With yesterday's announcement that 207,000 new jobs were created in July - nearly 30,000 more than had been forecast - Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao took to the airwaves to repeat the administration's mantra about the economy being "strong and getting stronger." But if you look behind the headline number, the jobs picture - and what it says about the economy - is considerably more nuanced.
When times are bad, they're bad; when times are good, it's really "considerably more nuanced". This isn't my imagination. The New York Times editorial board has turned economic pessimism into an art-form. Consider these previous instances:
April 2005: Economy has one moderate-month (110k jobs added) after almost one year of strong job growth and the NYTimes concludes that the "longer-term trend is even more disturbing than the monthly snapshot".
...but in a preceding month, when job growth had been 262,000, the NYTimes reported it as "even as payrolls swelled, optimism was tempered by an increase in the unemployment rate".
...and when job growth is in-between in September of 2004, that's not good enough, either: "The United States gained 144,000 jobs last month, which is just barely enough to keep up with the number of people entering the work force."
Comments like this are also hard to take seriously...
Nevertheless, employment rates are still well below their most recent peak, in 2000.
The unemployment rate hasn't yet fallen below the most recent bubble? What kind of comparison is that? Moreover, is that bubble unemployment-rate actually something the NYTimes editorial board would want, especially during a period of relatively loose monetary policy? (Hello, demand-pull inflation!)
They are entitled, of course, to their own views of the economy; they are not entitled to their own facts...
With July's number, the average monthly job creation so far this year comes to 191,000. (Since the spring of 2003, when job losses bottomed out, the monthly average has been 152,000.) That's enough to absorb the 150,000 or so new workers who enter the labor force each month, and then some. Still, it's not robust.
The numbers 140,000 and 150,000 have been thrown about quite often to represent the number of jobs that must be created to keep up with labor force growth, but—as I've noted here quite often—that just hasn't held true for quite some time.
The NYTimes Editorial cited "spring of 2003" as the baseline, so we'll extract from that, starting with the first full month of spring: (using the BLS "Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey")
[Labor Force in April 2003] 146,449,000 [Labor Force in July 2005] 149,573,000 TOTAL: 3,124,000 million new workers ______________________ INCREASE: +115,703 workers/month
If you go farther back—back to January of 2001—the monthly increase is even smaller: 105,181 workers/month. That's quite a bit different than labor force growth of 150,000/month.
So we have a real growth in income that has accelerated faster than any time since last July. Unemployment dropped for minority workers across the board, and Hispanic unemployment now almost equates to overall unemployment. Jobs have transitioned from temporary workers to permanent employment. Total employment has hit the highest percentage of the population in three years.
Riiiight. We’ll use an unsustainable peak as our baseline and anything that falls below that is bad. Sheesh. Then, total compensation is rising strongly, actual wages are not, because paying for benefits is becoming increasingly costly. True enough, as even the NYT has to admit, but what would be the solution? Why, if workers got fewer benefits then they could have the money in their pay packets, not in whatever the fruitcakes in Congress have mandated companies must provide. ...
So, the solution is for there to be fewer mandated benefits, more of the increase in total compensation to flow into actual wages and then I guess the NYT will be happy, hunh? Yeah, right, like when Hell freezes over.
The 207,000 new jobs created in July are a boon to the people who landed them. But American workers are not yet in a position of strength. [. .]
because a Democrat is not president.
In all fairness, and unlike some of those cited, I don't really attribute much of the economic performance to the President...now, a few years ago, or a decade ago. But it certainly seems as if the NYTimes mood is far mode dependent on the party of the President than the economic indicators.
Yeh bubs, nuanced is right, and you bubs are not really expected by the world to know reality even if it bites you in your ample arses (from sitting too long watching porn piped into the comforts of your homes).
It is not the number of jobs. More importantly it is the quality of those jobs. In 20 years, there won’t even be a Detroit anymore.
America’s agriculture industry would disappear overnite but for farm product subsidies - China grows apples at 1/20th the cost, and we are talking about almost 100% free enterprise there as far as fruits and other cash crops are concerned. China is now growing grapes in Xinjiang, and the suitable growth area is larger than the whole California, and yes, the cost will be 1/10th that in America. And China is buying the wine making expertise, and the Aussies are happy to sell.
And that’s only ONE countries. You also have India, Brazil, and many other countries all trying to gain a niche.
On WHAT will America grow its economy? You schools continue to fall apart. A poor country like China, with 1/40th the per capita GDP, graduates 5 times as many scientists and engineers, and the gap is widening still. Yet your mass media worry about human vegetables, and whether a stone tablet ought to be displayed in court, and miscellaneous sillies of the day.
I’ll bet you dollars to peanuts that a majority of those 200,000 new jobs are minimum wage "service" jobs. You’d wonder why they do not report the actual aggregate payroll numbers.
So what do you "NEOLIBERTARIAN" have for a solution? Lock up the country so you only deal with yourselves? Keep all the jobs in country? That is so easy, is it not? Minor detail, but for the foreign loans propping up the economy, you are already bankrupt.
Liberal, conservative, what difference does it make? Those in power are only there to retain their power, and no more. When was the last time you actually have a pol that cares about where the country is going? And that’s the truth.
How cool is it, and what an honor, that QandO has been selected for special approbation from the PRC! I hope you keep your "posting" assignment, Tongue Glue. You are absolutely hillarious!
(from sitting too long watching porn piped into the comforts of your homes).
Can someone tell me where these homes are? I mean, if it was actually getting ’pumped’ into the house, my wife really couldn’t complain about... right????
By gosh by golly it does seem that we have been selected for review by the People’s Republic! Congrats Dale, Jon and McQ!!!!!!!!!
Your comments regarding the growing of apples is interesting. Of course, apples are neither grain nor rice, yet the Chinese leadership insists on maintaining a position of "food security," in which Chinese farmers grow wheat and rice at far higher cost than imported foodstuffs, rather than higher payoff items such as apples or mushrooms.
It is Chinese entrepreneurs who have protested this policy, to little avail.
As important, the ability to grow food is one thing. The ability to get it to market is something else entirely. As the Guowuyuan itself has noted, the issue of free flow of foodstuffs is an issue of concern. Becoming an export economy in food (where timeliness means that coal trains cannot trump all other trains), especially from Xinjiang or Ningxia, remains to be seen. Surely you are not placing yourself above the State Council?
More to the point, however, if things are going so well in the agricultural sector, why is it that the CCP is confronted by the san long wenti? Are you suggesting that there is no problem with longye, longchun, or longming? What does the Party know that you are apparently deliberately ignoring?
Hey, I did not start this thread. It is about American job creation, no? What does China’s San Nong (3 agricultural) problems have to do with American job creation?
BTW, no self respecting Chinese would dream of giving "approbation" to a bub site, where bubs pleasure each other openly by self congratulatory statements, and by bashing other nations, China included. How does it feel to have your scabs pointed at or laughed at, ye xenophobes?
Look at reality sometimes for a change of scenary - it can be quite refreshing, you know.
Do you have any doubts at all that China would be able to develop all the rail and highway capacity the nation needs? In fact, the CPC counts on that as an important portion of the 8-10% economic growth that will continue for at least another 50 years, creating new jobs, actually rather good paying jobs.
You see that happening in America? American borrowing already tops 80% of all govt. borrowing in the world. Last I heard, one can only go up to 100%. So stay on topic. Where are those new American jobs going to come from? More McDonalds? More Walmarts?
The san long wenti was raised b/c you chose to highlight future Chinese agricultural competitiveness, when the Party is very concerned with agricultural issues in general. That the Party chooses to focus on this issue, and that the power of the Party has long rested on ensuring that the peasants’ lives are improving, a situation that has been jeopardized by corruption and instability due to reforms, suggests that you are subscribing to a modern version of the liange shenme zhuyi.
Do I question the ability of China to build infrastructure? That depends. It’s not a matter of physics, or even finances, but it is a matter of time. How long does it take to build a railroad? How much of China’s rail network is double-tracked? What is the current use-rate of its engines? More growth is not always the solution, especially when infrastructure construction cannot be accelerated beyond a certain point.
You suggest that this will continue for 50 years. How often has China had 50 years of uninterrupted development? And that would be fifty years on top of the past twenty. Seventy years? One would hope that China can enjoy 70 years overall of uninterrupted heping yu fazhang, but one has to wonder if that will, in fact, be the case.
Let’s not forget that Sun Yatsen had great plans for industrializing China, as did Jiang Jieshi (Chiang Kai-shek). All they needed, too, was time. Both found that internal opposition, due to petty politics, personal power and corruption, and regional jealousies could stymie the best of intentions. Are today’s leaders Mao Zedong? Or Yuan Shikai?
As for American jobs and AT&T, it is perhaps useful to consider how many corporations have risen in the time AT&T had to divest itself of its monopoly on American phone service. You do understand that this had something to do with falling share values, yes? If you understand capitalism (and by that, I refer to the Anglo-American model, not the anemic Western European version), then you understand that corporations rise and corporations fall. In the time of AT&T’s rise and fall, we’ve seen the complete passing of some companies (e.g., Studebaker) and the rise of new industries (e.g., Intel, Microsoft).
But consider, for example, the case of DuPont. Even older than AT&T, and where is its stock price?
Corporations rises and corporations fall, true. But more and more the rising ones are no longer American. Again, face reality. Are Microsoft and Cisco and even Google building those new R&D centers in America? Or are they doing it in India and China?
So where are the new jobs in America coming from?
DuPont? When was the last time DuPont built a new plant in America?
I see manufacturing jobs lasting for decades. It is probably off topic (this IS about American job creation), but China’s farmer "problem" is not a problem - it just means yet another 50 years of affordable labor.
China’s problem is not farmers, as the Party itself has noted. It is agriculture writ large, the entire sector. To suggest that the problem is simply one of too many peasant farmers, rather than ongoing structural problems including longye and longchun indicates that you do not even understand what is of concern to the Party, and by definition to the rest of China.
You remind me of Mao Zedong’s comment, when he was warned about the need for population control, "Does not every person have two hands and two feet, but only one mouth?" The idea that a larger population will, by definition, lead to greater GDP, or greater employment, is part of what has created its current difficulties. And here you are, suggesting that this is a benefit?!?
No self-respecting Chinese would blather on a "bub" web-site about things Chinese on which they have not done even the most basic reading of China’s policies and the Party’s own pronouncements.
China has problems, but they are problems being handled, and adroitly. 27 years ago, Chinese farmers had a lot less. Today, this year, Beijing is removing the last bit of taxes on farm income, and allowing farm prices to go up. Farmer income had increased over 10 times in the 27 years. Still poor by world standards, but a vast platform upon which the country continues to grow. The relative lag in income is, again, not a problem, but a resource. The farmers feel good about where they are today, and where they would be a generation hence. They know that the more indistrious among them would be able to go to the cities and become city dwellers. They know that the more studious would have access to higher education and get work other than farming, thanks to the new programs (like the most recent college scholarship program of US$1 billion for the poor). Some see China’s low educational spending as a problem. Hey, look at it another way - if the Chinese has been able to do what the nation does with that little, imagine what the capable CPC leaders can do when more money becomes available, as the nation becomes richer?
Graduating 10 times as many engineers and scientists as America is high on the list. Graduating twice as many PhD’s in scientific fields would be another.
China’s policies are there for all to see, if you care about reading China’s 5 year plans. The creation of jobs, and meaningful jobs, as part of China’s economic development, is very high on the list.
If China’s Nongye is a problem, many countries around the globe would very much like to have that problem.
Yes, China is not the low cost producer in mass agricultural products like wheat and soybeans. But there are so many countries willing to subsidize the prices of such goods, China has seen no problem buying at below her cost in the world market. Today China has about 2 year’s worth of food reserves, much more than enough to switch back to growing her own, if necessary. China has not had a problem for a long time growing enough to feed her masses.
But where China shines is in the higher value and higher value added cash crops, and where food processing comes into play. China’s low labor costs means that China is the low cost producer in many such industrial segments, the one to beat.
Hu, Jintao is not up for election. The Chinese people find liars’ contests (your so called elections) to be a silly exercise, for show only, and structurally incapable of selecting a capable leader. You luck your way into a Clinton (a semi-proficient manager) once in a while, but then to balance it out, you get megalomaniacs like Dubya.
Hu, Jintao is neither. Hu, Jintao is better. He worked his way up through the system for over 40 years, and had to prove his ability and his dedication to many of his contemporaries. His decisions are supported by consensus, and have the full support of the ruling elite (yes, even in China the ruling is by the elite). So things get done, and at low costs.
Better yet, if one day Hu, Jintao fails to perform, or if he acts against the national interest of China, the Chinese know that he can and will be removed without bloodshed, just as the last nonperforming top leader (Zhao, Ziyang) was removed. It is part of the innate superiority of SWCC.
Back to the topic at hand - if Hu, Jintao has ran China for 4 years already, and China actually performed like America did in job creation in those 4 years, Hu, Jintao would have long been out of a job. How about you? In contrast, there is nothing in the cards to remove an American president for failing to produce jobs. You’d have to wait till Duyba wants to retire, don’t you? Where is the superiority?
BTW, it is expected that Hu will lead for two terms of 5 years each. Depending on his health and depending on his performance in those 10 years, the senior leaders will probably decide whether he retires at that time, or get another 5 year term. All over peaceful and very business like. No need to waste several billion dollars every few years. 2004 cost over $2 billion to elect the liars. 2008 will likely see a double. Money well spent? Where are the jobs?
Yes, The farmers feel good about where they are today, and where they would be a generation hence. The prospect of being disenfranchised, of having their land seized by local government officials, land that they have worked for twenty years, because a local official has concluded that it would be better to have a factory on it (for which he will get "consideration"), this makes Chinese farmers feel good.
Perhaps they stopped the xia fang policy too early. Perhaps if you had been part of that, you might understand how the nongming bu ting de chi ku, and you would have more understanding of their situation. Perhaps then you would not so cavalierly dismiss that of which you clearly have no idea.
if Hu, Jintao has ran China for 4 years already, and China actually performed like America did in job creation in those 4 years, Hu, Jintao would have long been out of a job
Tongue Glue - have at least a baseline of understanding before you walk into the water - do you know that the labor reports exclude private companies? Do you know they exclude people who leave the job pool (by choice or not) who then become consultants? My wife was ’unemployed’ last year by the official stats, but managed to bring in over 50K consulting. Not bad for a government statistic, huh?
No need to waste several billion dollars every few years. 2004 cost over $2 billion to elect the liars. 2008 will likely see a double. Money well spent? Where are the jobs?
This is the best part - where do you think that money gets spent? People earn it. They sell their services and earn income. Which they turn around and spend on things they need... which keeps the economy happily cruising along. And while your elder council is deciding if your leader stays in place, in our old fashioned (phony I believe you called them) elections, the people actually go out and choose. Imagine that!
The next Chinese leader will most likely not be coming through a liars’ contest either. Just like Hu, he or she would have to have the right qualifications:
1. Must have successful risen through the Chinese national administration for at least 3 or 4 decades or more.
2. Must have shown the ability to manage and successful handle substantial problems. Only winners may apply.
3. Need to show high intelligence and dedication to China’s national interest.
4. Ability to work with contemporaries. Must have the endorsement of the ruling cadres at the top of the echelon (probably top 200 leaders of China).
Ability, Consensus, Dedication, and the knowledge that even the top leader can and will be removed if there is no performance. That is how SWCC delivered over a quarter century of world leading performance, if economic and job growth, and societal stability is what you want. The Chinese want that and the Chinese got that.
The question is choose from what? The "people" do not get to choose at all who they get to vote for. The elite, that same that fund the bulk of the $2 billion spent in 2004, does, and they are the ones who will reap most of the benefits from the liars so "elected."
Do you really think that the pols care a whit about what bubs think? Or do they care about the hands that feed them?
Social stability? Is that what happened in Tiananmen Square? Is that typically what happens in rural towns and counties where the military has been called in, to suppress the peasants? Is this the same kind of stability that leads to "happy farmers"?
As for jobs, consider what Hu Jintao will now have to deal with, something Zhu Rongji and Jiang Zemin failed to do: the issue of state-owned enterprises. Factories that are inefficient, but are kept open simply to keep people employed.
Well, not exactly, in order to maintain the benefits for the retirees, the children, and the like, because the government still has no social security system in place to take care of the situation. Which is also why the factories are inefficient in the first place. Sucking down money and producing poor, unwanted goods in an inefficient manner (often at enormous energy costs), which find no market.
It’s the state-owned enterprises that have been sucking down billions of renminbi every year, money that is not available for investment (one reason, one suspects, why China is still dependent on foreign direct investment despite its huge capital reserves ). And it’s those same billions of renminbi in non-performing loans that have made China’s banking system a disaster waiting to happen.
Hu has been in office nearly two years now. Before that, he was part of the Central Committee. Jiang Zemin was in office ten years. If "Ability, Consensus, and Dedication" were all that mattered, if performance were all that mattered, then how could such salient issues as the agriculture problem, the state-owned enterprises, non-performing loans all still remain?
I said this before, Lu Tong, and I’ll say it again: Wo jiu bu xing ni shi zhen de zhongguo ren. Zhen de zhongguo ren jue dui bu hui ru ci de hu shuo ba dao.
I’ll bet you dollars to peanuts that a majority of those 200,000 new jobs are minimum wage "service" jobs. You’d wonder why they do not report the actual aggregate payroll numbers.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics always makes the numbers available. Here is a sample of some the "service" industry job growth that Fellow Traveler was criticizing:
Retail trade employment rose by 50,000 in July, following little change in June. This industry has gained 197,000 jobs over the year.
Employment in professional and technical services increased by 23,000 in July. Over the year, this industry has added 211,000 jobs.
Employment in financial activities rose by 21,000 over the month, as credit intermediation and real estate showed continued strength. Since July 2004, employment in credit intermediation has grown by 93,000, while real estate has added 54,000 jobs.
Elsewhere in the service-providing sector, employment in food services and drinking places rose by 30,000 over the month. This industry has added 262,000 jobs over the year.
The health care industry continued to grow in July, adding 29,000 jobs.
China has problems. And the Chinese leaders are dealing with them. To boot, the capable Chinese leaders are doubling the living standards of all Chinese every 8-10 years for the last 27 years. The best performance in the world by far.
China’s only major problem really is just the poor performance in public relations. China’s problems are much more opportunities - in the mode of "if the commies can do so much with so little, what great things can they do with more resources." That is why, according to AC Nielsen, China has a 80% consumer confidence rate.
No, my pinyin is not as good as yours, but every drop of my Chinese blood flows true, and we Chinese are really proud of the ability of SWCC to amplfy what works, and discard what does not.
So are you one of those who sold out cheap over TAM to the CIA, and who has been stranded in the U.S. since then? How does it feel to be a quisling, having sold out your soul for a few cheap dollars? How do you hate yourself when you see yourself in the mirror, like JWG in present company?
With jobs, now that it is the mainstream consensus that China’s growth will not easily by slowed, is obviously to sell more to China. That will take care of both the trade imbalance, and the job creation issues.
China’s wish list is over $100 Billion long. Have money, ready to buy. Yet through "concreto" cold war mentality prevents American manufacturers from exporting to the one fastest growing market in the world.
I’m really enjoying the spirit of friendly competition here!. I’m sure questioning the quality of our job creation is necessary to feeling good about China’s economic growth (or vice versa, for that matter).
When, oh when, will people stop thinking economic growth is a zero-sum game? I suppose it is natural for an advocate of central control, but it remains fundamentally incorrect.
In which Tong tries to explain why, like a child, he likes being told what to do...
Hu, Jintao is not up for election. .... Better yet, if one day Hu, Jintao fails to perform, or if he acts against the national interest of China, the Chinese know that he can and will be removed without bloodshed, just as the last nonperforming top leader (Zhao, Ziyang) was removed.
Just like Mao? Say, how’d that Great Leap Forward work out for you guys?
Look, if you truly are a shill for the PRC, arguing with you is useless. You’re prohibited from dissenting by, as Mao used to say, "the barrel of a gun". Good luck with that.
I’m truly saddened that you tolerate tyranny. I truly hope that you scrape up half the courage of this man. Failing that, I simply wish that man were free and you were forced to stand before a tank. And if the tank rolls right over you and your " Chinese blood flows true" right over the streets of Tiananmen Square? Well, it was in the "national interest of China"....or, at least in the interest of the Chinese elite.
So, I guess that’ll just be too bad for you. Roll over and take it.
So, b/c I can use pinyin properly, yet disagree w/ you, therefore I must be a traitor, a "quisling"?
One wonders if you would have called Mao a quisling b/c he questioned the path Jian Jieshi was on? I take it you would have supported Yuan Shikai, since he wanted to stay on the Qing path, and not follow that "quisling" Sun Yatsen, eh?
But here’s a toughie: Was Deng Xiaoping a quisling and traitor for questioning the path? I’m not speaking of when he was denounced as a "capitalist roader," but when he was Paramount Leader. Having the temerity to deviate (oops, did that mean Deng was a Right Deviationist??), is that the path to traitordom and quislinghood?
Bwahahahahaha!!
Or is it possible that I see what is going on in China, both the good and the bad, and refuse to allow myself to be blinded by the partisanship you exhibit? Perhaps a little experience in the countryside, some idea of what the life of the peasants are like leaves me a little more impervious to your conviction that you and only you know what is right for the people? That perhaps the farmers are not as happy as you think, and the people do not celebrate the magnanimity and wisdom of the CCP as much as you claim?
Or perhaps I’m an Irish ex-pat who’s been to China, perhaps even spent time there working, before moving on. It’s the Internet, and no one need know if you’re a dog.
As for you, Bu Tong, I’m sure "every drop of your Chinese blood flows true." I just wonder how much there is of it.
Mindles:
I’ve not argued that economic growth is zero-sum at all (at least, I hope not). Indeed, it’s one of the key benefits of free trade and of capitalism in general. Not only is it positive-sum, but it liberates in other ways as well.
One of the things that was startling back in the late 1980s and early 1990s, however, when the last "yellow peril" emerged was the conviction that Japanese growth was somehow detrimental to the US. That, and the fact that at least some polls suggested that Americans would prefer a 1% growth rate for the US if it meant a 2% growth rate for Japan, over a 3% growth rate for the US if it meant a 5% growth rate for Japan.
To my mind, the problems in the Chinese situation are not economic in nature, but political, having to do with the rise in expectations (due to the reforms implemented by Deng and Jiang, now carried forward by Hu), the structural instabilities that a mixed economy inevitably suffers (along the lines of "a house divided), and the enormous disparities not only in wealth but fundamental development. Coupled with corruption and the lack of means of actually either expressing discontent or correcting the situation (it is worth recalling that the students began demonstrating in Tiananmen, not over democracy, but over corruption), which are at base also political issues, and China is confronted with non-economic problems.
The likes of Bu Tong, however, by closing their eyes and loudly insisting that all is well on the Titanic, even as the engines stop and the list begins, delay needed reforms and solutions, and ensure that the positive-sum benefits of economics will be submerged beneath the unseeing, unhearing xenophobia of blind nationalism.
Jon:
Just out of curiosity, is Tong’s ISP a Chinese address? You need not publicize it, but I think it’d be interesting to know whether he’s writing from China or, like those TAM quislings suborned by the CIA that he complains about, perhaps he’s writing from the U.S. of A. (or even Tasmania).
Look, TAM was over 16 years ago. It was a true mistake - the Chinese leaders should have been taken to task for not reading it correctly as a CIA plot for regime change, and dealt with it accordingly. China was lucky that time in that Deng was resolute enough to get whatever necessary done to keep the country in one piece. Otherwise, just like the USSR, China’d be in 25 different pieces.
Roll over and take what? China takes nothing from nobody. Zhu, Chang Hu proves that. You see him getting fired? And the Chinese all over the globe applauded, when they see the bully back down and told Rice to go and mend fences (she sent Zoelnick).
You see reforms slowing in China? Yes there are problems, and the problems are being dealt with, capably and tirelessly, every day of the year. How can one not be truly amazed by what the CPC achieved with so little? It took America over 200 years to get to where China is today. China did it in 60 (some say 27). So what the Chinese leaders are doing must be rather good, won’t you say? What other political system is capable of producing the growth that the commies wrought in the last 27 years?
Nobody sees only the glory. But you keep losing sight of the fact that this is a bub site, intent on bashing foreigners out of ignorance. There’s got to be a little balance here.
There are lots of commentators, most of them American, who see the American voting system as a plain and simple farce.
1. America does not have a democracy. It has a two party republic system, in which BOTH PARTIES have candidates picked ONLY by the elites.
2. Who are the elites? America is controlled and ran through institutions. There are governmental entities, the courts, think tanks, corporations, charitable organizations, churches, etc. Almost all of the key positions in this hierarchy are held or selected by the elites, who are racially white, middle age or older, Judeo Christian, and upper or upper middle class. Collectively, the elites do not give a hoot about whether the common man gets a job or not.
3. By virtue of their control of the key positions, the elite and their children garner exaggerated advantages in American life, to the exclusion of the plebeians. The elite largely share the same values, belong to the same clubs and social circles, and are interested in preserving their collective advantages. One key method is through the control of the government.
4. They control the government through controlling the elections. Elected officials are only a small fraction of the Federal and State governments. But invariably the key positions in the bureaucracies are appointed or approved by the pols (either the president or the various Congressional committees). Therefore by leverage, the elites control all levels of government.
5. Moreover, the iron triangle (elected pols, bureaucrats, and industry/special interests) and the revolving door policy (in which the folks in the 3 segments jump to the other segment, with the payoff being that every time one of them goes into industry, he gets a HUGE income jump - often in the millions), ensure that there is full-on collusion 365 days of the year. The elites thus control not only formulation, but also legislation, and promulgation of regulations, and enforcement of the laws and regulations. Since few would be crazy enough to bite the hands that feed, enforcement against industry is more often than no token in nature - can’t let that jeopardize the big payoff when you get back into industry. The latest example is the head of the energy dept.? I think Exxon hired him on a fat contract literally days after his resignation (no doubt prearranged).
6. How corrupt is this system? Everyone is on the take. Schwarzenegger is only the obvious example. Then you have the really truly lucky in Pork Belly (like Hilary). Today, even the Chinese commies are told to better pay to play. Starting with CNOOC, China is in fact forced into paying many millions each year to bagman, er, I mean lobbyists, to get things done in Washington. 7. Further, the elite system is highly dynastic. 2nd and 3rd generation scions and spouses automatically move up because of who they are (as born), and not because of abilities. Bush-Dubya-Jeb, Bill Clinton-Hilary, and even Nixon’s son in law (who is running against Hilary in NY).
8. The elections are largely a show, a ritual, to trick the citizenry into believe that they have control over the political process, which they don’t.
9. Elections have evolved into a highly stylized, hugely expensive (the 2004 race cost over $2 billion dollars - no money no talk) form of prancing and preening of feathers in front of the TV camera. Coiffure and appearance and ability to deliver sound bites dictate the outcome of races.
10. "Election" in America is largely a futile exercise in which all the candidates share the same values (more on that later). They try to differentiate themselves through ridiculous liars’ contests. Issues do not matter. It is whomever who can tell the biggest lies ("Campaign Promise" is such a big oxymoron, instead of demanding that their politicians be honest, the American electorate simply accept that such "promises" are not be to kept) that get to be "elected" the leaders.’
11. Over 90% of incumbents are reelected - because they are supported by the moneyed special interests. Without special interest money, you cannot win.
12. Demonstrably the "elected" officials work only to protect the interest of the elite who put them into power. The laws they pass benefit only the rich. Some random examples:
a). The tax cuts benefit disproportionately the very rich. It is regressive in that the more money you have, the better the tax cuts benefit you. The virtual elimination of inheritance taxes benefits largely the rich.
b). The No Child Left Behind laws allow the military recruitment access to the high school children’s personal info, in all schools that get public money. On the whole, the rich do not go to public school, and so their children are not subject to the undue pressure and lies of the military recruiters (Uncle Sam wants you, especially if you are poor). MOST in Congress have deemed it uncouth for themselves or their children to serve in the military.
13. The demonstrable result is that in America the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. The top 0.1% saw their income double in the last 10 years, while the bottom 90% saw their income shrink after inflation - and the trend continues. Through "distillation," the wealth of the country continues to concentrate more and more in the hands of the super rich.
14. "Free Speech" is illusory. No money, no talk. Only 5 corporations own over 95% of all "speech" in America, and the press’ "speech" is only as free as their bosses allow them to be. So you see the "fair and balanced" outfit like FOX.
15. But the more surprising (at least to the Chinese) is how docile the Americans are. Even after the disclosure of major graft (Schwarzenegger being only the latest), the average American simple shrugs his shoulders and act as if that is indeed acceptable.
Maybe he knows in his heart of hearts that this "democracy" is indeed a farce.
The true farce are your beliefs in what is reality in the U.S.A.
Since I do believe that the PRC is our next enemy, I have no particular reason to lead you to reality or to help you see the problems that the PRC has.
Which is unfortunate, inasmuch as I have relatives on the mainland. Small world, isn’t it?
"Everything you say is a huge distortion and lie."
How so? Which part is not true? Do you, as an individual, have ANY power in selecting whom you can vote for next time? Why don’t you try and experiment and run against any of your local incumbent at any level, and see what the result is gonna be? Statistically, the numbers are all there - most of the times incumbents win.
How come you bubs can always see only the "problems" ten thousand miles away in China, but not the real problems facing yourself and your children?
Flacy:
It is only a farce to us Chinese, but I am sure it is really nothing to laugh about if you are an American. You allowed your country to be hijacked by ideologues, and the results are there for all to see.
Why is it that you bubs truly believe that you worth and your existence would be diminished if you do not have an enemy? Must be something they put in the beef. "Bowling for Columbine" is such a relevant film - watch it together with "Supersize Me," and you would have a sense of where you and your children are going.
Compared with the corruption in America, that in China is truly child’s play. Plus the CPC is serious about wishing to cut corrption, and backs it up with discipline - I think the execution threshold is about 10 MM RMB (about US$1.25 million). If you shoot the bostard it is very effective in stopping his corruption.
In America, the corruption is not only tolerated but glorified and institutionalized. It got so bad that even the Chinese commies have to pay to play in Washington, after 60 years of refusing to pay the Mai Lu Qien "buy road money" for 60 years. With the advice of China’s ’friends,’ the commies are told in no uncertain terms that they have to step up to the line and hire the best bagmen ("Lobbyists") in the capital, so that the Congressional bashing would stop.
There is an irrefutable statistical correlation between how much money is spent on lobbyists and how much benefits you get in America. It has never changed and never will, until perhaps the next real revolution. China is ready to spend, and the pols are ready to take, as they always had been.
Watch China’s image in Washington improve miraculously in the next few years, as the hundreds of millions are spent. Watch American politics in its full glory.
You are feckless and you are nobody. So just watch and enjoy.
Since this is not a debate on the American electoral system, I’ll refrain from taking your distractive bait.
I already proved you wrong about the jobs data, which was the topic of this post. Yet, you continue to call into question the information presented about China in this post and three or four others. Yet, you NEVER point out the "lies" and correct them with evidence. It must be because they are not lies. If you cannot back up your claims, then stop making them...it makes you look very foolish.
You offer no proof (you don’t seem to understand the difference between actuals facts and bluster), only silly conjecture and vacuous rumors and distortion. You even contradict yourself at several points.
I could easily build a list for China with the same facile arguments that you use. It would be just as accurate and just as silly.
You sir, are mired in your own lunacy. Rant away, it serves only as a lesson in the power of PRC brainwashing and the obviousness of being a PRC shill. Go on, shill and rant your strange little song. Personally, I just laugh at you.
What did you prove, man? Any high school kid would know that there are no manufacturing jobs. All I said was that the majority of the jobs created in America are low paying "service" jobs. Did you prove otherwise? Go look at your own post again. "Retail," "Food and drinks," "Real Estate intermediary", etc. So how did you prove me wrong?
It is not like the Chinese are refusing to buy American. But the ideologues who control the power deem it bad for the whatever reason, so American jobs be damned, even good paying manufacturing jobs.
It is not like China can’t buy it somewhere else. But one good turn deserves another, and China would rather buy some more from America.
And watch porn while you are at it and play with yourself at the same time, no doubt. Very bub.
See, when you rant and rave at the commies, they are just supposed to roll over and die. Hey, if you can dish it out, you should be able to take it on the chin.
Poor baby, so thin-skinned. Won’t even acknowlege the truth.
If what I said is untrue and not based on facts, tell me where? JWG is holding me to that standard, it is only fair to hold you to same. (But then JWG only does it when it suits him - it is a bad habit that he picked up in America - a true Chinese insist on the truth being universal).
Come on now, out of the 15 points I listed, you must be able to find one or two that you can refute.
You can’t now, can you? Because I apeak the truth.
Yes, China has problems, but is there a need for you idiot bubs to point them out? You don’t like it much when others point out your problems now, do you? All your but, but, buts won’t get you out of this one.
You too. The true proof of the pudding would be for you to go run for some sort of political office - and see for yourself if the ugly racism does not raise its head. You will forever be a second class citizen in America, if you cannot even honor your ethnicity, if you join the bubs in berating the nation of your ancestors. If you cannot respect yourself and your skin color, nobody is going to respect you - least of whom we Chinese.
Take a look at what you wrote in your original post. Now look at the "service" jobs that you berate. How many of them are low skill jobs (you predicted most would be minimum wage)? Why is the average wage increasing as more jobs are created? As far as manufacturing is concerned, take a look at how many manufacturing sectors are increasing. There are a few sectors that are decreasing a lot, but most are growing. Facts (with actual evidence)...try them sometime.
1. America does not have a democracy. It has a two party republic system, in which BOTH PARTIES have candidates picked ONLY by the elites.
We are a republic, that is correct. A pure democracy is unworkable for any large society. The two party aspect is empirical, not legal. However we do have a Socialist in the Senate and various Greens and Libertarians in state and local offices around the country.
As to the candidates being picked by the elites - by your logic that makes the US at least as good as China, no? That’s what happens there as you said.
However, that’s candidates are not chosen by the elites here, whether by structure or by law. The parties (even the smaller ones) have primaries to select the candidates. Beyond the parties, any unaffiliated candidate can also stand for office according to the same rules as anyone else - a minimum number of signatures stating that the signed wish to see the candidate on the ballot. See Ross Perot or Nader or Teddy the Bull Moose Roosevelt. Or see my state of Virginia where an independent is running for governor and currently polling around 20%.
In summary, you are correct the US is a republic. However, you are either ignorant or willfully putting out disinformation on the other aspects of this point. (I suspect the latter.)
2. Who are the elites? America is controlled and ran through institutions. There are governmental entities, the courts, think tanks, corporations, charitable organizations, churches, etc. Almost all of the key positions in this hierarchy are held or selected by the elites, who are racially white, middle age or older, Judeo Christian, and upper or upper middle class. Collectively, the elites do not give a hoot about whether the common man gets a job or not.
Well, the Judeo Christian and middle age is a nonstarter, cause the vast majority of the country is Judeo Christian and if you think putting a 14 year old in a position of power then you’re more delusional than I thought.
As far as racially white in the elites, I’ll have to tell that to Thomas that he’s really white. In government, I’ll have to Rice and Powell and Waters and J.C. Watts and the various black opinion makers like Jackson and Sharpton, and the other minority members of the government like Jindal and Chao. The government is predominately white, but that’s because the population is predominately white. I bet the leadership of China is predominately .... Chinese...
As far as the churches go, you’ve apparently never been in a Baptist of Presbyrtarian church which votes on all of its officers. The "elites" do choose the leaders of the Catholic church. Also we do have a number of elite atheists, and others that leave their churches because of a bike path (he’s the head of one of those two controlling parties) - do they count?
As to the other charitable organizations and churches - who’d a thunk that there would be a PRC Burkean? Yes we have lots of little platoons throughout the country. Elk lodges, free masons, wood cutters, sports associations, community organizations - all freely formed and choosing their leaders independently. It’s what makes a free society work.
As to whether or not the elites look out for me, I care not. They’re not my parents. It’s my job to look after myself.
3. By virtue of their control of the key positions, the elite and their children garner exaggerated advantages in American life, to the exclusion of the plebeians. The elite largely share the same values, belong to the same clubs and social circles, and are interested in preserving their collective advantages. One key method is through the control of the government.
Mmmm...marxism....
"share the same values" - Of course Jerry Falwell, Glenn Reynolds, and Atrios all share the same values... I must have been blind before. Thanks for opening my eyes.
"interested in preserving their collective advantages" - that’s called human nature. That motivation is present in the US and in China and in all the world. However, in the US, if exploiting their collective advantages cause their activities to deviate too far from the interests of the proletariate plebes, the elites get voted out of office, whether it’s a federal office or a local organization.
4. They control the government through controlling the elections. Elected officials are only a small fraction of the Federal and State governments. But invariably the key positions in the bureaucracies are appointed or approved by the pols (either the president or the various Congressional committees). Therefore by leverage, the elites control all levels of government.
Yes, of course the elites control the elections. I must tell that to Jesse Ventura. I understand that he always wanted to be just another cog in the machine. But you are correct that elected officials exert a degree of control over the bureaucracy. However, I would suggest that it’s actually less control than you suggest. See, for instance, the infighting between state, the CIA, and the Defense Dept.
I know both of these men. Would you care to tell me how they were part of the elite before they were elected? What about the thousands of state legislators? How about those on city councils? How far does this political elitism descend? Are they all born into wealthy families well connected to power? Are none of them school teachers like me? Are they all 100% anglo-saxon blood? Gosh, I guess I’ll just go and curl up in a corner and hide now that I know the truth about where I fit in this world.
5. Moreover, the iron triangle (elected pols, bureaucrats, and industry/special interests) and the revolving door policy (in which the folks in the 3 segments jump to the other segment, with the payoff being that every time one of them goes into industry, he gets a HUGE income jump - often in the millions), ensure that there is full-on collusion 365 days of the year. The elites thus control not only formulation, but also legislation, and promulgation of regulations, and enforcement of the laws and regulations. Since few would be crazy enough to bite the hands that feed, enforcement against industry is more often than no token in nature - can’t let that jeopardize the big payoff when you get back into industry. The latest example is the head of the energy dept.? I think Exxon hired him on a fat contract literally days after his resignation (no doubt prearranged).
You are correct that lobbyists and officials are too close. But that’s endemic to any government (including China - favored factory contracts...). As you increase the power of the government, there becomes a greater incentive to try to influence the government. This is one of the many reasons that many of the "bubs" on this site are libertarians, people advocating a much smaller government.
6. How corrupt is this system? Everyone is on the take. Schwarzenegger is only the obvious example. Then you have the really truly lucky in Pork Belly (like Hilary). Today, even the Chinese commies are told to better pay to play. Starting with CNOOC, China is in fact forced into paying many millions each year to bagman, er, I mean lobbyists, to get things done in Washington.
When you’re in a glass house, you shouldn’t throw stones. Take a gander at the world corruption rankings. The US is the 17th least corrupt, China the 71st.
Does that mean that there is not corruption in the US? No. There’s corruption. But the public in the US generally throws the more corrupt politicians out of office. Sometimes just the threat of being thrown out of office is enough to get the official to think twice. Without oversight by the proletariat plebes (read as elections), there’s no hope of keeping officials in line.
8. The elections are largely a show, a ritual, to trick the citizenry into believe that they have control over the political process, which they don’t.
Ventura, Schwarzenegger. That election in Washington state which was oh so preordained. The voters definitely didn’t throw Gray Davis out of office. Twas all a show, a ritual, a trick, no? Occam’s Razor makes me strongly discount your theory as it would require a tremendous amount of resources to coordinate.
If we go back to the churches which you included in the elites, both of my parents are deacons in their church. Surely I would’ve known if that election had also been rigged. (If not, then how do the elites choose the leaders of the churches as you said in your first claim?)
7. Further, the elite system is highly dynastic. 2nd and 3rd generation scions and spouses automatically move up because of who they are (as born), and not because of abilities. Bush-Dubya-Jeb, Bill Clinton-Hilary, and even Nixon’s son in law (who is running against Hilary in NY).
Actually, you’re a little behind the news cycle on Cox. Pirro appears to be the front runner is also eyeing the nomination. That same article lists several other candidates for the office. How is that going to be sorted out? Via a primary.
If you want dynasties, why stop there? We’’ve got the Roosevelts, the Kennedys, the Adams, and the Harrisons to name a few. Outside of politics, in baseball we’ve got the Griffeys (and the Alous). In football, the Mannings.
While privilege, second-hand experience, and name recognition certainly helps one get elected, surely you believe that some abilities are innate. So maybe, just maybe, there’s a genetic component to political skill (perhaps looks, gregariousness, intelligence, height) and their (political) abilities do factor into their election and account for some of their natural ability at politics.
However, whenever these political dynasties do occur, in the US it is because it is the expressed will of the proletariat plebes.
9. Elections have evolved into a highly stylized, hugely expensive (the 2004 race cost over $2 billion dollars - no money no talk) form of prancing and preening of feathers in front of the TV camera. Coiffure and appearance and ability to deliver sound bites dictate the outcome of races.
I thought the elites determined the outcome of the races... Now it’s coiffure and appearance... Hmmm...
The expense angle was addressed before directly and indirectly (the economy is not a zero-sum game).
Anyways, while appearence matters (it matters for everything), so what? It’s what the proletariat plebes want. Anyways, the ticket with the best looking men (and best hair) lost the 2004 race so it obviously doesn’t dictate the outcome of races. (Personally I think dictating the outcome of an election requires.... a dictator.)
As to sound bites - I like the idea of sound bites. I believe all good ideas can be explained in a simple way (perhaps leveraging a series of simple ideas to create a more complex idea). I believe that if a person can’t express a concept in a concise easy to understand manner, then that person probably doesn’t have a solid grasp of the concept.
10. "Election" in America is largely a futile exercise in which all the candidates share the same values (more on that later). They try to differentiate themselves through ridiculous liars’ contests. Issues do not matter. It is whomever who can tell the biggest lies ("Campaign Promise" is such a big oxymoron, instead of demanding that their politicians be honest, the American electorate simply accept that such "promises" are not be to kept) that get to be "elected" the leaders.’
Ahh yes. George H. W. "Read My Lips." Bush wasn’t held accountable for a campaign promise of not raising taxes.
While candidates do sometimes promise the sky, the electorate can frequently smell the BS.
As to issues not mattering, then for what reason are the politicians making these promises in these "ridiculous liars’ contests"? If I promise to give myself a lollipop, once elected, would that help get me elected? Perhaps making promises with respect to the issues of the day (most recently - the war, the economy, education) might make more sense. But then that would be to admit that issues matter in the election.
11. Over 90% of incumbents are reelected - because they are supported by the moneyed special interests. Without special interest money, you cannot win.
Money does help one get elected. After all more money helps in everything (that’s because money is by definition fungible). You can win without it - see Schwarzenegger and Ventura again. Teve Torbes got close to the Presidency too (he crushed Lamar Alexander #2).
However, I find it curious that you say that you need special interest money to get elected because you previously said that elites who all hold the same values (or the same interests) determine the elections.
As to 90% of candidates being reelected, sure incumbents have advantages. That happens in markets too and sports. Outside of having an organization that knows how to win, incumbents also enjoy the benefits of the electorate’s Bayesian learning processes. However, not being in that 10% is a pretty good motivation not to stray too far from the proletariat’s plebes’ wishes.
12. Demonstrably the "elected" officials work only to protect the interest of the elite who put them into power. The laws they pass benefit only the rich. Some random examples:
So the elite determine elections by appeance and coiffure? And that 50% of the country that pays no income tax - that’s the very rich?
a). The tax cuts benefit disproportionately the very rich. It is regressive in that the more money you have, the better the tax cuts benefit you. The virtual elimination of inheritance taxes benefits largely the rich.
You’re right it was regressive. If you contribute 0 in taxes, then a reduction by x% is still 0. Whereas if you contribute something more than 0...
On inheritance taxes, the very rich tend to not pay inheritance taxes as they can avoid any tax such predictable tax (mmm trust funds). Farmers, however, have a much bigger problem avoiding the taxes. Their assets, being land and equipment, tend to not be as liquid (the other definitive property of money). I thought you were all about the farmers...
b). The No Child Left Behind laws allow the military recruitment access to the high school children’s personal info, in all schools that get public money. On the whole, the rich do not go to public school, and so their children are not subject to the undue pressure and lies of the military recruiters (Uncle Sam wants you, especially if you are poor). MOST in Congress have deemed it uncouth for themselves or their children to serve in the military.
Actually, military access to campuses was passed as part of the Solomon amendment (2000) before Bush II and while NCLB was just a campaign issue. (Wait that’s an example of a campaign promise that was kept! Further it’s an attempt to address actual issue - improving education! But I thought elections had nothing to do with issues...)
Most in Congress indeed do not serve in the military. Just as most Americans don’t serve in the military. That’s representative democracy for you.
13. The demonstrable result is that in America the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. The top 0.1% saw their income double in the last 10 years, while the bottom 90% saw their income shrink after inflation - and the trend continues. Through "distillation," the wealth of the country continues to concentrate more and more in the hands of the super rich.
If distillation were true, wouldn’t we have the same families on top of Forbes’ richest list year after year? Yet the fortunes of the Buffets, the Gates, the Dells, the Waltons, and the Ellisons top the list.
Further, the wealth share of the top 0.1% rises and falls with time (Mostly fall from 2000-2003). See this chart from econopundit.
On a separate note, there are two separate erroneous issues with your claim. 1) The CPI has been overstating inflation for years. 2) Who’s poor and who’s rich changes significantly year over year, particularly when using your metric of income. Anecdotally, two years ago I was in the bottom quintile of income earner. Today, I am in the top quintile. Statistically, a breakdown of movement between income quintiles is given here. Statistically, all members of every quintile can expect an increase in their income over a decade, except for those in the highest income quintile who tend have a decrease in income over a decade.
14. "Free Speech" is illusory. No money, no talk. Only 5 corporations own over 95% of all "speech" in America, and the press’ "speech" is only as free as their bosses allow them to be. So you see the "fair and balanced" outfit like FOX.
Of course, I must be imagining this free debate. I kind of wish I was imagining it - I need to get some sleep.
Some other issues - unless I’m mistaken - you’re only counting TV (Viacom, NewsCorp, GE, Disney, WB,) and are ignoring papers, radio, and this Internet thingy which I must be imagining to use as "Free Speech" is illusory as you say. While it’s dubious to count only mass media outlets (what about plays, movies, pamphleteering, debate clubs), your stat is wrong even in that regard.
Further, there’s nothing wrong in paying someone for the privilege of using their property (transmitters, recording studios, satellites). To do it your implied way, I must steal their property from them. Maybe that’s ok with you, but it’s not ok by me.
15. But the more surprising (at least to the Chinese) is how docile the Americans are. Even after the disclosure of major graft (Schwarzenegger being only the latest), the average American simple shrugs his shoulders and act as if that is indeed acceptable.
Maybe he knows in his heart of hearts that this "democracy" is indeed a farce.
Indeed, I don’t see how any American could think it anything but a farce. After all as you point out: a) the elites control elections by dictating winners so elections are shams b) Yet, the elites persist in holding elections wherein best coiffed candidates are sure to win c) These elites notwithstanding, candidates are actually controlled by the moneys of special interests d) Notwithstanding the the elites, the special interests, and the hair, the candidates insist on engaging in liars’ contests to make empty campaign promises e) Further these campaign promises are never related to actual campaign issues (I guess the promises relate to hair care products or elites or special interest moneys) which might be indicative of representative democracy in action.
As no two of those points are mutually consistent and these points are obviously an accurate depiction of the American electoral system (after all who are we to doubt the revealed wisdom of one Tong, Lu?), there is no doubt as to why we must think democracy is a farce - it is a farce. And as you point out, there’s no free speech in America either, so we can’t even point this out the nature of this farce, not even in comments to blogs.
More so, someone who disagreed with this "democracy is a farce" line of reasoning obviously couldn’t sarcastically respond to your argument by revealing the gross misrepresentations of reality and internal inconsistencies.
After all, there’s no free speech.
One last comment.
All of this has absofreakinglutely nothing to do with the choice of wording by the NYT when reporting economic statistics.
I dunno which is sadder: a chinese propagandizer thinking he’s accomplishing anything by arguing with you guys, or that many of the points he’s making I’ve heard before on american lefty sites...
At least you are not arguing that "everything you said is a lie." I’m impressed.
But think about what you wrote. If indeed America really thinks like you, you are in deeper doodoo than I thought. Basically you are pushing, "Yeah, yeah, there might be something irregular here, but it’s no biggie, America and we Americans can do no wrong, and therefore it must be O.K. Isn’t it?"
Well, is it or is it not? Oh shucks only looks cute on TV. It is actually rather sad if you have to use it real life. When corruption is systemic and actually built in and glorified (see how the average American oo and aa at the tens of millions that the "lobbyists" make, instead of demanding to throw the rascals out of Washington, DC), when it no longer hurts (it is to be expected), when even the Chinese commies have to pay to play in Washington, you know (but you are afraid to admit) that the long decline is well on its way.
Just be honest with yourself. Who gets heard, you writing on this bub site (even counting your own blog site), or FOX?
For each Jesse Ventura, how many of the other kinds is there?
Schwarzenegger? So that is a good example? Trading a limp fish for a aggressive (?)? You guys and dolls must love abuse. Just can’t live without it. Arnold is not the solution to the problem. He is the problem. Anyone who takes a cut of advertising and then vetoes a bill that would adversely affect that advertising, can explain all he wants. In China he’d been shot already. But only in America will he be elected president (if he gets around to getting the constitution amended).
Having the "plebes" (as you put it) select one out of several rogues, mostly (O.K., not all, but over 95%?) chosen by the elite, on the basis of the lies that these rogues tell during the regularly held liars’ contest, is the best way for a nation to choose its leaders? You might as well throw darts blindfolded. Tell me again how you get them thrown out if they cannot perform? California has a recall statute. Do the feds have one? No? So how do you get rid of turkeys? You don’t until the next liars contest? And then over 90% of incumbents win? So you mean you cannot get the rascals out even if you wanna?
Jody, you truly are not bothered by any of this? We Chinese are absolutely fascinated by how the term "lamb to the slaughter" applies to the average American.
No, the elite selection processes in China and America are radically different. In China, it is a combination of proven ability and smarts, plus consensus. In the U.S. any Joe Blow can, if he lies hard enough, get elected. And at least in the Federal system, and in fact in most of the states also, he cannot be removed as a practical matter. You have to take it on faith (ah, back to faith again - or is it blind faith?) that the guy will not do anything too crazy.
The rule by elite is very real, and the descriptions I made in the 15 point post are the rule, and not the exceptions that you have to try so hard to make, Jody.
At least you are not arguing that "everything you said is a lie." I’m impressed.
But think about what you wrote. If indeed America really thinks like you, you are in deeper doodoo than I thought. Basically you are pushing, "Yeah, yeah, there might be something irregular here, but it’s no biggie, America and we Americans can do no wrong, and therefore it must be O.K. Isn’t it?"
Tong, Lu, I apparently need to define a word for you.
Sarcasm: "Witty language used to convey insults or scorn;"
It’s said in America that "irony is wasted on the stupid," but every now and then sarcasm is wasted too.
I feel like I’ve been tied to a chair with a bright light in my eyes - listening to the dulcet tones of Tong Glue over and over again... ’you are getting sleepy - sleepy - America is bad - China is good - Jody is sarcastic - why is everyone laughing at me?"
Phew! Time for a new thread - I’m spent on this one.
Why is it that you bubs truly believe that you worth and your existence would be diminished if you do not have an enemy?
And why do you think that we’re too stupid to see that the PRC government views the US as an enemy?
You will forever be a second class citizen in America, if you cannot even honor your ethnicity, if you join the bubs in berating the nation of your ancestors. If you cannot respect yourself and your skin color, nobody is going to respect you - least of whom we Chinese.
My wife would be mildly amused by that one, I think. You obviously don’t understand the American mindset.
As soon as tong lu can show us an example of the same open debate going on inside China he should be thankful for the chance to speak his mind here on this blog, all without fear of reprisal, atleast no reprisal from us ’capitalist lackeys’ at least.
China may be a great military power and it may even be a great country, but as long as it fears its own people its doomed to eventual failure like all the other governments that came before it that think of its people only as tools of the state.
Weve seen your kind before tong. It always starts the same, the promise of "the new socialist man" but it always ends the same, millions of people in concentration camps for crimes against the state. You would think that you guys would learn a thing or two from history, unfortunately for you the lesson is that totalitarianism kills, every simgle time its tried, (but dont let that stop you).
So you like this blog do you, tong? good for you. You like commenting and speaking your mind in public? Again, good for you. Now repeat it 8 billion times, thats what china could be free if its government didnt treat its people as farm animals.
Welcome to the modern world Tong, may you continue to enjoy its blessings. You live in an age where democracy, free speech and human rights are expanding everywhere in the world except in mainland china, cuba and north korea. Thats a nice group of playmates you got there.
(I wonder why your leaders wont trust you with a little thing like a pencil and a piece of paper, what could you have in that little mind of yours thats such a threat to them that it has to be controlled? I wonder why the rest of the world can be free but those chinese still in mainland china must be watched by their government like small children? hmmm....) I like you tong, but it seems your own government considers you to be not much more than trained pet. thats something to consider when you start singing their praise.
As soon as tong lu can show us an example of the same open debate going on inside China he should be thankful for the chance to speak his mind here on this blog, all without fear of reprisal, atleast no reprisal from us ’capitalist lackeys’ at least.
China may be a great military power and it may even be a great country, but as long as it fears its own people its doomed to eventual failure like all the other governments that came before it that think of its people only as tools of the state.
Weve seen your kind before tong. It always starts the same, the promise of "the new socialist man" but it always ends the same, millions of people in concentration camps for crimes against the state. You would think that you guys would learn a thing or two from history, unfortunately for you the lesson is that totalitarianism kills, every simgle time its tried, (but dont let that stop you).
So you like this blog do you, tong? good for you. You like commenting and speaking your mind in public? Again, good for you. Now repeat it 8 billion times, thats what china could be free if its government didnt treat its people as farm animals.
Welcome to the modern world Tong, may you continue to enjoy its blessings. You live in an age where democracy, free speech and human rights are expanding everywhere in the world except in mainland china, cuba and north korea. Thats a nice group of playmates you got there.
(I wonder why your leaders wont trust you with a little thing like a pencil and a piece of paper, what could you have in that little mind of yours thats such a threat to them that it has to be controlled? I wonder why the rest of the world can be free but those chinese still in mainland china must be watched by their government like small children? hmmm....) I like you tong, but it seems your own government considers you to be not much more than trained pet. thats something to consider when you start singing their praise.
As soon as tong lu can show us an example of the same open debate going on inside China he should be thankful for the chance to speak his mind here on this blog, all without fear of reprisal, atleast no reprisal from us ’capitalist lackeys’ at least.
China may be a great military power and it may even be a great country, but as long as it fears its own people its doomed to eventual failure like all the other governments that came before it that think of its people only as tools of the state.
Weve seen your kind before tong. It always starts the same, the promise of "the new socialist man" but it always ends the same, millions of people in concentration camps for crimes against the state. You would think that you guys would learn a thing or two from history, unfortunately for you the lesson is that totalitarianism kills, every simgle time its tried, (but dont let that stop you).
So you like this blog do you, tong? good for you. You like commenting and speaking your mind in public? Again, good for you. Now repeat it 8 billion times, thats what china could be free if its government didnt treat its people as farm animals.
Welcome to the modern world Tong, may you continue to enjoy its blessings. You live in an age where democracy, free speech and human rights are expanding everywhere in the world except in mainland china, cuba and north korea. Thats a nice group of playmates you got there.
(I wonder why your leaders wont trust you with a little thing like a pencil and a piece of paper, what could you have in that little mind of yours thats such a threat to them that it has to be controlled? I wonder why the rest of the world can be free but those chinese still in mainland china must be watched by their government like small children? hmmm....) I like you tong, but it seems your own government considers you to be not much more than trained pet. thats something to consider when you start singing their praise.
I can blame it on English not being my mother tongue. You can only blame your education, and the system that cause your lack of writing ability.
Posting the same thing 3 times seriatim does not make it any more true, you know.
"You live in an age where democracy, free speech and human rights are expanding everywhere in the world . . . "
Where? Iraq? How many do you cowboys wanna kill before calling it a "victory" and then run with your tails behind your legs? It is clear that with the democracy (Oh so sorry, you don’t have democracy, remember, you live in a elite controlled republic) and freedom (You sure it is not irresponsibility mistaken for freedom?), you should have to right to kill and maim (not just one generation, but doing it to millions of babies yet unborn, like with Agent Orange, and now depleted uranium munitions) to your heart’s content. And your soldiers have the right to go around the world and rape minors, and run folks down with Humvees.
See there’s always more than one view. Words like "freedom" and "democracy" sounds rather hollow, coming from bubs like you. Human right? Don’t make the world laugh. Ask those still in Gitmo or Abu Grahib. You have no qualification at all to lecture the world.
At least China is providing low cost, high quality goods that are largely responsible for raising the living standards of billions around the world. What have your country done for the world lately, other than causing more deaths and misery?
To hear jerks like you declare that China is gonna be the next enemy is really rich. Has China ever been afraid? If you had not had enough in Korea or Vietnam or Iraq, what are you waiting for?
China has no wish to war with anybody, but the nation is perfectly capable of defending herself against agression. So far, even against multiple provocations, China has been tolerant. Take for instance the lastest shipment of 500 high power sniper rifles to Taiwan, with 10,000 on order. If China does the same, how many would be killed in Iraq?
What is good must be universal. You want a friend, China is capable of being the best friend. You want an enemy? You ask for it.
And to be fair, I never said China all good, or America all bad. My posts are simply the mirror image of what you bubs post - that China is so bad that the commies must be overthrown.
Interesting, but, while there was no ’net or blogs at the time, some of us are old enough to have heard almost all of "Tong Lu’s" rantings before circa ’75-’85. It was merely Japan as opposed to PRC. Funny we don’t hear much from them now.
Yup. That’s right. You are not very good at reading tea leaves, are you? In another 20 years, there won’t even be a Detroit. This quarter, China is the most profitable market for GM, and ALL of its U.S. manufacturing is losing money. Do you see that trend reversing any time soon?
GM may survive, will those American jobs? This is a thread about American jobs, is it not? Why are you bubs so gung ho about bashing China, gratis?
Today American missiles can’t even get off the ground without japanese chips. Now the neocons are talking about rearming Japan, and even allowing them to have nukes. Your naivete truly shocks and awed. China will not be lobbing nukes at America unless attacked. Japan? Have a nice nightmare.
You don’t even know what’s been hitting you. You lost, and continue to lose all your high tech, high paying jobs to the likes of Japan and the EU, and you silly arses blame it on China, your nation’s only hope of staying solvent and vibrant. If you cannot even see the difference, there truly is no hope for you. Even at its height Japan was not a complementary economy to the U.S. - it has always been, and will always be, a pure and simple competitor, whittling away at your last remaining good paying joys. China on the other hand is still at a stage of development that the jobs China creates, America does not want.
Sure sounds like the powers that be, all around, are giving up on America as long as job creation is concerned. You see your "democratic" government doing anything about it, other than continuing to be feckless, wrings its grubby hands, and declaring grandly that America shall be "creative" and create itself out of the hole?
How many Americans are needed to be "creative" in this new age of the "Creative Economy," beyond the "Knowledge Economy" (which while you bubs slept, had shifted offshore also)?
So where are those good paying jobs coming from?
Mayhap the Chinese model looks not so bad after all?
You lost, and continue to lose all your high tech, high paying jobs to the likes of Japan and the EU
You obviously did not look at the jobs data to which I linked earlier. Auto manufacturing is down quite a bit, but most other manufacturing is up. You talk a lot, but there’s no evidence behind your chatter.
Did you even understand the article to which you linked? The article claims
U.S. companies are evolving to the next level of economic activity.
We are abandoning some portions of our manufacturing because it is more economical for us to do so. You seem to think without manufacturing automobiles the US job market will collapse. Of course, the jobs data does not support your chicken-little scenario.
Why don’t you try showing us some data for once that supports all your talk; for instance, please show us how bad the outsourcing problem is for America. But be careful! I’m likely to come back with data showing you how we insource from other countries more than we outsource.
As b-psycho noted previously, you can hear much of Bu Tong’s comments regurgitated by home-grown Leftists.
Voila, wallster shows up, to tell us that Bu Tong’s arguments are, in fact, absolutely correct and fit his worldview (the one in which Krugman’s writings on the state of the economy under Dubya are "spot on").
Now, if Bu Tong were really a PRC agent, one wonders whether wallster would feel it appropriate to note that he and his ilk side with Communist analyses? Probably not, but who knows?
Now, if Bu Tong were really a PRC agent, one wonders whether wallster would feel it appropriate to note that he and his ilk side with Communist analyses? Probably not, but who knows?
Oh but you see the present PRC gummint isn’t the TROOOOOO Communists, so it wouldn’t count anyway.
Anybody who doesn’t know that every dollar sent overseas comes back eventually is probably ignorant of the rest of economics.
There is an important reason the current Chinese regime is unlikely to be a world power. China is mainly successful at being the "workshop of the world." When universal replicators make large-scale workshops unnecessary...
So if there’s a propaganda campaign against replicators, we’ll know that Mainland China is behind it.
Well observed. When we get economic numbers resembling 2000, that’ll mean we’re ripe for the next downturn. So you just can’t win with this kind of logic.
China’s banking system is insolvent. The CCP admits that about 25% of the loans on its books are non performing. Pretty much everyone else says that the rate of NPLs is more like 50%. This applies to the big four Chinese banks who hold 60% of the country’s deposits. Do you understand how banks work? They lend out deposits. The big 4 Chinese banks have lent (at Beijing’s insistence) the savings of its depositors to borrowers who will never repay. How do you think the hundreds of millions of ordinary Chinese are going to feel when they lose their savings?
Who are the borrowers that will never repay? China’s State Owned Industrial sector. Contrary to what you’re told in the Peoples’ Daily, it’s full of zombie companies that are being supported by loans that the CCP is forcing the banks to make to them so that the enormous number of employees (41% of the urban workforce) in the sinking SOEs aren’t thrown out of work. Because if they were, there would be social chaos. Beijing can’t afford that. It’s how revolutions are started. Oh, and a vast majority of the loans made to the SOEs will never be repaid.
This is clearly unsustainable. The Communists are tinkering at the edges - injecting US$30 billion into the banking system here and there - that kind of money doesn’t even come remotely close to solving the banks’ problems. They’re still writing loans to the bankrupt SOEs - the bankrupt SOEs that the govt can’t allow to fail. Something will give sooner or later.
Currently there are 100 girls being born for every 117 boys, thanks to the One Child Policy. 90% of aborted children in China are girls. China’s population is going to drop below 1 billion some time in the second half of this century due to the demographic problems the one child policy has created.
I’m sorry, Tong Lu, I am impressed by your English but not the Chinese propaganda you’ve been spouting about the West and the USA in particular. I’ve been to the PRC and seen the propaganda myself. So don’t tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about. As for your blind belief in the number of Chinese graduates - it’s true, however the numbers say nothing about the *quality* of graduates churned out. Here the West is clearly superior. I went to the most prestigious military university in China when I was in Changsha. We walked past the library. It was deserted. In a Western university, the library is the *busiest* building on campus. This speaks volumes about Chinese education. The communist education system has no culture of independent learning, research or thought. You just rote learn your text books and regurgitate them come exam time. You’re not taught to think creatively. No wonder the Chinese haven’t invented anything particularly interesting since gunpowder, paper etc. The West has it all over China. China’s booming at the moment because Western companies are pouring so much money into the country. When that stops, or if the USA suffers a recession, China’s house of cards economy is going to come crashing down. And the Communists won’t be far behind. Mark my words, Tong Lu.
China’s banking system is insolvent. The CCP admits that about 25% of the loans on its books are non performing. Pretty much everyone else says that the rate of NPLs is more like 50%. This applies to the big four Chinese banks who hold 60% of the country’s deposits. Do you understand how banks work? They lend out deposits. The big 4 Chinese banks have lent (at Beijing’s insistence) the savings of its depositors to borrowers who will never repay. How do you think the hundreds of millions of ordinary Chinese are going to feel when they lose their savings?
Who are the borrowers that will never repay? China’s State Owned Industrial sector. Contrary to what you’re told in the Peoples’ Daily, it’s full of zombie companies that are being supported by loans that the CCP is forcing the banks to make to them so that the enormous number of employees (41% of the urban workforce) in the sinking SOEs aren’t thrown out of work. Because if they were, there would be social chaos. Beijing can’t afford that. It’s how revolutions are started. Oh, and a vast majority of the loans made to the SOEs will never be repaid.
This is clearly unsustainable. The Communists are tinkering at the edges - injecting US$30 billion into the banking system here and there - that kind of money doesn’t even come remotely close to solving the banks’ problems. They’re still writing loans to the bankrupt SOEs - the bankrupt SOEs that the govt can’t allow to fail. Something will give sooner or later.
Currently there are 100 girls being born for every 117 boys, thanks to the One Child Policy. 90% of aborted children in China are girls. China’s population is going to drop below 1 billion some time in the second half of this century due to the demographic problems the one child policy has created.
I’m sorry, Tong Lu, I am impressed by your English but not the Chinese propaganda you’ve been spouting about the West and the USA in particular. I’ve been to the PRC and seen the propaganda myself. So don’t tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about. As for your blind belief in the number of Chinese graduates - it’s true, however the numbers say nothing about the *quality* of graduates churned out. Here the West is clearly superior. I went to the most prestigious military university in China when I was in Changsha. We walked past the library. It was deserted. In a Western university, the library is the *busiest* building on campus. This speaks volumes about Chinese education. The communist education system has no culture of independent learning, research or thought. You just rote learn your text books and regurgitate them come exam time. You’re not taught to think creatively. No wonder the Chinese haven’t invented anything particularly interesting since gunpowder, paper etc. The West has it all over China. China’s booming at the moment because Western companies are pouring so much money into the country. When that stops, or if the USA suffers a recession, China’s house of cards economy is going to come crashing down. And the Communists won’t be far behind. Mark my words, Tong Lu.
Lu Tong - why not speak proper English? You’re trying to grapple with the complexities of English slang...and utterly failing. Your prose is ridiculous. No one expects you to write as though you’ve just stepped out of the Bronx, so drop all this silly "bub" business. What the hell do you think bub means? I suggest you also look up the definitions of a lot of the more complex words you’re using. For example, gratis means ’free of charge’. I have no idea what you think it means in the context you used it in.
Normally, I wouldn’t hold this against someone who doesn’t speak English as their mother tongue. However, you’ve been quick to correct others on their English (amusingly). You deserve a lesson yourself.
PS. Vietnam kicked the shit out of the Chinese in 1984, when the Vietnamese shelled the bejeezus out of the Chinese positions along the Sino-Vietnamese border. China suffered a humiliating withdrawal. Bet you didn’t hear about that, hey?
Oh c’mon, Tong Lu has to be parody. I mean, it wrote this about the murderers of Tianamen Square: the Chinese leaders should have been taken to task for not reading it correctly as a CIA plot for regime change
That’s funny. I mean, it’s accurately funny. An amateur satire-troll would have written that it was the Jews, but the CIA adds that extra touch of insanity.
Also, it kept the whole thread de-railed for what, 60 comments? That’s real skill. I only wish I had the cant down well enough to keep it up like that.
Bravo Tong Lu. It’s been a pleasure reading your posts.
