Take a moment and conciser how a similar piece, written of the United states around the turn of the last century, might read.
Remember the 'roaring 20s?' Materialistic society, ambivalence about foreign affairs, widespread corruption, distrust of foreigners. A Chinese who owned a tea shop in a small town may well have to beg for a renewed lease, yes?
Well, China is not the United States, but lets put things in perspective. At the moment neither the leaders nor the people of China want to be a 'world leader' so why do we keep talking about it as if they do? China has its own problems and most Chinese are well aware of it.
China is not yet a rich country. Its Per Capita GDP (PPP) is about the same as Ecuador or Belize.
Right now things in China are not so great. It seems the Conservatives are back in power and so there has been some increased restrictions of freedom after a couple decades of improvement. Corruption continues to be a problem. The price of groceries, as well as property, has been increasing.
But the overall trend is upward. The author of this piece has fallen afoul of the Guanxi networks of business and politics in China. Sorry, yes, they don't play fair. But I am hopeful at the turn of the next century China will be as prosperous and egalitarian as my own United States of America.
I think that's exactly the point of the comment you're responding to. He's not saying that, "China is going up, therefore depression incoming." Instead he's saying, "The reasoning, 'US also had a period like this, therefore China will be OK,' is false."
yes it is false but that was not my reasoning. I was merely trying to draw parallels between a time people are probably familiar, saying that there is no use comparing modern China to a developed country. It is not a modern country, but it is so "rich" and "powerful" people (like the OP) get that idea in their head and become inevitably disillusioned.
Perhaps I could have made a parallel to Brazil or Thailand?
How can you possibly justify your statement that the leaders of China don't want to be thought of as a 'world leader'? Practically every action within the last 10+ years has had that express purpose. What do you call the Beijing Olympics? That was a "coming-out" party of epic proportions, followed by frequent statements about the 'arrogant' West not recognizing China's greatness, etc.
>Sorry, yes, they don't play fair. But I am hopeful at the turn of the next century China will be as prosperous and egalitarian as my own United States of America.
Why would a one-party system evolve into being egalitarian? The US has devolved into being more or less ruled by lobbyists. The egalitarian phase in the US was largely due to workers being economically valuable and hence useful to maintain physically and mentally. China, however, has a surplus of workers.
False. Factories are having increasing difficulty in retaining workers and are therefore having to either raise wages, improve conditions, or bully them into submission. Supply and demand, no?
Demand is currently high.
Things are not great for workers, but there is hardly a surplus anymore.
> "Why would a one-party system evolve into being egalitarian?"
Stranger things have happened - see Taiwan for a good example. One-party system, under martial law no less, evolving into a thriving multi-party democracy with a high degree of personal freedom and equality.
Are you sure about that? With the downfall of Bo Xilai and the Chongqing model, it seems to have put the progressives, such as Wang Yang (the Guangdong party chief), in an advantageous position.
No, I am not sure as I don't follow closely anymore. I heard about the downfall of Bo but hadn't really considered the consequences. Mostly I was speaking of the climate when I left in 2008
I can attest that things have been getting more conservative; starting from around 2008 and continuing into the present. I don't think Bo Xilai's down fall will have any bearing on this; his mistake was populism rather than conservatism. Politics here are so opaque its very difficult for us to really figure out what's going on beyond what we can observe on the ground.
China is not yet a rich country. Its Per Capita GDP (PPP) is about the same as Ecuador or Belize.
Very, very misleading. Ecuador and Belize could disappear from the map tomorrow and the world's economy would be unchanged. Similarly, Liechtenstein has one of the highest PPP ratings in the world... yet it has no political clout or economic leverage.
Remember the 'roaring 20s?' Materialistic society, ambivalence about foreign affairs, widespread corruption, distrust of foreigners. A Chinese who owned a tea shop in a small town may well have to beg for a renewed lease, yes?
Well, China is not the United States, but lets put things in perspective. At the moment neither the leaders nor the people of China want to be a 'world leader' so why do we keep talking about it as if they do? China has its own problems and most Chinese are well aware of it.
China is not yet a rich country. Its Per Capita GDP (PPP) is about the same as Ecuador or Belize.
Right now things in China are not so great. It seems the Conservatives are back in power and so there has been some increased restrictions of freedom after a couple decades of improvement. Corruption continues to be a problem. The price of groceries, as well as property, has been increasing.
But the overall trend is upward. The author of this piece has fallen afoul of the Guanxi networks of business and politics in China. Sorry, yes, they don't play fair. But I am hopeful at the turn of the next century China will be as prosperous and egalitarian as my own United States of America.