Daai Tou Lam Diary is a quiet C-blog written by an American resident of Hong Kong. As he is fluent in Chinese, his posts often contain translations from the local Hong Kong media, and he is very critical of the Chinese government. A recent post on the Carrefour boycott drew this conclusion:
As anyone who has spent much time reading the history of the Sino-British negotiations on the handover of Hong Kong, China’s preferred diplomatic wedge is the foreign business community. Read through Jonathan Dimbleby’s The Last Governor and you’ll many many instances where the PRC negotiators leaned on the British business community to lean on Chris Patten to kowtow to PRC diplomatic demands. Carrefour, who needed China more than China needed them as opposed to French hi-tech or automotive companies, would be the fulcrum that the CCP[?] used to move Sarkozy and the French government. There was nothing Carrefour could do to stop the protests except lean on Sarkozy to kowtow to the CCP.
What the CCP wanted was for Sarkozy to quit criticizing China on human rights and commit to attending the Opening Ceremony.
Despite the bad press and public panic surrounding the safety of Chinese imports, China is not really vulnerable to boycotts because most of its exports do not bear Chinese brand names. Chinese imports from Korea and other countries, on the other hand, have foreign brand names that make easy targets for boycotts. While browsing Chinese forums yesterday, I came across a graphic with the logos of about 40 Korean brands sold in China along with a call for a boycott. This was just one website, so it doesn’t look like Samsung electronics dealerships will replace Carrefour as staging grounds for rallies anytime soon.
Carrefour was chosen for a boycott because it is seen as more dependent on the Chinese market than other French firms. Which Korean companies, if any, would be a “fulcrum” for the Chinese government to put pressure on the Korean government?
Sphere: Related Content
71 Comments
I’ve read over your article few times, but I’m unclear on what you are trying to say.
Are you saying Korean companies would not be affected by Chinese boycott because they’re too visible to the Chinese public?
That doesn’t make any sense. If the Korean brands are visible in China, wouldn’t that make it a better target than products that don’t have branding?
I don’t understand what you are saying here. But I understand the Chinese boycotts of Korean goods are now under full swing.
CM,
Is is this statement that puzzles you?
“Chinese imports from Korea and other countries” refers to products manufactured in Korea, Japan, France, the US, and other countries and imported into China. With a China-centric reference, products from Korea, Japan, France, the US, and elsewhere are all “foreign products.”
I’m not offering an opinion but asking a question that might be answered by some of our commenters more knowledgeable about international business than I.
Where did you hear this? Please cite some sources.
“Carrefour was chosen for a boycott because it is seen as more dependent on the Chinese market than other French firms.”
In 2006, Carrefour left Korea “in an effort to refocus its spending on core markets like France and more promising new ones like China.”
http://www.iht.com/articles/20...../carre.php
Smart move, that.
The angry boycotts against American products in 1999 and Japanese products in 2005 should have been a warning to them.
Without abandoning China’s market, Korean companies should also look to other countries. It has been putting too many eggs in the China basket.
India also has a billion people, but it’s a democracy and its people have been raised on Gandhi, not Mao.
“I’m not offering an opinion ”
Ah… got it.
“Where did you hear this? Please cite some sources.”
I had the impression that was what you’re saying here. No? Can you post the link for the below?
“I came across a graphic with the logos of about 40 Korean brands sold in China along with a call for a boycott. “
“Smart move, that.”
China is everyone’s Frankenstein monster that created. Now it’s out of control, and we’re all depended on it. We can’t destroy it because we’re too depended on it. The rush to make money on a billion plus people blinded us to the fact that the regime is a morally bankrupt system that would never change. I’d gladly take a cut in my living standard if we can somehow cut down on the dependence on China. The way we’re going right now, one day China will be the ones dictating all the terms to us on what to do and what not to do or else.. I can’t imagine what the world will look like with China in charge.
They will try to boycott “Dae Jang Geum” until all the Chinese aunties whine to their husbands and they won’t be able to take it anymore…
I think the impact of Chinese boycotts is exaggerated. The fact is that a lot of Chinese brands are junk. They don’t buy foreign brands because they like foreigners - they buy them because foreign brands look better, work better and are more reliable. In a poor* country like China, the average Chinese consumer doesn’t have the spare cash to buy domestic brand junk just because somebody else says it patriotic. The average Chinese thinks that boycotts are a good idea - and it’s somebody’s else responsibility to avoid buying foreign goods.
* Someone could jump in and say that on a purchasing power parity basis, China isn’t poor. But that purchasing power only applies to stuff that doesn’t compete in international markets. You can’t buy gasoline with inflated purchasing power dollars. And because of Chinese trade barriers, a significant chunk of basic supplies costs more in China than abroad. For example, pork shoulder costs $1.50 a pound in China. It’s only about $0.89 a pound in New York City (not exactly known as a low cost city for groceries).
I know of people who are hurting because of the huge rise in gasoline prices - even after the Chinese government’s fuel subsidies. Think about it - someone whose salary (plus kickbacks plus other hidden contributions from the corporate budget) is 5000 yuan has had his monthly gasoline bill go up from 800 yuan to 1400 yuan. This is not a small portion of his monthly budget. Bottom line - the Chinese consumer is not going to buy domestic brand junk to appease a bunch of students, no matter how much he might agree with them in principle.
Face it Korea, you have everything to lose. China makes Korea virtually irrelevent. The only place China can go is up, Korea down… and it has.
define relevancy, cause if you mean center of attention no one cares.
“Face it Korea, you have everything to lose. China makes Korea virtually irrelevent. The only place China can go is up, Korea down… and it has.”
Got issues much?
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/s.....amp;page=1
One article I read claims that the Chinese government is not cooperating with the investigation. If that is true, then clearly we cannot trust Chinese products anymore.
Unfortunately for Americans, corporate profits are put ahead of citizen’s lives.
A boycott would not work. “Zhang” nailed it. Chinese consumers are now too much like American consumers, who will not boycott a good sale price.
We have met the enemy and they are on sale for 5.99 (must buy two).
Fortunately for Americans, and much of the world, profitable corporations have greatly enhanced their quality of life. But I would agree that the system has gotten more than a bit out of balance in recent years.
There is where Zhang Fei’s prejudice affects his critical thinking skills, and here I was having praised him in the past. “A lot of Chinese brands are junk” becomes all Chinese goods are junk and they will have no choice but to buy foreign goods.
Zhang fei has things confused and turned on end. Name brand foreign products are essentially luxury goods for most Chinese consumers, not essentials. Chinese consumers like all consumers are price and status sensitive. Boycotts are more likely to affect status sensitive products than price sensitive ones. It’s as simple as that. Samsung isn’t selling gasoline or pork shoulder, they are selling consumer electronics.
On this topic, the Joongang Ilbo, which is owned by Samsung, allowed this on today’s editorial page:
Not exactly the most business-friendly tone, I would say.
Please reread the sentence that followed the quote:
“This was just one website, so it doesn’t look like Samsung electronics dealerships will replace Carrefour as staging grounds for rallies anytime soon.”
I agree. However, there no large Korean chain businesses like Carrefour, and few exclusive Korean dealerships, so it would be more difficult for Chinese demonstrators to enforce boycotts with picket lines and harassment of shoppers. Boycott campaigns against foreign products in Korea generate lots of publicity but little success. A few days after Korean farmers threw cow dung on US beef in a tony department store supermarket, Korean housewives were filling their carts with American oxtails and flank steaks. I think most Americans, Canadians, Koreans, Chinese, and everyone else are alike in that respect: if they want something, they’ll buy it regardless of where it’s made. People who avoid products from certain countries for nationalistic reasons are a minority anywhere.
Governments should penalize companies that manufacture in China. It is time for the West to step up and bring about the downfall of the Chinese economy by taking their business out of China ASAP.
China doesn’t make Korea irrelevant. China is only relevant because it offers cheap labor. As China gets richer, wages rise China will price itself out of the cheap labor market. China is simply a cheap labor pool for Western and Korean companies. That’s it. China produces exactly ZERO quality products. Ask yourself this: would you ever buy a Chinese car? A Chinese camera? A Chinese computer? A Chinese mp3 player? A Chinese computer? Do the Chinese make airplanes any airline would buy? Do the Chinese produce anything themselves instead of just make it on the cheap for foreign companies? The only thing I’m aware of is that China is trying to catch up to Korea and Japan in shipbuilding yet they lag far behind these two countries and only count when it comes to producing cheap ships.
China is easily replaceable. When the cost of manufacturing in China gets too high companies will move on to Vietnam or the Philippines or Cambodia or any other country where they can continue employing cheap labor. And China will be left with no brands of its own and Chinese products shunned because of poor quality.
Our governments should be giving companies the incentive to jump the Chinese ship and move elsewhere.
The West made China. China’s economic rise is an illusion. Let’s pop this stupid bubble.
Most of what Korea sells to China are not consumer goods. The few consumer goods that Korea successfully sells to China are so badly ripped off that it’s hardly profitable for Koreans. For instance, Engadget found that in Beijing, there are 88 different types of Samsung cell phone on sale.
http://www.switched.com/2007/1.....s-in-beij/
So if China boycotts Samsung for instance, Samsung would not be that much effected as there are not that many real Samsung phones on sale anyway. The ones who will get hurt will be the Chinese who make pirated goods.
“Our governments should be giving companies the incentive to jump the Chinese ship and move elsewhere.”
“The West made China. China’s economic rise is an illusion. let’s pop this stupid bubble.”
I completely agree with this. The Industrialized world made China. It’s time to dismantle it. North America, EU, Japan, Korea, Australia, should all get together silently and devise a strategy to get rid of this cancer once and for all before it grows too big and kill the patient. Each respective governments should devise a plan to effectively discourage their corporations from investing in China.
Yes, let’s bring down an economy that supports 1.3 billion people. Great idea.
Ah the kapo-kyopo mentality rears its passive aggressive head.
p.s. you mentioned computers twice.
…a plan to discourage corporations from entering a market comprising 20% of the world’s population, and growing at 10% or more per year. Yeah, sounds reasonable.
Or maybe the world might end up a better place (y’know, the human race’s ‘happiness quotient’) if China is a participating member of the global community, rather than ostracized from it.
“the west made China”.
It was symbiotic. The west sent in the capital investment to build a manufacturing base. The Chinese built all the crap that we consume and throw away. We bought it. They made money. They lent us that money so we could keep buying more. Chinese workers got jobs and better standards of living, paid for, get this, by money that we borrowed from them, which they earned by selling to us, so that we could buy more stuff they made.
Untangle that sentence if you will. But it boils down to symbiosis.
Who says I’m a kyopo? Sorry, whiter than you most likely and straight from Europe.
Listen. This isn’t a Korean issue, it’s a world issue. As someone said, China is like Frankestein, though I’d say it’s still Frankenstein hooked up to life support. It depends almost exclusively on exports of cheaply made foreign goods. This is good news because it is ultimately OUR choice where we manufacture and we can move to Vietnam or Cambodia or anywhere else. In other words its still time to shut down life support and put Frank to sleep for good. The problems will REALLY start when Frankie gets free of life support and can stand on his own two feet. You think China is pushy now? Well imagine China 20-50 years from now. China will do what the USSR failed to do — take over the world — and it will do it because we are too greedy and blind to see the danger.
I’ll say it again. It’s time to pop the Chinese economy. Time to stop giving them our money, time to stop letting them in on a cut of our profits. As long as China is a cheap labor pool and nothing but a cheap labor pool it is still semi-managable. Once CHINESE goods (not Chinese made western goods) evolve from the current “absolute crap you wouldn’t give to your worst enemy on his wedding day” status, watch out.
The next time I hear a Chinese say we are jealous of China’s economic rise I’m going to laugh in his face. It’s still a poor country that produces nothing of quality. There is no Chinese economic rise, there’s only the stupidity of the West for floating this jalopy. Let’s sink it before it’s too late.
Well, I don’t like this symbiosis. The West may have gained in the short term, but in the long run, we’re losing big time. United States now owes 1.5 trillion dollars and climbing. At this rate, China can start playing hard ball in regards to influencing US policies in China’s favor. And I don’t like it. This is growing a troll and it’s getting bigger and someday it’s going to bite us in the ass. I don’t like being bullied around and told to kiss their ass.
I’d be much happier seeing China crash and burn tomorrow. But hey, I’m not a blind hippy. Chamberlain tried appeasement and cooperation too when he should have worked with allies to destroy China. We are 5 decades too late to destroy them militarily, we might as well destroy their economy. So we might have to rebuild a manufacturing base elsewhere and our standard of living might take a bit of a nosedive for a while… I’d say it’s a price I’d be happy to pay as long as my son doesn’t have to live in a world where China calls the shots. It’s in essence a country unfit to call itself ready for the 20th century, much less the 21st century. Pop their bubble, sink their ship, put them in their place.
“growing at 10% or more”
I think if we all band together and try, we can bring it down to 1%. I’m willing to take a hit in my wallet too, if that’s what it means. It will be good for the earth too, it needs a break from getting raped by insatiable Chinese industries that’s currently gobbling up all world’s resources.
J: Name brand foreign products are essentially luxury goods for most Chinese consumers, not essentials.
At a 25 to 50 % premium over Chinese brands, I wouldn’t call Colgate and Crest luxury products. The average Chinese does distrust domestic brands - the fact is that when you’re shopping for toothpaste, you shouldn’t have to worry about whether the effects of ingesting anti-freeze are cumulative. That’s why both US brands have significant shares of the Chinese market.
When it comes to buying a Ningbo Bird or TCL phone vs a Samsung or LG phone, it’s no contest. The Korean brands are better-looking, better-built and have better reputations for reliability. And best of all, they cost only a couple of hundred yuan more than their Chinese counterparts. For a phone that many expect to use for years, they’ll get the best they can, as opposed to buying a Chinese product that will either stop working a year later or develop inexplicable glitches because the Chinese brand underpriced the foreign brand by cutting corners.
cm, I know you’re a regular, and we might be able to debate the economics of your Chinese Wall suggestion, but there’s too much static from maddog.
To whom I address this: dude, your hatred reeks. Perhaps, for the sake of clarity, you should switch to simpler statements, like: “Let’s just line up all the Chinese against a wall and shoot them.” Your understanding of world trade is too underdeveloped for you to continue pursuing the line of reasoning to which you aspire.
Well Linkd, to be fair, I’m a regular here, but I’m in the same mood as maddog. Forgive me, but I just watched this video again
http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....KTfH7gnfsg
Who were those chaps being attacked in the hotel lobby? They were young Americans who dared to carry a Tibetan flag. All they did was to carry a Tibetan flag. They talk calmly about it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_ZEAn3RPbU
I know there is at least one person here who may think this is amusing, but these were Americans. This is not just about China vs Korea. It’s China vs Free World.
Why don’t you educate me then? I’m not saying we don’t need China to an extent or that China isn’t important. What Im saying is that we have to weigh things and see the balance. As far as I see it, China is a threat not a partner. While we would take a good hit if we disengaged from China, in the end it’s more beneficial than allowing China to develop and gain more power. China is a force for evil. Before you accuse me of Bush-style rhetoric take a look at China’s support for North Korea, the junta in Burma, the murderers in Sudan as well as China’s recent attempt to sell a shipload of arms to Zimbabwe… China has shown a callous disregard for human rights as it sends North Koreans back to certain torture and years in a Nork gulag or to Robert Mugabe’s disgusting contempt for democracy and wanton lust for power. China’s claims that it doesn’t interfere with the domestic situation in countries stinks to high heavens. Looking at things ONLY through economy is to turn a blind eye to the very real abuses of its new-found wealth and status as a power by this contemptible country. It is not that I hate China, though I admit to having no love for them.
Tell me, what kind of a country can make a decision to send a shipload of guns and ammo to a country where as we speak Robert Mugabe’s henchmen are arresting, beating and killing people who dared to vote against him? Is this a country that we want calling shots on the international stage? A friend of Mugabe, Kim, Imadinnerjacket and Omar Hasan Ahmad al-Bashir is not a friend of mine. Do you aspire to such friends?
Economic growth is human nature. Every third world woman on the street with a bin full of vegetables hopes to invest in a proper shop. And I, like all entrepreneurs, dream of ways to grow my own business. This takes capital.
Some countries get this capital by selling their natural resources. Some by selling their labor. The most advanced countries sell their high value-added talent. The NE Asian model is to sell their labor along the value chain of manufactured goods for export to consumer countries. It’s how they obtain capital that, efficiently or otherwise, eventually is able to put a roof over the vegetable woman’s bin of carrots.
Hobbling the process of acquiring capital in NE Asia delays the development of the whole population’s standard of living. China’s toilet facilities are famous worldwide: trenches that people squat over. True, it will strain the world’s water resources if every Chinese person were able to flush - but yet, sanitation and access to fresh water is pretty much held to be a ‘human right’. The water may go to the factories first, but the local expertise in how to run a sewer system forms the basis of better public health. Sewer systems take capital. In the NE Asian development model, that capital comes from international trade. End part 1.
If you use business to send political signals, then everything becomes a signal. You take away the power, and what I would call the right, of Coca Cola, Nike, Mercedes, etc, to control their own brand. When they become known as agents of their home government’s political policies, their customers and shareholders and employees become hostages of a PR image that is ultimately shaped by the needs of politicians to appease their electorates.
Corporations are the best way the world has of creating wealth. Governments have a role in distributing that wealth, but governments are piss poor at creating wealth. Subjugating the wealth-creating role of business to the temporary passions of public outrage would, as per above, delay the acquisition of the the Chinese peasant’s right to flush a toilet. End part 2.
Good to see you excusing China’s enthusiasm for the worst dictatorships on the planet, Linkd.
Again, because maybe you missed it, economics are a small part of what we should be considering. Giving economic power, and what follows it — political power — to a country like China is to sell the world to the Kims and Mugabes of this world. China places no value on what we value in the west, democracy, human rights and liberties and freedoms of all sorts.
China’s activities in supporting repressive governments are indeed deplorable. The way to handle it is not to become bullies ourselves. China won’t accept it. At the moment China is resource-hungry. As it moves up the value chain it has more to gain through trade with the developed world. That trade is (loosely) ‘governed’ through institutions like the world bank, the IMF, the WTO and various FTAs. Sure, you can influence China with threats of cutting off all trade, but if you do that you give up any future leverage. You can only use a threat once. By inviting China in, rather than kicking it out, it will learn how to play nice with the world. And we’ll all get richer. There is no quick fix that makes China’s people better off. The quick fix you guys are after is anger-driven, but it won’t help anyone long-term. End part 3.
I mean, as China gains from being a member of those international organizations, which won’t allow such activities as subsidizing massacres, China will find that it’s in its own best interests to play by the international rules.
I don’t want China’s people to be better off. They showed this Sunday that they don’t deserve to be better off. For a long time I had my disgust aimed clearly at the CCP, this Sunday showed me that the CCP is simply a reflection of its people, not some entity removed from the general population. The CCP is pushy, evil and arrogant because that is what it is rooted in. It’s like a tree that reflects the quality of the soil and the water supply… A polluted soil and water table will lead to unhealthy trees.
Then you will be disappointed. They will grow wealthier, their markets will grow larger, their contribution to global GDP will rise, and their importance to the world economy will increase. No one can stop this, except the Chinese themselves. If you think the west has such power, you are wrong.
You can join them, or not. If you join them you can influence them, but you can’t control them, and you’ll never have the ability to destroy them.
You must be Chinese.
Canuck.
Freedom and human rights supersede money, unfortunately linkd has his head too far up his ass to get the big picture.
Capitalism just does not function without a democracy where the legal system is fair and people have rights.
Engage the Chinese, give them a stake so that they’ll improve their behavior. Hmm… sounds familiar. Where did Kim Dae Jung get his Sunshine Policy from?
I’m with maddog. I don’t want China to get richer. My god. If they get twice as much, their arrogance will grow that much as well. Are you telling me this is just a beginning of their ugly arrogance?
China’s role and importance in the global economy is limited to the amount of access to China’s markets. No access no power. You give access, you lose control of your markets.
Unfortunately for you, the west does have the power. An embargo against all trade, movement of capital and the growth of China drops like a rock. You dont grow a country without technology or capital.
linkd is probably a Chinese residing in Canada. His delusions of grandeur are really misplaced.
Forgot to mention China will be competing with Indian markets, Latin America, South Asia, the middle east all of which are growing.
Linkd’s argument sounds like a defeatest’s argument. You can beat them, so why not join them is his argument. I think it’s bad ideal to put all the eggs in one basket.
with a capital “L”, stacked.
Freedom and human rights go hand-in-hand with money. Just start going through any random list of countries in your head. You’ll see what I mean.
There has been much written recently about the successes of state-directed capitalism, a la China and Russia. To early to make a final judgment, but so far the model is looking pretty robust. The west does not have the only formula for how to run a successful economy, as recent events show all too well.
The Sunshine Policy was a gift. I’m not talking about giving anything. I’m talking about trade.
Linkd is a WASP residing in Seoul.
Growth is not success. They just started so dont jump the gun. They will face massive problems when per capita levels rise to a meaningful levels and even more problems when they reach convergence. This oil and food price crisis has been brought on by China’s emergence and this is only the beginning. Once they reach convergence its a whole new ballgame.
Korea is learning this lesson, Japan not so much. China isn’t even on the map yet.
Freedom, human rights and money dont go hand to hand. Without laws you dont have an economy. And neither one will guarantee the other.
Hitler made the trains run on time and built the autobahns as well as pretty much revive all of Germany’s manufacturing. Tell me how money and freedom went hand in hand in nazi Germany, apologist.
Just look at this thread. These are Chinese Americans who are supposedly better enlightened. Yet they are worse than the mainlanders.
http://www.asiafinest.com/foru.....0&st=0
Building railroads and highways dont equate to success. Hitler revived the manufacturing to an extent due to compulsory labor.
People were paid rock bottom wages, standard of living was poor and people were happy because they nearly went starving in the early 30’s.
He kept Germany afloat but I wouldnt’ call it a revival.
@53, the chinese are retarded either ignore em or attack em.
The Chinese students abroad, for the most part, are from families of new rich. They are the first generation to have a bit of cash. They see us proposing change and they don’t want any of it. Why would they? The system as it is has gotten them in the situation they find themselves in and they like it.
As far as “convergence” curtailing them, Link’d is right. It’s not going to happen. This is a hydra with 1.3 billion heads. They’re not going anywhere. One way or another they will adapt. They’ve gotten through a lot worse than convergence. We can either work with them by being persuasive, or we can be demanding, alienating them and finding nothing but trouble. If we are persuasive we can perhaps give them pause and curtail growth without thought.
By the way, Frankenstein was the doctor not the monster. What does that say about us?
Leave Russia (a petro resource exporter like Nigeria which has squandered the chance to become a first world country and has few to no political or social or economic attributes that make it a model for developing countries) out of the equation, and I’d say Linkd is on to something here.
Some of the Chinese students out there were not verbally and physically beating people down.
“Apologist”? Using invective is an interesting technique. Did you learn that from the Chinese school of debate?
Patience. China has been sh*tting in its own back yard, and the yard is almost full. Hard to be king of the castle when you can’t breath the air or drink the water. Just a matter of time until the stores are offering up long pork again.
@56, there is no such thing has persuasion with nationalism. You are very naive when it comes to Asians. You can persuade to an extent a Korean because although we do have a sense of collective pride we dont go as far as tie our self-esteem into the word Korea.
The Chinese have always been here, whether they are here today or never again is irrelevant. There are choices. The world doesn’t need to accept them because they are here and frankly even with trade most people’s living conditions will not improve because of trade with China.
China will strive for rapid electrification, sewage, better housing, education, expanded agricultural output, public transport systems, and economic growth (ie job creation) because it is only in that way that the Communist Party will stay in power. That will have an environmental toll, and it will have an effect on the world’s commodity prices. But the Chinese will live better, spend more and trade with them will make us all better off. The best hope for mitigating the environmental impact is western investment and know-how.
Russia is a model, not the best one. It may be suitable for cultures that favor strong-man politics over egalitarian democracy. And it will likely evolve with time. Too soon to tell.
cm and maddog,
Just because Linkd is delivering news you don’t like doesn’t make Linkd an apologist.
I agree with Linkd’s assessment of how China’s economy is an integral part of the world economy and how little power the “free world” has to influence it at this point. I also agree that the West does NOT have a monopoly on a universal model of governance and economy for the rest of the world. Indeed, look at the pathetic track record of trying to shove democracy down the throat of the Middle East - a region which overwhelmingly prefers authoritarian forms of government, whether by direct choice or indirect choice.
With that said, the “free world” so to speak should indeed continue to put soft (diplomatic) and, when necessary, hard (trade, military) pressure on China to play nicely. For example, the Korean government should indeed find, prosecute, and deport Chinese thugs for illegal behavior. If similar forms of punishment happen often enough, even the media-insulated Chinese will get the message that their behavior is counter-productive.
Remember one thing : the CCP’s greatest fear is from a revolution within. The easiest paths to revolution are economic hardships and post-war fallout. The CCP will therefor do everything it can to prevent either one from happening, thereby giving the “free world” the necessary leverage to influence Chinese behavior.
“maddog” wishing people harm is not a good solution for solving problems. If your tree/soil analogy holds true, then I wonder what the Bush administration and his grossly abbreviated version of American law and government would say about my fellow Americans. (I am being very nice too when I describe Bush’s vision of things-American).
To Answer the title: Yes.
Linkd has hit the nail on the head. If you guys think that a democracy is required to grow a successful capitalist economy, you are dead wrong. You obviously have not studied the rise of South Korea, Japan, and the Southeast Asian “tigers”. All of these states used “state-led capitalism” to develop their economies. Only one of them, Japan, can be considered a democracy. And even then you are making a reach. If you think Japanese democracy is evenly remotely similar to American democracy (which is what I’m assuming you are basing your version of democracy on) then I think you need to go back to political science class. Korea’s economy started taking off in the 1960s, democracy did not come until 1987. How do you explain that? Singapore is still not a democracy, and that island state is one of the largest economies in the world. How do you explain that? The idea that the “Washington Consensus” with a democracy and market economy is the only way to develop is a load of horse shit.
nachoinkorea, all those examples you mention is irrelevant. China is a special case unto itself.
No, it is not one of the largest economies on the world. It is not even in the top twenty. It is one of the most prosperous countries in the world with a high per capita income.
Looking at the CIA Factbook list of countries ranked by per capita PPP GDP, the top forty is dominated by city-states, petro-states, island tax havens, and Western democracies. I did not notice any large, authoritarian nations among the world’s most prosperous economies. Not saying that democracy is a prerequisite to a developed economy for large nations, but the two seem to go hand in hand. South Korea, Japan and Taiwan are not Western-style democracies, but neither are they authoritarian. Democracy may be the flower, rather than the seed of economic development in large countries.
A growing economy is not a successful capitalistic economy.
Successful implies already grown and mature.
Off-topic, but still amusing, nonetheless:
It’s almost April Fool’s’ Day, and here’s a mock edition of the People’s Daily Overseas Edition newspaper written at some date in China’s future. This satire is finding its way around on the internet.
Check out these headlines:
The main headline at the upper left, above the mushroom cloud, reads: “China Successfully Tests new Type of Nuclear Bomb on San Francisco.”
Next to it in the top middle of the page: “United Nations HQ Moves to Beijing.”
Are you getting the picture? It’s enough to cheer up any Chinese less than chipper about the future.
At top right, the headline reads: “Premier Wen Jiabao accompanied by Gov. Ma Ying-jeou pays a visit to Taiwan.” (In other words, Taiwan has already been absorbed into China.)
At lower right, under the NBA logo, is the headline: “Yao Ming recovers from injury, helps Rockets with championship.”
Smaller headlines lower on the page read:
“Chinese government Apologizes for Accidental Bombing of Pentagon.”
“Dalai Lama is Shot and Killed.”
“Major Earthquake hits Japanese Islands;
Chinese government Sends Rescue Team.
No Survivors found Yet.”
“China Plans to Build 2nd Patriotic Military Base on Moon.”
It’s interesting that headlines play off not only natural interest in China growing ever stronger but also in seeing punishment wrought on its perceived enemies. Japan is abolished in a big quake, and the bombs fall repeatedly on the United States.
It appears - before the Olympic torch incident in Paris and the Korean reaction to the Seoul demonstrations - that the Chinese saw Uncle Sam and Japan as enemies Number One and Two respectively. Post-Paris and -Seoul, it would be interesting to see if these rankings have changed.
If Wen Jiabao is still premier, it can’t be too far into the future since the oldster will reach the Politburo’s official retirement age of 68 in a couple of years.