When something is compared unfavourably to Bill O’Reilly and nobody is up in arms, I think that just about says it all.

November 1, 2011 @ 4:15 pm | Comment

In the last paragraph it writes: “of course, Global Times’s rising profile may also be the product of limited alternatives”. I’d say “may also be” is too polite. If there is just some small amount of freedom of press, many journalists/newspapers can blow “Global Times” away easily.

November 1, 2011 @ 5:48 pm | Comment

It was only a while after the English-language version of GT came out that I realised that I used to read the Chinese-language version on a semi-regular basis in my student days.

Why? It always had something interesting on the cover, and where my understanding of Chinese failed me, the content was easy enough to guess. It is also on sale everywhere. However, there are a lot of GT-a-likes out there (various military-affairs-related rags) so, whilst GT may have been the first, there are plenty of other papers peddling similar blood-and-soil nationalism in China today.

A few questions to Richard though –

* Does Hu Xijin edit the English-language version? I was under the impression that someone else did that.

* The article describes you as a “former PR professional based in China”, I presume that is a mistake, and that you have not retired but merely no longer work in China – correct?

* There’s no mention here of the frequent – shall we say – special content of papers like GT and China Daily: the all-to-pat quotes from expats with strangely generic names speaking what appears to be Chinglish, or the stories which appear to have identical content to previously published but with names/dates/places changed around. What would your comment be on this?

November 1, 2011 @ 7:09 pm | Comment

I doubt that The Global Times is the only poisonous fruit of 20+ years of “patriotic education.”

November 1, 2011 @ 8:09 pm | Comment

Foarp, Mr. Hu is very involved with the English edition. I don’t think anyone at his level actually sits down and edits copy, but he runs the paper and his fingerprints are all over it.

For some reason she probably assumed I had left the PR industry, which isn’t quite accurate.I’d classify what I’m doing now as part PR, part writing, part media training and part copy editing.

November 1, 2011 @ 11:05 pm | Comment

China’s FOX NEWS? This description is not suitable coz here the publicity department controls everything.

November 2, 2011 @ 9:52 am | Comment

@Hu Haitai: The description is eminently suitable as both Fox and GT are propaganda organs for a political party.

November 2, 2011 @ 12:37 pm | Comment

There’s Global Times and there’s Southern Weekly. Both have political backers from the politburo and various power bases. The Southern Weekly is backed by the reformers while the Global Times probably hardliners.

This is a good balance in my opinion.

November 3, 2011 @ 7:41 am | Comment

Not sure I’d call that a good balance StephenKing. Both are members of the same party and both have their views harmonised by a central censorship agency. Red face, white face – think that’s the description I get.
Now, if the CCP can cut the crap and allow themselves to split, with one forming an opposition party (conservatives vs reformers) and the censors are allowed to let political views get published unimpeded, then maybe we’re onto something.

November 3, 2011 @ 9:03 am | Comment

That said, Mike, the Southern Weekly has done some real journalism in the past, truly pushing the envelope and embarrassing the government. Do you remember their coverage of the Sun Zhigang case? Of course, that was nearly 10 years ago…..

November 3, 2011 @ 10:46 am | Comment

Yeah, nearly 10 years ago. Long time to be in prison for reporting that story, eh?
http://shanghaiist.com/2008/02/10/released_yu_hua.php

November 3, 2011 @ 10:56 am | Comment

“The Southern Weekly is backed by the reformers while the Global Times probably hardliners.”

The whole hardliner/reformer dichotomy hasn’t held any water since Wen Jiabao’s last failed stab at suggesting that a little bit of “democratisation” might not be a bad idea, kind of, sort of, maybe. There hasn’t been a proper reformist wing since ’89, and even economic reform has been dead since Zhu Rongji left power.

The real dichotomy is between the princelings, who want to see a more assertive CCP making use of its powers just like Daddy used to, and the (less powerful) pro-status-quo bureaucrat faction, which thinks things are OK and that coming out swinging is likely to upset things. There really isn’t any meaningful reformist wing, hence the total lack of meaningful reform over the last ten years.

People also seem to be forgetting that the Southern group got neutered back in 2001-2004 when the newspaper leadership was gutted following pressure from the party following a few too many exposes. Sure, it still keeps up some of its former activities, but it’s a shadow of its former self. Even with this reduced assertiveness, its editorship is still under pressue, with a demotion occuring in 2009 over an interview with Obama, and another editor who had angered nationalists over Tibet getting fired earlier this year.

November 3, 2011 @ 7:15 pm | Comment

In fact, I’m going to put the whole “but the party’s not a monolith, it’s got a reformist wing” spiel on the list of “things expats say in an attempt to sound knowledgeable about Chinese politics whilst simultaneously assuaging their guilt about working/partying/sleeping with the CCP”. Other things on the list:

* “The Chinese media regularly criticises the party”

(Right, except those articles that do get through the censorship tend to result in the authors getting shit-canned)

* “Most people in the US/Europe don’t know that China has regularly held elections”

(Yeah, since the latest consitution was brought in in 1982, strangely enough it’s only CCP members, allied parties, and pro-CCP “independents” who seem to get elected).

* “The Chinese internet is a zany world in which people freely criticise whatever they like”

(True, but most of the “zanyness” comes from attempts to avoid censorship. Where criticism is found, it dissapears).

* “The CCP has done a lot to raise people out of poverty and help minorities and women gain greater equality”

(Broadly true, but most often this is brought out in answer to criticism that either has nothing to do with minority/women’s rights, or is related to a particularly aggregious instance of a failure in government policy).

* “The people broadly support the party”

(Possibly true, but what alternatives do they have? And how, in absence of national polling, can you know this?)

* “There are plenty of free-think Chinese, so there is no brain-washing in China”

(It is certainly true that there are plenty of free thinking Chinese people, but when one touches on certain issues, the majority of Chinese people will respond in line with a single message on the subject consistently conveyed to them through their education and the media).

* “There’s been plenty of reform, the Hukou system has been reformed, NGO’s are part of the consultation process, it’s easier to travel abroad, as I was saying to my father-in-law who also runs the People’s Bank of China over beers the other night, research carried out by my marketing company shows that the happiness index is up by 9.5% . . .”

(tell you what, whilst you’re grabbing at straws here, why don’t you include the increased milk ration for school-kids in Guizhou or some other fairly minor improvement?)

I think many expats mistake “lacking nuance” for “wrong”. The vague image that most people have in the US and Europe of China as a monolithic, single-party dictatorship, is correct. Zoom-in and you will see the nuance, but this only complements the totality of the story, it does not contradict it.

November 3, 2011 @ 8:23 pm | Comment

Can hardly agree more, Foarp (probably no surprise). I’d like to add something to this line, though:
“The CCP has done a lot to raise people out of poverty and help minorities and women gain greater equality”
The CCP’s main merit in terms of “raising people out of poverty” has probably been that after 1980, it interfered less with peoples’ lives and businesses, than previously. Much of the “expertise” (especially foreign) which keeps suggesting that this wheel can’t be turned back is based on wishful thinking. When the CCP central committee brushed every suggestion of political reform aside late in 2010 (many of the incoming leadership were already on board), the observation usually communicated was something like “they are reining in”, or “things are currently getting tighter”, as if suggesting that tightening and loosening restrictions in China necessarily worked in circles.

The CCP’s Document on Deepening Cultural Reform will turn out to be historic – my bit of expertise in this context – but it will take the global, and certainly the Western, public years to realize that. It’s an agreement made in the politbureau, and then the 17th central committee, right in the phase of transition from the third to the fourth “generation of collective leadership”. And as Foarp said above: most Chinese people will accept it. Many will even welcome it, in case of a doubt, because it’s easier to persuade oneself, than to be persuaded by the powers that be. Just as Pasternak’s “Dr. Zhivago” told an old, formerly reactionary but converted classmate: “you sound like a circus horse telling me how it rode itself through the ring”.

If you wish to read the “culture” document (also referred to as the decision) in English, my serialized translation – still in progress – can be found here.

November 3, 2011 @ 11:29 pm | Comment

“The CCP’s Document on Deepening Cultural Reform will turn out to be historic – my bit of expertise in this context – but it will take the global, and certainly the Western, public years to realize that.”

As someone who trusts our take on the PRC, I wish you’d elaborate here. Why “historic”? It sounded a good bit like uninspired Stalinist thinking to me, at first glance, as if the Party leaders wanted to do something but couldn’t decide so settled for renationalizing China’s cultural life.

November 4, 2011 @ 2:22 am | Comment

your take on the PRC, sorry. (sticky y key on my keyboard)

November 4, 2011 @ 2:23 am | Comment

To FOARP #13:
that was good. That list covers most of the refrains you hear most of the time. The only thing I’d add is that it is certainly not just expats uttering those types of things. “spokespeople” for the CCP like to reach for those gems quite frequently as well.

November 4, 2011 @ 2:31 am | Comment

FOARP, re your comment at #13, aren’t these all part of the Big Lie? Here’s the wiki entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie and there is that dubious quotation attributed to Goebbels to consider.
Of course, for a lie to be really effective, it must have a grain of truth, so, for example, the CCP has brought millins of people out of poverty in the last 30 years but that’s only because it put them there i the first place and then decided to step back.
I agree with you – these soundbites are right up there with the “5000 year civilisation” spiel – thought Mao, the CCP god, had decreed that that history was to be scrapped…

November 4, 2011 @ 3:29 am | Comment

Not entirely on topic, but close and interesting:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/education/edlife/the-china-conundrum.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

Just as an understanding of authorship is bound up in culture, so are notions of authority. “It’s not simply the language and culture but the political element as well,” he says. “We’re well aware that the Chinese are raised on propaganda, and the U.S. is not portrayed very positively. If you’ve been raised on that for the first 18 years of your life, when it comes down to who they trust — they trust each other. They don’t particularly trust us.” (A Univ of Delaware administrator)

November 4, 2011 @ 3:38 am | Comment

@Mike, SKC – I don’t think genuine CCP spokespeople go in for these particular tropes much, at least not all of them, since at least some of them require the speaker to acknowledge that not all is sweetness and light in the PRC. Instead they are more the preserve of those whose instinct is to the middle, equivocating, compromise position.

There is certainly room for a middle ground, and it is certainly possible to go too far in criticising the CCP, and it is not that the sentiments described above are not at least partly based on fact. The problem is that they do not disprove the central, looming, and ominous fact that the CCP presides over a repressive single-party dictatorship, one which they show no sign of wishing to soften or quit now or ever.

Acting as if such data-points indicated that China’s current status were merely a temporary cultural quirk, as if knowing the points described above initiated one into the ranks of the “China experts”, as if the CCP weren’t really all that bad, as if it were somehow bad taste to mention the dark nature of their rule and the implications it has for everyone who joins them or co-operates with them – this is the behaviour I would like to single out.

November 4, 2011 @ 4:07 am | Comment

FOARP@20 — My job gave me wide access to the 2008 Beijing Olympics, and I encountered a lot of folks like that. It was an uncomfortable scene for many of us who have faced the business-end of the PRC to listen to the Pollyannas and to try to inject some balance without coming off as churlish.

November 4, 2011 @ 4:28 am | Comment

Slim,

I think one can argue about how much Mao Zedong was in control when the 8th central committee passed the “Cultural Revolution” officially, in August 1966. But the document produced by that committee’s plenary session was probably pretty much what Mao had wanted. The document passed by the 17th central committee last month – as far as I have read it to date – is neither more, nor less precise than the August 1966 decision.

Obviously, the goals then and now are different in that it is the collective leadership that wants to regain control this time, rather than Mao, but the technical approach looks similar. The document may come across as uninspired, yes, but that’s because it needs to repeat its main points time and again (the more repetitions, the more importance it gets), but frequently, it also states tangible goals in the fields of the press, entertainment industry, education, etc. The internet, too, has been mentioned, but not yet in detail (up to where I’ve read and translated) – just like most CC decisions, it needs to be sufficiently “situational”. Indeed, the decision goes beyond culture in that it wants to deepen the cadres’ “situational policy-making education” (形势政策教育), too, for example. It wouldn’t surprise me if the decision to open the firewall to quite an extent at times, in and around 2008, was such a situational decision, too. Looking at what those bad foreigners wrote about the Olympics etc. probably hardened many feelings and attitudes among “ordinary people”.

Please note that I’m not suggesting that last month’s decision will be as disastrous as the one in 1966 was. If and how it works for or against the CCP, and to which degree it will transform the country, remains to be seen – but just as most central committee members could only guess the effects of their decision in August 1966 (and they could probably guess that it would spell a lot of trouble), the committee members of now can only guess which effect the “culture decision” will have in detail, on their internet habits, China’s public diplomacy, etc.. But the rollback has become apparent – a clear “no” to political reforms last year, from a collective of current and future leaders, and a clear “yes” to a bigger role for the party – ” the faithful inheritor and advocate of the outstanding traditional Chinese culture, and the active initiator and developer of China’s advanced culture”. Think of a software developer. The party will define what’s “cultural”, and what’s “decayed”. My view is that the party either never abandoned its totalitarian ambitions, or if that was ever seriously considered at all, even if only by some leaders, that was probably some time between 1980 and 1989. This isn’t just about controlling peoples’ behavior; it’s about controlling their minds.

I’ll go more into detail once I’ve translated the whole thing. Btw – if someone else wants to take a share in translating the document, and post it on his or her own blog, I’ll happily link there and save myself some work. If someone can find a full English translation online elsewhere, I’ll link there, just as well.

November 4, 2011 @ 4:32 am | Comment

http://www.globaltimes.cn/NEWS/tabid/99/ID/682396/Foreign-Policys-limited-view-of-Chinese-media.aspx
The Global Times replies 🙂

November 4, 2011 @ 4:45 am | Comment

I tend to agree with the consensus that rather than lift the Chinese people out of poverty, the party simply got out of the way of the most intrinsically capitalist people on the planet. But…but, Deng must be given credit for making the decision to get out of the way and to urge people to adopt the entrepreneurial spirit of the Wenzhou tradesmen, etc. When you look at Chine before Deng and after him, we witness one of the world’s greatest transformations, and for all the outrage against the party today, I believe most Chinese see Deng as having saved the country and launched it on the path to greatness. While this may not be entirely true, try to imagine if the Gang of Four had won out and lived out their dream of totally radicalizing all of China. China would not be anything like it is today. Deng has to be given credit for changing course and loosening the reins. Of course, he has to be given credit for other crap as well, but that doesn’t detract from the difference his policies made for China’s economy. Yes, it was Mao who got them into the disaster of the GLF and the CR and brought a great nation to its knees, but it was under Deng that China got up, and I believe that even those most critical of the party today would say that Deng did great things for China, despite the TSM. For good perspective on this (if I say so myself) through the eyes of a Chinese man who grew up under the Deng regime I recommend my post of some years ago here.

November 4, 2011 @ 4:52 am | Comment

@23. That GT rebuttal wasn’t as bad as I’d braced for. (I don’t think the FP piece was as good as it could have been, given the smart people they talked to.)

November 4, 2011 @ 5:21 am | Comment

@Richard – It is fine to talk of Deng. However, nothing of what he did is irreversible. By this I do not mean a return to Maoism is likely, but do you really think the rejection of revolution both abroad and at home is a permanent state of affairs? That things will inevitably turn toward liberalisation?

Haven’t we seen in the past two or more years that this is, in fact, not the way things are going? How much longer will “don’t claim the leadership” be the CCP’s watch-word in foreign affairs? Do the activities of people like Bo Xilai reflect a desire to liberalise, or is the opposite true.

PS – the above-linked editorial contains this deliciously insidious reference to our own dear Bozhu:

“Global Times usually criticizes the opinion of the US media. But we never report stories about the editorial department of the US media to prove the correctness of our criticisms.

However, we find that some Western reporters are keen on fabricating “inside stories” about the Global Times.

They quote the words of former staff of the Global Times to prove the “immorality” of the organization, instead of discussing the correctness of our opinion.”

The editorial also says this:

“Larson claimed in her article that Global Times is subject to government review before publication, which is totally contrary to the fact.”

If this is true, then it is only because what is printed in GT often might as well have been dictated by the government themselves, with GT acting as their stenographer. I suspect it is not true, but am willing to bow to the expertise of others.

November 4, 2011 @ 5:31 am | Comment

I thought the one comment so far showed another very Chinese thought:
“Mainstream Western media are instruments of American global policy….”
The West is always taken to mean the US – this does lead to amusing confusions when i argue with the sister-in-law about stuff (though it is done through her sister who sometimes strays from her purely translational role to explain stuff to her…)

November 4, 2011 @ 5:35 am | Comment

FOARP, in regard to Deng I am not making any predictions, and am as pessimistic about liberalization as you are. But that doesn’t detract from the transformation that took place under Deng. I never said what Deng implemented would lead to liberalization. It just helped a lot of people improve their lives. Not everyone, for sure, and not fairly. But again, look at China at the end of the 1970s and look at it today, or look at it just five years after Deng took control. No matter how bad the CCP may be now and in the future, Deng’s reforms speak for themselves.

About the GT: Four censors sit at desks in the newsroom and oversee every word that gets published — or that doesn’t. I never met them, but my colleagues told me about them. What I DO know is that plenty of stories were sent back to be modified because they didn’t toe the party line. Some stories were canceled altogether at the 11th hour and the editors had to scramble to find material to fill the page. Nightmare for those on the night shift.

November 4, 2011 @ 5:38 am | Comment

Of course it’s censored, is it news that stuff is censored in China? Every media ultimately serves the interests of its company or parent political entity. In the case of China, it’s the CCP. In the case of NBC, it’s GE (now Comcast). In the case of CBS, it’s Viacom. In the case of CNN, it’s Ted Turner something? And those corporations are all American corporations, so of course serious challenge to the institution and legitimacy of American rule is not in the interest of those corporations either (not necessarily out of patriotism, but out of pure economic interests).

If you want real freedom of media, maybe Julian Assange’s institution is close to that example. But even that has self-interest: it wont’ run stories that will lead to its own demise.

The world is about money and resources. That’s why, again, you gotta stop being brain washed into thinking that as long as you “follow the rules” and be “decent” somehow you will end up a winner.

Which winner in history followed the rules? Did Genghis Khan follow the rules?

November 4, 2011 @ 8:17 am | Comment

StephenKing
It’s not the censorship – it’s the controlling interest. Chinese media only answer to the CCP. Western (and here I mean all western, not just US – there’s more of us out there, you know) media are subject to their controlling interests but as these interests aren’t answerable to one central controlling interest, you can get a much bigger picture 🙂
CNN – isn’t that the one you can only get in hotels? Certainly the only time I ever come across it….. The others you mention haven’t made it to my western shores….

November 4, 2011 @ 9:02 am | Comment

Come on. Yes, they are different corporations. But multi national corporations have very similar fundamental interests. GE, Comcast, Viacom. They compete in the same economic/political environment, and therefore there are large set of basic fundamental things that they all agree on. Yes, they’ll have varied interests in 1 million small things, but have uniform interest in 10 big things. Those 10 big things are much powerful than the 1 million small things.

We are all adults here, why do you all act so naively?

November 4, 2011 @ 9:22 am | Comment

So you are telling me that, say, the Daily Telegraph in the UK has the same agenda as, say, the Guardian? And these UK media have the same agenda as German or French media? And these western European media have the same agenda as Turkish and Arab media? And all these have the same agenda as the US?
Looking at the EU politics at the moment, I can’t really see any fundamental agreements….

November 4, 2011 @ 9:35 am | Comment

To StephenKing #29 and 31:
Yes, of course things are censored in China, and everyone knows it, except it seems that GT is trying to deny it themselves. It certainly seems to be news to them, and they’re getting censored as much as the next guy.

Are there challenges to “American rule” in the US that is going unreported? Beyond “America”, who else in the world is under “American rule”?

I’ve always said media is in the business of attracting eyeballs. I suppose you could say they are in the business of enriching their parent companies, but they still ultimately do so by attracting eyeballs.

What are some of these basic fundamental things that multinational companies apparently agree on? Are you talking about such basic things like capitalism? Free-market economy? If you want to put forth an argument, you’re going to have to be a little more specific than uttering vague references to “10 big things” and “1 million small things”.

November 4, 2011 @ 2:31 pm | Comment

Very simple to derive the big things, what reason would a multinational corporation like say Goldman Sachs, or GE, or Coca Cola, or Boeing, or IBM, or Exxon Mobil, or United Technologies, or Caterpillar, or 3M, or Dow Chemical, or Monsanto, or Dupont, or WalMart, or News Corp, support a heavy left leaning (not in US mainstream politics, but like full/quasi Socialist) stance on any of is subordinate news organizations? Meaning what mainstream news orgazation exists today that champions slowdown in globalization, champions more regulation on Wall Street, champions reduction in personal consumption, etc.

There’s no logical way such a news organization could exist, because there’s no multinational commercial entity that have these interests aligned to their profits. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a socialist or Marxist or “radical”, but I’m just objectively saying, clearly it’s more much likely for a news organization to champion consumption than conservation, to champion globalization than anti-globalization, to shy away from “redistrbution of wealth”, etc.

Yes, there will be many tactical differences and viewpoints amongst many news organizations.

Thus your “diversity of opinion”, it’s really “diversity of opinion” but not on fundamental issues that the West’s capitalist/liberal democracy system depends on.

Again I have no issue with West’s capitalist/liberty democracy and its associated ideas, but I recognize that all “diversity of opinion” operates under these fundamental tenets. Which is fair enough, cause the world today belongs to the West).

In the case of China, it’s the same sh*t: the newspaper in Shanghai will have differing opinion on real estate property policy, on tax policy, on abortion, etc VS a newspaper in say Sichaun province. But both newspapers will not differ on things like “Tibet is a part of China”, cause both under the orbit of the CCP.

Yes CCP rules by law, the Western liberal democracy cabal (no derogatory meaning intended) rules by common business/political interests. In the end, just 2 camps, no fundamental difference in their methodology.

November 5, 2011 @ 7:56 am | Comment

StephenKing, the western media does, obviously, cater to “powers that be” that the editorial staff agree with/get funded by/whatever other conspiratorial reason. However, you last comment listed 14 businesses (all American, by the looks of it) – not all in the same field, so not having overly conflicting interests, but each probably having a conflict of interest with some other similar fund-donator in another western country with a newspaper in it’s pocket – that’ll even things out, wouldn’t you say? Of course, you than also have to think about the politics of the editor of said medium..might not agree with big business and will write and steer the medium to reflect this.

In Chna, they can say what they like – as long as the CCP is good. No conflict of interest as there is only one interest. Anything that conflicts with that editorial view is, unlike in the western media, not really going to be able to broadcast it’s views.

I can see your point but you’re basing your knowledge on way too narrow a field.

I see in the FT that web restrictions in China are getting stricter…

November 7, 2011 @ 8:29 am | Comment

To stephenking #34,
Which news organizations are “subordinate” to those companies you mentioned, besides News Corp.’s holdings? It is unreasonable to suggest that media “champions” one view in particular, and in unison. Certainly, with the diversity of opinion in the media, there is variety in the views on consumption, globalization, etc. You seem to agree with the presence of such diversity.

So it really comes down to the breadth of that opinion. And since it’s media we’re talking about, and since they are after eyeballs, they’re going to offer a range of opinions that those eyeballs want to see. And most of those eyeballs might agree with those fundamental tenets of western capitalism and liberal democracy. That’s not the fault of media.

The difference with china though, is huge. If you wanted to, you could rail against democracy and capitalism in the US. And actually, some people do. There is nothing you can’t say, if you want to (excepting hate speech and libel, i suppose). That is most certainly not the case in Ccp china. If a US journalist wants to say that the US should adopt dictatorial communism, they can. But if a ccp journalist wants to say they would be better off without the Ccp, they can’t. And that is a fundamental difference in their methods.

November 7, 2011 @ 11:57 am | Comment

Forget the niceties. Goldkorn is a PRC pillow biter.

November 7, 2011 @ 3:29 pm | Comment

The Global Times is now attacking people sending money to help pay Ai Weiwei’s “tax” bill. Priceless!

November 7, 2011 @ 4:24 pm | Comment

@KT – That’s not really fair. Goldkorn, who did kind of annoy me by specifically discussing people commenting on this site as accusing expats who co-operate with the CCP as “race-traitors” (although “people who co-operate with the CCP” is pretty bad by itself), is the guy behind a blog that I used to read a lot but no longer do because it stopped being interesting. Yes, Danwei has, in my view, gone down hill, but it used to be quality product. More to the point, I can’t see anything in the actual article discussed here which you can accuse him of being an apologist for – maybe you can show us what you’re talking about?

November 7, 2011 @ 7:18 pm | Comment

I totally agree with FOARP about Jeremy and would you prefer you not talk about him that way.

November 7, 2011 @ 10:16 pm | Comment

@FOARP. ‘Tis true. Totally scurrilous comment on my part, but then again I sat thru one of his self important interviews on tv recently.

On topic: PRC = “family values based society” = nepotism = (if you know your history of political theory) Mercantilist patriarchy and the Great Chain of Being.

November 7, 2011 @ 11:41 pm | Comment

Anyway, KT enriches my word power. But, KT, when it pays to be self-important on television, it’s no crime. It’s the medium.

November 8, 2011 @ 3:36 am | Comment

@Raj, #38
Comments following the article are funny as hell 🙂

November 8, 2011 @ 4:20 am | Comment

I am deadly serious about Sino socio-political organisation = Mercantilism and the Great Chain of Being. A disposable migrant working class occupies the bottom rung, and exists solely to enrich a highly restricted political class (of families), the latter representing itself as the paternal head of the national household. Back to FPs Global Times characterisation of Sino Land as a “family values based society”. The national treasury is overflowing, while farmers and migrant workers remain dirt poor.

And no, I didn’t pull this out of my imagination, and refer instead to an excellent if forgotten treatise on the politico-governmental foundations of Mercantilism:

Furniss, Edgar E. 1957 The Position of the Laborer in a System of Nationalism, First published in 1920. New York. Kelley and Millman.

If you have the good fortune to be able to read the above, you will acquire a very different take on China, and it fits in very nicely with Confucian doctrine also. There is an innovative Ph D there, if you are that way inclined.

Re FOARPs remark about race traitors. Forget the racial slurs. It however requires a certain abandonment of personal ethics to sign up with one of China’s media outlets for the long-term.

Fianlly, Danwei and a few other sites should be on the receiving end of a Cultural Revolution….dunces hats, the aeroplane position, etc.

November 8, 2011 @ 4:58 am | Comment

Good one, Raj and Mike. The way the money is being transferred to Ai, he will not only pay off his tax bill (sic) in quick time, but will have change to spare.

However, don’t be surprised if these transfers are blocked and rediverted.

November 8, 2011 @ 5:05 am | Comment

@KT
A comment in the WaPo article about the donations says that PayPal has blocked payments to Ai.

November 8, 2011 @ 5:14 am | Comment

King Tubby, I’m sure they only demanded such a large sum in the expectation he couldn’t pay. I wouldn’t be surprised if they seized the money or slapped extra charges on him later.

Mike, interesting to see if that’s confirmed.

November 9, 2011 @ 6:53 am | Comment

Quick Google search
http://sjsattler.wordpress.com/2011/11/07/paypal-now-rejecting-payments-to-chinese-artist-ai-weiwei/

Doesn’t suggest anything and there’s no other mention. Some of the sources I read just say some people couldn’t pay via PP or similar sites. Probably just usual screw ups due to heavy traffic 😉

November 9, 2011 @ 8:50 am | Comment

The charges and the penalties are all a crock anyway. If he passes this hurdle, they’ll just charge him with some other bs. This is, after all, the ccp we’re talking about. There is no bastardization of the law that they aren’t capable of.

November 9, 2011 @ 9:26 am | Comment

SKC, you’re being unfair on the CCP. The CCP is justice, the CCP knows best. It’s much too inconvenient to restrain its activities with legislation or constitutional provisions.

The CCP IS THE LAW!

November 9, 2011 @ 9:57 pm | Comment

GT vs NYT
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/10/world/asia/with-anger-over-dirty-air-rising-beijing-tries-tours-on-monitoring-center.html?_r=1&ref=global-home

http://www.globaltimes.cn/NEWS/tabid/99/ID/683248/Public-desire-for-clean-air-faces-bleak-reminder.aspx

November 10, 2011 @ 7:59 am | Comment

King Tubby
The national treasury is overflowing, while farmers and migrant workers remain dirt poor.

Do you know the difference between wealth and income, or do you prefer to leave your inane pontification unmarred by pesky facts and numbers?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_distribution_of_wealth

November 13, 2011 @ 3:16 am | Comment

Here we go again. Chinese farmers have little income, yet are plenty wealthy…apparently.

November 13, 2011 @ 4:11 am | Comment

Oh, and look, prc doesn’t fare nearly as well on the distribution of income list. Which explains why mansbestfriend only wants to talk about the wealth list, where prc looks better. And making the Prc look better is the only objective.

If change of wealth = income – expenses, and china currently has a huge income gap, I wonder what will happen to the wealth gap over time? And since this income gap is a fairly recent development ( before the 1980s, everyone was dirt poor), is it any wonder that the wealth gap hasn’t developed in all it’s glory yet?

November 13, 2011 @ 7:28 am | Comment

SK Cheung
Here we go again. Chinese farmers have little income, yet are plenty wealthy…apparently.

That may be the way the special kids interpret it. No, they are not “plenty wealthy”. But they are not picking scraps out of garbage cans and starving on a daily basis. Only 7% of children in China were severely underweight vs. 49% in India. If we were to use “income” or “GDP” for everything as you are wont to do, we’d assume a much smaller gap between the two nations.

If change of wealth = income – expenses

Except change of wealth is not income – expenses, you’re forgetting that land and property value is appreciating faster in the less developed areas of China and that transfer payments are not included under the income statistics. If anything, developing countries tend to be MORE imbalanced than developed ones for this reason.

And the anti-Chinese shills love saying China started developing earlier than India to explain away democracy’s failures, so then why is wealth in India so unevenly distributed?

November 13, 2011 @ 8:59 am | Comment

“No, they are not “plenty wealthy”. But they are not picking scraps out of garbage cans and starving on a daily basis. Only 7% of children in China were severely underweight vs. 49% in India.”
—and survival on a daily basis has to do with income, not wealth. I’m not saying India doesn’t have a problem. In fact, I’m not the type with the pathological need to compare like you. But it doesn’t change the fact that china has a huge income gap, and that is a problem, independent of whatever happens elsewhere. That is the concept that Ccp apologists like you have yet to learn.

“Except change of wealth is not income – expenses…”
—well that’s funny, because I’m quoting the exact definition for “change of wealth” that is used in the wiki link you provided. That’s the bitch with putting things in black and white. You’d think it would be unbecoming to try to deny it. But I guess you’re just that much more disingenuous than the average bear. Not that I expect anything better from a Ccp apologist.

Not to mention that your link is based on data from 2000. Based on the income gap that has developed during that time, I would expect a more contemporary assessment of wealth gap to reflect that change accordingly. And at the end of the day, I don’t imagine that knowledge of an apparently small wealth gap would keep poor rural farmers warm at night. But that wouldn’t concern mansbestfriend, since such an admission might make the Ccp look bad, and he’s not a poor rural farmer in china in any event.

November 13, 2011 @ 3:17 pm | Comment

SK Cheung
and survival on a daily basis has to do with income, not wealth.

Take off the blinders for have a second. Are you even reading the crap you type? Of COURSE wealth has to do with survival, if you have an asset you can sell you can always trade them for food, medicine, or whatever else.

But it doesn’t change the fact that china has a huge income gap, and that is a problem, independent of whatever happens elsewhere.

Except I already tore you a new one on this point. Income doesn’t include living costs, transfer payments or asset appreciation.

Not to mention that your link is based on data from 2000.

Credit Suisse released data from around 2008 that says pretty much the same thing.

I would expect a more contemporary assessment of wealth gap to reflect that change accordingly

Wrong. See the point about transfer payments and living costs you ignored for the sixth or seventh time, because it reflects poorly on your beloved Western ruled corporatocracy.

November 14, 2011 @ 5:44 am | Comment

You are almost too dumb to be a Ccp apologist. Perhaps you deserve a new category unto yourself. If you need to barter/trade/sell an asset/wealth in order to attain a necessity of life, do you know what you’re left with? That’s right Einstein, less wealth/fewer assets. In other words, in your own little bizarre scenario, a poor farmer in order to survive would have to personally and actively increase his own wealth gap, simply due to inadequate income. And besides, wake up and smell the coffee, buddy. What assets would a poor farmer have to sell? Do you think he’s taking his Bentley to the market to trade for food. You are hilarious, and the funniest part is you aren’t trying to be. Seriously, dude. Grow a brain. You could use it.

“Except I already tore you a new one on this point. Income doesn’t include living costs, transfer payments or asset appreciation.”
—learn to read, and to use even an ounce of logic (even if it’s the only paltry bit you have). I’m talking about income gap, which….ummm…includes income. You’re trying meekly to talk about something other than the income gap, with your cost of living etc. that doesn’t change the fact that china has a huge problem with its income gap, and over time, the wealth gap will simply follow. You should add reading lessons to your burgeoning wish list.

“Credit Suisse released data from around 2008 that says pretty much the same thing.”
—now why would a guy show 11 year old data if 3 year old data is available? The mind of a Ccp apologist is truly a wonderful thing.

“Wrong. See the point about transfer payments and living costs you ignored for the sixth or seventh time, because it reflects poorly on your beloved Western ruled ”
—well then by George lets see some contemporary data. Besides, transfer payments might look good on a per capita level, but how does that improve the actual tangible wealth of the poor rural farmer with low income and low wealth? I wonder if the knowledge of these transfer payments keeps farmers warm at night.
As for cost of living, let’s review the formula for the slower members of the class like our slipper-fetcher here, shall we? Change of wealth= income -expenses (where you can include cost of living as an expense category). At any given (and even fixed) level of expenses, your income needs to exceed it to have any net wealth gain. If a farmer makes $10 and has $5 in expenses (a 50% ratio), his wealth increases by $5. With the income gap, let’s say a city dude makes $100. If his expense ratio is the same, his wealth has still increased 10 fold compared to the farmer. His expense ratio would have to be 95% for his wealth gain to be brought down to the level of the farmer, based on their income gap. It would not be tough for a city guy to earn 10 times what a rural Chinese farmer makes.
Could his cost of living be 19 times that of a farmer? Depends how he lives, I suppose. Oh, but wait, transfer payments to the rescue, at least according to our trusty mutt. Say, those “payments” must come in handy for all those poor farmers. I wonder how much of that has trickled down to them?

November 14, 2011 @ 9:16 am | Comment

SK Cheung
barter/trade/sell an asset/wealth

Wow, you figured it out. That’s EXACTLY the point of wealth. Good job, you’re now as smart as second grader. We should make you a TV show.

a poor farmer in order to survive would have to personally and actively increase his own wealth gap, simply due to inadequate income

So you’re saying that the evil rich in China don’t have expenses? What a joke. You really just don’t have a clue about China at all, have you even been there? Why do you even comment?

Seriously, dude. Grow a brain.

Yes, I’m working on your implant right now. The lessons aren’t working.

income gap, and over time, the wealth gap will simply follow.

Learn how to read. The “income gap” alone is about as useful as the gap between your two ears. It does NOT translate directly into a “wealth gap” because living costs and transfer payments are huge factor in wealth-building for the poor. This is why your beloved democratic nations are all failures with regard to wealth inequality.

now why would a guy show 11 year old data if 3 year old data is available? The mind of a Ccp apologist is truly a wonderful thing.

Because I posted the Credit Suisse link 3 times and you ignored it 3 times. Too many words and numbers for a schoolkid like you. The “mind” of a Western corporate drone is a wonderful thing.

https://www.credit-suisse.com/news/doc/credit_suisse_global_wealth_databook.pdf

Here it is, for the fourth time. If you google “peking duck credit suisse” I link relevant data 3 times not including all the posts Richard deletes.

http://www.pekingduck.org/2011/03/from-the-inbox-is-it-okay-to-love-china/ – Notice how I posted it right here, and that’s not counting all the times Richard has removed my posts for using 1/1000 of the ad hominems you or slim might eject from your face-holes on any given day.

Next I expect you to 1) ignore the data 2) tell me you can’t understand the info and blame me for not explaining it, because you’re not smart enough to Google it in the first place 3) get caught up on semantics

Garnish with some stale internet insults, repeat.

but how does that improve the actual tangible wealth of the poor rural farmer with low income and low wealth?

Here we go again. This is the point where I start to genuinely feel sorry for you, so I apologize again for being mean.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_payment

In economics, a transfer payment (or government transfer or simply transfer) is a redistribution of income in the market system. These payments are considered to be nonexhaustive because they do not directly absorb resources or create output. Examples of certain transfer payments include welfare (financial aid), social security, and government subsidies for certain businesses (firms).

So yeah, they literally DO keep the farmers warm at night, considering energy is subsidize in the countryside by the Chinese government. Transfer payments obviously allow the poor in China to pay (partially) for food, medicine, and fuel at a lower price and thus contribute more of their income to savings. Tax EXEMPTIONS have a similar effect, which would be included under living costs. Then they are often given access to government housing.

Change of wealth= income -expenses

We’ve made some progress here. Before I stepped in you didn’t even know the difference between wealth and GDP. You’re welcome.

But no, “income” in inequality jargon is PRE-TAX income. Your comparison is a joke BTW, urban:rural disparity is closer to 3:1 not 10:1.

So the real equation is Change in Wealth = Appreciation + (Official Income * Tax Factor) – Living Expenses + Transfer Payments. So yeah, you neglected maybe 80% of the equation.

November 15, 2011 @ 12:00 am | Comment

OK, let’s dispense with your stupid points first, of which there are many, as usual. Then we’ll get to the really fun (and funny) stuff.

“That’s EXACTLY the point of wealth.”
—actually, wealth is something you want to accumulate. The point of wealth is not to spend it on necessities like food. That’s what income is for. Sure, you can cash in your wealth. But every time you do so, you’re left with less of it. And poor farmers aren’t starting out with much of it to begin with. You really are too stupid for words.

“So you’re saying that the evil rich in China don’t have expenses?”
—where did I say this? Why is it that CCP apologists like you always have to argue against imaginary statements? Are you guys incapable of arguing against actual statements? (Actually, don’t bother answering that, since the answer is self-evident). But what I did say was that a poor farmer trading in what meagre wealth he does have for the necessities of life has just increased his own wealth gap with the rich. And that, not surprisingly, remains unaddressed by you. Gosh, at least try dude. Don’t worry about sounding stupid. That’s expected. But to not even try…that’s just sad. Where’s your CCP apologist spirit?

“It does NOT translate directly into a “wealth gap” because living costs and transfer payments are huge factor in wealth-building for the poor.”
—I didn’t say it translates directly. What I did say was that when you have an income gap, the wealth gap is sure to follow, albeit with a certain time lag. More on this later…it’s the funny part I spoke of.

“Because I posted the Credit Suisse link 3 times and you ignored it 3 times.”
—yes, thanks again for that. See below for the really funny stuff. For now, suffice it to say that watching you hang yourself is amusing stuff indeed.

“considering energy is subsidize in the countryside by the Chinese government.”
—yes, subsidized. To the point of being free? If so, then you have a point. If not, then that poor farmer will still need income to pay even the reduced rate. That’s the income they have much less of compared to others because of that nagging income gap again. Don’t you just hate how it keeps popping up and wrecking what little you have left of your “argument”? And it’s going to get worse for you later.

“Transfer payments obviously allow the poor in China to pay (partially) for food, medicine, and fuel at a lower price and thus contribute more of their income to savings.”
—even at reduced expenses, the poor will have no change in wealth unless their income exceeds said expenses. It’s that basic formula again. If their expenses are low, but their income is just as low, they’re still spinning their wheels as far as wealth is concerned. Do you not understand basic arithmetic?

“real equation is Change in Wealth = Appreciation + (Official Income * Tax Factor) – Living Expenses + Transfer Payments.”
—first, this assumes the poor farmer with minimal assets owns anything whose value would actually appreciate, but nice try. Second, the poor farmer isn’t receiving transfer payments; the effect of those transfer payments is absorbed into those subsidies which go towards nominally reducing their actual expenses. So your “real” equation is nothing more than hot air…much like you. And it’s going to get worse for you.

But after all this time, here comes the absolutely best part. Based on your Wiki link, in 2000, China’s GINI was 55%. In the Credit Suisse report, page 123, for 2010, China’s GINI was 69%. Do you know what that means, Einstein? That’s right, buddy, China’s wealth gap has increased from 2000 to 2010. Like I said in #56, “Based on the income gap that has developed during that time, I would expect a more contemporary assessment of wealth gap to reflect that change accordingly.” So thanks for providing the numbers to prove my point precisely. You are so good at fetching stuff. You certainly come by your moniker of mansbestfriend honestly.

Now, you have done a complete face-plant as I’ve described. Based on your prior behaviour, and the dearth of character and poor quality of upbringing that it reflects, you will simply slither away and hide rather than admit that you’ve yet again been humping the wrong tree. I suppose that’s understandable. Better luck next time. And next time, even if the logic exceeds your grasp as it always does, at least have the meagre intelligence to read and understand your own links, just so you’re not constantly and repeatedly shooting yourself in the foot. The CCP trains you well…even with the shooting yourself in the foot that, which they’re obviously expert at. At some point, I might feel a pang of pity for you…after I finish ROFL.

November 15, 2011 @ 5:00 am | Comment

SK Cheung
The point of wealth is not to spend it on necessities like food.

No, the point of wealth is to spend it how you need to, dumbass. Clearly few are going to have to mortgage the home to buy food but if it ever came down to it they could.

To the point of being free? If so, then you have a point.

No, stupid. If they pay less for fuel it narrows the gap. It isn’t considered a part of “income”.

the poor will have no change in wealth unless their income exceeds said expenses.

Who says their income doesn’t exceed expenses, stupid? BECAUSE the government makes food and fuel and housing affordable, they can contribute to savings – unlike the vast majority of the bottom decile in literally every other country on the list. China is one of the rare nations where the bottom decile is not living off of debt, stupid.

this assumes the poor farmer with minimal assets owns anything whose value would actually appreciate, but nice try.

They own land, stupid. Their livestock also sell for more each year.

China’s GINI was 55%. In the Credit Suisse report, page 123, for 2010, China’s GINI was 69%.

You do realize that you can apply the “GINI” to any set of numbers right, stupid? You’re so dumb you probably looked at the income figure. That’s just how mentally challenged you are. But you’re making progress, I admit, even if you are at the level of a brain-dead chimp.

after I finish ROFL.

After you finish emptying your drool cup, which probably has more brain cells in it than your skull.

November 15, 2011 @ 5:50 am | Comment

And it’s not even GINI, it’s Gini, named after an Italian guy. You’re an idiot.

November 15, 2011 @ 5:50 am | Comment

So I looked at the information again, it turns out even you have realized that Gini can be applied to more than just income.

You have progressed indeed, my mentally challenged friend. Now please explain why China’s wealth distribution is far less stratified than any developing democracies that are excessively touted by the West’s corporate media (India, Brazil) and then why China’s government needs to be overthrown for a wealth imbalance that every nation has.

Oh right, to West fanboys it’s only bad when China does it.

November 15, 2011 @ 6:19 am | Comment

“Clearly few are going to have to mortgage the home to buy food but if it ever came down to it they could.”
—and just as clearly, when you don’t have enough income, like those poor rural farmers, that’s what they’d be contemplating…assuming they even have a home to sell. And sure, you can spend your wealth. But as I’ve said at least twice now, once you spend your wealth, you have less of it left, and a bigger gap with those who still have some. That, for the truly stupid like you, would be increasing the wealth gap that you like to talk about so much. How stupid are you?

“If they pay less for fuel it narrows the gap”
—huh? What “gap” does it narrow? If anything, paying less for fuel would reduce their expense, which would allow them to increase their wealth for any given level of income. But the point is that paying less for fuel means you’re still paying something for fuel, and you still need some income to do that. If they got fuel for free, then your “transfer payments” might actually keep them warm at night. Otherwise, part of their paltry income gets spent on fuel, which means it can’t be spent on something else, or it can’t go towards increasing their wealth. Grow a brain, dude.

“Who says their income doesn’t exceed expenses”
—I said UNLESS. Geez, why can’t disingenuous CCP apologists like you ever read?

“they can contribute to savings”
—IFF (that’s if and only if, for the truly retarded like you) income exceeds expenses, as I said before. Man, saying it once, or ten times, is clearly not enough for the thick-skulled like you.

“They own land, stupid.”
—oh really? Actually, it’s long term lease rights, not clear title ownership. But why quibble about details, right?

“You’re so dumb you probably looked at the income figure.”
—i really don’t think you’re doing 50 cents of work here. I even gave you the page number. The heading of the table says “Distribution of wealth within countries and regions, 2010”. I mean seriously, are you at the stage of needing to be spoon-fed data from a report that YOU linked to yourself? Have you even read the thing? LOL.

“So I looked at the information again”
—when you say “again”, you mean “for the first time”, right? You’re pathetic, even for a CCP apologist.

And oh look, the obfuscation begins. My point was that with the current income gap that China has and which is undeniable, the wealth gap ABSOLUTELY MUST follow, after a time delay. And with your own numbers (thanks, btw, good doggie), the GINI has increased from 55% to 69% from 2000 to 2010, to precisely underscore my point. And your response? Well…ummm…what about other countries? Ah yes, when in doubt (if you’re a CCP apologist), compare. But when you gather yourself from your embarrassing face-plant, you’ll realize that your wealth gap argument has just gone ka-boom. Too bad; so sad.

Anyway, good job bringing up the Credit Suisse report. At the very least, this should shut you up the next time the income gap gets mentioned, and you try to stick your foot into your mouth about wealth gap. You’ve done that enough already, methinks. And of course, not one acknowledgement of being totally out to lunch on a point you’ve been trying to make several times, as you point out yourself. Ah yes, there’s that lack of character and piss-poor upbringing coming into play once more. It’s like all you CCP apologists are related, you guys are so much alike.

Oh, and if you actually look at that table, India is at 78%. Worse than China, no doubt, but China is hardly “far less stratified”. Brazil isn’t in that table. Anyhow, i suggest you read that report. Quite interesting. Enjoy. I know I did.

November 15, 2011 @ 8:52 am | Comment

SK Cheung
If anything, paying less for fuel would reduce their expense, which would allow them to increase their wealth for any given level of income.

Finally, your self-inflicted stupidity has lifted to a minor extent. Your inborn idiocy however, I cannot speak for. I have passed my test as certified learning disabled instructor.

IFF (that’s if and only if, for the truly retarded like me) income exceeds expenses

Except, as the data shows, this is true for even the bottom decile in China. Good thing you were paying attention and aren’t just a shameless prostitute for the West’s corporatocracy.

Actually, it’s long term lease rights, not clear title ownership

Oh right a 99 year lease that you can sell, but what are facts compared to your stupidity and whining?

I even gave you the page number.

Considering you ignored the data 4 times before, I was simply shocked that temporarily held your retardation at bay to look at the information. Too bad you stopped short of actually understanding anything, and just beelined the figure you wanted.

But you’re mentally challenged and I will be patient. It’s hard for people with your profound retardation to learn things. I am proud to have helped. Take this to your mother and tell her she should be happy she decided not to abort when they realized you had so many congenital defects.

the wealth gap ABSOLUTELY MUST blah blah blahdeblah

Shut up. Your point was that CHINA MUST BE DESTROYED OVERTHROW THE CCP TODAY NOW NOW NOWNOWNOWNOW!

You really learned how to be a shameless lying whore from your mother.

you’ll realize that your wealth gap argument has just gone ka-boom.

You’ll realize you’re mentally retarded when my point was that China’s wealth gap is not bad enough to warrant the immediate, overnight destruction of all governing agencies in China you and the corporate masters who hold your leash demand. You really are a depraved moral prostitute. Too bad there is no intellectual version of syphilis for you to contract, though you are already so feeble minded that it might not be necessary.

Brazil isn’t in that table.

Yes it is, you’re just retarded. Try the search function, idiot. Control F. It’s clearly under the “Latin America” section in case you went looking for Brazil under Africa. I know you’re pretty stupid but you’re still full of surprises. It’s 79.6, by the way. Which is greater than 70ish. I’m awaiting for goldilocks theory on why India and Brazil both have higher Ginis, but I think the goldilocks theory of why your IQ is between that of a sewer rat and a pail of dogshit would be far more enlightening.

November 15, 2011 @ 9:19 am | Comment

“Finally, your self-inflicted stupidity has lifted to a minor extent. Your inborn idiocy however, I cannot speak for. I have passed my test as certified learning disabled instructor”
— I shoot down yet another of your stupid statements, and you try to claim credit for helping? Yes, thank you for repeatedly saying stupid things for me to shoot down. You ccp apologists do tend to be very accommodating that way. So paying less for fuel narrows which gap again? Too stupid to fathom, idiots like you.

“Except, as the data shows, this is true for even the bottom decile in China. Good thing you were paying attention and aren’t just a shameless prostitute for the West’s…”
— so wealth is in fact growing ever so slowly even at the bottom of the food chain. That’s great. But we’re talking about the wealth GAP, remember? So even as wealth slowly grows at the bottom, the income gap at the top results in an ever expanding wealth gap upwards. Which is exactly as I had told you. You are not a particularly swift or bright student, which makes you typical. For a ccp apologist. Here’s the other thing. You can’t even focus enough to stick to one argument. One second it’s wealth, the next it’s wealth gap, and you can’t tell up from down any longer.

You’re right. It is a long term lease and farmers can sell it for food if they like. And what does that leave them with? That’s right, fewer assets and a bigger wealth gap than they started with. Still No answer for that, I see. What else is new.

“Considering you ignored the data 4 times before, I was simply shocked that temporarily held your retardation at bay to look …”
—which you, as the person who offered it himself, had clearly not bothered to read. Cuz if you had read it even briefly, you would’ve realized your wealth gap argument was a piece of crap. As it was, a cursory scan of the document was sufficient to blow your argument to bits. In retrospect, I should’ve looked sooner, and made a fool of you earlier. Alas, you were probably saying something else retarded at the time, and even I run out of original ways to call you an idiot from time to time. Though it’s not for a lack of practice.

“Shut up. Your point was that CHINA MUST BE DESTROYED OVERTHROW THE CCP TODAY NOW NOW NOWNOWNOWNOW!”
—lol. Is someone getting a little tense? Poor baby. The ccp does need to go, and Chinese people will be better for it. But right now my point is just to laugh at your stupidity, your inability to grasp the topic you brought up yourself, your failure to understand the data you offer, and your general lack of intelligence. I think that’s enough for now. I don’t want to overburden your limited faculties.

“You’ll realize you’re mentally retarded when my point was that China’s wealth gap is not bad enough to warrant the immediate, overnight destruction of all governing agencies in China…”
—lol again. Yet another ccp apologist standby. When your argument gets absolutely annihilated, don’t have the strength of character to acknowledge it. Instead, just change the argument immediately, obfuscate like hell, and hope nobody notices. I must say that is extremely stereotypical of the whole lot of you. Effective? Not so much. Predictable? Like the tides. Although you debase it a step further with the std references. Way to go. Nice display of initiative. Hopefully that will not go unnoticed by your handlers.

Thanks for fetching me the brazil number. Good doggie. Gosh, for all the laughter you’ve provided today, maybe I should get you a doggie treat. Anyhow, looks like brazil is like India, about 10 points higher than china as of 2010. But as we all know ( and now even you should know) china’s income gap will be raising her wealth Gini number in due time. That realization that I enlightened you to today is free of charge. Least I could do for the laughs you’ve given me.

November 15, 2011 @ 12:04 pm | Comment

Special Cheungsie
The ccp does need to go, and Chinese people will be better for it.

Kinda like how Brazil and India are so much better off, right? So are you saying that democracy is superior, but Brazil and India are inferior for other reasons?

Should I point you back to stormfront?

November 16, 2011 @ 4:34 am | Comment

So even as wealth slowly grows at the bottom, the income gap at the top results in an ever expanding wealth gap upwards.

Except if you weren’t a drooling idiot, you’d realize that DEBT is growing among the 10% poorest elsewhere while the rich get richer. Miss the whole OWS thing? You know, that enormous movement involving people who aren’t shameless, mindless shills for the West’s America-led corporatocracy?

[Last line deleted for obscenity]

November 16, 2011 @ 4:42 am | Comment

I see we’re reaching the final death throes of your “point”. Out of the 7 points in my last comment, you only managed feeble responses to 2. That sounds about right for your level of intelligence.

I didn’t say brazil and India are “so much better off”. Remember, argue against what I say and not what you hope I had said. Shouldn’t be that difficult. You can do it! Those countries certainly have some catching up to do, and their problems can’t be blamed on the ccp. But they’re on the right track. None of which changes china’s issues, but I undestand your impediment that prevents you from getting out of bed in the morning without first making comparisons. It’s quite common among you people.

“you’d realize that DEBT is growing among the 10% poorest elsewhere while the rich get richer. Miss the whole OWS thing?”
—quite true. I didn’t say debt wasn’t growing elsewhere. See above for your lesson of the day. But one thing is for sure. Chinas wealth gap is growing ( thanks again btw), and with her increasing income gap, we all know where that wealth gap is heading as well. In fact, if Chinese people had the freedoms enjoyed by people in other countries, they may have had themselves a little get together this past month as well. Alas, they don’t enjoy those basic freedoms. But as chinas wealth gap continues to grow, maybe they’ll have their own unique movement with Chinese characteristics, fashioned under the ccp’s penchant to allow “pop-off” valves from time to time, made necessary only by their obstinence towards such expression at all other times.

Now did someone get a potty mouth at the end there? Lol. You should know that a point that can’t be made without an expletive or obscenity probably isn’t worth making. Sounds like you missed out on quite a number of lessons in your earlier years.

November 16, 2011 @ 8:54 am | Comment

SKC – China’s wealth gap isn’t growing – all the rich Chinese are migrating out to the West and taking their money with them 🙂 It’s all a CCP plan to eradicate poverty (all relative, you see – no rich people, ergo, no one can be called poor!).
One wonders what the Chinese OWS protest would have been like hadn’t a certain event that “didn’t” happen in 1989 still not be fresh in people’s minds….guess we’ll never find out.
But China’s great – the GDP statistics tell us it is great. These are open stats, aren’t they? Not state secrets…? But it was great when I was there – everyone was happy and no one was worried about the food or the safety of trains or buses or the rising prices or the unaffordable housing or the corruption and how kids have to study hard to get into a good school only to find out guanxi works a lot better – no studying required (yeah, this one is something I know of personally). Think of the benefits of having a hazy atmosphere – no melanomas! It’s great! And we know there’s no need to worry because the CCPs own stats tell us the air is not that bad (only them pesky US figures suggest it’s “crazy bad” – but they use some other statistical method using finer numbers or something – a western plot, anyway).
Yeah, it’s great to be Chinese – especially when you don’t have to live there, eh Merp?

November 16, 2011 @ 11:30 am | Comment

To mike,
Yes, I’d heard there was and continues to be an exodus of chinese wealth overseas. I’ve heard it often looks like the “astronaut” phenomenon out of HK back in the 1980s, where those with high income and accumulated wealth shuttle their assets and families overseas, while staying behind to continue to enjoy their high income and to further accumulate wealth. It’s a great system if you can avail yourself to it. But of course not everyone can.

It would be quite the irony if the majority of wealth ends up leaving china. They’ve already been through a stage where everyone is equally poor, and that didn’t work out so well. When Deng said some people have to get rich first, I don’t think his intended corollary was for those first lucky ones to then get out of Dodge.

November 16, 2011 @ 1:49 pm | Comment

Special Cheungsie
Remember, argue against what I say

CHINA IS EVIL! DESTROY THE CCP! ABOLISH GOVERNMENT IN CHINA! DEMOCRACY IS GREAT! CORPORATISM IS GREAT!

Did I miss anything?

I’ve heard it often looks like the “astronaut” phenomenon out of HK back in the 1980s

Yes it’s like every immigrant group that has ever gone to America save the first few waves.

It happened with Taiwan too. Now both HK and Taiwan are rich, what happened? I thought all their rich left?

November 17, 2011 @ 2:53 am | Comment

“It happened with Taiwan too. Now both HK and Taiwan are rich, what happened? I thought all their rich left?”

Ummmm, because they were both colonised by non-Chinese? What was it Liu Xiaobo said?
“(It would take) 300 years of colonialism. In 100 years of colonialism, Hong Kong has changed to what we see today. With China being so big, of course it would require 300 years as a colony for it to be able to transform into how Hong Kong is today. I have my doubts as to whether 300 years would be enough.””

😉 I’ll see myself out……

November 17, 2011 @ 8:46 am | Comment

Which explains why China has higher rates of growth than either. Ignoring the fact that no non-Chinese had any part to play in Taiwan’s development, and that Hong Kong did well in spite of the white parasites, not because of them.

Real British legacies would be Sudan, Burma, India and Iran. All glowing successes.

November 17, 2011 @ 10:27 am | Comment

“CHINA IS EVIL! DESTROY THE CCP! ABOLISH GOVERNMENT IN CHINA! DEMOCRACY IS GREAT! CORPORATISM IS GREAT!”
—gosh, I’m really wiping the floor with you now. Fun times. China isn’t evil. The CCP isn’t necessarily even evil, though their methods aren’t the best. The CCP doesn’t need to be destroyed. They just need to be removed from power; actually, I guess power needs to be removed from them. Of course you need government, in China and elsewhere; just not the CCP iteration thereof. Democracy has its strengths and weaknesses, and Chinese people can do with it as they please. The point is that they should make their own decisions; they don’t need the CCP to make it for them, and they most certainly don’t need an overseas dufus like you to make it for them. Besides, given the looks of things, you’ve got enough problems here. You have really devolved since I enlightened you to the fact that an increasing income gap will eventually result in an increasing wealth gap. You were always an idiot of the most profound order, but now you’ve become a bumbling and muttering version thereof. I guess the suggestion to argue against what people actually say didn’t really “take”, considering that I’ve never said those silly phrases you’ve reduced yourself to arguing against. But as I always say, you do what you gotta do. If you need to engage in imaginary debate, that’s just that much more amusing for me. And you’ve done a great job so far, so thanks for all the laughs. I should really give you a treat, shouldn’t I…

“Yes it’s like every immigrant group that has ever gone to America”
—in my experience, the HK immigrant group was quite unique in having the main bread-winner stay in HK while the rest of the brood moved overseas. But if you’ve got data to support your assertion that “every immigrant group” has done that, be my guest. Just a word of advice: if you’re gonna link something, do yourself a favour and read it first, okay? Don’t say I didn’t warn you. Good luck.

“Now both HK and Taiwan are rich, what happened? I thought all their rich left?”
—I don’t think all their rich left. Why would you think that? However, it should be noted that HK and Taiwan aren’t mainland China. Maybe they don’t have as much reason to leave as they do with PRC, for those who are able to. But there was definitely an exodus from HK in the years leading up to 1997 before it became clear that they would be afforded special status. That special status expires in 2047. It’ll be interesting to see if there’s another spike in emigration as that deadline approaches (assuming of course that the CCP is still in charge).

November 17, 2011 @ 11:57 am | Comment

MerpoFerinCookie
You forgot the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, Hong Kong, Shanghai, South Africa……

November 17, 2011 @ 12:52 pm | Comment

Is the Cookie Monster just same person from all this time with different names? That is a new level of insecurity…

Global Times is much worse than Fox really, and I suspect so many people in China would be equal to right wing nutjobs if they judged themselves with American political measures

November 18, 2011 @ 2:10 am | Comment

USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, Hong Kong, Shanghai, South Africa……

Empire, resource colony, resource colony, sheep farmers, failure, not a real British legacy, not a real British legacy, train wreck.

lavochkin
That is a new level of insecurity…

Yes, I should name myself something unique like “lavochkin” or “smith” or “bob”. You’re immediately identifiable as a unique person in real life. Everyone in the West is that special, actually.

SK Cheung
Maybe they don’t have as much reason to leave as they do with PRC,

Except Taiwan was under one party rule until the 90s. Yeah, their GDP per capita was around $20,000 (ppp) by the time Lee Tenghui left office.

I forgot that your “US/West does no wrong” brainwashing prevents you from realizing that the US supported right-wing dictatorships in dozens of countries for decades.

Do you shut down when you see the name “Mubarak”?

November 21, 2011 @ 3:16 am | Comment

Democracy has its strengths and weaknesses, and Chinese people can do with it as they please.

The people… the people… the people…the people…the people…the people…the people…the people…the people…the people…the people…the people…the people…

Someone give Hillary Clinton her broken record back, after removing the mystery liquid that has appeared on it after SK Cheung’s stewardship, of course.

November 21, 2011 @ 3:17 am | Comment

“Yes, I should name myself something unique like “lavochkin” or “smith” or “bob”.”
—using a handle is fine. It’s using multiple handles that, among many other things, makes you a loser. And note once again you’re arguing against something that lavochkin didn’t say. He’s not mocking you for calling yourself a stupid name; he’s mocking you because you apparently have the need to go by multiple different stupid names. THAT is what indicates the insecurity, or stupidity, or whatever it is that ails you. I see that the lesson still has not permeated through your rather thick skull…or perhaps there is just not much of note inside there to process the lesson.

“Except Taiwan was under one party rule until the 90s.”
—indeed. The efflux of people will always be based on a combination of those with the financial capability to do so, and those with a reason to bother. Taiwanese people may not have left in large numbers before the 90s because of one and/or the other reason. HK people left before the 90s because the spectre of the CCP gave them good reason to bother. For the next 2 decades, HK people may have less reason to bother. That too may change once they get a better read on what might transpire after 2047. PRC people are leaving now also because the CCP gives them good reason to do so, and more and more of them have the financial capability to do it (remember that income gap and wealth gap yet again).

“I forgot that your “US/West does no wrong” brainwashing prevents you from realizing that the US supported right-wing dictatorships in dozens of countries for decades.”
—LOL. Pray tell, what does that have to do with CHina? It’s OK, take your time…I’ll wait…

“The people”
—yes, it would do you good to repeat that a number of times. You CCP apologist types seem to forget about them. No wonder, really, since the CCP is first and foremost concerned about its own existence, so its mouthpieces of course will be singing the party line until the cows come home. And you’re one reliable mouthpiece. Intelligent? Hell no. Classy? Of course not (as evidenced here yet again). Proper upbringing? Perish the thought. The CCP must find you folks while on their daily rounds looking for gutter oil or something of that nature.

November 21, 2011 @ 6:15 am | Comment

SK Cheung
among many other things, makes you a loser.

More unsubstantiated dreck from the drooling lips of Special Cheungsie. No, using multiple handles shows that the name is irrelevant to the argument – must be hard for lobotomized drones like you to understand such a simple concept.

and those with a reason to bother.

Your gums keep flapping about how democracy is a major reason for immigration. Explain then why poor democracies like Mexico are such a huge source of migrants? Or is democracy not the cure-all you’re claiming it is?

You CCP apologist types seem to forget about them.

Oh yes which is why the CCP does nothing for the people, you know except the whole education, sanitation, infrastructure, economy, technology, science, health thing that they are delivering in historically unprecedented scale.

But hey, if 2-3 million children in India die of diarrhea and malnutrition every year, does Special Cheungsie hear it? Does he care? Nope, he’s a pre-programmed shill of corporatism and world ruled by the West.

November 21, 2011 @ 8:07 am | Comment

“No, using multiple handles shows that the name is irrelevant to the argument – must be hard for lobotomized drones like you to understand such a simple concept.”
—lol. What makes your argument irrelevant isn’t the name that’s affixed to it. Can you guess what makes your arguments irrelevant ( and inane, and stupid, and illogical)? I’ll give you a couple of guesses first. Good luck.

“Explain then why poor democracies like Mexico are such a huge source of migrants? Or is democracy not the cure-all you’re claiming it is?”
— because economic issues would be another “major reason for immigration”. China has a great and growing economy under the Ccp. So gee, I wonder why the rich are leaving? Hmm…I wonder if it’s because of the political system. I wonder I wonder…

Democracy is not a cure-all, nor have I ever claimed that. But you knew that already, since your special talent is arguing against something others didn’t say. Though democracy doesn’t cure all, it certainly helps.

“Oh yes which is why the CCP does nothing for the people, you know except the whole education, sanitation, infrastructure, economy, technology, science, health thing that they are delivering in historically unprecedented scale.”
—true enough, the Ccp certainly does the things it has to do in order to stay in power. But it does what’s best for number one, and if that happens to be good for Chinese people, so be it. Which is precisely ass backwards. I wonder what would happen if the people wanted the Ccp to do something that was good for the average Zhou but not so good for the Ccp? I wonder I wonder…

India certainly has issues, as you types are keen to point out. How that relates to china, I’ve never known. Maybe it’s part of that penchant for comparison that seems to afflict the whole lot of you good folks.

November 21, 2011 @ 2:59 pm | Comment