America and China

[ginkgo]

The purpose of the U.S. government is to serve the people. But it is made up of people living in a society where they are taught to serve themselves. So most of these people in the government are doing what is best for them and not what is best for the people or the country.

China started out as a communist country but they have also changed. They are a socialist country. But the people in the government are really concerned about the people. They are trying to do what is best for the people. Got this from reading a Wikipedia article on China.

China has a fast growing middle class whereas America has what an article calls a vanishing middle class. I just read that the richest 400 people in America have the same amount of money as 60% of Americans (the poorest of Americans).

[SnerpGoodWord]

Don't get too excited about random crap on wikipedia. If you take the lowest quintile of households in the US (aka, the "poor") they have an average annual household income of about $13,000. It's very hard to get data in china because of the repressive government, but in general per capita GDP and median household income are about the same for most countries. We would actually expect median income to be quite a bit lower than GDP in china simply because of the high export rate. China's per capita GDP is between $6,800 and $7,500 per person depending on source. We can use that as a high side proxy for median household income.

Conclusion: The "poor" in america make roughly twice what the "middle class" in China make.

In other words, don't believe the propaganda. When china's "middle class" triples their income, THEN they'll start being what we in the US refer to as a middle class.

[russianrocket]

Yeah gingko, tell the 20,000 miners who die every year, that china cares about them. Oh wait, nvm, their dead. Maybe their family will like to hear from you?

[ar81]

Originally Posted by SnerpGoodWord

Don't get too excited about random crap on wikipedia. If you take the lowest quintile of households in the US (aka, the "poor") they have an average annual household income of about $13,000. It's very hard to get data in china because of the repressive government, but in general per capita GDP and median household income are about the same for most countries. We would actually expect median income to be quite a bit lower than GDP in china simply because of the high export rate. China's per capita GDP is between $6,800 and $7,500 per person depending on source. We can use that as a high side proxy for median household income.

Conclusion: The "poor" in america make roughly twice what the "middle class" in China make.

In other words, don't believe the propaganda. When china's "middle class" triples their income, THEN they'll start being what we in the US refer to as a middle class.

Perhaps you may like to see a UN study made by Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
http://www.un.org/esa/desa/papers/2010/wp92_2010.pdf
China has done a great work reducing poverty in China, far better than India.
US recovery looks more likely as propaganda: Moody's Issues Hysterical "Warning" About Downgrading US Credit

[SnerpGoodWord]

Talking about "reducing poverty" in China is a very relative concept - they're less poor than they used to be, but that's still ridiculously poor by current US standards. In terms of per capita GDP, they're now equivalent to about where the US was in the 1920s - which is in some ways impressive, since they used to be stuck in the 19th century. But I wouldn't get too excited about it.

[ginkgo]

I am talking about the future or direction that both countries are heading toward. No matter how bad things are, it is good to know that things are getting better. You can say that a muscular guy looks better than a scrawny guy. But if the scrawning guy is doing bodybuilding, he will get bigger. If the muscular guy is not exercising then he will be losing muscle.

[Clover]

Things are only 'getting better' in China if you take that to mean 'fewer people are dying in government-created famines', such as those of the so-called Great Leap Forward of the 50s ...

Things are not getting better if you are an average Joe who has no way of knowing if his food is tainted with melamine, or oil reclaimed from sewage and when you protest because your child's kidneys fail like Zhao Lianhai did, you get put in prison for sedition. Or if his children are not entitled to an education or medical care because he is working on a construction site for the Olympics yet he does not have official residence in the capital. Or if he speaks out like Liu Xiaobo or Ai Weiwei and goes to prison. Or if he 'disappears' after presenting a petition to the government which the Communist Party tell him he has the right to do, but only the suicidal actually do. Or if your house was seized to make way for another building project and a corrupt official pays you a tenth of its value so you end up homeless. Or the finger points at you in a corporate tax evasion case and your children receive a bill for the bullet for your execution and your organs are harvested.

Yes, it's true that the average citizen in the cities has a bit more cash to spend and has the freedom to buy Louis Vuitton handbags, though.

[180]

Excuse me if I sound irritated but I often find debates about China a hilarious swirl of misinformation, propaganda, and gagging ironies.

The fact is that the huge majority of people, whom I talk to, have an opinion of China while neither having been there, or had any contact with their lifestyle at all. Rather they base their opinions on offhanded sources and fossilized data that are oft pre-cultural revolution. Many people base their ENTIRE opinions on the country based on small bits of information they hear on the news.

When I went over to South Korea, some of the "stuff" they believed about Americans and Chinese were ridiculous. They believed that Chinese products were inferior to Korean because of Melamine. They believed that Chinese had round faces. They also believed that Chinese people were dirty. (Albeit some stereotypes with justification). However they also believed, that Americans always ate hamburgers, that our lifestyle was like that seen in "High School Musical", and that the huge majority of Americans were blonde haired. The fact is, they based their entire opinions on small bits of exposure. I'm not saying that they are bigots, but this serves as an identical mirror of how America sees China. We need to keep our mind open to the fact that what we are exposed to, is little and we need a deeper understanding before making cultural guesses on a country based on how many coal mining deaths they have.

1) China is socialist in title only. If anything China has become a more capitalist system than America, they allow reproductions, monopolies, and any other free market concepts much more than America. The economic system there is almost completely unrestricted. The only structure that economy depends upon lies in their cultural concepts of Guanxi, but that is cultural, neither an economic nor political design. Yes I've been to China, I have very close friends there, my best friend is from China. In addition I've actually taken grad level courses in Chinese international policy. Does this make me a higher authority on China? No, but it bothers me that people talk about china as "communist" like calling America a "democracy". It's as if people imagine China's socialist economy with people dividing up rations to give out. For Christ's sake it's nothing like that. It's not like we have an American democracy you see people touting togas and discussing their political speeches and taking polls on every issue. Get it straight people, pick up a book.

2) China is become richer yes and one could argue, not as rich as America's middle class. But comparing apples to oranges they have things better, we have some things better. It's hard to say who is better off beyond statistical data. In china, you can buy an ice cream cone equivalent for 10 cents here. Comensating for average wage of 2000 rmb a month, one could still be GOD of Ice cream and splurge on food. However, their fixed costs are much higher with more than 50% of their wages paying for rent.

3) Human rights, seems to be a hot button issue with most people for some reason. Keep in mind, you only get ONE side of the issue. Tienanmen square, "falun gong", Dhali Llama, all these human right issues you often get a very propagandized version and it's HILARIOUS that people think the Chinese government is oppressive. Let's forget about American labor camps, wars in middle eastern countries for oil, and our own WWII concentration camps. We also have a shady past and present.

As for Chinese issues, take for example the Dhali llama who has claimed China is keeping him out of the country. If you read Chinese news, (which I assume many of you don't have access to) the PRC has allowed the Dhali Llama to return on one condition, that he is allowed to maintain his position as a religious figurehead (a very generous offer given it's stance on religion) as long as the Dhali llama does not take political power in the country. But the Dhali llama refuses because he wants both and has rejected the offer. Is the Dhali llama so auspicious generous man who is being forced out of his country? The PRC has even had talks and discussions on how to resolve peacefully.

There's so much more I can say, but I'd be wasting my breathe anyways. Brevity is the soul of wit and I'm overextending my words.

[justhopingandsearching]

Hey 180,

How is the pollution in China in its big cities compared to big cities in America? I've heard some things about pollution being pretty bad over there, and so I'm curious as to if there is any truth to that.

[180]

Originally Posted by justhopingandsearching

Hey 180,

How is the pollution in China in its big cities compared to big cities in America? I've heard some things about pollution being pretty bad over there, and so I'm curious as to if there is any truth to that.

I've heard it's really bad, especially in large cities like Beijing. I haven't been there in a while so things might be worse. But Beijing isn't the worst. as other cities I'm told you can see it in the air. Exaggeration, possibly, but I wouldn't discount it.

[Clover]

Pollution is pretty bad in Beijing where there is a slightly scary (to drive in!) system of concentric ringroads! more and more people own private cars so the pollution from that in gross. It cleared up before the Olympics because the government banned driving for a few days! Personally, it gets to me more in the north because the air is really dry and I immediately get a hacking cough.

It's much much worse in the hot, humid south where a lot of the factories are, for example. Stuff just seems to 'hang' in the air. Also there are sandstorms from the north which aren't anyone's 'fault', but also make short work of my breathing capacity!

180, Chinese food products ARE inferior to Korean because of melamine. If your kids get kidney failure through a widespread and as yet unresolved practice of padding out watered down baby milk with plastics, then that is a pretty substandard product. Don't forget that Korea, Japan, Taiwan and close-by countries buy a lot of food from China and were also affected by the situation. Discarded mineral oils in foods is the latest disaster to hit.

[Clover]

Also, 180, where is the Panchen Lama?

[Velorien]

Originally Posted by 180

It's not like we have an American democracy you see people touting togas and discussing their political speeches and taking polls on every issue.

Thanks to you, I finally know which political system I will put in place once I take over the world. Especially the togas.

Originally Posted by 180

Keep in mind, you only get ONE side of the issue. Tienanmen square, "falun gong", Dhali Llama, all these human right issues you often get a very propagandized version and it's HILARIOUS that people think the Chinese government is oppressive.

I'd be fascinated to hear about the other side of the issue that makes those human rights matters OK. How does one justify such things? People's arrests, disappearances and deaths are facts; what facts can you offer to prove that the Chinese government is doing the morally right thing by bringing them about?

Originally Posted by 180

Let's forget about American labor camps, wars in middle eastern countries for oil, and our own WWII concentration camps. We also have a shady past and present.

Let him who is without sin cast the first stone. So what? It may be hypocritical for the USA to criticise China for its human rights record, but this in itself in no way invalidates the criticism. Cf. argumentum ad hominem.

Originally Posted by 180

As for Chinese issues, take for example the Dhali llama who has claimed China is keeping him out of the country. If you read Chinese news, (which I assume many of you don't have access to) the PRC has allowed the Dhali Llama to return on one condition, that he is allowed to maintain his position as a religious figurehead (a very generous offer given it's stance on religion) as long as the Dhali llama does not take political power in the country. But the Dhali llama refuses because he wants both and has rejected the offer. Is the Dhali llama so auspicious generous man who is being forced out of his country? The PRC has even had talks and discussions on how to resolve peacefully.

Are you and I reading the same news? Last I heard, the Dalai Lama was announcing his intent to retire from his political responsibilities, and the Chinese government was criticising him for it.

Why Doesn't China Want To Let The Dalai Lama Resign? Foreign Policy Magazine

Originally Posted by 180

There's so much more I can say, but I'd be wasting my breathe anyways. Brevity is the soul of wit and I'm overextending my words.

I'm open to you proving that my belief that China has an atrocious human rights record is wrong; I have seen zero evidence that this is the case (the best argument I've had from Chinese friends is "China can focus on its human rights and corruption problems when enough people are out of poverty to have the leisure to worry about their rights", which is not the same thing), and your posts so far have not changed this.

[Brutha]

We also have a shady past and present.

Who do you mean when you say 'we'?

How does one justify such things? People's arrests, disappearances and deaths are facts; what facts can you offer to prove that the Chinese government is doing the morally right thing by bringing them about?

The Chinese government argues that they have to prevent social unrest.
They think that the social unrest would undermine their economic growth. A revolution can also be very bloody.

China is also less centralized than the US. There are reports that people get killed when they want to complain to the federal government about a state government.

Imagine that you live in Texas and think the Texan government is doing something bad. You go to Washington and complain and the Texan government sent someone to kill you.
In such a case it wouldn't make sense to criticize the US government in who sits in Washington.

Why Doesn't China Want To Let The Dalai Lama Resign? Foreign Policy Magazine

The article misses the elephant in the room.
If the Dalai Lama dies while holding the political reign there would be no immediate replacement from someone with the same amount of authority. There will be two people who claim to be a reincarnation of the Dalai Lama.
Handing the authority to a democratic entity is a way to circumvent the problem.

[Velorien]

Originally Posted by Brutha

The Chinese government argues that they have to prevent social unrest. (...) A revolution can also be very bloody.

However, in most states where freedom of speech is permitted, there is very little possibility of revolution at this time. This suggests that significant social unrest and/or revolution is a risk because of other factors that the Chinese government could/should address, not because freedom of speech is inherently dangerous. (also, I know it is folly to compare different countries with different cultures too closely, but I would point out that the break-up of the Soviet Union caused largely by freedom of speech wasn't bloody or violent)

Originally Posted by Brutha

They think that the social unrest would undermine their economic growth.

In other words, to the Chinese government economic growth > human rights, and it believes that it is being oppressive for good reasons. I am entirely prepared to believe that - when groups of people do terrible things, it is usually with what they see as good intentions. But 180 is arguing that human rights information about China is "heavily propagandised", and that claims that the Chinese government is oppressive are "HILARIOUS". In other words, he is implying that something we believe about China is false, which your comments do not demonstrate any more than his.

Originally Posted by Brutha

China is also less centralized than the US. There are reports that people get killed when they want to complain to the federal government about a state government. (...) In such a case it wouldn't make sense to criticize the US government in who sits in Washington.

But who if not the federal government is responsible for overseeing the state government? If the US federal government got reports that, say, the California state government was arresting and/or disappearing human rights activists, surely it would be its responsibility to investigate those charges. If nothing else, is the Chinese federal government really so powerless to prevent state governments from repeatedly acting in ways that badly tarnish its international image? That really isn't the impression I get.

Originally Posted by Brutha

The article misses the elephant in the room.

Thank you for the explanation.

[Brutha]

In other words, to the Chinese government economic growth > human rights, and it believes that it is being oppressive for good reasons.

Things like access to general health care services are part of the universal human right declaration.
If you turn a poor person into a middle class person you do something about human rights issues.

But who if not the federal government is responsible for overseeing the state government?

Different people within the Chinese government pick their battles carefully.
People usually only fight out battles when they are sure that they will win the battles.
Until people are sure that they will win they are polite to each other. A lot of conflicts stay unresolved because nobody is interested in fighting them.

There are a lot of unsolved conflicts between different stakeholders. The absence of fighting out conflicts produces a state of "harmony".

Chinese political thought says that a government gets it's legitimacy through the absence of turmoil. A government without open resistance has the mandate of heaven.
Economic success gets also used as sign that the government policy is successful.

In other words, he is implying that something we believe about China is false, which your comments do not demonstrate any more than his.

A lot of people don't take into account realpolitiks when it comes to the way a government works.

[Velorien]

I still think that you and 180 are making very different arguments, from the tone of his post as much as anything else, but I appreciate the insight and will think about what you've said. Thank you.

[Brutha]

I still think that you and 180 are making very different arguments

That's true.

[Curtis2011]

Originally Posted by ginkgo

So most of these people in the government are doing what is best for them and not what is best for the people or the country.

You could say that about almost every politician, or even about every normal citizen, in any country in the world.

It is the rare, exceptional person who willingly works and even gives their lives to help others. Why do you think people like that often become famous for their good deeds? If it was common, then people like Gandhi or Mother Theresa wouldn't be famous.

Originally Posted by ginkgo

China started out as a communist country but they have also changed. They are a socialist country. But the people in the government are really concerned about the people. They are trying to do what is best for the people.

LOL!

That is a good one.

Repressing information and imprisoning its own citizens if they publicly question the government = the good of the people?

The USA has its problems, but it is several steps ahead of China in terms of "representing the people" at least in my opinion.

Of course, we might have been going a bit backwards in some areas over the last decade, but I rest my point.

Originally Posted by ginkgo

China has a fast growing middle class whereas America has what an article calls a vanishing middle class.

This is an unfair comparison because China is just now entering the "growing middle class" stage of development. The USA entered this stage in the early to mid 1900's.

When China is as developed and as economically free as the USA is now, they will also have a declining middle class, unless their government artificially restricts people from becoming rich, as many non-capitalistic countries do.


And even if the middle class disappears, that is not necessarily a bad thing. Having no middle class does not mean that the poor are starving and living off of only bare necessities. As technology develops and generally becomes cheaper every year, quality of life rises for everyone. If the middle class disappears, but the standard of living of the lower class is slowly raised to where the middle class's standard of living used to be, then what have we really "lost" at all?