China
(Posts and excerpts on China, newest posts at the top, but recommend starting at the bottom)
Posted 3/2/07 (By Travis)
The Chinese have blocked neoperspectives.com!
thegreatwallofchina.org let's you type in urls to see if they are blocked by the Chinese government. According to them:
It is estimated that some 30,000 Chinese civil servants are monitoring Internet traffic and blocking content that is deemed undesirable. Typing in sensitive keywords such as ‘democracy’, ‘Falun Gong’ or ‘porno’ in a search engine results in an error message. Websites of a sensitive nature are being blocked. Internet service providers also (self)censor, as do individuals: many people do not express their real thoughts because they know these will be censored anyway.
If true, it is likely neoperspectives.com has been blocked because of this url:
http://www.neoperspectives.com/china.htm
While there is plenty contained therin critical of China, the above link also contains numerous accolades for the increasing Chinese economic freedom, especially this rather, IMHO, complimentary piece by Thomas Sowell:
Curing Poverty or Using Poverty? (Required Reading)
1/10/06 RCP Dr. Thomas Sowell
But, who are we to judge the 'offensiveness' of our online material to the Chinese citizens, I mean, the Chinese government. :)
This sort of meddling and censorship occurs in nearly all countries. We most recently posted a story on an occurrence in India. Of course, there are also American 'civil servants' from the justice department or whoknows where or what agency 'carousing' the internet looking for criminals, terrorists, and/or ostensible malcontents. The difference is a matter of degree and it remains uncertain, IMO, if the US government's surveillance and censorship of the internet, despite vast differences in scale, is any less hurtful than that of the Chinese.
Diligent readers will recall that neoperspectives was hacked last year by the 'Red Devils Crew' or 'Saudi X'. Whether this 'Islamic advocacy' group was private or government sponsored remains unresolved. They managed to delete nearly the entire site and defaced what remained (we reuploaded everything quite quickly). At the time I hypothesized they were upset at:
http://www.neoperspectives.com/terrorism.htm
So, in any event, we meek peace loving folks here at neoperspectives.com seem to be making a habit of rubbing some folks the wrong way, not even including some emails I receive every now and again.
We'll keep on pluggin'. :)
Posted 1/6/07 (By Travis)
Curing Poverty or Using Poverty? (Required Reading)
1/10/06 RCP Dr. Thomas Sowell Progress in China
Posted 10/16/06 (By Dobber)
No Link
10/12/06 Wall Street Journal
Last week, Travis made this statement:
Finally, on a more personal level, one cannot help but arrive at the conclusion that it is possible, although perhaps not politically correct, to be an extremely moral person and accomplish great good without giving a cent to charity or spending a second volunteering. This is not to be critical or disdainful of these activities, but merely encourage cost-benefits analysis, which often appear to be sorely lacking, especially when the acting entities are NGOs, Hollywood actors, 'rockstars' like Bono, or government itself.
I want to expand upon this idea by examining an absolutely amazing story that appeared in last Thursday's Wall Street Journal. The story (which I did not provide a link to, because I realized that WSJ stories are only available to subscribers - so I typed selected quotes out of it for purposes of this post) details China's richest private citizen's rise to power. This man is Dr. Shi. The story begins with a quick summary of his inspiring life:
A doctorate, several patents, two solar-power companies, and a $455 million initial public offering later, Dr. Shi is now one of the richest people in China.
Naturally, as a Neoperspectives co-dictator, it was Dr. Shi's battle against government entities that sparked my interest in this story.
The story of his journey from China to Australia and back shows how important China's growing openness has become to its people.
Note the reference to China's "growing openness"... So, before we examine the idea of wealth building vs. philanthropy, let me say a few words about this story and examine government power over individuals choosing work.
Although the Chinese government is a force of oppression, depriving nearly a billion people of liberty and prosperity, it is very encouraging to read about the recent forces of change that have been going on there, over the past ten years or so. This force of change can be compared with the Invisible Hand Adam Smith spoke of that accompanies liberalization of marketplaces. What has this Invisible Hand of more "openness" and "liberalized economic policy" given the Chinese people? Prosperity.
There are now probably 320,000 U.S.-dollar millionaires in China according to estimates by Merrill Lynch and CapGemini, and many of them are newly minted...nearly one-third appeared on the list for the first time this year - including Dr. Shi. He debuted this year at No. 1.
Very recently, in China, almost no citizens had the chance to pursue their own interest in choosing a job or career, or even course of study.
I got into the solar industry, in the beginning, by accident," says Dr. Shi. The forty-three year old came of age in China at a time when the government controlled where people worked and lived. "In our generation, we didn't have the freedom to choose. We just accept whatever we are given. So, it's hard to plan," he says.
I remember growing up in the late eighties and early nineties, listening to Guns n Roses, and changing my mind almost weekly about whether I was going to be a fireman, or a doctor, or pro body-boarder when I grew up. Imagine, for a second, having no choice whatsoever. So one wonders how it was that Dr. Shi. was able to escape the grips of oppression. Simple. He was very smart.
His high scores in math and physics got him slotted into the optical science department at Jilin University, in China's chilly northeast. He found working in a lab preferable to working in the fields.
Since he was smart enough, and deemed "valuable" by the totalitarian government of China, the decision was made to improve his worth to the common Chinese interest. (Read: the common Chinese interest is for the status quo to be maintained and the totalitarian regime of power to continue)
After graduation in 1983, he entered a master's program at the Shanghai Institute of Optics and Fine Mechanics.
First, Dr. Shi was able to separate himself from most other Chinese peasants (I would assume ninety-ninth percentile range) and granted permission to further study at the Jilin University. Then, he was able, once again, separate himself from peers by getting accepted to a highly competitive Shanghai school. How are we certain that this is highly competitive?
The institute had access to a small quota of coveted government-sponsored spots for overseas study.
Government sponsored spots for overseas study. Small number. In a land where millions upon millions of college-aged kids are working their butts off, the government only chooses a small number of winners. Of course, a small number of winners implies an extremely large number of losers.
Now, when the government allows its best and brightest to escape its oppressive boundaries, do they all come back? Of course not.
Close to 800,000 Chinese students have gone abroad since the government first started sponsoring them for overseas study in 1978. Drawn by job opportunities overseas, less than a third have come back so far. But the rate at which they are arriving is accelerating.
It is ironic that China allows their best minds to leave, when most do not return. I assume, they are playing the odds and just hoping enough return to keep their government in power. Lately more and more are choosing to return, in light of the economic changes. I am confident that the amount of students returning is directly proportional to the business and freedom climate. As markets are liberalized, more Chinese will return.
But people (and brains and ideas and innovation and jobs, etc) are not the only thing that is on the rise in China.
At the same time, foreign venture capitalists are flooding the country with unprecedented amounts of money and Chinese companies are finding the can raise money from stock offerings abroad. Combined with the heady opportunities from an economy expanding at 10% annually, the result ahs been the creation of private wealth on an unprecedented scale.
Back to Dr. Shi...
Yet Dr. Shi has also shown a knack for challenging the status quo. His plan to start a solar-power company in China drew skepticism from colleagues, but he managed to obtain government funding.
Rather than allowing people the freedom to create businesses, the Chinese Mafioso government decides whose doors are open and whose are closed. Rather than shopping his business idea around to different private citizen investors, Dr. Shi had to beg for funding and permission from Chinese Dons.
Dr. Shi shopped his proposal to several Chinese cities with ambitions to attract high-tech businesses. Wuxi, a fast-growing city near Shanghai, offered $6 million as a start-up investment. Government funds and state companies would own 75% of the company, and a local official would serve as chairman. Dr. Shi would put in the technology he owned and $400,000 of his own money for a 25% stake, and get a free hand to run the company. He agreed and Wuxi Suntech Power Co., as it was then called, was registered on January 21, 2001.
Dr. Shi's company grew and grew. He had to remain innovative in order to succeed.
It was under these pressures that Dr. Shi came up with his signature innovation, which he likes to call simply "low-cost expansion." "Coming from a scientist background, I always pursued high efficiency, as high as possible," he says. Instead, Dr. Shi reorganized the manufacturing process to reduce automation, taking some processes from machines and putting them into the hands of workers, who in China were cheaper. He cobbled together parts from different suppliers, including little-known Chinese companies. He bought used gear from an Italian laboratory and new equipment from a Japanese startup.
Workers in China were cheaper. A business will always pay the lowest amount of money possible for labor. Which works out good for everyone, mostly the workers.
Suntech's revenue zoomed to $226 million last year, from just $14 million in 2003. First-half revenue this year was $218 million. Suntech's cost advantages have endured: It is now selling its solar modules for $3.78 per watt, well below the average global market price of $4.30 estimated by Photon Consulting.
The business was booming. Naturally, The Mafioso needed to start wetting their beaks.
By 2004, Suntech's government owners had also taken a note of Suntech's improving fortunes, and wanted a more active role in the company. That put chairman Li Yanren, the government's representative, into conflict with Dr. Shi. The internal strife consumed several months, but eventually the board threw its backing to Dr. Shi, making him chairman as well as chief executive. Mr. Li, who received a compensation package upon leaving, declined to comment.
Dr. Shi wanted to get rid of the Mafioso goons who were impeding his success. But to do that he had to use the argument that by getting out of the way, the government would receive more taxes. Which is what all governments should both logically and morally strive for.
Dr. Shi argued that getting the state shareholders out of the company would allow Suntech to grow faster, hire more people and pay more taxes. That swayed city government officials, who helped Dr. Shi work on convincing the company shareholders.
It worked.
In May 2005, an $80 million sale of shares to venture capitalists, including Goldman Sachs Group Inc., financed their exit.
Lucky for us, people like Dr. Shi exist.
Dr. Shi hasn't left his academic past behind. His office is piled with technical papers and decorated, if that's the word, with photographs of silicon crystals. He can still unconsciously switch to a professor's chalkboard style when he has to explain technical concepts.
Although many people don't believe it, there are some nice people running and working for corporations. Dr. Shi, of course, is one of them.
Now, hopefully, you are still reading. :) This next paragraph segues nicely to the aforementioned question of philanthropy versus running a business.
He has already started giving his money away, an unusual move in a country where private philanthropy is largely undeveloped. Recently, his family trust gave donations to a nursing home and a school on Shanghai. For now, however, his main focus remains on the business. Having just bought a company in Japan, Dr. Shi says his goal is to turn Suntech into a true multinational.
So, Dr. Shi does both. He runs a business and gives money away. The question I am wondering is this: If you found yourself in the situation with a decent chunk of cash, would it be better to use the money for business start-up costs and open a business, or give the money away to charity? Also, I am defining 'better' as better for society, and the world. Which is the more moral decision? I will judge this very simply on a few criteria.
First of all, without his business, how would he have ever been able to come up with millions of dollars to give to charity? Score one for opening a business. Second, when one gives to charity they are giving a handout (in many situations morally justified). When one signs a paycheck they are allowing a person to work for a livelihood. Putting clothes on his back and feeding his children. Score two for opening a business. Third, when a business becomes successful, it generates residual income. This income provides people with food and shelter, and the opportunity to give some of their income to charity. Score three for opening a business. Fourth, when a business becomes successful, it provides competition in the marketplace raising pace of technology which in turn leads to innovations such as open heart surgery and cleaner drinking water. Score four for opening a business. Fifthly, when a business becomes successful, it lowers the cost for whatever product or service it is providing. This allows poor people to spend less of their money on that specific item, making them richer. Score five for opening a business. Sixth, by opening a business, one provides more tax revenue for the government so that we can live peacefully by policing the streets, defending property, and administering court. (The only moral functions of a government). Score six for opening a business. Seventh, when one donates to charity,, they are often given a mug or umbrella. Score one for giving to charity.
Therefore, by a final score of 6 - 1, opening a business is clearly the more moral decision. Like Martin Luther King, Dr. Shi dreams of a better society for his people.
"The time is right, the soil is rich," he says. "Now there's already a lot of Chinese dreams being realized. And I think there are a lot more to come."
I'm going to wrap this post up, so I can donate two dollars to the Breast Cancer Foundation by buying a glass of pink lemonade on my Delta flight.
(Posted 6/16/05)
This will be added to China and Constitutional Issues.
6/20/05 US News and World Report Interesting article on China. "This is the late-19th-century United States, except that it's happening on a faster and broader scale," says Marshall Meyer, a professor at the Wharton School.
A central question, which this article doesn't address, is one that has been percolating for some years in some so-called 'intellectual circles': Can a rightist dictatorial government be superior to a democratic government? In the case of Chile and Singapore, some say the answer is affirmative. The weakness of democracy is that people often laud the passing of laws and regulations, and, over time, sometimes seem to work towards enslaving themselves, by creating bigger and ever more tyrannical government.
The point has been made that politicians are not rewarded for passing freedom enhancing laws (or, better yet, repealing restrictive laws), but sometimes punished, because those limiting freedom for their own nefarious purposes can lobby/bribe the politicians to enact measures to increase their personal profits, while the countless more that would benefit from freedom don't exist to lobby government. For example, privatizing bloated agencies like the postal service and Amtrak is long overdue and would save taxpayers millions, but the replacement companies don't yet exist to stand up for themselves and individual taxpayers tend to be apathetic (as they only 'loose' a small amount each). Meanwhile, the postal and train unions and their lobbyists can put their full effort into fighting reform. These internal pressures are what corrupted the states in the Articles of Confederation and what is corrupting our current Federal Government. Representative governments have an inherent antipathy to change. The voiceless have no voice.
Could a rightist type dictatorship be more effective at dealing with these types of prosperity stifling problems? For example, in China: The central government even seems to be purging corrupt officials--proving that communism can still be ruthless. Last year the government executed four bankers accused of fraud. <.> Foreigners are usually treated much better. Shanghai woos western conglomerates with favorable tax treatment and other perks, the same way American cities and states compete to lure businesses. Western firms often discover that when it comes to business, an authoritarian government isn't such a bad thing. "Usually, if the government says a road is going to be built by September, it will," says Jerry Nissen, a former U.S. investment banker who is executive director of SmartLink International Holdings, a Shanghai-based consultancy.
If government is able to forcibly prevent citizens from passing liberty depriving laws, while effectively enforcing the basic rule of law, especially regarding property rights, then might this country become so prosperous that the democracies are left in the dust? Could a Libertarian dictatorship be the 'utopia' we are looking for? Might it be China?
Currently, at least in regards to China, the answer is no. The Chinese government still owns a plethora of state owned companies, banks, and utilities etc.., and arcane laws, rules, and regulations plague the country. The government meddles in health care and education, and the state owns roads and much of the land (especially farm land, leasing it to peasants). Corruption and government interference in pensions and retirement is a threat to prosperity. Draconian drug laws restrict freedom. Pollution poses health risks and hurts economic growth (yes, pollution falls under criminal law - damaging someone else's property, including their physical bodies, is illegal in a Libertarian society). Military spending and intelligence budgets are soaring. So, China is clearly not even close to a Libertarian utopia. In fact, China's ultimate destination is unclear.
But let's theorize a bit and pretend that in the next 10 years China becomes a true Libertarian one party system, ruled with an iron fist. Since, in a Libertarian society, the government hardly has any power, there is almost no corruption. In fact, the government will be most consumed with preventing groups of citizens from stealing from each other (taxes) and inhibiting each others freedoms ('safety resolutions', regulations, and other measures for the 'public good'.). While some might say inhibiting elected citizens from enacting compulsory taxes is tyrannical, others might, more accurately, state that this intervention is merely preventing legal thievery, protecting the minority against the tyranny of the majority, and enforcing the basic laws of morality.
Now, some of you might might suggest that I am treating people with the same sort of condescension that I routinely attack liberals for displaying towards the 'masses'. I seem to be saying that people are too stupid to live in democracies and don't know what's best for them. I don't think this comparison is accurate.
First, my
condescension towards those that would pass draconian compulsory laws is reflective of their own
condescension towards the minority, whom they are forcing their laws and regulations on. If
socialism of any kind (education, health, retirement) is so great, why do governments always throw
their citizens in jail if they don't participate? This isn't an exaggeration; try not paying SS,
Medicaid, or Medicare tax and see what happens to you. As David
D. Boaz
A Libertarian community can be predominantly, or even entirely, socialist, but it is not compulsory. This is a key point. But... but... but... won't the rich always opt out of these programs? Perhaps. But then what is your solution? To not let them opt out and pillage their property?
It is worth mentioning that because of the government enforced bias in the media (via regulations, media laws, public theft/subsidies of media etc..), academia bias, the public education system bias, and Hollywood bias (the only bias not currently government subsidized), many citizens are brainwashed into socialistic ways of thinking.
The Internet is helping to turn the tables, educating increasing numbers of people and disseminating previously censored views. So, it is not condescension, but unrealistic, to expect that people can have a respect for something (freedom) they have never been exposed to. Again, the condescension label is most accurately applied to those who want to keep the status quo and forcibly educate people, rather then giving them the freedom to educate themselves.
Consider though, our original Constitution. Government primarily possessed negative power - that is, people had all these rights that government (local, state, or federal) could not mess with. One might argue that our constitution was dictatorial in the sense that, without changing the constitution, government was pretty restrictive in what it could do and people were restrictive in what laws they could pass, irregardless of what a tyrannical majority might want to do. Whether it is a Constitution, or a steady stream of Libertarian dictators that prevents these liberty destroying acts might turn out to be somewhat of a moot point. Of course, today our rights have been eroded so much that we barely even pay lip service to our Constitution. Don't believe me? Read it!
If we can cut through these blurry semantic differences, it seems obvious that a representative republican (republic) Libertarian society is preferable to a dictatorial Libertarian society and if we are moving (returning) in that direction anyway, then why risk a dictatorship? A dictatorship, even a rightist one, has a number of key limitations. Remember, we are giving this dictator powers to prevent citizens from passing anything against the Libertarian viewpoint. This also gives him/her power to act in his/her own interest, with little threat of repercussion from the people. Just like our corrupt and/or ignorant Congressmen pass laws against the public good in the name of 'the public good', a Libertarian dictator will be tempted to take action against the Libertarian viewpoint in the name of the 'Libertarian viewpoint'. This government could operate with impunity and break its own laws. Power corrupts and there is no reason to believe that every dictator will be the ideal 'benevolent enforcer' that would make the system work.
Another point is that there are disagreements over exactly what the 'Libertarian view' really is. In other words, what I have laid out here as the 'Libertarian view' is so different from the way our present society is run, it must seem quite radical to some people. However, among Libertarians, there are a number of gray areas where disputes can arise.
In conclusion, it appears we must discard this dictatorial utopia, and work on educating the people. As previously mentioned, it is my view that China will undergo a democratic revolution within the next 5-10 years, or earlier. Most probably, this will happen during the next Chinese recession.
Posted 7/27/05
Added to 'Constitutional Issues', 'Founding of the United States and Constitutionality of Charity', and 'China'. (lol, these posts are all interconnecting, which is sort of a pain and a good thing at the same time...)
If you recall, I posted some time ago about the difference between a 'Libertarian Dictator' or 'representative republican (republic) Libertarian society'. In the former, freedom is, in effect, forced on the citizens and in the latter the citizens choose it themselves. Although I ended up siding with the representative society, some wondered why I would even take the time to consider the dictatorship seriously.
In my view, this objection arises from a misunderstanding of what a 'Libertarian dictatorship' is. Unfortunately, dictatorships are semantically lumped together in the same category, when in fact, they often differ drastically. A better understanding can be achieved if a given dictatorship is measured by how much power the government/dictator has and exercises. Almost every dictator in history has been socialistic, the more socialistic, the worse the tragedy of the country. One of the few who was not was the much vilified General Augusto Pinochet of Chile, whose economic policies led to the growth that make Chile the wealthiest country in South America. [For those interested, I have compiled a fair amount of research on Chile, but need some time to go through it and organize it.]
Why do we dislike the idea of a dictator? Because we distrust the power a dictator has over the country; their propensity to disrupt our lives. However, in a Libertarian dictatorship, the opposite occurs; government is reduced. The government has less power and a Libertarian dictator, by definition, can't do much of anything! In fact, the term is an oxymoron.
He can't stop you from doing anything you please (besides preventing you from passing laws limiting the freedom of others). He can't steal your property. He can't stop you from putting substances in your body. He can't prevent you from freely contracting with another citizen. He can't prevent you from trading with a citizen of another country. He can't prevent you from bringing workers from other countries to work in the United States. In short, what is it you fear from a Libertarian dictator? Our current government does all of the above and worse, yet, because we are conditioned to fear dictators, we fear them worse then our own democratically elected thieving, pillaging, and regulating government.
In fact, a Libertarian dictator must, by definition, be an extremely altruistic and selfless person because he is giving up power, wealth, privilege, and fame for the benefit of others. I always feel a hint of pride when I see polls showing that Michael Jordan, Michael Jackson, Tiger Woods, Tom Cruise, (Opera?), (Bill Gates?) and Madonna have more name recognition among foreign and US populations than the US president. By contrast, in Cuba and North Korea, Kim and Fidel's portraits, speeches and writings hang in every classroom and house and state television slavishly follows their every move. Can you name a famous Cuban or North Korean? From the LA times:
On
the opposite wall [of a citizen's house]
hang the obligatory framed portraits of Kim Jong Il and his late father, Kim Il Sung, who seized
power in the northern half of the Korean peninsula after World War II.
The government forbids people to put family photos or other decorations on the
same wall. Party cadres used to drop by almost daily to make sure residents kept portraits free of
dust, but that stopped two years ago.
"They don't worry so much about ideology now," he said. "All
anybody cares about is finding enough food to get through the day."
In a true Libertarian society, the Libertarian dictator would probably have little name recognition because he would be relatively 'unimportant'.
Now, as previously stated, I am not advocating a Libertarian dictatorship, but merely stating that the seriousness in which I take the proposal is not misplaced.
Added to the China blogging group. (posted 6/15/05)
Chinese Target Web's 'Prohibited Language'
6/14/05 Associated Press
Users
of the MSN Spaces section of Microsoft Corp.'s new China-based Web portal get a scolding message
each time they input words deemed taboo by the communist authorities -- such as democracy, freedom
and human rights.
Prohibited language in text, please delete," the message says. Freedom? What a dirty word.
More China riots, riots, corruption: "It was worse than when the Japanese ghouls invaded," testified Wang Yongliang, an elderly, white-haired peasant, who said many villagers were so terrified they fled to a neighboring province.
Chinese Stock and Housing Markets Down and Banks in Danger (Posted 5/23/05)
5/6/05 NTDTV The Chinese stock market hit its lowest ever point in six years and experts predict it will continue its downfall as time passes. Angry investors have blamed the government for the market decline in light of its failure in overseeing fraudulent financial reports by public companies. In the mean time, the housing market also reported sliding, sending the already debt laden Chinese financial system into a state of near crisis. <.> 70% of investment in the housing market comes from state owned banks.
While this may seem like an arcane subject to post on, it is actually quite important. If you recall, from a previous post, I described the growing dissatisfaction with the Communist party, burning of party papers, rioting etc.. and an attempt by the State to create external enemies. The Chinese economy has been growing around or at 10% for over 10 years. Historically, this is not sustainable, especially because of the large numbers of state owned factories and banks. Coupling this with the new peoples revolutions spanning the globe, the pattern of Communist collapse (glasnost), and the growing dislike for the corrupt Chinese government, I believe the situation is ripe in China for a collapse of the central government and the rise of a Democratic China. I'll bet it happens within 5 years, 10 max. You heard it here, at neoperspectives.com, first.
China Rejects Japan's demand for an Apology (Posted 4/19/05)
4/17/05 Associated Press. If you'll recall in 'Arab Governments and Causes of Terrorism' I discuss how authoritarian regimes create 'external' enemies in order to keep pressure off authoritarianism at home. This same pattern is now unfolding in China where a series of violent anti-Japanese protests have rocked Chinese cities in the past few weeks. China, aided by a helpful media, seems to have created an impression at home and abroad that this anti-Japanese sentiment is coming directly from the Chinese people, with the authorities unable to prevent it. However, in a country which has a history of brutally crushing any large scale anti-government activity and imprisons and executes thousands of political prisoners, this is not to be believed. In fact, by carefully examining news reports, it is more then clear that these protests were carefully orchestrated by the Chinese government. Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing instead complained that Japan has "hurt the feelings" of Chinese on a series of issues, including relations with rival Taiwan and "the subject of history" - a reference to new Japanese textbooks that critics say minimize Japan's wartime offenses.
AP: Shanghai's government blamed Japan for the violence, saying the demonstrations were prompted by "Japan's wrong attitudes and actions on a series of issues such as its history of aggression," the official Xinhua News Agency said, citing city government spokeswoman Jiao Yang.
AP Premier Wen Jiabao cited the protests Wednesday when he said during a visit to India that Tokyo wasn't ready for a Security Council seat until it faced up to its history of aggression. <.> Some suggested Beijing permitted the protests last weekend to support a campaign to block Tokyo's Security Council bid. <.> In Shanghai, police didn't try to stop the protest, though state newspapers said no one had received permission to hold one. At one point, police posted a sign saying "March route this way."
In conclusion, these protests should be viewed as a sign of Chinese desperation. In pursuing capitalistic policies that have transformed China from a starving Communist country, into a growing (although still impoverished) economic powerhouse, the government has given it's people a taste of freedom they will not forget and a yearning the government cannot suppress. The Guardian reports: In driving off more than 1,000 riot police at the start of the week, Huankantou village in Zhejiang province is at the crest of a wave of anarchy that has seen millions of impoverished farmers block roads and launch protests against official corruption, environmental destruction and the growing gap between urban wealth and rural poverty. China's media have been forbidden to report on the government's loss of control, but word is spreading quickly to nearby towns and cities. Tens of thousands of sightseers and wellwishers are flocking every day to see the village that beat the police. "Aren't these villagers brave? They are so tough it's unbelievable," said a taxi driver from Yiwu, the nearest city. "Everybody wants to come and see this place. We really admire them." (emphasis = possible Guardian editorializing) :)
The Epoch times reports: The upper levels of government are taking notice as the number of withdrawals from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) rapidly approaches the one million mark. <.> Chinese people are burning CCP items and memorabilia publicly in order to rid themselves of all vestiges of its grip. <.> As the resignations continue unabated it is reported that party officials have even gone so far as to force invalids and sick individuals to step forward and reaffirm their loyalty.
Might China suffer a similar fate to that of the Soviet Union, which disintegrated under Gorbachev's policies of Glasnost (economic openess)? The words the Chinese Government truly fears are already being uttered: "The communists are even worse than the Japanese," said one man.
Taiwan Trying to Shore Up Weapons
Support
9/24/04
Associated Press - An illustration of the frustrations/limitations of democracy and the sheer
delusion that permeates into some segments of a population. Here is a country that is surrounded by
China, a 'Communist' giant 50 times it's size and one that has vowed to reunify the island with
force. China's military spending is growing by leaps and bounds, has missiles and artillery
targeting Taiwan, and has practiced amphibious assaults in preparation for an (albeit unlikely) invasion. Yet a new 18 billion arms purchase from the United States is running into opposition from
Taiwan liberals who fear it will only only 'fuel
an arms race'.
(from 'Arab Governments and Causes of Terrorism')
It has been argued that the United States is the world's best policemen because our citizens own many things of value in countries across the world. Likewise, multitudes of citizens from many, many countries across the world own things of value in the United States (such as businesses that employ our citizens). Therefore, as the wealthiest country in the world, we have the most interest in seeing the world stay free, peaceful, and prosperous in order to protect and increase our own wealth and prosperity. For the United States, a win for us is a win for the world (and vice versa). In the same sense, China's shift from a Communist regime to a Capitalist regime has greatly reduced the threat it poses to it's neighbors. Any hostile actions by the Chinese against, say, Taiwan, would devastate it's economy. Chinese businessmen and workers, the former of which are becoming increasingly influential in the Communist party, would howl and possibly revolt. Chinese aggression is a loosing strategy for China and a loosing situation for the world. In contrast, a hostile action by Saddam Hussein against Kuwait is a win for him and a loss for the world. Socialistic countries are not held back from aggression by business/economic pressures; they see only external prizes that can be easily claimed by 'the state'. It's citizens don't raise a fuss about the need to protect their property because the citizens don't own anything (or very little)! Of course, the term 'Socialistic' as I am using it here does not apply to the Socialistic Scandinavian countries, which consist of private industry (with internal and external foreign investments) burdened by high taxes and regulations. In Arab Socialistic countries there may be some areas of relatively low taxes, but there is little private industry.
Posted 9/10/05
Added to 'Inequality, Aid, and the Nature of Governments' (and it could also be added to Media Bias')
China's widening income gap threatening social stability: government
8/22/05 The income gap has become increasingly worrisome for the government of once-egalitarian China, especially as low- and middle-income earners are increasingly quick to accuse officials of pilfering state assets in the country's dash toward market capitalism.
I've posted this to reiterate the Left's fascination with inequality. 'Once egalitarian'? You mean when 60 million Chinese equally starved to death? There is not a total amount of resources that is divided among people! Any given person can create wealth and add to the total pie independently. As stated in Inequality, Aid, and the Nature of Governments, the richest, wealthiest, freest, most prosperous countries will be the most unequal financially, by definition. But, also by definition, they will be the most equal in terms of what all citizens can afford and quality of life.