The Summer of Love

[BT]

n China, to Get Rich is Glorious

By Dexter Roberts and Frederik Balfour
BusinessWeek Online

More Chinese are becoming millionaires -- and driving a fast-growing market for luxury goods

Wang Zhongjun is loaded and happy to flaunt it. He wears Prada shoes, Versace jackets, and a Piaget watch. He smokes Cohiba cigars from Cuba. He drives a white Mercedes-Benz SL600, a silver BMW Z8, and a red Ferrari 360. His art collection includes hundreds of sculptures and paintings. Value: $30 million or so. Home sweet home is a 22,000 square-foot mansion north of Beijing with antique British and French furniture, a billiard room with bar, and an indoor pool. When he tires of swimming, Wang can head to his stable (annual upkeep: $500,000) of 60 horses from Ireland, France, and Kentucky. "Entrepreneurs in China today feel much safer than before," says Wang, a 45-year-old movie producer who served in the Chinese army, studied in the U.S., and learned painting before backing internationally acclaimed films such as Kung Fu Hustle. "We are more accepted by the media, government, and society today."

That's for sure. Even though Deng Xiaoping declared that getting rich is glorious nearly three decades ago, just a few years back China's millionaires were running scared. When a Forbes Magazine survey of China's richest appeared in 1999, wags called it the "death list" after a tax crackdown targeted many who made the cut and landed some in jail.

Now China is embracing them. More than 300,000 Chinese have a net worth over $1 million, excluding property, according to Merrill Lynch & Co. And mainland millionaires control some $530 billion in assets, Boston Consulting Group estimates. "There has been a revolution in attitudes toward wealth," says Rupert Hoogewerf, who authored the 1999 list. He now runs Hurun Report, a Shanghai-based company specializing in information about China's rich, which just released a survey on millionaires' buying habits. "People don't appreciate how much cash there is running around in China today," he says.

http://biz.yahoo.com/special/chinarich06_article1.html

[Michael Tee]

I don't like to see guys like Wang in a communist system, although I have no objection to them over here.  They have a good chance to corrupt the whole Communist system, even though the system may think it is just using them.  I sure hope the Chinese leadership knows what it's doing.

[Xavier_Onassis]

<<Would you say that the Chinese have applied more ,or less, the principal "from each according to his ability to each according to his means," in recent times compared to previous times?>>

Of course not, I'd say they've obviously made a retreat from that principle, which I hope is merely a tactical retreat, temporary in nature and judiciously administered.

=====================================
Anyone with a knowledge of Chinese history knows that they are riding a tiger, and their first concern is to stay on and keep it headed forward, which the current rulers seem to be doing rather well. They managed to both end and learn from the Tien Amin Square student rebellion, and they handled the recent earthquakes in a way that Juniorbush, and his pal Brownie could only dream of.

Their best tactic would be to permit the economy to grow until it benefits almost everyone, and then they will need to raise taxes and benefits to those on the lower rungs, including the peasants, and clean up the environment before it becomes an unlivable cesspool.

I don't see a classic Marxist-Leninist state as likely. I don't even think that this would be best for most of the people.

Marx was an excellent economist, but was not at all good at dealing with farmers or psychology. Happy farmers have been pretty much rare and corrupt officials have  not been rare enough.

Cuba is now importing sugar from Brazil. 30% of the cropland is covered with weeds. The campesinos have correctly deduced that nearly all the benefits of the Revolution are a lot easier to find in the cities. This is not a fault of the American embargo. In fact, Cuba imports more food from the US than any other place.

Canada could get more of the action if it actually grew rice.

[Plane]

<<Would you say that the Chinese have applied more ,or less, the principal "from each according to his ability to each according to his means," in recent times compared to previous times?>>

Of course not, I'd say they've obviously made a retreat from that principle, which I hope is merely a tactical retreat, temporary in nature and judiciously administered.

=====================================
Anyone with a knowledge of Chinese history knows that they are riding a tiger, and their first concern is to stay on and keep it headed forward, which the current rulers seem to be doing rather well. They managed to both end and learn from the Tien Amin Square student rebellion, and they handled the recent earthquakes in a way that Juniorbush, and his pal Brownie could only dream of.

Their best tactic would be to permit the economy to grow until it benefits almost everyone, and then they will need to raise taxes and benefits to those on the lower rungs, including the peasants, and clean up the environment before it becomes an unlivable cesspool.

I don't see a classic Marxist-Leninist state as likely. I don't even think that this would be best for most of the people.

Marx was an excellent economist, but was not at all good at dealing with farmers or psychology. Happy farmers have been pretty much rare and corrupt officials have  not been rare enough.

Cuba is now importing sugar from Brazil. 30% of the cropland is covered with weeds. The campesinos have correctly deduced that nearly all the benefits of the Revolution are a lot easier to find in the cities. This is not a fault of the American embargo. In fact, Cuba imports more food from the US than any other place.

Canada could get more of the action if it actually grew rice.

So Capitolism works better , and it is tolerable as a stop gap measure untill enough wealth is built up to make socialism affordable?

"Their best tactic would be to permit the economy to grow until it benefits almost everyone, and then they will need to raise taxes and benefits to those on the lower rungs, including the peasants, and clean up the environment before it becomes an unlivable cesspool."

Sounds like what happened to us , do you suppose that China can become as socialistic and enviornmentally conchious as we are before their land is too poisoned?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Sounds like what happened to us , do you suppose that China can become as socialistic and enviornmentally conchious as we are before their land is too poisoned?

-----------------------------------
China is far more Socialistic than the US.
The US is far from being an unliveable cesspool. I would say that China has a much larger potential for environmental disaster than the US. First off, there are four times more Chinese than Americans, and they therefore take four times as many dumps a day as we do. They also eat lots of pigs, and swine are not noted for being good for the environment, either.

I would not presume to predict the future of pollution in the US, let alone China.

[Plane]

Sounds like what happened to us , do you suppose that China can become as socialistic and enviornmentally conchious as we are before their land is too poisoned?

-----------------------------------
China is far more Socialistic than the US.
The US is far from being an unliveable cesspool. I would say that China has a much larger potential for environmental disaster than the US. First off, there are four times more Chinese than Americans, and they therefore take four times as many dumps a day as we do. They also eat lots of pigs, and swine are not noted for being good for the environment, either.

I would not presume to predict the future of pollution in the US, let alone China.

Why would you say that China is more socialistic than the US?

It seems we have more of a nanny state here ,and more income redistribution .

[Xavier_Onassis]

Why would you say that China is more socialistic than the US?

That would be because it is.

It seems we have more of a nanny state here ,and more income redistribution .

No, we don't, except possibly in your mind.

[Plane]

Why would you say that China is more socialistic than the US?

That would be because it is.

It seems we have more of a nanny state here ,and more income redistribution .

No, we don't, except possibly in your mind.

The USA taxes its wealthy so hard that the top one percent carrys fourty percent of the tax burden  the lower fifty percent carrys only three percent of the income tax burden. The lower erners pay only the Social Security tax and might pay no income tax at all. A Chineese Millionaire is taxed less and his company is taxed less.

In the USA we have a breau we call OSHA which insures that we wear helmen5s and safety glasses while we work , scafdfolding must meet a standard and shoes must have steel toes. Chineese employers don't need to worry so much about worker safety there isn't so much Osha there welders in sandals are not strange in China.

We have many departments and regulators that prevent us from hurting ourselves in many ways , and a welfare state that makes it hard to srarve  and most socialistic of all, we have a minimum wage.

China used to be so socialistic that they nearly couldn't move , Nowadays we are morw Socilaistic than they are .

While creeping socialism has slowly crept a long way on us , explodeing Capitolism has grown like Kudzu over China. regulation od the Capitolistic effort is haveing a hard time keeping up , China has almost as many illeagL coal mines as leagal ones. Even where the State still has socialistic rules they are loth to enforce them.

[fatman]

there welders in sandals are not strange in China.

As a welder by trade, that is just stupid (not your comment, the fact that such people exist).  We had a guy a while back who thought he only needed to wear one glove to stick weld pipe.  The next day, he had to go to the doctor for second degree burns on his hands.

He is no longer with our company.

OSHA, though heavy handed at times, serves an important duty, to enforce workplace safety regulations.

[Michael Tee]

Communism doesn't always advance in a straight line.  At the end of the Russian Civil War, Lenin proposed the New Economic Policy (NEP) with some capitalistic features such as limited private ownership of the means of production.  This was a practical necessity at the time.  Towards the end of the 1920s, the NEP was terminated and the first of many Five Year Plans was instituted, which were more in keeping with traditional Communist theory and values.  My guess would be that in the midst of the NEP time period, there would have been plenty of Western commentators gleefully jumping on the apparent "abandonment" of Communism by the U.S.S.R., not realizing that Communism is (or should be) practical and flexible in the realization of its goals, the classless society and the final end of the exploitation of man by man.

While I agree that even a temporary relapse into capitalist practices carries the risk of back-sliding and subversion, , nevertheless there are times when a nation or a corporation or even an ideology must take risks and demonstrate flexibility if it is to survive at all.  A good example of this are the social benefits of the New Deal, which at the time were seen as a huge departure from the principles of dog-eat-dog or laissez-faire capitalism, but ultimately made America safe for capitalism.

I hope that the current Communist leadership of China will be able to manage the current moves towards capitalism in the name of the Revolution and avoid being swallowed up by them, which I admit is a danger, the extent of which remains to be seen.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The USA taxes its wealthy so hard that the top one percent carrys fourty percent of the tax burden  the lower fifty percent carrys only three percent of the income tax burden. The lower erners pay only the Social Security tax and might pay no income tax at all. A Chineese Millionaire is taxed less and his company is taxed less.

==============
This isn't true, but if the rich pay a lot in taxes it is because they HAVE so much more. I gfail to see why this makes you bitch so much. There is  no chance you will ever join the ranks of the tiny fraction that has to pay over 40% for income tax, being a government employee (that for some wacko reason hates the government.)
=============
In the USA we have a breau we call OSHA which insures that we wear helmen5s and safety glasses while we work , scafdfolding must meet a standard and shoes must have steel toes. Chineese employers don't need to worry so much about worker safety there isn't so much Osha there welders in sandals are not strange in China.

I suppose you oppose this, and would prefer to be injured on the job: why can't you be happy that someone actually gives a sh*t about your health? You can run around town, pulling up stop signs if you like, and put that danger back in your life, I suppose.
==============
We have many departments and regulators that prevent us from hurting ourselves in many ways , and a welfare state that makes it hard to srarve  and most socialistic of all, we have a minimum wage.

China used to be so socialistic that they nearly couldn't move , Nowadays we are morw Socilaistic than they are .

China moved a lot, mostly around in circles, as in the Great Leap Forward period. That was not so much socialism as very misdirected and incompetent industrialism.

Jesus, every industrialized country has a minimum wage, and so do most other countries. That is not Socialism.

Socialism is when the means of production belong to the state.
There are many, many MANY more government-owned companies in China than in the US.

You are just wrong. China is far more socialistic than the US. Who do you think is putting up the Three Gorges Projest in China? Halliburton? No. It is the government of the PRC. No one else could have the capital, procure the materials or move all the people that project will need to move. It is the largest single project in the history of the human race.

And Socialism in some areas would be better in the US than what we have: socialized tidal, geothermal and hydroelectric power, for example. Observe how no one has come up with an energy plan for the US. Now even McSame wants to throw government around as a prize for battery technology. Why? Because private enterprise can't and won't do it.

[Plane]

Are oure big dams priviately owned?

I am right.

[_JS]

They are capitalists, but you knew that when you asked the question. The system of wages, class division, and destructive policies against the working classes can all be found in China.

So the revolution failed?

That depends upon how one measures success of a Maoist Revolution I suppose.

China could never be communist because the conditions for such a revolution never existed in that nation. The same is true for Russia in 1917. Does that mean that either revolution was not historically significant? Of course not. They should be measured on their own terms.

Lenin and Mao required their own adaptations to create a revolution in their respective countries (just as "The Sons of Liberty" did in America). Often times such a move requires contradiction with the ideals for which one is fighting. Neither Lenin, nor Mao carried out Marxian revolutions. They may have adapted some of Marx's ideas. They may have used Marx's notions in their own philosophies. Yet, that does not make their revolutions socialist.

China's leaders met with Milton Friedman and carried out his advice. I'd hardly consider that socialism, nor was The Cultural Revolution. Leninism used a great many of Lenin's own devices, none of which are necessary socialist in origin.

The only certain failure is capitalism and the reasons are evident. There are 800,000,000 people going to bed hungry tonight. 1.6 million children or more will die from diarrhea this year. Millions upon millions of people will contract malaria, many of those will die for lack of a $3 to $6 bed net. The slums of Lahore and other African cities fill up due to policies, wars, and other encroachments made to expand markets and constrict costs for the businesses here in the west.

Families in a number of African nations were torn apart, people murdered, children used as slaves so that western women can wear diamonds and western arms traders can sell weapons to brutal and violent factions.

We've fucked a number of nations, Chile, El Salvador, Argentina, Uruguay, Indonesia, and the list can go on and on with brutal regimes that committed genocides, torture, summary executions, purposeful starvation, mass murder (in which our people participated) - all to provide favorable environments for our views and our corporations. Some of our companies have even been complicit in aiding these regimes. Ford Motor Company (to use only one of many examples) provided the Argentine security forces with a fleet of vehicles and helped construct a detainment and torture facility - right next to a Ford manufacturing plant!

Capitalism fails on every level. It is inhumane. It is corrupt. It does not prevent war and bring people together - but instead promotes war to build mercantilism and tears people apart with alienation and class warfare. It promotes the elite and a Randian-style justification of egocentric, self-destructive psychoses. At the end of the day, we can take heart that capitalism is its own worst enemy. In this case the piranhas eat one another.

Don't believe me? Take a look at the callous attitudes towards human life on display in this very forum. America is fully justified to enter any country to further her goals. And America's goals always mesh with capitalist goals.   

[Plane]

Capitalism fails on every level. It is inhumane. It is corrupt. It does not prevent war and bring people together - but instead promotes war to build mercantilism and tears people apart with alienation and class warfare. It promotes the elite and a Randian-style justification of egocentric, self-destructive psychoses. At the end of the day, we can take heart that capitalism is its own worst enemy. In this case the piranhas eat one another.

  

From what sort of nation does most foreign aid and charitable contribution come?

Do you suppose that North Korea has sent even one moskito net to Africa?

I think your post would be perfectly correct if it were absolutely reversed.

[sirs]

I'm goint to try and hold my emotions in check, but I get so sick to death of the complete lack of respect and acknowledgement of the good that this country does on a daily basis for other countries and peoples, all acrosss the globe.  And we can do that precisely because of what Capitalism has brought to this country, with the forefront in so many advances with technology, medicines, innovations, that no other country could even possibly have achieved.

Yes, capitalism has its flaws, yes this country has had its flaws, yes, this country still does bone headed things, yes, it will do more of them in the future.  BUT we are the most giving, most charitable country on this globe currently.  We do more to help others in need than any other country.  We send more money and resources than any other country, to those in need.  Capitalism and the Constitution have made this country great.  And as a result, we give back.....in spades.  But all the leftests in the world simply want to focus on any and everything negative, as if this were the 3rd Reich reincarnated, complete with gas chambers and mass exterminations.  It really sickens me to see the utter contempt they have for the greatest country this globe has currently seen.

Good thing I'm going on vacation, or I might really get worked up