Made in China is now high end?

[aperson]

This something I often have to explain to my students. I always describe it as "one party state totalitarianism with a capitalist market economy". The distinction between "big C" Communism and "small c" communism is elusive for most people. The policies of the government of China aren't communist, or even socialist in nature. The Communist Party is just a name. Could as well call it something else; policies would be the same.

"Capitalist market economy"? We're talking about a country that still has half of it's GDP coming from wholly or partially state-owned enterprises. All critical sectors (energy, transportation, banking) are state owned. There are 3 or 4 different state owned telcos in China, and the government simply rearranges them as needed and encourages them to kind of compete with each other. Same story with banking, energy, and transportation. 57 out of China's 61 entries in the fortune 500 are state owned (none of Japan's 68 or the USA's 133 are).

Any industry that the government deems strategic will be controlled, directly or indirectly, by the government. This is why western businesses are forced to "partner" with a domestic company (with the explicit purpose of IP and talent transfer) if they want to do business there.

The term "state capitalism" has become popular amongst economists to describe countries like China. This view looks at China more like one large conglomerate rather than as a nation state. China doesn't have "enemies", it has "customers" and "competitors".

But anyway, I though this thread was about whether or not quality goods could be made in China?

 

[stevent]



Even private property is carefully controlled by the government. It may be yours, but the government controls what you may, or may not, do with said land. In both overt and covert ways.
I have never been to a meeting in China concerning the construction of a building that was not attended by 'local government representatives'. These people are showered with absolute respect and deference. In the agressive and competitive world of real estate development I can promise you that such deference is not offered to those who have no control. This is the only location on earth that I have personally witnessed such overt displays of government control.
Many of the 'private' projects that I work on are funded by the government. This is usually a known fact and is thus not covert in and of itself. But let us just say that he who controls the money controls all. Private financing in China can be had. But if you want to use it to develop real estate I'm quite certain you must make it 'worth the while' of the local officials.
Of course, someone is going to pipe in next and say that graft and corruption exists everywhere. And of course it does. But I can promise you that from I can see it is quite high in China and the benefactors are without fail part of 'the party'. I could of course add stories about clients in India going to meet the fire marshall with wads of cash in their trousers. But that **** goes on all over the US as well. Although is not 'the expected norm' as it is in India.

Commercial housing is controlled, but private property flows pretty freely. There are quite a few "settlements" in the wealthier parts of the bigger cities that are filled with houses owned by wealthy Chinese, French, Germans Japanese and a few Americans. Of course when developing business ventures, you have to bribe officials. But compared to other countries such as Vietnam, China is days ahead of "communism." The same goes on in the US, instead of gifts to officials, it may be a big donation to a certain foundation, etc. I think the only major difference between the US and China is is the compliance issues with things such as accounting. You couldn't really bribe your employees and the auditor to hiding numbers, but in China you have three or four books depending on who is looking at it.

 

[Eason]

Where are you getting your ideas? There is plenty of private property in China. Sure there are stories of villages getting destroyed due to a train being built and the like but it is not anywhere close to what you say it is. Bribery and crime may be more prevalent, but honestly the amount of it in the US is quite high and many petty crimes such as stolen iPods / phones will never really be followed up upon by law enforcement.

Even private property is carefully controlled by the government. It may be yours, but the government controls what you may, or may not, do with said land. In both overt and covert ways.

I have never been to a meeting in China concerning the construction of a building that was not attended by 'local government representatives'. These people are showered with absolute respect and deference. In the agressive and competitive world of real estate development I can promise you that such deference is not offered to those who have no control. This is the only location on earth that I have personally witnessed such overt displays of government control.

Many of the 'private' projects that I work on are funded by the government. This is usually a known fact and is thus not covert in and of itself. But let us just say that he who controls the money controls all. Private financing in China can be had. But if you want to use it to develop real estate I'm quite certain you must make it 'worth the while' of the local officials.

Of course, someone is going to pipe in next and say that graft and corruption exists everywhere. And of course it does. But I can promise you that from I can see it is quite high in China and the benefactors are without fail part of 'the party'. I could of course add stories about clients in India going to meet the fire marshall with wads of cash in their trousers. But that **** goes on all over the US as well. Although is not 'the expected norm' as it is in India.

Don't forget the whole "your property for 70 years only" thing.

 

[Maccimus]



Commercial housing is controlled, but private property flows pretty freely. There are quite a few "settlements" in the wealthier parts of the bigger cities that are filled with houses owned by wealthy Chinese, French, Germans Japanese and a few Americans. Of course when developing business ventures, you have to bribe officials. But compared to other countries such as Vietnam, China is days ahead of "communism." The same goes on in the US, instead of gifts to officials, it may be a big donation to a certain foundation, etc. I think the only major difference between the US and China is is the compliance issues with things such as accounting. You couldn't really bribe your employees and the auditor to hiding numbers, but in China you have three or four books depending on who is looking at it.

You are not serious, are you?


Did you notice that the "private property" you bought does not belong to you permanently? You only bought 70 years' property right according to the current law. There is no explicit explanation on this issue--though people may reasonably expect CCP will give the owners priority to renew the contract at very small cost, but who the heck know what will really happen!

 

[stevent]

I know the 70 year rule, but honestly wouldn't you sell your house by then?

And somewhat serious, it's generalized but still true IMO

 

[Maccimus]



I know the 70 year rule, but honestly wouldn't you sell your house by then?
And somewhat serious, it's generalized but still true IMO

Somewhat true. The problem in China is much more severe, maybe more severe than many people can imagine.
Return to the property, if you sell your house in the midway, the new owner won't get another 70 years' right, instead, he or she will only get the residual. I couldn't recall when this rule was introduced. Practically many people are still living in their properties which can be dated back to 30s or 40s. But you know, the right to exlain the law is always controlled by CCP, so things could change in one night as we have experienced many times in the past 62 years.

 

[Gdot]

The bottom line is that essentially all things that bear on money are in one way or another in the control of a corrupt and unscrupulous government, and it's cronies.

When the government has these 'unlimited' rights to people's very existence they essentially control everything - whether directly or not. The only items that are not controlled are not controlled because the government doesn't see them as important. But if they decided it was important for everyone in the country to eat green eggs and ham on the third thursday of every month I can assure you it would happen in a flash.

Even those who have a great deal of personal and financial leeway are very aware of to whom they must pay tribute and just how fragile the arrangement is.

I do however hope that increased financial means will eventually empower the Chinese people to seize control of their government at some point. But this is not likely to happen quickly or easily. I can only hope that it does though. The people of China deserve, as all people do, to be governed fairly.

 

[stevent]



The bottom line is that essentially all things that bear on money are in one way or another in the control of a corrupt and unscrupulous government, and it's cronies.
When the government has these 'unlimited' rights to people's very existence they essentially control everything - whether directly or not. The only items that are not controlled are not controlled because the government doesn't see them as important. But if they decided it was important for everyone in the country to eat green eggs and ham on the third thursday of every month I can assure you it would happen in a flash.
Even those who have a great deal of personal and financial leeway are very aware of to whom they must pay tribute and just how fragile the arrangement is.
I do however hope that increased financial means will eventually empower the Chinese people to seize control of their government at some point. But this is not likely to happen quickly or easily. I can only hope that it does though. The people of China deserve, as all people do, to be governed fairly.

Corrupt sure. Unscrupulous is everywhere and means little to this discussion. As for control, take the example of imported cars. A porsche panamera comes out to $360,000 or 4 times the cost in the US. Sure the government taxed the car and there is a process of getting it licensed, but after that you are free to do as you wish with it. It's not like somewhere like Vietnam where everything must be paid off or you know you will be stopped at every chance by police if you're in the porsche. You're talking about China 15 years ago. All the theoretical situations such as "green eggs and ham" are not going to happen since the government is not dumb. Yes everyone deserves to be governed fairly, and China has lots of room for improvement in many areas, but the same can be said for plenty of other countries including the US.

Somewhat true. The problem in China is much more severe, maybe more severe than many people can imagine.
Return to the property, if you sell your house in the midway, the new owner won't get another 70 years' right, instead, he or she will only get the residual. I couldn't recall when this rule was introduced. Practically many people are still living in their properties which can be dated back to 30s or 40s. But you know, the right to exlain the law is always controlled by CCP, so things could change in one night as we have experienced many times in the past 62 years.

Yeah I know this. My personal experience in China (lots of trips, a few month+ stays) have mostly been in the nicer parts of Shanghai so I can't say for all. But real estate is still pretty hot in these areas at least and I know of plenty people who cashed out. There's is no way China will become stricter if they want to grow, it's doesn't make sense these days compared to history. I see that you are in Shanghai, if you want to talk more PM me, I'm especially interested about a few of the property rules.

 

[GradSchooler]



That's about it and the atheist bit that grounds/accompanies the Communist idea and removes any notion of any overriding moral/spiritual order that could contain such State initiated excess.
This is the theory. Even most of that is bullshit aka "Marx had a profound respect for the individual, their interests, goals, and needs". Marx had a profound direspect for humans that were not part of his construct. Read Das Kapital. 50 million dead Russian/Soviet citizens 1917-1990+ illustrate the reality of Marxism in action. In China the Great Leap Forward is a shocking example of Marxism and its lack of concern for the human person.

I'm not going to bother dignifying your equation of atheism with moral depravity with a response. It's foolish, fallacious, and of the lowest form of argument. Not only this, but it's patently untrue. These moral/spriritual orders of which you speak have been responsible for more death and destruction that any atheist organization in human history. Indeed, while the Soviet Union was nominally atheist, there is a dearth of scholarly literature which can attest to the fact that the vas majority of Russians still held religious beliefs, including those in leadership positions within the Party. Indeed, many of the trappings of religion were ported over and used to justify the atrocities of which you speak. And lest we not forget histories other great atheist genocidal maniacs like Pope Urban II who advocated for the wholesale slaughter of jews and muslims so that christians could "reclaim" the holy land... oh wait. Never mind. I guess he wasn't an atheist. Crap, looks like I responded by accident.

For the record, I have read Capital (which is what those of us who've actually read it refer to it as). Indeed, I've read all three volumes, in detail. Along with Grundrisse, German Ideology and The 1844 Manuscripts. In addition to everything thing else Marx wrote, for that matter. I assure you, nothing of what you just said will be found anywhere is Marx writing. Whatever "construct" you are referring to is a complete fabrication of someone who, quite obviously, has no clue what the **** they are talking about. Capital makes no mention of Russia or China (except in passing as examples of agrarian economies - keep in mind, neither one had undergone industrialization at the point of Marx writing) and concerns itself largely with a meticulous, historical analysis of the emergence of capitalist political economy of industrial Britain. It's actually quite a sterile work, very academic in nature. In many ways, Capital is an extension of the political economic work done by Ricardo and Smith, both scholars of capitalist political economy (and two of Marx's personal idols).

The deaths of which you speak have nothing to do with Marx's writings. What you are referring to is the notion of the "vanguard party," introduced by Lenin as a "short-cut to communism". See, the trick with actual communism (the one Marx described) is it relies on society going through the stages of industrialization and the development of a full, robust, capitalist ecomony, which provides the means necessary (both in terms of production capacity, wealth, and political organization) for the transition to socialism, and then later communism, to take place. But, since neither Russia nor China had undergone an industrial revolution of the type experienced in Europe in the 19th century, Lenin (and later Mao) could not rely on an educated populace to be swayed by argument. No such populace existed in Russia or China. Lenin's solution was a vanguard party - a select, elite group who were ideologically in-line with him and who could (through politics or force) subdue dissenters and make sure the uneducated peasantry just went along for the ride. And who could completely circumvent the need for pre-revolutionary industrialization. But never mind that none of this is anywhere in "Das Kapital". I guess I better go read it?

Sure, it's theory. But with regards to communism, that's all Marx really did. Your argument is the equivalent of blaming Jesus for the Crusades. Jesus "theorized" about the way to lead a good life and how to make yourself right with God. Others mobilized that and produced genocide. But totally Jesus' fault right?

So son, check yourself before you wreck yourself. You're in the big leagues now.

 

[GradSchooler]



"Capitalist market economy"? We're talking about a country that still has half of it's GDP coming from wholly or partially state-owned enterprises. All critical sectors (energy, transportation, banking) are state owned. There are 3 or 4 different state owned telcos in China, and the government simply rearranges them as needed and encourages them to kind of compete with each other. Same story with banking, energy, and transportation. 57 out of China's 61 entries in the fortune 500 are state owned (none of Japan's 68 or the USA's 133 are).

Any industry that the government deems strategic will be controlled, directly or indirectly, by the government. This is why western businesses are forced to "partner" with a domestic company (with the explicit purpose of IP and talent transfer) if they want to do business there.

The term "state capitalism" has become popular amongst economists to describe countries like China. This view looks at China more like one large conglomerate rather than as a nation state. China doesn't have "enemies", it has "customers" and "competitors".

But anyway, I though this thread was about whether or not quality goods could be made in China? 

Fair point. I suppose it would be more accurate to describe it as having zones of capitalism, rather than as having widespread capitalist markets.

 

[GradSchooler]



I know the 70 year rule, but honestly wouldn't you sell your house by then?
And somewhat serious, it's generalized but still true IMO

Not to mention that this isn't all that different from how many leases work in the West. As well, imminent domain gives the state the right to claim your property at any time, regardless of ownership, in order to put it to different use. Now, the state is required to compensate you, but compensation will be at the minimum level possible, not necessarily what you might have sold your home for on the market.

 

[Sator]



As others have mentioned, Japan hasn't done squat. They haven't even acknowledged their crime in their own history books let alone pay any country. Why don't you ask the Koreans what they've gotten? Or maybe the Philippines.

This is the standard propaganda that Communist China comes up with because they desperately need Japan to be the scapegoat that takes the heat off them:

http://www.jiyuushikan.org/e/reparations.html

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_reparations#Japan

You won't find anything like this sort of official apology or expression of "deep regret" from the Communist Party to the countless millions they exterminated - yet they have more blood on their hands than the Nazis and Imperial Japanese combined. In reality, the Chinese Communists are immeasurably more guilty of exactly what they accuse others of - the total and absolute suppression of its genocidal past as well as the ongoing imperialist occupation of nations such as Tibet.

Of course, in the case of either Germany or Japan, some will feel that all apologies, no matter how strongly worded, along with any amount of reparation payment, no matter how big, all count for squat. That is fair enough. However, the Communist Party of China haven't even come near to starting to embark on that journey of atonement.

 

[Sator]



Whatever "construct" you are referring to is a complete fabrication of someone who, quite obviously, has no clue what the **** they are talking about. Capital makes no mention of Russia or China (except in passing as examples of agrarian economies - keep in mind, neither one had undergone industrialization at the point of Marx writing)...

... the trick with actual communism (the one Marx described) is it relies on society going through the stages of industrialization and the development of a full, robust, capitalist ecomony, which provides the means necessary (both in terms of production capacity, wealth, and political organization) for the transition to socialism, and then later communism, to take place. But, since neither Russia nor China had undergone an industrial revolution of the type experienced in Europe in the 19th century, Lenin (and later Mao) could not rely on an educated populace to be swayed by argument.

The truly bizarre thing is that Lenin certainly - and Mao probably - looked at the society they had set up, and gasped over the fact that it was nothing like what Marx's "scientific predictions" stated - a gradual evolution of the more industrial societies driven by an enlightened populace into more socially equitable constructs. Instead they found themselves as dictators ruling over totally pre-industrial and backward chicken-yards that made a mockery of Marx. China today better fits the picture of the sort of industrialised society with its growing affluence, increasing average level of eduction and awakening awareness, that Marx thought would stop putting up with being screwed over by monstrous capitalist types. While I have never counted myself a fan of his, Marx may yet come back and bite the Communists on the bum. Come to think of it, in the '70s some Western left wing intellectuals like J-P Sartre used to accuse the Politburo dictator types in Communist countries of being "capitalists", because no matter how much they advertised themselves as being "dictatorships of the proletariat" they were really just bloody self-appointed Tsars and Chinese Emperors in a different garb. Like Napoleon before them, they promised much, only to become traitors who turned into everything everyone had put their hopes in to overthrow.

 

[Eason]

Somebody said something like "China will only get more open as it wants to succeed"- this is actually the opposite of what has been happening since 1989. If you know much about China, you know that in the 80's, Hong Kong was a liberalizing beacon of democracy to China. Western TV shows were extremely popular in Southern China, faithfully translated on TV, and everyone knew about a criminal's miranda rights. There were vibrant political debates in southern China as well, up until 1989 and the Tian An Men Square massacre, and it's at this point where China basically reversed all it's political reforms and it has continued cracking down on them since. The Chinese government has made sure that the "well water" of HK doesn't pollute (lol) the "river water" of mainland China, so they blocked off the Cantonese TV programming coming in from HK and instituted numerous other controls. The result, since 1997, has been a continued stream of China reneging on the promises they made to the HK people and Britain as Hong Kong loses its vibrancy and slides towards the beacon of autocracy, China. And it will only get worse before it gets better

 

[Sator]

^ There is, of course, the view that modern pop culture, pop consumerism, and mass spectator sport, all massively amplified in significance by popular media is an infinitely more effective "opiate of the people" than religion ever was. Why bother with being politically or socially aware when you can follow the latest tantalising titbit involving some trashy celeb? That said, the Communist Party will be looking at the recent events in the Middle East with fear and trepidation.