Balt, I have a Chinese student who lectures me about China for 2 hours every Sunday afternoon. Although she worked on the editorial staff of a Chinese Government official magazine for a number of years, before coming to the US and becoming a citizen, maybe she doesn't know much about China either. So what's your qualification?
geepod, an excellent 5 star question. answers, 1. 2 team members in china from whom i get weekly data on the actual statae of the chinese economy and polity; 2. the ability to look at how a question is framed.
that is, ask ur source for numbers actual comparable numbers to those criteria u gave, with special emphasis on various fake stats being put out by the chinese. 1. ask her about the pork index 2. ask her about the average work week 3. the use of eminent domain by units of govt 4. the suicide rate 5. the 2 sets of books policies by bankers 6. the equality of men and women outside the top 1% of the econ. 7. the last time she figured publishing data >in chinese< about the tank man was a positive career move 8. the number of wworkers "employed" in factories owned by the police agencies (hint: if u own an sks rifle, it was made in one) 9. the number of uncolntrolled coal fires as part of china's carbon footprint 10. the role of cadmium as a workable metal for jewelry. 11. labor contracts at foxcon. 12. quemaoi/matsu 13. vietnamese concern over chinese naval cliams 14, whether it's 50mm or 100mm people in rural areas without social safety net 15; the number of children whose lead poisoning is diagnosed as poor ideology.
that's a start.
upon concrete answers, u and i can proceed to discuss the reality that while republitards cannot be trusted with american money, and their ideological ancestors were responsible for supporting chiang and his bandit island, there is a lonnnnng, longgggg way to go to bring the vision of sun yat sen towards reality, and the history of asia since the qin dynasty suggets that chinese "hegemony" has never quite been ready for prime time, even when it was--for 1k or so years, the richest country on the planet. one thing the chinese do have going for them, that woiuld be soo, sooo useful in american finance is the understanding of how efficacious the executioner's ground can be in promoting business ethics.
Balt. Re your extended list of inside information on China. Yea, yea. I get all that stuff, except the role of cadmium as a workable metal for jewelry. None of it offers any justification for US interference in China's affairs, except, perhaps, China's manipulation of its currency on the international market. The really important issue is one that, apparently,your experts in China haven't briefed you on at all: China's determination to monopolize all the mineral deposits in the South China Sea. But this is none of America's business either, unless it jeopardizes freedom of navigation on the international sea lanes. However, this freedom is protected by the International Law of the Sea, which is properly a matter for the United Nations, and not for the United States. You can equate China's ambitions in this matter with those of the United States, when it invaded Iraq in 2003. The US would have been very angry if China had allied itself with Iraq in 2003. Both situations and strategies are and were firmly grounded in oil. The United States has no right to intervene in the South China Sea, unless international maritime navigation is threatened, and the United Nations can't handle it. For the moment, the United States should be fully focussed on domestic housekeeping.
"one thing the chinese do have going for them, that woiuld be soo, sooo useful in american finance is the understanding of how efficacious the executioner's ground can be in promoting business ethics."
I hear you there. And you wouldn't have to use it more than a couple of times.