The China Model

[Guest Pommey]

Been hearing alot about this "China model" recently, some even suggesting it may become the dominant model adopted by other developing countries as the attraction of the western democratic system losses appeal.

 

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2009-...ent_8758855.htm

[GZBILL]

Been hearing alot about this "China model" recently, some even suggesting it may become the dominant model adopted by other developing countries as the attraction of the western democratic system losses appeal.

 

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2009-...ent_8758855.htm

 

Major bull$hit. Major.

 

You must be really bored today, Pommey.

[Guest Pommey]

Been hearing alot about this "China model" recently, some even suggesting it may become the dominant model adopted by other developing countries as the attraction of the western democratic system losses appeal.

 

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2009-...ent_8758855.htm

 

Major bull$hit. Major.

 

You must be really bored today, Pommey.

 

 

Guess your not a big fan of the China model then Bill

[david_dawei]

I think Bill and I agree on this, but he'll correct me...

 

China's model works in China; The article is not really meant to suggest it would work in western countries.

 

This one line suggests it most:

On the basis of its distinctive national conditions, cultural traditions and its sharp perception of world developmental tendency, China has taken the peaceful development road and has successfully forged itself into a regional power with global influence.

 

Yes, many countries could make a decision to pursue a more "peaceful development road" but they would most likely pursue a variation based on their "distinctive national conditions, cultural traditions and its sharp perception of world developmental tendency"... It may look the same on the outside, but the inner workings will be different.

[Stepbrow]

Some might say China is blowing their horn. Others might say that this is just some more propaganda.

 

Regarding China's peaceful development: Tell it to Vietnam who had a border war with China. Tell it to the Indians who also had a border war with China. Tell it to the Tibetan's who were subject to invasion and are now a puppet. Tell it to the Uighur's in Western China. Tell it to the Vietnamese and Philippine fishermen who are driven from the South China Sea.

 

Regarding China's economic development: Who provided the capital, who provided the development expertise, who designed the factories, and built the machine tools, who provided the markets for the sale of the goods?

Edited October 3, 2009 by Stepbrow (see edit history)

[david_dawei]

Some might say China is blowing their horn. Others might say that this is just some more propaganda.

 

Regarding China's peaceful development: Tell it to Vietnam who had a border war with China. Tell it to the Indians who also had a border war with China. Tell it to the Tibetan's who were subject to invasion and are now a puppet. Tell it to the Uighur's in Western China. Tell it to the Vietnamese and Philippine fishermen who are driven from the South China Sea.

Your talking mostly about border issues, which are as old as china is; that IS a part of their 5000 years of history... it may well remain that way a long time too. And your referencing the small fish in the [global financial] sea... life shows the small fish get tossed back in the ocean, if they survive

 

Regarding China's economic development: Who provided the capital, who provided the development expertise, who designed the factories, and built the machine tools, who provided the markets for the sale of the goods?

What would you call this? Globally savvy at who's [global police oriented] expense?

[Stepbrow]

Some might say China is blowing their horn. Others might say that this is just some more propaganda.

 

Regarding China's peaceful development: Tell it to Vietnam who had a border war with China. Tell it to the Indians who also had a border war with China. Tell it to the Tibetan's who were subject to invasion and are now a puppet. Tell it to the Uighur's in Western China. Tell it to the Vietnamese and Philippine fishermen who are driven from the South China Sea.

Your talking mostly about border issues, which are as old as china is; that IS a part of their 5000 years of history... it may well remain that way a long time too. And your referencing the small fish in the [global financial] sea... life shows the small fish get tossed back in the ocean, if they survive B)

 

Regarding China's economic development: Who provided the capital, who provided the development expertise, who designed the factories, and built the machine tools, who provided the markets for the sale of the goods?

What would you call this? Globally savvy at who's [global police oriented] expense?

 

 

Dave, our logic is usually harmonious, but in your response I must say I fail to follow you.

 

Here is a quote from the article: "China pursues a peaceful foreign policy of independence and seeks to build a lasting peaceful and a prosperous world community." I merely pointed out that China had gone to war with India and Vietnam. I don't see that as peaceful. Yes, they are on China's border, but did China seek a peaceful solution?

 

In China's internal policy, I don't see the repression of Tibet or the Uighurs as peaceful. Oh, I failed to mention the treatment of Falon Gong practitioners.

 

When I mentioned the "little fish" (Vietnam and the Philippines, sorry that I left out Taiwan, and Indonesia) I thought it was important because China has been systematically bullying these small countries regarding their rights in the South China Sea. So, how is this a "peaceful action." I am sure that you didn't mean that the "little fish did not matter."

 

Regarding China's economic development, of course they are smart, and of course Deng Xiao Ping's policy of allowing market capitalism was good for China. Do you think they could have accomplished all of this without Western capital, expertise, and markets? They seem to be saying this: "On the basis of its distinctive national conditions, cultural traditions and its sharp perception of world developmental tendency, China has taken the peaceful development road and has successfully forged itself into a regional power with global influence."

 

Just to summarize, in my opinion the article was just a propaganda piece. I was not criticizing China per say, only the article. I felt from your tone that you took it that I was criticizing China. Sorry about that, if that is how you took it.

[weiaijiayou]

Why is this just propaganda? The main points of the article are all true ¨C China¡¯s policies over the past decades have increased its political standing, made its people economically better off, and have caused other developing countries to seek its input and cooperation. Not only are these points all true but the article states them with more caveats and less exaggeration than they usually get in international press.

 

To understand the article's repeated claims of being ¡°peaceful¡± you have to realize that the author is implicitly contrasting China with what Chinese see as imperialist countries like the US and England. In this article the author¡¯s definition of peace and co-existence is ¡°not interfering in what another country is doing internally.¡± By this standard China has indeed been peaceful so far in how it has developed. For example, it cooperates economically with countries regardless of their internal politics and it doesn¡¯t attach political strings to loans and other agreements that are meant for economic development. For Chinese readers the comparison with µÛ¹úÖ÷Òå would be implicit in the issue and this interpretation of ¡°peaceful¡± would be more obvious.

[amberjack1234]

Why is this just propaganda? The main points of the article are all true ¨C China¡¯s policies over the past decades have increased its political standing, made its people economically better off, and have caused other developing countries to seek its input and cooperation. Not only are these points all true but the article states them with more caveats and less exaggeration than they usually get in international press.

 

To understand the article's repeated claims of being ¡°peaceful¡± you have to realize that the author is implicitly contrasting China with what Chinese see as imperialist countries like the US and England. In this article the author¡¯s definition of peace and co-existence is ¡°not interfering in what another country is doing internally.¡± By this standard China has indeed been peaceful so far in how it has developed. For example, it cooperates economically with countries regardless of their internal politics and it doesn¡¯t attach political strings to loans and other agreements that are meant for economic development. For Chinese readers the comparison with µÛ¹úÖ÷Òå would be implicit in the issue and this interpretation of ¡°peaceful¡± would be more obvious.

For the 3-4 Hundred Million folks that live in the cities but not much has been done for the 1 Billion that live down on the farm but I do think that it will trickle down in another 20-30 years.

 

Larry

[Guest Pommey]

The point being that other developing countries are looking at the china model as as successful model which is attractive to them.In contrast they are looking at the western demotractic/capitalisic model as flawed as it is a system now controlled by capital to serve the intrests of capital (special interest groups) not the people.

They view our system as ours and not in any way superior to theirs, as a result of of the uncontrolled greed of capitalism that showd itself in the last few years and brought the world to near collapse and then this followed by politicians and the systems "bail out" of flawed capital structures and business practice.

I am a great believier in democracy for the people by the poeple ( not any one group or groups) unfortunatly the western democracies have slipped into political/legal systems that clearly favour the few over the "common good"

Now how this happened, big seperate debate on apathy.

 

But to remain on topic, its kinda arrogant for us to believe our system is the best, the only and should be copied by others and that we cant learn from others and change our systems, will we, probably not until Americans go back and read their history with new eyes and realise that the whole break/war with Britain was to create a socialist democratic country here (I know a hated word in the USA).

But really any country that thinks its got it sussed and is #1 is in for troubles.

 

one of the strenghts of China is they adapt, yes takes time, one of the weaknessness here is we dont think we need to.

Edited October 4, 2009 by Pommey (see edit history)

[GZBILL]

The point being that other developing countries are looking at the china model as as successful model which is attractive to them.In contrast they are looking at the western demotractic/capitalisic model as flawed as it is a system now controlled by capital to serve the intrests of capital (special interest groups) not the people. ...

 

Can you give us a list of these "other developing countries" and evidence that they are considering the Chinese political system as a model upon which to base their own? Or do we just have your word for it?

[Guest Pommey]

The point being that other developing countries are looking at the china model as as successful model which is attractive to them.In contrast they are looking at the western demotractic/capitalisic model as flawed as it is a system now controlled by capital to serve the intrests of capital (special interest groups) not the people. ...

 

Can you give us a list of these "other developing countries" and evidence that they are considering the Chinese political system as a model upon which to base their own? Or do we just have your word for it?

 

 

well Bill you could just watch international news or google it

Also the chinese model is not a political system alone but viewed as a system of , lets say "shareware/knowlegde/experience and blending what works.

Now the term developing countries what does that mean ? those willing to change ? therefore what that say of us ? rigid ?

[david_dawei]

Dave, our logic is usually harmonious, but in your response I must say I fail to follow you.

. . .

Just to summarize, in my opinion the article was just a propaganda piece. I was not criticizing China per say, only the article. I felt from your tone that you took it that I was criticizing China. Sorry about that, if that is how you took it.

I think weiaijiayou provides the point I would make; this article is about global issues, not domestic/border ones; the attitude on the latter is, ¡°not interfering in what another country is doing internally.¡± , to borrow from weiaijiayou... that's why I mentioned the long history.

 

I don't think your criticizing china; I just think your missing the point of the article and turning it towards domestic/border issues.

 

Do you think they could have accomplished all of this without Western capital, expertise, and markets?

Yes, I agree. that was the point of my comment "Globally savvy at who's [global police oriented] expense?".

 

Globally savvy = China allowing market captial

Global police oriented = US , and some other western approaches

Expense = At the West's expense...

 

The west has been providing capital and markets and at their own expense IMO... and to China's benefit.

 

And China knows this, IMO... ergo, [china is] Globally Savvy at the [west's] expense of their contributing capital and markets.

 

sorry.... I've got to stop talking in loose disjointed, half completed sentences of metaphors. That's the way my mind things; it just comes together in a picture but not words

[weiaijiayou]

Why is this just propaganda? The main points of the article are all true ¨C China¡¯s policies over the past decades have increased its political standing, made its people economically better off, and have caused other developing countries to seek its input and cooperation. Not only are these points all true but the article states them with more caveats and less exaggeration than they usually get in international press.

 

To understand the article's repeated claims of being ¡°peaceful¡± you have to realize that the author is implicitly contrasting China with what Chinese see as imperialist countries like the US and England. In this article the author¡¯s definition of peace and co-existence is ¡°not interfering in what another country is doing internally.¡± By this standard China has indeed been peaceful so far in how it has developed. For example, it cooperates economically with countries regardless of their internal politics and it doesn¡¯t attach political strings to loans and other agreements that are meant for economic development. For Chinese readers the comparison with µÛ¹úÖ÷Òå would be implicit in the issue and this interpretation of ¡°peaceful¡± would be more obvious.

For the 3-4 Hundred Million folks that live in the cities but not much has been done for the 1 Billion that live down on the farm but I do think that it will trickle down in another 20-30 years.

 

Larry

What is ¡°not much?¡± Taking consumer price indexes into account, annual per capita disposable income in rural areas increased by 5.61% per year from 1989 to 2003, while in urban areas it increased by 7.4% per year. In other words, rural income went up quickly and urban income went up extremely quickly. If you look at the annual increase in per capita consumption in rural areas for the same period this is about 4.4% per year which, although again about 2 percentage points below that for urban residents, is still ¡°a very high rate of increase by comparison with other developing countries¡± according to the Princeton researcher who did these analyses. The difference between the two rates of increase explains the growing inequality in China which was probably the motivation behind your comment.

 

If you just look at the situation of the worst of the worst in China, the percentage of rural people making less than 600 yuan (in 2003 prices) went from 12.2% in 1985 to 3.5% in 2003. How is that ¡°not much?¡± If you use the World Bank cut-off of $1.25 per day as the poverty line, the poverty rate (according to Wikipedia) went down from 64% in the late 70s to 10% in 2004, which means that hundreds of millions of Chinese got out of poverty in a period of 30 years. According to the World Bank the absolute number of people in poverty went from 250 million in the late 70s to 29 million in 2001.

 

If you break consumption down by province, you find that even the provinces with the slowest rates of increase in per capita consumption (e.g., Gansu, Guizhou) still made steady headway.

 

Poverty is still pervasive in China and it¡¯s not fair that anyone should have to endure it, especially when it stems from local corruption and institutionalized preferential treatment by government. But to say that ¡°not much has been done¡± for rural Chinese (or especially "not much for 1 billion Chinese"?) is just not correct.

[GZBILL]

The point being that other developing countries are looking at the china model as as successful model which is attractive to them.In contrast they are looking at the western demotractic/capitalisic model as flawed as it is a system now controlled by capital to serve the intrests of capital (special interest groups) not the people. ...

 

Can you give us a list of these "other developing countries" and evidence that they are considering the Chinese political system as a model upon which to base their own? Or do we just have your word for it?

 

 

well Bill you could just watch international news or google it

Also the chinese model is not a political system alone but viewed as a system of , lets say "shareware/knowlegde/experience and blending what works.

Now the term developing countries what does that mean ? those willing to change ? therefore what that say of us ? rigid ?

 

So, in other words, you can't back up your dubious claims. Why isn't that surprising?