it is nothing more than a dangerous sellout of Chinese economic assets that will in the process freeze China's internal development while allowing the foreigners to take over China's internal economy. And once China's economy has been taken over by the foreigners, then China's political sovereignty will also be controlled by foreigners. In the end, what the foreigners weren't able to accomplish in 200 years of armed aggression have been handed to them on a silver platter by the foolish policies of the CCP.



Whilst I agree with you that the benefits of China's economic growth have thus far been skewed to the point of obscentiy (Not unusual in any developing country), your above set of fearful suppositions about the future are way over the top.

China seems to be following the broad Japanese path to development (as did South Korea, Taiwan etc before the PRC got into the act). I am not aware as yet of any Japanese productive asset of any size or significence having been taken over by non-Japanese foreignors. Likewise Taiwan and Sth Korea.

Indeed many foreignors investing in China complain of excessive Chinese restrictiveness re. what they can invest in (along with inadequate legal protection, government corruption etc) which makes investing in China not an unerringly lucrative enterprise for foreignors.

Now is China is so hard done by, why are Chinese firms (including state enterprises) able to buy up oilfields and mines in places like Africa, Latin America and Central Asia? Should not the Africans, Latin Americans etc not by now be getting paranoid about this concerted Chinese takeover of their productive assets? Or, in your estimation, are only Chinese assets off limits to foreignors and not vice versa?

We live in a world where business is done globally!

MonsoonWind wrote:
Liang wrote:

Now is China is so hard done by, why are Chinese firms (including state enterprises) able to buy up oilfields and mines in places like Africa, Latin America and Central Asia? Should not the Africans, Latin Americans etc not by now be getting paranoid about this concerted Chinese takeover of their productive assets? Or, in your estimation, are only Chinese assets off limits to foreigners and not vice versa?

We live in a world where business is done globally!

Yes, agree... wealth must be concentrated in the hands of a disproportionate few simply to grow business around the world. Someone can't even buy a McDonald's Restaurant franchise for less than a million dollars!

Also, being a millionaire these days does not mean what it used to. In the US, there are over 2.6 million millionaires (roughly 9% of the population).

When you are playing the game of capitalism (as China clearly is), you can expect wealth inequities. China would have to revert back to pure (economic) Communism if it is looking for equal income distribution. I don't see that happening too soon.

Honestly, I am more surprised that the world media seems to have missed entirely the fact that China is political Communism (ie, NOT a democracy). This should be ringing the alarm bells of virtually all Western countries who hold up democracy as the Holy Grail of progress.

Are we seeing that a one-party system can actually be beneficial to a society? Perhaps internal political conflicts can be resolved quicker and more efficiently when one party controls the government. Interesting to consider.

Beenthere,

No idea what you have done. But did it ever orrcur to you
that China possibly has a better political system than yours?

I think your grandma still knows a little bit more.

www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/opinion/22friedman.html?_r=1&em

I have no idea what my grandma would say. I intentionally asked the question whether a single party system would govern better form of government than the classic definition of democracy with its 2 or more parties.

In the last few years I have become more convinced that a single party system may be a better system. Why? Because for someone to actually make the decision to join a party would mean they care about political decisions.

Right now, I see too many brainless, uninformed citizens go to the polls and vote. They have very little knowledge of the issues or even less of an understanding of what a candidate stands for. They are influenced by slick television commercials or simply vote for one party with no good reason.

The NY Times article you posted as a link suggested that in the US, "The real answer is that we need better citizens." My suggestion is that we only allow the informed citizen to vote. Just like a getting driver's license, you must pass a test to qualify to vote.

When only qualified voters are eligible to vote, there is no need for a strong party structure.

I am not suggesting that China has a better form of government. I am only saying the US would be wise to look at some of the reasons why China has experienced such success recently.

Good link, by the way.

Completely off topic, but I cannot resist pointing out to Beentheredonethat that there's not much point having qualified voters if the candidates' only qualifications are that they are media "stars" beloved of couch potatoes.

Not long ago we were subjected to a US vice presidential candidate who did not know that Africa was a continent. Now this walking PR stunt from Alaska is considered by some to be presidential material, or at least running mate of the de facto leader of the Republican party, talking headcase Rush Limbaugh.

Ignoring California's Terminator, in the past week we've been told that Fox News' Glenn Beck has political aspirations, and, now, that CNN's Lou Dobbs has presidential ambitions ...

Given the parlous state of the US media, "informed voter" is pretty much an oxymoron, and the problem is compounded by the fact that those doing the "informing" are either running for office themselves or pushing political agendas.

Kermit the Frog for president!

Those who advocate dictatorships never explained why the dictator will invaribly be competent and honest. The truth is that after thousands of years of dictatorships all around the world, there has never been a single dictator that was both competent and had the best interest of the people at heart. At the very most you got only a competent dictator who efficiently managed the people to increase his own power and dominance.

Democracy is not an easy political system. It certainly requires a knowledgeable electorate. But on balance it is democracy that has the best chance of giving all of the people their basic human rights. Dictatorship will inevitably condemn the vast majority of the people to lives of misery and humiliation.

Just one last comment. What if the dictatorial system placed Sarah Palin in the position of all powerful dictator? How can you get rid of her once she is ensconced in her position of power? How will America and American people fare from then on?

duplicate

aquicke wrote:

Not long ago we were subjected to a US vice presidential candidate who did not know that Africa was a continent. Now this walking PR stunt from Alaska is considered by some to be presidential material, or at least running mate of the de facto leader of the Republican party, talking headcase Rush Limbaugh.


I believe these bozo candidates are selected for their mass appeal. If you had a group of informed voters who knew the issues, a party convention would never select someone of this low caliber. Again looking at China which has a single party system, the political leadership team has some pretty impressive accomplishments. President Hu had to prove himself as a capable leader in order to climb the party ladder to become president. To become president (or any high ranking position) in China one must earn that position by climbing the ladder with a lot of competition.

Contrast that to the American President and VP where people like Oprah and Rush are called "President makers"... where big money from special interests can create a strong presidential contender.

Ponder this question: Democracy, or newest type of political system is about 250 years old. Countries around the world, especially China and Russia, right now re-inventing their political systems. Who knows if a more efficient political system might come out of their efforts? Perhaps we might see the next generation of governance - one that eliminates the inefficiencies found in European/American democracies.

Liang wrote:
Those who advocate dictatorships never explained why the dictator will invaribly be competent and honest. The truth is that after thousands of years of dictatorships all around the world, there has never been a single dictator that was both competent and had the best interest of the people at heart. At the very most you got only a competent dictator who efficiently managed the people to increase his own power and dominance.


First, I am not advocating a dictatorial system, ie a strongman that takes power. I am advocating the creation of a more pure democracy where a)there is only one political party - consisting 100% of those voters who choose to join the political process and have demonstrated a fundamental knowledge of issues so they can cast an intellegent (ie, not random) vote.

Using China as an example, President Hu is not a dictator and the process is in place where he can be removed from power.

Secondly, even though it does not relate to my proposition of governance, there have been dictators in history that have preformed quite capably and benevolently. Anwar Sadat of Egypt wisely signed a treaty with Israel during the Carter Administration, broke ties with Russia, and made great progress in making Egypt a peaceful and progressive state.

A different kind of example is Suharto of Indonesia. After independence in 1945 most of the population of Indonesia was illiterate and could never cast an intelligent vote in an election. Because of his powers as dictator he was able to hold together the diverse cultures of the archipelago as a sectarian state, accommodating animist head-hunters of Papua New Guinea, Hindus of Bali and Muslims of the eastern islands and Christians of the western islands. He was also able to fend off a push by Chinese Communists to overthrow the government (as they did in Vietnam). Yet at the same time he raised the living standards, built schools reformed local governments, and upgraded the intellectual level of the entire country. The ultimate reward was a new democratic constitution in 1998 and the selection of the first president by popular vote in 2004.